Sitting of 27 February 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 5 March.
  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)
  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read the Second time on Thursday 5 March.
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Banbridge Hospital
    1. Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance the management executive of the Department of Health and Social Services has recently given to the Southern health and social services board concerning the future of Banbridge hospital.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): None, Sir. The hon. Gentleman might be referring to the fact that on receipt of the Southern board's investment appraisal for the refurbishment of Banbridge hospital it became clear that there were a number of deficiencies in the document, as certain issues had not been properly addressed. The board has simply been asked to provide that information before I can make a decision.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister knows of the concern about the future of Banbridge hospital and knows that, for many years, the Southern board promised its refurbishment. That project was finally put into the proposals for this financial year, only to be clobbered by the moratorium on capital expenditure. As the Minister said, his Department wrote to the board in January to tell it that it should reconsider "the issue of Banbridge". It also supplied to the board a momorandum which has not been made available to other people. Is not the implication obvious? The hon. Gentleman is asking the board either to run down or to close the hospital. Is not that a consequence of the need to provide up to £15 million to cure the concrete cancer problem at Craigavon? What other hospitals will be affected? Why cannot that exceptional expense be met with exceptional funding?
    Mr. Hanley: I am doing no such thing. The hon. Gentleman will know that any project in excess of £1 million must come to me for a decision. An investment appraisal comes with the project. The investment appraisal published by the Southern board was deficient in many respects. The board has a commitment to Banbridge hospital and to continuing health care and social services in its area. I merely want the information upon which I can decide whether refurbishment can go ahead. Therefore, there is no lack of commitment by the board or by me.

    Security
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): My last statement to the House followed the deaths of nine people on 4 and 5 February. Since then

    1099
    there have been five deaths as a result of the security situation, including four men shot by the security forces near Coalisland on 16 February.
    The Government and security forces will continue to meet their responsibility to bring terrorism to an end within the rule of law by pursuing a firm and resolute security policy and by working for progress in the political, economic and social fields.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the security forces must not only act within the law but always be clearly seen to act within it if they are to deprive the terrorist group of the environment in which it thrives? Will he therefore ensure that after any incident involving the use of lethal force there is a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation so that the facts are plain to see?
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement and endorsement of the policy under which the security arrangements are conducted within the Province and for his reference to the rule of law. I assure him that after each such incident the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigates the circumstances.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the introduction of short-term selective internment? At a time of heightened terrorist activity, would not that undermine the operational effectiveness of the terrorists and play havoc with their planned acts of violence?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the powers of executive detention are on the statute book and are available for use. We do not comment further on them, beyond the fact that they are available for use.
    Mr. Maginnis: Was not the Secretary of State a little disappointed at the reaction of some Church leaders to the successful contact by the security forces at Coalisland? Is not it important that the Northern Ireland Office should ensure that full information is available to the public on the extent of the deadly arsenal that the terrorists had with them on that occasion, which included AK47 assault rifles and Dsh heavy machine-guns?
    Will the Secretary of State ensure that the public are aware that 12 dedicated terrorists were involved in that attack and, although no one glories in anyone's death, make it clear again that only four were shot? Does not that show that the security forces acted with remarkable restraint and that there is no dedicated shoot-to-kill policy?
    Mr. Brooke: I support the hon. Gentleman's observations on the need for the circumstances of such cases to be made known. I do not think that there were any doubts in Northern Ireland about the circumstances of that case. The four men who were killed were sent on a murder mission. It is easy to assess their potential for action and their intent from their fire power, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall a speech that he made several months ago in which he encouraged the business community to take on racketeers? Does he recall that he said that if the business community took the first step he and the police would give it whatever support and back-up it needed? Is he aware that one business man did as he suggested and, as a result of his
    1100
    coming forward, three people were convicted of racketeering? However, that business man was forced to close his business, change his name and go into hiding with his wife and two children, and he has received no financial support from the Northern Ireland Office. Despite the sympathy expressed by the judge in court, there is no way in which that business man can legally make a claim against the Northern Ireland Office. Will the Secretary of State ensure that his Department backs up his promises to the business community and ensure that such disincentives to the business community coming forward are not allowed to continue?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that the hon. Gentleman supports our drive to deprive the paramilitaries on both sides of the sources of finance that sustain their campaigns. I recall the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I know that he has referred before to a case similar to that which he described today. I confess that I thought that that case had arisen a little before that speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about the details of the case to which he referred I shall be happy to respond.
    Mr. Mallon: When a Government have a serious problem that has lasted 22 years, cost billions of pounds in security and military provisions and caused immeasurable suffering to some people, it is reasonable to assume that they have a long-term policy for creating lasting peace and ending the waste. As we come to the end of this Parliament, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to give us some insight into the Government's long-term policy which has been formulated during the past 13 years? I am not referring to ad hoc arrangements or short-term palliatives. Will the Secretary of State give an unambiguous statement of the Government's long-term policy for creating peace in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman implied by his question, the Government's central purpose must be to bring terrorism to an end. Terrorism will come to an end when the terrorist no longer believes that he has any chance of securing his objective by the means that he is using. That calls for a robust security policy to enable the people of Northern Ireland to live normal lives conducted within the rule of law. But it also implies, as my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) stated, Government policy in political, economic and social matters that deprives the terrorist of the support which he might otherwise have enjoyed.

    Political Talks
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about his recent efforts to have talks with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the efforts he is making to reconvene all-party talks on the future government of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: The Prime Minister, the Minister of State and I met the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland on 11 February. As a result of that meeting, the leaders agreed to meet together to discuss

    1101
    the obstacles in the way of further political dialogue in the hope that new talks might be able to begin at an early date. I shall meet them again shortly.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the killing is to be stopped and a just and peaceful solution is to be found, all politicians, whatever their views, have a responsibility to speak to each other? Does he further agree that, sooner or later, the talks will have to develop into meaningful discussions about constitutional change on an all-Ireland basis because the status quo is untenable and is a recipe for continuing conflict?
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the responsibility that politicians of all constitutional parties have, and a willingness so to talk has been very much present in recent years. As for his comments about all-Ireland talks, the talks on which we have been engaged, and to which we hope to return, contain more than one strand. The second strand involves the Government of the Republic and it has been a pleasure to all concerned that everybody involved in those talks has supported and sustained them.
    Mr. Greenway: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done in the past two and a half years to improve the future and administration of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the future economic prosperity of the area depends primarily on the defeat of terrorism and that terrorism will not be defeated until all political parties in the Province renounce violence—not just those represented in the House today but Sinn Fein?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the policies that we have been pursuing and economic prosperity in the Province, where we have seen advances in recent years. Our immediate agenda must be the talks on which we embarked last year. Everybody concerned has expressed an interest in returning to them.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that the progress made thus far is more likely to be maintained through calm deliberation than high wire circus acts'? Will he convey to the Prime Minister what I know to be the view of the three party leaders who represent Northern Ireland in the House—that we are endeavouring diligently to meet the wishes that he expressed at the Downing street meeting on 11 February?
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the progress that has been made so far. All of us, during the time that we have been directly engaged in these matters, have found it easier to make progress when the media have not been looking over our shoulders and breathing on the backs of our necks. I mean no disrespect to the media, but some matters are carried forward more easily with the calm deliberation that the right hon. Gentleman described.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to a damaging allegation made last week by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Conservative party and its prospective parliamentary candidate for North Down that the Secretary of State, by initiating talks between unionists and nationalists, provided the greatest possible encouragement for the murderous IRA campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman bluntly refute the despicable
    1102
    accusation that those taking part in the talks are responsible for the deaths of innocent people at the hands of the IRA?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows well his opponent, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate. I enjoy my conversations with that gentleman as much as I do those that I have with right hon. and hon. Members.
    Mr. Rees: As to strand 2—the north-south strand—of the talks to which the Secretary of State referred, the new Taoiseach announced that articles 2 and 3 would be on the table, and we all understand that. He said also that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 would be on the table. I studied it carefully this monring, better to understand what is involved. What has the Taoiseach said about that aspect that we can consider?
    Mr. Brooke: Under the terms of my statement to the House of 26 March 1991, which set in motion the talks that we held, it is open to any party to raise any issues—including constitutional issues—that it considers relevant. However, the outcome of the talks will depend on securing agreement, and all concerned accept the principle that any change to Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people who live there.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State confirming by that last statement that the union can be negotiated only by the House, the people of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government—and that that matter is no concern of Mr. Reynolds or of the foreign state to the south of Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that today? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I understood that the basis of the talks was to try to secure a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to make arrangements to safeguard the administration of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Brooke: At last night's meeting, the Taoiseach confirmed his Government's continuing commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, article 1 of which contains a clear statement of Northern Ireland's constitutional status.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach at last night's meeting, on the future progress of talks between the two Governments, and that Northern Ireland will be high on their agenda —as it will on the agenda of the Labour Government? We are pleased that Northern Ireland party leaders agreed to meet to discuss the possibilities of progress. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition hope very much that, after years of violence and despair, a political settlement will emerge, and that we will do everything in our power to achieve such an outcome, based on the three strands agreement?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman and I have had similar exchanges before across the Dispatch Box, when he has advanced that bizarre and extraordinary hypothesis. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has supported the talks as they are conducted at present. If the hon. Gentleman's

    1103
    extraordinary and bizarre hypothesis were to come to pass, I would—as I have said before—be supportive of his efforts.

    Small Firms
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the Northern Ireland business community in connection with small firms.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Since the beginning of the year, I have continued both to meet and to correspond with a wide cross-section of the Northern Ireland business community. Among the issues that we have addressed have been a number of particular concern to small firms.
    Mr. Bellingham: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I pay tribute to the Minister's work in supporting industry and business in the Province. Does he agree that one of the best ways of breaking down violence and lessening the sectarian divide is to encourage enterprise and initiative? Am I right in saying that Northern Ireland has weathered the recession better than any other part of the United Kingdom? If so, is not that due partly to the Government's support for small firms?
    Mr. Needham: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The fact that Northern Ireland has weathered the recession better than any other region in the United Kingdom is due, to an extent, to the Government's policies; but it is due not least to the resourcefulness, intelligence and dedication of business people in Northern Ireland.
    I was interested to learn this week that, whereas National Westminster bank—the parent of Ulster bank —had to make provision for £1·9 billion of bad debts, the figure for Northern Ireland was £6 million and that half the bank's profits came from Ulster bank. That shows beyond peradventure the current strength of the Northern Ireland economy. I am sure that, once the recession is over, it will continue to expand, and expand fast.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware that the Department of the Environment has undertaken a surreptitious exercise in an attempt to destroy the private sector taxi service in Belfast? If so, can he tell us how much money has been allocated to that exercise?
    Mr. Needham: I know of no surreptitious exercise being carried out by my Department in regard to private taxi firms in Belfast. The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in lengthy discussions about the problems faced by Belfast taxi drivers and I fully appreciate their fears and concerns. I shall continue to discuss, with the hon. Gentleman and with the taxi drivers, whatever measures need to be taken to ensure their safety and continue their employment.
    Mr. McGrady: In 1990–91, only 44 jobs were created in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister reconsider the wisdom of the policy change introduced a couple of years ago by the Local Enterprise Development Unit to endorse and support market research and development, rather than providing direct grant aid for job creation? That contradicted the philosophy, which proved correct, that
    1104
    small jobs—one or two-person start-ups—were the way in which to tackle, at least in part, the problem caused by the lack of inward investment.
    Will the Minister address himself to LEDU's policy, and consider the reintroduction of direct aid for people starting up in business? I know that LEDU does a good job through its local enterprise development programmes, but will the hon. Gentleman consider returning to the previous policy?
    Mr. Needham: I really do not know where the hon. Gentleman found the "44" figure. Perhaps he is referring to some figures that were leaked a couple of weeks ago from the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland—a reference to 44 inward investment jobs. That figure turned out to be wrong: at least another 350 jobs have already been announced, involving no financial assistance. I hope that, within the next few weeks, several hundred more jobs will be announced by the board.
    That has nothing to do with LEDU. The key to the success of a small business lies in the skills and professionalism of its management, technicians and staff. LEDU is trying to ensure that small businesses have the marketing experience, the exporting know-how and the managerial capacity that they need in order to get going. The Government are not about to hand out dollops of money so that inexperienced people can buy complicated equipment that they then do not know how to use.
    Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the Minister realises that small business is the backbone of industry in my constituency of Mid-Ulster. Will he tell the House and my constituents what further incentives he can provide to ensure that small businesses are created and the economic blight is removed from my constituency?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman pays rightful tribute to small business, describing it as the economic backbone of his constituency. I assure him that the Government's support for LEDU, and the money with which they provide it, continue year on year to match the needs of small business. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue. I hope to be able to discuss it further with him in the not-too-distant future.

    Internment
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received calling for the introduction of internment without trial; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government have received a number of representations calling for the reintroduction of executive detention. They have also received representations from those opposed to such a step.
    The power to introduce executive detention remains on the statute book and is capable of being exercised by the Government. I shall not comment further, except to say that the consequences of such a step would need to be very carefully weighed.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State agree that the re-imposition of internment without trial would deepen and intensify an already terribly difficult situation? Does he recall that last time this occurred there was an immediate leap forward in terms of killing? We would face that again. Those who are asking for that—many voices,

    1105
    including important voices, in Northern Ireland are asking for it—would create a situation for everybody in Northern Ireland that would be far worse than it is now and, God knows, it is bad enough at present.
    Mr. Brooke: The fact that the Government retained executive detention on the statute book by a free act last year is an indication that the Government believe it to be important that the instrument should be available. The hon. Gentleman referred to the last time it occurred. There are occasions—perhaps the only occasions when I feel a mild sense of despair in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland—when I fear that others assume that all events in Irish history will always repeat themselves exactly. That is not the case—and it is because it is not the case that we are making progress in the way that we are.
    Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will discard no weapon at all in the fight against terrorism—including internment, if necessary? Should it unfortunately prove necessary, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for it possibly to be introduced without notice and simultaneously after consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: By definition, the weapon has not been discarded, as it will remain on the statute book, with the renewal of the order, in terms of the life of the statute. Clearly and patently, if it were to be introduced, it would be introduced without notice. There have been commentators who have said that if it were introduced, it would be much more effective if it were introduced throughout the island.
    Mr. McNamara: Has the Secretary of State discussed the matter with the Government of the Republic of Ireland? Does he accept that internment would be the height of folly and would have no support at all from the Labour party? Will he also point out to those advocating such a foolish policy that they are merely diverting attention from the villainous crimes of the terrorists and, perhaps more importantly, from the enormous successes of the security forces and thus undermining confidence in the rule of law? The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out in the House that nearly 50 per cent. of people convicted of terrorist offences had no previous intelligence tracings in terms of involvement with terrorist organisations. Does he agree that always the best thing to do is to arrest, produce evidence, convict and put terrorists behind bars?
    Mr. Brooke: The only matters that I discuss with Irish Ministers in intergovernmental conferences under the Anglo-Irish Agreement are those which can be discussed under the rules of the agreement. It would be a mistake, however, to think that we do not cover extensively all the ground and territory that is available within those limits. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I said at the beginning that I thought the less said the better.

    Castle Court
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance was given by his Department to traders whose businesses were disrupted by the Castle Court development in Belfast.
    Mr. Needham: Following representations from local traders about the disruption to their businesses, rates on
    1106
    properties in the surrounding streets were reduced by up to one third. Belfast city council reduced rents in Smithfield market by a similar proportion.
    Mr. Barnes: Glowing remarks were made earlier about small businesses in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has met Mr. Thomas Lennon, whose business was seriously disrupted during the Castle Court development, as were the businesses of other small business men in the area. A rates reduction for a certain period is inadequate to compensate for the great disruption that was caused to people seeking to make a living in that area—people who do not have the wherewithal or the ability to use the court system against the Minister. Why does he not face up to his responsibility and see that adequate compensation is given to the people who suffered so badly during that development?
    Mr. Needham: Mr. Lennon's rates were reduced by a third. The best news that Mr. Lennon can have is that the Castle Court complex now employs some 2,500 people. It has brought into that area of Belfast a vast number of new businesses and has revitalised that area of the town. The traders who trade around it can do nothing but benefit from the new multi-storey car park with 1,600 spaces. The best thing that could happen for Mr. Lennon and his friends would be if the military wing of Sinn Fein stopped trying to blow up Belfast.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Despite the major differences between the Conservative party and the Ulster Unionist party following the imposition by the Conservative party of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and partial Dublin rule through Stormont, will the Minister accept on a personal level that there is widespread respect throughout Northern Ireland for the contribution that he has made to the rejuvenation of Royal avenue in our capital city of Belfast? Does he recognise that it is one of the commercial miracles of Northern Ireland and is now envied by many areas in the United Kingdom? Should he not be with us in six weeks, will he leave a message for his successor to ensure the continuation of that economic miracle into York street and York road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker)?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It will not stop at Belfast. It is spreading to Derry, Newry, Armagh, Carrickfergus and Ballymoney, and throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. The people, the councillors and the business community of Northern Ireland are coming together to create their own economic future and to undermine the men of violence on either side. They know that their success will lead to the defeat of the paramilitaries. The people of Northern Ireland continue to need to be congratulated on their determination and resilience.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives are being taken to reduce hospital waiting lists in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hanley: From 1 April this year, the vast majority of patients will be guaranteed admission to hospital within two years of being placed on a hospital waiting list. Special task forces have been at work in each board to deal with

    1107
    the longest waiting lists and I have set aside an extra £1 million this year and in each of the next two years to support their work.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure will be welcome to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that there will be the same success in cutting waiting lists in Northern Ireland as we have seen in other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friend is aware that the waiting list for treatment of coronary disease has been a matter of concern in Northern Ireland. What action has he taken to deal with that specific waiting list?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland suffers from one of the worst rates of coronary heart disease. Following completion of the £1·5 million extension to the cardiac care recovery unit at the Royal Victoria hospital at the end of last year, a fourth cardiac surgeon has now been appointed there. The new surgeon, a locum, will take up his post on 1 May this year for an initial period of one year. That will lead to an increase in the number of operations at the Royal. In addition, the Eastern and Western boards have already begun to buy in cardiac operations from Great Britain this year and the Northern and Southern boards are expected to do likewise shortly. I hope that the waiting list for cardiac surgery will reduce greatly over the next year.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that patients, irrespective of age group, should not have to undergo prolonged suffering, being fobbed off with medication from time to time when cardiac surgery is necessary? Will he urgently encourage all boards to purchase coronary artery bypass surgery and other cardiac surgery from Great Britain?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I agree with every word he says. Cardiac surgery has the longest waiting list in Northern Ireland, but every effort is being made to reduce it, including the purchase of operations in Britain. I believe that great progress will be made.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: In considering hospital waiting lists, is my hon. Friend satisfied that all those who would benefit from renal replacement therapy are getting it and has he anything to announce about a possible new satellite dialysis unit for the Province?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that he is right: not everybody is benefiting from kidney replacement, because there is a shortage of kidney donors. We could probably carry out about 70 more operations a year if there were more donors. I therefore launched the donor card again last week. I hope that every hon. Member, and everyone in Northern Ireland, will carry a donor card; it is vital that people do so.

    Hospital Trusts
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the adverse effect on maintaining and upgrading hospitals of the amount being spent in preparing hospital trusts.
    Mr. Hanley: It has always been made clear that the Government's reforms are not to be introduced at the
    1108
    expense of patient and client care. Additional funds have been made available for the purpose and, accordingly, the reforms—including the establishment of trusts—cause no adverse effects on the hospital maintenance programme.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister's comments may be helpful in the House, but they will not allay the concern that has been expressed throughout Northern Ireland—for example, in Upper Bann—about the amount of money that is needed to deal with the problem of concrete cancer at Craigavon hospital. Will he acknowledge that even those who are trying to implement hospital trusts are concerned that the dead hand of bureaucracy, which has increased, is hindering their work?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about concrete cancer and money will have to be found to deal with that in due course. I assure him that the money spent on the health reforms will lead to greater efficiencies and savings—its purpose is to improve patient care and to increase the number of patients treated—and it is extra to the maintenance programme. I am pleased to say that, as from yesterday, 11 new hospital and social service organisation units applied for hospital trust status in Northern Ireland. They recognise the advantages that will flow from trust status.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that NHS trust hospitals are treating many more patients than a year ago? Is it not perverse, therefore, that some people are suggesting that those hospital trusts should be wound up?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree that hospital trusts are proving their worth, but the national health service in Northern Ireland is succeeding with trusts even before they have been established. The establishment of trusts will improve matters. The total number of in-patients in Northern Ireland, including day cases, increased by 9 per cent. last year. The total number of operations increased by 15 per cent. and the total number of new out-patients by 6 per cent. With or without trusts, Northern Ireland is succeeding in health care. Trusts will make that even better.

    Roads Maintenance
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the funds allocated to roads maintenance in the next financial year.
    Mr. Needham: It is planned to increase funding for the operation and maintenance of roads, and associated bridges, in the 1992–93 financial year by £3·2 million to £65·3 million.
    Mr. Forsythe: Does the Northern Ireland Office keep a record of unadopted roads not covered by bonds? What progress has been made in bringing those roads up to condition?
    Mr. Needham: I think that the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) came to see me about one of the cases to which he refers. All I can say is that the giving up of bonds on unadopted roads is not a matter with which I deal daily,

    1109
    but I shall certainly consider the cases that the hon. Gentleman brings to my attention and see what can be done.
    Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware that when the Unionist party governed Northern Ireland it concentrated heavily on developing the roads only in the eastern part of Northern Ireland? It did an outstanding job there, but the state of roads in the western part where there are areas of high unemployment such as Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh—as exemplified by the Derry to Strabane road —are still in need of urgent development. Will the Department give priority to the development of those roads in future planning?
    Mr. Needham: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. I assure him that the highest priority will be given to developing those roads, within the budget by which we are currently constrained.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Brooke: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy).
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the statement made by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary that terrorist movements can be destroyed very effectively from within, will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that the full weight of the intelligence services is brought to bear on all terrorist movements within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brooke: In explaining that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not present to answer questions because he is doing duty in the Province, I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance of the commitment of the intelligence services and of their relevance in Northern Ireland today.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister come out of his ivory tower across the road, put his photo calls on hold and face up to his responsibility for the past 13 years of Government mismanagement, which has culminated in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? How long must we go on, how many more jobs are to be lost and how many more families are to be dispossessed of their homes? Will the Prime Minister now put it to the test through the ballot box and let the people decide on his record?
    The Prime Minister: It is the hon. Member who is wrong. We grew throughout the 1980s better than any other major European country except Spain: we received the highest growth in manufacturing productivity of any Group of Seven country and faster growth in business investment than any other G7 country except Japan. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that Labour's plans for an extra £37 billion a year and policies of higher taxation, higher inflation and higher interest rates would drive this country into perpetual slump.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that higher taxes and minimum wages would put up the costs of British businesses, making them uncompetitive and costing them jobs? Does he agree that such twin torture is the very last thing that British business needs at the moment?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only the Labour party could plan to cripple industry with both a national minimum wage and substantial tax increases when trading conditions are so difficult. Let me give my hon. Friend a quote:
    "If our costs rise more rapidly than others' costs, particularly German costs, then British producers lose markets at home and abroad."
    Those are not my words—they were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. If that is what he thinks, he should withdraw his tax plans and withdraw his minimum wage plans and do so today.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that a
    "promise … to cut taxes AND increase public expenditure … is dishonest and absurd"?
    When the right hon. Gentleman wrote that, did he think that he would end up making exactly that "dishonest and absurd" promise himself?
    The Prime Minister: It is quite staggering to everyone who listens to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) how terrified he and his party are of tax cuts. He still thinks that tax cuts are immoral. The Labour party has opposed every tax cut that we have introduced and now it threatens to raise taxes if we cut them. The right hon. Gentleman wants people to let him spend their money rather than spending it themselves. Labour opposes tax cuts when the economy is growing and when it is not.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister heads the Government who have imposed the biggest tax burden in British history. Perhaps he will now try answering the question. The Government have promised to increase public expenditure and are promising to cut income taxes. Is that not, in the Prime Minister's own words, truly a "dishonest and absurd" promise?
    The Prime Minister: If the tax burden is so high, why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase it still further? When it was pointed out to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that his taxes would rise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed surprised: what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, was that taxes under Labour

    1111
    would "only" rise higher than those in any other G7 country—lower, perhaps, than taxes in Albania, but higher than those of all our competitors.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister, in the last couple of weeks left to him in that office, try answering the question? Does he not recall that he has promised to increase public expenditure, to cut taxes and to balance the budget? His promises do not add up. He was right—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has made all those promises. He was right: those promises are dishonest—[Interruption.] I am quoting the Prime Minister, and he will hear this again—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to this pointing across the Chamber.
    Mr. Kinnock: Even deliberate disruption will not stop the country hearing this. The Prime Minister has described promises to cut taxes and raise public expenditure as "dishonest and absurd". He was at least right about that —and right about the Government who are making such promises.
    The Prime Minister: In the 1980s we did cut taxation and raise public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman makes an absurd point. Under the Labour Government, borrowing averaged more than 6 per cent. of national product; since 1979, it has averaged not 6 per cent. but less than 2 per cent. Before the right hon. Gentleman starts to give lectures on borrowing, he should get his facts right. In one year under Labour, borrowing reached a crippling 9½ per cent.—the equivalent of £55 billion today. That was the Labour party's half decade of debt and now they plan another £37 billion worth of expenditure. Which would it be: £37 billion of extra taxes or £37 billion of extra expenditure?
    Mr. Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: On the eve of the first anniversary of the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing our gratitude to our armed forces, our commitment to the independence of Kuwait and our determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein and his generals comply with all international sanctions or suffer the consequences?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The whole country is proud of the role that our armed forces played in the liberation of Kuwait. The way in which Saddam Hussein still behaves is unacceptable to us, to the United Nations and to the international community, and we shall continue to keep pressure on him.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that something far more valuable than the woolly citizens charter was brought before this House recently—a Bill to improve the rights of disabled people—but was talked out by Conservative Members? Will he now undertake to rescue the Bill? Or is this yet another example of the Government and their supporters talking up human rights in theory and knocking them down in practice?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal during his period in the House for disabled people and everyone in the House admires him for what he has done, but he must know that there have been dramatic improvements in recent years in the scope, range and value of benefits and in the number of disabled people who receive them. No doubt there is still more to do, and it will be done in due course, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to deny what has been done.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister recognise that, because of privatisation, the water companies are spending £28 billion on improving water quality, including schemes in west Norfolk to upgrade drinking water and clean up our beaches? Is he aware that renationalising water would cost the taxpayer £8 billion and that the whole of this investment programme would be put at risk? Is that really what the Labour party wants?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yesterday, Labour's spokesman made the point that nationalising water was a priority—yet another priority—which would cost £8 billion. There was no sign of where the money will come from, and no sign of any advantage from the policy just sheer blind dogma.
    Mr. Ashdown: With British industry burdened by record debt and Britain's trade deficit at its highest for a year, will the Prime Minister explain why tax cuts which will suck in more imports are right while public investment in the kind of things that Britain needs for the future is wrong?
    The Prime Minister: There was a time in the history of the Liberal party when it trusted people with their own money and believed that they could make their own decisions. I note that, yet again, the Liberal party is aligning itself with the Labour party on social and taxation matters. The whole country will note that, too.
    Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in expressing the utmost admiration for the Australian people and the great commonwealth of Australia. Will he therefore do his best to defuse the present unhappy situation and assure the people of that great continent that, although they may be on the other side of the world, they are close to the hearts of the people of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly undertake to do that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on that matter.

    Wallsend
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Wallsend.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to return to the north-east in the midst of those plans.
    Mr. Garrett: I would like the Prime Minister to visit Wallsend because he visited the neighbouring

    1113
    Conservative-held constituency and saw the destruction arising from the Meadowell riots as a result of 13 years of Thatcherism. The Prime Minister would be most welcome to visit the Wallsend part of North Tyneside where he would have an opportunity to visit Swan Hunter and see a dedicated work force, a dedicated management and, above all, the pride of the people in Wallsend in building and refitting ships for the Royal Navy. He would also learn about a series of problems, the main one of which is the unfair subsidies to ship building companies in the European Community which are handicapping the British ship building industry in terms of merchant shipping orders.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I have considerable sympathy with what he says about that. The Government's plans for the future naval fleet, including those recently announced for amphibious forces, will provide excellent opportunities for Swan Hunter to bid to obtain more orders. On the subject of equitability across Europe, our aim is to establish that and competitive conditions for all United Kingdom ship builders as soon as possible at national and international levels. We shall certainly keep up the pressure to achieve that, in the interests of Swan Hunter and many other fine firms in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On his way to Wallsend, will my right hon. Friend visit the north-west of the United Kingdom, and the borough of Macclesfield in particular?
    1114
    If he does, he will find an area ready to respond to the sound foundations of the economy that he and the Government have established.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very warm support. I had the opportunity to visit the north-west on Monday, where I found a good deal of buoyancy and confidence in the future of the north-west and of the country as a whole.

    Engagements
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister not have a guilty conscience about his role as an ex-social security Minister? Does he remember the period after 1985 when he came to the Dispatch Box and abolished the death grant and took away maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year-olds, while all the time pensioners were losing £14 a week? What is all this claptrap about a classless society and a citizens charter? The pensioners need more than that —and not that load of hypocrisy from the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about claptrap, he should listen to what he has just said. If he examines the record, he will see that for people in need I dramatically increased the amounts available for the death grant.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Until seven o'clock, motion to take note of EC documents relating to asylum and immigration. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill.
Completion of remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill.
Remaining stages of the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords] and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Estimates day (2nd Allotted Day, 1st Part). There will be a debate on Yugoslavia. Details of the estimate concerned and the relevant Select Committee Report will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on Northern Ireland affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
At ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding supplementary estimates and votes.
FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Second Reading of the Friendly Societies Bill.
Debate on the report of the Accommodation and Works Committee in respect of phase 2 parliamentary building.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee 'A' will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 4 March to consider European Community document No. 8910/91, relating to common organisation of the market in the sugar and isoglucose sector.
[Monday 2 March, Floor of the House
Revant European Community Documents
(a) 8810/91 Right of Asylum
(b) 8811/91 Immigration
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 24-x (1991–92)
(b) HC 24-x (1991–92)
Wednesday 4 March, European Standing Committee A Relevant European Community Document
8910/91 Sugar and Isoglucose Sector (Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/91)
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-vii (1991–92)
Thursday 5 March, Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day, 1st Part), class II, vote 2, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: other external relations, in so far as it relates to Yugoslavia.
Relevant report: First report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1991–92 (HC 21): "Central and Eastern Europe: Problems of the Post-Communist Era"].
Dr. Cunningham: On the business for Monday—the sittings and conduct of business in the House—will the Leader of the House take time to explain why he has apparently advised the Commissioner of Customs and Excise not to answer questions when giving evidence before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the inquiry into the supergun affair? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm whether that is indeed the case, as that gentleman said. What has the Customs and Excise to hide in that inquiry? Is it not rather odd for the Leader of the House himself apparently to be undermining the work of Select Committees of the House? May we have an explanation of those events, please?
May we express disappointment that the Leader of the House has not provided either a Government Supply day next week or an Opposition Supply day to debate Britain's abysmal trade performance? He must surely be aware of the appalling deficit of almost £800 million in January, with Britain's trade in the depths of the longest recession for more than 50 years. Does that not demonstrate beyond doubt the depths to which the Government's economic mismanagement has brought the British economy? Should we not have an opportunity to debate that next week?
I thank the Leader of the House for acceding to our requests to have next week's guillotined debate at a more appropriate time—on Wednesday in prime time—than the time that he originally intended? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment, his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), comes to the House, and that when he talks about what he described as the "Tory tax"—the poll tax—he explains why this year average poll tax bills will be about £50 more than the Secretary of State for the Environment suggested that they would be—and why people are still paying an extra 2·5 per cent. VAT on their expenditure subject to that tax? May we have an explanation of those matters from the Secretary of State for the Environment next week?
Last week I asked the Leader of the House to give us a guarantee that the House would have the normal time to debate the Budget when it is introduced on 10 March. Will he assure us that the Budget debate will not be cut short and guillotined because of the Government's 9 April general election programme? May we have that assurance —yes or no?
Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to deal with the first point now, because the hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. It would have been very helpful if the hon. Gentleman had checked his facts. I must say that I am very dubious about many of his charges, given how wrong he is on that one.

1117
The Customs and Excise official asked my office for guidance as to what the Government's response was to the Select Committee on Procedure recommendations in relation to prosecution authorities' answers in front of Select Committees. My office referred him to an official who gave him the information, which is publicly available, about the Government's response to the Procedure Committee's remarks. That is all that happened. The hon. Gentleman made an absolute meal out of it and got it totally and completely wrong. It makes one wonder about the other charges that he makes.
As for the point about the trade figures, of course it will be possible to discuss the economic situation, yet again, soon. We shall be happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman will know that the figures for the past three months show that the balance of payments deficit is broadly in line with the quarterly average for last year, and that the underlying trade performance is good and improving. Export volumes in the past three months were up 3·5 per cent. on a year earlier, despite the slowdown in world trade. Manufactured export volumes are also up by 3·5 per cent. over that period and exports to the European Community are 4 per cent. higher. On the same basis, total imports are up just 1 per cent. So we would be happy to debate that matter.
As for the hon. Gentleman's third request, as he knows, I always try to arrange business as much as possible in ways that are suitable to both sides of the House. He made a point about the community charge. Once again, the Opposition are peddling figures which have no basis in fact. The real figures for community charge increases this year will include an element for those who did not pay their community charge. And who encouraged many people not to pay? It was Opposition Members and many Labour councillors around the country.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, Mr. Speaker, you urged me and others to concentrate on the business for next week. As the hon. Gentleman knows, his final point was not about next week's business. But I shall be happy to deal with it in next week's business statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I refer again to what the Leader of the House just said. Let us deal with next week's business, please.
Sir David Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate or, failing that, a statement on the problem of itinerants, new age travellers and gipsies? Can we have some action?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and that of many of my hon. Friends about that matter, and I share it. I know that my hon. Friend took the opportunity of raising the matter in the House on 12 December on the Adjournment. I am also aware that he recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to consider the matter. The Government are certainly aware that there are difficulties with the operation of the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. A review is under consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that that work is proceeding with all due pace. However, I am not sure whether we shall be able to make a statement next week.
Mr. James Wallace: As a former Fisheries Minister, the Leader of the House will
1118
know that for some time many of us have pressed the case for a decommissioning scheme to be introduced by the Government. Can he confirm reports that an announcement to that effect is imminent? Will the relevant Minister come to the House next week to make that statement?
Could the Leader of the House also secure the attendance of a Minister to respond to early-day motion 129?
[That this House recalls the special arrangements made by the Government to increase benefits to pre-1973 war widows; notes that beneficiaries of the armed forces pension scheme who were invalided from the service prior to 1973 do not benefit from the improvement made to that scheme introduced in 1973 in the same way that pre-1973 war widows did not benefit until recently; and therefore calls upon the Government to take immediate action to remedy this situation and upgrade armed forces pensions payments to those former servicemen who left the services prior to 1973, particularly those who were invalided from the services and suffered disability in the service of their country.]
The motion calls for equality of treatment in terms of pension for those invalided out of the armed services before and after 1973. In recent months the Government have shown common sense in relation to compensation for haemophiliacs who contracted HIV. Previously they did so for war widows widowed before and after 1973, allowing proper treatment for them. Surely those who suffered disability in the service of their country deserve equal treatment too.
Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, as the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, the Government introduced special payments for pre-1973 war widows in recognition of the view widely held in Parliament and in Britain at large that they were a unique group for whom exceptional treatment was appropriate. The position on pre-1973 war disability pensioners is somewhat different, and it is not considered that similar special action is justified.
On the first point, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Government are considering the conservation issues which are raised as a result of various discussions in the European Community. I am not yet in a position to say when conclusions will be reached. When they are reached, I shall certainly consider how that might be made known to the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: May I thank the Leader of the House for receiving my colleagues the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and the leader of the Ulster Unionists, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and for listening carefully to the representations made to him that there should be a debate in the House on the affairs of Northern Ireland following the Downing street meeting that we had with the Prime Minister? May I thank him on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland for giving time on Thursday for that important debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite for raising that matter with me. It is an important debate. He is right to say that it follows the Downing street talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am pleased that further initiatives have followed those talks. I considered it right to respond immediately to their request for a debate. I wish that I

1119
could have given longer, but there is a lot of pressure on the House next week. I thought it right to respond to that request for an immediate debate, and I am glad to have been able to do so.
Mr. John Hume: I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in expressing our appreciation to the Leader of the House for the speed with which he responded to the joint request by the three leaders in Northern Ireland, as that will be the first time in the life of this Parliament that a major debate on the situation in Northern Ireland will take place. May I express the hope that all parties will show their concern for the fact that that is the major human problem facing this Parliament by being present and taking part in the debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we give a great deal of time to Northern Ireland issues in the House, and have done so in recent weeks, but this debate is rather different and very special. It follows the initiatives that have been taken recently in the light of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's discussions at Downing street with the hon. Gentleman and others. It is an important debate and I am sure that as many people as possible will wish to be here. However, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the debate will be at a time when many hon. Members will expect to be back in their constituencies. However, I agree with him and I am glad that we have been able to find time for that important and wide-ranging debate.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Would the Leader of the House consider an urgent request from me to try to rearrange business next week to give us the chance to debate education philosophy, given that the Opposition wish to pass a sentence of death on the grammar school, the high school and the city technology college in my constituency? If they had their way, we would end up with an education philosophy which would give only the rich a choice in education.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely. I should have liked to find time next week, and I hope that we shall find time not long afterwards. My hon. Friend is right to say that that is the Opposition's single distinctive contribution on education. I cannot think of anything more deleterious to increasing opportunities, the range of choice, and so on. They would abolish all the opportunities for greater variety and improvement of standards which have been introduced through city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools, and they would abolish existing grammar schools. My hon. Friend is right that that means that opportunities for people from lower income households to take advantage of that range of choice would disappear.
Mr. James Lamond: Will the Leader of the House find out whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry noticed the statement last week by Alan Nightingale, chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance, drawing attention to a large number of methods that other countries are using either to prevent our textiles getting into their countries or to aid theirs getting into our country? Will he also find out whether the Secretary of State would like to
1120
make a statement about that to try to save some of the many thousands of jobs which are in danger? He might even let us know what is happening with the GATT talks.
Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, the Government are keen to see a conclusion to the GATT talks for reasons that we have often debated. So far as the textile industry is concerned in that respect, for the time being, as the hon. Gentleman knows, pending a final outcome of the GATT negotiations the existing multi-fibre arrangement has been rolled on for another year. I shall raise his first point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity next week for us to talk about welcome recent Government action on youth crime, especially the measures dealing with joy riding and with bail offenders, and other matters? Will he give the House an opportunity to consider the recent case in which, as a result of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, a judge in Birmingham was unable to give more than a one-year sentence to a 15-year-old boy who killed a 24-year-old woman? The judge said that that had resulted in an injustice.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend correctly says, in addition to the many measures of previous years, the Government have introduced further measures in the current Session of Parliament to deal with issues relating to crime—such as the measure dealing with offences committed while on bail, and the Aggravated Vehicles Taking Bill. We shall continue to do that despite the fact that the Opposition often turn out to be soft on crime. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to ensure that proper protection is given to our citizens.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Before next Thursday, may we have some highly secret information published as to how many people are on electoral registers in England and Wales? The registers have been published for Northern Ireland, and provisional figures have been given for Scotland, but we do not have the figures for England and Wales. We need to have them if we are to decide whether an urgent debate is required on the position that they reveal.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter on many previous occasions and I have made clear the exact position. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned because he feels that his own position will be at risk in the forthcoming general election. On the information requested, the electoral registers will be published in good time.
Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the extraordinary revelations published in The Sunday Times about the long-held beliefs of the Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be helpful to the electorate to have a debate on the role of the Leader of the Opposition and his fitness for office, bearing in mind that leopards who protest that they have changed their spots are almost always kidding?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point. I cannot promise a debate next week, but some of the complete reversals of principle and policy undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition in recent years will be the subject of much discussion in the period ahead.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Leader of the House will be aware of the expectation that an order would come before the House to allow the Welsh Grand Committee to meet in Cardiff to debate the constitutional future of Wales—an issue which is particularly relevant in view of this week's opinion poll showing a 2:1 majority in favour of an elected parliament for Wales. What has happened to the order? Will it be debated next week? The Secretary of State for Wales suggested that the Welsh Grand Committee would meet in Cardiff. Is that likely, or is someone holding it up?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said that he would be happy for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss those matters, and that included its meeting in Wales. That requires a debatable Standing Order and the pressures on business next week are great.
Mr. Andrew McKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some disappointment on the Conservative Back Benches that the debate next Monday on the sittings of the House report will be taken on the Adjournment? That will mean that many hon. Members, who believe that the intention of that report is about giving Back Benchers more time, will not be able to vote on an amendment. Such an amendment would be directed at the Leader of the Opposition, who uses 40 words when four will do and abuses Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week, which keeps us out.
Mr. MacGregor: The latter point is not a matter for me. On my hon. Friend's first point, he will know that the report of the Committee on working hours, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), covered a wide range of ground and went much further than the simple point raised by my hon. Friend about giving more time to Back Benchers. It is also concerned with other issues as to how we handle the business of the House. It seems to me that the report contains so many recommendations that the House will wish to consider very seriously that it is not possible in the time frame of next week to have a debate on substantive proposals. In view of the wide interest in the report, it is right to have a general debate to establish the general reaction to it as quickly as possible. That is why I arranged the debate for next Monday.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: When the Leader of the House takes time off from considering D-day—declaration of poll day—will he arrange a debate next week, if not sooner, or have a statement made so that we may learn why the Home Secretary and his Ministers of State are increasingly interfering in the decisions of the parole board, such interference having risen from 3 to 30 per cent. in the past five years?
Mr. MacGregor: Not next week.
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate next week on the subject of personal savings so that we may know the attitude of the Labour party to the taxation of those savings?
Mr. MacGregor: I think we know that there are proposals from the Labour party effectively to increase
1122
taxation on a large number of savings. I welcome the opportunitty to highlight that as much as possible, and I hope that we shall have that opportunity before long.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Is it normal practice for a Minister to send a reply to a parliamentary question to a prospective parliamentary candidate? I ask that question because an article appeared in my local paper stating——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems rather wide of the business for next week.
Mr. Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week about an article in my local newspaper stating that the answer to a parliamentary question of mine had been sent to the local prospective Tory candidate? The article stated that the candidate had said that she had seen the reply. Is it normal practice for parliamentary answers to be sent to candidates?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know the local paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I do not know of the report, so I have to say that I know nothing about the issue.
Mr. Richard Page: With the callous plundering of pension funds by that heartless monster Robert Maxwell, may I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that my constituents who are today in receipt of pensions have been told that their pensions can be guaranteed only until the end of March and that beyond that date payment is in doubt? With two thirds of the pension fund stolen, and with doubt as to which part of the pension fund moneys belong to which pensions, may I urge my right hon. Friend to arrange for a debate to take place next week, or for a statement to be made, so that we may discuss the matter? My constituents are worried sick. In particular, we should be told whether the new section 58B in schedule 4(2) to the Social Security Act 1990 will be invoked.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot immediately recall section 58B of that measure. I do not carry in my head the detail of every clause of every piece of legislation, but if it is the section which deals with guaranteed minimum payments in the event of pension funds not being able to pay——
Mr. David Shaw: It deals with creditors' preference.
Mr. MacGregor: That relates to the eventual situation regarding the protection of pensioners. As for the issues relating to the Maxwell pension funds, my hon. Friend will know that a number of investigations are going on now. I fully understand his concern for the pensioners. We shall have to await the outcome of the investigations before considering what action, if any, is required. The basic minimum pension arrangements are already in place.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to allocate a half Supply day to the Scottish National party, despite the clear request of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on behalf of all minority parties? Is he aware that that would have been the ideal opportunity to discuss Scottish matters, particularly the Government's apparent change of heart on the decommissioning scheme which, despite the obvious cynicism involved, will be widely welcomed by hon. Members who represent fishing

1123
communities? What does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the reaction at the quayside in Scotland for a Government who have kicked that vital industry from pillar to post for the past six years and now, six weeks before a general election, decide to change course?
Mr. MacGregor: I disagree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government's position in respect of the fishing industry. As he knows, the main problem facing the European Community and fishing Ministers has been the decline in stocks and the consequent need for conservation. Unless that is tackled, there will be an even more difficult future for our fishermen. It is right for the Government and the Council of Ministers to concentrate on that aspect. As someone who has been involved in that question over the past six years, I assure the hon. Gentleman that enormous efforts are made to ensure that the fishing industry gets the best possible deal in the negotiations, and the Government have frequently been given credit for making them.
As to the hon. Gentleman's demand for a Supply day, I am—as I said earlier—bearing that request in mind, but it is obvious from next week's programme that the House has a great deal of business to complete. I have been giving Supply days fairly regularly, and I thought it right to respond to the request by leaders of Northern Ireland parties to provide time to debate Northern Ireland next week.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision, which he explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), concerning Monday evening's Adjournment debate on the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. Is it not the case that the House has an incomparable opportunity before Parliament is dissolved to benefit from the wide advice of many senior right hon. and hon. Members who are about to retire and who, looking back over decades of experience, know how our proceedings could be improved? If we do not take that opportunity, is there not a risk that the Committee's admirable report is likely to gather dust, and that nothing will be done to improve our procedures?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I certainly hope that that will not be the case. I established the Committee because I was anxious to make progress. The right hon. and hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend referred, who have given many years' service in the House but will not be standing for Parliament again, were able to put their points to the Select Committee—to which I pay tribute again as it completed an enormous amount of work in a short time. Monday evening's debate will provide an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to express views not only about the report's general tenor but about its specific recommendations.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the increasing tendency among health authorities to impose charges in national health service hospitals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nevill Hall hospital, Monmouth, proposes to introduce car parking charges for its staff, out-patients, those visiting the sick, and hospital
1124
volunteers? Will the House have an opportunity to debate a practice which my constituents consider to be a gross violation of the principle of a free health service, and one that is indicative of the managerialism that is ripping the soul out of the NHS? The public could then decide whether they want a Government who believe increasingly in charging the sick, those who visit them, and those who care for them.
Mr. MacGregor: Those matters have been much discussed in the House and outside, and many of the scare stories have been disposed of. The hon. Gentleman speaks of "managerialism" as though it were something to be deprecated. I am sure that he understands that more effective use of the ever-rising NHS expenditure in directing it at patient care benefits patients themselves. It is indicative of Labour that it dismisses that aspect so easily, and explains why Labour is unable to present proposals for reforms that will ensure better use of ever-increasing resources of the kind that the Government have implemented.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we debate sport next week? As my right hon. Friend knows from his successful visit yesterday to my constituency, Manchester's Olympic bid is very much at the heart of the regional issue. Such a debate would give me an opportunity to record how pleased we are that the Government will back that bid, and how good that will be for the region's development.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency yesterday—and, indeed, my visit to Manchester as a whole. Before I left, the responses that I was getting told me that yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be widely welcomed.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on animal welfare? Does the Leader of the House accept that stuffing 650 letters into hon. Members' postboxes is no substitute for a debate and a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? In the first place, such action constitutes an abuse of the House.
If we had a debate, the Minister could explain why he sent around a limp letter full of excuses about animal welfare, but voted against the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill—along with 12 other Cabinet Ministers—in order to dish the legislation and protect fox hunters, allowing them to go around loosing their bloodlust on defenceless animals. It is time we had a debate to expose the hypocrisy of those Ministers and the Government.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fox-hunting issue is not as he puts it. I hope that he will consider what foxes do to other animals. As for animal welfare, I would welcome a debate on that whenever it can be fitted in, because I believe that the Government's record on animal welfare issues is very strong. We have placed great emphasis on such issues, and we have led in the European Community in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has played a notable part in the process.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a most important Adjournment debate on the shipping industry is to take place next Thursday? It will

1125
make particular reference to Dover's ferry industry, much of whose case may be put during it. The debate is extremely timely—five days before the Budget. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a Treasury Minister will be present, as well as a Transport Minister?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot confirm which Minister will be dealing with that Adjournment debate, but I can certainly confirm that such a debate will take place on the important issue to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am well aware of the active interest that he takes in the issue: it is, in fact, his own Adjournment debate.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Leader of the House aware that the south-east of Scotland is alive with rumours that the Government will be making a statement about the A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle? Can he confirm that such a statement will be made at the Dispatch Box, rather than an announcement being made in a clandestine, underhand way? May we have statements from both the Secretary of State for Transport, on the English side, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Scottish side—on the same day?
Mr. MacGregor: I shalll have to consider both the timing and whether a statement would be appropriate; I shall also have to consider whether two Ministers should deal with the matter. I will look into it.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate next week about the security of hon. Members' offices, both here and in their constituencies? He may be aware that my office was broken into earlier this week, and that valuable computer evidence was stolen. Does he agree that such a debate is necessary to nail the lie that has been put about—primarily by Labour Members and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—that a Conservative dirty tricks brigade was responsible? That would be understandable in my case, but it might not be in the case of other hon. Members.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. He has enabled me to say that I do not see any need for such a debate because the allegations made by some Opposition Members are totally without foundation.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the future of the 999 service? It has emerged in the past few hours that British Telecom plans to hive off the service to an independent agency. That will have a massive impact on the quality of service —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why. Such a move will pose a massive threat to the quality of service. At present, the 999 service rides on the back of the general operator service. People can drop their general operator work and respond immediately. The proposal also involves shutting down many telephone operator centres, as a result of which those operating the 999 service will have no local knowledge.
This constitutes a severe threat to people's lives and security. Dogma is involved here. The aim is to ensure that British Telecom satisfies the City's objective by cutting its staff in post figures, rather than protecting the public. The Government should make a statement about the matter next week.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a speech about the matter. I had hoped that he would say something about the allegations that he made about the computer issue. As I have said, those allegations are without foundation. I shall now reply to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I know nothing of this report. I shall have to look into it.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the chaotic traffic position on one of Britain's arterial roads, the A5, which runs past my constituency? Is he aware that there have been serious accidents on that road? The fact that it has not been improved between Hinckley and Nuneaton means that jobs are being lost in the area, because land by the A5 in Hinckley cannot be developed. Will he deal with this matter with some urgency, please?
Mr. MacGregor: I will take up the point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that there has been a substantial increase in the road-building programme all over the country.
Mr. David Trimble: Although we welcome next Thursday's debate, can the Leader of the House assure us that the Prime Minister will take part in the debate so that, following his speech in Scotland last week, he can demonstrate an equal concern for the union with Northern Ireland and also show how we can have a form of decentralisation that is common throughout the United Kingdom? Secondly, on Tuesday's appropriation debate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In business questions, can we have one question only, please?
Mr. Trimble: Then I shall save the second one for later.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not think that simply because one of my right hon. Friends does not participate in a debate it means that he is not intensely interested in the question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made speeches on the Scottish devolution issue but does not take part in Scottish Grand Committee debates on the subject. I think that it is unlikely that my right hon. Friend will take part in the debate next week, but I have already discussed it with him, following the request that I had from the leaders of the three parties in Northern Ireland. I discussed it with my right hon. Friend before deciding on the business for next week, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was extremely keen to have that debate. As I say, it follows from the inititive that he took in Downing street.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on post offices for next week? It would enable me to say how well post offices operate throughout the borough of Ealing, generally speaking, and to draw attention to the proposed closure of the Church road post office, Northolt, which would be extremely serious and inconvenient for pensioners and for mothers with young children, among others. The House needs to discuss this very important issue. That post office should be saved.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is extremely assiduous in bringing the concerns of his constituents to the attention of the House. I am sure that he will find ways of doing so himself.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a statement on the £55 million that the Government have offered to Manchester in respect of its bid to hold the Olympic games there in the year 2000? That debate would have to take into account the fact that when Manchester made its previous bid the present Prime Minister, who has now agreed to that money, was Chancellor of the Exchequer and earlier Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He was the man holding the purse strings then, and he refused to give Manchester a single penny piece. Now he stands on the doorstep of No. 10 gloating about it. Are not the Tory Government guilty of a bribe a day to keep the voters at bay?
Mr. MacGregor: It is typically churlish of the hon. Gentleman to take that position in relation to the Government's decision to give very substantial support to Manchester's bid.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on NHS fund-holding practices? My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the Marshlands practice at Higham in my constituency has been a fund-holding practice since last April. Since then it has vastly increased the treatment that is given locally, not least by bringing in consultants, it has cut its waiting lists and it is giving better value for money. Does my right hon. Friend not think it important that during such a debate we could highlight the fact that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is so impressed by such an effective piece of NHS reform that he wants to scrap it and put that practice under the remote NHS bureaucracy?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to find every opportunity to highlight the benefits that general practitioner fund holding is bringing to GPs and their patients. My hon. Friend has done that well today. I am sure that his constituents will observe the benefits that are being brought to them—benefits that the Labour party would wish to take away.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate next week on early-day motion 715, tabled on an all-party basis, dealing with the pursuit of peace in Somalia?
[That this House welcomes the news that, under the auspices of the United Nations, an agreement has been signed between leaders of the two warring factions in Southern Somalia; is concerned that fighting appears to be continuing and calls on the British Government and the international community to redouble efforts to achieve a lasting peace in Somalia; draws attention to the fact that the parties who are involved in the fighting in the south have no claim, separately or together, to represent the people of Northern Somalia; calls on the international community to recognise that the people of the North have expressed a wish for independence as the Republic of Somaliland; notes that there are very close links between the North and the Somali communities in Britain; notes also that the North suffered for years in a hidden war under the regime of ex-president Barre during which time families, relatives and friends of British Somalis were killed or fled the country; notes that there has been relative stability in the north for the past year
1128
under a de facto government which includes the Somalia National Movement and other northern groups; and calls on the British Government and the international community to do all they can to ensure that the representatives of the North are involved in peaceful discussions aimed at achieving a peaceful and long-term settlement by agreement, including settlement of the request for recognition by the Republic of Somaliland in the North.]
Will the Leader of the House accept that this is given special and increased urgency because of a letter that I received today from the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. James Jonah, in which he refers to recent consultations in New York with what he describes as
"the two Somali factions—Interim President Ali Mandi Mohammed and General Mohammed Farah Aideed."
That omits the interim Government of the north, who wish independence as the Republic of Somaliland. The north is the area with which the Somalis in Britain have contact and where they have many relatives and friends who have suffered through the hidden war over the past 10 years that has left many dead and many refugees.
Does the Leader of the House agree that we should debate this matter and ensure that the House, the international community and the United Nations bring all parties to the table to try to achieve peace? Does he agree that that would be better than the danger of the south being led by one faction and the north being left out of the peace deliberations? I am sure that the Leader of the House and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will agree with the facts as I have described them. Can we have an opportunity to raise the issue publicly?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not see an opportunity for such a debate in Government time next week. It could be undertaken in ways that are available to hon. Members to raise topics. I am not aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I have seen the early-day motion. As he knows, the Government welcome the United Nations initiative on Somalia. I understand that a conference is to be held in Mogadishu later this month to which all factions will be invited.
Mr. John Marshall: May I join those who have asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange an early debate on the national health service? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent visitor to the Manor House hospital in my constituency described it as a unique hospital with a very high quality of care for patients, many of whom are members of the TUC?
Is not it a double standard to say that private health care is good for members of the Trades Union Congress and bad for the rest of us? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the visitor who displayed those double standards was none other than Mrs. Glenys Kinnock?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that that shows the Labour party's hypocrisy on this issue. It devotes so much energy to condemning those who pay for their hospital treatment through hospital subscriptions, thus adding to the resources of the health service, as do many at the hospital to which my hon. Friend referred. Such people also help hospitals to raise substantial sums, a process which the Labour party also criticises. I

1129
understand that Mrs. Kinnock was praising that fund raising at the hospital last week. It seems that there is one law for TUC members and another for everyone else.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Many people will be disappointed that the Leader of the House did not announce a debate next week on the future of Kuwait, bearing in mind the fact that tomorrow is the anniversary of its liberation. The Leader of the House will know that many people from this country and others died or suffered to free Kuwait but, now, a year later, 1,053 Kuwaitis are still being held by Saddam Hussein. I have spoken to families who were prisoners of war and had to leave relatives behind when they returned to Kuwait, so they know that they were alive.
In addition, the Kuwaiti Government, whom we saved and restored, are discriminating against members of the New Democracy Movement there and are refusing to allow observers to ensure that the elections are fair. I hope that we can have a debate about that, because we need to expose the hypocrisy of the Kuwaiti Government and we need to achieve true democracy as the United Nations intended.
Mr. MacGregor: It would not be right for me to comment in business questions on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I recognise the importance of having a debate on Kuwait at some point. The difficulty is simply that many important issues are being raised, and at the request of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs we shall discuss Yugoslavia in next week's estimates debate. It is just a question of if and when one can fit a debate in.
Dr. John Reid: May I first express regret that the Leader of the House lowered himself by replying to what was obviously a planted personalised and
1130
despicable attack on the spouse of a politician? I do not think that that speaks volumes for his confidence about the forthcoming election.
May we have a statement next week on the Government's attitude, especially the Prime Minister's, to national stadiums? We welcome the fact that £55 million may be made available for a stadium in Manchester, but is the Leader of the House aware that meetings have been held and repeated requests made to people up to and including the Prime Minister, by myself and colleagues from Lanarkshire, for a commercially viable proposition for a new national football stadium in Lanarkshire, which would service all sports, would create 3,000 jobs and would require finance, private sector led, of less than £20 million—less than half the amount needed for Manchester? May we have a statement to explain why that cannot be provided, as it would create jobs and an unparalleled resource in Scotland? Only £3·5 million is offered for the patch-up job that is to be done on Hampden.
Mr. MacGregor: I do read newspapers, and I was aware of the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred. [Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. I think that it speaks volumes for my dislike of hypocrisy. It was perfectly right to draw that issue to the House's attention.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, Manchester made a specific bid for the Olympics and it was right for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider it. I am well aware of the working party on Lanarkshire and of the significant sums that are being proposed and spent in the area. I agree that it is right to do so because of the particular difficulties that have been created by the need to restructure the Lanarkshire economy.

Pension Rebates Review
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the regular five-yearly review on the level of national insurance rebates for people contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—and on our plans to build on the huge success of personal pensions introduced in 1988 in extending individual choice, opportunity and ownership.
In respect of the contracted-out rebates, I have today laid the relevant reports by the Government Actuary and myself, with a draft amending order and regulations, to establish the level of rebates for the period beginning in April 1993, which need to be set within the present financial year in accordance with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and the Social Security Act 1986.
As the House knows, employment which is contracted out of SERPS attracts a rebate on class 1 national insurance contributions. For the five years from April 1988 to April 1993, it is set at 5·8 per cent. of earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits—2 per cent. on the employee's contributions and 3·8 per cent. on the employer's. The rebate is based on the cost to salary-related occupational pension schemes of providing the guaranteed minimum pension which such schemes must provide as the condition of contracting out.
An additional 2 per cent. incentive is payable from the national insurance fund to people in occupational pension schemes which newly contract out of SERPS between 1988 and 1993 and to people who contract out of SERPS in favour of a personal pension. That 2 per cent. incentive ends in April 1993.
The level of rebate required to provide guaranteed minimum pensions in contracted-out schemes is, naturally, falling, because the cost of the transitional arrangements that we introduced for older employees as part of our 1988 pensions reforms reduces in each new quinquennium as those people reach pension age. In the consultation paper issued last autumn, the Government Actuary indicated his initial view that the appropriate rate for 1993 to 1998 would be 4·68 per cent. In his final report to me, following extensive consultation, he has concluded that the range of uncertainties caused by the European Court of Justice Barber judgment concerning equal treatment in occupational pension schemes, which will take some time to resolve, make it more sensible for the rebate level to be based on the costs for the first three years of the period only, which he assesses at 4·77 per cent.
I accept his view and his recommended figure, subject only to rounding the figure to 4·8 per cent. Accordingly the regulations laid today provide for a rebate at that level from April 1993. I propose that it should be split 1·8 per cent. for employees and 3 per cent. for employers.
In my statement to the House about the Barber judgment on 26 June last year, I said that we would be consulting the pensions industry and other interested parties on the implications of equal treatment for the current arrangements for contracting out. Those consultations are under way, and it is clear that changes will be needed to the basis on which pension schemes can contract out of SERPS. In considering what those changes should be, we intend now to give particular consideration to the scope for moving from flat-rate rebates to rebates
1132
related to age, at least for personal pensions and possibly also for other contracted-out schemes. Decisions on how to achieve equality in state pension age, on which I published a discussion paper in December, will also have an important bearing on the many complex and detailed issues which will need to be resolved.
In carrying forward this work, our aim will be to ensure a sound basis for the continued operation and development of salary-related schemes and to expand further the new opportunities for millions of people created by our changes in the 1980s, which opened the way to contracted-out money purchase schemes and personal pensions and gave greater scope for individuals to enhance their retirement provision with additional voluntary contributions.
Personal pensions in particular have proved an outstanding success. More than 4·6 million people have chosen to save for their retirement by contracting out of SERPS in that way, taking advantage of the choice, flexibility and portability which such pensions can provide. Many of them would not have had access to an occupational scheme, and they also include many who would not previously have planned ahead for retirement in this way.
The flat-rate nature of the rebate has, however, meant that the advantages of personal pensions have been greater for younger people than for older ones. As I said earlier in my statement, we intend to examine the scope for age-related rebates more generally. Meanwhile, however, we have decided that it would be right to take an early step in that direction in relation to personal pensions. Accordingly, we propose that from April 1993 there should be an age-related additional rebate of 1 per cent. over and above the basic 4·8 per cent. contracted-out rebate for personal pension holders aged 30 or over.
This is a further important step in encouraging the development of personal saving for retirement. Coupled with our firm and continuing commitment to the basic rate retirement pension, protected in value, it will, I believe, be welcomed in the House and outside.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he pointedly omitted to tell it? What is the cost of the 1 per cent. bribe for private pensions which he is announcing for people aged 30 or more who will be given age-related rebates? Will he confirm that the bribe will cost about £600 million over five years, which is equivalent to more than £350 for every pensioner on income support?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the whole package will cost £7·1 billion of taxpayers' money now in order to save about £4 billion in reduced benefits at some stage in the next century, so the net cost is more than £3 billion, which is equal to £300 for every pensioner in the land? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's statement acknowledge that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have strongly condemned—[Interruption.] I notice that Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of the degree of the bribe being given by the Government in this pre-election period or of the losses to ordinary pensioners.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have strongly condemned him for wasting nearly £9·5 billion of public money in the past five years in order to save only £3·5 billion in reduced benefits, and for losing another

1133
£800 million in tax revenue? Will he confirm that he was also castigated for so depleting the national insurance fund by those manoeuvres that he has had to transfer nearly £2 billion of national insurance expenditure to general taxation, and that that is the equivalent of about 1½p on the basic rate of tax?
Is not it clear that, not only in the Budget but 12 days beforehand, the Government are hell-bent on bribing people with everyone else's money—including that of the poorest people? The Government say that they believe in choice, but is not it clear that they choose sweeteners for a select group of private pensioners at the expense of nearly 2 million of today's pensioners who are left in poverty? How can the Secretary of State justify spending £600 million on private pensions when an ordinary single pensioner has seen his or her pension cut by more than £17 a week, compared with Labour's earnings formula?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is so necessary to bribe people to join private pension schemes? Is it because private pensions cannot compete with occupational pensions or with SERPS? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman treat SERPS, occupational pensions and private pensions on a fair and equal basis, so that people can choose the best value for money, rather than being manipulated into the Government's preferred ideological option?
Before the Secretary of State asks what Labour will do, I shall tell him that we shall abolish the current 2 per cent. bribe, and that we shall not implement the new I per cent. bribe in April 1993. Our priority is today's pensioners, who are in far greater need and who have been treated so shabbily by the Government for the past 13 years.
The Government's package is an abuse of public funds. It bribes people to join expensive and highly risky private pension schemes and cheats today's pensioners of money that they need. They have a right to that money, and we shall ensure that they get it.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's last remarks did not surprise me in the least. They were absolutely in line with his party's relentless hostility to almost every extension of choice and ownership, whether in housing, in shares or, as now, in pensions. More to the point, I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman means by saying that he would abolish the 2 per cent. incentive. That is due to come to an end at the end of the forthcoming financial year in any event. He could abolish it, and change the status quo, only by taking away commitments that have already been made and taken into account in existing pension contracts, thus retrospectively disturbing arrangements that people had already entered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to clarify that matter at some stage.
I cannot confirm, because I do not fully recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman used, what he said about the cost to the national insurance fund. However, I can tell him that as a result of the rebate which I have announced—the basic rebate from April 1993, combined with the disappearance of the 2 per cent. incentive and the addition of the 1 per cent. age-related addition for people over 30—there will be a substantial reduction in expenditure on rebates from the national insurance fund, arising principally, of course, from the reduction in the basic contracted-out rebate.
The last point on which I want to touch goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's comments and his hostility
1134
to the rebate system. The figures that he uses persistently include the basic contracted-out rebate as well as the personal pensions incentive——
Mr. Meacher: That is what the National Audit Office says.
Mr. Newton: I heard that. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read what the Institute of Fiscal Studies —usually one of his favourite bodies—said last week about the NAO report:
"The majority of the cost of personal pensions arose from the cost of the contracted-out rebate"—
the basic rebate introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. The institute continued:
"An obvious corollary of the NAO's argument that the cost of personal pensions was excessive is that the cost to the National Insurance Fund of rebates to occupational pension schemes is also excessive."
If, as I suspect, that is the hon. Gentleman's view, he should come clean. He will not be happy until there is no alternative to state provision and whatever the state decides to provide.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is an important statement, but we have an equally important debate on Welsh affairs today. I will allow questions to go on until 4.55 pm; then we really must move on because I will have to put a limit on speeches in any event in the Welsh debate.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Is not it clear that personal pensions represent one of the greatest successes of the Government, and that as a result of their introduction millions of our fellow citizens enjoy the prospect of a very good pension? That has been brought about by the incentives that are so deplored by the Opposition. My right hon. Friend will find that there are many Conservative Members sitting behind him who will warmly endorse what he has done in the past and even more warmly endorse today's news that the 1 per cent. rebate will apply on an age-related basis.
Finally, is not it clear from what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that the millions of people who have become holders of personal pensions over the past few years will wish to know whether his remarks imply that there is to be some retrospective action by an incoming Labour Government which would not only show Labour's well-known opposition to the concept of personal pensions but put in jeopardy the pensions which have been built up over the past five years?
Mr. Newton: Taking my hon. Friend's last point first, it is certainly true, if the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) meant what they appeared to mean, that they would involve depriving average personal pension holders of about £5 a week of contributions to their personal pensions which they have already committed.
Mr. Meacher: Bribery.
Mr. Newton: I take that sedentary observation as confirming what I say—it is precisely the commitment made in the last shadow Budget. We all wait with bated breath for the next shadow Budget.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier observations, which were entirely true. We have enabled millions of people who were not in occupational pension schemes to

1135
embark on a new form of saving for their retirement, a form which gives them greater flexibility and choice. What is more, there are some signs, admittedly from limited survey information, that about 40 per cent. of those people are putting more than the rebate into their personal pension schemes. In other words, this has had an important effect in stimulating personal saving for retirement.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State knows that I do not share the hostility emanating from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), to private pensions. But may I repeat the question that the hon. Gentleman sought to ask? What is the Government Actuary's assessment of the cost of the 1 per cent. additional rebate? I well understand the reason for trying to include an age-related element, but, without the 1 per cent., would not that have been equally possible by using a figure of less than 4·8 per cent. for those under 30 and more than 4 per cent. for those over 30?
Mr. Newton: The estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund of the 1 per cent. additional rebate that I have proposed is about £175 million a year. Against that, savings of the better part of £2 billion a year will arise from the other changes which I announced today—including my confirmation of the fact that the 2 per cent. incentive will disappear in April 1993. I hope that that is reasonably clear.
On the wider point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I reiterate that I am grateful for his general support for extending choice and opportunity in the way that we have sought to do.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: If the growing number of elderly people are to be assured of a decent pension in future without placing an impossible taxation burden on the rest of the work force, bearing in mind that pensions are paid for on an annual basis, is not it essential that personal pension provision is increased and is not it right that the Government have come forward with this welcome statement, which amounts not to a bribe but to a much-needed bonus for self-reliance and self-provision?
Mr. Newton: Yes. I obviously very much agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that 4·5 million of our fellow citizens have taken advantage of those opportunities, together with many more in company-operated money purchase schemes—of which 20,000 have been created since 1988 —shows that that is meeting a widespread wish for people to make more choices for themselves and to have more say over their own provision for retirement. That will be welcomed generally almost everywhere, except among Opposition Front-Bench Members, as a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Frank Field: As someone who is committed to free choice—whether to belong to one's trade union at GCHQ, to buy one's own council house or to have control over one's pension assets—may I return the Secretary of State to the costs of the proposals? What was the cost in respect of the national insurance fund of the rebate during the first five years and what is it in the second
1136
five years? Or, in this pre-election period, is the statement that there is no such thing as a free lunch being put to one side?
Mr. Newton: I have given the figures requested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The House must focus on the extent to which, as a result of the kick-start that we have provided through the incentive introduced in 1988, there has been a massive expansion in the number of people saving for their own retirement and, as I said a moment ago, many people now put in more money than they receive from the rebate itself. I have no doubt that that is in the interests of the development of a sound, long-term structure for pension provision, for reasons that were made clear in the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when those people who are thinking of contracting out consider the exchanges that have taken place in the House today, they would do well to bear in mind that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was quoted in The Star on 28 August 1991 as saying that there was no way in which any political party would commit itself to a common retirement age of 60 because the cost would be enormous? Does not that show that when the hon. Member for Oldham, West has a choice between common sense and party dogma, at the end of the day, he will always opt for party dogma?
Mr. Newton: I can confirm that. If we had required confirmation other than from me—and I suppose that people might expect me to confirm that—that was all too clear in the response of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to my statement this afternoon.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that the erosion and undermining of SERPS have caused immense damage to those who will retire in future and will undoubtedly mean that, despite what he has said, many people will have to live in poverty unless —as we hope—a Labour Government reverse what he has done? Is there not a lesson to be learnt from what has happened with the Mirror pension scheme which is, admittedly, an occupational scheme? Theft and swindle in that scheme have meant that many pensioners simply do not know whether they will have a decent retirement. What has happened could happen elsewhere in occupational pension schemes or in the kind of schemes to which the Secretary of State referred.
Mr. Newton: I do not accept either of those points. The changes that we made to SERPS in 1988 were a necessary part of putting pension provision on a basis that was sound for the future and that was likely to be affordable by future generations. The worst thing one can do in respect of pensions is to make promises, upon which people rely, about what would be paid in 30 or 40 years time, but which prove to be unsustainable.
If I understood the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question alright, where people are members of a contracted-out scheme whereby the undertaking is to ensure guaranteed minimum pensions, in the relevant circumstances such schemes are underwritten by the state.
Mr. Michael Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the appalling fraud

1137
perpetrated on the pensioners of the Maxwell-controlled companies, the case for personal pensions is stronger, because with personal pensions it is up to the individual pensioner to choose who manages that pension and in whom to place his or her trust?
Mr. Newton: There is certainly a wide range of advantages in money purchase schemes generally and in personal pension schemes in particular. The Government are trying to achieve, and have done so successfully, a wider spread of different kinds of opportunity for people to make provision for their retirement.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Secretary of State will be aware that many of the assets of the pension fund of the Mirror Group are in the possession of the banks. Is he willing to order the banks to restore those assets, or will he let them get away with that bare-faced robbery?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have no power to order the banks to do anything. However, he will have noted the observations of some of the banks over the past few days. I cannot embroider on them or add to them.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is most welcome, not only because it builds on the huge success of personal pensions but because it introduces for the first time the concept of an age-related rebate? Is not it clear that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is against variety in pension provision and against choice in pension provision and wants to destroy personal pensions? Not content with that, did not he make it clear when we debated occupational pensions in 1990 that he wanted to impose such huge burdens on occupational schemes that many employers would withdraw altogether?
Mr. Newton: That is absolutely clear. One of the remarks in that regard, about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West is no doubt proudest although I do not think that he has said it since, is his remark of 20 June 1990 that the Labour party planned to
"turn the pensions market on its head."
That is a fine way of guaranteeing people security in retirement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the electors will be bewildered by a Government who reckon that they are strapped for cash and who will have a public sector borrowing requirement of £30 billion after the Budget but who are handing out £6 billion to a small group of people from the pockets of others? Who is going to benefit? Those who will benefit are the merchant banker Tory Members of Parliament, some of whom have spoken today, and insurance companies that give money to the Tory party so that it can fight elections. That is not only bribery; it is hypocrisy as well.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman might study the whole package of changes that were made in 1988 to which he referred. He might also just remember that I have made it clear several times this afternoon that the net result of what I have set out, including the necessary adjustment of the basic contracted-out rebate, is not a large increase in expenditure.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend's statement will be warmly welcomed by the pensions industry which has been greatly concerned about the problem of older pension contributors opting back into SERPS because of the current arrangements. I doubt whether the pensions industry would have been as pleased with the hostility towards the industry shown by the Opposition.
On a technical point, I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to an age-related rebate in future. Will he ensure that, in due course, those provisions are taken together at the same time as his proposals for a state pension age which is the same for men and for women? The two will not work unless they are carried out together.
Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend reads my statement carefully—it was admittedly a rather long paragraph—he will register that I have linked in one paragraph the action that will need to be taken in the wake of the Barber judgment in respect of occupational pension schemes, the action that will need to be taken following discussion on the state pension age, and the examination of age-related rebates. I certainly note my hon. Friend's point. He and many others will recognise that, if it is possible to find a way through more generally on age-related debates, it would be a significant further improvement in the whole structure of pension provision.
Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's pensions policy has encouraged many much younger people to take up pensions and those on much lower incomes to take out personal policies?
Mr. Newton: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Personal pensions have proved particularly popular among young people with relatively modest incomes. Typically, the personal pension holder receives about three quarters of average earnings. Fifty per cent. of them are under 30 and 80 per cent. of them are under 40. As I said in my statement, I regard as one of the great merits of personal pensions the fact that large numbers of people who historically would not have been thinking ahead and planning for retirement—we all remember the old Pearl Assurance advertisement—have started to do so. That is a major gain.
Mr. David Shaw: When my right hon. Friend was doing his most excellent research for his wonderful statement, which will be warmly welcomed by those with personal pensions, did he look at the Labour party policy document that proposes new controls on the way in which private pension funds and other moneys are invested? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such proposals would reduce investment returns for those with private pensions and that, in consequence, under a Labour Government, private pensioners would be very much worse off?
Mr. Newton: It must inescapably follow that the policy that my hon. Friend describes would have that effect. Of course, it would make very little difference to personal pensioners, because the Opposition would stop them having their personal pensions.

Points of Order
4.51 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will remember, at business questions the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I asked the Leader of the House whether he could give us any information on a supposed decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry. The Leader of the House replied that he could give us no such information. The entire Scottish press corps believes that such a statement will be made at 5 o'clock in Scotland by the relevant Minister. Will Government Front Bench Members tell us what is going on? Is there to be a statement or is there not to be a statement? In this pre-election panic, why are the Government so anxious to avoid scrutiny by hon. Members in this Chamber?
Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, in reply to me, the Leader of the House suggested that a general conservation package was still being considered. If it is true that a statement is to be made in the next 10 to 15 minutes, it is very unlikely that such a package was still being considered as recently as an hour ago. I have a high regard for the Leader of the House and I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that the Government are at sixes and sevens. At the very least, I know that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate the idea of making statements to the press when, first and foremost, they should be made in this place.
Mr. Speaker: An opportunity may arise tomorrow if such a statement is made in Scotland.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that during business questions I raised the issue of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food placing 650 letters on the Board. They were all stamped. Normally, hon. Members are limited to six letters on the Board every day. On what basis can the Minister use the Board in that way? It seems quite wrong. Any statement by the Minister can be made at the Dispatch Box. It should not be necessary for Ministers to abuse the facilities of the House in that way. In particular, when we recently considered the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which the Minister voted against, he could have made a statement without filling the Board with material for hon. Members.
The matter is important because, in the period before the election, if every Minister takes the opportunity to spend taxpayers' money in that way, we shall be inundated. I assume that the Minister is using his power to abuse his position. Do the rules apply to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the same way as they apply to other hon. Members, or are Ministers entitled to commit such abuse?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that, following an application by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food early this morning stating that letters were required to be delivered urgently today to each Member of the House, they were accepted for handling by the Members' letter board. I am informed that the correct
1140
postage was paid on all those letters, should they need to be forwarded to Members. I have not had an opportunity of studying the letter, but I think this procedure might be examined by the Administration Committee in future.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for your response, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you that I have examined the letter —presumably you also received one—and there is absolutely nothing of any urgency about it. That suggests that Officers of the House have been misled by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claiming that urgency was the key matter in terms of using the internal facilities of the House.
Mr. Derek Enright: I have a copy here.
Mr. Speaker: I have not had a chance to read it yet. I can dispose of the matter by saying that I will certainly look into it.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think I need to hear it. I shall look into the matter now.
Mr. Nelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are looking into the matter—I am grateful for that assurance—the issue on which many hon. Members receive the most correspondence is animal welfare. That excellent and informative letter was very gratefully received by me and many colleagues. It was excellent that the Minister sent it to us.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept your assurance. I received that letter early today and I went immediately to the Serjeant at Arms to complain. It is a very important and sensitive matter. Animal welfare is an important subject, but the letter was not urgent. It will simply encumber hon. Members' pockets for the rest of the day. I am sure that most hon. Members will never read it. It might be worth taking that point into account during your consideration.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members sometimes complain that they have not received information before they depart for their constituencies at a weekend, so the matter needs to be balanced. I have no idea how urgent the letter was.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Let us face it, Mr. Speaker—you have not seen the letter, but it was sent to 650 Members of Parliament using first class stamps. That equals £117. One hundred and seventeen quid has been spent by the Ministry—not by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The suggestion was that the Minister paid for it out of his own pocket, but he did not. It has come out of the taxpayer's pocket. The letter states that the Government have great concern about animal welfare, but they did not think about that when we debated the Bill to get rid of fox hunting. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talks about furry animals: he was stuffing a dead furry animal down his son's throat on the telly.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better move on.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
Mr. Speaker: I should announce to the House that, in view of the late start of the debate and the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate, I propose to put a precautionary limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. If hon. Members who are called before that time are brief, it may be possible, in the general interests of the House, to relax that limit.
4.58 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): This annual St. David's day debate on Welsh affairs is traditionally a time for reviewing the most important events that have happened in Wales over the past year, and also a time for looking forward and assessing prospects for the future. Before I refer to developments in Wales over the past year, I pause to express the regret that I am sure that we all feel that, since the last time we met on this occasion, my dear friend the late hon. Member for Monmouth, Sir John Stradling Thomas, is no longer with us, and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) are retiring at the general election. They have all served the House with great distinction and we shall be very sad to lose them.
It is impossible in the time available for me to deal with everything that has happened in Wales in the past year. However, I should like to touch on several subjects. Some topics, such as transport, will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State later in the debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Other subjects have been extensively debated in either the Welsh Grand Committee or the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. Most recently, we had an excellent debate on education a fortnight ago in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We are not certain whether there will be any further opportunity to discuss Welsh affairs between now and the election, which may well be called in a couple of weeks, but it has been suggested that before then there could be another meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss important questions about the future structures of government in Wales. Are we likely to have that opportunity? Clearly, if we are not, those matters will have to be included in this debate. Some guidance on that would be helpful.
Mr. Hunt: I heard the hon. Gentleman raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council a few moments ago. I hope that we shall meet to debate devolution in the Welsh Grand Committee, and have that meeting in Wales, before the next general election. However, I readily accept that it must be done by agreement. I understand that discussions are continuing through the usual channels, and I hope that they can come to an early conclusion.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Of course, it is two weeks since my right hon. Friend raised this matter in the Welsh Grand Committee. He said that discussions were continuing through the usual channels. Does that mean that one of the Opposition parties is creating an
1142
obstruction to holding the debate and delaying it? I am sure that my right hon. Friend is being diplomatic, but will he confirm that that may be so?
Mr. Hunt: To be termed diplomatic by my hon. Friend is a compliment indeed. I used to be a usual channel, so I know that I must not trespass into that area, except to say that I hope that discussions will come to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.
The performance of the United Kingdom economy has been the background to events in Wales in the past year. I freely admit that things have been difficult. The world economy has been in recession, as has the United Kingdom economy. Wales could not possibly be isolated from those outside influences. However, our confidence in the underlying strength of the Welsh economy has been fully justified. The gap between Welsh and United Kingdom unemployment rates has continued to narrow in the past year. The latest available figures show that, for the first time in many years, average wages increased faster in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Most encouraging of all, companies still want very much to invest in Wales. The year 1991 was particularly successful for inward investment. The 183 projects recorded promised more than 17,000 new or safeguarded jobs and more than £860 million of investment.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as from 26 April, charges on the Severn bridge will be collected only from westbound traffic? Will he also confirm that tolls for motor cars will increase to £2·80, for minibuses to £5·60 and for lorries to £8·40? Does he appreciate the damage that that is likely to do to employment and investment prospects, let alone the Welsh tourist trade? Will the Secretary of State take a particular interest in my constituents in Caldicot, Magor, Rogiet and Undy, who took the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and got on their bikes to seek employment on the other side of the estuary? All told, does the Secretary of State agree that the charges are a severe, major—with a capital M—blow to the Welsh economy?
Mr. Hunt: A few moments ago, Mr. Speaker asked all hon. Members to keep their speeches short. I said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would deal with transport if he managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has never opposed tolls. If I recall, it imposed them. All the issues have been debated at great length. The good news for Wales is that we are to have a second Severn crossing and that will be complete in 1995. That is very good news.
Many major international companies have demonstrated and underlined their confidence in the future of Wales by establishing manufacturing operations in our country. It is even more encouraging that, once established, they stay and expand their operations. For example, the announcement by Sony last May of its expansion at Bridgend was one of the major industrial landmarks of the year. The initial phase alone will create 1,400 new jobs, with potential to generate many more. That is good news for Mid-Glamorgan and for Wales.
Before the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) interrupted me, I was about to say that I wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone who played a part in securing that record inward investment into Wales. Of course, it is not just a matter of the Government. In

1143
Wales we have a positive partnership in which local and central Government, the public and private sector and the many agencies come together to stress the benefits of investing in Wales. They have as their trump card the quality of the work force in Wales. I praise everyone who has taken a great deal of time and trouble to enable us to win that record level of investment.
What is particularly heartening about the projects which have come to Wales, and the indigenous companies that have expanded their operations, is the diverse nature of the operations involved. They represent the future for Wales and the growing divergence of the economy.
Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are grave worries in Wales that we do not possess a statistical database on our strengths and weaknesses to enable us to attract the next generation of investment from abroad into Wales? That was highlighted in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General which was discussed recently by the Public Accounts Committee. It said that we did not have a sufficiently rigorous database to tell us the real effect of the valleys programme and other programmes. Will the Secretary of State do something about that and improve it?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I should like to improve it. We are extremely rigorous in the payment of regional selective assistance, which is paid only in relation to the numbers of jobs created. However, it is important to improve the database. I know that I could say that one need only go down the M4 and A55 to see the new factories and new opportunities, but we need to do more than that. We need to identify the strengths and weaknesses. My predecessor did that with the financial services initiative and a range of other initiatives. I seek to do the same in other areas. But the hon. Gentleman is right: we would benefit greatly from improving the statistical base. I must continually balance the cost of obtaining the information against the benefit. However, I believe that it is right to improve the position.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The Secretary of State said something which we in mid-Wales are a little tired of hearing. He mentioned the M4 and the A55. Of course we welcome what has happened along those belts. However, there is an awful lot of Wales in between the two. In the rest of his speech, will he bear it in mind that unemployment in Powys has increased by 30 per cent. in the past year? We feel that, despite the great efforts of the Development Board for Rural Wales, the area is somewhat neglected by the Welsh Office.
Mr. Hunt: That is interesting. I was about to come to that in my speech, but I will deal with it now.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hunt: Wait a moment. I ought to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
I spent some time at Welshpool just a few days ago. I went to see the site of the new Fisher-Gauge factory. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I went to see Bill Fisher in Peterborough in the state of Ontario in Canada. I applaud him for the fact that he decided to come to mid-Wales even though he had many other locations to consider, including some in our competitor countries in the
1144
EC. I was particularly pleased at the way in which everyone came together to secure that inward investment. Just as I was delighted by the help of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) over inward investment by the Diagnostic Products Corporation of Los Angeles at Llanberis, I am equally delighted by Fisher-Gauge.
We intend to do our utmost to bring much-needed investment to all of Wales. When I was first appointed Secretary of State, I said that I wanted prosperity to spread to all parts of Wales. That is still my determination. I hope that Welsh prosperity will never again be threatened by over-reliance on a few industries.
Mr. Rowlands: Before he heads for mid-Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman pause at Merthyr for a moment? I wish to draw his attention to the depressing and sad fact that next month could be celebrated by a two-week lay-off at Hoover. That experience will be shared by workers at Hotpoint and the people in the Minister of State's constituency. After 10 years of technological investment, changes in work practices, alterations and 4,000 job losses —that is equivalent to losing a steelworks—people are still having to face a two-week lay-off. Is that the economic miracle that we were expecting?
Mr. Hunt: I know that the hon. Gentleman may feel it necessary to stress the bad side, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on—answer."]—There are some positive sides to Merthyr. There has been an announcement that yet another Japanese company, and the first company to come in from Singapore, will fill those two factories. He and I were present at the launch of the east Merthyr reclamation scheme. There is a great deal of activity.
I cannot insulate Wales—nor can my ministerial colleagues, the Welsh Office or anyone else in Wales—against the effects of the recession outside, which has hit the white goods sector in particular. I do not think that hon. Members would expect anything else. Hotpoint, Hoover and other such companies are feeling the effects of the downturn in consumer spending, and I hope that that is a short-term problem.
Why are people still so anxious to invest in Wales? There are a number of reasons. One is the quality of the work force, which has the skills required by investing companies. That brings me to the first major development of the year that I wish to mention. Last September, the Prime Minister announced that responsibility for training would transfer to the Welsh Office from the Department of Employment. That transfer will take effect from 1 April.
From then on, the Welsh Office will be a training, education and enterprise Department. That will present us with an unprecedented opportunity to develop our people's potential. We also now have a full network of training and enterprise councils, drawing on the energy of local employers to develop the skill base. We issued strategic guidance to our TECs in November, which set a challenging agenda and I hope emphasised our determination to ensure that everyone is working in harness to develop the skills and enterprise of our people.
The TECs are prime examples of our policy of allowing those most closely involved with an activity to share responsibility for directing and undertaking it. I have sought to adopt that approach in other areas of community activity. I am especially pleased with the progress being made under the special initiative for the programme for the valleys, to encourage community

1145
involvement in social and economic regeneration. Those include the community revival strategies, in which five communities are benefiting from projects which encourage the environmental, social and economic regeneration of those communities.
Mr. Peter Hain: Could the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister has turned him over on his proposal for an economic forum for Wales, as suggested in his reorganisation of local government pamphlet, and that Downing street is blocking his proposal for economic regeneration work?
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to repudiate a totally incorrect story. The proposal, which was put forward by the Council of Welsh Districts, is still under consideration; I have not yet reached a conclusion on it.
I recognise that, in recent weeks, there has been increasing interest in the issue of a Welsh assembly. The Conservative party certainly has everything to gain by widening the debate on devolution. I do not regard the forum as part of that debate.
Some of the most telling and the best arguments against a Cardiff-based Welsh assembly were made in the 1970s by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he has not changed his views on the subject of an assembly, which would go some way towards explaining some of the mess and muddle on the part of the Welsh Labour party, not only about whether they would impose an assembly on Wales but, if they did, about what it would be able to do.
I shall read one page. The Leader of the Opposition said that a Welsh assembly would not
"provide a factory, a machine or job, build a school, train a doctor or put a pound on pensions."
We have calculated that a Welsh assembly would cost £1 million per week. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
"Who is prepared to give up £1 million to be bossed about by an institution in Cardiff?"
He also said:
"A new slab of Government in the form of a Welsh assembly would turn into yet another costly millstone around the necks of the people of Wales."
I agree with those comments, and I agree even more with the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the Welsh assembly would take—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not like hearing the words of their leader, but I am determined to shove those words into the debate in every possible way.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"that Assembly would take power and money from local authorities and the communities they serve"—
[Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We do not conduct our affairs in this way. We debate by means of speech rather than bellowing across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with every one of the words that I am quoting from the right hon. Member for Islwyn, who continued:
"it would be even more centralised than the present system."
We have a right to know whether he has changed his view.
Mr. Raffan: While historical quotations arc interesting, and the Leader of the Opposition will shortly be history,
1146
my right hon. Friend has given an estimate of the cost of an assembly. Can he also give the House the estimated savings of going to unitary authorities? Does he not agree that the situation has changed totally since the last referendum? The Government must tackle this issue in the current context of the need for a Government of Wales and the need for a strategic authority when we move to unitary authorities.
Mr. Hunt: I shall come to unitary authorities in a moment.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest to the Secretary of State. He started off well when he mentioned devolution. Will he confirm that he has no intention of giving the people of Wales an assembly?
Mr. Hunt: I passed to the hon. Gentleman my only copy of "The Liberal Democrat Pocket Guide to Reform of Government". Could he possibly return that to me at some stage? However, I have a photocopy of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Under-Secretary of State has a copy."] I am talking about my copy.
A few days ago, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said that I was guilty of misleading the House because I said that the Liberal Democrats would make the post of Secretary of State for Wales redundant, once they had established the Welsh assembly. Page 8 of the pocket guide states:
"We would create a Welsh senate for home rule for Wales. The role of Secretary of State for Wales would become redundant."
That is what I told the House, but I was accused of misleading it. I often find the policies of the Liberal Democrats unintelligible, but I think that the hon. Gentleman should understand them.
Mr. Geraint Howells rose——
Mr. Donald Anderson rose——
Mr. Hunt: I shall give way.
Mr. Anderson rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should make it clear to whom he is giving way.
Mr. Howells: Before the Secretary of State gets too excited, we are talking about the principle of devolving power and not the detail. Will he confirm, once again, that he is in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales? As I said on a television programme last night, it is a great pity that the Secretary of State plays about with a little piece of paper.
Mr. Hunt: It is not just any piece of paper; it is Liberal Democrat policy. If the hon. Gentleman does not know about that piece of paper, it is entitled "The Liberal Democrat Pocket Guide to Reform of Government". I understand that the leader of the Welsh Liberal party told the Western Mail, when told of the document, "Oh dear, I had better check this with a party official." I would hope that members of the Liberal Democrats would at least be in some control of the situation.
Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State is enjoying himself by reading out comments by the Leader of the Opposition 18 years ago. We could enjoy ourselves by repeating what the Secretary of State said about the poll

1147
tax two years ago. Would it not be better if he were to consider the issues and tried to elevate the debate rather than to indulge in the diversionary tactic of referring to a meeting in Cardiff? Will he say yea or nay to whether, under any circumstances, he will grant an assembly to Wales?
Mr. Hunt: I have made my position clear. The hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind, but has the Leader of the Opposition? We have not yet heard whether he has, and that the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the people of Wales to explain his views on a Welsh assembly.
Does the Leader of the Opposition think that a referendum is still necessary or that an assembly should be established? Does he think, as he has said before, that such an assembly would create divisions in Wales, and not heal them? Does the Leader of the Opposition still believe that the £50 million that would be spent on the assembly, if the Labour party ever came into government, would be better spent on schools and hospitals? The Leader of the Opposition has to justify his series of U-bends and S-turns to the people of Wales. He and the Labour party have been running away from this issue for too long.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to the diversionary tactic of the Welsh Grand Committee. That is an important Committee of this House, and I want it to meet in Wales and to debate the issue of devolution. If that is not possible, I make it absolutely clear today that I want the Leader of the Opposition to participate with me in a live, televised debate on that subject in the next few weeks. The hon. Member for Caernarfon would agree to participate, and I also know that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North would. It is time that the Leader of the Opposition set the record straight and stopped standing on his head. The people of Wales have a right to know.
I want to marshal my arguments about a Welsh assembly, but I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition has any arguments left to marshal.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On the subject of the Welsh Grand Committee meeting outside the House, the Secretary of State will know that, if that is to happen, we need a debate to change the Standing Orders. That is what the Leader of the House said. Is the Secretary of State saying that he is wrong? Did the Secretary of State clear the matter with the Leader of the House to make arrangements smoothly before he threw it at us at a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee on a day when I had constituents visiting the House?
Mr. Hunt: I do not understand which day the hon. Gentleman is talking about. That was not what I proposed at the Welsh Grand Committee. I did not mention a date. I said that I hoped that it would meet as soon as possible. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to what I said, because, a few moments ago, I said that I had heard the remarks of the Leader of the House. It is possible to reach an agreement, and then it would not be necessary to hold a debate. That is being discussed through the usual channels, and I hope the matter will be resolved quickly.
I believe that we have everything to gain from a wide-ranging debate on the imposition of a Welsh assembly, which would run Wales from Cardiff. [Interruption.] The Opposition may not want to hear the
1148
arguments, but I shall ensure that they are heard by the people of Wales, and I shall seize every opportunity to do that.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is frothing at the mouth so much that I wonder whether he thinks there is something dishonourable in changing one's mind. I wish that more politicians were willing to change their minds and were willing to say so, because there is nothing dishonourable in that. When the referendum on devolution took place, 80 per cent. of the people of Wales were against, but in the recent poll, 47 per cent. said that they were now in favour. Would he describe that as a U-turn as well?
Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Lady that, before the referendum campaign took place, more than 40 per cent. of the Welsh were in favour of a Welsh assembly. However, once they heard the arguments, they rejected it by an 80 per cent. majority. I am not calling the right hon. Member for Islwyn dishonourable—I called him the right hon. Gentleman. I just want him to say whether he has changed his mind, but he has refrained from doing so. I challenge him to spell out his party's policy, because many in the House and outside still do not know what it is.

Before hon. Members intervened about the Welsh assembly—I hope that we shall have a wide-ranging debate on that important issue—I was discussing the question of community action. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will be aware that we have provided funding towards the establishment of the Cynon valley business leadership team and towards its agenda for action programmes in Wales. The purpose of the "Agenda for Action" is to encourage companies and business leaders to support and increase development and prosperity in their local communities. I want to see that sort of approach develop much more widely.
A key part of our economic regeneration strategy is our support for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The scope offered by the restoration of the old bay area is being recognised by investors. For example, the Prudential insurance company has decided to locate there its new regional headquarters for Wales and the south-west of England which will provide 200 jobs. The completion of the barrage—the legislation is now going through the House—will attract up to 25,000 new jobs and private sector investment of more than £1,000 million. The barrage, when completed, will represent the most prestigious and impressive waterfront development in Europe.
There is a tendency—I believe an erroneous one—to consider economic regeneration only in the context of the old industrial areas, but the rural areas of Wales are of vital importance. It was in recognition of this that, just over a year ago, I launched my rural initiative. As part of that package, I made £15 million available in extra provision for rural programmes, together with an extra £5 million set aside for local authority capital projects. On 9 December 1991, I published a document that set out my objectives for rural Wales, and at the same time I announced a series of related measures. As well as further increases in resources for the Development Board for Rural Wales, the WDA, the Wales tourist board and the Countryside Council, an important element of my announcements was a new competitive programme for local authority capital projects designed for the benefit of

1149
rural communities. I have set £6 million aside for that in 1992–93. The bids for projects under the programme are due in by next Tuesday. As last year, I hope that we shall have the greatest difficulty in deciding on the successful projects.
The key industry of the rural areas is of course agriculture. I fully recognise the difficulties which our farmers are facing at present. I firmly believe that a healthy agricultural sector is vital to the future economic, environmental and social well-being of Wales, and I assure the farmers of Wales that I will do everything in my power to achieve that. I am delighted that I have been able to secure for them the full 10 ecu increase in suckler cow premium funded by the European Community. I was also pleased to note last month that there had been an improvement in farming incomes over the past year, with aggregate net incomes rising by 15 per cent. compared with a fall in the United Kingdom as a whole of 14 per cent.
I have been twice, in the past three months, to see Commissioner MacSharry in Brussels to urge on him the necessity of any reforms in the common agricultural policy being fair to those, like our Welsh hill farmers, who are totally dependent on farming for their income. I promise our farmers that their interests are my interests and that their battle is my battle, and together we shall be heard in Brussels.
Mr. John P. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MacSharry proposals as they stand would be detrimental to Welsh lowland farmers?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, and I made it clear to Commissioner MacSharry that any reform of the CAP, which I believe must follow the GATT, must be fair to all farmers in the Community and not penalise Welsh farmers in particular.
Mr. Geraint Howells rose——
Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I am anxious to make progress.
On my visit to Brussels last week, I pressed Commissioner Millan about the importance of releasing quickly our RECHAR money for support for Britain's coal mining communities. I am delighted that he announced yesterday a package that will provide some £21·1 million for south Wales. That will allow a whole range of further measures to be supported with European assistance, including the regeneration of derelict areas, the further development of small businesses, improving the quality of life, assisting the creation and development of local and community initiatives and the provision of further training in new skills. I have also urged Commissioner Millan to accept an additional bid, which I understand he is now kindly considering.
Mr. Geraint Howells rose——
Mr. Hunt: I must proceed, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
There are still in Wales areas which are over-dependent on a small number of employers. Those communities are particularly vulnerable if, for whatever reason, the employer decides to reduce employment in the area. When problems of that sort began accumulating in Holyhead, I asked the Minister of State to take special responsibility for co-ordinating integrated programmes for the regeneration of that area. In recent weeks, a similar
1150
situation has arisen in west Wales, with the decision by the Ministry of Defence—as part of its "Options for Change" rationalisation—to withdraw from Trecwn and to cease flying training from Brawdy.
No one, least of all Welsh Office Ministers, is indifferent to the impact of those decisions on the local economy. We responded immediately by setting up a task force to look at the economic consequences for the area and possible alternative uses, including Ministry of Defence uses, for the two sites. That task force's interim report will be considered by the strategy group, which I shall shortly chair at its first meeting. I am also looking forward to discussing the issue with the Welsh Affairs Committee next week.
Wales does not, and cannot, operate in isolation from Europe and the rest of the world, and that applies not just to our need to attract inward investment, at which we are outstandingly successful. Only last week, I went to Brussels to open the WDA's new offices there, which will provide a focus for Welsh business activity at the heart of the Community, and give interested parties overseas a key point of contact with those in Wales—not just the WDA but local authorities and the training and enterprise councils, which can help them.
I am delighted to have been able to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) to provide overseas marketing powers for the Wales tourist board. The Bill is now in another place, having completed its passage through this House. I have every confidence that we shall see it become law before the end of this Parliament.
We have also continued to work at our links with the four motor regions. I visited Stuttgart to meet the Minister President, Mr. Teufel, for talks last October, and my officials have had a number of exchanges with their opposite numbers in Baden-Wurttemberg. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited Milan to discuss closer links with Lombardy, and he and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary have separately visited Barcelona for four motors-related activities. Next month will see a wide variety of events in a Wales week in Baden-Wurttemberg which will celebrate two positive and successful years of co-operation since we signed our partnership agreement with that region. I also have high hopes for our co-operation with Rhones-Alpes.
Europe is of vital importance, but our regional links also extend to Japan. We have an active partnership with the Oita Prefecture, and I was pleased to welcome Governor Hiramatsu to Wales for the Oita fair in October, where there was a display of the traditional culture and products from that area of Japan. We shall be organising a reciprocal Wales fair in Oita in October this year. This link has already led to orders for Welsh goods and services.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent will agree that Wales' great forthcoming attraction is the international garden festival at Ebbw Vale. Every time I visit the site, I am more and more impressed and excited by the prospects for the project. The transformation that is taking place on the valley floor and up the hillside is nothing short of remarkable. It will be a marvellous attraction for tourists and business and will do an enormous amount to prove to the rest of the world what we in Wales already know—that the transformation of the valleys is a remarkable event, and that Wales is one of the most attractive places in the United Kingdom in which to live and work.

1151
A key factor in forming our policies in Wales throughout this year has been the principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he launched the citizens charter. We have already issued two charters in Wales. The first was the parents charter, which we launched last September, setting out parents' rights and responsibilities in a whole range of education matters. We believe in the right of parents to be effective partners in the education of their children and we intend to equip them to enable them to do that.
We shall also before long be publishing our tenants charter for local authority tenants, and Housing for Wales will issue its guarantee for housing association tenants. Consultation on both of those has now been completed. They will form part not only of our commitment to the citizens charter, but of the objectives which we have set ourselves under the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's document "Housing in Wales—An Agenda for Action".
I am delighted that I have been able to provide extra resources in 1992–93 towards the achievement of those objectives. For local authority housing capital programmes, total provision has been raised to £279 million. That includes an extra £80 million for mandatory home renovation grants, bringing provision up to £140 million.
I was also able for 1991–92 to provide record resources of over £117 million to Housing for Wales, and it is making excellent use of those resources. I have just had the opportunity, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), to open the 3,500th house that Housing for Wales has built in the last financial year. I expect the total Housing for Wales programme, including private finance, to amount to over £500 million in the coming three years. Those are major achievements, which will mean that Housing for Wales is making an exceptional start in reaching the targets that we set it in the "Agenda for Action".
I turn to the national health service in Wales, for which we have once again provided record resources in the current and coming year. The past year has seen a number of significant developments. We recently published "Agenda for Action Two," which sets out the key management action required of the NHS over the next three years.
We published also the patients charter for Wales, which has been delivered to all households. It will put the citizens charter initiative into practice in the National Health Service. We shall monitor the performance of health authorities against the charter standards, and health authorities will publish an annual report on their performance.
I was delighted to be able to approve the first national health service trust in Wales. The Pembrokeshire national health service trust will become operational on 1 April 1992. A further 14 health units have been invited to prepare formal applications for trust status in April 1993. Applications need to be submitted by the early summer. If they all decide to proceed, and are successful, that will mean that 65 per cent. of acute health care in Wales will be delivered via NHS trusts. The wide spread of interest in pursuing that option is a telling testimony to the benefits of trust status for those most concerned—the staff and patients.
1152
Investment in the capital estate of health authorities during the life of this Government will be, including the provision for 1992–93, more than £1,261 million.
I am now pleased to be able to announce details of the all-Wales major health capital programme, where I intend to distribute £101 million. A copy of that programme, together with the new arrangements for allocation, has been placed in the Library.
In summary, I propose to provide some £55 million for centrally funded developments, most notably for the provision of a burns and plastic surgery unit at Morriston, the enhancement of adult and paediatric cardiac facilities in south Wales, and for information technology to assist health authorities in furtherance of the implementation of NHS reforms.
The sum of £33·7 million will be provided to meet the on-going cost of major hospital developments in course of construction—most notably at Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Royal Gwent, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Brecon War Memorial hospital, University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, and Morriston. Included in that provision is the cost of design fees and construction works on major hospital developments, which will commence on the Ynys-y-Plwm and Baglan bay sites to replace East Glamorgan and Neath and Port Talbot hospitals.
New major works covering the provision of community hospitals, and costing some £6·7 million in 1992–93, will commence at Ebbw Vale, Torfaen, Barry, Cardiff and north Meirionydd. Some £5·2 million will be held in reserve against the possibility of new starts in 1992–93. The funding of those developments will be subject to decisions to be taken on future years' funding as a consequence of this year's public expenditure survey.
That programme has been compiled with the aim of replacing old hospitals that are coming to the end of their useful life. New community hospital developments will provide patient care in a near-domestic environment, close to patients' homes. Other developments included within the programme will enhance the facilities at existing hospitals.
One subject that I have not yet addressed, but on which I receive the most correspondence, and have had the largest number of meetings over the past year, are my proposals for the reform of the structure of local government in Wales, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred. I published my proposals for consultation last June, and am now considering the views expressed to me in response. The local authority associations discussed the results of an extensive programme of work commissioned by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, and I will reflect on the issues it raised before announcing a decision. That matter is of vital importance to everybody in Wales, and I shall inform the House of my conclusions in due course.
I am pleased to announce the Government's intentions concerning the promotion and safeguarding of the Welsh language. The past 12 years have seen a number of significant developments. In 1981, we established S4C. Its success is there for all to see. I am particularly pleased to note the indications that the S4C channel has become an important cultural force not only in Wales but increasingly further afield.
The past 10 years have also seen a further strengthening and consolidation of the place of Welsh in education. That culminated in the introduction of the Government's

1153
proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum—widely recognised as the single most important measure taken by any Government in support of the language. The full effect of that policy will not become apparent for many years yet, but we made clear our commitment to giving every child in Wales the opportunity to become fluent in Welsh.
However crucial the role of schools, the language is not something that is or can be confined to the world of education. Over recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the position of the language in the community at large. Since being established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in 1988, the Welsh Language Board has become an important force for change. It has done much to raise awareness and to improve the level of service provided for Welsh speakers.
Under its chairman, John Elfed Jones, the board has made a significant contribution in the period since it was established. I am pleased to tell the House that the Government have decided that the board should be placed on a statutory footing. I am confident that, in its new form, and with new powers, the board will be even better placed to undertake the difficult challenge that it will face in future.
The House will be aware that, last year, the Welsh Language Board made proposals for legislation in support of the language, which I considered carefully with my ministerial colleagues. The board's proposals were themselves the result of extensive consultation, and I pay tribute to those who were involved in the considerable task of preparing them.
At the heart of the board's proposals was the principle of equal validity and, in the public sector at least, granting Welsh equal status with English. That principle is one in which I believe. In drawing up the proposals that I will present to the House in due course, I have therefore sought to concentrate on the practical implications of that principle and the elimination of some of the difficulties with which Welsh speakers can be faced.
I am persuaded by the board's argument that the progress achieved so far can best be safeguarded by further legislative underpinning. The Government will therefore bring forward a Welsh language Bill. The legislation will include a duty on local authorities and other public agencies in Wales to draw up schemes defining the service that they provide for Welsh speakers. Those schemes will have to conform to criteria covering all aspects of dealing with the public. The new statutory Welsh Language Board will have the key role of agreeing those schemes. Once they are agreed, the board will have the further task of monitoring their implementation and investigating complaints.
I want to reassure the House that that does not mean that everybody within the public sector in Wales will need to become Welsh-speaking. We shall build on and develop what is already happening. A range of Government Departments and other public bodies in Wales have already shown that much can be achieved by the adoption of imaginative policies, the harnessing of existing staff, and the use of translation services. Neither is it my intention that every public body should rigidly adhere to exactly the same policy. Instead, it will be the board's task to assist in devising policies that reflect the very different situations facing the range of public authorities in Wales.
The schemes will need to reflect the different positions of the language in, for example, the south-east compared with the north and north-west. They will also need to
1154
ensure that, in areas where Welsh speakers are in the majority, suitable provision is made for non-Welsh speakers.
For the first time, we will place consumers in a position where they will know what they can expect by way of Welsh language services from all the public organisations with which they deal. The board also made proposals concerning changes to the Welsh Language Act 1967, which I am minded to accept.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State's proposals include a right for children—if their parents wish it—to be educated in schools that teach exclusively through the medium of Welsh? Will it also include a right for children —if their parents wish it—to be taught in non-Welsh language schools where Welsh is available as a second language? That is an important issue in central Wales.
Mr. Hunt: I accept that. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what the Minister of State has said about the whole question of Welsh-medium education. We need to provide every child in Wales with the opportunity to learn Welsh. However, I shall not stray too far down that road; if the hon. and learned Gentleman and others catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they can make their own speeches on the issue, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will try to respond. I have been speaking for some 50 minutes, but I have not yet finished my speech.
Let me explain to the hon. Member for Caernarfon that one reason why it took me 12 months—only 12 months —to consider the proposals put to me by the Welsh Language Board is the fact that the Welsh Language Act 1967 contains a mistake, which we now propose to put right. Section 3 currently allows Ministers to determine that, in the case of a dispute, the English version of a text takes precedence over the Welsh version. I am aware that a number of people consider that that is tantamount to granting a lesser status to Welsh generally, and I am happy to announce that I have accepted the board's proposal for the repeal of the provision.
It is, of course, important to get the legislation right. I shall be introducing a new Welsh language Bill—or, at any rate, I very much hope that I shall—and it will then be for the House to judge the proposals that it contains.
The Government's most important contribution is their help in creating an environment in which people who want to speak Welsh are free, and able, to do so. The present Government have an impressive record of pursuing many ways of creating that environment over the past decade. Throughout that period, we have had a guiding principle: ultimately, the future of the language depends on the people who speak it. It would be counter-productive to do anything that would disturb the current good will towards the language among Welsh and non-Welsh speakers alike.
Mr. Wigley: I have been listening carefully to the Secretary of State's important statement, and I welcome the news that legislation is to be introduced. It is difficult, however, to respond to that news without knowing all the details. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he intends to incorporate all the Welsh Language Board's proposals in the draft legislation, rather than just picking out one or two of them? In particular, can he clarify the position of defendants who want their court cases to be heard in Welsh? Will jurors who understand Welsh be present so that the impact of evidence for the defence can be fully appreciated?
Mr. Hunt: Now that I have announced our intention to introduce a Welsh language Bill, I shall arrange an early meeting with the Welsh Language Board. I want to go through the board's proposals. I am not picking and choosing—although some of the proposals strike me as unnecessary, while others would affect the principle of the random selection of jurors, which is a key principle of British justice.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the legislation. I have carefully set out a number of extremely important points which I hope he will have an opportunity to ponder. If he and his colleagues wish to discuss the proposals with me in more detail, I shall be happy to meet them.
I am confident that our proposals will help to create an environment in which Welsh speakers can continue to exercise choice and to speak the Welsh language for many years. The Welsh Language Board has an important role to play in creating such an environment, as does every branch of the public sector in Wales. My proposals create a clear framework in which they can do so.
No doubt a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that I have not dealt with the specific issues with which they wanted me to deal. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will try to deal with some of them. I have been unable to address an enormous number of issues; if the House wished me to continue for another hour, no one would be more delighted than I, but I want to give others a chance to speak.
Let me conclude by saying that, despite a difficult economic background, this has been a good year for the people of Wales. They have experienced record inward investment; further commitment to the rights of the individual, under the citizens charter and other charters; and further developments in the integrated and partnership approach that has proved so successful in recent years. I believe that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the people of Wales, and I am confident that the coming year will be as good a year as the past one. I am already looking forward to returning to this Dispatch Box in a year's time to report on it to the House.
5.55 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: That really was an "I am delighted" speech—but the Secretary of State cannot talk to me about U-turns. Dai Poll Tax cannot give us any lectures; Dai Poll Tax will get his answer at the general election. My right hon. Friend the Member for IsIwyn (Mr. Kinnock) leads a united party, and that unity includes policy. On the occasion of the last Welsh debate before Labour takes power, let me reaffirm that Wales is a Labour nation.
At the beginning of his speech, the Secretary of State mentioned a host of past and current colleagues, expressing the feelings of us all. He also displayed his experience as a "usual channel". Certainly Wales has a good record in regard to inward investment, and we welcome the good news; but the Secretary of State must account for his stewardship.
In vain did we wait for an apology for the poll tax. The people of Wales are still listening attentively in the hope of hearing such an apology from the right hon. Gentleman. He made an important statement about the Welsh language, however—although I should have preferred him to make a statement proper; he now expects us to respond
1156
to the details in the way in which he has given them. None the less, I welcome his commitment to introducing a Welsh language Bill, and his announcement of a statutory basis for the Welsh Language Board. Let me say, on behalf of the next Labour Government, that we will introduce a Bill: we will legislate speedily.
At long last, the Secretary of State has acknowledged the existence of a consensus throughout Wales, and, at the appropriate time, we shall consider the small print of what he has said. At no point in his speech, however, did we hear mention of practical measures to tackle the second great recession that we have endured under the present Government. At no point did we hear of a determination to halt the rising tide of redundancies; nor did we hear of a will to present new policies to end the disturbing rise in unemployment. We heard of no social or economic policy initiative to give hope to those who lack jobs, the homeless and the indebted.
I have here the Conservative party's manifesto for Wales for the 1987 general election. It was full of honeyed phrases and grandiloquent statements, but it was a false prospectus. It made no reference to opt-outs, recessions, redundancies, homelessness or hospital trusts. I remind the Secretary of State for Wales that NHS waiting lists in Wales are at record levels. Hospital beds in Wales have been cut by 2,800. There have been too many broken promises.
When the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) was a Minister with responsibility for health he gave this pledge:
"health authorities in Wales have been set a target to ensure that by March next year no patient should have to wait more than one month for urgent in-patient treatment, one year for non-urgent in-patient treatment and three months for a first-time out-patient appointment."—[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 16.]
What happened? According to the House of Commons Library, since September 1987 the number of patients waiting for urgent in-patient treatment for more than one month has increased by 6 per cent., the number of patients waiting for non-urgent in-patient treatment for more than a year has increased by more than one third and the number of first-time out-patients waiting for more than three months has increased by 1 per cent. It is no wonder that when the Secretary of State published his patients charter he had to abandon the pledge made in the House in 1987 by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central.
One of my constituents wrote to me and said:
"I am writing to tell you I had Hodgkins Disease in 1984, and was very sick with the chemotherapy and radium. It came back in 1987 and I was very, very sick again with the chemo again. In October 1991, imagine my horror when the doctor said it was back again, but it was called non-Hodgkins Disease. I told the doctors I could not go through this again. Dr.… said that there was a drug on the market called Kytril anti-sickness pill, made by Smith Kline Beecham. This is the tablet to stop you being sick. So I started my chemotherapy again—a course of twelve treatments. I had to have a tablet every second one but after two I could not have any more because the drug company is charging too much … they can only give to very ill patients. It's not the doctor or the nurses fault. They would like to give it to every patient. It really upsets the doctor and nurses knowing that this tablet is available … Could you please see if you can help us?"
I have been a Member of Parliament for long enough to know that it is not wise to demand a specific answer from the Government. I do not have an answer for cases such as

1157
that put to me by my constituent, who has suffered horribly and who cares enough about other people to write to me with her heartrending tale.
I want the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, the civil servants and hospital managers to concentrate 100 per cent. on relieving such misery and pain instead of running around Wales encouraging national health service managers to waste their time preparing bids to become opt-out hospitals. We know how hard it is to face up to specific cases. I do not demand that the Minister should respond today to this specific case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The hon. Gentleman knows that I shall have investigated by the district health authority concerned any individual case that he cares to put to me. Has he been in touch with that person's doctor about the clinical diagnosis? If the hon. Gentleman will send me the details, I shall look into the case, along with the district general hospital and the district health authority. I ought to point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that since the Conservatives came to power spending on the national health service has increased, in real terms, by 62 per cent., compared with the 9 per cent. increase during the five years in which the hon. Gentleman had ministerial responsibility for health matters.
Mr. Jones: The Under-Secretary is the very man who is going round Wales urging hospitals to opt out. He is putting pressure on hospital administrators, but we want him to tackle the real problems that face the national health service in Wales.
The Government have spent the last 13 years undermining local democracy and eroding the quality of local services in Wales. There is no worse example of the Conservative party's arrogance, unfairness and disdain for public opinion than the poll tax. I remind the Secretary of State that more than £100 million has been wasted on its introduction and that more than 400,000 summonses have been issued in Wales. That is the cost of the Tory poll tax.
The Secretary of State may shuffle and squirm but he must listen and then consider apologising for the poll tax to the people of Wales. He has given quotations; I shall give one to him. At the 1989 Conservative party conference he said:
"The fact is that, whatever Labour claim or do, the community charge is on course for successful introduction throughout England and Wales next year."
That might wow the blue rinses at Blackpool, but it will not help the Conservatives in Wales. What we seek from the right hon. Gentleman is an apology for the poll tax.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No. There is very real pressure on time in this debate. The Secretary of State for Wales spoke for almost an hour.
We demand an apology from the Secretary of State. He owes an apology for the poll tax to the people of Wales.
Ministers wish to evade the Government's record on the economy. Unemployment is now four fifths higher than it was in 1979. The number of employees in manufacturing industries in Wales has fallen by almost a third. There are now, astonishingly, 94,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Wales than there were when the
1158
Conservatives took office. There is no better illustration of the Government's erosion of our manufacturing base than Wales.
Recorded crime has doubled and criminal damage has increased by 185 per cent. Nevertheless, there has been one blazing success, one superb achievement by Welsh Office Ministers: they have managed to increase Welsh Office advertising and publicity spending by 2,253 per cent. I recollect that in a debate in the Chamber in 1990 the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) referred to a remarkable transformation of the unemployment scene. He can say that again. In last year's Welsh affairs debate the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) said—it was a very bold thing to say—that
"things are going to get better and not worse."
In the same debate the Secretary of State said:
"the Welsh economy is extremely healthy".—[Official Report, 28 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1149–207.]
What has happened? Mortgage repossessions have increased by 4,000 in the past year. There are 35,000 people who have been out of work for more than a year —three in 10 of the unemployed. This year already there have been 2,500 job losses and I understand that 1,600 workers are to be laid off at Hotpoint in March. That is not a million miles from the seat of the Minister of State.
The list of job losses is worrying. It is like a "Who's Who" of Welsh business. There have been job losses at Ford in Bridgend and Swansea, Royal Worcester, South Wales Electricity, National Power, Dunlopillo, Howells, British Steel at Shotton and Port Talbot and Ferodo in Caernarfon. There have been 250 job losses at Dennis Ferranti at Bangor, the Brymbo steelworks has been closed and there have been job losses at Lucas in Gwent, British Aerospace in Clwyd, Hoover and Thorn in Merthyr Tydfil and AB Electronics in Pontypridd. As well as the job losses at those great companies there have been many pit closures. The pits that have been closed include Mardy, Blaenant, Deep Navigation, Penallta, Cynheidre, Marine, Merthyr Vale and Oakdale. Those redundancies are building up in areas of Wales where unemployment is at its worst already.
The Secretary of State did not want to deal with those issues. He set up diversions and tried to concentrate on issues a long way from unemployment and the state of the economy. Since the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) became Secretary of State, unemployment has risen by 50 per cent.—a staggering 40,000 increase. That amounts to 2,000 for every month that he has been in the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State has lost highly skilled Marconi jobs in his constituency. Many members of that work force live in my constituency.
Unemployment in the Pembroke area is nearly 90 per cent. higher than when the Conservatives took office. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), has been watched closely by his constituents. Has he really fought his corner? We are far from convinced that he has.
Unemployment in Mid Glamorgan has increased by more than half compared to 1979. In the past year alone, unemployment in Brecon and Radnor has increased by 36 per cent. Unemployment has gone up in the Vale of Glamorgan by a quarter and in Monmouth by nearly a third.
It seems that Cardiff has become the unemployment capital of Wales. More than 20,000 people are

1159
unemployed. In the Cardiff area, unemployment is 50 per cent. higher than when the Conservatives took office. The situation in Cardiff, Central is appalling.
The glib comments by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the complacent comments by the Secretary of State will not get Wales out of recession. Sir Peter Phillips of the Confederation of British Industry in Wales recently said:
"What we now need is a spark to recovery".
We will not get that from the Chancellor or the Secretary of State. In the face of the most severe United Kingdom recession in the past 60 years, the Government are paralysed by their failures. They have no strategy and do not know what to do. The Secretary of State's speech today gave no answers. There was no will to succeed and no policy. Wales has had enough of struggling out of the pit of one recession, only to be knocked back down again by the next. The Secretary of State must take that on board.
As the Government near their end, is not this a lamentable record? After all the propaganda, press releases, oil revenues, privatisation revenues and two savage recessions, what does Wales have? Wales has high and rising unemployment. Every week this year it has experienced blue chip companies making redundancies. This is a Government of failure and indecision. For those reasons, I predict that Welsh Office Ministers and their Back-Bench Members will lose their seats and a Labour Government will be swept into power.
6.16 pm
Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made some glib predictions. Unemployment in my constituency was higher at the time of our triumph in 1987 than it is now. He might like to bear that in mind.
I made my maiden speech in the St. David's day debate in 1974, when three right hon. Members and one hon. Member from the Labour party were present and two Conservative Members were present. That Parliament ushered in a most extraordinary Government. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was eventually, and rightly, taken on as a Minister of State at the Treasury when real monetarism was brought into play. He would be the first to tell us that under the International Monetary Fund we went through the most unpleasant period of economic restraint. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) had to withdraw programmes right and left, whether on housing or health, the number of people treated as out-patients fell and the Government were split over whether we should remain a member of the European Community. The Cabinet was so badly split that we had to have a referendum. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was on one side of the argument and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon on the other.
The Conservative argument won hands down on that occasion, as it did in the St. David's day referendum on devolution. The Labour Government were kept in office by the Liberals and the nationalists because of that argument, and when it failed the Government failed: the two matters were intimately linked. The Labour party should remember that. The current Leader of the Opposition, then the hon. Member for Bedwellty, in
1160
answer to a claim by Mr. Cledwyn Hughes that the arguments on devolution had been well ventilated, said that the idea had been shot as full of holes as a colander. That was one of the better cracks that he made on the issue.
That was a miserable Parliament. Labour left office after the winter of discontent, when there was darkness, unburied bodies and surgical operations refused, all because of trade union abuse of power. One of the great changes that we have introduced is to free people from the domination and bullying perpetrated by the allies and creators of the Labour party.
Unfortunately, we still suffer from some of the attitudes which were born in the 1960s and earlier but are responsible for some of the problems today. I refer to the attitudes, which I espouse, to relaxing the sexual and social traumas of the past, freeing people and leaving them to make their own decisions. Unfortunately, that has often been taken as a form of licence. We have seen the breakdown of family life, the abuse that has resulted from that, and the traumas and difficulties of young people having to deal with step-parents, and so on. That has led, ultimately, to a growth in illegitimacy, which is a problem in my constituency—other hon. Members will be aware of this—with many young girls coming in from the valleys and elsewhere, giving rise to housing problems. The growth in homelessness is based largely on people not being able to keep their tempers. Such breakdowns in family life can be traced back to the change in social attitudes in the late 1950s and 1960s and on into the 1970s. We are paying a heavy penalty for that.
In most respects, Wales has flourished. The physical appearance of the country alone tells us much. The streets, villages and town centres of Labour Members' constituencies have benefited from the urban programme and the enveloping of streets. I have had more enveloping in my constituency than any other in Wales. We have seen the renewal of the physical fabric, with the grassing over of enormous derelict areas by the Welsh Development Agency, which has conducted the largest programme in Europe. We are greening Wales again, making it an attractive place, and the garden festival is the most visible symbol of that. That has been one of the Conservative Government's greatest achievements.
The education achievements of the people of Wales, which we debated in the Welsh Grand Committee, have improved. There has been a remarkable increase in training. Employment, to which the Secretary of State referred in his speech, is now varied rather than our being trapped in two or three major declining old industries. I should have thought that everyone would welcome that.
New roads, which were cut when the Labour Government had to go to the IMF, have been constructed. I bitterly remember the dual carriageway to Merthyr Tydfil coming to an abrupt halt at Taffs Well—another project which foundered on the rocks of the overspending espoused by the Labour party in 1974–75. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If Labour Members contest that, the book of their former Chief Secretary is a good read: the facts are clearly laid out there.
Tremendous improvements have been made in the NHS. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside ignores the fact that fewer out-patients were treated when he was the Minister. Under the Conservative Government, outpatient treatment has risen by a third, in-patient treatment by more than 40 per cent., and day case treatment by

1161
about 150 per cent. There has been expansion in the number of doctors, consultants, nurses and therapists. New hospitals have been constructed throughout Wales. Labour Members should use their eyes if they believe otherwise. We are now able to perform more hip, knee and eye operations.
The Labour party is trying to ride the Western Mail programme for devolution. That is not surprising because it is a media-run campaign. It is one of those subjects which, if raised with ordinary electors, never features. They are concerned about mortgages, jobs, the price of food and education, but devolution never arises. It is only when they are specifically asked and guided that devolution emerges, as it did in the 1970s. I am amazed that Labour Members advance such a policy, especially the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside who as Minister in charge of the policy at the time received a slap in the face from his constituents and from constituents throughout Wales. They knew that it was nonsense and that any form of serious devolution would mean, as the Liberal pamphlet rightly says, the end of the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State. But that might be a small price to pay compared with losing the voice of Wales in the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. The rights of Members of Parliament from Wales would be cut, because we should not be able to vote on issues affecting England and Scotland. We would have to be imperial Members of Parliament, voting on the big issues, but not on those affecting our constituents because they would be left with the Welsh assembly.
English Members of Parliament would not be happy because they would have to vote moneys to be spent by other elected bodies over which they had no say—unless, of course, we were to follow the logical path of having an assembly which raised its own funds, which the Labour party has never dared to suggest because it knows what it would mean and the answer that it would receive from constituents.
That is the underlying weakness of the talks about devolution. The Labour party should come clean by explaining to people the real repercussions of going down that path. I am sure that people do not believe in it any more than I do. The nationalists use devolution merely as a means of getting an independent Wales.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Is my hon. Friend aware of the report in The Daily Telegraph that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said that an assembly could cause income tax to vary by as much as 2p either way in Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Grist: I had not seen that report, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) arrives at an odd conclusion. I am not sure how he arrives at that figure of 2p in the pound. If a Welsh assembly had to raise its own funds, Welsh income tax would rise by much more than 2p. We might get back to 35p in the pound, which we had under the Labour party, and perhaps 98p on savings. I believe that Labour Members want to increase the tax on savings and return to the merry old days of the last Labour Government.
I wish that the Labour party would make clear its attitude to the Cardiff bay proposals. The barrage will put the final touches to the redevelopment of south Cardiff and to the whole city. It will transform Cardiff into one of the greatest cities in Europe. More than any action taken by
1162
the Government, it will cause the spotlight of fame to fall on south Wales. People will be drawn to south Wales to see the changes to the valleys, to see our good communications and to see the waterfront at Swansea and other places where great transformations have taken place. As yet, the Labour party has said nothing about whether it will continue the policy that we have espoused.
6.27 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I want to concentrate on housing, which did not play a prominent part in the Secretary of State's speech. Indeed, he spent most of the time—certainly the first quarter of an hour—discussing a subject that has not burnt in the breasts of the people of Gower since I have been in the House. Indeed, I cannot remember receiving one letter or telephone call about devolution. I should be interested to know how much correspondence other hon. Members have received on the subject. Perhaps I have completely missed what my constituents are concerned about, but so far as I am able to glean it is not devolution.
I wish to consider two documents which constitute a savage indictment of the Government's paralysis and complacency on the housing needs of the Welsh people. The first is a letter to me from Swansea city council, dated 10 February, informing me that the only single persons or childless couples who can be considered for a one or two-bedroom flat are current council house tenants requesting transfers. In other words, the city of Swansea has, in effect, closed its housing list to all except those who would be at risk on medical and social grounds and who could qualify for one offer of housing under the Housing Act 1985. The letter is in reply to a young couple's case of a type with which we are all too familiar.
When Mr. and Mrs. Thomas first planned their wedding, they put their names on the council waiting list. They were prepared for a wait, but when Mr. Thomas was offered a different local job with a tied cottage, he took it. They had a home of their own in which to start their married life, but they remained on the council list. That was five years ago. Mr. Thomas was made redundant and the couple were therefore made homeless. The council could not help and, in desperation, the couple put their furniture in relatives' sheds and spare rooms and moved in with Mr. Thomas's parents.
As Mrs. Thomas wrote to me, it was not that her parents-in-law were not nice, kind and understanding, but they had retired; they thought that they were free of parenthood and they wanted their house to themselves. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas both work but could never hope to buy a house on the Gower peninsula, where they were born and where they lived and worked. They have postponed having a family because they want a home first so as to provide a proper environment for their children's upbringing.
As Mrs. Thomas said, if they had acted irresponsibly and had had the two children they planned, they would be high on the council list. As it is, they have seen families who are considered to be a higher priority take the few houses and flats that have become vacant over the years. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas are typical of thousands of couples in Wales.
The Secretary of State's claims about increased prosperity in Wales are not borne out by any measure one cares to use. The reality for couples such as Mr. and Mrs.

1163
Thomas is entirely different. Gross domestic product per head in Wales is 28 per cent. lower than in the south-east of England. We have the lowest GDP per head of any region in Britain. When the Government came to power, pay levels for men and women workers in Wales were virtually the same as in England, but 13 years later Welsh male manual workers are the lowest paid in Britain and average male earnings overall in Wales have fallen by 8 per cent. compared with earnings in England. Similarly, female Welsh workers have gone from being the second highest paid in Britain to last but one in the pay league. Whichever way pay in Wales is analysed—by industrial sector, occupation or area—pay levels in comparison with England are extremely low and have become much worse during the 13 years of the Government's regime, leaving Wales firmly at the bottom of the British pay league.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas's joint pay is less than £180 per week. In 1990, 60 per cent. of council tenants in south Wales had a gross household income of less than £80 per week and 92 per cent. had less than £150 a week.
Mr. Huw Edwards: As my hon. Friend said, Wales is the low pay region in Great Britain. I am sure that he will wish to condemn the Government's recent proposals to abolish wages councils, which fix minimum wages for one in eight workers in Wales in some of our biggest sectors such as retailing and catering. It is a scandalous proposal which shows that the Government are prepared to try to reduce unemployment by driving low wages even lower.
Mr. Wardell: I am grateful for that very helpful intervention. It reminds me very much of the argument used by the Victorian economist Nassau Senior who said that industrialists should drive down wages in order to increase profits. Fortunately, since then, more erudite and sensible economists have seen the great advantages in an economy of high wages. High wages frequently bring high productivity because people on low wages with a low standard of living are often unable to produce the goods and services necessary to bring us into the early years of the next century.
As unemployment levels have climbed to almost 10 per cent., poverty will grind down more families in Wales. The Government's mismanagement of the economy and their belated attempt to control a credit free-for-all created a price explosion in housing which caused 190,000 home owners to be dispossessed of their homes last year. Swansea city council's efforts to rehouse its share of those desperate families have finally nailed the hopes of couples such as Mr. and Mrs. Thomas for council housing in their home areas.
Despite lower average wage levels, widespread poverty and the number of house repossessions—all of which impress and reinforce the case for an increase in social, public and low-cost housing to rent—the Government refuse to recognise the problems facing thousands of Welsh couples and families. On the contrary, the Government regard their housing policy as a success because the number of people in Wales who own their own homes has increased from 62 per cent. in 1981 to 71 per cent. in 1990.
That is the background against which there has been a massive loss of public housing, which is still running at
1164
over 7,500 per year. Between March 1980 and March 1990, almost 90,000 homes in Wales were sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Funding for Welsh housing associations will allow only 3,500 new homes to be built this year. That represents an estimated annual shortfall of about 4,000 homes and does not take into account the 3,151 couples and families facing repossession orders in the Wales and Chester area courts.
I said that there was a second document that I wished to mention. It involves the advice that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I am pleased to chair, received on 21 January this year about the Government's response to our report on housing in Wales. I wish to register my great disappointment with the Government's response, and I shall give three examples to illustrate some of the reasons for that disappointment.
As the Secretary of State said, I am sure that the Minister of State is taking copious notes and examining the document that he and his Department produced. Recommendation 10 refers to a review which we recommended that the Welsh Office carry out of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to enable local authorities to establish trusts similar to the Winchester housing trust in England, which the Committee visited during its deliberations.
The Welsh Office response made the adviser and me wonder whether the Minister had read our report at all. We wondered, too, whether even the officials had read the report—certainly the Welsh Office response to that recommendation leaves a great deal to be desired. I hope that the Minister will read the relevant section of the report again and accept that what is good enough for Winchester is good enough for Wales.
It is not acceptable that, although the Government are prepared for English local authorities to take advantage of certain schemes, the Welsh Office is unhappy about Wales having the same facilities.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Does the hon. Gentleman—I almost called him my hon. Friend, which he certainly was in the Select Committee—agree thatmes what he has said about the Government's response to the Select Committee report simply emphasises the urgent need for Select Committee reports to be fully debated, and for the Government to be brought at least to the Welsh Grand Committee, if not to the Floor of the House—or, indeed, the floor of an assembly—to answer fully for their responses to Select Committee reports?
Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who has been a good ally in the work that we have done together in the Select Committee. I know that he will share my feelings, and those of other members of the Committee, about the great debates that we have had. On very few occasions did we manage to introduce such debates on the Floor of the House. In fact, I can think of only one such occasion—the debate on the Towyn floods. That debate had the great advantage of allowing us to show the people of Wales that we are extremely concerned when such events take place, but it illustrates what the hon. Member for Delyn said—that it takes an event such as the Towyn flood, and a Select Committee report on it, to bring about such a debate. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope that the Government will move in the direction that he suggests.

1165
In response to recommendation 9, the Welsh Office provides no justification for the fact that existing housing associations cannot do what trusts can do. I hope that the Government will reconsider that, and the evidence that we provided, which clearly shows that the Winchester housing trust can do things that Tai Cymru and the housing associations cannot do. I hope that the Minister replying to the debate will deal with that matter.
Recommendations 11 and 12 of the Select Committee report reflect the Committee's great anxiety about the continuing lax planning in Wales, but the Government's response shows that they do not share that anxiety. The Committee was so dissatisfied with the lack of Welsh Office monitoring of planning that we decided to send out to the chief planning officer of every district council in Wales a detailed questionnaire so as to establish a district-bydistrict index of lax planning.
The Welsh Select Committee has to do what the Welsh Office refuses to do. Unless it is done, there will be a continuation—even, perhaps, an increase—of what the Committee described in recommendation 12 of its report. We said that as
"councillors"—
we meant district councillors in particular—
"have suggested that developments should be permitted anywhere, it is extremely likely that there will be residual hope value near village settlements in many parts of Wales and land will not be offered at a very low price for local people."
It is a fundamental truth that the Welsh Office must begin to monitor closely what district councils throughout Wales are doing—they often flout their local plans, and the Welsh Office refuses to become involved. Indeed, I feel that the argument about a Welsh assembly misses the point about unitary authorities. The question is this: when authorities are merged, who will monitor the difference between local authorities with no local plans and those subject to county structure plans?
Recommendation 18 suggested that the Welsh Office establish and fund a Welsh rural housing trust, but the Welsh Office disagreed. The Secretary of State for the Environment is a Welshman. Indeed, he contested Gower in 1959, when his opponent was my predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman did not do too well then, but he has gone on to higher things since—or so I am told. The Secretary of State for the Environment wants England to continue with its own rural trusts. He does not want England to be subject to circular 30/86, which gives rich people almost a right to come into Wales and obtain planning permission to build houses in the open countryside. Such a right does not exist in England—only the Welsh have to put up with it.
That is another example of the fact that although the Secretary of State for the Environment, who says what can happen in England, allows rural housing trusts, which are making great, and successful, attempts to build affordable housing for young people, the Secretary of State for Wales is not prepared to give the Welsh the same facilities as the people of England. That is not fair. The Government obviously do not consider that what is good enough for England is good enough for Wales to have on the same basis.
Rural housing trusts are the sort of schemes for which small rural Welsh communities are desperate, but the Secretary of State has turned a deaf ear. Perhaps Tai Cymru has succeeded in bending his ear, and as a result has succeeded in preventing the initiative from coming
1166
through. To turn a deaf ear is the Secretary of State's privilege and the people of Wales's loss. But the time has now almost come—it will come next week, or the week after—when the people of Wales will turn a deaf ear to the Minister's claims that the Government have met Welsh housing needs. That will be the Minister's loss. He and his party will be voted out on their ear on 9 April.
6.48 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who has been the Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee throughout this Parliament. He has carried out his duties to the unqualified admiration of all Members of the Committee, and has shown an extraordinary assiduity in research and in marshalling facts. However, on this occasion I thought that some of the facts that he marshalled were excessively assiduous and a bit selective.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman how important it is that the hard work done by the Select Committee should be taken seriously by the Welsh Office, and that it should not be fobbed off with what could be described as pretty glib responses. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have struck home.
I am only too conscious that 12 months ago I said that I was making my last speech in a Welsh debate in this place. This time it really is the last time, and I promise not to do a Mr. Chips act. I shall look back over 13 years of Tory government in Wales and try to draw up a balance sheet from a standpoint slightly more detached than other hon. Members may be able to afford on the eve of a general election.
I will certainly not step so far out of character as to claim that everything that we have done has been good; nor will I claim that everything that the previous Labour Government did achieved nothing at all—or that the policies which Labour now advances are entirely misguided. I have never believed that my lot were 100 per cent. right and the other lot 100 per cent. wrong. Still less do I doubt the sincerity and good intentions of the Labour party, although I must remind the House that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
What is more, I am ready to concede that the achievements of the past 13 years—the huge rise in personal living standards, the dramatic increase in home ownership, the modernisation of the Welsh economy—have been bought at a price. It has been a cruelly high price for thousands who have lost their jobs or who are now on short time, and for many hundreds of businesses and firms built up by a lifetime of hard work and thrift, which have been swept away, first by the harsh processes of industrial reconversion and then in the recession.
Society—for the avoidance of doubt, there is such a thing—carries an inescapable responsibility to the victims of change. I am hugely relieved that the Government, whom I am proud now to support, have not hesitated to acknowledge that responsibility. What is more, I have a horrible feeling that, although we may reasonably expect a revival of small businesses, the numbers of unemployed will not fall even when we move out of the recession.
In the past, experts always told us that technological change did not product lasting unemployment: new jobs

1167
came along to replace the old ones. I am not sure that that is now true. Until now, we have been thinking in terms of white-collar jobs replacing manual jobs, but it is precisely in the office that the information technology revolution will bring the largest job losses. These changes have portentous consequences for the future of our society. I do not believe that any Government in any country or any political party in this country has any kind of an answer, nor do I believe that academic thinkers are much help in trying to find one.
Having planted those seeds of doubt—they are indeed dragons' teeth—let me now continue my retrospective. What would have happened if Labour had been in power these past 13 years? I do not go as far as to say that all the coal mines and all the steel works operating in 1979 would be operating today. Labour closed a large number of coal mines during its period of office, but it is certain that a Labour Government would have put off and put off the decisions, as they did with the closure of steelmaking at Shotton. It was left to their Conservative successors in 1979 to take those tough and unpopular closure decisions.
When I arrived in north Wales in 1970, the whole area was frighteningly dependent on steel and coal. The Labour Government had consistently refused to face up to the problems that arose from overcapacity in steel and from the wrong siting of some Welsh steel works. They refused to face the consequences of the growing exhaustion of accessible coal seams in Wales, and, more damagingly still, they tamely acquiesced in the refusal of the Scargill-led National Union of Mineworkers to contemplate working methods which might have given a reprieve to some coal mines and which would, still more, have enabled other more profitable pits to be opened up.
In this as in other industries, Labour's record in opposition has been one of fighting to the death to preserve the sunset industries and the jobs that go with them. That is not necessarily an ignoble strategy, but it is one that would have hindered the emergence of the far healthier mixed industrial economy which can be seen today in Deeside, Wrexham, all around Cardiff, Newport and Swansea.
Whatever the solution to structural unemployment may be, one thing is quite certain: only a wealth-creating economy can possibly provide the necessary conditions for that solution, and that wealth-creating economy cannot be sustained by obsolescent industry. Any hon. Member who doubts that should go to eastern Europe and look.
Then there is the other huge consideration of Labour policy towards the European Community. I am delighted that the Labour party has now recognised this new elephant sitting on its doorstep, to use the picturesque phrase of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), but there is no getting away from the fact that, if Labour had won the election of 1983 under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or that of 1987 under the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), Britain would now be outside the European Community—and once out we could not have got in again except on our knees.
What then would have happened to all the inward investment which not only provides so many tens of thousands of jobs but which has done so much to raise standards of management in Wales? The old xenophobic
1168
prejudices still lurk below the surface of the Labour party—I can almost sense the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his seat. Perhaps a future Labour Government would no longer threaten to take Britain out of the European Community, but potential inward investors would not feel the same comfortable certainty that investment in Wales guaranteed open access to the whole single market of the European Community.
It is all very well for Liberal Democrats to promise just about everything to everybody—or rather, everything that the opinion polls show people want—because they will never have to deliver, but it is disturbing to see how far the Labour party is going in the direction of finger-in-the-wind politics.
To take a trivial but revealing instance, opinion polls show that the abolition of fox hunting would be a vote winner. Personally, I think that hunting and killing animals for pleasure is a nasty business and that some so-called sports, such as hare coursing, constitute real unjustifiable cruelty and should be outlawed forthwith. I cannot be persuaded, however, that hunting foxes with hounds is a crueller way of killing an extremely cruel predator than shooting, which as often as not leaves a wounded animal to crawl away to a slow and painful death.
But that is not the point. The point is that the Labour party, which as a party has never shown that animal welfare is right at the top of its priorities, has suddenly scented a possible electoral quarry. By preventing a minority from enjoying something that they very much enjoy doing, the Labour party hopes to win votes from the majority, guided thereto by obliging opinion polls. I find that pretty squalid.
Then there is education. It was a Labour Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, who gave us comprehensive education, and a mixed blessing it has turned out to be. Of course there are some excellent comprehensive schools—I have some outstanding ones in my constituency—but variety of educational provision is worth preserving. It is not to be lightly cast aside—all the less so when there is so little of it left.
Labour's pledge to abolish the remaining direct grant schools and to bleed the independent schools to death by abolishing the assisted places scheme may satisfy the envious instincts of an electoral majority, but the money saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme will have no discernible effect on total provision for maintained schools. It will do nothing to improve standards of education, which benefit immensely from what little choice and competition has been left by the rush to mass comprehensivisation.
What would a Labour Government have meant—what would a Labour Government mean—for the health service? It would have meant quite simply a refusal to accept the changes—necessary, even if they were at first unpopular—that would enable the national health service to survive the pressure of ever-mounting demands created by its own success. I am glad to say that the Labour party has picked a loser, and that serves Labour right. The Government have stuck to their guns over hospital trusts and budget-holding practices. There is increasing evidence that the changes are working well and are popular.
Finally, we must consider devolution, which we may or may not be debating in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, depending on whether the Labour party has the stomach for it. As those hon. Members who are members

1169
of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats are aware, my views on devolution are not far removed from theirs. I am quite happy with the idea of an independent Wales as a full member of the European Community on fully federal lines with strict regard for the principles of subsidiarity—but eventually. I do not believe that the time for such a radical change has come, and it probably will not come this decade.
I am reminded of the former French Prime Minister, Mr. Rocard, who went to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she was Prime Minister. When he emerged, he said that he was glad to say that his views and hers on European integration were virtually identical. He had asked her when she thought that there would be a united states of Europe, and she had said, not in 1,000 years. Mr. Rocard said that there would be one within five years. He then said, "As you can see, the difference is merely one of timing."
Whatever the opinion polls may say, I remain totally unconvinced that public opinion in Wales is really ready yet to pay the price of devolution. That price involves inevitably higher taxes of one sort or another, not just to run the assembly. If there is to be an assembly, it must have revenue-raising powers. There is a price also in terms of disincentives to inward investors, who may fear that devolution might impose new burdens and fresh complications on them. Above all, there is a price in terms of the loss, or at the very best the downgrading, of the Secretary of State for Wales, who, in this Conservative Government, has been such an outstanding success in getting for Wales far more than its due share of inward investment and central Government funds—for example, by way of revenue support grant.
Until I am satisfied that the people of Wales regard an elected assembly as something more than a status symbol, I shall support the cautious approach of the Secretary of State and his advisory council. In this, as in so many other matters, I have great faith in the judgment of my right hon. Friend. He has shown a quite extraordinary sensitivity to Welsh feelings and aspirations, and a startling ability to fight his corner for Wales in the Cabinet. I can hardly suppose that he will remain in his job after the election: he is clearly destined for higher things. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Scotland?"] That might be a good idea. My right hon. Friend will be a very hard act to follow, perhaps even harder than his predecessor. I believe that, in their secret hearts, all hon. Members, in all parties, wish him well.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the House that we are now in the period in which the Standing Order applies.
7.2 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). He has not lost his diplomat's statistical panache, as was clear when he referred to the French, and we will miss him greatly when he leaves this place. I do not entirely agree with what he said about some of the things that the Welsh Office has been up to, but there are two sides to the House and we hold different views about such things.
1170
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement about the Welsh language Bill. That Bill is long overdue, and I wonder why the Minister of State did not contrive to introduce such a Bill earlier in this Parliament. However, I hope that it will become an Act soon. At least all four parties in Wales now have a commitment to a Welsh language Act in their manifestos for the general election, and that is how it should be.
The tone of the Secretary of State's speech was one of impartial self-congratulation. When we analyse cruelly what has happened in Wales over the past 12 months or so, we should consider the matter more analytically than was the case in the public relations exercise conducted by the Secretary of State.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), was right to highlight the problem of housing in Wales. In a reply to a parliamentary question that I asked within the past 10 days, it has emerged that about 3,500 council houses were completed in Wales in 1979. It also emerged that only 380 council houses were completed in 1991. It is all very well for Ministers to claim that 3,500 houses are being completed through Tai Cymru—Housing for Wales but many of those houses are unaffordable. Council houses are at least affordable in terms of average Welsh earnings, which, as we have already heard, are the lowest in the mainland United Kingdom. However, the rents of many housing association houses are unaffordable. Such rents are often between £45 and £50 a week, and they can comprise 40 per cent. of the incomes of people working in relatively low-paid jobs in Wales.
I am sad to say that some housing association houses in my constituency are unoccupied because local people cannot afford the rents. That shows that housing association grants are not generous enough. I hope that the Minister will accept that those housing association houses need more generous housing association grants so that the people of Wales can afford to live in them.
Within the past week, I asked a parliamentary question about homelessness in Wales. I was told that 14,402 people were classified as homeless in Wales in 1987. However, by 1991, there were 23,694. That is an increase of 9,000 within the past four years. That is unacceptable. Indeed, an additional 3,000 people came on to the homeless list in 1991.
I feel particularly strongly about unemployment. It seems to have returned to the state that it was in the 1930s, when my father was unemployed for four years. He was born and brought up in Brecon, but left to travel the seas of the world as a master mariner. The only job he could find in the 1930s was as captain of a dredger in the Gulf. Within six months of obtaining that job, he was dead. My mother lost my father when I was three. She had to return to work, and we had a very tough time.
The barren policies of the 1930s have returned. People cannot find work. There are 128,000 people out of work in Wales today—an increase of 27,000 since the start of 1991. That is not a record of which to be proud. One third of the unemployed are aged between 18 and 25. That is astounding. What future do the young people of Wales have when 43,000 of them are out of work? We must all be concerned about that, no matter which political party we represent in the House.
The situation in the countryside is not good. Farm incomes, in real terms, are at their lowest levels since the second world war. There has been a minor rally in the past

1171
12 months—an increase of 15 per cent.—but in the previous year we saw drops of 21 per cent. in dairy farming incomes and 25 per cent. in hill farming incomes. Many farms are going bankrupt. We cannot accept that.
In the United Kingdom, 1,000 agricultural jobs are being shed every month. Fifty farmers a week leave the land. That has been happening since 1980. We know from research carried out at the university in Aberystwyth that 15,000 people in Wales are expected to leave the land in the next five years. That is not satisfactory. I wonder whether the Government have an adequate agricultural policy to tackle those problems. Also, 4,112 businesses in Wales have gone into receivership in the past 12 months and 2,000 people have become bankrupt. That is a 92 per cent. increase over the previous year. Mortgage repossessions have already been mentioned.
There is tremendous pressure for an announcement before the election on the reorganisation of local government in Wales. I counsel the Government to take a longer and harder look at that matter, whatever the colour of the Government after the general election. Such a decision cannot be taken rapidly. I cannot understand why there is no independent commission to make recommendations to the Government of the day, based on an objective assessment of the needs of local government in Wales. If we are to have unitary authorities, they should be allied to a Welsh assembly. To have unitary authorities without a Welsh assembly does not add up to a logical policy.
The danger is that we could have many small unitary authorities being exploited by the Government of the day because they will not be strong, whereas, if there were a Welsh assembly, we could have a proper structure and a proper strategic body which could democratically allocate and sort out priorities. In local government, we need democracy and we need accountability from democracy. The cost implications also must be taken into account.
We in Wales live in a wonderful country. The people are friendly—probably the most friendly people in the United Kingdom. They have wit, humour, imagination and inventiveness in the workplace.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office on setting up in Brussels an office for Wales in the past week. That was long overdue, but it shows the way that Wales is going in its relationships with the European Community. Wales will become more important in those relationships. We need to look with imagination to the future for Wales. I believe that it is optimistic if the people are given the reins of more power to exercise their undoubted abilities.
7.13 pm
Mr. John P. Smith: I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of all Welsh Members a problem that has arisen recently and affects us all. It relates to one of the long-standing Welsh economic success stories—the banana trade between Wales and the eastern Caribbean islands, the Windward islands. I have spoken on the subject on a number of occasions. Until recently, we thought that we had achieved considerable success in persuading the Government that certain steps should be taken to secure preferential access for Afro-Caribbean and Pacific bananas into not only the
1172
United Kingdom market but the European market. Until 20 December 1991, we thought that we were well on course in achieving that.
The Government produced a paper in March 1990, setting down proposals for dealing with our former colonial suppliers under the single European market. That working paper was unacceptable and the Government withdrew it. I believe that Ministers agreed that a new formula had to be found to guarantee the supply of bananas from the Windward islands in particular and from Afro-Caribbean and Pacific countries into Europe. They were moving toward a formula that would guarantee a quota on fruit coming into the European Community, a tariff on the price from major competitors in central and south America, and the ability of suppliers to get licences also to deal in fruit from central and south America.
In December, the Secretary-General of the general agreement on tariffs and trade organisation, Mr. Dunkel, produced a paper which he thought would offer a resolution to the Uruguay round of the GATT talks which would satisfy everybody. To my horror and to the horror of many hon. Members, he suggested that the banana should be included for the first time—it was never mentioned before—in the GATT round of talks, which completely cut across the steps that we had taken, in the right direction, in protecting those markets.
What are the consequences of our failing to find a solution that protects the traditional market for Wales? The port of Barry in my constituency is the home of Geest Banana Co. That prestigious and successful company imports 55 per cent. or therabouts of all the bananas that come into the United Kingdom. We are major banana consumers. In fact, we consume almost 500,000 tonnes of bananas a year. On average, every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom eats a banana once a week. One can do some quite marvellous things with bananas.
Only last night, I had the pleasure of going to a small but excellent restaurant in Waterloo, called South of the Border, and ate a Bali banana, which was a banana baked in pastry and served as an entree—absolutely wonderful. It is a beautiful fruit; it is part of our staple diet.
If we do not find a solution to the problem, Geest may no longer be able to operate from the port of Barry and may no longer remain the biggest importer of that fruit from the Windward islands. For Wales it will mean the loss of a substantial number of jobs—approximately 300 direct and indirect jobs. It will also mean the loss of a very successful company, the Barry Stevedores Co., which was set up two years ago. It is one of the most successful co-operatives and it depends on that trade. It will also mean a loss of prestige. When the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was Lord President of the Council, he fondly recalled seeing the great banana boats going in and out of Barry bay. We may never see them again. That would be tragic not just for me, because it is my constituency, but for all hon. Members, because of that great Welsh tradition.
That trade has provided an historic link with the Windward islands. They are almost entirely dependent on the banana trade not only for their economic survival but for their social survival. If they lose access to the United Kingdom markets, it is almost certain that political chaos will reign in those countries, as they depend on the income from banana exports, which ranges from about 35 per cent. of the income of the smaller eastern Caribbean islands to 55 per cent. That could be lost overnight.

1173
I discovered another disturbing feature when I recently had the opportunity to visit the islands and speak to the political leaders about their anxiety at the failure to reach an agreement for 1 January 1993, when the single European market comes into force. It took me by surprise. Until now, we have believed, and in speeches made in the House it has been pointed out, that if the Windward islands and other eastern Caribbean islands could not produce a legitimate cash crop of bananas, there is a danger that they might turn to producing illegal crops. On a weekly basis they have paid for 50,000 producers who own small plots of land. The danger is that they might start to grow ganja and export it to Europe and north America to substitute for a legitimate income.
The position is worse than that. The greatest fear is not that ganja will be grown and exported from the islands. The greater fear is that cocaine will be taken from Venezuela and Colombia to the islands, which will be used as trans-shipment areas for the European and north American drug markets. Dame Eugenia Charles told me, "The Europeans face a choice. They either continue to buy our bananas or their children may well buy cocaine that comes through these islands." We need to bear that in mind when considering the implications of our trade arrangements.
We also have a moral obligation to the Windward islands. I was delighted to extend civic and cultural links between Wales and the eastern Caribbean when I visited the islands. We should remember that the islands were former colonies of Britain. We encouraged them to produce bananas from the 1950s onwards. To that extent, we made them dependent on that fruit and, for many years, we benefited.
It is possible to buy bananas much more cheaply from the big multinationals such as Chiquita. Such bananas are grown on massive plantations on the large plains of central and south America. Cheap and sometimes slave labour is used to produce those bananas. The multinationals dominate the world market. So those of us who believe that, where appropriate, competition is a good thing see that if the multinationals are allowed to dominate the European market, which is the second largest in the world, there will be no competition whatever. The fruit from the West Indies is a different type of fruit. Its quality is superior to the bland and starchy, large, uniform in size and always unnatural in colour dollar banana, as it is called.
I wish to draw to the notice of the House the reason why I am so worried. All the other countries in the European Community—they have various arrangements and we must find a standard and universal formula—have agreed to object to including bananas in the Dunkel text in the GATT round. France, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have objected. The only country that has not done so is the United Kingdom. I ask the Secretary of State to consider speaking to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to plead with them to insist that the banana is taken out of GATT.
7.23 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I agree with what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) said. In Cardiff we all know the importance of Geest. One of my good supporters is a master mariner, Captain Clive
1174
Jenkins. We have been in correspondence recently. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that an appropriate solution will be found to maintain the important banana trade through the port of Barry.
I was delighted to have the opportunity to listen to what may have been the last speech in Parliament of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). I have always listened with interest to his speeches. They are a touch cynical, well considered and most compassionate. I often fancy that it is a pity that his talents were not better recognised and that at least some of his years were not spent on the Treasury Bench rather than the Back Bench. Had he been one of our Welsh Office Ministers during the past 13 years, our progress in Wales would have been more interesting and, I am sure, enriched.
I started my day this morning by listening to the radio. I was saddened to hear that our local councils in Wales have the worst record on community charge increases this year. From a study by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, I understand that councils are increasing the community charge by 11 per cent. in England, by more in Scotland, and by an average of 24 per cent. in Wales.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman be precise? The study did not say that the Welsh result was the worst. It said that it was the highest, and it blamed the Government for that.
Mr. Jones: I leave the hon. Gentleman to develop his own argument, if he can, on that one.
Welsh local councils have produced the worst increases in the community charge. Perhaps we have been fooling ourselves by saying that, with only one or two exceptions, we have more moderate councils in Wales and that the most extreme left-wing councils are in England. An increase in community charges twice as bad as that in England suggests that that is wrong.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State certainly must maintain his capping powers to deal with local councils in Wales, for that is the last defence of the people of Wales against an extreme council. I know that it will not come to pass, but I am appalled at the prospect that if a Labour Government were elected, they would scrap the capping powers. My constituents in Cardiff, North would probably see the community charge double within weeks. South Glamorgan council, which is acknowledged as the most left-wing in Wales, has already published its intention to spend an extra £25 million over and above that which has already been agreed under the standard spending assessment.
Since we had our last St. David's day debate, VAT has been increased by 2·5 per cent. That has mitigated the community charge, especially in Wales. It is my personal preference that a greater contribution should be made by VAT. That is fairer as it is linked with ability to pay far more than mere possession of a house is.
I understand those who point out that the Government provide 93 per cent. of the spending by local councils in Wales. I understand when people in Wales say that it might be time to scrap the last 7 per cent. so that all spending by local councils is financed by the Treasury. That would be regrettable, but if it came to pass the councils would have only themselves to blame.

1175
Happily, the reform of the financing of local councils has been resolved. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said, there are now great expectations in Wales for the reform of the structure of local councils. There is little love for large, remote councils. I was most interested to receive from the Welsh Counties Committee this week a document costing the administration of councils. It said that when authorities in Wales reach a size of 50,000 in population terms there is little difference in the cost of administering those councils.
In the same document, anxiety is expressed that if we had smaller councils some of them might have to rely to an extent on joint services. I have it on the authority of the chief executive of Cardiff city council, who has put this into perspective, that an average council in Wales employing a staff of 1,300 would need to have only 20 staff contracted or engaged in joint functions. Of course, that does not apply to Cardiff, the capital city of Wales. I shall not pursue my wish to see the capital city expand. That is a consideration for the future. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to consider all the representations that he has received about local councils in Wales, but I look forward to the earliest pronouncement from him. I want to see Cardiff made into a real capital again. I want it once more to be an independent capital city of Wales without an artificial tier of local government above it. To me, that is real devolution in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was too diplomatic. I shall pursue his argument as to why the Labour party is scared to face devolution. Why can we not have a Welsh Grand Committee in the capital city of Wales? That would be the right place to hold such an important debate, and I claim credit for suggesting that at the last sitting of the Committee. Indeed, I have gone further than that and approached the Lord Mayor of Cardiff. The city hall is available, and it would be a perfect place to stage the debate.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On what date?
Mr. Jones: On more than one day, but if that does not suit the Labour party I have an alternative. I spoke to the managing director of HTV and suggested a television debate so that the people of Wales could watch it, and he readily agreed to host such a debate. That is another opportunity, if only Labour were not scared of facing it. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the Leader of the Opposition should answer the debate. Clearly, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is ducking and dodging the issue.
I suggest that my right hon. Friend should go a stage further. I know that the matter was touched on in business questions today, but let us put a motion on the Order Paper to enable a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Let my right hon. Friend take the initiative. Let us call Labour's bluff. If the Labour party stopped the motion going through, the matter would be resolved. The people of Wales would realise that the Labour party is stopping us having that debate.
The city of Cardiff is very much a city of enterprise. That is how it was built. It was once the second busiest port in the world, and the busiest coal port. Sadly, that was in its heyday and is no longer the case. However, we have exciting plans to redevelop the south of Cardiff.
Mr. John P. Smith rose——
Mr. Jones: I cannot give way as I am under a time constraint.
The Cardiff bay barrage would totally transform our city. It would be a major environmental improvement and also an important flood defence. It would recoup the investment involved and generate up to 30,000 new jobs. It is a wonderful example of team work. Under the leadership of the Welsh Office, all political parties in Cardiff are happy for the scheme to progress. I understand that the Labour party has produced a new statement of its policies for Wales—it may have been entitled "Opportunity Wales"—but that this contained no mention of Cardiff bay and the redevelopment. How could that have been left out? It is too great an opportunity to be omitted by any responsible political party. I fear that there is only one reason: Labour is moving towards total opposition to the redevelopment of south Cardiff. If so, at the very least Opposition Members should be honest and say so. They will pay dearly in Cardiff if they do not continue to be positive supporters of those most exciting plans, which will benefit not only Cardiff but a wider area of south Wales. That is the positive way forward for our capital city and for the rest of Wales.
I am disappointed. All that I have heard from the Opposition today has been doom and gloom. The shadow Secretary of State made one pronouncement—that he would imitate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing a Welsh language Bill. What agenda was he offering the people of Wales when he knows that there will be an election within a few short weeks? He can offer no alternative—or rather, I know the alternative: high tax, high interest rates, and high inflation. That is what the people of Wales would pay if we took that alternative. It would mean 19 per cent. more taxation on those who create jobs in Wales. As if that were not enough, it would also mean £20 more taxation a week on the average family and 9 per cent. more on savings. Up would go mortgages and inflation.
The alternative being offered to the people of Wales by the Opposition is like the Bourbons of France: they learn nothing and they forget nothing. I conclude by paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: it is the unelectable offering us the unendurable.
7.33 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: My area is suffering from the Government-created recession in the same way that many other hon. Members have outlined—with factory closures, homelessness, decaying schools and public transport cuts.
As a large part of my area is rural, many of the effects of the slump are hidden. Rural areas depend largely on farming for their culture and viability and it needs to be at least marginally profitable. As we have heard from other hon. Members, there is a crisis in farming. Farm incomes are at their lowest level in real terms since the second world war. Every month, 1,000 jobs in agriculture are being shed. More than 50 farmers a week have been leaving the land since 1980.
On top of the severe cuts in agricultural support, British farmers have had to cope with high United Kingdom interest rates, damaging food scares and UK regulations which are especially stringent and which have put British

1177
farmers at a disadvantage compared with their continental neighbours. The level of farm debt is £7·4 billion, which is twice the level of 1981.
Uncertainty about the future is undermining many farmers, and in the present policy climate it is virtually impossible to plan ahead. We must acknowledge that farming needs at least five years of stability to plan for the future.
Investment is falling, and young people are leaving the industry. Although the number of people directly employed in agriculture has been falling, farming provides the backbone of the rural economy in my area. In addition to farmers, farm workers and their families, people are also employed in related service and supply trades, and all of them depend on a healthy farming industry for their livelihood. If farming is allowed to deteriorate any further in rural areas, the effects will be felt far beyond the farm gate.
As time is short, I must turn to another important subject, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some news tonight. Although rural areas have problems, it is still a joy to represent a beautiful part of the beautiful country of Wales, and to represent Llangollen, which is a beautiful town and has the distinction of being the base for the international Eisteddfod. I have the dubious distinction of being as old as the Eisteddfod, since it started in 1947.
Thanks to Clwyd county council being successful in obtaining project of regional and national importance—PRNI—approval for a permanent pavilion on that site, we have a unique opportunity to produce something which will benefit Wales and the world. The Eisteddfod is a wonderful institution which has had effects throughout the world for the past 45 years.
Mr. David Hunt indicated assent.
Mr. Jones: It should be encouraged, and I know that the Secretary of State agrees, as I see him nodding.
I am sure that he is aware that, in addition to the PRNI approval for £2·1 million to build the pavilion, the Friends of Llangollen have raised about £500,000, which is a tremendous feat at a time when many people are suffering from compassion fatigue from all kinds of worthy projects. In addition to the £500,000, there has been support from Glyndwr and the Wales tourist board. The total project cost has been taken to £3·1 million.
The project has also benefited from a grant from the European Community to the value of £1 million towards the cost. Until now, that was the maximum that could be spent on the development. However I have been told that, since 1 January, there are new rules. I hope that that means that we can obtain European development funding for the money that the Friends of Llangollen have raised. There is a slight problem and I hope that the Minister will he able to help.
Mr. David Hunt: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Clwyd county council has not formally approached my Department, but our respective officials have discussed the matter and perceive no difficulties at all.
Mr. Jones: I am delighted, and I thank the Secretary of State for that response.
Mr. Win Griffiths: There is soon to be an election.
Mr. Jones: I shall not endorse the churlish comments that my hon. Friend is making, no matter what I think.
I am delighted to hear that assurance from the Secretary of State and thank him whole-heartedly, but it has destroyed the rest of my speech. However, I shall carry on regardless, because it is worth explaining how such private funding can attract money from Europe. In itself, that is a good thing. I take it that the Secretary of State will agree to the possibility of transferring some capital allowance to cover the 12 months before we receive the money from Europe.
Clwyd county council is supporting another project delayed under the PRNI rules. At St. Asaph business park, there has been financial slippage and, although the county council has not applied, I understand that the Secretary of State would consider that application favourably. That would be wonderful as it would allow the pavilion to be brought up to standard while the contractors are on site. It is a genuine project of regional, national, and probably international importance. It will serve the people of Wales and the world for a long time to come.
I look forward to July, when I hope to visit the site as, I fondly hope, the Member of Parliament for that constituency. I want to see the project come to fruition, with all the necessary seating, toilet facilities and groundworks, which have not been done until now. It will be a fitting setting for the Llangollen Eisteddfod and for the music and the international camaraderie that that engenders. The people of the world will see that Wales can put such a project together. It will be a setting for the Eisteddfod for the next 45 years and I hope to be able to go there on my birthday in 45 years' time. In fact, I may even make the centenary.
I thank the Secretary of State once again for destroying my speech and giving Clwyd county council the ability to complete a worthwhile project.
7.43 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: Given what the Secretary of State offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), if he is prepared to grant assisted area status to Monmouth immediately, I shall not continue my speech.
Mr. David Hunt indicated dissent.
Mr. Edwards: Clearly, the Secretary of State will not do that. Therefore, I shall continue with my speech.
It is a privilege to contribute to the debate on Wales, which traditionally takes place on or near St. David's day. I have attended and have read the Hansard reports of those debates for a number of years, and it is a privilege to take part this year.
I represent a constituency that, historically, was not alway a part of Wales and it is one of the most anglicised areas of Wales. I noted what the Secretary of State said about the introduction of a Welsh language Bill and I welcome that. I am sure that he will also welcome the proposal to introduce a Welsh medium school in Abergavenny, which I hope will be implemented in the next year or so. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that, in my constituency, there is some anxiety about Welsh appearing in the national curriculum. I wish to convey those anxieties.

1179
I hope that it is possible to attract, naturally, Welsh-speaking teachers to Gwent to involve them in the implementation of the language programme there.
Issues relating to the economy, the environment and public services are causing great concern in my constituency. I cannot deny that, traditionally, Monmouth has been one of the more affluent areas of Wales, but, in common with many other areas, it has been hit by the recession. I have had meetings with the Abergavenny chamber of trade and the Monmouth chamber of commerce and I have heard business people express their anxieties about the recession. It is a tremendous disappointment to come across people who thought they were enjoying an economic miracle two or three years ago who now face bankruptcy or have already gone bankrupt. Such bankruptcies also cause family problems and homelessness often goes with it.
The matter of assisted area status for Monmouth has caused some controversy and I have been disappointed by some recent developments. A delegation, of which I was a member, was to meet the Secretary of State to put the strong case for assisted area status. However, Monmouth borough council received a letter from the private secretary to the Secretary of State to the effect that, as Monmouth was not going to get assisted area status, there was absolutely no point in the Secretary of State meeting that delegation. Subsequently, another announcement was made to the effect that the Secretary of State was prepared to meet a delegation that was to include the Conservative candidate for Monmouth. If this meeting produces assisted area status for Monmouth before the next election, I would be the first to congratulate the Secretary of State, but I doubt whether that will happen. The delegation, which is supposed to meet the Secretary of State 'on Monday, is disintegrating before it is even assembled. Gwent county council and Monmouth chamber of commerce have decided not to participate and I doubt whether Monmouth town council will participate. They realise that it is nothing but a political stunt. They are totally unimpressed because they can see it for what it is.
My constituents are also anxious about threats to the local environment. My constituency covers 300 sq miles encompassing part of the south Wales coalfield right down to the Severn bridge. It is one of the most beautiful areas of Wales. There is also beauty in the bleakness—for example, up near Blaenavon and Pwll Du—but opencast developments pose a serious environmental threat to those areas. I have visited other opencast developments in south Wales at Nant Helen near Glynneath and I do not want such devastation to be visited upon Abergavenny. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the considerable objection to the Pwll Du development and listen to the people of Clydach and Llanelly Hill who are totally opposed to it.
At the other end of my constituency is the Wye valley, which is one of the five designated areas of outstanding natural beauty in Wales. There is much concern about proposed developments in that area, which are contrary to not only the Gwent structure plan but the intention of Parliament, which was to give special protection to the area. It is a matter of great anxiety that a precedent could be set by insensitive developments in the Wye valley. Such developments could also then take place in the other areas
1180
of outstanding natural beauty, the Anglesey coast, Llyn, the Clwydian range and the Gower peninsula. There is considerable concern about any infringements in those areas.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has announced that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is undertaking an inquiry into planning. There is widespread concern in my constituency about the whole planning process, much of which was revealed in an HTV documentary shortly before Christmas. The programme revealed the inconsistency, inequity and possible illegality in some of the planning applications and approvals that have been given and the way in which planning recommendations are overturned at a political whim. I am delighted that the Select Committee, of which I am a member, is undertaking that inquiry.
Wales has had a high tradition of good quality public services. The public sector in my constituency, as in many others, is by far the biggest employer, yet much of the public sector has been undermined by Conservative policies in the past 13 years.
I have spoken in the House before about the controversies affecting Nevill Hall hospital, but I will restrict my comments on that issue today to the proposal to introduce car parking charges. That proposal has absolutely outraged the people of Abergavenny and all who travel from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—many members of staff as well as patients come from his area to Nevill Hall—and elsewhere to the hospital.
The staff, patients, visitors and volunteers who give up their time to work in the hospital are outraged by the proposal. They say that the imposition of parking charges would infringe the principle of a free national health service. They see no support for the idea in the patients charter and they are bitterly opposed to it. They hope that such charges will not be implemented at Nevill Hall or any other hospital in Wales.
I have spoken before in the House about the housing crisis in Wales. I have said previously that £741 million has accrued from the sale of council houses in district authorities in Wales in the past 10 years and that it is a public scandal. I think I see the Under-Secretary shaking his head in dissent. Not only has that money not been devoted to the provision of housing, but even parliamentary answers have not explained what has happened to that money.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The sum of £741 million represents total receipts over the past 10 years. Most of that money has been spent by local authorities in credit approvals for local government expenditure on all sorts of capital projects. I have made it clear at Question Time in response to the hon. Gentleman that local authorities can use 25 per cent. for housing and the other 75 per cent. for capital redemption against credit approvals. If he does not understand that, he should not be in the House.
Mr. Edwards: Redeeming debt is not as high a priority as housing homeless people, and there is a growing crisis of homeless people in all our constituencies. If the Minister does not believe that, he should have been with me a few days ago when I went around the Rother estate in Abergavenny. The people in those council houses are appalled at the idea of there being no prospect of their

1181
children finding local authority housing. There is nothing that they can buy in the private market and very little for them to rent in the housing association sector.
My constituency comprises many people of moderate means. They appreciate what has happened in the past 12 years, which is why last May they elected a Labour Member. I am confident that I shall have the privilege of representing them after the next general election.
7.53 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: The Welsh day debate is the highlight of the parliamentary year for the Principality. It is one of the far too few occasions when Welsh matters can be debated on the Floor of the House. That is yet a further strong argument why we need another debating forum for Welsh affairs. We need one not just as an all-Wales strategic tier on top of the unitary authorities, which I hope we will shortly have, but because there is such inadequate debate of Welsh matters in this House—far more inadequate than the debate of Scottish issues.
I wish to look beyond the dying embers of this Parliament to the issues that will dominate the next Parliament. As I shall not be a Member of it, I thought that I would have my say now. Two related issues are likely to dominate that Parliament. The first is the ever closer union of Europe, political and economic, and the second is constitutional change in the United Kingdom. Both are inevitable. Foolish men may try to resist the tide of history, but ultimately it will overwhelm them.
I am a committed, indeed passionate, European who is strongly in favour of further European integration. Those opposed to European unity tend to use the one word "sovereignty" as their ammunition. They seldom define what they mean by it. In the dictionary or thesaurus sense, sovereignty as
"supreme and independent power, free from external control",
no longer exists.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), by taking us into the EEC in 1973, conceded sovereignty. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—perhaps she would not care to remember it now as one of the most illustrious achievements of her distinguished career—agreed to the single market in 1985, she did the same and ceded further sovereignty. The present Prime Minister, in his former incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, by joining the exchange rate mechanism in 1991, merged our sovereignty with that of our European partners by tying sterling more closely to their currencies.
Sovereignty is not a symbol to be worshipped from afar, an indissoluble whole which can only be preserved intact. It is a commodity to be bartered, ceded, pooled and shared in the interests of the people, for their economic benefit and well-being. There is no realism in speaking of sovereignty as sacrosanct when our interest rates are directly affected—some might even say dictated—by the Bundesbank, and when our economic affairs are so strongly influenced by German wage claims and the cost of German unification.
I believe that sovereignty will come back to us with a single currency. At least we shall have a seat on the board of a European central bank. No wonder the Bundesbank —my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley too casually ignores this—is so guarded about monetary union. It foresees a loss of power and sovereignty.
1182
I contend that there is no fear among the Welsh people at a loss of sovereignty in the cause of European union. Indeed, long ago the people of Wales largely lost sovereignty to Whitehall and Westminster, and I tend to agree with them that it might be better to lose it even further afield—further afield geographically—but to a place that is more sensitive to their needs and aspirations.
We in Wales see ever-closer union with Europe not as a threat but as an opportunity. It will give us a chance to come out of the shadow of our larger neighbour and vigorously to reassert our own identity within a Europe of the regions. Wales within Europe, just like Scotland within Europe—those concepts have an understandable appeal. The Government must recognise that appeal and respond to it.
On the European issue, my party is still resisting the tide of history, though less fiercely than it did before. It is also still out of tune, though less than previously under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, with the mood of the moment. We say that our place is at the heart of Europe, yet we have not learnt the lesson of our delayed entry. We should be in the vanguard, but we are still in the rear. We are still dragging our feet.
It is a matter of great sadness to many of our European partners—I was speaking yesterday to some distinguished representatives of Spain—that we are not in the vanguard. They want us to be fully committed to, enthusiastic and wholehearted about, the Community—right at the heart of it—not just saying we are there but effectively acting there to counterbalance the increasing power of a resurgent Germany.
The European and constitutional issues are closely related. There is a delicious irony in the fact that the British Government, in the European context, is fiercely fighting against the centralisation of power in Brussels, while in the United Kingdom context they are determined to retain power in the centre, here in Whitehall and at Westminster. Britain is the largest unitary state in the world, apart from Japan. It is extremely centralised, even more so than France in practice. But we have already modified the supremacy of Parliament to accommodate the upward flow of power to Brussels. Why can we not also modify it in the opposite direction, by devolving power downwards? Indeed, devolution could offer the opportunity of an effective counterbalance to centralised decision-making in Brussels.
The principle of subsidiarity, to which we are committed at the European level, is equally valid within the United Kingdom. In a lecture to the Conservative party conference entitled "Conservatism in the 1990s", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is perhaps one of the Cabinet's more adventurous thinkers, said:
"In a more and more complex world, devolving decisions to the lowest level strikes me as a sensible precept. That is the approach that we have been pursuing at home, in health, in education and in housing. It makes good sense for Europe as well."
If it makes good sense in health, education, housing, and Europe, why not also for United Kingdom government?
The dispersal of power has been a central concern of political philosophers since Aristotle. Devolution as a concept is a particular British contribution to politics. It first appeared in a speech in the House in 1774 by Mr. Edmund Burke on the subject of American taxation. Burke is not normally thought of as an extreme, radical

1183
thinker out of sympathy with Conservatism. He attempted to show that it was possible to reconcile American demands for local autonomy with imperial power centred in Britain. American legislators would have the freedom to decide domestic policies while being subordinate to the imperial Parliament.
When preparing his first home rule Bill, Gladstone—and I am sorry to have to tell this to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells)—did not resort to the tomes of distinguished Liberal political thinkers but went straight to the speeches of Edmund Burke, studied them closely, and remarked that they were
"a mine of gold for the political wisdom with which they are charged."
Gladstone was also influenced by his political mentor, Sir Robert Peel—founder of the modern Conservative party —and his conviction that our institutions could be successfully adapted to the needs of a particular time.
Devolution is not therefore alien to Conservatism but an innate part of it. Gladstone concluded:
"the concession of local self-government is not the way to sap or impair, but the way to strengthen and consolidate unity. Such a policy is eminently a Conservative policy."
That is why I find it so surprising that members of my own Front Bench do not acknowledge that devolution as a concept and policy has distinguished Conservative antecedents, indeed originated with Conservative political thinkers.
If in the view of Ministers the case for constitutional change is unproven, they should explain in detail why they think it is. It is not enough for them to dismiss the question with tabloid slogans or historical quotations, for that will only diminish their reputations. They must heed the mood for change and respond to it. They cannot ignore or dismiss it.
No party which is so lamentably weak as ours is in representation in Scotland and in the Principality and which has gone—I nearly used the word "run", but I respect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State too much—to England for its last two Secretaries of State can afford to do other than to take the issue seriously and debate it fully.
There must be an end to the current intellectual inertia on this side of the House on the issue of constitutional change. If there is not, I fear for the future of the Conservative party in Wales after the next general election. Our moral authority to govern Wales with a handful of Members of Parliament will be gravely, if not fatally, undermined and we will find ourselves facing a constitutional crisis—a crisis of our own making.
8.3 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Although I recognise that the Welsh environment is improving in many respects, it would be a dereliction of duty not to point to a number of serious problems that have yet to be overcome. I refer first to water quality. Ministers trumpet readily enough that the privatisation of the water industry has resulted in the availability of more investment than the Government themselves were prepared to make. However, throughout the 1980s, the Government gave a low priority to the quality of drinking water and of our waterways, which affected our coastline. Despite the belated efforts to tackle pollution in Wales, serious problems remain.
1184
The Government are also bold to declaim the powers and effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority, yet it is not given the money that it considers necessary to do its job. In the 1980s, for the first time in 50 years, river water quality in Wales deteriorated. Even more worrying is the increase in pollution incidents throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. In 1990, there were 2,707, and that is not good enough.
Worse still, such incidents result in few prosecutions —and when they are successfully brought, only pitiful fines are imposed. In the two years that Welsh Water has been in existence, it has been fined for 17 pollution incidents a sum of only just over £18,000. In the first year of its existence, it made profits of £120 million; and in the first six months of its second year in operation, the company made profits of more than £60 million. The fines imposed on Welsh Water, therefore, represent no kind of penalty. In fact, it is cheaper for a company to pollute the aquatic environment than to meet the cost of 100 per cent. pollution prevention.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: When Labour was last in power, it cut investment in the water industry by 50 per cent. It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to criticise this Government, who established the National Rivers Authority, which has a budget of £431 million for Wales this year. This Government also increased water pollution fines tenfold in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Welsh Water has already done tremendous work, and the National Rivers Authority is working hard—and this year the quality of water in Welsh rivers actually improved.
Mr. Griffiths: The Minister's panegyrics on the quality of Welsh water and the work of the NRA run counter to certain facts. It is indisputable that Welsh Water was fined only £18,000 for 17 pollution incidents and that the quality of Welsh river water has deteriorated over the past decade. It is also indisputable that NRA funding is less than the minimum that it considers necessary to do its job properly.
Let me remind the Minister that, in October 1991, the Government announced a 12 per cent. cut in funding for the National Rivers Authority; and that, in November, it was announced that, in the 1992–93 financial year, the NRA would receive £15 million less than—in the NRA's view—it needed to do even the minimum to improve water quality.
I emphasise that point because, very often, a single incident of pollution can utterly destroy life in a river. It is important to enter into the minds and the culture of those on Welsh Water, and other companies whose industrial emissions end up in our rivers. In any one year, a single incident of pollution is one too many; and the record of the first two years of the 1990s does not bode well for the rest of the decade.
It is not only the aquatic environment that is threatened. Although considerable improvements were made in the 1960s and 1970s, our air quality is now in danger. The Government are not committed to the European Community standard, which requires the stabilising of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. They appear to be prepared to countenance air pollution simply because other countries are not willing to take action. They have put it on record that they do not intend to meet the stabilisation target unless other countries do the same. If we do not give a lead, however, how can we expect others to commit themselves?

1185
I believe that the quality of the Welsh environment is too important to be left to the decision-making powers of an American President. We need to take a lead for ourselves, and, if necessary, to show the Americans the way. I am sure that, once they had perceived the significant advantages to he gained from commitment to the lowering of pollution levels, they would follow suit.
The sooner such madcap schemes as the burning of orimulsion down in Pembroke are jettisoned, the better. It would be welcome to hear from the Minister that, unless full anti-pollution measures are adopted, that scheme will not get off the ground. Without such measures, I believe that it should be shelved.
8.13 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: A Welsh day debate is a bit of a stock-taking exercise. It is difficult, in the space of 10 minutes, to deliver a full audit on developments in Wales and the effect of Government policies there.
The future is mixed: there is good news and bad news. There have been welcome developments over the past year, and even over the past few months. We should welcome wholeheartedly developments involving factories and other aspects of industry, whose significance far exceeds their scale. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) is trying to introduce a measure to allow the Wales tourist board to export work overseas to bring people to Wales. That measure has all-party support, and is long overdue. Last week, the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh local authorities jointly opened an office in Brussels. Many of us have canvassed for such an office for a long time, and it will have an important role to play.
Nevertheless, some aspects of the present position cause considerable worry. An obvious example is unemployment, which has increased by 30 per cent. over the past 12 months. There are unemployment blackspots throughout Wales. Let us take the south Pembrokeshire figures, which should be close to the heart of the Under-Secretary of State. Not only are they high now; they are projected to reach even higher levels—disastrously high, following the closures at Trecwn and Brawdy. In the valleys—in the Cynon valley, for instance—unemployment is unacceptably high, as it is in rural Wales. In south Cardiganshire, in my constituency, and in Holyhead, something needs to be done about the level of unemployment. Indeed, that applies in every part of Wales—north, south, east and west.
The other major problem facing ordinary people in Wales, especially those who cannot get a job, is their inability to obtain housing. Someone who cannot afford to buy will have precious little hope of being able to rent in the present circumstances. Council housing stock has declined; much of it has been sold off. I understand the policy involved, and I understand people's wish to buy their houses, but the stock has not been replaced. There is a waiting list of 60,000 in Wales, and nearly 10,000 people are homeless.
In a civilised society, that is unacceptable. If people cannot obtain jobs or houses, what are we doing to our country? The Government should admit that the problems are serious and must be tackled.
There are also problems in the health sector. I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that, during the coming year, the provision of a hospital to serve east Dwyfor and north Meirionnydd will go ahead. I hope that
1186
the other community hospitals that are needed in Gwynedd and elsewhere will also receive the resources that they need: without Government money, such projects cannot proceed.
Challenges exist in health care, education, the environment—we heard about that a moment ago—employment and housing. I now wish, however, to address two of the themes that the Secretary of State introduced. It appears that, at long last, a new Welsh language Bill is to be introduced. I accept that the Secretary of State has been in possession of the draft of the Welsh Language Board's most recent version for only a little over 12 months; however, the subject has been under Welsh Office scrutiny for the best part of six years. I remember attending a meeting in October 1986, with Lord Prys-Davies, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and Mr. Nicholas Edwards, then Secretary of State. Work has been in progress ever since, and it is time that we saw some action.
The question is: what sort of action will we see? What will the Bill contain? It is not enough to legislate for the sake of legislating; we must get things done. The Welsh language faces challenges that must be dealt with.
In an earlier intervention, I cited the position of a defendant in a court case who wanted to speak Welsh. In years gone by, how many people who were not very good at expressing themselves in English—if, indeed, they could speak it at all—have appeared before the courts, and have not been able to testify in their own language? How many innocent people have gone to prison, or even lost their lives, for that reason? I do not pretend that that happens now, but the fact remains that the defendant in a case is the person on whom the maximum pressure is exerted. If defendants wish their cases to be heard in Welsh, they should be able to do so. It is a question of linguistic rights.
Equally, if a defendant's evidence is to be heard and understood by the jury, it must not be heard in translation. The nuances, the emotion and the uncertainties must be heard and felt first hand.
I understand that, in some parts of Wales, the shortage of Welsh speakers would make random jury selection impossible. In other parts, however, that is patently possible. Cases should be heard in Welsh in areas in which Welsh is spoken. There are centres within travelling distance where that can be done: Cardiff, for example, can serve a catchment area in Glamorgan and Gwent.
Today, 800 people have demonstrated in Swansea because of the inability to provide Welsh language education in that city and the area surrounding it. That should be a basic education right for people who want their children to be educated using the Welsh language. The people of Swansea have lost the opportunity for generations to be educated by means of the Welsh language because provision for it has not been made.
Will the Bill address that question? Will it ensure that equal validity is a meaningful concept? Will it ensure that an individual filling in a form can choose to fill it in either in Welsh or in English? It is official bilingualism that makes equal validity meaningful to the consumer, to whom the Secretary of State referred in his speech.
If people working in Welsh factories who speak Welsh find that somebody tells them that they cannot speak in their own language to their fellow workers on the factory floor, will the Bill stop that discrimination? Will it make that discrimination, which has happened year after year in

1187
Wales, illegal? When the Government introduce the Bill —if they have the opportunity to do so after the election —that is one of the issues that we shall consider.
I was under the impression that there was to be a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, sitting in the capital city of Cardiff, on the government of Wales. I understand, though, that there is some doubt about that. It appears that all that the Government have to do is to lay an order. Those who do not want a debate to take place on the important question of the government of Wales should speak up and be identified. I do not know which party is creating difficulties. Certainly it is not my party. If those who do not want self-government for Wales fail to turn up in Cardiff, having been challenged to do so, so be it. Those who are concerned about the future government of Wales should be allowed to put forward their ideas so that they can be thrashed out before the general election. Then there will be an opportunity for a real debate during the election campaign.
Opinion polls published this week show that there is a majority of two to one in favour of an elected, all-Wales body and that that majority increases to 70:30 if a similar proposal for Scotland—some form of Scottish parliament —were put forward. That 70:30 figure shows a majority in favour of the proposition in north, mid and south Wales among the elderly, the middle aged and young people and that majority includes people from every political party, including Conservative voters in Wales. It is time that the message got home if a proper balance is to be secured within the European structure to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) referred.
We have to think of Wales, Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom as part of a united Europe, if there is to be a meaningful relationship between Wales and the committee for the regions. The Secretary of State has not said whether there will be Welsh representatives on that committee and how many seats Wales will have. These are important questions. Without an all-Wales level of government, Welsh voices will have no legitimacy in Europe and there will be no democracy in Wales.
The unpalatable truth for the Secretary of State and for the others who sit on the Treasury Bench is that never since 1868 have the Conservatives had a majority of seats in Wales. They do not have a legitimate right to govern Wales. The time has come to allow the people of Wales to have a voice in the government of their own affairs and to decide on the social and economic priorities for Wales. Wales needs a Chamber that can devote all the time that is necessary to the problems that face our country and that can devise policies which meet the aspirations of our people. That is the challenge that faces the Conservative Government and every party in the House. They must come clean and be open about what is being offered to the people of Wales. They must move towards that goal.
8.23 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and many others referred to the clean-up of government in Wales. A corrupt system of quangos now governs Wales. The members of those quangos are mates of the Secretary of State for Wales. He staffs all the quangos of Wales with his mates. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) said that he
1188
envisaged devolution as single-tier authorities, roughly similar to the present districts. He says that that is the sort of devolution that Wales wants, but he forgets that Wales already has a great deal of devolution. The problem is that it is not democratic devolution. We have devolution by quango, by nomination and by patronage. Such devolution permits the Secretary of State to put Tory rejects—people rejected by the Welsh electorate—or Tory trainees—people who are going to be rejected by the Welsh electorate at the next election—on quangos so that they can develop a little administrative or governmental experience and earn a few bob, moonlighting as it were, by means of this non-democratic form of devolution.
The people of Wales object to that. Why should a Tory Government, who are rejected by the people of Wales, run Wales through nominated bodies that the Secretary of State can use as a form of re-start scheme for semi-employed Tories who have no chance of winning elections in Wales? They obtain power that they cannot win by democratic means—through the ballot box—by means of the Secretary of State's patronage. That is a fundamentally corrupt system. Even as late as last month, with an election in the offing, the Government decided to set up yet more quangos. A higher education funding council for Wales is to be set up. Who do they put upon it? They put on it Sir Idrys Pearce—no doubt a very distinguished figure, but it is not insignificant that he was the Tory candidate for Neath in 1959. I see the Minister of State looking quizzically over his spectacles at me as though I am wrong about the identity of the gentleman concerned. I should like to think that I am wrong, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get up and tell me that I am wrong. That is yet another person on a long list of people who have lost their deposit or who have lost out on being elected in Wales but have been rewarded for their loyalty to the Tory party by being made chairs or vice chairs of various bodies.
There was a day when the big five who were seen as very important to the life of Wales were the Welsh rugby selectors. People went in awe of them. That no longer applies. The big five now are those who are chairs or vice chairs of more than one quango in Wales at the same time. Those five people are John Elfed Jones, the chairman of Welsh Water which was a quango at the time although it has now been transformed into a private company; he is also on the Welsh Language Board; Dr. Gwyn Jones of the Welsh Development Agency and the BBC broadcasting council for Wales; Sir Donald Walters, the vice chair of the Welsh Development Agency and chairman of the council of University college, Cardiff; Geoffrey Inkin, chair of the Land Authority for Wales and of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; and Mr. John Allen, chairman of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales, and vice chairman, under Geoffrey Inkin, of the Land Authority for Wales. The Tories do not have all that many people to put on those quangos, so they put them on to two quangos at a time. The reason is that the Tories do not trust many people in Wales, because not many people in Wales trust the Tories. Apart from those five people, they cannot find anyone else whom they regard as trustworthy enough and safe enough to serve on quangos.
At a time when the Tory Government are so unpopular, they realise that these chaps go to the same dinner parties and therefore they form part of a little freemasonry which runs Wales, with the Secretary of State's assistance. That arrangement is about as ethical as the day Caligula

1189
appointed his horse a pro-consul in the outer reaches of the Roman empire. At the election, the people of Wales will reject what the Tories have done.
Quangos are devolution without democracy. It is high time that democracy was put into devolution. Under this extremely corrupt system, in which all those people are mates of the Secretary of State, they all throw their weight about to a completely unacceptable extent. Only last week at a meeting of the court of University college, Cardiff, complaints were made that Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was blocking a development in south Cardiff. The college is extremely keen about opening up a third campus. It wants to spend £69 million, which would create hundreds of construction jobs and hundreds of places for students in University college, Cardiff.
Of course, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation is throwing its weight around saying, "We don't really like this." It does not have to submit that view to any open and democratic test. If it does not feel like it, it blocks it. It means that the ideal financial year has already been lost. The window during the recession would have meant that the land could be bought cheaply, cheap building contracts could be obtained, and the momentum would have got going. That would assist in the creation of those thousands of jobs in Cardiff bay to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North referred. The reality is that the quangos are blocking those new jobs. It is the opposite of the picture that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North tried to paint.
South Glamorgan health authority is another quango run by a rejected Conservative politician, Mr. Alun Jones. He is close to the Secretary of State and is attempting to hide from the people of Cardiff, West and the rest of south Glamorgan the hidden agenda for closing Rookwood hospital—a rehabilitation hospital—the Prince of Wales Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, and Cardiff Royal Infirmary in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist).
Mr. Grist: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but it is impossible under the 10-minutes rule.
Since Mr. Jones is a mate of the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman will not let him down and announce just before the election that those hospitals are to be closed. They are major hospitals and none of them has fewer than 150 beds. We find out about the proposed closure only when a document is leaked to the local press.
The Welsh Development Agency is in an interesting state at the moment. The Public Accounts Committee is investigating how the chairman elect came to have a grant of £ 17,500. The following year the WDA made it clear that the old corn mill in Porthmadoc, for which the grant was made available under the rural conversion grant scheme, did not qualify. Two and a half years later, the chairman has started to pay back that grant. The money is being paid back only after probing by myself and investigating journalists and with the prospect of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. That gap of two and a half years between notification and the money being paid back would not be a privilege applying to any small private business man, but it occurs when one is a mate of the Secretary of State and attends the same dinners. There is the temptation not to obey the same rules as ordinary small business men. That is what is so appallingly corrupt. There will always be the temptation to make up the rules
1190
because the Secretary of State will offer protection. I have been told that the shredder at the Welsh Development Agency is likely to need a new motor by the end of this week. I appreciate that that was said in humour, but it is an interesting and worrying comment. I hope that it is not true, as the WDA has to produce a note for the Public Accounts Committee about what happened in the dealings between the chairman and the WDA.
Despite the blithe confidence shown by the Secretary of State in the future of the Welsh economy, a wave of bankruptcies is passing across Wales. The companies involved include Hailey Park Motors, Cladcolor Profiling, Precision Circuits in Cwmbran, Baverstock's Hotel, EC Computers in Cardiff and the Three Salmons Hotel Group. The greatest bankruptcy of all is the bankruptcy of the Government's economic policy.
8.33 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I was tempted not to participate in this debate, because I know that many of my colleagues wish to speak and because most of my day has been spent launching the proposals for the new building in Parliament street. I should like to put on record the fact that, in the Committee dealing with phase 2 of the accommodation, we have total co-operation from Government Members. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for matters concerning Wales.
When the Secretary of State was a member of the usual channels, I always thought that he had a pleasant disposition and was above all sorts of intrigues. When he was appointed Secretary of State, I congratulated him as I had congratulated his predecessor. I congratulated his predecessor because he represents Worcester, which is where my parents were born.
Many figures for unemployment levels are bandied about. It is worth putting on record the facts since 1979. Part of the area that I represented then is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The Boundary Commission decided to carve up the constituency in the hope of creating a Tory seat. For the first three or four years, that was successful, but we have changed that now, as on 9 April we intend to change many more Tory seats.
In 1979, my constituency of Ogmore had a working population of 100,000. Without all the distorted record keeping that has been imposed on us by the Tory Government, there was 3·7 per cent. unemployment. A total of 2 per cent. of that 3·7 per cent. were unemployable, as they were ex-miners suffering from silicosis or pneumoconiosis. In 1979, there were seven pits in the Ogmore constituency, employing 7,800 miners. There were many others employed in the industry, in transport and so on and in the many other industries connected with mining.
From 1979 to 1982–83, every pit in that constituency was closed. In addition, the de-manning of the steelworks at Margam, introduced by the Tory Government, led to 12,000 redundant steelworkers, most of whom were constituents of Ogmore. Within three years, 20,000 of my constituents were put out of work. Ministers continue to tell us that unemployment is low in Ogmore. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in Wales and hold surgeries there know the facts. I know that the Secretary of

1191
State cannot hold any surgeries in Wales in order to know what the people of Wales are thinking, because he does not represent a Welsh constituency.
People do not seem to recognise that Wales is represented by 26 Labour Members, six Conservative Members, three Plaid Cymru Members and three Liberal Democrats. Whenever there are negotiations on any issue, the majority party—the Labour party—should be consulted first. Instead of that, the tail is wagging the dog and occasionally shaking the dog about. The six Tory Members dominate negotiations because we have a Tory Government.
We have had a disaster in Ogmore since 1979. I have given the facts and figures, but on the broader issues we look to the experts to give us the details. The expert on housing is Shelter. No one can suggest that it is dominated solely by the Labour party or trades union movement. I am sure that the Secretary of State has received a copy of Shelter's document. It refers to the housing crisis that now affects all parts of Wales. It
"estimates that 65,000 people will have experienced homelessness in one form or another in Wales in 1991"—
65,000 people homeless in Wales, not in London.
Some of us have worked as volunteers on the soup kitchens, going down to Victoria embankment at midnight to give the homeless cups of soup, chocolate or tea. I wonder whether any Minister is compassionate enough to do that. If he is, perhaps he will think about the 65,000 homeless people in Wales and the thousands of unemployed construction workers who are crying out for a job. They could easily be employed if the Government were to be more compassionate in allocating funds to enable local authorities to build council houses and to house those 65,000 homeless people.
Shelter states:
"almost one hundred thousand homes in Wales were considered unfit or lacking basic facilities in the last government survey of house conditions.
Shelter Cymru's case and enquiry statistics are one of the most complete records of housing problems in Wales. The most recent figures show: increasing young homelessness, increasing mortgage arrears and repossessions, increasing illegal evictions, increasing debt and eviction. The housing crisis can affect anyone at anytime, as just some of the enquiries on a typical day at a Shelter Cymru Housing Rights Centre show."
Mr. Edwards: Those statistics show the housing crisis in Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should show how each district authority in Wales is spending 25 per cent. of its capital receipts on housing? If that is what the Government claim, can they prove it?
Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who covers the point.
In my opening remarks, I referred to the Secretary of State and the compassion that I thought he had when he took office and my reasons for extending him congratulations. I regret that, since taking office, the situation has become drastically worse.
I must refer also to another document—I accept that most of its authors are members of the Labour party or affiliated to it—produced by Wales TUC: "The Training Deficit in Wales and the Wasted Talents". I do not have time to quote from it, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are telling me to wind up. I will do so at your request, but I urge the Secretary of State and the few Welsh
1192
Conservative Members to look at the document, which shows conclusively how ridiculous training in Wales has become and how badly we have been treated, especially in reduced funding for TECs.
8.44 pm
Dr. John Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) went to the root of what concerns the people of Wales before the next general election. I am a committed devolutionist, but that is not a topic on which people will decide how to vote. I urge hon. Friends who are concerned about devolution and the Welsh language not to mix them up, because if they do the cause of devolution will not be well served. It is important to keep the issues separate.
I want to concentrate on the bread-and-butter issues that concern my constituents. Brymbo steel works made a profit in each of the last 20 years of its existence, yet it was allowed to be closed down by a Conservative Administration who believe more in political dogma than common sense. United Engineering Steels will take two years to clear the site, and then there will be two or three years of opencast mining or redevelopment. It may be up to another two years before any factories appear on the site and jobs are created. That is not good enough. It will be six or seven years before another job appears on the site.
The Secretary of State has to consider that issue, which is essential to people in Brymbo. It is now a dismal place. The ISERBS payments have run out. People do not have money and cannot go out in the evening or be social. The situation will worsen as redundancy payments run out. So far, the Government have not given any hint of anything better to come.
After the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will be Secretary of State. I shall look to him to ensure that United Engineering Steels does not take two years to clear off the site. It should take two weeks or perhaps four weeks. We want some action, and I would prefer action by the Conservative Administration in the time that they have left.
There have been developments in the past 13 years of Conservative rule, but they have been rather second-class. The A55 dual carriageway is not finished. It has dangerous junctions where one can turn right against oncoming traffic. People will continue to be killed simply because the Government have not allowed sufficient expenditure to build a proper underpass.
The Wrexham bypass is a dual carriageway. There is an at-grade junction at Croesfoel that the Government are belatedly going to grade separate. How much extra will that cost five years later? Ruabon bypass is dual carriageway. Newbridge bypass is 7 m wide and the Chirk bypass is 10 m wide, all because of public expenditure cuts and dogma. That would not have been allowed to happen on the continent. There would have been a uniform grade for the A483 from its junction with the Chester southerly bypass down to the Coventry bypass.
I asked the Minister of State at Welsh questions on Monday to give a pledge that, if a Conservative Administration are returned to office, InterCity services will continue to run between Euston and Holyhead—a simple, straightforward pledge. I am concerned about InterCity services continuing to run to Holyhead if the Government are returned and they privatise the rail

1193
system. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) will be affected, and his electors want to know where he stands on the issue. Of course it is a political point, but we are in a political Chamber. If he can give a pledge, I will give way.
Sir Wyn Roberts: As I told the hon. Gentleman on Monday, the whole point of privatisation is to improve services and that, of course, applies to InterCity services.
Dr. Marek: It is fine if the right hon. Gentleman is going to improve InterCity services between Euston and Manchester or Euston and Liverpool, but let us be specific. There is a straightforward way of giving a pledge which everyone in north Wales will understand and that is to say, "Yes, we will ensure a continuation of InterCity services to Holyhead." That is the phraseology that reasonable people understand, and I should like to hear it from the Minister.
At the moment, our InterCity service is not complete. We have only two high-speed train sets to Holyhead and we need three. There has again been overcrowding in recent weeks and I look to the Welsh Office to help to get from British Rail a third HST set so that we can have five InterCity trains in each direction each day.
There is a lot of unease in the Wrexham Maelor hospital. The expression of intent that has recently been sent to the Welsh Office refers to contact being made with fund-holding doctors in Chester and the surrounding areas. That upsets my constituents, because it is clear that fund-holding doctors will get priority, and if they happen to be in Chester or elsewhere in England, they will get priority over my constituents in Wrexham. That is not how I envisage that the national health service should work.
I bitterly resent the commercialisation that has been introduced. The expression of intent document also contains phrases about public relations exercises being undertaken to ensure that any opposition is kept to the minimum. That is not what it is about. People are not visibly opposing the Government at the moment, because they know that a general election is coming, but let us be clear that commercialisation will not happen under a Labour Government. It will be swept away.
There has been no new public or council housing in the Wrexham area this year. I have said it before and I say it again—the leader of Wrexham Maelor borough council said that he had £12 million of ready money that he had obtained from the sale of council houses. Houses had been sold, but no new ones were to be built. In fact, I believe that there is more than £12 million, but it cannot be used by the borough council because the Welsh Office has prevented it. However, there are 2,000 or 3,000 people on the waiting list in Wrexham, of whom 1,000 desperately want a home.
That was the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. The money is available, but it is not being used. What nonsense to have such a system. It is a question not of the borough council having to borrow the money and pay interest on it but of its not being allowed to use it.
We have perhaps one more week of business followed by the Budget the following week, and it is likely that the election will then be announced. The Government have run up to the buffers. The opinion polls rightly show that people in Wales desperately want a Labour
1194
Administration, not another Conservative Administration. I believe that this time the Government have been caught out in their handling of the economy.
The Secretary of State said that there was a world recession, but he did not say which other country in the European Community is suffering a recession at the moment—Germany, just, and that is because of East Germany. No other country is suffering a recession. Our recession is a home-grown recession. The Government began with a recession in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Inflation went up to 23 per cent. We then had the "loadsamoney" economy, and we now have another recession. The public will not be fooled this time. In three or four weeks' time, I shall see my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside sitting on the Government Front Bench behind the Dispatch Box.
8.54 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I do not intend to criticise the Secretary of State personally, but he has to work within a self-imposed constraint of Thatcherism and now Majorism which means "public bad, private good". There are still examples of that ideological obsession, especially with regard to British Rail with which I shall deal in a moment.
More importantly, the Secretary of State does not represent a Welsh constituency. That has a number of effects, one of which is that he is unaware in his surgery of the problems that I and my colleagues encounter every time that we meet our constituents. Those problems include the slump in housing and difficulties arising from the Government's public expenditure policies. I give the Secretary of State one example.
On Saturday last week, I met an individual who said that he had submitted a detailed application for a discretionary renovation grant in July last year. He is on income support and his wife is registered blind. The ceiling of their home in the St. Thomas area of Swansea has collapsed. He has been told
"that the Council is no longer in a position to approve any discretionary grants for the immediate future"
because of a change in Welsh Office policy. The Secretary of State may pull the levers in Cardiff, but he is unaware of the effects of policies on individuals at the micro level.
The appropriate officer in Swansea city council promises me that he will examine the gentleman's house to see whether
"conditions have deteriorated to the point that a mandatory application can be considered. This is far from satisfactory and only serves as an encouragement to some people to allow their houses to fall into serious disrepair."
What an indictment of a policy designed to treat houses in Wales, which has the greatest proportion of pre-1919 houses of any region. The circumstances which I have described may be an unintended effect of the new priorities within the Welsh Office system, but we are brought face to face with such effects on individuals who live with the ceilings in their houses falling down.
As the Secretary of State does not hold a Welsh seat, he does not experience those effects and therefore remains unaware of the effect of the policies that he puts into operation. That is one reason why the fact that he does not hold a Welsh seat is wrong. It is also wrong because it shows a complete lack of confidence by the Prime Minister and others in the competence of members of the Conservative party who currently hold seats in Wales.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in one year we have spent more on renovation and repair than the previous Labour Government did during their entire period in office.
Mr. Anderson: That remark shows that even those who represent Welsh seats can get just as out of touch. The slump in house building in Wales did not come about by chance, because of some malign fate; it came about because of the reduction in public priorities for council and other forms of building. The fact that more is being spent on renovation is welcome, but I am talking about the effects—possibly unintentional—of policies which have come about because the Secretary of State does not have an intimate connection with the impact of Welsh Office policies on people in his constituency.
The main part of what I wanted to say has already been dealt with by my hon. Friends, who have talked about the effects of Government policies on housing and education, and the way in which the social fabric of Wales has been damaged. That damage has been done by the Government's obsession with private good at all costs, and their failure to see the interdependence of the public and private sectors. If any area in the United Kingdom depends on a positive public expenditure policy, it is Wales. As a result, Wales suffers the most from the Government's obsession to promote the private sector at all costs.
I understand that the Minister of State will reply on transport, so I address my remarks on that subject to him. We in south Wales remember that the M4 was completed by the 1970s. Since that time, transport policy has concentrated on north Wales, to the disadvantage of the south—so much so that, for example, the missing link between Baglan and Lonlas, in my constituency, remains to be completed. Happily, it will be completed soon, as it has had such an adverse effect on our area.
The Severn bridge tolls are increasing, not just because of inflation and other such factors but because of the Government's decision to privatise the new bridge, and that affects tolls on the existing bridge. When business men consider locating in Wales, Severn bridge tolls are bound to be a major disadvantage. Any geographer, or anyone who knows how industrialists take decisions on location, will say that distance remains a key factor. The Severn bridge and its tolls are bound to have a substantial adverse effect.
On the railway, the current high-speed trains represent the technology of the 1960s. They came into service in the early 1970s in south Wales, and since then the quality of rail services has deteriorated. Journey times between London and Swansea are longer, the sleeper service has gone, and services at the beginning and end of the day have been chopped.
I hope that, in the six weeks or so left to the Secretary of State in his present job, he will consider the European dimension, and examine the impact of the channel tunnel on Wales. What effect will the change from Waterloo to Stratford and King's Cross have on the accessibility of the channel tunnel to Welsh travellers? What will be done about the crossover from Paddington to King's Cross?
Because of the Government's parsimony and the harsh conditions that they impose on British Rail with regard to electrification and because by the end of the century, even
1196
if we are lucky, only a small proportion of the west line will be electrified, Wales will lose out again, and become a peripheral part of Europe.
I shall finish by talking about the Welsh dimension. The Secretary of State spoke passionately about it, and its impact on Government decisions. An old Baptist minister of mine said that he was advised by a more experienced minister that if one's argument was bad one should raise one's voice. Certainly the Secretary of State—usually so moderate and gentle—suddenly began to raise his voice and flash his eyes when he talked about the Welsh dimension.
Surely the Secretary of State must realise that, at an all-Wales level, there is a great vacuum in the governmental structure. We remember that after the 1979 referendum the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Nicholas Edwards—Lord Crickhowell—said that there would be a Welsh forum. However, that idea has been allowed to go to sleep. Much has happened since then.
As for the European dimension, I am delighted that the Secretary of State and his predecessor went to the motor regions of Baden-Wurttemberg, Catalonia, Lombardy and elsewhere. While in Baden-Wurttemberg, did he find that the good citizens of that land were concerned about the amount of money that they were spending on their land government? Did he ask them about their system; did he find any great anxiety about the decentralisation of opinion-making in the federal republic structure? I offer the following thought to the Secretary of State: his party, which calls itself a unionist party, may by its intransigence destroy the Union, not only because of the policies of the past decade but because of the Government's failure to acknowledge what is happening. In Scotland, there is a strong view that the Scots want to run their own affairs and enjoy a degree of democratic control over their institutions. To a lesser extent, that applies to Wales too, and that feeling has been strengthened by the developments of the past decade.
The Secretary of State must also recognise that he has caused much offence in Wales by carrying political cronyism to a new art form. He has placemen in a number of quangos, yet while in opposition his party used to criticise precisely that. It is an immense affront to the people of Wales. I do not suggest that these quangos should be wholly or even mainly peopled by those of a radical disposition, but the opinion polls in Wales show that the Conservative party represents but a small fraction of the Welsh people. The right hon. Gentleman has packed the health authorities and all the other quangos with his cronies. He can hardly criticise us if, following a change of Government in six weeks' time, we learn one or two lessons from the rather brutal way in which he has put his cronies into those non-elected bodies.
We heard what the Secretary of State said about his willingness to announce his decisions affecting local government within a reasonable period. He knows that at least two counties have gone well beyond his guidelines on the poll tax. He appeared not to be aware of that—or else he wanted to avoid the issue at this stage. Does he still intend to use the unit set up in the Welsh Office to charge cap authorities which are not profligate but which are forced, just to provide basic services, to go beyond the guidelines that he set?
I think that I have gone over the guidelines that others have set for me in this debate, so I intend to sit down soon.

1197
One thing is sure—the days of the Government and of the Secretary of State are numbered, and there will be a great sigh of relief and much joy in Wales when their time is up.
9.7 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I am very glad to have the chance to participate in this debate. I should like to discuss my own constituency first and then move on to some larger matters which also impinge on what is happening there.
The Secretary of State for Wales referred to the garden festival which we are to have in Ebbw Vale. I certainly agree that it will be a great event for my constituents and for Wales. In fact, it will be the best of all the garden festivals. I am glad to acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's part at one critical moment, and at some others, in setting up the festival. At one especially critical moment, he gave us great assistance, and I am happy to acknowledge that.
Having studied the matter—the Secretary of State will understand that I have been closely associated with the festival from the beginning—I know that the bodies chiefly responsible for ensuring that our plan won the competition—it was won against stiff competition, as my hon. Friends from other parts of Wales can testify—were Blaenau Gwent council and Gwent county council. They worked together, and I hope that by doing that they have taught the Secretary of State a few lessons about the virtues of local government. Conservative Governments do not understand local government, but I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the proposal could not have been put forward without the local authorities taking a risk and showing imagination and intelligence.
Mr. David Hunt indicated assent.
Mr. Foot: I see that the Secretary of State has achnowledged that.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be equally forthright about the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), who referred to the opencast mining operation which British Coal would like to operate at Pwll Du. It would be an utter absurdity for our valley if, having seen the possibilities under the garden festival arrangements, British Coal decided to ruin the upper valleys for the next 10 or 12 years through that operation.
The Secretary of State for Wales does not have much time left in office. I have raised the issue of the operation at Pwll Du with him on many occasions. In fact, when he was first appointed as Secretary of State, I wrote to him saying that that was one of the issues with which we would like him to deal. That was quite a long time ago. He could have put the kybosh on it. That would have saved a lot of money, and he can still do it.
When the Secretary of State's predecessor left office, I wrote to him advising him to read the parable of the unjust steward. Not many people understand that parable properly and I recommend it to the present Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman reads it with a proper sense of his own delinquencies—I am sure that he has, although I do not want to mention things like the poll tax—he will understand that, even when an injustice has occurred on the scale for which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor are responsible, he can still make atonement at the last moment.
1198
Pwll Du would have figured well in that New Testament parable. I am not so eminent on these matters as some of my colleagues and I do not like to preach sermons other than to Secretaries of State who still need to learn a lot. Even in the short time left to the Secretary of State, when he goes to the office tomorrow perhaps he will read the parable and settle the problem with Pwll Du in the next few days. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will be in this place after the general election to ensure that the problem is solved and he has played a prominent part in putting the case for Pwll Du ever since he was elected. I hope that that will make the Government determined to do something about the matter.
I want now to consider the larger issues. They may not be larger issues than what happens in constituencies because nothing can be larger than what happens there. However, the Secretary of State sometimes refers to the deadly, dangerous or highly objectionable things that are happening in our constituencies which have nothing much to do with real developments. I am afraid that that is a serious misunderstanding of the scale of the problems that we face in this second terrible recession.
All Wales, particularly the valley towns, was hit hard in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. I remember that devastation. Unemployment rose from 12 per cent. to 24 per cent. in a few years. Not one house was built. Every housing plan was stopped for two or three years, and we still do not have agreement to go ahead in one part. We were devastated.
Of course, there was a huge loss to our economies and to our people when the Government poured down the drain the amount of money that they had to spend to maintain unemployment at 21 to 24 per cent. That is what we had to endure from 1979 until 1983. Of course we did not wish to retain the old industries in the old manner, but we said that such transformations must be done gradually and intelligently. If one hacks away at old industries before one has a proper plan for putting in new ones, one will undermine and destroy our communities and return to the horrors of the 1930s. Wales suffered more from such policies than nearly any other country.
We thought and we learnt from those events. Indeed, from 1945 until the Government came to office at the end of the 1970s, we had the most essential support for our sane regional policy, backed by real finance. Partly, that was done through local authorities and by a Government who understood that that was the way that it should be done. They knew how to spend the money and organise the policy. Partly, it was done by direct regional policies, and we worked them out.

After the crisis of the latter years of the 1970s, we had worked out a more careful, adventurous regional policy than we had ever had before, and we were putting it into operation. In my constituency, we were the first to do that because we had the biggest rundown in the steel industry, but we did it in other parts of Wales, and we were setting the pattern for the rest of the country.
The Secretary of State should not be consulting at this late stage; he should have learnt a long time ago, because we told him time and again at every available opportunity. He and his predecessors came to us and said, "We have a different and better regional policy for you; you do not have to worry." We objected most strongly to the drastic cuts that they made in the regional rate support grant. Every local authority in Wales had to suffer in that respect. We have suffered as much as anybody. On top of that, the

1199
right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors said, "We have much better ideas for regional policy. We will do away with regional grants and assistance. You don't have to worry much because we'll find something just as good to substitute, and we will do that on a more discriminatory basis," or whatever the words were. Of course, they have wrecked our regional policy and all the advantages that were introduced primarily by the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), when he was at the Welsh Office, worked out our plans. We had special development area status for places that were hit by 10 to 20 per cent. unemployment. Those plans were in operation for years, but the Conservative Government took them from us.
The Secretary of State's predecessor thought that he knew a bit more about these matters—he was not an old Thatcherite like some of those whom we had to put up with before. He had even heard and thought that Keynesian ideas had some advantages. I refer to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and I am sure that he would not disown what I am saying. Even he said, in effect, "I have to agree with the nonsense that they agree in London and carry out the same policies that those half-wits are imposing on England." I was not discussing everything with him in biblical terms, but he was saying, "Look at what they are doing in England," and I was saying, "Do we really have to go through it?" He said, "I'm afraid that those are the policies." We warned the Government time and again. The Secretary of State will confirm that.
Monitoring committees were set up in our time by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the then Secretary of State. We had special plans whereby local authorities, county councils, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office could work out a plan for the changeover. We planned to ensure that we did not have huge dents of mass unemployment thrust upon us again. But now we have unemployment again not only in my constituency but in so many others. To have it again after 10 years is a disgrace.
If the Secretary of State wishes to come again to my constituency, I will show him the garden festival, but I will also take him on a tour of my neighbouring town of Tredegar to see what is happening there. I have been the Member of Parliament for that constituency for 32 years and I am ashamed at what is happening. Other towns such as Llanhilleth and Abertillery have similar problems.
In Tredegar we had a problem which was a classic microcosm of the Government's policies coming to fruition. I will tell the House exactly what happened. We had the buses privatised. It was all to be a wonderful plan to make the buses more efficient. Then a few weeks ago the privatised bus company went bankrupt. Of course, that was all part of the plan. But it was also part of the plan that the receivers would refuse to take over the bus station because they might have to apply safety laws and it would be too difficult. So for a whole period the buses of the collapsed company did not know where to go. The whole town of Tredegar was thrown into chaos by what had happened. When we turned to the local authority to rescue the buses from the chaos caused by privatisation and the mad pursuit of ideas by the Welsh Office, it said that it did
1200
not have the powers. Local authorities do not have the powers to do everything that they want and, of course, they do not have the money to run the buses properly.
I shall be happy to take the Secretary of State to Tredegar if he is happy to visit it before the election. He will be safer there than in some other places. We will look after him. I will show him the main street of Tredegar. I hope that he will be as ashamed as I am. He will see shop after shop that has been closed by his recession. Shop after shop has been wrecked either by the new rating system or the combination of that with the recession. Time and again we have been hit. It is a shame that it should happen once, but for it to happen twice in 10 years is a scandal of the worst order. I should not be true to the people who sent me here if I did not say these things as strongly as I can. I have sent the Secretary of State messages on the matter, as I have on other issues.
I hope that the next Government who come to power will learn the lessons. I do not believe that it was through ill will on the part of the Secretary of State that he achieved the results that I have described, any more than I thought it of his predecessor. They are the two unjust stewards. It is not a question of ill will. The results that I have described were caused by allegiance to policies which have no relevance to our modern world. Through such policies, the Government turned their back on the real experience of what happens in industrial areas when it is necessary to change from one type of industry to another. We are in favour of doing that when it is necessary. The Secretary of State said earlier that we had delayed the change, but we simply wanted to do it more slowly. It is possible to do it more humanely and to keep communities together. In the end, that is a much less expensive way of bringing about the change than thrusting whole areas into economic ruin and thinking that they can pull themselves out every three or four years.
I thought that the Secretary of State had learnt a lesson, or that some members of the Government had, after one terrible recession, but it has taken two terrible recessions to teach them that lesson. That is two too many. I hope that the new Government will have a proper plan to ensure that never again shall we suffer the afflictions that we have had be bear. Central Government and local government can act together. I believe that the Secretary of State has learnt some lessons about that, but he will have to carry it much further if we are to see for Wales that which it deserves.
9.24 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: It is always a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) speak in the House, with his authority and his experience—what a contrast with the beginning of the debate.
When one listened to the Secretary of State for Wales no one would have thought that we have had devastating trade figures today, which demonstrate the depth of the recession and the long-term cost of the Government's failure to act. Exports are down by 7·5 per cent. That is yet another illustration of the Government's failure to manage the economy. Our industrialists in Wales are fighting for their survival and that of their companies against that background. From the Secretary of State's speech one would not have thought that there was a problem. All we heard was a glitzy piece of over-optimistic public relations and a failure to face facts.

1201
For weeks, the St. David's day debate has been hyped-up with the expectation of a statement on the Welsh language from the Secretary of State. In contrast, his announcement was pathetic. The Secretary of State did not make a proper statement. There was not enough substance or detail in his speech for him to answer questions from hon. Members. He showed complacency over education in the Welsh language. He praised the Welsh Language Board and placed it on a statutory basis, but he has not listened to its advice, and has wasted more than a year in failing to build on the consensus which has developed in Wales during the past five years.
Why does the Secretary of State suddenly come to the House with precisely the promise that he was asked to make a year ago? Why has he not put a Welsh language Bill into law in the past year? All he has done is fulfil the prediction that we made in the past year: that he would do nothing until he was brought up short by the threat of an election.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) rightly concentrated on unemployment and homelessness, before turning to the Welsh language Bill. After the election, I look forward to discussing the detailed issues he raised, both in the House and in the Standing Committee which will deal with the Bill that we introduce, keeping the promise that we made more than one year ago.
The Secretary of State has done less today than we asked of him a year ago, and less than we promised to do had the Prime Minister dared to call an election then. If he had been serious, the Bill that he promises today as jam tomorrow would already be on the statute book.
The Secretary of State rejected the idea of an elected assembly, while closing his mind to change. The Exocet from Delyn, his hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), made a thoughtful speech, which the Secretary of State should read, mark and inwardly digest before he comes back to pontificate—if he retains his role in the shadow Cabinet after the election. The fact is that, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Members for Delyn and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the Conservative party has run away from the debate.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) suggested that we should debate devolution. That was a little foolish of him when the Secretary of State is under such attack from his own Benches. The Labour party in Wales has had its debate and made proposals, which are public, clear and there for all the Welsh people to see. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North wants a televised debate. He wants the Conservative party to go into that debate with a lack of policy, of principle and of position.
What about a televised debate on the national health service in Wales? That is the sort of debate that my constituents are concerned about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said. Important as other issues are, why is the NHS in Wales not an important issue for the Conservative party?
What about a televised debate on unemployment, and the devastation that the Government have created? What about a debate on homelessness, or on the Government's neglect of our schools? The Government will not allow a debate or a vote to those hospitals in local areas that are threatened by opting out or to those who work in the hospitals and care about the national health service. The Government are not interested in debate.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North was unwise to make a petty party political point on the Cardiff Bay
1202
Barrage Bill. On a constituency point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he and the Secretary of State had pulled in all the Conservative votes or if the Bill had been a Government one, it would now be law. The hon. Gentleman shoots himself in the foot, as assuredly as he shoots the Secretary of State for Wales in the back.
Even more damaging, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North repeated his usual nonsense in his attack on local government services in Cardiff. With his experience in local government, he should defend local authorities and the electors in his constituency instead of acting as a Back-Bench poodle for successive Secretaries of State. The hon. Gentleman has blamed local authorities time after time when they are struggling to overcome the difficulties that Conservative Governments have placed upon them.
In support of that I shall quote not a politician in local government, but from a neutral statement by the city treasurer in Cardiff:
"The budget process has been dominated by the threat of charge capping, which has brought a degree of risk and uncertainty that is undesirable in the financial decisions of public authorities."
That is the criticism made by Mr. Peter Brown.
The Government's fixing of the figures for standard spending assessments, with no consideration for need, mean that Cardiff city council has had to cut £1·4 million simply to achieve a standstill budget—last year's budget plus inflation. That is the effect of the Government's decisions.
South Glamorgan county council is in a similar position. To achieve a standstill budget, it has had to make cuts of £4·5 million. That has led to cuts in youth work and adult education. One can respect the decision of local councillors to protect the basic services of the schools, but it is short-sightedness for the Government to force such choices on local authorities which lead to cuts in necessary facilities. For example, the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) has had to take devastating decisions to close badly needed facilities.
All that has come at a time when the Home Secretary has suddenly discovered that one needs to knit services together and that it is not just policing, but the working together of services and the provision of activities for young people that lead to the reduction of crime. The Home Secretary has had a blinding insight, which he had rejected when we previously put it to him. That has happened just as the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales are devastating the services provided by local authorities.
The Government's expectations for local authorities and their predictions for their finance are unrealistic. What is that all about? It is about the Government's poll tax and the way that it is run. It remains with us. We have heard in the debate about U-turns and people changing their minds, but we have not heard the Secretary of State for Wales and his colleagues apologise for the poll tax.
Let me remind the House of the voting on the poll tax. There were 11 opportunities to vote for the poll tax, which were taken with enthusiasm by the Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—and the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), for Delyn and for Cardiff, North.
Mr. Raffan: It was a mistake.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Delyn has the grace to apologise, and I respect his willingness to do that.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) voted for the poll tax nine times only. Perhaps he was abroad on the other two occasions, because I do not imagine that he lacked enthusiasm for it.
Apart from the change of heart of the hon. Member for Delyn, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West showed an honourable nil in his voting record. I pay tribute to him for being more far-sighted than his hon. Friends and the Secretary of State for Wales.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central gave us some interesting reminiscences in what will be his farewell speech.
Mr. John Morris: Valedictory.
Mr. Michael: Yes, my right hon. and learned Friend uses the posh word for farewell.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central seemed to blame family breakdown and human misery on everybody except himself and the Conservatives. He fails to appreciate that the realities of social change have been with us for some time and should have been recognised. The Government have failed to act on obvious dangers and are responsible for the misery of homelessness throughout the communities of Wales, much of which could have been avoided had they acted.
Throughout Wales—I saw this in the early 1970s, when I was a councillor—as we built local authority houses and were able to house people, so surgery lists went down. Later, as the Conservatives got to grips with housing in Wales, the surgery queues increased and the misery suffered by the people on those lists became worse. The Conservatives have failed to recognise the reality of what they should have tackled.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central talked of hospitals, as though every hospital in Wales was gleaming and sparkling new. In his constituency, the Cardiff royal infirmary is rundown and devastated. Repairs costing £20 million are needed to the University hospital of Wales, and there is planning blight on the health authority and on hospital services throughout south Glamorgan.
Mr. Grist: The major repairs needed to the University hospital of Wales arose in the days of a Labour Government. I recall what happened in 1968 in relation to the concrete that was put in, although I do not think that any blame attaches to the Government of the time. I spoke of the breakdown of family life, the rising divorce rate, the alienation of children from their step-parents leading to the breakdown of families and rows in families leading to homelessness. All the statistics show that the breakdown of personal relationships creates most of the homelessness.
Mr. Michael: I am tempted to say that that is a piece of bloody nonsense—[Interruption.]—but I shall restrain myself. Changes have taken place in society, and the Government have failed to recognise them, while other changes, particularly homelessness, have been created by the Conservatives. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to close his eyes to that fact. He referred to the cash that was needed for the University hospital of Wales. That money must be found, but the Government have given no answers about how it will be found. No doubt they will leave it as part of their legacy to an incoming Labour Government.
1204
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) referred to the scandal of low wages and the Government's deliberate third-world approach to turn Wales into a low-wage economy. It seems that the Conservatives want the people of Wales to be poor. That is why they oppose legislation for a minimum wage. Such a move would hurt the economy, they say. Why can we not learn from other countries—and suffer, for example, the economic difficulties that the Germans have had in the last decade? Why is it impossible for Conservative Members to recognise what has worked in other countries?
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was right to criticise the decline in rail services and to talk of the cancelled, late and dirty trains and the removal of late London-Cardiff trains. We need trains both ways late at night if the economy of a city and tourism and entertainment are to develop. We need a link to Europe and a strengthening of the Cardiff and valley services. The local authorities have recognised that need and put money into it from South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan, but the Government have repeatedly failed to recognise the need for investment in our rail services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East referred also to housing and the misery of homelessness in his constituency. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower who pointed to the horrors that had arisen from Government housing policy in Swansea and surrounding areas. Those policies have undermined family life and damaged often responsible and caring parents and their families. My hon. Friends and I see that all too often as we deal with the problems of our constituents.
The problems of children in Wales, and the United Kingdom generally, were highlighted in a neutral report from National Childrens Homes. The detail of the report revealed the position in Wales for poor families, with poor nutrition, and showed that the effects of eroded child benefit were scandalous in the United Kingdom generally but were worst of all in Wales.
There has been a breakdown of law and order in recent years, and the Government have not accepted sensible suggestions about working together to divert young people from some of the activities in which they have indulged. Indeed, delinquency has almost been encouraged by the Government's disregard of the Sunday trading issue.
It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to produce what was in effect a White Paper that the Government should have published, and to present a detailed Bill that the Government ought to have introduced. Instead, the Government avoided debate on that sensible measure and prevented the House from taking a constructive approach—leaving responsible local authorities, such as Cardiff city council, to try to enforce the current law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) told the House a great deal about the place of the banana in the cuisine of our nation. He was making a serious point about the jobs and future of the port of Barry that I hope will be taken seriously.
There is an international perspective to the problems that confront us. The Secretary of State said that international companies have demonstrated confidence in Wales. They have—in responding to the excellent work of local authorities, the sympathy of trade unions, the Welsh Development Agency—the establishment of which was

1205
opposed by the Conservative party—and the positive experiences of companies that have already come to Wales and know the support they enjoy from the Principality. We need to ensure next that secondary manufacturing is sourced within Wales, and that the WDA's work is devolved to each part of the Principality so that it can approach economic development in partnership with local firms and authorities.
Over the past 10 years, a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken of the jobs lost in mining and many other industries. I may tell the Minister of State, Welsh Office that, when I recently visited the constituency that he represents, Conwy, I found that Hotpoint. Denis and Ferranti felt that they have been left to suffer the effects of Government policies without Government help. The same point was made at meetings with industrialists in Cardiff. There is general concern about ministerial complacency, with one industrialist telling me only last week, "Ministers don't seem to recognise that this recession is cutting not into the fat but into the muscle and fitness of our industries, which will be desperately needed as they work towards recovery."
After 13 years, we have a right to ask what the Government have done for the people of Wales. Have they helped the old? No, the Government have robbed them of their pensions. Have they helped the young? No, the Government have taken from them opportunities for training and the chance of employment, and have encouraged delinquency. Have they helped the middle-aged? No, they have suffered the mortgage burden that is the result of the Government's economic mismanagement. Have they helped industry and commerce? No, and the voices of people in industry condemn the Government for their failure to help. Have they helped the sick and disabled? No, the Government have attacked and undermined the national health service, introducing care in the community without providing the cash and resources needed to do the job properly.
Have the Government helped anybody? They have helped only those failed Conservative candidates who have been given fat salaries to serve on unaccountable quangos.
This evening, we heard valedictory speeches from two hon. Members who will not be standing at the next general election. We all regard with great affection the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, and we listened with pleasure to that great parliamentarian, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. He spoke with authority and eloquence of the devastation and economic damage suffered by our valley communities under this Conservative Government's economic mismanagement.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West gave the Labour party credit for good intentions, but said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. The road to heaven is not paved with the policies and intentions of the present Government. With the Labour party under the firm leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), we start with good intentions, sound principles and clear plans—and we have a chance of not ending up in the hell of human misery, unemployment, homelessness, and poverty that the Conservative Government have left us as their legacy of 13 wasted years.
Thank goodness there are only a few weeks to go before the people of Wales can celebrate having a Secretary of State elected by Welsh constituents, in a Labour
1206
Government led with power and authority by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, and with Welsh talent on the Government Benches. That cannot come too soon.
9.44 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): This has been a wide-ranging debate, to say the least. We have been able to take in the Windward islands and the banana trade, owing to the interests of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith)—including the Geest operation at Barry.
This may well be the last occasion on which I shall address the serried ranks of Opposition Members before the walls of their optimism tumble down at the next general election.
First, let me say a few words about the roads programme, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not have time to deal in his opening speech. During this financial year, three major schemes will have been completed, including the magnificent Conwy tunnel, opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 25 October. During the same period, a further three contracts have been let. They are the M4/A4042 Brynglas tunnels and Malpas relief road scheme, the A483 Welshpool bypass and the M4 Briton Ferry to Earlswood scheme.
Far from being satisfied with those achievements, the Government remain committed to an extensive road programme. Today, we have published this year's supplement to "Roads in Wales".
A start should be made on a further six schemes during the coming financial year: the A487 Port Dinorwic bypass; the M4 Baglan to Briton Ferry scheme, which I am sure will cause delight to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) when he can manage it; the A55 Aber improvement; the M4 link to the second Severn crossing; and the A465 Glynneath to Aberdulais improvement.
As hon. Members will know, powers have now been granted to construct the second Severn crossing and the associated road links on both sides of the estuary. Construction of the new bridge is likely to start around the end of April, and the whole scheme will, we hope, be open to traffic by 1995, as my right hon. Friend said. The new bridge—which is to be privately financed and operated—will more than double the road capacity across the Severn estuary. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome this vital and most important development for south Wales. The new crossing will bring with it the potential for considerable domestic economic benefits.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked about British Rail. Let me tell him that the best guarantee for the London-Holyhead services is the use that passengers make of them. Ministers do not run British Rail.
We are glad of the general welcome that was given to my right hon. Friend's proposal to introduce a Welsh language Bill. I am pleased to say that the proposal has been welcomed outside the House as well, by the Confederation of British Industry in Wales.
Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have moved on from the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have little time left.

1207
No Government have done more to support and promote the Welsh language than the present Government. We have established Welsh as an integral part of the national curriculum——
Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Welsh is being taught in an increasing number of schools in Wales. Since 1979, we have spent some £25 million in support of Welsh language education alone. We have increased direct funding to voluntary organisations promoting the Welsh language from only £350,000 in 1978 to £7·6 million next year.
Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Wyn Roberts: I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear what I am saying. They are determined to wreck my final speech in this St. David's day debate. The hon. Member for Wrexham is being incited to interrupt by Opposition Front Benchers.
We established the Welsh Language Board in 1988 to advise Ministers on matters relating to the language. They have done valuable work in preparing not only proposals for legislation but guidelines for the public and private sectors. These have been welcomed and acted upon. I have been particularly impressed, for example, by the way in which the Department of Social Security has produced a package of forms and documents in Welsh. My right hon. Friend's announcement today will ensure that that work goes forward.
There is extensive evidence that the Welsh people as a whole wish the language to flourish. Its survival ultimately depends upon the will of those who know it to use it in their daily lives and to pass on their knowledge to their children. No Government can legislate a language into life. They can only provide a favourable framework for its use. We shall continue to do that.
The criticism to which the 1967 Act, passed by the Labour Government of that time, is now subjected shows the importance of taking care over the preparation of legislation. Section 3 of that Act, which relates to the possibility that English can take precedence over Welsh in the case of disputes, was intended to be no more than a means of resolving uncertainties over two versions of the same text. However, that section is seen increasingly as granting a lesser status to the Welsh language more generally. I am pleased that we shall be able to take the opportunity provided by the legislation that we propose to remove the confusion that has been created by the section.
The difficulties that surround the 1967 Act further serve to underline the importance of taking great care over the preparation of legislation. That we shall do. The Welsh language is so important that we must get the legislation right.
Mr. Alex Carlile: A new Welsh language Act would be very welcome, but will there be a right for children to attend a secondary school, if their parents so wish, where the medium of instruction is exclusively Welsh throughout the school?
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that his question must be addressed in the context
1208
of education legislation as a whole—in the context, too, of the duties of local education authorities and of the reasonableness of the requests made to them. That ethos and ambience have to be taken into account when answering his question. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the number of schools in Wales that do not teach Welsh to some extent is becoming ever smaller.
I must turn to——
Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing out of order.
Dr. Marek: I believe that the Minister has been misleading the House. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say that.
Dr. Marek: How can it be in order for the Minister to urge people to use the train to Holyhead when he himself uses a——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to raise a question with the Minister through the guise of a point of order, and that is out of order.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). He must hold the record for totally negative speeches. Today he seems to wallow in gloom and doom, rather like a happy hippopotamus. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales described him as agony aunt, but in my book agony aunts always give positive advice. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is more like one of those who write to agony aunts. I am beginning to wonder whether he writes to some of his safe socialist friends such as Clare Rayner, who attended the £500 champagne bash at the Berkeley hotel to raise funds for the party. If so, I wonder what he says to her. My mole has been at work.
Mr. Michael rose——
Sir Wyn Roberts: I must tell the House of the sort of letter that I think that the hon. Gentleman might write. It would say:
"Dear Auntie Clare,
We've got this awful election coming up and if we win, which I very much doubt, I could become Secretary of State for Wales. I don't really want the beastly job and all the hard work that goes with it, so I am planning to palm off as much as I can to an Assembly in Cardiff so that they can take the blame for anything that goes wrong. What do you think?"
The reply would say:
"Don't worry, it will never happen."
During the debate we have heard remarkably little about Labour party policies, even the finger-in-the-wind policies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). We heard nothing of its education policies in our debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. It was left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I to refer to the policy document. Is the Labour party ashamed of its policies? Other people are ashamed of them, as I mentioned in the Welsh Grand Committee. The two American experts commissioned by The Sunday Times to investigate our education system said of the Labour party's policies:
"The Labour Party is a lost cause when it comes to education reform … The Labour Party is trapped by its past, a defender of the status quo, and a purveyor of old, hopelessly out-moded ideas."

1209
Of the Labour party's proposal for an educational standards commission the experts said:
"this hardly deserves to be called a reform. It is more of the same from a party that appears incapable, politically and ideologically, of offering anything different."
We have heard nothing of the Labour party's destructive, bureaucratic NHS reforms. It plans to sweep away the NHS trusts and general practitioner fund holders. Is it ashamed of those reforms? Others are, including The Times, which wrote:
"The last thing the NHS wants is another upheaval to take it back to the old days."
The news that the Labour party means to abandon the recent reform of the NHS should it ever come to power is immensely depressing. Reform was needed. The Tory reforms are in the right direction and are gaining ever wider acceptance within the NHS.
We have heard nothing of the Labour party's alternative policies for dealing with the recession. Labour has failed miserably to pin the blame for the recession on the Government. The recession is worldwide and everybody knows it. People know that the companies for which they work, such as Hotpoint and Hoover, are facing a lack of customer demand that extends far beyond our shores, to our export markets in Europe and the United States.
Labour has failed to grasp that taking money out of people's pockets through increased taxation and national insurance is a sure-fire way of worsening and prolonging the recession. Every worker in manufacturing industry knows that we need to increase demand for products.
The Labour party has failed to grasp that the key to recovery is competitiveness. Its political somersaults on major issues will go down in history as the biggest volte face of all time. Labour Members will be known as the most desperate political trimmers of this century and the most dangerous since Sweeney Todd. All the chopping and changing of views, policies and principles and all their inconsistency have come about because they have seen their political credo discredited. Socialism has failed worldwide.
Undaunted by that reversal, Labour Members have changed their political colours like the chameleons that they are. They claim to be able to run a capitalist system better than those who believe in it. But even in opposition Labour Members are beginning to find out that their conversion is incomplete. They keep reverting to socialist ideas and their rose is returning to the briar that it was. The suckers of socialism are sprouting everywhere, hence their £37 billion of spending commitments, which make them so antagonistic to the idea of tax cuts to restore consumer demand and lead us out of the recession.
The electorate will not be deceived. They will not be made into socialist suckers. The Labour party will be rejected as having no real remedies to deal with the recession or, indeed, any of our problems.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  Mifegyne
  10 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I beg leave to present a petition signed by 324 of my constituents, led by Father Joseph Scally and Dr. Dermot Lynch of St. Theodore's Church, Hampton against the drug mifegyne.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the people of the Parliamentary constituency of Twickenham Showeth That we the undersigned wish to note with regret that the Abortion Pill Mifegyne (known as 'RU486') has been granted a product licence.
  We believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. We deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings, and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of mifegyne (known as RU486) and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hilda Lewis House
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter of Hilda Lewis house, which is on the verge of closure because of a decision taken by the Bethlem and Maudsley hospital special health authority.
  Hilda Lewis house provides an intensive short-term in-patient assessment and intervention service for children who have severe learning difficulties and extreme behavioural problems, such as aggression to other people, or who injure themselves so severely that they can cause permanent damage. The aim of the staff at Hilda Lewis house is to help such children to lead as normal a life as possible. I am reliably informed by expert opinion that the treatment of such children needs to be carried out consistently on a 24 hours per day basis, which requires a high staff ratio.
  Hilda Lewis house is a highly respected national resource offering residential treatment to children up to the age of 16 who have such severe problems that they cannot be adequately helped in a community setting. For most of those children, Hilda Lewis house is the last hope—the only answer. Without its help, they could end up under sedation in the wards of long-stay hospitals.
  The excellent service provided by the staff was recognised by the previous Secretary of State for Health when he wrote to you, Mr. Speaker, in your constituency capacity, on 6 August 1990, stating:
  "I am confident that Hilda Lewis House will continue to provide the unique service which it offers. I have no reason to believe that the changes proposed by the Special Health Authority will in any way detract from its international reputation as a centre of excellence for the treatment of all kinds of psychiatric disorders."
  In the same letter, he stated:
  "There is absolutely no intention to close the unit."
  That was on 6 August 1990; yet only 17 months later, on 14 January this year, the special health authority decided to close in-patient services for children at Hilda Lewis house.
  I understand that the remaining children at Hilda Lewis house were discharged last Friday without their treatment being completed. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me exactly what has happened to those children. Are they merely being sent back to their families, or are any steps being taken to continue the treatment that they so evidently need?
  Only a quarter of an hour or so ago, I met one of the children—a young lad called Simon, who was discharged last Friday and sent back to his parents. His mother and sisters have to look after him. I dare say that they will do their best, but they face an almost impossible situation without the essential back-up services that Simon had at Hilda Lewis house. It is a disgrace that in this day and age any child or young person such as Simon should be discharged without his therapy being completed. Will the Minister give me a case-by-case answer as to what has happened to all the children who were discharged last week without their treatment being completed?
  In his recent letter to you, Mr. Speaker, which was dated 17 February, the Secretary of State, referring to Hilda Lewis house, said:
  1212
  "The in-patient service is not unique, with similar services in units around the country."
  That seems to be a blatant contradiction of the statement made by the previous Secretary of State for Health when he referred to the "unique service" offered by Hilda Lewis house.
  Mr. Eric Byers, the chief executive of the special health authority, agreed on the Radio 4 "Today" programme last month that there are no other similar national facilities. If there are similar services in units around the country—that now seems to be the view of the Department of Health —will the Minister name them? Where are those facilities? Is he absolutely confident that they offer the same type and quality of service as Hilda Lewis house? My information is that they do not, and that there is nowhere in the whole of the United Kingdom offering a similar service for such disturbed and deserving children and young people. I am assured that Hilda Lewis house is unique. Children are referred to it from all over Britain and from overseas, which is why it has such an excellent international reputation.
  No justification has been given for its closure. In his recent letter to you, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State denied that Hilda Lewis house was being closed to provide a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. However, my information is that of the £250,000 that the authority hopes to save annually by the closure of Hilda Lewis house, £50,000 will go towards the purchase of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner although the cost-effectiveness of such a purchase has been questioned by several experts.
  It seems that unless the closure decision is reversed, children from all over Britain will lose out. Irene Davis, whose son was receiving treatment at Hilda Lewis house, went so far as to say:
  "If the special health authority are saying goodbye to Hilda Lewis house then they are saying goodbye to the rest of my son's life."
  In a letter to the hospital, Mrs. Davis wrote:
  "My 12-year-old son is autistic, and over the years he has gradually regressed, he has become extremely aggressive to the point of being too dangerous to stay at home, and yet the one thing I want most is for him to be a part of our family, but because of my four and two-year-olds I've had to ask HLH"—
  that is, Hilda Lewis house—
  "to help, otherwise he would be permanently sent away from home. I don't want that. He is my child, and not an aggressive stranger.
  HLH is really making headway with him, and he comes home to the family at weekends, and when they are finished with Paul, Paul will be part of our family with a future. You are taking that away from him, you are responsible for the fact that, due to this action, Paul and many children like him will be separated from their families indefinitely and probably locked away in so-called 'residential homes', which should be called 'institutions'. Well, I hope you can live with yourselves, knowing there are families and children going through incredible pain."
  I hope that the Minister will bear those words in mind.
  I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that in your time as a Member of Parliament and as Speaker you have often heard accusations, some justified and some perhaps not, of Government commitments having been broken. I have certainly heard many such accusations in my time as a Back Bencher, but I have never before come across a case in which a Minister has clearly broken a written commitment to the Speaker of the House of Commons. What is worse, no justification has been given for breaking

  1213
  that commitment, and no adequate alternative provision has been made for the children who will suffer the consequences of an inhumane and deplorable decision.
  I demand that the Minister intervene now, even at this late stage, and reverse the closure decision, for the sake of people such as Mrs. Davis and her son Paul, the young lad Simon, and all the other children who could benefit from the excellent service provided at Hilda Lewis house.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is raising this matter for the second time in the House. He tabled a health question for oral answer last week, but it was not reached. I made a brief statement to him about the background to the decision to close Hilda Lewis house. My answer was necessarily brief, as it was an initial answer to what was intended to be an oral question, so I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House in more detail the background to that difficult decision.
  Hilda Lewis house was created by, and was the responsibility of, the Bethlem and Maudsley special health authority which, as its name implies, plays a special role in the national health service. It has a special responsibility for the care of especially difficult cases involving psychiatric illness.
  In London there are a number of such special health authorities within the health service. They have a particular responsibility for providing a research and development capability, postgraduate teaching and training, and a tertiary referral centre for difficult cases. In addition, the special health authority provides a range of local mental illness services. The case that the hon. Gentleman has made for the maintenance of the facility at Hilda Lewis house is based on its role as a tertiary referral centre for particularly difficult cases of young people suffering from a combination of psychiatric disorders and behavioural problems coupled with learning disabilities. That was the specialty for which Hilda Lewis house was designed. The facility provided five in-patient places and 10 day patient places. No one disputes that while it was open it performed valuable work providing care for patients and leading to better understanding within the profession and the health service of the treatment and care of such difficult cases.
  Partly as a result of the experience and work at Hilda Lewis house, but more generally as well, thinking in the service about the best way of caring for and treating difficult psychiatric cases of people with learning disabilities has developed during the time when Hilda Lewis house was open. When, in June last year, the health advisory service and the social services inspectorate visited Hilda Lewis house to examine the facility, they said that the SHA should consider the future of the facility to see whether it still represented the best use of available resources. I take particularly seriously the opinion of the health advisory service, which has a monitoring responsibility for mental illness services throughout the NHS.
  Those bodies pointed out that the emphasis on in-patient care at Hilda Lewis house was somewhat at variance with developing ideas about the proper way of caring for difficult people—with the stress now placed on providing a wide range of support in the community,
  1214
  where possible, and at the very least—and however difficult the cases involved—on providing care for them as close as possible to the places where they live.
  I do not claim—it is not true—that the HAS and the SSI said that there was no place for Hilda Lewis house, but they did say that the future of the facility should be considered. They recommended that the SHA consider whether it still represented as valuable a resource as it undoubtedly did the day it was opened and during the early part of its life.
  Mr. Canavan: Saving money.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall come to that. I have looked in some detail into the background of this case, and I am totally confident that saving money does not constitute the background to it.
  Following the report from the HAS and the SSI, the director of the facility left in the second half of last year. I am sure that we can all agree that when the specialist body responsible for monitoring mental illness services within the NHS had suggested that a review was necessary, it would have been a dereliction of duty if the SHA had not taken the opportunity provided by the director's leaving to conduct a review, as suggested by the SSI and the HAS, into the efficacy of the services provided at Hilda Lewis house.
  When the director left, therefore, the SHA launched a review led not by managers and certainly not by politicians but by a joint committee of the special health authority—representing the centre of excellence for difficult psychiatric cases and the development of the psychiatric discipline in the health service—and the Institute of Psychiatry. The committee was to examine the use of resources at Hilda Lewis house. From a professional and not a managerial standpoint, the committee concluded that the SHA would use the resources better and provide a better quality of care for the people for whom, as the hon. Gentleman was right to stress, the NHS has an important responsibility to care. That committee decided that the resources could be better used.
  Against that background, the hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene in the case. If I receive first from the HAS, then from a joint committee comprising the Institute of Psychiatry and the SHA and then ultimately from the SHA board—which is the properly constituted body for managing that centre of excellence within the health service—advice arguing that the resources would be better used on a different model and that the care needs of the client group for which the facility was established would be better met by different means, it would not be my place as a Minister with two years standing in the health service and a background in business—not psychiatry—to intervene and overrule a decision made by bodies with a pedigree in the psychiatric discipline which I cannot hope to match.
  However, I can try to answer one or two of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the last in-patients who were discharged from Hilda Lewis house and some of the points made in the earlier letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he was Secretary of State for Health.
  The hon. Gentleman accurately quoted the letter from my right hon. and learned Friend in which he said that there were then no plans to close Hilda Lewis house. That

  1215
  was perfectly true: there were no such plans. However, I have explained in some detail why the position of the SHA changed during the nine months beginning with the investigation by the HAS and the SSI, the findings of which were published last June. No hon. Member would argue that a commitment, albeit in an august letter from a Secretary of State to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was, as accurately stated then, no intention to close Hilda Lewis house, should bind the managers of the health service for ever, particularly if the managers receive advice from the psychiatrists and specialists in the field with the pedigree that I have described to the House.
  Even though the undertaking was made in a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, I feel perfectly comfortable that the advice available—not to the Government, because this is not directly a Government decision—to the special health authority charged with managing that important national resource, and the circumstances have changed sufficiently for a decision to be reached that clearly contradicts the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend when he was Secretary of State for Health some time ago.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we and the SHA recognised that the service provided at Hilda Lewis house was a national service. It is true that the services provided by any SHA are available to the whole NHS. It is part of the purpose of the SHA system that those authorities should develop the delivery of health care and that the results of their experience should be available widely through the health service. To that extent, the service provided at Hilda Lewis house was a national service. However, when we consider the pattern of where the patients came from, it is difficult to argue that Hilda Lewis house was a national service that was used throughout the country.
  Between 1985 and 1991, 70 in-patients were cared for at Hilda Lewis house of whom 63 per cent.—very nearly two thirds—came from the South East Thames region in which Hilda Lewis house was located. Of the remainder, 16 per cent. came from South West Thames, which is the next nearest region, and only 21 per cent. of the total—15 cases—came from outside one of the two south Thames regions.
  Against that background, I do not think that the case is made that that was a service of extensive value to the Trent region, for example, which covers my constituency, still less to the Scottish Home and Health Department, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, that service undoubtedly performed valuable work for the people who went there, and it developed a better understanding of the care of those conditions, but I do not think that it was a resource that met a national need.
  Mr. Canavan: The previous Secretary of State described it as a unique service. Is the Minister reneging on that statement? He has only five minutes in which to answer. What provision has been made for the children who were discharged last Friday? If it was a unique service, there is literally nowhere else for those children to go.
  Mr. Dorrell: Those were to be my final two points to the hon. Gentleman. One was whether an alternative service of a similar type is available to meet that need elsewhere in the country. I am advised that two institutions offer similar
  1216
  treatment for children who suffer from the combination of acute psychiatric conditions and learning difficulties. They are Harper house, which is in North West Thames region, and the Haven, which is in Paignton, in South Western region. Those facilities offer, I am advised, care that is comparable with that which was previously available at Hilda Lewis house.
  I repeat that, bearing in mind the geographical home territory of the people who were treated at Hilda Lewis house, there is simply no support for the assertion that it was a national service. Certainly, there was learning which may be useful on a national scale—I do not dispute that—but I dispute that the service was uniformly available and used through the national health service.
  Mr. Canavan: Do any of the places that the Minister has named offer 24-hour treatment combined with the assessment that was given at Hilda Lewis house?
  Mr. Dorrell: Again, I am advised that the North West Thames, Northern and South-Western RHAs have a range of services that provide multi-disciplinary in-patient, out-patient community assessment and specialised consultancy for such patients. "In-patient" means residential care for those for whom it is most appropriate. I stress to the hon. Gentleman, as I have stressed to many audiences, both friendly and hostile, the health service's commitment to ensuring that, where possible, all people who suffer from a learning disability, and most particularly young people who suffer from a learning disability, are cared for in a domestic context and, where humanly possible, with their families. That is simply because the overwhelming weight of evidence is that, when that risk is taken and when that attempt is made, the outcome in terms of the lifestyle of the individual is dramatically better than is possible in an in-patient context. There are repeated examples of patients surprising themselves, their families and professional staff by what they are able to do when supported in that context.
  I now refer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the three patients who were discharged last Friday. I remind the House that the closure of that facility did not involve a massive dislocation; it involved the relocation of three patients—all of them individuals with the right to expect that we discharge a proper responsibility of care for them. I am advised that two of the existing patients, one from Waltham Forest and one from Worthing, were already in local authority care and have returned to respite care in their home areas. The third has returned to his home in the Oxford area while a suitable placement nearer home is found. The SHA continues, because we are talking about the closure of only a tiny part of its activity. It will use some of the money that is released by the closure of Hilda Lewis house to ensure that there is proper follow-up of not only those three cases but all the cases that stand to benefit from the type of services offered through that important centre of excellence.
  The centre of excellence is the SHA. It has a deep and continuing commitment to continue to improve the quality of care available in the health service for this type of patient. It is its professional judgment that such care is best delivered by following the route that it has set out.
  Mr. Canavan: Why were the children discharged before the treatment was completed?
  Mr. Dorrell: As I have said, the treatment of such conditions by its nature is never completed. We seek to ensure that for all discharged patients there is follow-up
  1218
  and that continuing care which meets their needs is available. That is the commitment which I have given and repeat and which the health authority has given.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Non-taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many single people and married couples do not pay tax in 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  There are about 6·6 million single people not liable to income tax and about 4·1 million married couples where neither spouse is liable to tax.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the revenue in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93, giving in each case the first and full year costs, of a one per cent. cut in car tax, in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The requested estimates are as shown. They use the autumn statement forecast and are consistent with the methodology used in table 4·8 in chapter 4 of the 1991 autumn statement.

  Revenue effect of 1 per cent. cut in car tax (£ million)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  First year

  -125

  -130

  Full year

  -140

  -150

  Child Care Tax Allowances
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1992–93 and in a full year of extending the exemption of workplace nurseries from income tax as a benefit in kind to all forms of employer-provided or subsidised child care.

  Mr. Maude
  The annual cost would be approximately £5 million at current levels of provision and subsidies for child care. This estimate takes no account of behavioural effects, which could be substantial.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue yield of putting the standard rate of VAT on funeral payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Standard rating those elements of funeral expenses which are presently exempt from value added tax would raise an estimated £40 million in 1991–92.

  Income Tax and NI Liability
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest estimates of how many people with gross incomes of over £100,000 pay(a) a
  544
  national insurance contributions bill and (b) a total income tax and national insurance contributions bill, of less than (i) 35 per cent., (ii) 30 per cent., (iii) 25 per cent., (iv) 20 per cent., (v) 15 per cent., (vi) 10 per cent. and (vii) 5 per cent. of their gross incomes, in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  Available figures relate to the estimated 150,000 taxpayers in 1991–92 with gross incomes of £80,000 and above. Nearly all of these taxpayers pay less than 5 per cent. of their gross income in national insurance contributions. Estimates of combined income tax and national insurance contribution liabilities are that 60,000 have an effective rate above 35 per cent., 80,000 have an effective rate between 30 and 35 per cent. and the remaining 10,000 have an effective rate between 25 and 30 per cent.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, columns 521–22, whether there is any proposal to undertake manual data exchange between tax authorities in other European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the Council directive of 19 December 1977 (77/799/EEC), competent authorities of the member states may exchange certain information to enable them to assess taxpayers correctly. These exchanges are subject to certain safeguards to preserve the confidentiality of the information and were given legislative effect in section 77 of the Finance Act 1978.

  The directive was extended to VAT on 6 December 1979 (79/1070/EEC) and all exchanges are subject to the confidentiality safeguards of directive 77/799/EEC. Directive 79/1070/EEC was implemented by section 17(2) of the Finance Act 1980. There is currently a proposal to extend directive 77/799/EEC to include excise duties on manufactured tobacco, alcohol and alcoholic beverages and mineral oils.

  Taxation
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures for each standard region of England, and for Scotland and Wales, for a one-earner family with two children on(a) average male earnings for that region, stating what this is and (b) median male earnings for that region, stating what this is in both April 1979 and April 1990 and counting child benefit as negative taxation, for (i) the amount paid in income tax per week, (ii) the amount paid in national insurance contributions, (iii) the amount paid in VAT, (iv) the amount paid in indirect taxation, excise duties and so on (v) the amount paid in domestic rates or in community charge as appropriate and (vi) the total amount paid out in the listed categories above, giving in each case the figures in current prices, constant prices and as a percentage of gross earnings.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Figures for average male earnings in April 1979 and April 1990 and for median male earnings in April 1990 are shown in the table, along with the income tax and employee national insurance contributions payable on them under the 1979–80 and 1990–91 tax and NIC regimes respectively. Figures for regional median male earnings for 1979 are

  545
  unavailable and could be derived only at disproportionate cost. Reliable estimates of the amounts payable in VAT, other indirect taxes, domestic rates and the community charge which reflect regional variations in spending

  At regional mean male earnings

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Greater London

  Remainder of South East

  East Anglia

  South West

  England West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  North

  £ per week at April 1979 prices

  April 1979

  Mean male earnings

  113·40

  99·90

  93·80

  90·90

  96·80

  95·70

  97·70

  97·80

  98·30

  96·50

  99·30

  Income tax

  14·83

  10·78

  8·95

  8·08

  9·85

  9·52

  10·12

  10·15

  10·30

  9·76

  10·60

  NICs

  7·37

  6·49

  6·10

  5·91

  6·29

  6·22

  6·35

  6·36

  6·39

  6·27

  6·45

  Total

  22·20

  17·27

  15·04

  13·99

  16·14

  15·74

  16·47

  16·50

  16·69

  16·03

  17·05

  £ per week at April 1990 prices

  April 1979

  Mean male earnings

  261·33

  230·22

  216·16

  209·48

  223·07

  220·54

  225·15

  225·38

  226·53

  222·38

  228·83

  Income tax

  34·17

  24·84

  20·62

  18·62

  22·69

  21·93

  23·32

  23·39

  23·73

  22·49

  24·42

  NICs

  16·99

  14·96

  14·05

  13·62

  14·50

  14·33

  14·63

  14·65

  14·72

  14·45

  14·87

  Total

  51·16

  39·80

  34·67

  32·23

  37·19

  36·27

  37·95

  38·04

  38·46

  36·94

  39·30

  April 1990

  Mean male earnings

  383·10

  310·60

  281·10

  277·30

  269·30

  269·70

  266·90

  274·70

  265·20

  258·60

  276·40

  Income tax

  58·56

  40·43

  33·06

  32·11

  30·11

  30·21

  29·51

  31·46

  29·08

  27·43

  31·88

  NICs

  28·28

  24·73

  22·08

  21·74

  21·02

  21·05

  20·80

  21·50

  20·65

  20·05

  21·66

  Total

  86·84

  65·17

  55·14

  53·84

  51·12

  51·26

  50·31

  52·96

  49·73

  47·49

  53·54

  Percentages of gross earnings April 1979

  Income tax (per cent.)

  13·1

  10·8

  9·5

  8·9

  10·2

  9·9

  10·4

  10·4

  10·5

  10·1

  10·7

  NICs (per cent.)

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  Total (per cent.)

  19·6

  17·3

  16·0

  15·4

  16·7

  16·4

  16·9

  16·9

  17·0

  16·6

  17·2

  April 1990

  Income tax (per cent.)

  15·3

  13·0

  11·8

  11·6

  11·2

  11·2

  11·1

  11·5

  11·0

  10·6

  11·5

  NICs (per cent.)

  7·4

  8·0

  7·9

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  7·8

  Total (per cent.)

  22·7

  21·0

  19·6

  19·4

  19·0

  19·0

  18·8

  19·3

  18·8

  18·4

  19·4

  April 1990

  £ per week at April 1990 prices

  Median male earnings

  320·00

  275·70

  247·80

  249·50

  242·30

  242·40

  241·80

  246·50

  241·80

  237·70

  243·30

  Income tax

  42·78

  31·71

  24·73

  25·16

  23·36

  23·38

  23·23

  24·41

  23·23

  22·21

  23·61

  NICs

  25·58

  21·59

  19·08

  19·24

  18·59

  18·60

  18·54

  18·97

  18·54

  18·17

  18·68

  Total

  68·36

  53·30

  43·81

  44·39

  41·94

  41·98

  41·77

  43·37

  41·77

  40·38

  42·28

  Percentages of gross earnings

  Income tax (per cent.)

  13·4

  11·5

  10·0

  10·1

  9·6

  9·6

  9·6

  9·9

  9·6

  9·3

  9·7

  NICs (per cent.)

  8·0

  7·8

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  7·7

  7·6

  7·7

  Total (per cent.)

  21·4

  19·3

  17·7

  17·8

  17·3

  17·3

  17·3

  17·6

  17·3

  17·0

  17·4

  Notes to table:

  (1) Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  (2) Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  (3) Average and median earnings estimates are derived from the New Earnings Survey. To provide consistent estimates for the two years, average earnings figures for April 1979 have been multiplied by a splicing factor, taking account of a classification change in the 1983 New Earnings Survey, from 'males aged over 21 years' to 'all males on adult rates'. The regional average earnings shown for 1979 therefore differ from those in the published New Earnings Survey.

  Student Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in the latest year for which information is available, is the number of students who pay income tax; and what is the total number of students who pay VAT.
  546
  patterns and local tax rates cannot be made as the sample size of the family expenditure survey, on which such estimates would be based, is too small.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Information on the number of students who pay income tax is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  547
  VAT is chargeable on a wide range of consumer expenditure and it is likely that everybody has to pay some in the course of a year.

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the amount of tax paid on the 10 most popular brands of cigarettes in each EC member state and the average price of a pack of 20 cigarettes in each country.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: Information is available relating only to 1991 and for the most popular cigarette brand in each EC member states as follows:

  Pence per 20

  Retail selling price

  Excise duty and VAT

  Spain

  32

  18

  Greece

  42

  30

  Portugal

  60

  45

  Luxembourg

  81

  58

  Italy

  87

  63

  France

  105

  71

  Netherlands

  105

  74

  Belgium

  113

  82

  Germany

  146

  107

  Ireland

  184

  138

  United Kingdom

  208

  155

  Denmark

  233

  200

  Taxes and Duties
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what amounts to taxes and duty were raised in each of the last five years(a) at 1991 prices and (b) as a percentage of total revenues on tobacco and tobacco products;

  (2) what amounts of taxes and duties were raised in each of the last five years (a) at 1991 prices and (b) as a percentage of total revenues on alcohol and alcohol products.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: The following is the information in respect of excise duty and VAT on alcoholic drink and tobacco at 1991 prices and as a percentage of total Customs and Excise receipts.

  Excise Duty and VAT £ million 1991 prices

  Percentage of Customs & Excise receipts

  Alcohol

  Tobacco

  Alcohol

  Tobacco

  1986–87

  8,550

  7,750

  15·4

  13·9

  1987–88

  8,600

  7,500

  14·8

  12·9

  1988–89

  8,550

  7,400

  14·0

  12·1

  1989–90

  8,000

  6,950

  13·5

  11·7

  1990–91

  8,000

  7,050

  13·9

  12·2

TRANSPORT

  Redmire to Redcar Rail Link
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to intervene in the possible closure of the Redmire to Redcar rail link following the withdrawal of the British Steel limestone traffic; and what assessment 548
  he has made of the extent to which such a closure would be in accordance with his policy of transferring freight from road to rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following discussions with my Department, British Rail and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) British Steel has agreed to continue transporting limestone on the Redmire line until the end of September, rather than the end of March as they had previously proposed. British Rail, for its part, has agreed to defer its proposed increase in rail charges for the same period. My officials are to host further discussions with my hon. Friend together with representatives of British Steel, British Rail and North Yorkshire county council, to explore the scope for keeping the limestone traffic on the line in the longer term. We have indicated our willingness to consider assistance through the freight facilities grants scheme, if appropriate.

  Railway Clearing House
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has any plans to lease the former railway clearing house building at Eversholt street, London NW1, following the privatisation of railway services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. I understand from the British Rail property board that the former railway clearing house was vested in the assets of Sealink, which was sold by the British Railways Board in 1984.

  Ports Act 1991
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the operations of part III of the Ports Act 1991 in so far as its effects upon lighthouse dues and the smaller ports are concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am currently considering proposals made by Trinity House and the Northern Lighthouse board under part III of the Ports Act 1991. In reaching a decision I shall take account of the representations made by the various interested parties.

  Motorcycle Leg Protection
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will withdraw his proposals for the use of motorcycle leg protection.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the Government's desire to encourage the development of safe motorcycle secondary protection devices so that they can be available on an optional basis to those motorcyclists who wish to make use of them.

  There remains considerable scepticism among manufacturers as to whether it is possible to design and produce motorcycle leg protectors which enhance total safety and do not increase the risk of head injuries. Research is therefore continuing with a view to allaying such concerns.

  Roads and Traffic, Shropshire
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the capital and revenue contributions from central Government to road and traffic schemes in Shropshire for 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The capital allocations were as follows:
  549

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1986–87

  1991–92

  £ million

  Borrowing/credit approvals or equivalent

  N/A

  2,927

  2,434

  5,621

  Transport supplementary grant

  N/A

  1

  1,456

  4,355

  Total

  —

  —

  3,890

  9,976

  1 Before 1985–86 transport supplementary grant was paid on both capital and revenue expenditure but was not differentiated between the two elements.

  Grants to local authorities for revenue expenditure have since 1982 been unhypothecated—that is, not split into allocations for separate services. Only the ceiling for expenditure by central Government is controlled. Shropshire county council is free to make as much or as little revenue expenditure as it considers appropriate on road and traffic schemes.

  Euro-routes
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the designation of Euro-routes between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  Euro-routes are designated in annex I of the European agreement on main international traffic arteries (AGR). This is a free-standing agreement managed by the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations in Geneva.

  The E routes designated between Ireland and Britain are:
  the E16 which runs Londonderry-Belfast-Glasgow-Edinburgh;
  the E 18 which runs Craigavon-Belfast-Larne-Stranraer-Gretna-Carlisle-Newcastle and then through Norway, Sweden and Finland to St. Petersburg;

  Schemes newly accepted for Transport Supplementary Grant in 1989–90

  n/s: Data not supplied by local highway authority

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Bexley

  Bexleyheath Southern Relief Road

  21

  n/s

  0·4

  9

  Enfield

  Nags Head Road/High Street, Ponders End, Junction Improvement

  9

  n/s

  n/s

  21

  Waltham Forest

  Bakers Arms Junction Improvement

  10

  n/s

  0·2

  31

  Bolton

  Market Street Diversion Westhoughton

  9

  0·6

  1·0

  12

  Manchester

  Manchester/Salford IRR (A6/Mancunian Way)

  14

  3·7

  0·7

  24

  Salford

  Crescent Bridge Reconstruction

  99

  5·3

  0·3

  12

  Salford

  Irlam/Cadishead Bypass (Boysnope Wharf-Brinell Drive)

  12

  4·6

  4·0

  18

  Trafford

  City Link

  n/s

  n/s

  1·4

  18

  Liverpool

  Park Road Relief Road Phase 2

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  18

  St. Helens

  St. Helens Town Centre to M62 Link Road [C] (Exc. Con.)

  9

  4·2

  7·6

  30

  Barnsley

  East of Hoyland Swaine

  10

  0·3

  1·8

  12

  Rotherham

  A630/A631 Rotherham to M1 Link

  32

  8·5

  2·6

  38

  Sheffield

  (pt. 4350) Sheffield·M1 via Mosborough Stage II and III

  n/s

  1·9

  5·6

  42

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  (3435, 4486 and 4488) West Central Route

  n/s

  n/s

  1·4

  36

  South Tyneside

  Newcastle Road, South Shields

  15

  1·5

  1·0

  15

  Birmingham

  City UTC

  88

  n/s

  n/s

  24

  Birmingham

  Middle Ring Road (Key Hill Link)

  20

  n/s

  0·7

  18

  Birmingham

  Middle Ring Road (New John Street West)

  20

  n/s

  1·3

  18

  Birmingham

  Washwood Heath Road/High Street Junction

  99

  n/s

  0·4

  9

  Wolverhampton

  Willenhall Road Improvement (Deans Road-Neachells Lane)

  n/s

  n/s

  0·5

  54

  550
  the E20 which runs Shannon-Dublin-Liverpool-Manchester-Bradford-Leeds-Hull and then through Denmark, Sweden and Estonia to St. Petersburg;
  the E30 which runs Cork-Rosslare-Fishguard-Cardiff London-Felixstowe and then through the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and Byelorussia to Moscow.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to announce the detailed guidelines for the use of discretionary powers to acquire property affected by his Department's road schemes which were referred to in his answer to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) of 21 November, 1991 Official Report, column 237.

  Mr. Chope
  I announced the detailed guidelines for the use of the new discretionary powers of section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 on 17 January, pursuant to my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).

  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each highway authority (a) the value of the first year return, (b) the total net present value and (c) the length of each road project which qualified for transport supplementary grant in each year from 1989–90 to 1991–92; and if he will give the same information for each road project which has been accepted for transport supplementary grant in 1992–93 and for the proposed Squires Gate link road, phase 2, in Lancashire.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: Listed are the details requested for major schemes newly accepted for transport supplementary grant in the years 1989–90 to 1992–93. The tables also include similar information on the Squires Gate link road phase II.
  551

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Avon

  (pt. 4096) Avon R.R. IB2: Westerleigh Road-Shortwood Road

  14

  26·1

  2·3

  18

  Avon

  Urban Traffic Control

  80

  3·5

  n/s

  30

  Berkshire

  Reading Urban Traffic Control

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  Wing-Milton Keynes Fenny Stratford BP (MKDC Con.)[C]

  n/s

  3·7

  2·2

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  Elton/Chesterton BP (Excl. PDC Contribution) [C]

  n/s

  5·0

  5·9

  18

  Cheshire

  Diversion (Phase 2) Warrington

  8

  0·5

  1·2

  24

  Cleveland

  (pt. 1024) Guisborough Road Improvement

  6

  0·4

  1·0

  12

  Cornwall

  (1368) Sticker Bypass

  8

  0·4

  3·0

  18

  Cumbria

  Papcastle Diversion

  21

  3·3

  2·0

  24

  Cumbria

  Romney Road Link [C] (Excl. Developer's Contribution)

  61

  3·3

  0·3

  18

  Devon

  UTC/Scoot Phase 3

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  60

  Durham

  Wheatley Hill Bypass

  13

  2·0

  3·5

  30

  East Sussex

  Brighton Bypass-Hangleton Link [C] (Excl. DTP Contribution)

  n/s

  n/s

  1·7

  24

  Essex

  Little Waltham to Great Leighs Stages 1 and 2

  n/s

  n/s

  1·6

  13

  Hampshire

  West Totton Bypass (2)

  15

  10·5

  1·2

  24

  Humberside

  Hull Ennerdale Link

  53

  18·1

  3·3

  39

  Humberside

  Humber Bridge Northern Approach Road

  12

  3·3

  5·3

  21

  Kent

  Eastry Bypass

  14

  0·6

  2·5

  20

  Kent

  Maidstone Spine Road

  46

  30·4

  2·7

  42

  Kent

  Somerhill Park Link Tonbridge

  17

  1·9

  2·3

  26

  Kent

  South Ashford to Hamstreet

  7

  -01

  6·2

  27

  Kent

  Stockbridge to Brenzett

  7

  0·1

  4·0

  18

  Kent

  Sturry Road to Military Road Link Canterbury

  32

  1·1

  0·2

  12

  Kent

  Whitfield Bypass

  11

  0·4

  2·1

  17

  Kent

  Whitfield to Eastry

  8

  0·3

  7·5

  24

  Lancashire

  (RN) Penwortham Bypass Extension to Preston

  14

  9·8

  1·2

  19

  Lancashire

  Accrington Town Centre Relief Road

  45

  3·4

  0·7

  12

  Lancashire

  Freckleton Bypass

  21

  5·7

  3·3

  15

  Lancashire

  Kirkham and Wesham Bypass

  16

  2·7

  1·9

  18

  Lancashire

  Lancaster/Morecambe Bypass (Phase I)

  81

  8·3

  5·8

  24

  Leicestershire

  Syston Northern Bypass

  6

  0·5

  2·3

  16

  Lincolnshire

  Wainfleet bypass

  20

  1·4

  3·8

  20

  Norfolk

  Dersingham/Snettisham Bypass

  n/s

  7·7

  5·8

  18

  Northamptonshire

  Staverton Bypass

  n/s

  0·1

  1·2

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  Hucknall Bypass

  n/s

  4·5

  5·4

  55

  Nottinghamshire

  Portland Street to Inner Ring Road Mansfield

  99

  n/s

  0·5

  10

  Shropshire

  Whitchurch Bypass

  n/s

  0·2

  2·1

  24

  Staffordshire

  Hawkins Lane Link Burton-upon-Trent

  22

  1·0

  0·5

  15

  Suffolk

  Long Melford Bypass

  9

  1·5

  5·4

  18

  Surrey

  Ewell Bypass

  26

  3·9

  1·6

  18

  West Sussex

  Rustington Bypass

  9

  2·1

  3·0

  24

  Schemes newly accepted for Transport Supplementary Grant in 1990–91

  n/s: Data not supplied by local highway authority

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Croydon

  Mitcham Road/Sumner Road Junction Improvement

  19

  1·0

  n/s

  17

  Ealing

  South Road Pedestrianisation (Southall TN Center)

  n/s

  1·6

  0·1

  21

  Merton

  (RN) Beddington/Mitcham Relief Road

  61

  59·8

  3·3

  32

  Wandsworth

  Battersea Park Road (Alexandra Avenue-Queenstown Road)

  16

  n/s

  0·6

  21

  Bolton

  Outer Ring Road Improvements

  176

  20·5

  10·6

  60

  Manchester

  Airport Access Roads Stage 2 (M56 Spur/ Airport)

  66

  1·8

  0·6

  14

  Manchester

  Intermediate Ring Road Stage 2 (Pottery Lane-Oldham Road)

  17

  6·8

  3·1

  36

  Manchester

  Intermediate Ring Road Stage 1 (Kirkmanshulme Lane-Pottery Lane)

  51

  11·6

  1·4

  20

  Stockport

  (5283) Brinksway Improvement Phase 2

  12

  4·2

  0·6

  19

  Wigan

  Lowton St. Mary's Bypass

  14

  2·6

  1·4

  18

  Knowsley

  (RN) M57-A562 Link Road

  8

  20·6

  4·5

  30

  Liverpool

  Great Howard Street Improvement Phase 1

  n/s

  n/s

  0·8

  18

  552 553

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Sheffield

  (0353) Outer Ring Road Darnall Stage II, III and IV

  5

  0·2

  2·6

  51

  Sheffield

  (5475 and 5476) Penistone Road Stages II and III

  28

  4·8

  2·5

  36

  Sunderland

  Eastern Relief Road

  n/s

  7·6

  0·8

  30

  Birmingham

  (5691) UDA Spine Road (Heartlands)

  n/s

  n/s

  4·1

  43

  Birmingham

  Lichfield Road Improvement Phase 1 (UDA Scheme)

  52

  66·2

  1·2

  42

  Birmingham

  Middle Ring Road (Lawley Street Viaduct Section)

  53

  4·4

  0·5

  18

  Coventry

  North-South Road Phase 1

  37

  28·4

  2·4

  18

  Dudley

  Dudley Southern Bypass

  15

  59·3

  3·1

  66

  Solihull

  (5404) Shirley Junction Improvements Phase I

  24

  3·2

  0·8

  14

  Bradford

  (5031) Bradford City Ring Road Stage II

  23

  71·9

  1·2

  24

  Bradford

  Killinghall Triangle

  182

  30·5

  0·4

  8

  Leeds

  Leeds Inner Ring Road Stages 6 and 7

  n/s

  n/s

  2·2

  24

  Avon

  (5657) Western Super Mare PDR Stages VA and VB

  11

  3·9

  1·4

  24

  Avon

  Avon Ring Road (IV): Marsham Way-A4 Bath Road

  19

  6·4

  2·8

  30

  Bedfordshire

  Stagsden Bypass

  n/s

  1·2

  3·0

  12

  Berkshire

  Sandhurst Crowthorne Bypass

  n/s

  27·9

  3·8

  18

  Berkshire

  Slough Bath Road Montem Lane-Wellington Street

  n/s

  11·1

  0·6

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  A14/A603/B1042 Junction Improvement Arrington

  13

  n/s

  1·0

  6

  Cheshire

  Wilmslow Local Bypass

  n/s

  n/s

  3·0

  30

  Cleveland

  (1026) Thornaby Bypass

  22

  18·8

  5·0

  87

  Cornwall

  Liskeard Industrial Distributor Road

  2

  5·6

  1·5

  13

  Devon

  Milehouse Junction Improvement Plymouth

  79

  28·6

  0·4

  12

  Devon

  Thorns Cross to Eagle Farm Stage 4

  15

  6·8

  2·8

  12

  Devon

  Torbay Ring Road Stage 2

  62

  34·8

  2·7

  12

  Devon

  Western Approach/Union Street Junction Improvement Plymouth

  91

  34·2

  0·8

  9

  Dorset

  (pt5740) Primary Network/A37 Improvement-Section A AIP

  7

  0·1

  2·8

  8

  Durham

  Consett Bypass Stage II

  n/s

  n/s

  1·8

  18

  Durham

  Metal Bridge to Bowburn

  9

  3·5

  1·8

  12

  East Sussex

  Boarshead to Eridge

  14

  10·0

  3·9

  24

  Essex

  Canes Lane Improvement (Final Stage)

  n/s

  1·8

  1·7

  18

  Essex

  Dovercourt Bypass Stage 2 Phase 2

  n/s

  2·9

  2·5

  24

  Hampshire

  M3 Link Minley

  49

  45·7

  1·0

  20

  Hereford and Worcester

  A44-A422 Link Worcester Road-Whittington Road Marl Bank

  27

  71·3

  1·0

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  Roman Road Hereford Phase 4 Stage 2

  4

  -0·3

  1·5

  6

  Kent

  Dartford Northern Bypass

  43

  68·3

  3·0

  24

  Kent

  Thames-Side Industrial Route (TIR) Stage 1

  56

  21·3

  2·4

  24

  Lancashire

  Blackburn Inner Relief Road (Phase 1)

  30

  13·9

  0·9

  16

  Lancashire

  Park Road/St.-Helens Road Link Ormskirk

  17

  7·6

  0·4

  9

  Lancashire

  Squires Gate Lane Blackpool Dualling

  19

  6·4

  1·4

  12

  Leicestershire

  Ashby-Loughborough Coleorton Improvement

  12

  0·2

  1·9

  10

  Leicestershire

  Redland Quarry to Quorn/Mountsorrel Bypass Link

  n/s

  0·3

  1·1

  n/s

  Norfolk

  Watton Inner Relief Road

  n/s

  5·9

  0·5

  9

  Northamptonshire

  Middleton Cheney BP and Overthorpe Hall Improvement

  n/s

  13·8

  3·2

  17

  Northamptonshire

  Nene Valley Way I Crawler Lane

  n/s

  1·4

  1·2

  6

  Northamptonshire

  River Tove Bends

  n/s

  2·7

  1·1

  14

  Northumberland

  Prudhoe Northern Bypass

  n/s

  23·2

  4·4

  30

  Northumberland

  Swinburne Quarry to Fourlaws Stage 1

  n/s

  1·3

  2·0

  18

  North Yorkshire

  Sherburn-in-Elmet and South Milford Bypass

  n/s

  7·4

  6·8

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  Manvers Street Link Nottingham

  n/s

  3·8

  1·8

  57

  Oxfordshire

  (RN) Banbury Inner Relief Road

  23

  37·4

  2·0

  24

  Shropshire

  Ironbridge Bypass Extension

  24

  3·7

  2·8

  12

  Somerset

  Lysander Road to Hendford Yeovil

  n/s

  n/s

  0·7

  9

  Staffordshire

  Burslem Town Centre Bypass

  2

  0·5

  0·5

  15

  Suffolk

  Mutford Bridge

  12

  0·5

  0·5

  18

  Suffolk

  Stowmarket Relief Road

  10

  10·1

  1·6

  18

  West Sussex

  Crawley South Western Bypass

  n/s

  15·1

  2·3

  n/s

  West Sussex

  Littlehampton Bypass (Main Scheme)

  n/s

  24·7

  1·8

  n/s

  Wiltshire

  Burbage Bypass

  13

  2·6

  2·6

  24

  Wiltshire

  Swindon Cricklade Road Relief Road-Stage 2

  n/s

  n/s

  1·2

  14

  554 555

  Schemes newly accepted for Transport Supplementary Grant in 1991–92

  n/s: Data not supplied by local highway authority

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Barking and Dagenham

  Beacontree Heath Road Improvements

  n/s

  n/s

  0·3

  24

  Bromley

  Elmers End Road Railway Bridge

  25

  2·8

  0·2

  16

  Ealing

  Iron Bridge Highway Improvement

  92

  21·2

  0·3

  15

  Hillingdon

  Uxbridge Town Centre Improvement Scheme

  44

  34·6

  1·0

  29

  Stockport

  A34 Bypass (Etchells Road to Schools Hill)

  n/s

  1·1

  1·1

  30

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Scotswood Road Phase 1

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  11

  Berkshire

  Phase 2 A33 Relief Road Rose Kiln Lane to I.D.R.

  n/s

  n/s

  1·2

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  A509/A422 Newport Pagnall BP Dualling (MKDC Con.)

  n/s

  8·6

  4·2

  12

  Cheshire

  Handforth BP and MAELR (Stockport/ Developer Funded)

  31

  93·1

  11·2

  24

  Cheshire

  Urban Traffic Control System (Chester Warrington)

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  48

  Cleveland

  Portrack Lane Dualling

  38

  19·6

  0·9

  45

  Cornwall

  Penryn and Falmouth Distributor Road

  13

  9·5

  3·8

  25

  Cumbria

  Rothay Link

  10

  1·3

  0·7

  20

  Devon

  A38O Relief Road (Kerswell to Hele Road)

  70

  15·9

  1·6

  24

  Devon

  Halcyon Road Newton Abbot Town Centre

  103

  34·5

  0·4

  12

  Dorset

  West Stafford Bypass

  9

  0·9

  3·0

  15

  Durham

  Darlington Cross Town Route Stage I

  n/s

  n/s

  1·9

  24

  Durham

  Teesside Link and Airport Access

  14

  10·0

  5·4

  24

  East Sussex

  East Hoathly Bypass

  38

  11·5

  1·8

  12

  Essex

  Stanford-le-Hope to Five Bells Stage 2

  n/s

  110·5

  3·5

  24

  Gloucestershire

  Eastington-Stroud Stage 2 (Stonehouse Court-Horsetrough Junction)

  n/s

  n/s

  1·1

  45

  Hampshire

  Totton Western Bypass (Stage 3)

  22

  43·6

  2·6

  n/s

  Hereford and Worcester

  Alvechurch Bypass

  45

  17·1

  3·0

  19

  Humberside

  Leven Bypass

  16

  5·2

  4·3

  24

  Kent

  Roydon Hall Bends to A26

  22

  3·5

  1·5

  12

  Leicestershire

  Hinckley Northern Perimeter Completion

  40

  7·9

  3·1

  25

  Lincolnshire

  Grantham Inner Relief Road

  n/s

  1·7

  0·7

  11

  Norfolk

  King's Lynn Traffic Management Scheme

  n/s

  n/s

  n/s

  22

  Norfolk

  Stratton Strawless-Hevingham Improvement

  n/s

  1·6

  4·2

  4

  Northamptonshire

  Brackley Southern Bypass

  28

  10·9

  n/s

  12

  North Yorkshire

  Ripon BP/Distributor Roads and Works in City Centre

  16

  17·7

  3·5

  24

  Shropshire

  Newport Bypass

  13

  5·4

  3·0

  16

  Somerset

  Shepton Mallet to East of Dean

  6

  1·6

  7·6

  36

  Staffordshire

  Keele Bypass

  14

  2·1

  1·8

  11

  West Sussex

  Hooklands Improvement

  n/s

  9·4

  2·0

  24

  Wiltshire

  Trowbridge Relief Road Stage 2

  n/s

  n/s

  0·6

  12

  Schemes newly accepted for Transport Supplementary Grant in 1992–93

  n/s: Data not supplied by local highway authority

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Hackney

  Lea Bridge Road E5-Renewal of Bridge Deck

  n/s

  n/s

  0·5

  42

  Waltham Forest

  Lea Bridge Reconstruction-Con t. to Hackney

  n/s

  n/s

  0·1

  30

  Wirral

  New Chester Road Improvement (MDC Cont.)

  11

  2·8

  1·0

  12

  Barnsley

  Dearne Towns Link Road

  12

  31·6

  12·4

  57

  Sheffield

  A61 Sheffield Parkway/Park Square Junction Improvement

  198

  10·7

  0·3

  10

  Gateshead

  Western Riverside Route ST1 PH2 and ST2

  n/s

  n/s

  0·9

  18

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Scotswood Road Impt.—West of Paradise

  n/s

  8·9

  0·9

  9

  Sunderland

  Doxford Park Access Road Stage 2 (Bypass)

  n/s

  4·4

  0·5

  7

  Birmingham

  Thimble Mill Lane (UDA Scheme) Phase 2

  79

  11·1

  0·8

  8

  Dudley

  High Street Amblecote

  104

  31·5

  0·7

  13

  Solihull

  West Midlands Renaissance Area

  6

  16·8

  4·8

  72

  Kirklees

  Huddersfield Ring Road IMP PH 2

  n/s

  20·3

  11·9

  6

  Avon

  Avonmouth Link

  n/s

  n/s

  0·5

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  Bletchley Road Diversion Buckingham (MKDC Con.)

  17

  2·6

  1·8

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  Spittals Link Huntingdon

  61

  15·9

  0·8

  14

  Cheshire

  Upton (Chester) Park and Ride

  n/s

  n/s

  0·4

  12

  Cleveland

  Guisborough Bypass

  28

  24·5

  1·9

  23

  Cornwall

  Egloshayle Bypass

  n/s

  n/s

  1·5

  9

  Devon

  Tavistock Road Dualling Stage 1 Plymouth

  32

  7·9

  0·9

  12

  556 557

  Authority

  Scheme

  First year rate of return (per cent.)

  Total net present value (£ million)

  Length of scheme (kilometres)

  Duration of scheme (months)

  Dorset

  A37 IMP SEC B&C A356-Somerset Boundary

  n/s

  n/s

  12·4

  48

  Durham

  Newton Cap Diversion

  17

  10·5

  1·8

  24

  East Sussex

  A26 Mailing Hill (Local Traffic) Rel. Road Lewes

  13

  1·8

  0·4

  30

  Essex

  Aukingford Gardens-Talbot Roundabout ST 1 & 2

  8

  2·7

  4·5

  24

  Gloucestershire

  Lydney Highway Strategy-Part 1 (Bypass)

  9

  4·2

  4·8

  48

  Hampshire

  Bentley Bypass

  11

  18·2

  2·3

  18

  Humberside

  Beverley North East Bypass

  n/s

  n/s

  2·5

  12

  Kent

  Ash Bypass

  12

  4·5

  5·5

  16

  Kent

  Medway Tunnel

  38

  172·1

  15·0

  38

  Lancashire

  Chorley Town Centre Bypass Phase III

  34

  13·4

  0·7

  20

  Leicestershire

  Leicester Motorways Employment Area STIV Soar Valley Way

  41

  17·4

  1·7

  12

  Lincolnshire

  Swallow Bypass and Route Improvement

  19

  5·2

  3·6

  12

  Norfolk

  Kirstead Bypass

  n/s

  0·1

  1·8

  9

  Northamptonshire

  Deanshanger Bypass

  15

  3·1

  1·5

  10

  North Yorkshire

  A59 Bolton Bridge Bypass

  8

  0·9

  2·1

  12

  Oxfordshire

  Wallingford Bypass

  8

  4·6

  4·4

  24

  Somerset

  Glastonbury Western Relief Road

  17

  11·0

  3·7

  25

  West Sussex

  Chichester and Bognor Regis Improvement (Phase 1)

  n/s

  6·0

  1·7

  15

  Wiltshire

  The Meads Roundabout Swindon Grade Separation

  9

  n/s

  0·8

  19

  For comparison the following information was provided for 1992–93:

  Lancashire

  Squires Gate Link Road Phase II

  29

  24·0

  2·1

  18

  Helicopters, Central London
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference of the study he has initiated on helicopter provision for central London; and if he will include in them an assessment of the need and of the demand for helicopter provision in central London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The group undertaking the study will make a comparative evaluation of possible sites for a heliport to serve central London, and submit a report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The study will include an assessment of the need and the demand for helicopter services in central London. It will also consider safety and other operational factors, air traffic control constraints, noise and other environmental issues, and surface access. My right hon. Friend intends to publish the group's report, which he hopes to receive within 12 months.

ENVIRONMENT

  Buildings in Scotland
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds his Department has spent on buildings in Scotland in each of the past five years; and if he will list the amount spent on each project.

  Mr. Yeo
  The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  133·501

  1987–88

  115·389

  1988–89

  110·701

  1989–90

  130·856

  1990–91

  12·323

  The figures for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 represent expenditure by PSA Scotland. Since 1 April 1988 clients
  558
  have progressively untied from PSA services and become responsible for reporting expenditure against their own votes. Therefore:

  (1) expenditure from 1 April 1988 excludes major schemes for Civil clients.

  (2) expenditure in 1990–91 represents that by the Property Holdings directorate of DoE on civil accommodation in Scotland, but excludes expenditure by other civil departments and MOD.

  Major construction schemes controlled by PSA headquarters are excluded as expenditure records are not maintained on a location basis. The figures also exclude rental costs.

  It is not possible to provide details of the amounts spent on each project.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The numbers of women and men at each grade level (including equivalent grades) in the Department of the Environment on 1 January 1992 were:

  Female

  Male

  Grade 1

  0

  1

  Grade 2

  2

  6

  Grade 3

  5

  31

  Grade 4

  0

  9

  Grade 5

  21

  126

  Grade 6

  20

  259

  Grade 7

  118

  658

  SEO and equivalent

  119

  560

  HEO and equivalent

  298

  641

  EO and equivalent

  544

  697

  AT

  6

  4

  AO and equivalent

  946

  668

  559

  Female

  Male

  AA and equivalent

  627

  363

  Total (6,729)

  2,704

  4,025

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of the Environment had 6,729 non-industrial employees on 1 January 1992; 5,066 are white, 456 are of ethnic minority origin, and 1,207 have not yet revealed their ethnic origin.

  The Department employs 73 staff who are registered disabled and a further 58 who are known to have a disability but are not registered.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the granting of RECHAR to local authorities will carry with it supplementary credit approval.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

  Thousands of households

  Owner occupiers

  Local authority

  Renters Housing association

  Private landlord

  All

  England

  1981

  9,600

  5,500

  300

  2,000

  17,300

  1982

  10,000

  5,100

  300

  2,000

  17,400

  1983

  10,500

  5,100

  400

  1,700

  17,600

  1984

  10,800

  4,700

  400

  1,800

  17,800

  1985

  11,300

  4,600

  400

  1,700

  18,000

  1986

  11,700

  4,400

  400

  1,700

  18,100

  1987

  12,000

  4,200

  500

  1,600

  18,300

  1988

  12,000

  4,400

  500

  1,600

  18,500

  1989

  12,500

  4,200

  500

  1,500

  18,700

  1990

  12,600

  4,100

  500

  1,600

  18,800

  Greater London

  1981

  1,250

  790

  110

  440

  2,600

  1984

  1,390

  790

  120

  400

  2,700

  1988

  1,520

  730

  150

  350

  2,750

  Outer London

  1981

  980

  350

  40

  200

  1,580

  1984

  1,100

  330

  40

  180

  1,660

  1988

  1,150

  320

  50

  180

  1,690

  Inner London

  1981

  270

  440

  70

  240

  1,020

  1984

  300

  460

  70

  220

  1,050

  1988

  380

  420

  100

  170

  1,060

  Notes

  Estimates are derived from sample surveys and therefore subject to the usual sampling errors.

  England—proportionsfrom the general household survey applied to the Department of the Environment's household estimates.

  London—regional and sub-regional estimates require a larger sample which is only available for the years shown—from the labour force survey housing trailers. Figures for inner and outer London may not sum to the totals for Greater London because of rounding.

  Information on the number of households by tenure for individual local authorities is available only from the census of population. Until 1991 census results are available, in early summer 1992, the most recent information is from the 1981 census. Copies of 1981 census reports are in the Library.
  560
  Trade and Industry on 17 February 1992, Official Report, column 22, in respect of the ERDF-aided RECHAR programme.

  Energy Saver Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing grants for local authorities as part of an energy saver scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are promoting energy efficiency-related schemes in local authority housing through the green house demonstration programme, the home energy efficiency scheme and through estate action schemes which can include improvements to the heating and insulation of local authority housing.

  Housing, London
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the numbers of households in (i) owner occupation, (ii) private renting, (iii) local authority renting, (iv) housing association renting and (v) other for(a) each London borough, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London, (d) inner London and (e) England as a whole for each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  Available estimates from household surveys are as follows:

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations have been received by his Department to date concerning the report,
  561
  "Air Pollution and Tree Health in the UK;" and if he will make a statement on the progress made in the light of its recommendations.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The report is due for publication in the spring.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the targets for his Department's plan for reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing large combustion plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no immediate plans to review the emission limits set out in the national plan.

  New Homes
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated average first year cost of constructing a new home(a) nationally and (b) in each standard economic region; and if he will provide this information according to the available data on different sites of home.

  Sir George Young
  The majority of new housebuilding is undertaken by private builders and consequently the information requested is not available to the Department.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average annual cost of keeping a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  Annual costs can be derived from the information published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in "Homelessness Statistics: 1989–90 Actuals", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Government Contributions, Shropshire
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the capital and revenue contributions from central Government to Shropshire county council and Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council for 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The following is the information:

  Central Government contributions

  Shropshire county council £ million

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council £ million

  1978–79 Revenue:

  Rate support grant1

  27·550

  4·108

  Relevant specific grants to revenue

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Rate rebate grant

  0·0

  0·190

  Transport supplementary grant to revenue

  0·490

  0·0

  Total Revenue

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Capital

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982–83 Revenue:

  Rate support grant2

  64·734

  2·518

  Relevant specific grants to revenue

  8·554

  0·358

  562

  Shropshire county council £ million

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council £ million

  Rate rebate grant

  0·0

  0·731

  Transport supplementary grant to revenue

  0·913

  0·0

  Total Revenue

  74·201

  3·607

  Capital

  n.a

  n.a.

  1986–87 Revenue:

  Rate support grant2

  74·597

  2·761

  Relevant specific grants to revenue

  12·859

  0·884

  Rate rebate grant

  0·0

  1·826

  Transport supplementary grant to revenue

  0·037

  0·0

  Total Revenue

  88·393

  5·471

  Capital

  0·868

  0·051

  1991–923 Revenue grants:

  To Collection fund

  Revenue support grant

  0·0

  11·074

  Special grants

  0·0

  0·0

  Community charge grant

  0·0

  9·550

  To General fund

  Specific grants inside AEF

  20·202

  0·151

  Other revenue support:

  NNDR entitlement (to Collection fund)

  0·0

  24·467

  Total Revenue support inside AEF

  20·202

  47·579

  Capital

  7·751

  0·750

  1 In 1978–79, rate support grant was made up of needs, resources and domestic elements. The needs element was paid to county councils and resources and domestic elements were paid to district councils.

  2 In 1981–82, following the introduction of a different rate support grant system, needs and resources elements were replaced by block grant payable to both upper and lower tier authorities.

  3 In 1990–91 the community charge system was introduced. The figures include all grants into the collection fund administered by Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council, which supports the chargepayer in respect of spending by all tiers of authorities. The Government also pay specific grants into the general funds administered by both the named authorities. The figures given are estimates of those inside aggregate Exchequer finance (AEF). As the two authorities do not cover the same functions, the specific grants are quite different both in size and consumption.

  Leeds Development Council
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 February, if he will set out, for each year since the establishment of the Leeds development corporation, the figures provided by the economic consultants; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each report prepared by the economic consultants.

  Mr. Key
  The net gain in employment figures provided by the economic consultants for each year since the establishment of Leeds development corporation is as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  2,007

  1989–90

  3,234

  1990–91

  621

  563
  The reports prepared by the consultants contain information which is commercial-in-confidence. If the hon. Member wishes to discuss the details further he should contact the chairman of the development corporation direct.

  Thorn and Hatfield Moors
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the future of Thorne and Hatfield moors; and how many of these were in favour of the agreement between English Nature and Fisons plc.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since the details of the agreement between English Nature and Fisons were made public I have received only a few letters which express some reservations or seek further clarification of its contents. As knowledge of the agreement becomes more general I am sure that the public will recognise that the agreement is a significant step forward in the safeguarding of peatlands.

  Peat
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the research commissioned by English Nature from the Institute of Hydrology and Dundee university into the hydrology of peat bogs;

  (2) if he will publish any assessment made by English Nature of the effects of continual commercial peat cutting on Thorne and Hatfield moors adjacent to those areas now identified for conservation purposes and any hydrological or other research on which such assessment has been based.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The research commissioned by English Nature from the Institute of Hydrology and the University of Dundee concerning the hydrology of part of Thorne moors has just been published. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  In addition a study carried out by the University of Sheffield identified a need to retain water on the national nature reserve on Thorne moors and to block the drains running from the surrounding land. This will be done under the terms of the agreement reached between English Nature and Fisons.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if English Nature intends to remove site of special scientific interest status from any area of peat bog from which peat is commercially extracted.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the agreement between Fisons plc and English Nature concerning peat extraction.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 12 February 1992,Official Report, column 506. In addition I have arranged for a copy of the information package made available to the public by English Nature at the time of the announcement of the agreement to be placed in the Library.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the draft planning policy guidance note on nature conservation will be published.

  Sir George Young
  The Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office have today published a draft planning policy guidance note on nature conservation for public consultation and copies are being placed in the Library. The planning policy guidance provides up-to-date guidance on how the Government's policies on the conservation of our natural heritage are to be reflected in land use planning. It also sets out the main statutory obligations under both domestic and international law. We want to ensure effective conservation of wildlife and natural features while making adequate provision for development and economic growth. This planning policy guidance is designed to achieve that.

  Wild Birds
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to take to protect wild birds in trade.

  Mr. Baldry
  With colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we are acting on a number of fronts to protect birds and other wild animals in trade.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, wrote last week to the European Commission to urge it to make speedy progress in drawing up the special safeguards for the transport of birds, negotiated last autumn by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as part of a directive on the welfare of all animals in transport. To achieve immediate improvements in the conditions in which birds are transported. I am also writing, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Agriculture, to the International Air Traffic Association (IATA) to seek worldwide limits on the size of shipments. Should this approach fail, MAFF will introduce stricter limits nationally.

  The Department has a particular responsibility for those birds and other animals whose import we licence. In preparation for next month's conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) I have identified with interested organisations, the introduction of checklists to monitor and enforce transport conditions as a top priority. The United Kingdom will complete these forthwith for imports of all animals subject to CITES controls. Checklists may be used as a basis for enforcement action; the application of stricter transport conditions; and for imposing restrictions on trade in particular species between particular countries. At the CITES conference, we shall urge others to follow our example on both the checklist and the collection of mortality statistics.

  We shall also press for a substantial improvement in the implementation of CITES controls worldwide. In particular, as identified by our scientific advisers last year, action must be taken to remedy the failure of many countries to meet the Convention's requirements for the issue of export permits.

  Our national licensing controls are already much more extensive than the basic CITES restrictions and we shall investigate further extension in the light of the latest

  565
  mortality statistics. We shall also continue to encourage our partners in the European Community to join us in imposing tighter controls. I welcome the recent publication by the European Commission of proposals for a regulation which would meet many of the wide-ranging concerns I expressed to them last year. We shall examine the full implications of the proposals urgently starting with those relating to the care and housing of live animals. Where appropriate, we shall not hesitate to take action before the regulation comes into effect.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce grants for hedgerow maintenance.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 November 1991, c. 159]: As part of our initiative "Action for the Countryside" which, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I launched today, we are introducing a new hedgerow incentive scheme to counter the problem of loss of hedgerows through lack of maintenance. The scheme will encourage farmers and landowners to manage hedgerows in ways that will ensure their long-term survival. The hedgerow incentive scheme will target hedgerows of particular historic, landscape or wildlife importance. Hedgerows are also being lost through removal and we have announced our intention to legislate when parliamentary time permits to introduce a hedgerow notification scheme.

  In addition to our proposed new hedgerow incentive scheme, "Action for the Countryside" reviews other countryside policies, looks at the changes under way and sets out new initiatives for the future.

  The new initiatives concentrate on action to maintain a prosperous economy and thriving communities in the countryside, to protect and enhance the landscape, to provide for public enjoyment of the countryside and to protect and conserve wildlife. They are not put forward in isolation. The initiatives described here carry forward the principles of "This Common Inheritance" (Cmd 1200) and

  Comparison of 1991–92 and 1992–93 educaton services standard spending assessments for each local education authority in England showing overall percentage changes and the percentage change attributable to updating pupil numbers

  Local authority

  Percentage change 1991–92 to 1992–93 education standard spending assessment per cent.

  Percentage change attributable to pupil numbers per cent.

  Total England

  7·1

  —

  Total Shire counties

  6·9

  -0·2

  Total Metropolitan districts

  6·4

  0·0

  Total inner London boroughs including City

  9·8

  1·2

  Total outer London boroughs

  8·2

  0·7

  Total London boroughs

  8·8

  0·9

  Total Shire areas

  6·9

  -0·2

  Total Metropolitan areas

  6·4

  0·0

  Total London

  8·8

  0·9

  Isles of Scilly

  19·6

  10·1

  Greater London

  City of London

  -20·0

  -29·5

  566
  are complementary to policies already in hand. They demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to integrating development to sustain rural communities with the conservation of the countryside.

  The Government remain committed to keeping its policies in the countryside under review and will take further action when and where necessary to secure the delivery of its objectives.

  I am arranging for copies of "Action for the Countryside" to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each local education authority the percentage increase in standard spending assessment for education comparing 1992–93 with 1991–92; how much of this variation was accounted for by variation in pupil numbers; how much was to meet the full year effects of the 1991 teachers pay award; and how much was for the anticipated effect of the 1992 pay award.

  Mr. Key
  The table shows for each authority the total percentage increase in the education standard spending assessment between 1991–92 and 1992–93 and the percentage increase accounted for by the changes in pupil numbers.

  The overall cost of teachers' pay awards is among the pressures which the Government have taken into account in determining the appropriate amount for authorities to spend collectively on education in 1992–93. The cost of the pay awards is not, however, one of the indicators used to calculate education standard spending assessments and it is not therefore possible to identify a separate allowance for this cost within individual authorities' standard spending assessments.

  Education authorities are to receive additional grant of £56.6 million in 1992–93 to fund the additional cost of the teachers' pay award. This will be distributed in line with the schools' elements of the education standard spending assessment.
  567

  Local authority

  Percentage change 1991–92 to 1992–93 education standard spending assessment per cent.

  Percentage change attributable to pupil numbers per cent.

  Camden

  6·3

  -0·9

  Greenwich

  9·6

  2·4

  Hackney

  9·9

  1·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  11·9

  4·6

  Islington

  12·9

  3·2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10·0

  4·5

  Lambeth

  11·7

  1·8

  Lewisham

  11·4

  0·8

  Southwark

  9·4

  1·5

  Tower Hamlets

  10·3

  0·5

  Wandsworth

  3·3

  -3·6

  Westminster

  11·8

  2·1

  Barking and Dagenham

  8·2

  1·1

  Barnet

  8·8

  0·1

  Bexley

  7·5

  0·5

  Brent

  7·5

  0·3

  Bromley

  5·9

  -0·8

  Croydon

  7·5

  -0·9

  Ealing

  9·1

  0·4

  Enfield

  7·7

  0·3

  Haringey

  10·8

  2·9

  Harrow

  6·0

  0·1

  Havering

  5·5

  -0·7

  Hillingdon

  6·7

  0·1

  Hounslow

  9·5

  1·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  6·7

  -0·5

  Merton

  8·4

  0·3

  Newham

  12·8

  4·0

  Redbridge

  8·5

  0·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  6·0

  -0·4

  Sutton

  8·2

  0·0

  Waltham Forest

  8·5

  2·0

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  6·4

  0·1

  Bury

  7·1

  0·1

  Manchester

  7·8

  1·6

  Oldham

  4·7

  0·8

  Rochdale

  4·8

  -2·3

  Salford

  11·9

  -0·4

  Stockport

  5·4

  -0·8

  Tameside

  6·7

  0·3

  Trafford

  6·3

  -0·4

  Wigan

  7·1

  -0·5

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  9·5

  -0·1

  Liverpool

  5·9

  0·4

  Sefton

  7·1

  -0·4

  St. Helens

  4·3

  -1·1

  Wirral

  4·3

  0·2

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  5·3

  -4·8

  Doncaster

  6·7

  0·7

  Rotherham

  5·8

  -0·3

  Sheffield

  5·2

  -0·5

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  7·2

  -0·5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5·3

  0·4

  North Tyneside

  7·8

  0·6

  South Tyneside

  6·8

  0·5

  Sunderland

  4·6

  -0·6

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  6·2

  0·8

  568 569

  Local authority

  Percentage change 1991–92 to 1992–93 education standard spending assessment per cent.

  Percentage change attributable to pupil numbers per cent.

  Coventry

  7·4

  0·1

  Dudley

  6·4

  -0·9

  Sandwell

  6·1

  -0·4

  Solihull

  6·3

  -1·7

  Walsall

  6·3

  0·4

  Wolverhampton

  4·6

  -0·2

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  6·8

  0·8

  Calderdale

  7·1

  0·0

  Kirklees

  6·4

  -0·5

  Leeds

  7·3

  -0·2

  Wakefield

  7·0

  0·6

  Shire counties

  Avon

  5·8

  0·1

  Bedfordshire

  8·2

  0·4

  Berkshire

  7·8

  0·1

  Buckinghamshire

  7·5

  0·3

  Cambridgeshire

  7·6

  0·3

  Cheshire

  6·2

  -0·3

  Cleveland

  6·4

  0·3

  Cornwall

  6·4

  -1·0

  Cumbria

  5·8

  -0·3

  Derbyshire

  6·0

  -0·8

  Devon

  6·9

  0·4

  Dorset

  8·5

  0·2

  Durham

  5·2

  -0·3

  East Sussex

  9·2

  0·6

  Essex

  7·9

  -0·7

  Gloucestershire

  7·0

  -0·1

  Hampshire

  7·2

  -0·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  6·4

  -0·3

  Hertfordshire

  7·3

  -0·7

  Humberside

  6·3

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  7·8

  -0·3

  Kent

  6·5

  -0·7

  Lancashire

  6·8

  -0·6

  Leicestershire

  7·2

  0·1

  Lincolnshire

  7·0

  -0·5

  Norfolk

  7·6

  -0·1

  Northamptonshire

  8·3

  -0·1

  Northumberland

  6·9

  0·5

  North Yorkshire

  5·9

  -0·2

  Nottinghamshire

  6·2

  -0·2

  Oxfordshire

  6·5

  -0·3

  Shropshire

  5·9

  -0·7

  Somerset

  5·8

  -0·4

  Staffordshire

  7·0

  -0·3

  Suffolk

  6·8

  -0·1

  Surrey

  7·3

  -0·9

  Warwickshire

  5·8

  -0·7

  West Sussex

  8·4

  0·2

  Wiltshire

  6·5

  -0·1

  Council Tenants Charter
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of preparation, publication and distribution of the council tenants charter.

  Sir George Young
  The estimated cost of the production, launch and distribution of 1 million copies of the full tenants charter and 5 million copies of the 570
  explanatory leaflet is £298,600, subject to final invoices. This includes the cost of translating the booklet into five languages and producing an audio-taped version for blind tenants. Further distribution costs will be incurred in response to demand.

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the total level of Government support to North Yorkshire county council was in 1990–91, and in 1991–92; and what is the projected figure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]: The bulk of North Yorkshire's revenue finance is derived from precepts on collection funds administered by the district councils within the county. The council, however, receives certain specific grants from the Government which are paid directly into its own general fund. Those inside aggregate external finance were estimated to be £33409 million in 1990–91 and £36823 million in 1991–92. Estimates for specific grants for 1992–93 are not available as the relevant returns have not yet been received by the Department. In 1992–93, North Yorkshire will also receive an additional grant towards the teachers' pay award of £0.746 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of crimes(a) recorded and (b) detected by the West Yorkshire police for each year from 1976 to 1991 shown (i) in total and (ii) by each police station.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is given in the table. Figures for 1991 are not available. The chief constable's annual report for West Yorkshire gives crimes recorded and detected by sub-division only.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in West Yorkshire 1976–901

  Year

  Offences recorded

  Offences cleared up

  1976

  110,864

  57,876

  1977

  127,942

  60,445

  1978

  122,874

  60,250

  1979

  118,418

  43,702

  21980

  127,527

  54,368

  1981

  138,571

  57,191

  1982

  152,136

  63,728

  1983

  146,307

  68,806

  1984

  158,656

  66,751

  1985

  159,351

  67,214

  1986

  165,586

  62,213

  1987

  173,313

  68,062

  1988

  166,195

  71,096

  1989

  179,185

  68,512

  1990

  227,631

  77,073

  1 Excluding criminal damage value £20 and under.

  2 Figures for 1980 onwards are not precisely comparable with those for previous years.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the number of(a) sexual offences and (b) sexual assaults against men in each year of the last five years for (i) London and (ii) nationally.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on sexual offences recorded by the police for 1986 to 1989 is published in table 2.9 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1989" and figures for 1990 are published in table 3 of Home Office "Statistical Bulletin 13/91." The equivalent figures for London are published in Table 13.2 of the "Report of 572
  the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1990". Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of crimes(a) recorded and (b) detected by the North Yorkshire police between October 1976 and September 1977 and in the same October to September period each year since then up to October 1990 to September 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is contained in the table. Clear up statistics are published only for calendar years.

  Notifiable offences recorded in North Yorkshire

  Period

  Recorded

  12 months ending

  September 1977

  22,858

  September 1978

  23,769

  September 1979

  21,856

  September 1980

  22,128

  September 1981

  24,523

  September 1982

  27.987

  September 1983

  28,622

  September 1984

  32,019

  September 1985

  34,071

  September 1986

  36,657

  September 1987

  36,678

  September 1988

  36,132

  September 1989

  34,604

  September 1990

  42,899

  September 1991

  50,465

  Police, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of additional uniformed police officers, excluding special constables, that have been authorised to be added to the strength of the North Yorkshire police in each year from 1975 to 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to distinguish between increases in uniformed and non-uniformed police officers as such information is not held centrally. The establishment of the North Yorkshire police has been increased by the following amounts between 1975 and 1990:

  Year

  Police posts

  1975

  111

  1979

  40

  1989

  15

  1990

  25

  1991

  6

  The police authority did not request establishment increases in the years 1980–81 to 1987–88 inclusive.

  Fingerprint Technology
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made since the publication of Cm 1163 in applying automatic fingerprint recognition technology to the work of the National Identification Bureau.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It remains an objective of the Government to apply automatic fingerprint recognition —AFR—technology to the work of the National
  573
  Identification Bureau. To this end, the Home Office has been collaborating with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States of America since autumn 1990 on studying how best to apply this technology to very large collections of fingerprints. Specialist staff are being recruited to the Home Office to manage a programme of work aimed at developing a national automatic fingerprint identification system to support both the identification of arrestees work undertaken presently by the NIB and the matching of fingerprint marks left at scenes of crime.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all computerised systems used by police forces in England and Wales to handle fingerprints are(a) mutually compatible, (b) compatible with the system used in Scotland and (c) compatible with other systems in use or being developed by TREVI countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The automatic fingerprint recognition —AFR—systems supplied by any particular AFR manufacturer are based on proprietary standards which do not allow these systems to communicate directly with systems supplied by any other manufacturer. As police forces in England and Wales have purchased, or plan to purchase, AFR systems from different manufacturers, these systems will not be compatible. Nor will they all be compatible with the system in Scotland. Similarly, there are a number of different systems in use or being planned in TREV1 countries.

  The Home Office, the FBI and others, including the suppliers of AFR systems, have been co-operating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (N 1ST) in the USA to develop non-proprietary standards for image storage and for the interchange of fingerprint information between different AFR systems. Insofar as police forces in England and Wales purchase systems which meet these non-proprietary standards, these systems will be compatible. This matter is currently being discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The issue of compatibility between AFR systems in use in Europe is being considered by TREVI.

  Electoral Roll (Prisoners)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the rules relating to the time at which a prisoner released after 31 October can register on the electoral roll.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Convicted prisoners who are detained on the qualifying date of 10 October cannot be regarded as resident for electoral registration purposes at either their place of detention or their home address. There is no provision for adding to the register the names of people who became resident after the qualifying date. Released prisoners are in the same position as anyone else who becomes resident after the qualifying date.

  Police, West Mercia
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the capital and revenue contributions from central Government to the West Mercia police authority for 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92.
  574
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the amounts of police specific grant paid by the Home Office to the West Mercia police authority in respect of its expenditure in 1978–79, 1982–83 and 1986–87, and expected to be paid in respect of 1991–92, is as follows. That part of the authority's expenditure which is not met by specific grant is apportioned between its constituent county councils, and their contributions to the authority's expenditure are supported by central Government through the revenue support grant system.

  Specific grant paid to West Mercia Police Authority

  £millions

  1978–791 2

  8·2

  1982–831 2

  17·8

  1986–871 3

  24·1

  1991–923 4

  42·7

  1 Grant paid on revenue expenditure, loan charges and revenue contributions to capital expenditure.

  2 Rate of grant 50 per cent.

  3 Rate of grant 51 per cent.

  4 Grant paid on revenue expenditure, loan charges on pre-April 1990 debt, and capital expenditure.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners are recorded as having attempted suicide in 1990 and 1991;

  (2) how many prisoners committed acts of self-injury in 1990 and in 1991 which resulted in medical treatment;

  (3) how many 15-year-old boys and girls in prison attempted suicide in 1990 and 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: In 1991 there was a recorded total of 2,846 acts of deliberate self-harm by prisoners in Her Majesty's Prison Service establishments. (Some prisoners committed acts of deliberate self-harm on more than one occasion.) Of the total, 11 were committed by 15-year-old prisoners.

  All reported acts of deliberate self-harm result in medical treatment. There may be some cases, however, in which the prisoners harmed themselves in a minor way but did not bring this to the attention of staff, and so the injury would not have been reported.

  It is not possible to distinguish reliably how many acts of deliberate self-harm were suicidal in intent.

  The information requested for 1990 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process; and if he will list the forthcoming bilateral and multilateral meetings.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A fourth round of bilateral negotiations started in Washington on 24 February. The first substantive meetings of the five multilateral working groups set up at the co-ordinating meeting in Moscow at the end of January are due to take place at the end of April and the beginning of May. They will cover economic development, water issues, the environment, refugees and arms control. We continue, with our European partners, to give full support to the process. Progress is bound to be slow but some momentum has now been achieved.

  NATO Secretary-General
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in advance of his recent visit to Ukraine and Russia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The alliance's relations with the republics of the former Soviet Union have been regularly discussed at NATO, and the Secretary-General told allies of his plans to visit the Ukraine and Russia well in advance.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Morocco
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position on the recent decision of the European Parliament to suspend EC aid to Morocco.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The European Parliament vote on 15 January denied the necessary assent to the proposed EC/Morocco fourth financial protocol. Her Majesty's Government support the protocol as an important element in strengthening EC relations with Morocco. We believe that concern over human rights is best expressed separately and does not justify withholding assent to this protocol which we believe should be implemented.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Jury Trials
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Attorney-General for each of the last three years for which figures are available, how many people elected for trial by jury; how many of those who elected for trial by jury were subsequently convicted; and how many of those who were convicted had a previous conviction, for an offence involving violence or dishonesty, whether or not such convictions were spent within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member.

ENERGY

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table showing the regional breakdown of British oil and gas production, defined by the regional location of the terminals at which offshore oil and gas was landed, and the wellhead site in the case of onshore oil and gas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information in tabular form, on a provisional basis, for 1991 is as follows:

  Offshore oil and gas landings by region/ terminal for 1991

  Region/ Terminal

  Crude (million tonnes)

  Natural gas liquids (million tonnes)

  Gas (million cubic metres)

  East Anglia

  Bacton

  —

  0·1

  18,897

  576

  Region/Terminal

  Crude (million tonnes)

  Natural gas liquids (million tonnes)

  Gas (million cubic metres)

  East Midlands

  Theddlethorpe

  —

  0·1

  9,424

  North

  Barrow

  —

  0·1

  6,701

  Yorkshire/Humber

  Easington

  —

  0·1

  2,770

  Dimlington

  —

  0·0

  4,664

  Regional Total

  —

  0·1

  7,434

  Scotland

  St. Fergus

  —

  2·1

  9,242

  Flotta

  8·9

  0·2

  —

  Forties

  16·6

  0·9

  —

  Nigg

  1·0

  —

  —

  Sullom Voe

  35·4

  0·7

  —

  Regional Total

  61·9

  3·9

  9,242

  Grand Total

  61·9

  4·3

  51,698

  Note:

  In addition to the gas landed at terminals 3,346 million cubic metres was produced and used mostly on production platforms. This gives an overall production figure for 1991 of 55,440 million cubic metres.

  Onshore oil and gas production by region for 1991

  Region

  Oil (million tonnes)

  Gas (million cubic-metres)

  East Midlands

  0·2

  24

  South East

  0·2

  121

  South West2

  3·2

  153

  Total

  23·7

  198

  1 Includes 3–9 from other land fields.

  2 Additional 01 million tonnes of NGL's were produced onshore in the South West region.

  3 Due to rounding the sum of the constituent items may not equal the total.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Grade

  Males

  Females

  1

  1·0

  —

  2

  2·0

  —

  3

  10·0

  —

  4

  1·0

  —

  5

  31·0

  3·0

  6

  21·0

  1·0

  7

  121·5

  12·0

  SEO

  39·0

  3·5

  HEO

  77·0

  19·0

  Admin. Trainee

  1·0

  —

  EO

  88·0

  43·0

  AO (CO)

  50·5

  79·0

  AA (CA)

  25·5

  31·0

  577
  Notes:

  1. Figures are as at 1 April 1991.

  2. Full-time staff count as I and part-time staff 0–5.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.

  Mr. Wakeham
  As at 1 April 1991 the Department employed 969 staff of whom 808 (83 per cent.) had responded to the surveys; of the respondents 85 (10.4 per cent.) have identified themselves as from the ethnic minorities. As at 1 June 1991 there were 13 registered disabled staff in the Department. These figures are on a headcount basis, that is, full and part-time staff count as one.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will extend the energy management and assessment scheme to include grants for equipment installed as part of an energy efficiency drive.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The energy management assistance scheme is designed to help with the cost of consultancy and project management costs. Any capital investment identified as necessary within the scheme will be recovered in a short period from greater efficiency and savings.

PRIME MINISTER

  Market Research
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the companies recently commissioned by his office, the Cabinet Office and the citizens charter unit to carry out polling and market research; and if he will list the areas of research, the questionnaires to be used and the groups to be questioned.

  The Prime Minister
  No such research has been commissioned recently by my office, the Cabinet Office or the citizens charter unit.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Directors
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many applications have been made by him or his predecessors to the courts for the disqualification of directors under the terms and provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; how many have been successful; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many referrals there were to the disqualification unit of the Department of Trade and Industry for applications to be made for the disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will set out the criteria under which applications are made to the court for the disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The criteria under which applications are made for the disqualification of directors under section 6578
  of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 on the ground of unfitness are set out in schedule Ito that Act. They include breach of duty, misapplication of funds, contraventions of the Companies Acts and the Insolvency Act and the extent of a director's responsibility for the causes of the company becoming insolvent. The courts must have regard to these matters in determining whether a person's conduct as a director of a particular company or companies makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of companies generally.

  The following numbers of unfit conduct reports have been made by official receivers and insolvency practitioners:

  Numbers

  1987

  3,115

  1988

  4,231

  1989

  3,234

  1990

  4,235

  1991

  5,747

  20,562

  In the period from 28 April 1986 to 31 December 1991, 2,184 disqualification applications have been made under section 6 of the Act; 1,193 orders have been made and 190 applications have been dismissed or withdrawn.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support has been, and is being provided to Northern Ireland industrialists by way of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The full range of ECGD facilities continues to be available to companies carrying on business in Northern Ireland.

  Beer Orders
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings he has had with representatives of brewery companies on matters related to the implementation of the beer orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  1 met the chairman of Grand Metropolitan plc, on 30 January 1992. My officials have also had recent meetings with a number of brewers about the implementation of the beer orders.

  Barlow Clowes (Government Shareholdings)
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and in what manner Her Majesty's Government intend to dispose of the shareholdings which they acquired following the transfer of assets from the collapsed Barlow Clowes holdings.

  Mr. Lilley
  The assets of the former Barlow Clowes entities are being administered by the appointed office holders.

WALES

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of employees in his Department; and how many are(a) black and (b) disabled.
  579
  Mr. David Hunt
  As at 1 January 1992 my Department employed 2,411 whole-time equivalent staff; 32 respondents to the ethnic origin survey have described themselves as being of ethnic minority; 41 members of staff have chosen to register as disabled.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of staff, as at 1 April 1991 were:

  Grade1

  Men

  Women

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  10

  1

  4

  6

  —

  5

  55

  10

  6

  74

  13

  7

  133

  29

  SEO

  113

  21

  HEO

  164

  89

  AT and HEO (D)

  4

  3

  EO

  191

  235

  AO

  169

  317

  AA

  113

  199

  1 Including equivalent professional grades.

  Second Home Owners
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the amount of poll tax received by each local authority in Wales which derived from second home owners within the local authority area in both 1990 and 1991; and what are the estimated levels of council tax to be collected from second home owners in each local authority area in Wales for the first year of its operation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on local authority standard charge income derived from second homes in Wales is not held centrally. Council tax income from second home owners in Wales will depend on the number of discretionary discounts awarded by local authorities, the valuation of the properties concerned, and the tax set by each local authority for 1993–94.

  Ministerial Record
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) his departmental failures and (b) his departmental achievements over the past year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be making a statement on the performance of my Department in the Welsh day debate on Thursday 27 February.

  Roads
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends updating the information given in the 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s."

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have today published the 1992 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women taking Government employment training courses and registered as living in the London borough of Wandsworth as of 18 February.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the period 1 April 1991 to 5 January 1992 it is provisionally estimated that here were 20,500 employment training (ET) entrants in the London region.Of these about 56 per cent. were men and 44 per cent. were women.

  Absolute numbers are not available because information about gender is not provided for all trainees.

  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are required to ensure the promotion of equality of opportunity between all individuals in access to, treatment on, and outcome from the agreement between the Secretary of State and the TECs.

  Trainees
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what guidance he gives to training and enterprise councils on the levels of output-related funding for organisations training trainees with severe learning difficulties;

  (2) what guidance he gives to TECs on developing performance indicators for output related funding specifically suited to providers training special needs trainees with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Jackson
  Output-related funding is paid to training and enterprise councils by the Department for a number of outputs under employment training and youth training. In 1992–93, these will include City and Guilds of London Institute wordpower and numberpower qualifications for trainees with severe literacy and numeracy difficulties, and national vocational qualifications at level 1 for YT trainees with special training needs for whom training aimed at NVQ level 2 is not thought to be realistic. It is entirely a matter for training and enterprise councils as to how they pass on funds to training providers.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of funding for special needs training within the youth training and employment training budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  TECs are obliged to take into account training needs of special needs clients within their business plans.

  The proportion of training budgets allocated to provision for people with special training needs is the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils (TECs) and is determined by local needs and priorities.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the composition of the advisory group to assist in encouraging, identifying and disseminating good employment practice with regard to older workers, as proposed in "People, Jobs and Opportunity" (Cm. 1810).
  581
  Mr. Jackson
  I shall chair the advisory group for older workers as the Minister with responsibility for equal opportunity in employment. The membership will be chosen from a variety of sources, including voluntary sector organisations representing the interests of older people, and organisations representing the interests of employers and employees. I am particularly keen to see women well represented in the group. There may also be places for individuals known to have an interest in the field.

  Degrees
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the percentage of the population within each region of the country, including Greater London, who hold first degrees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest available estimates are given in the following table.

  Percentage of persons of working age who hold a degree1

  Region

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  8·5

  North

  5·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6·0

  East Midlands

  7·5

  East Anglia

  8·2

  South East

  12·1

  Greater London

  14·7

  Rest of South East

  10·4

  South West

  7·7

  West Midlands

  6·4

  North West

  7·2

  Wales

  6·0

  Scotland

  7·1

  1 Includes first degrees, higher degrees and other degree level qualifications such as graduate membership of a professional institute.

  Persons of working ages comprise men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  Labour Force Survey: Spring 1990.

  Labour Statistics, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time males, part-time males, full-time females and part-time females in employment in the City of York currently earn less than £3.40 per hour.

  Mr. Forth
  The information from the "1991 New Earnings Survey" closest to that requested is given in the following table.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage whose gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) were less than £3.40.

  North Yorkshire

  April 1991

  Full-time males

  9·4

  Part-time males

  n/a

  Full-time females

  18·3

  Part-time females

  45·5

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs were on offer in jobcentres in York in each month since January 1990.

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

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the total number of men and 582
  women in employment, both full and part-time, in the City of York, and the number in each of these categories who currently earn (a) more than £21,060 per annum, (b) more than £35,000 per annum, (c) more than £40,000 per annum and (d) more than £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest available information about employment in local areas is from the 1989 census of employment and relates to employees only. The numbers of employees in employment in the York local authority district at September 1989 were as follows:

  Thousands

  Males

  Full time

  25·5

  Part time

  2·4

  Females

  Full time

  15·6

  Part time

  15·0

  Information on the percentages of employees earning more than certain amounts per week is available from the "1991 New Earnings Survey". Figures are available only at county level and for full-time employees. They are given in the following table, for the available levels of weekly earnings which correspond most closely to the annual amounts specified in the question.

  Full·time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence:

  Percentage with gross weekly earnings above the following amounts

  North Yorkshire

  April 1991

  £ 390

  £ 600

  £ 700

  £ 900

  Men

  16·0

  2·6

  1·2

  0·4

  Women

  4·1

  0·6

  0·2

  0·2

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the number of full-time employees in employment in the City of York in 1979 and in each year since(a) in all manufacturing jobs and (b) in each of the following industrial groups (i) railways, (ii) cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery, (iii) manufacturing of railway and tramway vehicles, (iv) printing and publishing, (v) scheduled road passenger transport, (vi) road haulage, (vii) postal services and (viii) telecommunications.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment according to industry and by district is available only from the censuses of employment for 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. This can be obtained, subject to the confidentially restrictions of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, from the NOM IS database in the Library.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the average gross weekly earnings of full-time males, full-time females and part-time females on adult rates in(a) the City of York, (b) north Yorkshire, (c) England, (d) Greater London and (e) the City of Canterbury in 1979 and each year since then.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is published in tables 110 and 113 of part E and table 180 of part F of the "New Earnings Survey" reports for each year since 1979, except for that shown in the following table. Information is not available for the cities of York or Canterbury.
  583

  Average gross weekly earnings of part time women employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence

  £ per week

  April each year

  County

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  North Yorkshire

  23·5

  29·9

  34·7

  37·9

  39·9

  42·8

  44·1

  47·8

  52·6

  54·1

  62·8

  68·2

  77·2

  Kent

  26·8

  32·8

  40·0

  42·0

  47·4

  49·7

  56·4

  59·9

  61·7

  67·8

  69·6

  79·7

  89·8

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: It is estimated that around one fifth of part time women employees were not covered by the survey because their gross weekly earnings were below the PAYE threshold.

  Job Centre, Stamford-le-Hope
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider re-opening the Stamfordle-Hope jobcentre.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

HEALTH

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken to identify the groups most at risk from the consequences of the thinning of the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere.

  The total number of: 1) Cases (registrations); and 2) deaths, from skin cancer (ICD's 172 and 173), by sex, 1971 1980, 1985 and 1986.

  1987–1990, deaths only. England and Wales

  ICD—Site description— Year

  Sex

  Registrations

  Deaths

  172—Malignant melanoma of skin

  1971

  Male

  357

  234

  Female

  770

  370

  1980

  Male

  656

  361

  Female

  1,264

  452

  1985

  Male

  931

  455

  Female

  1,725

  532

  1986

  Male

  989

  445

  Female

  1,813

  595

  1987

  Male

  —

  464

  Female

  —

  566

  1988

  Male

  —

  470

  Female

  —

  608

  1989

  Male

  —

  493

  Female

  —

  606

  1990

  Male

  —

  564

  Female

  —

  606

  173—Other malignant neoplasm of skin

  1971

  Male

  8,633

  248

  Female

  7,330

  209

  1980

  Male

  10,827

  193

  Female

  9,388

  173

  1985

  Male

  12,597

  263

  Female

  10,746

  199

  1986

  Male

  14,152

  229

  Female

  12,615

  183

  1987

  Male

  —

  263

  Female

  —

  178

  1988

  Male

  —

  246

  Female

  —

  184

  1989

  Male

  —

  255

  Female

  —

  192

  1990

  Male

  —

  257

  Female

  —

  179

  584
  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 20 December 1991 at column 354.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of cases and deaths from skin cancer in 1970, 1980 and between the years 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available data are set out in the table. The upward trend in the number of both registrations and deaths from malignant melanoma of the skin is a matter of concern. The possible relation between this trend and exposure to UV radiation is one of the issues on which we are seeking advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), as announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 20 February at column 272.

  Capital and Revenue Expenditure, Shropshire
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the capital and revenue expenditure by Shropshire health authority and its predecessor authority in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92;

  (2) what was the capital and revenue expenditure on family practitioner services in Shropshire in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested and derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department for the financial years 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1990–91 (the latest available) is shown in the table. Equivalent information for 1991–92 will be available in the autumn.

  Shropshire health authority

  Total revenue expenditure

  Total capital expenditure

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1991–92 prices)

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1991–92 prices)

  1978–79

  29,127

  79,017

  1,011

  2,742

  1982–83

  52,346

  87,554

  3,651

  6,106

  1986–87

  67,376

  94,117

  8,648

  12,054

  1990–91

  100,730

  107,781

  8,629

  9,233

  Shropshire family health services authority

  Total expenditure on family health services

  £000 (cash)

  £000 (at 1991–92 prices)

  1978–79

  10,956

  29,721

  1982–83

  21,248

  35,540

  1986–87

  28,777

  40,199

  1990–91

  45,000

  48,150

  Sources: Annual accounts of the Shropshire health authority, the West Midlands regional health authority and the Shropshire family health services authority and those of the predecessor health authorities and family practitioner committee (FPC).

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1991–92 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflators.

  2. The figures for total capital expenditure include costs for schemes within Shropshire which were accounted for by the west Midlands regional health authority (RHA). All expenditure incurred by that RHA for its region as a whole is excluded.

  3. Capital expenditure in particular localities tends to vary from year to year mainly reflecting changes in the pattern of capital investment throughout the country.

  4. All expenditure on family health services—FHS (formerly family practitioner services)—is essentially regarded as current (i.e. revenue) expenditure. It is not strictly attributable to particular districts and is recorded in annual accounts after the deduction of charges to patients.

  5. The FHS figures for 1986–87 and 1990–91 also include the administrative expenses of the Shropshire family health services authority—£268,000 (cash) revenue, and £145,000 (cash) capital, in 1986–87 and £799,000 (cash) revenue, in 1990–91. Prior to 1 April 1985 the Shropshire FPC was associated with the Shropshire district (formerly area) health authority and its administrative costs formed a comparatively small part of the health authority's total expenditure and are not separately identifiable.

  Chemists (Drug Purchases)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the value to the NHS of the discount claw-back on drug purchases privately negotiated by pharmaceutical chemists in each of the past four years for which figures are available.
  586
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The discount recovered from community pharmacists in England and Wales in each of the past four years is given in the table.

  Year

  Discount recovered £ million

  1987–88

  134·0

  1988–89

  154·7

  1989–90

  171·5

  1990–91

  220·5

  The discount recovery scheme ensures that the NHS benefits from the discounts pharmacists receive from wholesalers and manufacturers. The increase over the four years is due partly to increased drug costs and partly to increased discounts achieved.

  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) each regional health authority and (b) each district health authority the number of (i) nurses and midwives, (ii) medical staff, (iii) general and senior managers, (iv) administrative and clerical staff, (v) ancillary staff and (vi) ambulance staff for 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The regional health authority data are not yet available. District data could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he intends to produce to increase the proportions of generic drugs prescribed by general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proportion of prescriptions written generically has risen from 20 per cent. in 1979 to 44 per cent. in 1990 as a result of the policies pursued by this Government. Further initiatives were introduced this year, with the indicative prescribing scheme and the appointment by each family health services authority of prescribing medical advisers. Medical advisers encourage general practitioners to prescribe drugs by their generic names for reasons of good professional practice and because of the opportunities for savings such prescribing creates.

  Eye Tests and Dental Checks
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the full year cost to the Exchequer in 1991–92 of introducing free eye tests and dental checks for(a) all people over state retirement age, (b) all those in receipt of a disability benefit and (c) both (a) and (b) together.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated cost of introducing free sight tests for all people aged 65 and over in England for 1991–92 is approximately £25 million, and for introducing free dental examinations approximately £7 million. No estimate is available for people in receipt of a disability benefit. About 40 per cent. of the population are exempt from charges for dental examinations and sight tests.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer
  587
  from the abolition of free dental check-ups in the financial years (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93, in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what would be the cost of every 10p reduction in the charges for (a) eye tests, (b) dental check-ups and (c) prescriptions, in 1991–92 and 1992–93, in the United Kingdom;

  (3) what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer from the abolition of free eye tests in the financial years (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93 in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]: The estimated income from dental examination charges in England was about £55 million in 1990–91. We currently anticipate revenue of some £58 million in 1991–92, and £61 million in 1992–93. About 40 per cent. of the population are exempt from dental examination charges.

  The cost of each lop reduction in the charge for dental examinations is estimated at about £1·5 million in England in 1991–92; costs in 1992–93 would be similar. The cost of a notional 10p reduction from the current prescription charge level is estimated at a minimum of about £4 million in England in 1991–92, rising to about £5 million in 1992–93.

  Costs would accelerate for each subsequent incremental reduction. There are no charges for NHS sight tests which are available to approximately 40 per cent. of the population.

  Restricting entitlements to NHS sight tests to priority groups has resulted in estimated savings in England of about £90 million in 1990–91, with projected savings of about £100 million in 1991–92 and £110 million in 1992–93. The full year cost of re-introducing free NHS sight tests for everyone is estimated to be £165 million.

  Information on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number of(a) men and (b) women in his Department in each of grades (i) 1, (ii) 2, (iii) 3, (iv) 4, (v) 5, (vi) 6, (vii) 7, (viii) SEO, (ix) HEO, (x) administrative trainee, (xi) EO, (xii) CO and (xiii) CA.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information for the Department, including its agencies, at 31 January 1992 is in the table.

  Grade1

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  4

  0

  4

  3

  9

  6

  15

  4

  5

  2

  7

  5

  38

  16

  54

  6

  72

  19

  91

  7

  432

  94

  526

  SEO

  1,164

  302

  1,466

  HEO

  3,518

  1,901

  5,419

  HEO (D)2

  7

  12

  19

  EO

  9,142

  13,600

  22,742

  A03

  9,049

  29,407

  38,456

  AA3

  3,147

  9,456

  12,603

  588

  Grade1

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Total

  26,500

  54,793

  81,293

  1 For each grade we have included equivalent professional grades.

  2 Includes Administrative Trainees.

  3 The AO and AA grades have replaced the CO and CA grades.

  Claimants, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in the month of January in the Leeds metropolitan district how many people in receipt of income support or housing benefit were registered as being in receipt of retirement pension, disabled, or having children aged under five years; and how many of those so registered received cold weather payments.

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

  Benefits, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in York were in receipt of supplementary benefit in each year from 1979 to 1987; and how many were in receipt of income support in each year since then.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The complete range of information requested in this question is not available. This is because statistics of a local nature are destroyed at regular intervals ranging from 18 months to five years. The information available from 1987 has been drawn from the income support management information statistics.

  Statistics relating to supplementary benefit and income support recipients are collected from benefit offices on a quarterly basis. The figures show the number of recipients at a given date rather than for a particular period.

  The York benefit office covers an area of approximately 450 square miles. It is not possible, except at disproportionate cost, to identify those customers who were living in the city of York itself. The figures for York benefit office since May 1987 are in the table.

  Customers in receipt of Supplementary Benefit or Income Support from York benefit office since May 1987

  Year

  February

  May

  August

  November

  Supplementary Benefit (Predecessor of Income Support)

  1987

  —

  15,109

  15,423

  14,705

  Income Support

  1988

  1—

  13,784

  14,252

  13,507

  1989

  14,063

  13,660

  14,251

  13,979

  1990

  14,344

  12,723

  13,734

  13,826

  1991

  14,445

  13,893

  14,637

  14,705

  1 A quarterly supplementary benefit count was not conducted in February 1988.

  Community Care, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table indicating(a) the number of applications for community care grants received, (b) the number of community care grants paid and (c) the cash value of community care grants paid by the York local office in each month from January 1990 to

  589
  December 1991 for each of the (i) elderly, (ii) mentally ill/handicaped, (iii) disabled/chronically sick, (iv) young persons leaving local authority care, (v) persons who have misused drugs/alcohol, (vi) ex-offenders, (vii) persons without a settled way of life and (viii) families under exceptional pressure priority groups.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not available in the form requested.

  Social Fund, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) state how many applications for social fund loans from the York local office were refused on the grounds of inability to pay and (b) show this figure as a percentage of all applications for loans from the York local office in 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and so far in 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund 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.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each social security benefit what has been(a) the number of claimants, (b) the cash expenditure and (c) the expenditure expressed in 1991 prices for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is in the following tables.

  Table 1: Estimated average numbers receiving benefit at any one time

  (thousands)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  8,530

  8,680

  Widows' Benefit

  495

  490

  Unemployment Benefit

  570

  550

  Sickness Benefit

  560

  490

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  600

  620

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  270

  270

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  30

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  100

  115

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Non-contributory RP

  65

  55

  War Pension

  385

  370

  Attendance Allowance

  265

  285

  Invalid Care Allowance

  5

  5

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  150

  165

  Mobility Allowance

  95

  140

  Income Support/Support Benefit

  3,020

  2,920

  Child Benefit (Children)

  13,480

  13,330

  One Parent Benefit

  290

  370

  Family Credit/FIS

  85

  80

  Rate Rebate

  3,055

  3,065

  Rent Allowance

  225

  220

  Rent Rebate

  1,210

  1,205

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  8,880

  9,015

  Widows' Benefit

  475

  460

  590

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Unemployment Benefit

  960

  1,220

  Sickness Benefit

  435

  445

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  620

  660

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  265

  260

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  30

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  120

  125

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Non-contributory RP

  50

  50

  War Pension

  360

  345

  Attendance Allowance

  315

  350

  Invalid Care Allowance

  5

  5

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  175

  180

  Mobility Allowance

  185

  210

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  3,110

  3,725

  Child Benefit (Children)

  13,160

  13,145

  One Parent Benefit

  430

  470

  Family Credit/FIS

  95

  125

  Rate Rebate

  3,350

  3,700

  Rent Allowance

  240

  250

  Rent Rebate

  1,330

  1,590

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  9,115

  9,210

  Widows' Benefit

  445

  440

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,090

  1,020

  Sickness Benefit

  395

  170

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  700

  760

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  265

  265

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  30

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  125

  110

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Non-contributory RP

  45

  40

  War Pension

  330

  315

  Attendance Allowance

  390

  445

  Invalid Care Allowance

  10

  10

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  195

  210

  Mobility Allowance

  265

  315

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  4,165

  4,435

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,890

  12,660

  One Parent Benefit

  510

  540

  Family Credit/FIS

  165

  200

  Rate Rebate

  5,320

  7,020

  Rent Allowance

  260

  1,015

  Rent Rebate

  3,050

  3,735

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  9,350

  9,400

  Widows' Benefit

  425

  410

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,020

  955

  Sickness Benefit

  180

  160

  Statutory Sick Pay

  240

  245

  Invalidity Benefit

  825

  865

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  260

  265

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  30

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  120

  115

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Non-contributory RP

  35

  35

  War Pension

  305

  295

  Attendance Allowance

  490

  555

  Invalid Care Allowance

  10

  10

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  245

  245

  Mobility Allowance

  390

  420

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  4,665

  4,765

  591

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,430

  12,375

  One Parent Benefit

  565

  590

  Family Credit/FIS

  205

  205

  Rate Rebate

  7,230

  7,020

  Rent Allowance

  1,080

  1,150

  Rent Rebate

  3,745

  3,710

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  9,575

  9,685

  Widows' Benefit

  400

  385

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,005

  815

  Sickness Benefit

  100

  105

  Statutory Sick Pay

  320

  345

  Invalidity Benefit

  935

  1,010

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  285

  290

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  25

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  110

  30

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  80

  Non-contributory RP

  40

  35

  War Pension

  280

  270

  Attendance Allowance

  605

  670

  Invalid Care Allowance

  25

  80

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  265

  265

  Mobility Allowance

  460

  515

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  5,095

  5,020

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,175

  12,040

  One Parent Benefit

  615

  660

  Family Credit/FIS

  215

  220

  Rate Rebate

  7,050

  6,875

  Rent Allowance

  1,180

  1,195

  Rent Rebate

  3,720

  3,665

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  9,710

  9,795

  Widows' Benefit

  370

  375

  Unemployment Benefit

  600

  375

  Sickness Benefit

  105

  105

  Statutory Sick Pay

  365

  360

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,100

  1,190

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  295

  295

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  30

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  15

  20

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  80

  90

  Non-contributory RP

  35

  35

  War Pension

  265

  265

  Attendance Allowance

  730

  795

  Invalid Care Allowance

  100

  115

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  270

  280

  Mobility Allowance

  560

  585

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  4,310

  4,155

  Child Benefit (Children)

  12,010

  12,000

  One Parent Benefit

  705

  735

  Family Credit/FIS

  280

  305

  Rate Rebate

  5,150

  4,320

  Rent Allowance

  965

  955

  Rent Rebate

  3,125

  2,950

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  865

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  9,895

  9,9920

  Widows' Benefit

  350

  350

  Unemployment Benefit

  425

  650

  Sickness Benefit

  105

  120

  Statutory Sick Pay

  355

  345

  592

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,265

  1,325

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  305

  330

  Industrial Death Benefit

  25

  25

  Other II Benefits

  —

  —

  Maternity Allowance

  20

  20

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  80

  85

  Non-contributory RP

  35

  35

  War Pension

  255

  260

  Attendance Allowance

  875

  970

  Invalid Care Allowance

  135

  155

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  290

  300

  Mobility Allowance

  620

  660

  Income Support/Support Benefit

  4,190

  4,820

  Child Benefit(Children)

  12,135

  12,185

  One Parent Benefit

  760

  835

  Family Credit/FIS

  320

  250

  Rate Rebate

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance

  1,030

  1,115

  Rent Rebate

  2,925

  3,085

  Community Charge Benefit

  6,740

  6,570

  Table 2

  Expenditure in cash terms

  (£ million)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  7,552

  8,816

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  96

  96

  Widows'Benefit

  505

  563

  Unemployment Benefit

  632

  653

  Sickness Benefit

  696

  655

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  840

  995

  Death Grant

  16

  16

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  216

  244

  Industrial Death Benefit

  32

  36

  Other II Benefits

  5

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  105

  125

  Maternity Grant

  16

  16

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  2

  Non-contributory RP

  37

  36

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  5

  5

  War Pension

  340

  375

  Attendance Allowance

  168

  201

  Invalid Care Allowance

  4

  4

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  69

  85

  Mobility Allowance

  47

  79

  Income Support/Support Benefit

  2,256

  2,436

  Child Benefit

  1,776

  2,787

  One Parent Benefit

  22

  43

  Family Credit/FIS

  24

  27

  Maternity Grant

  16

  16

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  165

  201

  Rent Allowance

  38

  40

  Rent Rebate

  207

  238

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  10,526

  12,126

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  98

  101

  Widows' Benefit

  638

  691

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,280

  1,702

  Sickness Benefit

  654

  680

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,150

  1,370

  Death Grant

  16

  17

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  282

  315

  Industrial Death Benefit

  42

  47

  Other II Benefits

  5

  5

  593

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Maternity Allowance

  149

  158

  Maternity Grant

  16

  16

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  2

  Non-contributory RP

  38

  39

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  5

  6

  War Pension

  424

  479

  Attendance Allowance

  260

  330

  Invalid Care Allowance

  5

  6

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  108

  130

  Mobility Allowance

  125

  173

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  3,172

  4,840

  Child Benefit

  2,944

  3,372

  One Parent Benefit

  61

  76

  Family Credit/FIS

  42

  66

  Maternity Grant

  16

  16

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  271

  381

  Rent Allowance

  48

  65

  Rent Rebate

  317

  497

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  13,549

  14,613

  Christmas Bonus—Contributory

  102

  103

  Widows' Benefit

  725

  771

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,500

  1,497

  Sickness Benefit

  554

  265

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,593

  1,872

  Death Grant

  17

  17

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  343

  369

  Industrial Death Benefit

  51

  54

  Other II Benefits

  5

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  152

  141

  Maternity Grant

  16

  17

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  2

  Non-contributory RP

  40

  41

  Christmas Bonus—Non-Contributory

  6

  6

  War Pension

  504

  524

  Attendance Allowance

  403

  495

  Invalid Care Allowance

  8

  10

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  154

  182

  Mobility Allowance

  236

  304

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  6,261

  5,591

  Child Benefit

  3,660

  3,988

  One Parent Benefit

  91

  107

  Family Credit/FIS

  94

  123

  Maternity Grant

  16

  17

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  550

  1,220

  Rent Allowance

  74

  536

  Rent Rebate

  929

  1,980

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  15,268

  16,584

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  105

  105

  Widows' Benefit

  785

  800

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,578

  1,589

  Sickness Benefit

  279

  276

  Statutory Sick Pay

  508

  545

  Invalidity Benefit

  2,142

  2,349

  Death Grant

  17

  18

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  381

  407

  Industrial Death Benefit

  55

  58

  Other II Benefits

  5

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  161

  164

  Maternity Grant

  18

  17

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  594

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  39

  41

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  6

  7

  War Pension

  544

  581

  Attendance Allowance

  576

  686

  Invalid Care Allowance

  11

  13

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  236

  266

  Mobility Allowance

  356

  422

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  6,444

  7,377

  Child Benefit

  4,276

  4,468

  One Parent Benefit

  120

  134

  Family Credit/FIS

  126

  130

  Maternity Grant

  18

  17

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  1,291

  1,442

  Rent Allowance

  645

  792

  Rent Rebate

  2,065

  2,225

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  17,779

  18,648

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  107

  107

  Widows' Benefit

  825

  839

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,734

  1,468

  Sickness Benefit

  179

  193

  Statutory Sick Pay

  757

  840

  Invalidity Benefit

  2,673

  2,968

  Death Grant

  18

  3

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  440

  453

  Industrial Death Benefit

  61

  56

  Other II Benefits

  4

  4

  Maternity Allowance

  168

  51

  Maternity Grant

  14

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  193

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  37

  37

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  8

  9

  War Pension

  590

  599

  Attendance Allowance

  779

  897

  Invalid Care Allowance

  104

  184

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  285

  295

  Mobility Allowance

  514

  596

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  7,962

  7,952

  Child Benefit

  4,513

  4,598

  One Parent Benefit

  148

  163

  Family Credit/FIS

  161

  180

  Maternity Grant

  14

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  1

  1

  Rate Rebate

  1,562

  1,677

  Rent Allowance

  951

  1,012

  Rent Rebate

  2,356

  2,461

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  19,237

  20,697

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  109

  112

  Widows' Benefit

  850

  852

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,107

  733

  Sickness Benefit

  192

  204

  Statutory Sick Pay

  898

  949

  Invalidity Benefit

  3,359

  3,837

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  451

  470

  Industrial Death Benefit

  59

  59

  Other II Benefits

  4

  4

  Maternity Allowance

  27

  30

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  250

  286

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  1

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  36

  35

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  9

  9

  595

  1988–89

  1989–90

  War Pension

  610

  641

  Attendance Allowance

  1,003

  1,159

  Invalid Care Allowance

  173

  184

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  316

  346

  Mobility Allowance

  675

  769

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  7,575

  7,675

  Child Benefit

  4,515

  4,537

  One Parent Benefit

  179

  199

  Family Credit/FIS

  394

  425

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  1

  11

  Motability

  1

  1

  Rate Rebate

  1,336

  1,142

  Rent Allowance

  1,035

  1,171

  Rent Rebate

  2,565

  2,733

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  190

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  22,699

  25,538

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  112

  114

  Widows' Benefit

  889

  983

  Unemployment Benefit

  870

  1,506

  Sickness Benefit

  216

  268

  Statutory Sick Pay

  941

  724

  Invalidity Benefit

  4,431

  5,255

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  520

  600

  Industrial Death Benefit

  60

  65

  Other II Benefits

  4

  4

  Maternity Allowance

  34

  39

  Maternity Grant—

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  314

  344

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  2

  Non-contributory RP

  36

  37

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  9

  8

  War Pension

  708

  805

  Attendance Allowance

  1,382

  1,706

  Invalid Care Allowance

  208

  262

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  429

  583

  Mobility Allowance

  883

  1,061

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  8,891

  11,891

  Child Benefit

  4,591

  5,206

  One Parent Benefit

  229

  247

  Family Credit/FIS

  494

  617

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  24

  54

  Motability

  1

  3

  Rate Rebate

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance

  1,530

  1,976

  Rent Rebate

  465

  583

  Community Charge Benefit

  2,085

  1,228

  Note: —1991–92 figures are estimated outturn. Most central Government support for rent rebates appears in the Department of the Environment and Welsh Office programmes in 1990–92, and subsequent years, as rent rebate subsidy in England and Wales and is now paid from local authorities' housing revenue accounts.

  Table 3: Expenditure in 1991–92 terms

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  20,487

  20,497

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  260

  223

  Widows' Benefit

  1,370

  1,309

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,714

  1,518

  Sickness Benefit

  1,888

  1,523

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  2,279

  2,313

  Death Grant

  43

  37

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  586

  567

  Industrial Death Benefit

  87

  84

  Other II Benefits

  14

  12

  Maternity Allowance

  285

  291

  596

  1978–79

  1979–80

  Maternity Grant

  43

  37

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  5

  5

  Non-contributory RP

  100

  84

  Christmas Bonus—Non-Contributory

  14

  12

  War Pension

  922

  872

  Attendance Allowance

  456

  467

  Invalid Care Allowance

  11

  9

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  187

  198

  Mobility Allowance

  128

  184

  Income Support/Support Benefit

  6,120

  5,664

  Child Benefit

  4,818

  6,480

  One Parent Benefit

  60

  100

  Family Credit/FIS

  65

  63

  Maternity Grant

  43

  37

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  448

  467

  Rent Allowance

  103

  93

  Rent Rebate

  562

  553

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1981–82

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  20,682

  21,728

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  193

  181

  Widows' Benefit

  1,254

  1,238

  Unemployment Benefit

  2,515

  3,050

  Sickness Benefit

  1,285

  1,218

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  2,260

  2,455

  Death Grant

  31

  30

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  554

  564

  Industrial Death Benefit

  83

  84

  Other II Benefits

  10

  9

  Maternity Allowance

  293

  283

  Maternity Grant

  31

  29

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  4

  4

  Non-contributory RP

  75

  70

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  10

  11

  War Pension

  833

  858

  Attendance Allowance

  511

  591

  Invalid Care Allowance

  10

  11

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  212

  233

  Mobility Allowance

  246

  310

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  6,232

  8,672

  Child Benefit

  5,784

  6,042

  One Parent Benefit

  120

  136

  Family Credit/FIS

  83

  118

  Maternity Grant

  31

  29

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  532

  683

  Rent Allowance

  94

  116

  Rent Rebate

  623

  891

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  22,663

  23,360

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  171

  165

  Widows' Benefit

  1,213

  1,233

  Unemployment Benefit

  2,509

  2,393

  Sickness Benefit

  927

  424

  Statutory Sick Pay

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit

  2,665

  2,993

  Death Grant

  28

  27

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  574

  590

  Industrial Death Benefit

  85

  86

  Other II Benefits

  8

  8

  Maternity Allowance

  254

  225

  Maternity Grant

  27

  27

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  3

  3

  597

  1982–83

  1983–84

  Non-contributory RP

  67

  66

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  10

  10

  War Pension

  843

  838

  Attendance Allowance

  674

  791

  Invalid Care Allowance

  13

  16

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  258

  291

  Mobility Allowance

  395

  486

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  10,473

  8,938

  Child Benefit (Children)

  6,122

  6,375

  One Parent Benefit

  152

  171

  Family Credit/FIS

  157

  197

  Maternity Grant

  27

  27

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  920

  1,950

  Rent Allowance

  124

  857

  Rent Rebate

  1,554

  3,165

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  23,244

  23,928

  Christmas Bonus—Contributory

  160

  151

  Widows' Benefit

  1,195

  1,154

  Unemployment Benefit

  2,402

  2,293

  Sickness Benefit

  425

  398

  Statutory Sick Pay

  773

  786

  Invalidity Benefit

  3,261

  3,389

  Death Grant

  26

  26

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  580

  587

  Industrial Death Benefit

  84

  84

  Other II Benefits

  8

  7

  Maternity Allowance

  245

  237

  Maternity Grant

  27

  25

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  3

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  59

  59

  Christmas Bonus-Non—Contributory

  9

  10

  War Pension

  828

  838

  Attendance Allowance

  877

  990

  Invalid Care Allowance

  17

  19

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  359

  384

  Mobility Allowance

  542

  609

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  9,810

  10,644

  Child Benefit

  6,510

  6,446

  One Parent Benefit

  183

  193

  Family Credit/FIS

  192

  188

  Maternity Grant

  27

  25

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  —

  —

  Rate Rebate

  1,965

  2,081

  Rent Allowance

  982

  1,143

  Rent Rebate

  3,144

  3,210

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  24,835

  24.705

  Christmas Bonus—Contributory

  149

  142

  Widows' Benefit

  1,152

  1,112

  Unemployment Benefit

  2,422

  1,945

  Sickness Benefit

  250

  256

  Statutory Sick Pay

  1,057

  1,113

  Invalidity Benefit

  3,734

  3,932

  Death Grant

  25

  4

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  615

  600

  Industrial Death Benefit

  85

  74

  Other II Benefits

  6

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  235

  68

  Maternity Grant

  20

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  256

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  3

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  52

  49

  Christmas Bonus—Non-Contributory

  11

  12

  War Pension

  824

  794

  598

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Attendance Allowance

  1,088

  1,188

  Invalid Care Allowance

  145

  244

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  398

  391

  Mobility Allowance

  718

  790

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  11,122

  10,535

  Child Benefit

  6,304

  6,092

  One Parent Benefit

  207

  216

  Family Credit/FIS

  225

  238

  Maternity Grant

  20

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  —

  —

  Motability

  1

  1

  Rate Rebate

  2,182

  2,222

  Rent Allowance

  1,328

  1,341

  Rent Rebate

  3,291

  3,260

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  —

  Benefit

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Retirement Pension

  23,778

  24,025

  Christmas Bonus-Contributory

  135

  130

  Widows' Benefit

  1,051

  989

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,368

  851

  Sickness Benefit

  237

  237

  Statutory Sick Pay

  1,110

  1,102

  Invalidity Benefit

  4,152

  4,454

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  557

  546

  Industrial Death Benefit

  73

  68

  Other II Benefits

  5

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  33

  35

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  309

  332

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  1

  1

  Non-contributory RP

  44

  41

  Christmas Bonus-Non-Contributory

  11

  10

  War Pension

  754

  744

  Attendance Allowance

  1,240

  1,345

  Invalid Care Allowance

  214

  214

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  391

  402

  Mobility Allowance

  834

  893

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  9,363

  8,909

  Child Benefit

  5,581

  5,266

  One Parent Benefit

  221

  231

  Family Credit/FIS

  487

  493

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  1

  13

  Motability

  1

  1

  Rate Rebate

  1,651

  1,326

  Rent Allowance

  1,279

  1,359

  Rent Rebate

  3,171

  3,172

  Community Charge Benefit

  —

  221

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  24,288

  25,538

  Christmas Bonus—Contributory

  120

  114

  Widows' Benefit

  951

  983

  Unemployment Benefit

  931

  1,506

  Sickness Benefit

  231

  268

  Statutory Sick Pay

  1,007

  724

  Invalidity Benefit

  4,741

  5,255

  Death Grant

  —

  —

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  556

  600

  Industrial Death Benefit

  64

  65

  Other II Benefits

  4

  4

  Maternity Allowance

  36

  39

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  336

  344

  Guardian's Allowance/CSA

  2

  2

  Non-contributory RP

  39

  37

  Christmas Bonus—Non-Contributory

  10

  8

  War Pension

  758

  805

  Attendance Allowance

  1,479

  1,706

  Invalid Care Allowance

  232

  262

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  459

  583

  599

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Mobility Allowance

  945

  1,061

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit

  9,513

  11,8911

  Child Benefit

  4,912

  5,206

  One Parent Benefit

  245

  247

  Family Credit/FIS

  529

  617

  Maternity Grant

  —

  —

  Independent Living Fund

  26

  54

  Motability

  1

  3

  Rate Rebate

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance

  1,637

  1,976

  Rent Rebate

  498

  583

  Community Charge Benefit

  2,231

  1,228

  War Pensions Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest position regarding discussions to simplify the war pensions scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Proposals for simplifying the war pensions scheme and improving its administration were discussed with the war pensions central advisory committee on 5 December 1991. Its response was broadly to welcome the thrust of the proposed changes. Final decisions will be made and announced after consideration of the many detailed comments is completed. We have previously indicated that resources available to the war pensions scheme and individual cash entitlements of war pensioners will not be reduced as a result. That remains the position.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many income support claimants who work between 16 and 24 hours a week currently(a) receive direct help with mortgage interest payments and (b) are eligible to apply to the social fund for help with the cost of furniture and other essential household items; and if he will subdivide the figures into childless, couples with children, and lone parent household categories;

  (2) whether income support claimaints who work between 16 and 24 hours a week and who currently (a) receive direct help with mortgage interest payments and (b) are eligible to apply to the social fund for help with the cost of furniture and other items will have their eligibility for assistance fully protected after April 1992 by special protection arrangements.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We estimate that around 15,000 people currently receiving income support and working between 16 and 24 hours a week are receiving help with mortgage interest payments. Because of the small size of the sample, it is not possible to subdivide this number into household categories. Anyone receiving income support, whether or not they are working, is eligible to apply to the social fund for help under the normal rules.

  People whose entitlement to income support is protected when the hours rule changes from 24 to 16 a week from 7 April will have the same rights to help with their mortgage interest payments and to apply for social fund payments as they do at present.

  Business Reply Envelopes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of DSS agency offices have withdrawn business reply envelopes; how many people 600
  were affected by the withdrawal of business reply envelopes; and what are the estimated savings for the agency in the year 1992–93 from the withdrawal of these envelopes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Customer services are 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.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what influence the president of the Independent Tribunal Service has over allocation of resources from the DSS; to whom the president is accountable; and to whom complaints about dissatisfaction about the administrative arrangements of the independent Tribunal Service may be addressed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour Judge Holden, is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. He may appoint such officers and staff as he thinks fit to carry out his statutory duties, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service. In using the resources so provided he is accountable to the departmental accounting officer. Complaints about dissatisfaction with the administrative arrangements of the Independent Tribunal Service should be addressed to the president, his honour Judge Holden.

  Mirror Group Pension Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the cost of underwriting the guaranteed minimum pension for the Mirror Group pension fund; and if he has agreed to underwrite the guaranteed minimum pension for the Mirror Group pension fund.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is too early to make any assessment of the possible costs involved. Existing legislation provides protection for those members of pension schemes who have been contracted out of the state earnings related pensions scheme (SERPS) introduced in 1978. If any scheme is wound up there is a statutory provision designed to protect the guaranteed minimum pension which contracted out schemes are required to provide.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information available on the level of earnings of people with personal pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available information for the year ended April 1990 is that the average pay of appropriate personal pension holders, including those in part-time work, is £9,740.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the protocol to the treaty of Rome deeming pension contributions paid before May 1990 not to be deferred pay in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands includes employee pension contributions which are deducted from the employee's pay packet or salary.
  601
  Mr. Jack
  The protocol to article 119 of the treaty of Rome, agreed at Maastricht, will, when ratified, apply to all member states and relates to benefits under occupational social security schemes attributable to periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990.

  Contributions to occupational pension schemes before 17 May 1990 will continue to qualify scheme members for benefits on the same basis as when their contributions were made.

  Pensions (Christmas Bonus)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the rationale for paying the Christmas bonus to people in receipt of their pension in the week commencing 2 December and excluding those whose pensions were first payable in the Christmas week.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since the Christmas bonus was introduced in 1972 the practice has been to make payments to those who qualify no later than the first week in December. This ensures the bonus reaches all 12 million recipients in time for Christmas.

  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the spending on(a) disabled people's benefits and (b) retired people's benefit in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1983–84, (iii) 1987–88 and (iv) 1991–92 at September 1991 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  Total benefit spending on long-term sick and disabled people and on elderly people, in cash and in 1991–92 prices, is given in the table.

  Disabled people

  Elderly people

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  Cash £ million

  1991–92 prices £ million

  1979–80

  2·1

  4·9

  10·1

  23·6

  1983–84

  4·1

  6·6

  17·7

  28·2

  1987–88

  6·7

  8·8

  23·1

  30·5

  1991–92

  12·3

  12·3

  31·4

  31·4

  Note: 1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  Income Support Disability Premium
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that all claimants in receipt of attendance allowance or the new disability housing allowance are informed that their benefit acts as a passport to the income support disability premium.

  Mr. Scott
  When customers are awarded either attendance allowance or disability living allowance they will receive an information sheet with their award notice explaining that if they are on income support they may be able to get more money because of their disability, or indeed that they may now qualify for income support if they did not get it previously. More fundamentally, we are introducing special procedures so that income support entitlement can be reassessed automatically following the award of either attendance allowance or disability living allowance.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women who will lose in real terms as a result of the freezing of statutory sick pay for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available and cannot be accurately estimated. Over 90 per cent. of employees work for employers with occupational sick pay (OSP) schemes and will have their statutory sick pay (SSP) topped up by OSP. The 1988 survey of occupational sick pay schemes found that the majority of employers with such schemes top up SSP to full pay. Most employees affected by the freezing of the higher rate of SSP will, therefore, have experienced no reduction in the amount they received when sick. Those employees on the lower rate have had their SSP entitlement fully protected by full retail prices index increases.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total savings to the Exchequer for each year as a result of freezing higher rate statutory sick pay in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The total estimated savings are:

  £ million

  1991–92

  67

  1992–93

  89

  Pensioners (Home Owners)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest figures available show that in 1988, 50 per cent. of pensioners were owner occupiers, of whom 46 per cent. owned their homes outright. This compares well with 1979, when only 38 per cent. owned their homes outright.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teachers, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will show the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in(a) north Yorkshire infant and primary schools and (b) north Yorkshire secondary schools in each year from 1974 to 1991.

  Mr. Fallon
  The full-time equivalent number of qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire local education authority in January of each year is shown in the following table.

  Full-time equivalent of qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools in North Yorkshire Local Education Authority— January 1974–1991.

  (thousands)

  Primary1

  Secondary

  1974

  2·6

  2·7

  1975

  2·7

  2·8

  1976

  2·7

  2·9

  1977

  2·7

  3·1

  603

  Primary1

  Secondary

  1978

  2·7

  3·1

  1979

  2·7

  3·2

  1980

  2·6

  3·2

  1981

  2·5

  3·2

  1982

  2·4

  3·2

  1983

  2·3

  3·2

  1984

  2·3

  3·2

  1985

  2·3

  3·1

  1986

  2·3

  3·0

  1987

  2·3

  2·9

  1988

  2·4

  2·9

  1989

  2·4

  2·8

  1990

  2·5

  2·8

  1991

  2·4

  2·8

  1 Includes infant schools.

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the expenditure per pupil in the county of Shropshire in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1986–87 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest year for which actual spending information is available in 1989–90. Shropshire local education authority's school—based expenditure per nursery, primary and secondary school pupil is shown in the table. The real terms increase in per pupil spending between 1978–79 and 1989–90 was 56 per cent.

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil2

  Nursery, primary and secondary schools

  Year

  Current prices

  1989–90 prices3

  £

  £

  1978–79

  405

  940

  1982–83

  765

  1,100

  1986–87

  1,070

  1,290

  1989–90

  1,470

  1,470

  Notes to table

  1 Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure.

  2 The figures are derived from Shropshire local education authority's returns of its spending to the Department of the Environment and of its pupil numbers to the Department of Education and Science.

  3 Figures for 1978–79, 1982–83 and 1986–87 have been repriced to 1989–90 prices using the GDP (Market Prices) Deflator Index.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the total number of school sixth forms in England in(a) 1979–80 and (b) on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms in England, in 1980 and 1991 were 2,487 and 1,998 respectively. These figures include sixth form colleges in England.

  Teachers' Superannuation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answers of 11 December, Official Report, column 448–49 and 2 December, Official Report, column 16 on the teachers' superannuation scheme, what is the basis for paying widowers' pensions in respect of service from 6 April 1988 604
  and charging extra for the optional cover from 1 April 1972 to 5 April 1988 when widows' pensions are paid on all service from 1 April 1972.

  Mr. Fallon
  The normal contribution rate, of which an individual teacher pays 6 per cent. of salary and his or her employer the balance, is determined by the Government Actuary in his quinquennial valuations of the scheme. For the period 1 April 1972 to 5 April 1988, the Government Actuary took into account the cost of providing widows' pensions as a benefit of the scheme but not widowers' pensions and the normal contribution rate reflected this. In his most recent valuation, the actuary has taken account of the fact that widowers' benefits are now provided by the scheme with effect from 6 April 1988. Widowers' benefits prior to 6 April 1988 have not been covered by the contributions already paid by teachers and employers and on that basis the arrangements set out in my answer of 2 December were introduced.

  A-levels, Islington
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate in relation to the inspection carried out in November of the Islington sixth form centre and the two Islington further education colleges; and what was the finding of this report in relation to the proportion of A-level passes as compared with the national average.

  Mr. Eggar
  The report from HM inspectorate is shortly to be received by my right hon. and learned Friend, once received, it will be published as quickly as possible. When the report is published I will write to the hon. Member with the information on A-level passes.

  School Meals
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the number of children entitled to free school meals in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  Since the implementation of the 1986 Social Security Act in 1988, only children whose families are in receipt of income support and those children who are themselves eligible for income support are entitled to receive free school meals. Prior to this local authorities had discretionary powers to provide free school meals and a variety of schemes existed. Consequently, it is not possible to give the number of children entitled to free meals before this date.

  A total of 821,373 free school meals were taken in maintained schools in England on the census date in January 1991.

  Sport
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the chairmanships of the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England.

  Mr. Atkins
  As announced on 19 December 1991 in the policy statement "Sport and Active Recreation", the Government intend to replace the Sports Council of Great Britain with a United Kingdom sports commission and a sports council for England, subject to the approval by the Queen in Council, of the royal charters for the new bodies.
  605
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to appoint Peter Yarranton as chairman of the United Kingdom sports commission, and Ian Beer as chairman of the sports council for England. Mr. Yarranton is presently chairman of the Sports Council of Great Britain. He has agreed to continue in that capacity until the transition to the new arrangements has been effected.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Talks
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of talks between the political parties of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he proposes to take in respect in respect of new political initiatives in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his current efforts to bring about a political settlement in the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Security
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the recently elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland on security issues.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and I held a meeting with the new Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of Justice yesterday, during which a range of security and other issues were discussed. I shall be meeting the Irish Foreign Affairs and Justice Ministers again at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference which will be held shortly.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy).

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy).

  Brook Advisory Clinic
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will visit the newly opened Brook advisory clinic in Belfast to discuss funding.
  606
  Mr. Hanley
  I understand that the Belfast Brook centre has not yet, in fact, been opened. As the Eastern health and social services board is responsible for the funding of the services to be provided by the Brook centre when operational, it would not be appropriate for either my right hon. Friend or I to enter into separate discussions with the centre on this matter.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements to date of the Industrial Development Board in targeting new jobs.

  Mr. Needham
  During the six-year period from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1991, 27,583 jobs were promoted by the IDB against a target of 32,435.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools have devolved budgets under the local management of schools arrangements; how many schools are grant maintained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In Northern Ireland 237 schools and 24 colleges of further education have fully delegated budgets and 1,050 have partially delegated budgets under LMS and LMC arrangements. There are no grant-maintained schools.

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will appoint a new chief executive of the Northern Ireland tourist board.

  Mr. Needham
  The appointment of a chief executive is a matter for the Northern Ireland tourist board. I understand, however, from the chairman of the board that the post was recently advertised, with a closing date for receipt of applications on 2 March 1992.

  Buses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has visited plants in Northern Ireland producing buses.

  Mr. Needham
  I visited Walter Alexander and Co. (Belfast) Limited's bus body building plant at Newtownabbey on 1 November 1990. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State visited Robert Wright and Son (Coachworks) Ltd. at Balleymena on 19 June 1990.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards encouraging rural development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rural Development in 1991 an independent Rural Development Council, representing a wide spectrum of rural interests has been established to provide advice and resources to rural communities to help them develop multi-sectoral regeneration plans for their local areas.
  607
  Within the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland a rural development policy division has also been set up and three rural development area co-ordinators at senior level have been appointed to provide integrated statutory responses to local community plans.

  Museums
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to provide funding for museums in Northern Ireland other than those he already funds;

  (2) what plans he has to publish a policy statement for museums in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no immediate plans to extend funding to local authority museums, other than those to meet half of the cost of any improvement grant which may be awarded by the museums and galleries improvement fund, a joint venture between Government and the Wolfson charity trust.

  Future policy for the support of local authority museums in Northern Ireland will be considered following the publication, later this year, of a report by the Northern Ireland museums advisory committee of its study into the feasibility of establishing an area museum service for the Province.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Irish Museums Association in Ireland to discuss the role and funding of museums in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never met the Irish Museums Association.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the budgetary allocation to museums in Northern Ireland in each of the financial years from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991 inclusive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Ulster Museum

  2,876,400

  3,529,300

  4,136,000

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  2,124,300

  2,364,700

  2,747,300

  Ulster American Folk park

  685,000

  641,000

  792,800

  Community Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the amount allocated to each district council in Northern Ireland for community services in the financial years from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1991.

  Dr Mawhinney
  The amounts allocated were as follows:

  Recurrent funding

  Council

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Antrim

  46,275

  47,700

  50,175

  Ards

  33,675

  34,650

  36,450

  Armagh

  16,800

  19,275

  20,250

  608

  Council

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Ballymena

  53,625

  55,200

  58,125

  Ballymoney

  6,675

  6,900

  7,275

  Banbridge

  15,750

  17,250

  18,150

  Belfast

  679,125

  685,350

  717,000

  Carrickfergus

  37,875

  39,000

  41,100

  Castlereagh

  83,700

  83,700

  88,125

  Coleraine

  30,150

  31,050

  32,700

  Cookstown

  6,000

  7,500

  7,875

  Craigavon

  172,275

  172,275

  181,500

  Derry

  112,350

  115,500

  121,575

  Down

  30,975

  33,750

  35,550

  Dungannon

  7,725

  9,825

  10,350

  Fermanagh

  36,375

  37,500

  39,450

  Larne

  19,425

  22,275

  23,475

  Limavady

  15,375

  15,750

  16,575

  Lisburn

  61,950

  63,825

  67,200

  Magherafelt

  4,725

  4,725

  5,025

  Moyle

  14,100

  14,550

  15,300

  Newry and Mourne

  85,950

  88,500

  93,150

  Newtownabbey

  51,600

  54,750

  57,750

  North Down

  44,475

  46,500

  48,975

  Omagh

  56,175

  61,950

  65,250

  Strabane

  66,375

  72,750

  76,650

  Total

  1,789,500

  1,842,000

  1,935,000

  Capital Funding Council

  Antrim

  38,836

  6,052

  Nil

  Ards

  39,667

  21,448

  26,860

  Armagh

  32,872

  Nil

  86,182

  Ballymena

  99,697

  nil

  17,213

  Ballymoney

  20,537

  11,145

  985

  Banbridge

  1,706

  33,680

  2,784

  Belfast

  144,423

  20,618

  3,405

  Carrickfergus

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Castlereagh

  32,531

  nil

  4,866

  Coleraine

  106,745

  26,422

  5,838

  Cookstown

  65,580

  nil

  nil

  Craigavon

  63,697

  49,415

  6,443

  Derry

  104,378

  162,820

  125,688

  Down

  38,332

  5,109

  25,064

  Dungannon

  59,521

  3,376

  44,770

  Fermanagh

  nil

  4,535

  nil

  Larne

  151,375

  177

  517

  Limavady

  17,903

  7,085

  5,770

  Lisburn

  43,005

  61,376

  18,957

  Magherafelt

  26,408

  6,841

  517

  Moyle

  9,895

  nil

  nil

  Newry and Mourne

  100,146

  34,834

  13,505

  Newtownabbey

  nil

  7,598

  nil

  North Down

  18,199

  2,776

  18,586

  Omagh

  26,940

  8,308

  35,919

  Strabane

  38,734

  65,435

  nil

  Total

  281,127

  539,050

  443,869

  Notes:

  1. Capital cost figures cover both community and recreation facility provision.

  2. Grants made to councils are made in respect of expenditure on individual approved projects.

  Government Offices (Relocation)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to relocate central Government offices into the constituency of South Down in response to the provision of the Star telecommunications network within the area.
  609
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The location or relocation of civil service work is considered whenever a new function emerges, an existing function changes its organisational structure, or when the lease of a civil service occupied building expires. The provision of good communication links, such as those now available under the STAR telecommunications network, is just one of a number of factors which are taken into account when deciding upon relocation options.

  There are no plans at present to relocate any central Government functions to the South Down constituency.

  South Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he is currently considering from South Eastern education and library board in respect of a headquarters on a single site.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The South Eastern board is currently reviewing the options for locating its headquarters on a single site. The Department of Education is awaiting the outcome of these investigations before entering into further discussions with the board.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) men and (b) women in each region earn (i) above and (ii) below the national insurance lower earnings limit; and how many are between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit, in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Northern Ireland is regarded as a single region for national insurance purposes. The information requested is as follows. The figures refer to the latest estimates for the current year.

  Men

  Women

  Number of people who earn above lower earnings limit

  245,000

  185,000

  Number of people who earn below lower earnings limit

  25,000

  65,000

  Number of people who earn between upper lower earnings limit

  200,000

  180,000

  Pensioners
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest estimates of how many pensioners are(a) male, (b) female, (c) single and (d) married in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  In mid-1990 the estimated numbers of men and women at state pension age and over in Northern Ireland were as follows:

  Number

  Men

  76,000

  Women

  155,000

  Source: OPCS mid-year estimates.

  I regret that information is not available on the marital status of these pensioners.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pensioners there are over the 610
  age of 75 years divided into males and females; and what is (a) their average income from all sources and (b) the income distribution of such pensioners, in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 24 February 1992]In mid-1990 the estimated numbers of men and women over the age of 75 in Northern Ireland were as follows:

  Number

  Men

  28,000

  Women

  54,000

  Source: OPCS mid-year estimates.

  I regret that sufficient information is not available to enable reliable estimates of the average income or income distribution of these men and women to be made.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his estimate of the cost of social security fraud to his Department of Health and Social Services in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many people have been jailed as a result of being found guilty of social security fraud in each of the last five years;

  (3) how many people were charged with social security fraud in each of the last five years.

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

  Butchers' Blocks
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requirements have been introduced by the European Community in connection with the butcher's wooden block upon which cuts of meat are prepared; and if he will make a statement on the future of this butcher's block.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. A proposed European Community directive on hygiene of foodstuffs presently under negotiation, would require that all articles, fittings, and equipment with which food comes into contact should be so constructed, be of such materials and be kept in such good order, repair and condition as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practical, any risk of contamination of the food. Similar provisions are already contained in existing United Kingdom food hygiene law.

  Fisheries Patrol Boat
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the acquisition cost and what are the budgeted running costs of the Northern Ireland fisheries patrol boat, Ken Vickers.

  Mr. Hanley
  The acquisition cost was some £450,000, 50 per cent. of which will be met by the EC. The estimated running costs, including crewing, for 1992–93 are £72,400.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to date of the preparation, printing, publication and distribution of the citizens charter for Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of £120,400

  Low Energy Lighting
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the buildings operated by his Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]Low-energy light fittings are already used in all new installations and to replace fittings which have reached the end of their useful life. In other circumstances low-energy units are fitted where it is cost-effective to do so.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Captive Birds
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further information he has on the levels of mortality in imported captive birds.

  Mr. Gummer
  The third report by the Ministry on mortalities in imported captive birds, relating to imports in 1990, shows that of 176,000 birds, 3,500 were dead on arrival and a further 18,100 died in post-import quarantine. The average mortality remains unacceptable but has fallen slightly to 12·3 per cent. compared with 12·7 per cent. in the previous year. The statistics give further evidence of the major problems in the bird trade which the Government are taking vigorous action to address. I am placing copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), has just announced a far-reaching package of measures which underline our commitment. Clearly these issues need to be addressed internationally, and at the forthcoming Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species conference the United Kingdom will take a leading role in pressing for strengthened international controls. We are also seeking tough action in the European Community. We are determined that any future trade in wild birds should be conducted under proper conditions and that exporting countries, airlines and traders should all play their part and recognise their responsibilities for ensuring the highest standards of care.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the public bodies to which he makes appointments and all the committees within his Ministry which include outside experts appointed by him.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information about public bodies to which 1 make appointments is given in "Public Appointments: a Handbook for Women's Organisations" and annually in "Public Bodies", copies of which are in the Library. To provide a fully comprehensive list of all bodies and committees to which I make appointments would be disproportionately expensive.

  Oilseed Harvest
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what EC support arrangements will apply in the United Kingdom for the 1992 oilseed harvest.

  Mr. Gummer
  A new EC support system is being introduced because the existing arrangements were found to be incompatible with GATT rules. The scheme will apply to rapeseed, sunflower seed and soya bean crops harvested in summer 1992. The scheme will provide a payment related to the world price made at a flat rate per hectare and paid direct to growers.

  The agriculture departments will be operating the scheme and will issue explanatory booklets and application forms as soon as possible. These will be sent to all known oilseed growers. Others will be able to obtain copies from the Ministry's regional service centres and the offices of other agriculture departments. I will place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  The general rules of the scheme were adopted in December 1991 in council regulation 3766/91. A Commission regulation establishing more detailed rules is expected to be published shortly. When it is, I will make a further announcement. Growers sowing seed after the entry into force of the Commission regulation (three days after the date of its publication in the Official Journal) will be subject to certain restrictions on the land on which they may sow if they are to be eligible for aid. They will only be eligible if they plant on arable land. That is defined in the Council regulation as
  "land cultivated during the period 1989–90 to 1990–91, including land shown to have been fallowed in conformity with a publicly funded scheme, temporarily under grass as part of an arable rotation or exceptionally arable land fallowed throughout this period".

  The intention of this provision is to prevent the ploughing up of permanent grassland.

  In addition to crops harvested from certified seed, home-saved seed will be eligible for aid, as will seed grown for industrial use and seed grown for sowing. Various requirements in relation to these matters, which are laid down in the Commission regulation, are being waived this year because it would be inequitable to apply them after growers have taken decisions on what seed to sow for the 1992 harvest. Specific obligations will however apply in future years, and these will be publicised in advance of growers' decisions on plantings for 1993 harvest.

  Growers' completed applications must be received by the agriculture departments by 30 May. The Commission regulation provides for applications received in the following 30 days to suffer a 1 per cent. cut in the aid for each day that they are late up to a maximum cut of 30 per cent. of the aid. Applications received thereafter will be ineligible for any aid. Applications must be supported by a map—from the 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey series, or a map of an equivalent quality—showing the precise location of the crops.

  After growers' applications have been checked, a first payment (of up to 50 per cent. of the total) will be made by 30 September. After the grower has submitted a "harvest declaration", further checks will be made.

  The remainder of the aid will be paid by the end of March 1993. There will also be some payments, on which the Commission has not yet made a proposal, to growers who hold the crop off the market, and thus help to ensure orderly marketing.
  613
  Different rates of aid will be paid in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to reflect their different average yields. Last autumn's and this spring's sowings will receive the same rate of aid. This may change for 1993 crop.

  The regulations contain a number of measures designed to penalise inaccurate applications and to prevent fraud. Penalties for fraud can include disqualification from support in the year following the committal of certain offences. A statutory instrument will be introduced providing in particular for powers of entry and inspection.

  This scheme is free-standing. There is no linked set-aside requirement, nor is there any simplified scheme for small producers.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on future controls on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Gummer
  In March last year the Government published a report by officials from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on dietary supplements and health foods. The report was not a statement of policy but was intended to provide a basis for discussion. It was circulated to some 160 trade, consumer and other organisations for comment. Last December the European Commission issued a discussion paper on possible future controls on dietary supplements which covered much of the same ground as our earlier report. Views on the Commission paper were invited from all those who had commented on our report.

  In the light of all the comments that we have received on the two documents we have concluded that there is a good case for the introduction of some specific controls on dietary supplements. However, we believe that a balance needs to be struck between on the one hand ensuring public health together with clear labelling information and, on the other hand, maintaining the availability of safe products for which there is clearly a strong public demand.

  We have recently submitted our views on future legislation to the European Commission in the form of an outline draft directive on dietary supplements. I have arranged for copies of the draft to be sent to all those who responded to the consultation exercises and to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  At this stage we are only seeking to establish the broad framework for a directive. Regulatory regimes for supplements differ considerably throughout the Community and it will be important to settle questions of principle before we move on to more technical matters.

  I understand that the Commission is due to hold a preliminary discussion on dietary supplements in early March. We will continue to keep all the interests involved informed on the progress of these discussions and will be consulting further on particular detailed issues such as the maximum daily dose limits which might be laid down for individual supplements.

  Adulterated Wine
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about adulterated Italian wine on sale in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  614
  Mr. Maclean
  My Department learnt on 11 February that some imported Italian wines had been illegally contaminated.

  AS soon as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food became aware of the potential problem, Ministry officials drew together United Kingdom trade interests and the Italian authorities to discuss the illegal addition of methylisothiocyanate to those Italian wines. Meetings of all parties concerned were held last week and again this week. A list of all producers known to have been using this chemical has been obtained from the Italian Government and we have identified nine importers in the United Kingdom. They have all been notified of the need to implement a full recall of suspect wines and to submit samples for analysis and have co-operated fully with my Department. Details of those wines have also been sent to local authorities and to environmental health officers to enable them to check that no stock remains on sale, including at minor outlets, hotels and restaurants. Territorial departments and the port health authorities have been similarly notified. In addition we have asked the trade to put in hand immediate testing of all Italian wines to confirm that no other supplies are affected. Independent checking is also being undertaken by the Ministry. We have asked for all test data to be sent to us for incorporation into a comprehensive data base and those results will be made available to the public. Should any further cases of contamination be discovered, immediate steps will be taken to ensure that affected supplies are immediately withdrawn from sale.

  Our officials have expressed serious concern to the Italian authorities about this incident and are engaged in further discussions to clarify the extent of the problem, how it arose and what steps are being taken in Italy to ensure that no further adulterated wine is placed on the market.

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

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 6 February 1992 column 275]Fishing effort in Europe exceeds what the stocks can at present withstand. Some commercially important species are under severe pressure. Significant steps have already been taken at Community and national level, including the technical measures that will take effect later this year. But more than this is needed if our conservation policies are to be fully effective.

  My colleagues in the other Fisheries Departments share this concern. We have looked at a wide range of options. It has not been easy to identify the best way forward. Conservationist have concentrated on their fears for the future of the stocks, while the fishing industry has continued to press strongly for a decommissioning grant scheme. The Government have made clear that this could be considered, but only as part of a package that would have to make a definite contribution to the conservation of fish stocks. Our key objective must be to reduce fishing effort if we are to protect the stocks for fishermen today and their children tomorrow.

  My right hon. Friends and I therefore now propose to introduce a programme of closely-linked measures. The objective will be to reduce fishing effort over the period up

  615
  to 1996, to meet a target which we shall need to quantify and agree with the Commission in line with our Community obligation under the 1992–1996 multi-annual guidance programme. An essential feature of our programme will be control over fishing effort, through the introduction of a freeze in 1993 to hold effort at its 1991 level, followed in the years 1994 to 1996 by arrangements to reduce entitlements to days at sea to the extent necessary to achieve the overall target. In assessing the size of these reductions, account will be taken of the impact on fishing effort of the other measures described here.

  It is our intention to seek to have effort control arrangements in place for 1993. Once this is done, we can bring forward measures to reduce capacity. There will be a decommissioning scheme to operate over two years, with provision for expenditure of up to £25 million. The scheme will be cash limited and subject to tight controls and will be designed to take out the maximum amount of fishing effort. No decommissioning payments will be committed until measures for controlling and reducing fishing effort are in place.

  In the meanwhile, the producer organisations established under Community rules to which many fishermen belong will be encouraged to play a more active part in rationalising the structure of the fleet, and certain changes in rules will be made to facilitate that.

  Also, the rules governing transfer of vessel licences will be amended so that the existing amount by which capacity has to be reduced on aggregation will be increased, and a penalty will be applied to other forms of transfer too.

  To complement these measures to reduce effort and capacity, restrictive licensing will he extended to vessels 10 metres and below in length so that this sector of the fleet cannot expand further. This change will take effect in 1993 but in principle licences will then be issued only to vessels which are already actively involved in fishing now, My Department is making a separate more detailed announcement on this.

  Finally, in relation to effort controls provision will be made for fishermen to trade their days at sea entitlements along with fishing licences. This will help the industry to adjust to effort restrictions through rationalisation.

  We have begun discussions with the Commission on ways in which these measures could be accommodated in Community legislation and we shall be consulting the Commission and the industry about the details of this important conservation package. When parliamentary time permits the Government will introduce the primary legislation which will be needed for some elements of this package such as the trading arrangements described above.

  My right hon. Friends and I believe that a package on these lines will greatly assist the conservation of fish stocks, and will thus be in the best long-term interest of our fishermen. We look forward to constructive discussion of this package with the industry.

SCOTLAND

  Insulin
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against issuing needles for insulin-injecting pens on prescription to diabetics during the current session; and if he will make a statement;
  616
  (2) when he intends to provide needles for insulin-injecting pens on prescription for diabetics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the current session there have been I I representations in favour of the issue of needles for insulin injecting pens on prescription to diabetics. Where such needles are considered by a consultant to be clinically necessary, they can be obtained free of charge through the hospital service.

  The wider availability of needles for insulin injecting pens on prescription will be considered when the evaluation of the specification and costs, presently being carried out by the Department of Health on behalf of all health departments, is completed.

  Lockerbie
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new evidence he has received about the responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing since 14 November.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The warrant issued on 14 November 1991 for the arrest of two Libyans for their involvement in the bombing of PA 103 resulted from an independent investigation lasting over three years. That investigation continues. As the Lord Advocate said in his announcement on 14 November 1991 proceedings are active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and he cannot and will not comment on the evidence on which the charges are based. Nor can he comment on evidence received since the warrant was issued.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many crimes per 100,000 people were recorded in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many crimes were recorded in Scotland in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]The number of crimes recorded by the police per 100,000 people in Scotland in 1979 and 1990 was 6,710 and 10,502 respectively. The number of crimes recorded by the police in Scotland for those same years was 346,680 and 535,864 respectively.1

  1 All the figures given are based on the revised classification of crimes and offences which was introduced at the beginning of 1980. The 1979 figures include crimes reported to the Procurator Fiscal by agencies other than the police (for example the Department of Health and Social Security) in which a prosecution was taken. In 1982, there were about 6,400 such cases so the overall effect on recorded crime is small.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were on national health service waiting lists in Scotland in 1979; and how many there were on the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]The number of in-patients on the waiting list at 31 March 1979 was 76,968 compared with 60,693 at 31 March 1991. These figures are not directly comparable as an improved statistical information system was introduced in 1988.
  617
  Separate day case waiting list figures are available only from 1989. The number of day cases on the waiting list at 31 March 1991 was 18,673.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of manufacturing output in 1979: and what was the change between 1979 and latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]The index (1985 = 100) of manufacturing output in Scotland in 1979 was 103· and in 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, was 115·4. This represents an increase of 11·8 per cent. in the 11 years between 1979 and 1990.
  618
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of manufacturing investment in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 February 1992]The levels of manufacturing investment in 1979 and 1989, the latest year for which data are available, are set out in the table.

  Manufacturing Investment

  £ million

  Year

  Net capital expenditure

  1979

  588·9

  1989

  1,232·2

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

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

Personal Statement by the Baroness Blatch
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement regarding the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, during Starred Questions on Wednesday 26th February. In a supplementary question, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to a cash injection of £1.5 billion and the "wholly unauthorised write-off of £5 billion" of National Loans Fund debt.
The question asked by the noble Lord was based on a false premise in the sense that the write-off was authorised by Parliament in the Water Act 1989. However, I was wholly in error to refer to the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as illustrative and for that I apologise most profusely to the noble Lord and indeed to the whole House for misleading them.

A.1 Trunk Road: Accident Rate
3.1 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the increasing number of serious accidents on the A.1 trunk road between Newcastle and Edinburgh, they will authorise its conversion into dual carriageway throughout its length.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there has been a joint Department of Transport-Scottish Office working party looking at all aspects of this stretch of' the A.1. The Government hope to announce their conclusions in the near future.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, in which I sense a hint of encouragement. Is he aware that, whereas the incidence of accidents throughout the country has decreased by 1 per cent. over the past four years, on the winding single carriageway stretch of the road between Morpeth and Edinburgh the incidence of accidents went up by 27 per cent. in that same period? Is he further aware of the A.1 Safe Link Campaign, sponsored by Lothian Regional Council, the Borders Regional Council and Northumberland County Council, and supported by many local newspapers, which has resulted in 35,000 signatures in its support?
376
Finally, does he appreciate that over the past 10 years there have been 139 deaths on that road, 21 in the past 15 months and four in the past three weeks?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the campaign to which the noble Lord refers. As I said, we have been reviewing the situation on that particular stretch of road. There are in fact slightly fewer accidents on that road set against the average for similar roads in Great Britain, although I concede that on some sections the national average rate is exceeded. However, the rate of severe accidents occurring on the road is slightly higher than average. That is the main problem. Work on two schemes at Brownieside, north of' Alnwick, and Marshall Meadows, north of Berwick, where accidents have been above the average, is due to start in the spring. In Scotland the high quality bypass at Cockburnspath is presently under construction. The accident rate over those sections is among the worst on the route. So those schemes should be welcomed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is extreme urgency about this matter? In support of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is he further aware there is overwhelming support for the project in the North East? Moreover, does he appreciate that the rest of the country is now becoming conscious of the fact that North East England is the most beautiful part of these islands? The increase in tourism is tremendous, not only of day travellers but of' people from abroad. I speak as a former member of the Northumbria Tourist Board. Will the Government push this matter forward and come to a firm conclusion, particularly as the A.1 is to be made into a motorway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's observations and his assertion that the North East is a beautiful part of the country. I do not disagree, although others may promote their own areas of the country. As I said in my original Answer, the Government hope to announce their conclusions in the near future. In addition to the schemes that I announced in my further reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, a number of minor schemes have now been implemented to help with particular accident blackspots at 21 locations.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that a very large number of the accidents on that stretch of road are caused by excessive speed? Until such time as the improvements are effected, will it be possible to have a lower speed limit at certain of the more dangerous parts?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the speed limit on single carriageway roads is 60 miles an hour, and 75 per cent. of that stretch of road is single carriageway. I shall certainly take note of my noble friend's comments and see whether something along those lines can be done.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I leave aside for the moment the beauties of the North East, which are considerable, and even the importance of Newcastle. Does the Minister agree that it is

377
extraordinary that there should not be a continuous dual carriageway road between London and Edinburgh? Will the Government, who have not been notably successful in preserving the links between the two countries over the past few years, at least repair that deficiency?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that if one were travelling from London to Edinburgh one would be unlikely to use the A.1 road between Newcastle and Edinburgh. One is much more likely to follow the route up the west side of the country, which is dual carriageway the whole way, most of it to motorway standard.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister was able to tell us that the joint working party would report fairly soon. We must remember that this is a road with joint jurisdiction. We want the road to be balanced on both sides of the Border. Is he convinced that the schemes of widening which are already going forward will be sufficient? Will they ultimately be able to link up with other improvements, so that we have, if not a motorway, at least a very good dual carriageway all the way from Newcastle to Edinburgh?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are looking at the whole of that stretch of road. A quarter of the road is already dual carriageway. I have alluded to three schemes which will improve the road. There is total co-operation on the road between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport, despite the fact that part of it is in Scottish Office territory and part in Department of Transport territory. I believe that that is a very good case for the union to continue.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fact that the road is neither dual carriageway nor motorway is a source of great dissatisfaction in Scotland and that of course the Government are blamed for it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware that there is considerable concern about this road. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the petition of 35,000 names, which, I believe, is to be presented in another place in due course. As I said in my original Answer, the Government are looking at the matter.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the new Cockburnspath bypass will be single carriageway? Surely it would have been cheaper to make it dual in the first place.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that it is to be single carriageway but with a climbing lane for slower moving vehicles on the upward part. I understand that it will be designed in such a way that it will be possible to make it dual carriageway without additional expense in the future.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, with reference to my noble friend's Question—although it is indeed surprising, as he pointed out, that Edinburgh is west of Bristol—even if one went up the west side, so far as
378
I know (I seldom go to those deep southern parts of Scotland) one would still find no dual carriageway. One cannot get to Edinburgh from London on a dual carriageway unless one goes into Glasgow itself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I was wrong. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I strayed slightly off the Question on the Order Paper which refers to the A.1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I shall not stray further off that track.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, may wish to speak afterwards. With reference to the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, when will the Government reconsider the building of bypasses which are not dual carriageways? The number of accidents that have occurred on new bypasses such as that around Ilminster have been repeated in all parts of the country. Surely it is time that the Department of Transport did something about the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, each bypass must be treated on its own merit according to the expected traffic flow. Obviously, it is better to have a single carriageway bypass at lower cost than no bypass at all.

The Independent Living Fund
3.11 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest Lord Murray of Epping Forest asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the success of the Independent Living Fund, and of the fears expressed by disabled people at the likely consequences of local authorities becoming responsible for new clients in 1993, they will review their decision to hand over this service to local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Independent Living Fund is not the only source of help for disabled people. Local authorities and health authorities already have significant responsibilities in this area and these will be further enhanced by the arrangements for "care in the community" from April 1993 when, for example, significant resources will be transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities.
A successor body to the ILF will be appointed to take over the existing case load in April 1993 and will have power to respond to the needs of those whose care costs rise. Details have yet to be finalised.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that disabled people's organisations appreciate that old cases are to be left with the Independent Living Fund? Eleven thousand people will benefit enormously from its administration. Does the noble Lord share their view that the success of the Independent Living Fund in keeping those people in their own homes at low cost cannot be matched by local authorities, as has been

379
shown by studies? Will he reconsider the decision to transfer new cases to local authorities, which cannot do as good a job?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the praise that the noble Lord heaps on the ILF. We have always been full of praise for it and believe that it has done a good job. However, we have always made it clear that the ILF was to be an interim measure to ensure that severely disabled people could continue to live independently in the community until the permanent community care arrangements could be put in place. Thereafter it must be a matter for the local authorities to develop such packages for severely disabled people. The continued existence of an ILF for new cases would possibly create a perverse incentive on local authorities to offload many of their worst cases onto the ILF.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if he were to announce that the ILF had a firm five-year future from 1992, including the ability to take on new cases, and that there would be an open-minded review of its longer term future in year three—by which time community care would be firmly established—he would have all-party support and, I believe, the support of local authorities? In the light of that, will the Minister reconsider his reply to my noble friend?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an interesting suggestion. It is certainly welcome to have support from the noble Baroness for a change. However, I repeat what I said. We do not see a case for continuing the ILF for new cases after April 1993 for the reasons that I gave.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that community care will be launched only in April 1993 and that in the same year to introduce the movement of new cases from the ILF, with all its experience, to local authorities undertaking community care for the first time is surely undesirable and may put such cases at risk of inadequate help?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. I believe that the noble Baroness is completely wrong. It would create the wrong start to new community care arrangements if there were a successor body to the ILF that could take on the new cases.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the very novelty of its innovation by the Government—which is welcomed—demonstrates its superiority over local authority provision? Studies that have been made by local authorities to date suggest that they cannot match the quality of service and that the likely result of transfer to local authorities is to leave more disabled people in residential care, which we all wish to avoid.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Baroness, it is the very novelty of the arrangements that make it undesirable for a successor body to the ILF to take on new cases.

British Library: George Bernard Shaw Bequest
3.15 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the bequest by George Bernard Shaw in his will to the British Museum has been used, as it should have been, primarily for the benefit of the British Library.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the George Bernard Shaw bequest has been used partly for the benefit of the British Museum Library, and also since 1973 for the benefit of the British Library. However, decisions on the use of the bequest are the responsibility of the trustees of the British Museum.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. I know that he is aware that the administrators of Bernard Shaw's will of course have passed the receipts from the royalties, in particular augmented by those from "My Fair Lady", to the British Museum, in accordance with Shaw's will which said that he left the bequest in gratitude for his days in the Reading Room of the British Museum. The noble Viscount is also aware that on 17th December 1959 Sir Edward Boyle, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave an undertaking to Parliament that the proceeds from the Shaw fund would be used primarily for the benefit of the British Library.
Is the noble Viscount aware that the sum which has been received from the administrators of the Shaw estate now totals some £3 million? If that sum continues to be invested by the trustees in the very sagacious way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, invested those funds when he was chairman of the British Museum trustees, it would now amount to £10 million or £15 million. Does not the noble Viscount consider it odd that the British Library has only received about £480,000 from this fund? Does he not consider it even odder—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Annan: Does he not consider it odd that the accounts of the fund appear to be privy to the British Museum and that the British Library has never seen them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right that Sir Edward Boyle, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told another place that trustees had decided, first, to use the Shaw money to build up a capital fund and, secondly, in due course to use the income from the fund primarily for the benefit of the library. At the time the British Library did not exist. It did not come into being until 14 years later in 1973.
The noble Lord is also right that the income since 1958 of the Shaw bequest has been just over £3 million, and in recent years it has been running at about £120,000 per annum. Grants have been made by

381
the British Museum trustees to the British Library of £400,000. They also have used money from the bequest for the benefit of the British Museum.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in terms of parliamentary procedure it is unusual for a Question to affirm an expression of opinion? The words "as it should have been" which appear on the Order Paper are very much open to question. Speaking as a trustee of the British Museum, but not for the trustees, perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm that the Shaw bequest in relation to the museum was unrestricted in its purposes. Furthermore, does he agree that the British Library Act 1972, when the British Library and the British Museum were, so to speak, divorced, made no specific provision for the transfer of trust funds to the British Library?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renfrew is correct. The British Library Act 1972 made no provision for the transfer of trust funds or other moneys to the British Library. The trustees received legal advice that they were not empowered under the British Museum Act 1963 to make such a transfer. Those British Museum trust funds to which donors have attached specific conditions in favour of library departments were transferred to the British Library in 1976 and 1983 under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners.
I must also point out that the Shaw bequest was a private bequest and did not involve public funds.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, how much of Shaw's bequest has been used by the British Museum trustees for purposes other than the library? Why do not the BM trustees allow the British Library to see the Shaw fund accounts? Why all the secrecy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the second part of the noble Baroness's question is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum. Money spent by the British Museum since 1973 is part of a large pool of expenditure made by them and separate figures are not available. However, I shall draw the noble Baroness's remarks to the attention of the trustees of the British Museum to see whether they can make the figures available.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Eccles!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I do not like having to restore order in this way but perhaps my noble friend may be allowed to ask his question.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, with great help from the first Viscount Boyd of Merton I managed this fund during the 1960s. We greatly increased its capital. We were always willing to receive requests for grant from the library because we knew that it was a part of the British Museum which Mr. Shaw used more than any other. May I appeal to my noble friend on the Front
382
Bench to use his influence with the Minister for the Arts to persuade the trustees to provide £75,000 or whatever the sum, to buy Ellen Terry's letters? I understand that they have refused, although that would have been Mr. Shaw's first request.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to the trustees of the British Museum, one of whom is sitting behind him.
Lord Marsh: My Lords—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether this is pre-election fever or what, but I must again arbitrate. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to ask a question.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, do not the somewhat convoluted facts here revealed suggest that the only way fully to carry out the desires of George Bernard Shaw is to keep the Round Reading Room, which apart from anything else has unique qualities as a reading room associated with the British Library?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as noble Lords know, it is intended that in the future the Round Reading Room will be used for the library of the British Museum. Perhaps I may quote what was said in 1959 by Mr. Emrys Hughes, the Member for South Ayrshire in another place. He said that George Bernard Shaw:
"had a great affection for the Reading Room of the British Museum, because when he did not have much money he went there not merely to read books but for warmth".—[Official Report, Commons. 17/12/59; col. 1754.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the diminishing number of us who knew personally, however slightly, George Bernard Shaw, as he unfailing called himself, will have no hesitation at all in agreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that Shaw was a library man rather than a museum man? Therefore, I hope that his wishes will be respected in that regard.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in my previous answer I pointed out that the George Bernard Shaw bequest was for the British Library but that he also had great affection for the Round Reading Room.
Lord Wardington: My Lords, may I add a few words on that matter—
Noble Lords: No, no. Question!
Lord Wardington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware—I beg your Lordships' pardon, but I am not a regular attender in the House. However, I had to come along today to speak on the subject because I am—
Noble Lords: Question, Question!
Lord Wardington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am the chairman of the Friends of the British Library? As such I have come along to make a statement—
Noble Lords: Order, order! Question!
Lord Wardington: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I may come to the House in a different context at a later date as regards the subject of the British Library. Until that time I shall sit down.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am happy that my noble friend made us all aware of his connection with the British Library.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
3.25 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest target for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in May 1990 the Government announced that provided other countries take similar action the UK is prepared to set itself the target of returning its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. This remains our target. We have set out our strategy and a first tranche of measures towards this target in the environment White Paper in which we made clear that we will improve on our target if possible.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly in view of the short notice that I unavoidably gave her. Is it the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment is anxious to bring forward the reduction of CO2 emissions to the 1990 level from the year 2005 to 2000, whereas the Secretary of State for Energy and the Treasury are anxious to prevent that because they are worried about the privatisation of coal and the cost of insulation? Is it the case that the dispute was to be settled yesterday morning and, if so, what was the result?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to refer to speculative comments in the press. However, I can go a little further than the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will go to Rio for the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. It is clear that he would like to be able to sign an effective convention there. Developed countries should adopt specific commitments in the convention and perhaps stabilise emissions individually or jointly by early in the next century at 1990 levels.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an acre of conifer trees consumes 5 tonnes of CO2 in a year and that if the Government would tighten up their forestry policy that would do as much good as some of their plans to reduce emissions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one of the joys of answering Questions at the Dispatch Box is that one learns so much. I believe that anything that gobbles up CO, or pollution—I learnt only recently of a reed bed which positively eats pollution—can only be of benefit to the environment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is there any way of measuring the volume of CO2 emitted at Question Time in your Lordships' House? If so, would that not constitute a good case for a self-denying ordinance?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am an advocate of sound scientific data. Perhaps such a topic would make a good study for someone.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not agreed that one of the best ways of reducing CO2 emissions is to indulge in energy saving as much as possible? Has the Minister's department had any discussions with the green Minister at the Department of Energy? If so, what was the result of those discussions as regards the setting up of new energy-saving measures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that energy-saving measures are a key to improving the situation. The green Ministers in all government departments, not only in the Department of Energy, are having constant discussions about ways and means of saving energy. As regards the specific manifestations of those discussions, I must refer the noble Baroness to the environment White Paper and to the follow-up document published a year later.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the last supplementary question, will the noble Baroness indicate to what extent she believes that the initiatives taken at Community level on the SAVE and other programmes have contributed to the UK's objectives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been and there still is a three-year publicity campaign to raise public awareness. A definite theme of our environmental White Paper was that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to play a part in reducing CO2 emissions.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I note that CO2 emissions have increased in the past two years. Is the Minister aware that most experts in this sphere, including the energy committee in the other place, believe that the UK has little chance of meeting existing targets, let alone any new targets which the Secretary of State may seek with our support?
Will the Minister tell us what specific measures and policy changes the Government have in mind which will make it possible to achieve those targets? Does she accept that nothing short of a massive campaign on energy conservation will help us to achieve those targets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, makes an extremely important point because there is pressure to improve on that target. However, the first target was set against a predictable rise in CO2 emissions which resulted from economic growth. The difficulty of improving even further on that target must go hand in hand with real measures which will cause considerable pain for government, commerce and industry and individuals.
There is in place a continuous campaign to encourage everybody to use their best efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. To that end the Government have set specific targets for government departments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether, when the Secretary of State goes to New York on Monday to participate in the preparations for Rio, he will be taking with him a pledge for the reduction of CO2 emissions by the year 2000 or the year 2005?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it has never been the custom of this House to say ahead of a visit what my right honourable friend will say when visiting another country.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is customary but by no means merely as a matter of form that we take the opportunity, when a consolidation Bill is about to be passed in your Lordships' House, to be polite enough to accord thanks to parliamentary counsel, to the Law Commission and to the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place which deals with consolidation Bills. From these Benches, I say thank you.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to join in the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, I should explain to the House the reason he has asked me to move this Motion in his place—to act as his devil, as we should have described it if we were both back together at the Bar.
The Appellate Committee, which is currently sitting, of which he is a member and I am not, is hearing an expedited appeal between the Corporation of Lloyd's and a number of its members. It has already been delayed as a result of a previous appeal having overrun its ordinary time. My noble and learned friend hoped that your Lordships would agree that
386
that appeal should not be further interrupted. For that reason and in that hope, he has asked me to move the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Ackner.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.—(Lord Ackner.)
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Ackner.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.37 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Finance Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [Meaning of "dwelling"]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("or substitute another definition for").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 3(6) allows the definition of a dwelling to be altered or substituted through regulations. Noble Lords have accepted that it is prudent to take a power to amend the definition. But doubts have been expressed about the desirability of allowing the Secretary of State to substitute an entirely new definition for that shown on the face of the Bill.
I made it clear that I had considerable sympathy with this view and undertook to consider the matter further. This amendment is being brought forward in the light of that consideration. The amendment retains the power to amend the definition in Clause 3, but removes the power to substitute it. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we wish to express our gratitude to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment which is, in effect, the same amendment as we brought forward on Report.
I like the touch of elegant variation, as Sir Ernest Gowers would have put it, which allows the Government to bring forward an amendment that quotes the words to be left out, whereas we indicated the words before and after those which were to be left out. However, I understand that the effect is the same.
We were grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in particular as regards the amendment. It seems common sense that, although there may be amendments to a definition of a "dwelling", a complete substitution would be inappropriate. We are grateful to the Government for that concession.

387
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Dwellings chargeable to council tax]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert:
("(c) the fact that there is no resident in the dwelling.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. With these two amendments we return to the issue of the council tax to be levied on a second home.
Noble Lords will recall that as a result of lobbying, which was effective in one part of the Kingdom and not in another, second homes in Wales are subject to a full council tax, but for some inexplicable reason in England they are not. All kinds of spurious arguments have been put forward to defend that difference but they do not amount to very much.
Amendment No. 8 makes a straightforward proposal. It provides that there should be a full council tax payable on an unoccupied second home where there is no resident. Amendment No. 2 is intended—and I hope that the wording achieves it—to meet the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on Report. He quoted the case of a man who might leave Scotland to look for work in Birmingham and find himself responsible for two council taxes.
Amendment No. 2 allows there to be a new class of dwelling; that is, a dwelling where there is no resident which can be treated separately for the purposes of discount. I hope that that meets the point raised by the noble Earl and that both amendments will be accepted as being the logical conclusion to the rather lengthy debates held on the subject. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the amendment. It seems to class a dwelling where there is no resident, such as a holiday home, within the category of an exempt dwelling; that is, a dwelling on which tax is not payable. That does not seem to fulfil the intentions which the noble Lord expressed; indeed, quite the converse.
It may be that I have misunderstood the position. But even if I have, I shall be interested to know why, in Amendment No. 8, we delete a phrase under Clause 11(2) yet no comparable provision is made in relation to Wales, which seems to be overlooked in the amendment. After all, Wales is dealt with in Clause 12(2). It may be that I have misunderstood the effect of the wording. At first reading it appears to entirely exempt second homes from council tax. If that is the case, I find it rather puzzling.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 both deal with properties which are no one's sole or main residence. The Government propose that such dwellings should normally be subject to a 50 per cent. discount. Amendment No. 8 would instead make them subject to a full bill. Curiously, Amendment No. 2 would go the other way; it is intended to allow the Secretary of State to exempt empty dwellings.
Let me explain the logic of the Government's proposal. In general, if a home has two or more residents, it will not attract a discount. Homes with one resident will get one discount. Homes with no residents will get two discounts. There is obviously a
388
simple idea behind this arrangement. Starting from the two-adult household, for every resident lost, one discount is gained. Let me now look at what would happen under Amendment No. 8. If one person moved out of a two-adult household one discount would be gained. But then if the second adult moved out, that discount would be lost again. That is perfectly bizarre. Amendment No. 8 would mean that an empty dwelling attracted a higher tax bill than a dwelling with just one resident. That cannot be the effect the noble Lord wished to achieve.
As I explained at Report stage, Amendment No. 8 would introduce incentives for couples with two homes to try to manipulate the system to their own advantage. Some such couples might well try to arrange matters so that it appeared that one of them was mainly resident in each dwelling, thus reducing their total tax liability. A system which contains incentives for abuse of this sort is not one which the Government can support.
Amendment No. 2 allows the Secretary of State to exempt dwellings with no residents. The Government accept that it will be appropriate to exempt some empty dwellings from the council tax. These will not be second homes: they will be dwellings in a number of categories which are empty for good reasons. We already have power to do that. Clause 4(4) lists factors to which the Secretary of State may refer in prescribing a class of dwellings as exempt. The list is not exclusive. The Secretary of State may use factors not listed in Clause 4(4) because it makes clear that it is without prejudice to the generality of Clause 4(3). Amendment No. 2 would insert an additional factor; namely, the fact that there is no resident in the dwelling. But Clause 4(4)(b) already allows the Secretary of State to refer to the fact that a dwelling is unoccupied. So the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary.
It may help your Lordships if I indicate the use we intend to make of this power. A draft of the order we propose to make under Clause 4 is in the Library. Noble Lords will see that we propose to exempt the following classes of unoccupied dwelling: those which are undergoing major works, or where such works have been completed in the preceding six months; those left unoccupied for less than six months by a charity; those left unoccupied by a prisoner, a student, a deceased person, or someone who has moved away to provide or receive care; those left unoccupied because of unfitness, compulsory purchase or repossession; and those left unoccupied awaiting occupation by a clergyman.
While paragraph (b) refers to an unoccupied dwelling, the new paragraph (c) refers to one with no residents. Under Clause 6, that would mean that no one had their sole or main residence in the dwelling. The noble Lord is right to say that there is a distinction. If someone is resident in a dwelling, then clearly it will not be unoccupied. However, a dwelling may still be occupied even if it has no residents; for instance, a holiday cottage or a London flat used during the week by someone whose home—their sole or main residence—is in the country.

389
We have chosen to use the term "unoccupied" in the draft order because we think it would not be appropriate to treat a dwelling as empty if someone lives there from time to time, even though it is not his sole or main residence. But I would not expect there to be many cases where it would have made any difference to refer to dwellings where no one is resident.
As I explained, the noble Lord's amendment is not necessary. The power he suggests is already there in Clause 4(4) (b). I hope that he will therefore not press Amendment No. 2. I have explained to your Lordships the illogical results that would be produced by Amendment No. 8. I hope that that amendment also will not be pressed.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed explanation of the cases which will be included in regulations, a draft of which I understood her to say is now available in the Library. That is helpful; it may answer some of the problems we seek to address in Amendment No. 2.
The difficulty that we saw with paragraph (b), which may be overcome by the Minister's explanation, is that the wording is ambiguous. It refers to dwellings that are unoccupied, whereas Ministers have told us at some length that the key test for council tax liability is residency and not being an occupier. The relationship between the two is not simple, and it is not self-evident as to which is the right way to express it.
With regard to Amendment No. 8 I can reassure the Minister that it is our intention, which I believe to be achieved by the amendment, that a full council tax should be payable on a second home and that there should not be the possibility of a single person discount, let alone the two single person discounts provided for at the moment. The amendment will bring England into line with Wales. There does not seem to be any significant difference between a second home in the Lake District, Wiltshire or Devon and one in Wales. I have never been persuaded by the arguments used by Ministers at earlier stages of the Bill.
I recognise that there are still difficulties with the wording of the amendment. I do not refer to the difficulties identified by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. They were adequately answered by the Minister. Because there are still difficulties and despite the fact that there are no later stages at which I can return, I think it best that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Where two or more people fall to be treated as jointly and severally liable under subsection (3) above and the persons concerned or any other persons managing the premises agrees, the levying or billing authority shall divide the liability for council tax equally between the persons who are jointly and severally liable and send separate bills to each of them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 returns to the issue of joint and several liability. The council tax Bill largely invents the problem of joint and several liability. However, we on this side of the House believe it to be unnecessary and consider that the problems associated with it would largely disappear were the Government and your Lordships minded to accept the amendment.
Joint and several liability occurs where a group of people are mutually responsible for the total bill and therefore for each other's share of it. It did not exist under the rates system except to some degree for spouses. The bill was the responsibility of the householder and he obtained rebate on it. Alternatively, several people in a flat could have separate bills and separate rebates. If the house was in multi-occupation, normally the landlord paid the rates and recharged it to tenants through rent. That gave one bill, one rebate; separate bills and separate rebates; or a landlord recharge.
Under the poll tax, being a head tax, joint and several liability did not arise either except as between spouses. Under the council tax it is extraordinarily complicated. We start with a single bill going to a liable householder and only the liable householder being eligible for rebate. But although there is only one bill and at the moment only one eligibility for rebate, two or three people of equal standing in the hierarchy of liability are jointly and severally liable for it. That applies not just to husband and wife but mother and son, brother and sister, two elderly friends, three young people who are friends or three strangers who are perhaps ex-offenders in a half-way house. They are all jointly and severally liable not just for their own share of the bill but for everyone else's as well, including the bills of strangers.
Therefore, the situation presents three problems. The first is the bill and how it should be shared if informal arrangements break down; for example, when a non-student moves into an all-student house, thus bringing with him a dowry of 75 per cent. of the bill. It presents a second problem of joint and several liability when one person departs leaving his debts to be jointly shared by those left behind. Thirdly, it leaves the problem of rebate because, if only the liable person can claim it, how does one cope with differential abilities to pay since the second low income adult discount applies only where there is no joint and several liability?
It is all very complicated and in our view quite unnecessarily so. We share with the Minister concern about the need for local authorities to get their bills properly paid. We share with the Minister concern about the need to relate rebates to ability to pay. We share with him concern about the need to keep any changes broadly and financially neutral so that there is no Exchequer subsidy. We share with the Minister concern about the need to keep the system as simple and straightforward as possible. There need be little that divides us.
We are suggesting that at the request of the co-owners and co-tenants they can split the bill and split the rebate. They will be responsible for their own portion of the bill. They will be eligible for part-rebate

391
on the part-bill and they will not be responsible for other people's debts. They will not be hostages for the good behaviour of strangers.
The Minister may be minded to say that there should be one bill but that he is minded to offer, allow or require—I am not yet sure which—separate rebates. Let us consider a working mother and a physically handicapped son. The Minister may say that as regards the one bill for which they are jointly and severally liable each should get a rebate on half the bill. Therefore, the mother who is in work would not get a rebate but her son would. That is fine. The mother goes off or perhaps unfortunately she dies. Is the son then jointly and severally liable for 100 per cent. of the bill, with only 50 per cent. of it met by his rebate? That is the question. I believe that to be the case. How is the son to pay? He is not only jointly and severally liable for someone else's share but he is offered only half a rebate to cover it.
Under the community charge that problem did not arise except between spouses. Practice Note No. 16 from the DoE was quite explicit—that local authorities should not enforce joint and several liability when the person to whom the bill was originally sent could pay and that it would not be enforced where the remaining person could not pay. The local authority was expected to have due regard to the policy of write-offs on grounds of hardship. So there was a sensitive area of flexible discretion and the problem was resolved.
But we cannot do that under the Bill. My noble friend Lord McIntosh moved an amendment to allow local authorities to do precisely that. That amendment, based on the ground of hardship, was for small sums to be written off. It was not accepted by the Government. The local authority has no such discretion. The son, with a 100 per cent. bill and a 50 per cent. rebate, has to be pursued by the local authority. It will do so by sending in the bailiffs. He has lost his mother, he faces the bill and now he will lose his goods.
The result is that the local authority is boxed in. In these situations I suggest that, first, any member in that household could have the full rebate, but the Minister has already made it clear that he would reject that because it would produce a perverse incentive for financial rearrangements. We cannot do that and he has made that clear. Secondly, there could be a 50 per cent. backdated rebate on the other half of the bill. That might be sensible but the Minister has rejected that because it could encourage one of the parties to disappear leaving bills behind. I can understand the Minister's concern.
Thirdly, there could be a 50 per cent. rebate and write off of the remaining sum, where appropriate, on the grounds of hardship. We cannot have that because the Minister has rejected that policy. I am sure that that was unwise and if he cares to reconsider we shall be delighted. So what have we left? I suggest to noble Lords only the acceptance of this amendment which will permit split rebates on split bills. One can only have a split 50 per cent. rebate if one is liable for only 50 per cent. of the bill. One can only have split bills if one has separate liability—in other words, if one
392
abandons the principle of joint and several liability. One can do that only if it is abandoned for other than co-habitees; otherwise it is a worse tangle than before.
Unless the Minister can tell us today how someone with only a 50 per cent. rebate is expected to meet a 100 per cent. bill, given that we cannot write off small debts, produce back-payment rebates or acquire a full rebate, then I suggest to noble Lords that the only alternative is to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness complains that this part of the Bill is complicated. I believe that she will have to accept that, whatever else the effect of her amendment, it would be to make the Bill more complicated and in particular for the local authority. As the Bill stands the local authority will apply for payment to the householder or owner. He or she will be responsible for making the payment.
As I understand it, if this amendment were accepted the local authority would have to seek payment separately both from the owner and from the tenant or other resident, with all the additional expense and trouble of pursuing the matter for payment. In the case of the resident other than the owner, probably the question of collecting will be even more difficult because that person may not necessarily have any visible means. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not persist with a complicating addition —whatever else it will do—to the Bill which I do not believe will help anybody. It will be a distinct handicap to the local authorities concerned.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Baroness is asking the House to accept this amendment. With all due respect to the merits or demerits of the arguments that she has put forward, the amendment as it stands is complete nonsense. In case that upsets anyone I use the word "nonsense" in its original and objective meaning and not in its modern and pejorative sense. To quote the words of the amendment, if you "divide the liability"—note the word "liability"—between two persons, they clearly cannot then be "jointly and severally liable". In other words, the amendment is not only internally inconsistent, it is also inconsistent with the subsection which precedes it. Therefore, I do not believe that your Lordships would be well advised to adopt an amendment of this kind particularly at Third Reading.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord has said and it may be that there is an element of nonsense in the amendment. But undoubtedly there is an element of nonsense which it seeks to cure. Here we are at Third Reading trying to cure something which has been fought against very much by those who look after poorer people. By "poorer people" I do not mean only people who do not have much money but those who are disabled or who perhaps have some kind of mental impairment.
It is nonsense, if I may use the word in another sense, to ask someone who perhaps has been discharged from what we used to call an asylum and who comes to share a house, flat or lodgings with

393
somebody else, and whose mental impairment remains the same, to have the kind of joint and several liability that it would be reasonable for two sane people to have. The difficulty about that is that it worked perfectly well with the poll tax, but it does not work when there is a much more complicated system.
I do not find any difficulty over joint and several liability with people who are ordinarily considered to have none of these difficulties and who are sane. However, when it comes to people who have been taken out of long-stay hospitals and put into special lodgings, it does not seem to me to be at all right and proper—if I may use that phrase instead of saying that it is a nonsense—for them to have to take the responsibility for their share of council tax bills. I do not think that any of us would wish to impose that kind of responsibility on people with a mental impairment. That is what the Government are doing and that is what we have been seeking to rectify.
For that reason, I much prefer the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to the Government's provisions. Of course, if it is defective and it goes into the Bill, it can be put right in another place when they come to consider the Lords amendment.
I should like to ask the Government whether they have consulted about the provision. Have they consulted the National Federation of Housing Associations, for instance? That organisation is very unhappy indeed with the provision. Even if the Government have consulted the federation, why do they go forward with a provision which gives rise to the kind of anomalies and impositions which I have been suggesting that it does?
Also, there is such an inflexibility on the part of the local authorities. Here we return to the Citizen's Charter, which was designed to make life easier for the citizen. This makes it harder. The local authorities are exceedingly inflexible under this Bill. They are obliged to pursue someone with a mental incapacity for his liability for his joint tenant's share if that joint tenant has fled, died or cannot be found. The local authority has to do this inhumane thing of pursuing someone with a mental incapacity, not only for his share but for his fellow lodger's share. How can that be right? Is that not a nonsense?
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I shared the reaction which has been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Cockfield. When I read it I had a natural instinct against a reference in one line to joint and several liability immediately following a reference to dividing liability. However, if we have to choose between elegant and legally happier phraseology and doing the right thing, then I for one should like to do the right thing.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said. I am sure all noble Lords are very well aware that we have to bear in mind not simply the people who live in conventional households and who can look after themselves, but those who find themselves sharing a household and in danger of
394
incurring someone else's liability because the household in which they find themselves is the only type of household in which they can maintain some sort of independence within the community. If this amendment is agreed to, even though the provision in the Bill may not be the most felicitous, that will be because we find ourselves at this late stage still trying to get the underlying provision right. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cockfield said that the amendment was nonsensical and internally inconsistent. I have to admit that I tend to agree with my noble friend. I do not think it is a question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, of elegance or inelegance in the words we use in the Bill. There is no point in a revising Chamber coming forward at Third Reading with amendments that do not do what they aim to do and which are internally inconsistent. I intend to argue the point about the amendment on its merits, but I thought it worth referring to what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said at the beginning of what I have to say.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, had to say. I suspect that on the next group of government amendments, when we shall be dealing with an amendment successfully carried at an earlier stage of the Bill, we might be able to come on to some of the anxieties he expressed. I do not think that they are strictly relevant to the pure question of joint and several liability for everyone else.
I do not accept the premise that the noble Baroness raised that this Bill invents the concept of joint and several liability. It is a concept that has long existed in law. It is a concept that has existed before under rates. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but she did accept that married couples could be jointly liable for their rates. The same was true of joint owners and joint tenants in joint occupation; they too could be jointly and severally liable. We believe that it is fundamental to the council tax. If these amendments, which provide for persons who are jointly and severally liable to have separate liability, and therefore separate bills, were to be accepted, the administrative burdens on local authorities collecting council tax would be formidable.
We have emphasised many times the importance of simple, cost effective administrative arrangements for council tax. By adding further administrative responsibilities to local authorities in the form of optional separate bills, the tax would no longer be simple and cheap to collect. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put it, the noble Baroness had been complaining about the very complexity of this Bill, but her amendments, even if they were not defective, would make matters much, much worse.
The persons normally resident in a property, whether as owners or tenants, should be responsible for payment of the single council tax bill for each property. It will then be entirely up to the household to decide how the bill should be divided between those living in the property and to make the appropriate financial arrangements between themselves. I put it to your Lordships that that is not a matter that most households will find very difficult. It is not a matter

395
that will cause great difficulties to the existing arrangements within any given household when one bears in mind that very often in shared households there are also electricity bills, gas bills and telephone bills which all have to be divided among different people.
In the case of properties which are clearly divided into separate flats, each will be separately valued, with the council tax bill payable by the resident tenant or owner. We believe that these arrangements will be appropriate for most households.
If persons who are jointly and severally liable could opt for separate liability, local authorities would have to know the composition of all households and retain that information. Every change in the number of people in the household would have a direct impact on the billing arrangements for the property. That would involve local authorities having to recalculate liability and reissue bills every time someone moved in or out of a property. That would go entirely against the whole principle of a simple and efficient system.
The noble Baroness raised the case of the mother and son where, as she alleged, he had 100 per cent. liability but only 50 per cent. benefit. I suspect that the noble Baroness is not looking at the council tax in the right way. Unlike the community charge, there is no question of being liable for someone else's tax. There will be a single bill for which all the residents will be jointly liable. Subject to that difference, we certainly intend to issue guidance to local authorities about pursuing partners—or in the case which the noble Baroness mentioned, the son—with no resources similar to that which was issued under the community charge arrangements.
Lastly, I turn to the point that was raised concerning inconsistency in our arguments against separate liability for council tax purposes when determination for benefit purposes will apportion liability. I simply do not accept that point. When determining benefit it is, and always has been, the accepted principle that the local authorities, in the case of housing benefit and council tax benefit, must look carefully at individual claimants' status, income and circumstances in order to establish benefit entitlement. It would be wholly unacceptable if the local authorities had to extend those checks to establish council tax liability.
As I have said on more than one occasion, what we have done is to establish a simple taxation system that is easy to administer and collect. As I have already stated, the best way of ensuring this is for each household to receive and pay a single bill having determined among its members the appropriate financial arrangements. I hope therefore, finally, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If she does not feel able to do so, I very much advise the House to reject it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this discussion. I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, were in error when they made much of the problems that would be presented to local authorities were there to be separate billing; that is, split bills and split rebates. That is precisely the
396
situation that existed for other than basic nuclear families under the rates. Local authorities have done this for decades and decades. They did not experience a problem then and I do not see why they would experience a problem were they to revert to that practice.
Similarly, although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did not use this instance, with regard to housing benefit, if one looks at the guidance circular for November 1991, the same assumption of split apportionment of a bill and split rebate applies. There is well established precedent under the rates and under housing benefit for precisely what the amendment proposes. I have talked to numerous city treasurers about this. They would rather have this principle established than produce the alternative scenario with which we are left. The noble Lord made no movement on how we should handle the problem that would otherwise remain.
Secondly, the noble Lord made much of the point that local authorities would have to bill every time someone moved in and out of a property. We on this side of the House have been arguing that that is precisely the consequence of having single-person discounts. Every time that changes or, alternatively, every time the position of someone who is the second low-income adult changes, the local authority would have to do precisely that. This is a minimal additional piece of administration to tackle what in our view could be a major problem of unfairness.
Let us say that three people have split rebates. The local authority still has to determine from whom it is to collect the total sum. It still has to make inquiries in terms of income for eligibility for rebate. There is minimal additional administration to this amendment and maximum clarity. That is why it comes with the support also of the National Federation of Housing Associations.
I come back to the noble Lord. What is the alternative? At no point has he addressed the problem which I presented to your Lordships of a handicapped son, whose parent has left, having a 50 per cent. rebate and joint and several liability for 100 per cent. of the Bill. He will not get backdated rebates and 100 per cent. rebates. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggested that local authorities would receive a guidance circular analogous to the poll tax allowing them to write off the amount. It is my understanding that they cannot do that. This Bill excludes what was possible under the rates and what was possible under the poll tax because the Front Bench opposite rejected our amendment at Report stage which would have allowed us to do precisely that. We have had to come back because of the consequences of rejecting that earlier amendment.
The amendment is simple to understand and simple to administer. It is supported by the local authorities and by the National Federation of Housing Associations. It is fair and neutral in its cost implications. Therefore, because the noble Lord has given us no way of tackling the basic unfairness of someone with 50 per cent. of the rebate being faced with 100 per cent. of the Bill, I must test the opinion of the House.
4.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment(No.3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Content, 91; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Amwell, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kissin, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Diamond, L.

Nathan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shannon, E.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stallard, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hacking, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Varley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollick, L.

Walpole, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wharton, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnarvon, E.

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Annan, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Arran, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Astor, V.

Cockfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Auckland, L.

Cross, V.

Balfour, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Barber, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bauer, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blyth, L.

Donegall, M.

Boardman, L.

Elibank, L.

Borthwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

398

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Newall, L.

Geddes, L.

Norfolk, D.

Goschen, V.

Norrie, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Orkney, E.

Haddington, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,.L

Palmer, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Hives, L.

Prentice, L.

Holderness, L.

Radnor, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Richardson, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rochdale, V.

Joseph, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

St. Davids, V.

Knollys, V.

Salisbury, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Selkirk, E.

Long, V.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Swinton, E.

Marsh, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teviot, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Tryon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ullswater, V.

Morris, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Waddington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Wolfson, L.

4.22 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act(the severely mentally impaired)and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows—

(a)if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable;

(b)if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall each be jointly and severally liable.").

The noble Lord said: My lords, in moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 and 19 to 21. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, successfully moved amendments—which, I imagine, we might term "the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan's birthday party benefit amendments" —intended to prevent joint and several liability from applying to people who are severely mentally impaired. The Government do not intend to seek to reverse those amendments. However,

399
as I believe I said at the time, they are uncertain in their effects. We are therefore bringing forward the present amendments in order to replace them.
Amendment No. 4, and its Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 19, cover cases where residents of a dwelling would normally be jointly and severally liable because they fall into the same category in the hierarchy set out in Clause 6. It provides that the normal rules for joint and several liability will not apply where one or more of the residents are eligible for a discount because of severe mental impairment, and at least one of the residents is not severely mentally impaired. In such cases the liability will attach to the person or persons without the impairment, jointly and severally if there are more than one.
Amendment No. 5 makes exactly the same provision for caravans. Amendment No. 6, and its Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 20, cover dwellings where the liability falls on the owner, rather than the residents, under regulations made by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 7, and its Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 21, cover people who would normally be jointly and severally liable because they are either married to each other, or living together as husband and wife. It provides that a spouse without an interest in the property will not be jointly and severally liable if he or she is eligible for discount because of severe mental impairment. Couples where both partners have an interest in the property are covered by Amendments Nos. 4 and 19.
I believe that these amendments achieve the effect for which the noble Baroness was aiming. It will ensure that, in the cases she quoted where brothers and sisters or mother and son would be jointly liable and one of them has a severe mental impairment, that person will have no liability. I hope therefore that the amendments will be accepted by the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord for coming back with amendments which will adequately reflect in drafting terms the intention of your Lordships' House. We are delighted to support them.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord on securing these amendments. I am sure that they are most acceptable to all of us.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Liability in respect of caravans and boats]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (4) of section 6 above shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as it applies for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 23, at end insert:
400
("( ) Subsection (4) of section 6 above shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as it applies for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section.").
Clause 9 [Liability of spouses]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired).").
Clause 11 [Discounts]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 7, line 43, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State shall reimburse each billing authority for the income forgone by the granting of discounts by a special grant paid in accordance with the provisions of section 88B of the 1988 Act, and such grant shall be in addition to any grants payable as revenue support grant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to an issue which had a considerable airing at earlier stages, but which still resulted in a combination of confusion as regards what was meant by government and a very evident injustice in the way in which the council tax is to fall. I believe that it is common ground that the onus for the transitional relief and for the rebate system under the council tax is to be the responsibility of central government. That has been clear from the outset and that is, I think, the fair and proper way to pay for such items.
However, we still have the strange situation whereby the discount structure, which in many ways is designed to achieve comparable effects to the rebate structure, is to be the responsibility of local authorities and not the responsibility of central government. The cost of the discount structure is very considerable. Ministers have never given a figure for it. However, if one calculates it on the basis that there are likely to be 7.8 million discounts and that that will cost 25 per cent. of the council tax for standard spending for band D properties—that would be 25 per cent. of £400 or £100—one comes to a figure of £780 million for the cost of the discounts. We have quoted that figure on a number of occasions. I have not heard Ministers object to such a calculation. Therefore I believe that I am entitled to assume that we are not too far off in our calculation. I appreciate that no one knows the exact figure because no one knows exactly how many discounts will in practice be applied for.
A second curious feature of the discount structure is that the onus is on the tax payer to apply for the discount. The local authority clearly does not want to encourage tax payers in turn to apply for discounts because of the cost; in other words, those who pay the full council tax will have to pay for their neighbours in single person households. That is curious because it conflicts with the way in which the Department of Social Security behaves. For example, when a family applies for child benefit, the department sends a letter to the claimant which, in effect, advertises the

401
availability of the additional one-parent benefit and suggests that it could be advantageous for those who would qualify for such a benefit to apply for it. Again, that seems reasonable; but it is not a process that is encouraged by the council tax procedure.
Of course, there is an additional difficulty for local authorities with the discount structure; namely, that because the onus is on the tax payer to apply for it, it is very difficult for local authorities (individual charging authorities) to estimate the take-up. Yet, in order to make their claim for block grant early in the year they will have to make some sort of estimate. If they make a wrong estimate, they will suffer financially later on.
I appreciate that the discount system was introduced for what seemed to be a good reason but it is a cuckoo in the nest as regards the council tax. It was put in because of the myth that Ministers have —and which Conservative Central Office has—of a little old lady living in one house and four strapping young men living in the neighbouring house, with the four strapping young men paying the same as the little old lady.
Either that is a real financial and budgeting problem, in which case it can and should be dealt with by the rebate structure rather than by the discount structure, or it is not a problem because the little old lady can perfectly well afford to pay her council tax. As has often been said, the four strapping young men will make their contribution through the national taxation system.
Therefore, we still end up with the discount being out of kilter with the other provisions of the council tax. Under these circumstances, the proper thing to do seems to us to bring the provisions as close as possible to the financial regime for rebates and transitional relief and to make it the responsibility of central government. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is unfortunate that I did not see the amendment until this morning but, having said that, the Government propose to compensate local authorities through the revenue support grant system. Revenue support grant will be paid to bridge the gap between a local authority's standard spending assessment and its notional revenue, including its receipts from the national non-domestic rate pool and the amount it would raise if it set the council tax according to standard spending. Clearly, an authority's revenue will depend on the number of discounts it awards.
Our revenue support grant calculations of notional revenue will take this into account, using authorities' own estimates of the numbers of discounts. The more discounts an authority estimates that it will award, the smaller will be its notional income. A smaller notional income means a bigger gap between that amount and the standard spending assessment, and therefore a greater entitlement to revenue support grant.
The whole idea of the revenue support grant distribution is that authorities everywhere should be able to set the same standard level of council tax for
402
a band D property with two resident adults for spending at SSA. That will be so, regardless of the number of discounts an authority estimates it will award.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting that there should be a special grant to compensate authorities for one factor affecting their revenue raising potential. If the Government adopted that logic, we would need to pay special grants for all such factors.
Discounts are an integral part of the council tax. They are as fundamental in determining the tax bill for a property as the valuation band to which that property is allocated. All these fundamental matters are taken into account in the revenue support grant distribution. Council tax benefits, on the other hand, are quite different. Benefit entitlement is related to the tax bill and to the income and circumstances of the claimant. Benefits are applied only after the basic tax liability has been determined. It is therefore appropriate that they should be the subject of separate subsidy arrangements. A separate system needs separate finance. But discounts, which are inherent in the nature of the council tax, should be compensated for through the general local government finance system.
It will be local authorities collectively which meet the cost of discounts, through the redistribution of the revenue support grant total. It will certainly not be the individual local authority which pays. I repeat that an individual authority will not be penalised if it says it needs to award a particularly large number of discounts.
There is no reason to expect that local authorities' estimates of the numbers of discounts they will award will be particularly inaccurate. Certainly once the tax has been in force for a year, authorities will know very well how many discounts they are likely to award.
I firmly believe that local authorities will also be able to make good estimates of the number of discounts they will award in the first year of the tax. They have plenty of information to go on. Their community charge registers will tell them the number of properties with only one resident, and the number of empty properties. They will be able to assess the number of status discounts for students from the same source. Information as to the number of exempt properties will be available from their standard community charge records, because the classes of properties we propose to exempt follow closely the classes used under the standard charge. Using all of this data, authorities should be able to forecast discounts very effectively.
If problems do arise, we have said that we are willing to consider them with an open mind. If a large number of authorities make significantly inaccurate estimates of the number of discounts they will award, we shall consider whether it would be appropriate to recalculate RSG entitlements to ensure that proper compensation is achieved. We are not convinced that this step would be necessary or desirable, because it would undermine the certainty as to grant entitlement

403
that is one of the great values of the revenue support grant system. But we would be prepared to discuss the matter with the local authority associations.
However, I think it unlikely that any such adjustments will be necessary. Local authorities have great expertise when making assessments in the areas that they know best. Because I expect that authorities will be able to make good estimates of their tax base, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are on Third Reading and we have spent a long time trying to tease out not only the truth but the implications of this peculiarly complex system of discounts, rebates and transitional relief. To one extent, of course, we are in complete agreement and I have never suggested otherwise. I have said from the outset that I recognise that the resources element of the RSG will be calculated according to the number of discounts that the local authority expects. However, all that means is that other local authorities—or rather, the local authorities as a whole—will be paying the cost of the discounts. Indeed, that was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Report on more than one occasion.
However, there is still a distinction which the Minister does not seem prepared to recognise between the rebate system which is paid for out of central government funding and which is part of social security, such as housing benefit; the transitional relief, which is a special payment from central government funding and not paid for out of the revenue support grant; and the rebates and discounts, which are paid for out of the revenue support grant and which therefore affect all local authorities. In her reply, the Minister suggested that if we made an exception and a specific grant for discounts, we should have to make it also for all kinds of other forms of financial provision. I do not think that that is the case. We are already making a special grant for transitional relief. There is really no difference.
Nor is it satisfactory for the Minister at this stage to repeat what has been said by Ministers for several months now about the ability of local authorities accurately to calculate what discounts will be claimed. They simply do not know. That is the great difference between universal discounts and things such as rebates which are given on evidence of need. It is well known that discounts of this kind have a much lower take-up than need-related rebates and the uncertainty about them is therefore very much greater. The ability of local authorities to make accurate estimates of the level of discounts that will arise in practice is limited. It is simply a joke to suggest that that should be done by using the poll tax register. I thought that that was what we were trying to get away from. My understanding is that local authorities are not being encouraged to update their poll tax registers.
This is still a thoroughly anomalous element of the council tax. As we have said all along, it is a very unfair tax, but this is perhaps the most peculiar and the least desirable element of it. We are clearly making no progress in explaining to the Government the nature of our concerns and those that we believe that the people of this country will have when they have to
404
face the council tax in all its complexity and glory. I am sorry about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Reduced amounts]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (7) above, where the factors taken into account by the Secretary of State include those mentioned in subsection (6) above, the rules mentioned in subsection (2) above shall prescribe that the amount payable by the person concerned shall be reduced by a factor of 14 per cent.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of relief for the disabled. The amendment relates solely to disability tax relief under Clause 13, which provides for the council tax bill to be reduced by one band because the facilities in that property are needed by a disabled person. The amendment would mean that instead of reducing the valuation by one band, the bill would be reduced by 14 per cent. if the property qualified for a reduction, regardless of the band in which it was placed.
I appreciate that if the amendment were accepted the Government might need to make consequential amendments in another place. Why move the amendment in this form? First, there is a practical reason. I cannot return to a percentage reduction on band A because your Lordships saw fit to negative a previous amendment. I am seeking to approach the same issue in a different way.
As your Lordships will know, in another place, Mr. Portillo agreed to drop by one band properties occupied by the disabled which had been altered materially, unless those properties were already in band A—the lowest and poorest properties occupied often by the poorest disabled—where no further drop would be possible. Mr. Portillo's proposal was welcome but, in practice, it meant little advance on the original Bill because everyone—not just the disabled —whose property was altered materially would benefit from a similar reduction. Everyone, disabled or not, whose property was extended would enjoy a similar reduction. So Mr. Portillo's proposals, although helpful as affording clarification, did not add much to what was already in place for everyone, including every Member of your Lordships' House.
In Committee, the Minister helpfully went further. He agreed that where a disabled person stayed put and did not alter his property one iota—by one brick, window or doorway—neither increasing nor decreasing its value, but merely occupied it by virtue of his disability and therefore made different use of the space (for example, brought into play a second bedroom or needed, more than previously, an extra large sitting room) then that property also would drop a band. That was a crucial and helpful clarification from the Minister which we welcomed. It meant that where Mr. Portillo granted a reduction in band because of what was done physically to the property, the Minister in this House accepted that even where the property was

405
not altered, the band would drop merely because the person was disabled. In other words, the reduction attached not to the property but to the disability.
A disabled person would obtain a one-band discount because he was disabled and had lived in the property, and not because of what he had done to it. Usually he will have done something to it, but he need not have done so and will still enjoy that band reduction. We all thought that that was fair and proper and welcomed it, except when it comes to band A properties—the poorest and oldest properties occupied too often by the poorest and oldest among the disabled. I accept for these purposes that if the reduction were due to the property itself then one cannot drop below band A unless another band is invented. In all decency and fairness one cannot drop a band for the better-off disabled and not apply a similar provision to the poorer disabled; hence the amendment.
The amendment moves away from reducing property by valuation band to give a straightforward 14 per cent. reduction for everyone. It thus avoids the problem of the reduction being attached to a property in a band and instead attaches the reduction to the person irrespective of the band into which the property might fall. Clearly, for those in bands above band A it means virtually the same; that by being attached to the person and not to the property—if I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said on Report—we overcome a problem.
The amendment has a second virtue. Dropping a hand has different percentage implications according to which hand the property is in. Drop from band B to band A and one receives a 14.29 per cent. reduction; band C to band B, a 12.5 per cent. reduction; band D to band C, 11.11 per cent.; band E to band D, 18.18 per cent.; band F to band E, 15.38 per cent.; band G to band F, 13.33 per cent.; band H to band G, 16.67 per cent.; or an average of 14.49 per cent. A straight 14 per cent. off the bill would treat all disabled people in the same way, instead of receiving discounts ranging from 11 per cent. to 18 per cent., unless of course they happen to be the poorest and oldest disabled in the poorest and oldest properties, in which case they receive nothing.
I urge your Lordships to support the amendment. First, it in no way challenges the principle of the Bill. It does not invent a new band. I understand from the logic of the Bill that it would be unacceptable to target the discount only at the poorest disabled. Secondly, the Minister has already established for us that discounts relate to disability and not just to a material alteration of the physical fabric; so no new principle is involved. It merely applies the reduction to all those disabled who might qualify and not just to the better off.
Thirdly, we are not breaching the principle of having discounts for people in band A, as such. After all, if one is single and in band A one receives a 25 per cent. discount, twice that proposed for the disabled in the amendment. Those of your Lordships who were present on Report might recall the case of a millionaire with an unemployed son living with him,
406
who might be studying art. If your Lordships agree with me—improbable though it might be—that he might be living in a band A property, the two of them would receive a discount of 25 per cent. with no grounds of hardship. Are we going to say that the disabled cannot have a discount while a millionaire with an unemployed son can have a 25 per cent. discount if they live in the same house?
We are breaching no principle here. Not just the millionaire and his son, but the student, the nurse and all those in band A properties receive a discount. There is no problem. We have established the principle of targeted discounts by virtue of occupancy and status. I ask your Lordships to include the disabled among them.
Finally, the amendment will cost central government nothing. As we have just heard under Amendment No. 9, discounts will be met by aggregate external finance; in other words, a predetermined sum of revenue support grant. It will be allocated to local authorities according to the SSA, with some tweaking at the edges for the number of discounts that they have over and beyond the mean. No extra money will flow from central government were your Lordships minded to accept the amendment. It would cost central government not a halfpenny. Will it cost local authorities much? No. Under the rates, about 160,000 households, irrespective of the value of the property, enjoyed rate relief by virtue of the occupants being disabled. The Government have excluded band A, but still think that the figure will be about 160,000. With band A it is my guess—I may be wrong—that the figure would be about 40,000 properties; in other words, an additional 100 families in every local authority. Half of them may already be on income support; the other half may be eligible.
We are talking about a bill to a local authority of £2,000 to £3,000 a year—that is all. But it would be a useful rebate of £40 to £50 a year for the poorest and oldest disabled living in the poorest and oldest properties. That is a form of mutual aid that local council tax payers would be happy to offer.
We face a general election and Members opposite must be confident that the Bill will be law and stay on the statute book. In that case, there is a moral imperative on us all to make the Bill as fair as possible. On Report many Members of your Lordships' House felt a sense of unease over the anomalies and the unfairness to those disabled people in band A properties who receive no reduction while everyone else might. The amendment has no cost implications. It does not challenge the principle of the Bill at any point. With the amendment we have a last chance of making the Bill fair to the disabled at nil cost to government, and at a tiny cost to local authorities. It merely requires your Lordships' vote or at least a decent absence. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness accepted at the beginning of her speech that the amendment was not 100 per cent. technically correct. She went out of her way to say that that could be dealt with by amendments in another place when the Bill went back there. That seems to indicate the disadvantage of taking such amendments on Third

407
Reading in this House, because it reflects not very well on the work of the House as a revising Chamber if we send hack Bills to another place in a shape and form such that they have to be amended merely to make them work. That does not suggest that the House is doing its job properly, and so I approach the amendment with a great deal of antipathy. If the point were a good one, as the noble Baroness argues, then no doubt the House would have been persuaded of it at an earlier stage and these difficulties would not have arisen. However, taking it now on Third Reading is disadvantageous.
I am not at all sure how it will work. Fourteen per cent., as I understand it, is a purely arbitrary figure. Think of a number! It is not to be assumed that it will give suitable and appropriate relief in the right cases. I am doubtful whether there is any necessity for it.
After all, the point arises only where the property concerned is in band A when, ex hypothesi, the demand for council tax will be the lowest anyhow. People whose houses are put in band A, compared with those in other bands, receive some advantage. Apparently, no allowance at all has been made for that. It seems therefore that this is not a well thought out amendment. Although its intentions—like all the intentions of the noble Baroness—are highly honourable and respectable, I do not believe that it is a practical proposal and I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene merely on a procedural point, I do not wish to intervene on the subject of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for us to bring forward such an amendment on Third Reading. I remind him that we brought forward an amendment on a similar subject—not the same amendment—at Committee stage. We were prepared to withdraw it, but it was decided by two or three noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that we should not be allowed to withdraw it. Under those circumstances, it would have been cowardly for us to refrain from returning to the matter on Third Reading.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the criticism is of producing on Third Reading an amendment which the noble Lord himself admits is defective in form and which would require amendment in another place. That is the point which the noble Lord did not address.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have another reason for objecting to the noble Baroness's amendment and to the case she made in moving it. With the greatest respect to her, she did not address the principal, central argument as to why the Government amended the Bill in the way they did. That principal, central argument was that disabled people should not have to pay more council tax because they have to live in a larger house or a house with specific improvements, simply because of their disability. That should be ignored.
Therefore, the step that was taken by the Government was to say, "If your house is rated in a
408
band higher than would be likely, having regard to your circumstances, simply because you are disabled and therefore have to have bigger rooms, more rooms or the lift on the staircase"—whatever it may be that would put the house into a higher band—"it is to be disregarded. No one shall pay more council tax because they live in a larger house due to their disability."
However, if people are already paying in the lowest band, by definition that cannot apply to them. They will not have to pay more tax because they live in a larger house than they would otherwise need. It seems to me that the noble Baroness did not address that case. She seeks an allowance simply for disability. That is a different matter.
There already exists a complicated system under the provisions on the face of the Bill contained in amendments to the social security legislation. The system is complicated: it must inevitably be so if it is to take account of people's means. There is this complicated system of rebate to help people who cannot afford the full council tax, quite apart from the discounts which are not relevant in this case.
The legislation does not provide—nor do I see why it should—an extra special relief for people simply because they are disabled. I entirely agree with the proposition that no one should pay more tax if they have to live in a larger or more expensive house because they are disabled. But if they already pay at the lowest level, by definition that cannot apply to them.
It seems to me that that is the hole in the noble Baroness's case. She made a powerful and eloquent plea for more help for disabled people, but with the greatest respect to her, that is not what is required when we are dealing with this clause.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is accepted by the Government and written into the Bill that in one way or another disabled people must be helped if they need assistance in paying the council tax, whatever band they are in. What worries me about the amendment is that by choosing the 14 per cent., as the noble Baroness did, she may not do as well for disabled people as the Secretary of State, using his discretion when making regulations, may find desirable, possible and necessary.
Having taken no previous part in the proceedings on the Bill, perhaps I may use the discussion on the amendment to obtain an assurance from my noble friends on the Front Bench that the word "disabled" includes what are generally understood to be the largest of all groups of the disabled; namely, those who are mentally handicapped.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for putting the points on bands B to the highest band in a way that was far more effective than I could have done. The problem is the perceived unfairness of band A. My noble friend made the point that the Government have made throughout discussions on this subject. Disabled people should not be made worse off by virtue of their disability and having to live in a larger house. That does not apply to band A. What can apply to it is that people in the

409
least valued houses must make improvements to them because of their disablement. That may well leave them in band A.
I suspect that the noble Baroness's amendment is supposed to cover that difficulty. But I suggest that, for the reasons produced by my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Henley on the Front Bench at earlier stages, the right way to achieve that cover is through the social services and the social security benefit regimes, not through this Bill.
Lord Desai: My Lords, two arguments have been made by noble Lords opposite, who somehow think that 14 per cent. is an arbitrary figure dreamed up by my noble friend Lady Hollis. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that people in band A already pay the lowest possible rate. Therefore, how could they go any lower?
There are two problems. Even if we concede the principle of the council tax—which I shall concede for the time being —the bands are somewhat arbitrary, especially because the lowest band increases to £40,000. The proportions of "6: 7: 8: 9:" and so on in which the council tax is calculated under Clause 5(1), move about rather arbitrarily if we calculate the jumps between the different steps. If we accept dropping down a band from G to F and so on, there is an uneven concession in some bands and a concession of about 13 to 14 per cent. in other bands. So while 13 to 14 per cent. is the concession obtained if one goes from band C to band B, or from band D to band C, it is a little more at the upper end, but that can be smoothed out by having a 14 per cent. concession. That is the first point.
My second point concerns band A. Band A may be the lowest band by definition. However, someone may live in a poor property worth, say, £20,000 rather than £35,000 and if we had more bands, we could have a band lower than band A and that person could benefit from that position. It is the determination of band A that is arbitrary here, not the matter of the 14 per cent. that my noble friend is proposing. In order to remove the arbitrary aspect, it is necessary to take the factor of 14 per cent. across all the bands so that a person in band A would not pay the minimum council tax rate but rather 14 per cent. less than that. I believe that what my noble friend has proposed is a more equitable system than the one in the Bill. It would remove the arbitrary aspect of the bands in Clause 5. I commend my noble friend's amendment to the House.
5 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin made his point well when he spoke. We have got this matter back to front. As I understand the situation it is a question not of reducing bands, but rather of preventing them going up. That is a different matter entirely and it is the basis on which I oppose this amendment. The noble Baroness opposite makes a most appealing case which touches all our hearts when she talks about the oldest and poorest people and the poorest properties. However, she overlooks the fact that if one is a really
410
poor person in a poor property one can obtain a 100 per cent. rebate. That is how I understand the position. Surely we cannot ask for less than that.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, what we are talking about is disability tax relief. That has nothing to do with property: it has to do with disability. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for tabling this amendment. Clearly we had reached the end of the road on the previous approach that was taken. I am—as I am sure are all people who are concerned with disability—extremely grateful to Mr. Portillo for making attempts in the House of Commons to meet the case of undoubted hardship. There was no provision and Mr. Portillo made provision and for that we are duly grateful.
We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for putting a welcome gloss on this matter on Report. This House has seized the fact that there is a lack of equity in the proposals put forward by Mr. Portillo and incorporated in the Bill. We have found it logically difficult to pursue this matter in the way in which we have pursued it up to Report. The noble Baroness is to be congratulated on not pursuing that approach any further as there was no mileage in it and she recognised that the Government's opposition to that approach was based on logic. She has therefore turned from that proposal to another. Her present approach may not yet be perfect, but the justification of Third Reading is to be able to put right an acknowledged wrong. That may occur in pursuance of an objective that has been argued throughout various stages of a Bill. The amendment may be technically imperfect but, if it is incorporated in the Bill, it can be put right in another place. There is no reason to disparage the amendment on that account.
The Bill is rigid and the bands are rigid, as are the differences between the bands. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quite rightly said, this is a complicated system. If one tries to put right one wrong, one finds, unfortunately, that one has imported a wrong. That is what has happened in the case of Mr. Portillo's scheme that was intended to help disabled people: it has imported an inequity. It is undeniable that the people concerned feel that the position is inequitable. I ask noble Lords to place themselves in the shoes of disabled people and to try to sympathise with them. This amendment is an ingenious way of righting the inequity. It would not be in accordance with the best spirit of this House if, having realised there was an inequity—I believe most noble Lords feel that there is an inequity here—we did not use the last stage of the Bill to put that inequity right. The noble Baroness is gallantly attempting to do so through her amendment. I shall say no more than that we have tried to respect the principles of the Bill and we have respected the logic of the banding scheme. I have added my name to this amendment. I ask the House at least to sympathise with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who is attempting to overcome the inequity that was inadvertently imported into this scheme in another place by Mr. Portillo. It is perfectly justifiable to move this amendment and for the House to support it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I accept and acknowledge the steps which have been taken towards addressing the problem that was brought to the attention of the Government in the first instance by groups representing the disabled. That is how I understand the position. It is a great pity that after that exercise when the disability groups believed a victory had been won, they discovered that it had been won only to a factor of 95 per cent. It is a pity that a sour taste has been left in their mouths. They are concerned that an element of discrimination remains. The Minister frowns, but I believe that that is the impression that will be left with those groups as a result of what has happened. Today we have an opportunity to put that right and to eliminate the unease and disquiet which remain.
The figure in the amendment may be arbitrary, although I did not read it as arbitrary because it is situated in the middle of the divisions between the bands as one progresses up the hierarchy. We are dealing with banding which in itself has an element of arbitrariness, given that the valuation of houses in different parts of the country is so different. A house in London and the South East may be physically similar to one in the North East, but the house in the South East will have a much higher value. The Bill contains a great deal that is arbitrary. However, this is an arbitrary extra provision that I for one will be happy to support.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally and utterly reject the allegations which the noble Baroness made when she suggested that we had misled the groups of and for disabled people. I totally and utterly reject the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that there is an inequity in this particular provision for the disabled. I shall go on to discuss that in some detail. Nor do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that there are no objections to the basis of the amendment and that it is quite right and proper to come forward with an amendment, the movers of which admit is defective, at Third Reading.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what I said was that if this amendment were adopted I believe that there would have to be consequential adjustments. That is not the same as saying that it is defective.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in my reading that means that the amendment is defective. It does not do what the noble Baroness is trying to do. It is wrong and it makes a fool of this House, which is a revising Chamber, to move amendments that are defective and do not achieve their purposes, and to seek that another place should make revisions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. I have taken professional advice of the Officers of this House and I was assured that this amendment was appropriate under the circumstances. I could do no other.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not said that it is inappropriate. I have just said that I did not think it was quite right for us to be wasting our time debating it when we debated this matter a great deal on earlier
412
occasions. I hope I may say, finally, as regards bringing forward amendments of quite such detail at this stage—I only saw the amendment for the first time this morning—that it might have been a little better if the noble Baroness had possibly apologised to the House for bringing forward amendments at Third Reading, at such a late stage.
I start by saying that we have taken considerable care to ensure that the council tax is fair to disabled people. We have had considerable discussions with all those groups representing organisations of and for disabled people. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, recognised that my honourable friend Mr. Portillo had taken considerable trouble on these matters. There will be discounts for severely disabled people who need carers to live with them, and discounts for people who are mentally impaired. The valuation regulations will be framed so as not to penalise people who need special fixtures or adaptations to their homes; and we propose a special scheme of reductions by regulations under this clause so that disabled people do not have to pay more council tax because their disability means that they need extra space in their homes.
The scheme that we propose will ensure that, where that person needs an extra bathroom, kitchen or other room because of a disability, or extra space to allow for wheelchair circulation, he will be eligible for a reduction equivalent to allocating his dwelling to a band one lower than the actual band.
The noble Baroness claimed that I had argued that they were reductions purely on account of disability in that a reduction in band could come about when someone stayed in exactly the same property. The noble Baroness, as always, was misinterpreting my position. The point I was trying to make was that it was the features taking on a new significance that could lead to a reduction in the band. That does not mean that it is purely on the grounds of disability. It is a question of the features themselves taking on a new significance. A disabled person who might he living in a band E property because of his need for a room to serve as a treatment room would therefore be eligible for a reduction under the scheme. In this case the bill would be calculated as if the dwelling were in band D, so that he would not have to pay more tax on account of his need for that extra room.
The amendment before us would mean that a reduction under the scheme would be limited to 14 per cent. of the bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the odd reasoning by which she reached that 14 per cent. but, as she accepted, in many cases it delivers a smaller reduction than the scheme which we propose. The real aim of the amendment is to deliver a reduction to disabled people living in band A dwellings. In this, it completely misses the point of the reduction scheme which we propose, just as the noble Baroness has missed the point in all our discussions in earlier stages of the Bill.
The case was put to us by RADAR and other bodies that it would be unfair if a disabled person had to pay more tax simply because of his disability, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding put it. Those bodies put it to us that someone who needed an extra

413
room to store wheelchairs, or for kidney dialysis equipment, might have to buy a two-bedroomed flat, or a house with two reception rooms, whereas, but for their disability, a smaller property with a lower capital value would have sufficed. They were concerned that such people might be paying more tax because they needed to live in larger and thus more expensive dwellings.
The aim of the scheme is therefore not to ensure that disabled people get a reduction solely because of their disability. The aim is to deliver a reduction where there is a likelihood that a disabled person would otherwise be paying more because of his disability. Those are two quite different things. The scheme we have proposed ensures equal treatment where a disability could otherwise mean a higher bill.
In the case of a band A property, as many noble Lords have said, it is simply not possible for someone to be paying more on account of a disability. A disabled person living in a band A house or flat cannot say that he is paying more tax because extra space or an additional room has placed his home in a higher band than would otherwise be the case. The dwelling is already in the lowest band, and the tax payer will be paying the smallest amount of tax possible for his area. The case that was put to us that disabled people could be paying more because of their disability does not arise in the case of band A property.
It has also been argued that there should be a reduction for those in band A on the ground of hardship. I recognise, as we always have done, that many disabled people will be on low incomes. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, this is where we look to the benefit system to provide rebates of up to 100 per cent. The higher personal allowances and disregards of income in the income support system that benefit disabled people allow them rebates at much higher levels of income than other claimants in similar circumstances.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Renton asked about the disabled and whether that term included those with mental handicaps. I hope that we came forward with appropriate concessions on an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 4, which was welcomed by the House. The consequential amendment will go much of the way to meet the problems which my noble friend raised, but I can give him the assurance that the word "disabled" includes people with mental disabilities.
The measures we have taken have been in direct response to the representations made to us that disabled people should not be disadvantaged in comparison with others because property values form the basis of the tax. I hope the House will accept that we have met those concerns, and I would urge the House to reject the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord made one comment that I welcomed, which was his response to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the concept of disability includes those with severe mental impairment. As this is the subject of a subsequent
414
amendment, I am delighted to have that clarification from the Minister because it may make the meeting of minds somewhat easier later.
Five main points have been raised in a variety of very interesting and helpful contributions by your Lordships. I shall do my best to respond to them. First, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked why it was suggested that this amendment was defective. What I tried to say was not that it was defective but that it might need consequential amendments. I was assured by senior officers of the House that that was an entirely proper way forward. It was necessary in that form—and I did not make a meal of this when I opened with this amendment—because of procedural moves (I will not call them games) played by Members on the Front Bench over an amendment which sought to help the most vulnerable people in our society. I was not going to say this until the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised the matter, but I thought those moves tasteless at best and perhaps cheap because they failed to permit us to bring back, on reflection, a different kind of amendment. That is why we have moved to this amendment, not because we would not have wished to pursue the first amendment. We were prevented from doing so by the manoeuvres on the Front Bench. That amendment was negatived. That is not a usual procedure.
On the second point about the arbitrariness of the 14 per cent. figure which was emphasised by some noble Lords, I had hoped that in my introductory remarks I had explained why the figure of 14 per cent. was chosen. It is the average of the percentage reduction of all the other bands. In fact, it is 14.4 per cent. That is why 14 per cent. was chosen. To use the words of my noble friend Lord Desai, it smoothes out the fact that some people enjoy an 18 per cent. reduction and some an 11 per cent. reduction only, according to which band they start from. This does not seem to be an unreasonable position. As it stands, the percentage drops are quirky; under this amendment they would be the same for all, and smoothed out.
I come now to the substance of two or three points raised by your Lordships. The first was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It was that the purpose of the original concessions from Mr. Portillo—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, were widely and genuinely welcomed by all parties—was that a disabled person who had to adjust his property so that it would come into a more expensive band would not have to pay for it to go into a more expensive band. That is correct, but that is also true for me. Let us suppose that I adjust my property tomorrow and build on an extra bathroom, kitchen or conservatory. If I start with a property of £40,000 and add £50,000 worth of value, I would not go up a band. What concession is that for the disabled if it is one that every noble Lord in this House currently enjoys? Why make a meal of that? It is part of the Bill as it stands.
The useful point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was that where somebody stayed in his existing house and, as he rightly said, where its

415
features took on new significance by virtue of the person's disability—not because anything was done to the property: no new windows, bricks, doors or anything else—and so a different use was made of the property, that property would enjoy a reduction. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"For example, where some rooms are very large, and a person became disabled, the size of the rooms would be Important because the disabled person would not be able to live in smaller rooms".—[Official Report, 27/1/92; col. 1123.]
I pressed him when winding up to say that if someone became disabled in an existing property and therefore its features took on a new significance, that person could apply for a downward valuation of the property. I asked: That is a correct reading, is it not? Yes, replied the noble Lord, unless he were to write to say otherwise. But of course he did not write. In other words, the person enjoyed a reduction by virtue of his disability. We should all be in the same position by virtue of the physical alteration of the property. If any of us reduce the value, we get a reduction; we can improve the property and it does not go up. The only thing that is distinctive for the disabled is that they use the space differently. That was the basis for the additional concession that we were glad to hear from the noble Lord. That is the point of our argument —except that it does not apply to band A. Having conceded that, there is no logical reason why it should not apply to band A.
My fourth substantial point concerned poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that the disabled should be helped through the benefit system. He is entirely right. I remind your Lordships of the point at issue. Someone who is disabled would enjoy, for example, an additional premium of £16.65 (for a single person); for a couple it would be £23.90. That is welcome. But the Disability Income Group has suggested that the additional cost to that household is likely to be £60 a week.
As for the rebate scheme, if one member of a couple is disabled, they would cease to qualify for rebate in band A on the average council tax when their income exceeded £115.50 per week. They would run out of rebate at £115 a week in a band A property. Given that the cost of disability is perhaps an additional £60 a week, that is not a very high sum. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been grossly over-selective. She merely mentions the disability premium on income support for a single person at £16.65. She fails to mention that there is a premium for couples and one for severe disability. The disability premium can be received at the same time as the severe disability premium. There is a premium for a disabled child and premiums for carers. All those can be taken into account. The noble Baroness merely takes one figure and says that on average according to some group the costs are £60 higher. There is a whole host of premiums which can assist the disabled person.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I accept that, but I wish that the Minster had been courteous enough to listen to what I said. I gave figures for both a single person and a couple. I also quoted the figure for rebates, which he has not challenged: a couple, one
416
person of which is disabled, runs out of rebate at £115 a week. That is why the social security system cannot and will not meet their needs.
Finally, we come to the principle that if someone is in band A he cannot have a reduction because there is nowhere further down for him to go. I repeat, if one is single, one gets a reduction; if one is a millionaire with a dependent, unemployed son, one gets a reduction in band A. If one is disabled, apparently one does not. The amendment targets discounts for the disabled in all bands—not just those in the higher bands but those in band A as well.
The amendment would create fairness within the community of the disabled and fairness among those in band A who receive discounts. Do noble Lords want this Bill to leave this House knowing that the wealthy, the single, the nurse and the student can all get discounts in band A, unless they are disabled? In that case one can get discounts in bands B, C, D, E, F, G and H, but not in band A.
Noble Lords can do something about that situation tonight, at no cost to the Exchequer and minimal cost to local authorities. As a result the Bill will hit the statute book and perhaps the law will he the fairer because of your decision tonight. I seek the opinion of the House.
5.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 151.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
Clause 14 [Administration, penalties and enforce-men's]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 7, after ("penalties") insert ("including provision as to the admissibility of evidence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, all of which relate to the issue of computerised records. Should anyone become touchy about such amendments being introduced at Third Reading, I remind the House that the amendments to deal with the problem of the inapplicability of computerised records as evidence in magistrates' courts were introduced by the Government only at Report stage in this House after the Bill had already gone through another place. I make no apology for taking a few days after seeing the government amendments to bring forward substantive amendments to the Government's own proposals.
I am well aware that Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are alternatives. One could hardly pass both Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which propose different starting dates for the implementation of the Government's own proposals. I have to deal with the matter in this way because today is the last stage of the Bill in this House. I have to deal with this fugue in stretto. I believe that that is the technical term. In other words I have to take the amendments together and make a decision on the spot as to which is the best of the alternative Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 to recommend to your Lordships. I undertake to do so.
It is a sorry story of delay and indecision by the Government on a problem that had become clear in the summer and autumn of last year. Already in the summer a number of cases arose when pursuit of poll tax defaulters was held up by claims that computerised records were not acceptable as evidence in magistrates' courts. The chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities wrote to Ministers about the matter in September. It took some time to receive a reply. Meanwhile the build up of court cases continued. However, it was not until 27th January that the Government first suggested that they would make proposals to legitimate the use of computerised evidence in poll tax cases in magistrates' courts.
It was not until last week that the matter came to your Lordships' House as a series of amendments to this Bill, with Third Reading today and presumably for Royal Assent some time in the second half of next week, although we cannot be sure about the progress of business in another place. I understand that the Commons consideration of Lords amendments is set down for Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps the Minister will indicate when he replies whether that means that Royal Assent will be sought on the same day. It makes a difference to the implications of these amendments.
As the matter has continued and as there has been disagreement between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about what should be done regarding a problem which was well

419
recognised and documented, so the awareness of the general public of a loophole in the legislation has become wider. The number of cases which have not been resolved as a result of that loophole has increased enormously. A conference was held yesterday of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils to consider the extent of the problem and what should be done about it. They had before them a letter from the Department of the Environment dated 24th February which concerned the advice to be given on community charge liability orders.
I shall not read out all the evidence from yesterday's conference, but it is appalling. Perhaps I may cite a few of the 39 examples that I could give. For example, in Rochdale, although at the beginning of the recent difficulties only those cases attending court were adjourned, the final court session for 1991–92 poll tax has been cancelled and 15,000 liability orders have been lost. In Coventry, from January 1992 magistrates were refusing to accept summons applications and had stopped hearing committals. Now everything is at a standstill. Lewisham had hoped to clear 60,000 cases by the end of the year involving 15 million of unpaid poll tax. On 28th January 4,000 cases were adjourned sine die and there have been no cases since then. In Havering on 18th February 3,000 cases were adjourned until 24th March. In Solihull cases are due on 5th March but it is uncertain whether 3,800 liability orders will be granted.
I could continue, but I shall not cite 39 different examples of cases where not tens, hundreds or thousands, but tens of thousands of court cases are being adjourned, sometimes until April or even later, because of the inadequacy of the present law and the inadequacy of magistrates' understanding of the law.
When the matter was raised at Report, I said that it was important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, corrected me. He said that it was not important but it was indeed urgent. It is the urgency that I now wish to stress. That is the thrust of the amendments.
In these amendments we do not seek to change the provision which is made. However, it would be much better if a broader power were given to allow the use of computerised evidence in magistrates' courts. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rightly said, that should have happened many years ago or the law should never have been interpreted in any other way. But, it has happened and it would be better if the law were put right in a more structured way. In tabling these amendments we are fighting one part of the fire. I suppose that we must be grateful for that and hope that the fire does not spread to other areas as a result of the fire fighting at this stage.
The situation is so serious that in our view we should in such cases resort to retrospective legislation. In Amendment No. 23 we propose to make the provision retrospective from the date on which the Government announced that they would amend the Bill. Amendment No. 24 would be a fallback and would make the provision retrospective from the Third Reading of this Bill; that is from midnight
420
today. That is a course which governments have taken on many occasions. Indeed, on many occasions they have done what is provided in Amendment No. 23 and have said, "From the date on which we announce that something will be done, the legislation which follows shall act retrospectively from that date". Amendment No. 25, which is of a different kind, introduces provision for the payment of grants to reimburse authorities for the losses incurred by them as a result in the delay in the Government's response to the problems of computer evidence.
The first date in that amendment is the date of the January meeting of the council tax technical sub-group. Local authority associations then expressed anxiety at the consequences of the decision of St. Edmundsbury magistrates. At that meeting on 7th January civil servants said that urgent action would be taken to remedy the situation. The second date is 27th January, the date on which the Government announced their intention to amend the Bill rather than to use emergency primary legislation. I remind the House that when it became clear that legislation would be required the Opposition in another place undertook to give all co-operation in getting a Bill quickly through another place and, I am sure, through this House in order to achieve a speedier resolution.
We have a situation which is becoming worse day by day and week by week. Money is being lost because the shortfall in poll tax, which is difficult to calculate, is in the order of £15 billion. It means that local authorities are losing approximately £3 million in interest payments in every week of delay. I shall not comment further about the timing or about the adequacy of the provisions in the long term. However, in the short term and for this particular purpose the Government have done the right thing. In tabling these amendments we ask merely that they do so more quickly than has been proposed.
If the Government are at all sympathetic to any of the amendments we shall not move those in respect of which they are not sympathetic. If they do not feel able to be sympathetic, we shall have to decide which of the substantive amendments should be linked to the paving amendment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, clearly the Opposition's intention in moving the amendments is constructive and one welcomes that. However, I hope that it is not inappropriate to point out that Amendment No. 11 must be one of the most superfluous ever moved. I apologise to the House for taking up time in commenting upon it. But since it appears on the Marshalled List, which is regrettable, one might as well point out that the appropriate clause which it amends reads:
"Schedule 4 to this Act (which contains provisions about the recovery of sums due, including sums due as penalties) shall have effect".
It is proposed to add the words:
"including provision as to the admissibility of evidence".
That is certainly true; the clause now includes such provision as amended. But to include that provision is

421
overwhelmingly superfluous, in particular since Schedule 4 deals with a number of other matters which are not itemised in this part of the Bill.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House in referring to the matter. However, this amendment appears to me to be one of the most supremely footling that we have had and, whatever else may happen, I cannot imagine that the noble Lord will divide the House on Amendment No. 11.
The other amendments have a great deal more substance. But I wish to express a note of caution about the element of retrospective legislation to which the noble Lord has referred. The necessity to bring about retrospective legislation is always a cause of unease. Whether the date is 27th January, 27th February or early in March, which the noble Lord predicted, when the Bill receives Royal Assent does not appear to make a great deal of difference. I agree with him that it is unfortunate that the loophole in respect of computer records, which is now closed as a result of an amendment moved at an earlier stage of the Bill, has cost a great deal of money. However, we must simply accept that that is the case. I do not believe that a great deal is achieved by bolting the stable door on 27th January or 27th February rather than 5th March or whenever the Bill receives Royal Assent. Surely the principle that wherever possible one avoids retrospective legislation is sound.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendments. I hope that the Government will indicate that one of the solutions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, finds favour. I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, about retrospective legislation. However, one's anxiety about retrospection is that it is not generally in the public interest to make an act a wrong, whether criminal or civil, after the event. The point is so technical that I cannot believe that most of the people who were on their way to the courts believed that they would get off on a technicality.
I agree that this is an unusual case, but I believe that in the balance of public interest retrospection will not only assist the public purse to the tune of about £3 million per day—a figure which I too have seen—but will strike the right balance in the eyes of the public. We must all know that the public considers that one of the most distasteful aspects of the poll tax is the amount that those who are paying must pay as a result of those who are not.
I too have seen the letter to the chief executives dated 24th February. It gives them some comfort in stating that they should not assume that courts will necessarily reach the same decision as a particular court has reached. I take the point but do not expect that the chief executives will feel an enormous degree of comfort because so far the score is against them. I hope we shall hear that there is to be some movement on that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too can deal briefly with Amendment No. 11, as did my noble friend Lord Renfrew. The effect of the amendment is to make explicit that Schedule 4 includes provisions on
422
computer evidence. That simply is unnecessary. There is no need to specify in detail what is covered by the schedule.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 aim to make the provisions on computer evidence for purposes relating to the community charge and non-domestic rates partially retrospective either to 27th January or to today, 27th February. While I understand the noble Lord's intention I do not believe that the proposal is workable and I urge him to withdraw the amendment. Magistrates' courts have to act on the basis of the law as it stands. They cannot take account of what the law may be—and we are confident will be—in a week or so. On that point, the noble Lord was right in saying that the Commons will consider Lords amendments this coming Wednesday, but I cannot predict the date of Royal Assent. Therefore, they must decide cases now without the benefit of the computer evidence provisions before us.
There is an additional difficulty. The provisions that will be made under the new enabling powers in Clause 102 will require authorities to provide certificates when presenting computer evidence. They have not done so, indeed have not been able to do so, and will not be able to do so properly until the Act and the accompanying regulations are in force. The requirements of the new provisions cannot therefore be met.
As the noble Lord has explained, the amendment is designed to deal in particular with issues raised by two recent court judgments in the Blatchford and Bullard cases. The noble Lord has pressed us to say in the light of those judgments what action local authorities should be taking to enforce existing liability orders and seek new ones.
The Department of the Environment has written to local authorities on both questions. The position remains that, where an authority is seeking new liability orders, it should discuss the handling of those orders with the magistrates' court clerk concerned. There is no obstacle to authorities continuing to apply for liability orders where they consider that their procedures for the presentation of cases meet the requirements of existing law.
Turning to liability orders already made, a number of key points emerged from the Blatchford and Bullard cases. The bulk of liability orders granted by magistrates' courts cannot now be challenged because it is too late for the charge payers to bring proceedings. Liability orders remain valid and can be enforced until they are quashed by the High Court.
Authorities should consider being represented in future High Court cases and should consider inviting the court to use its discretion not to quash the liability order on the ground that the sum had been outstanding and no injustice can have been caused. I understand in the Bullard case that Coventry was not represented. That is most unfortunate.
When an order is quashed and remitted to the magistrates' courts for redetermination, authorities should consider asking them to hear other evidence of non-payment and, once this Bill becomes law, to take the regulations into account when considering

423
computer evidence. I am sure authorities will wish to consider these points carefully when deciding how to proceed.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to bring in a grant regime to enable the Secretary of State to reimburse authorities for any costs incurred as a result of the inadmissibility of computer evidence.
I recognise of course that problems with the admissibility of computer evidence have hindered the enforcement process. That is why we amended this Bill at Report stage to put matters right. We do not, however, accept that authorities need to be compensated for losses in cash flow that may have occurred. I certainly do not accept that authorities are losing £3 million a week as suggested by some noble Lords. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned that figure. I should be interested to hear the data and a justification for those figures and the assumptions which underlie them.
It is far from clear that all authorities will have suffered losses or significant losses. While problems for authorities will have increased since last week's court judgment in the Bullard case, not all authorities will have had courts booked in the period. In sum, it would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to calculate the amount of loss which any particular authority might have incurred given the wide variety of circumstances. Indeed, quite a number of local authorities are managing without too much difficulty.
I should add that there is no need for this amendment anyway to pay a special grant. Section 146 of the Local Government and Housing Act enables the Secretary of State to pay grants for special purposes.
The noble Lord mentioned that there have been a number of adjournments. However, I believe that he will acknowledge that the position has been patchy. Despite what he said, throughout the country some authorities have obtained liability orders this month.
The House may like me to bring it up to date on progress with the draft regulations to implement the computer evidence provisions. As I explained to the House on Report, officials had discussed the regulations with the local authority associations. Those discussions have proved very helpful and we are grateful to the associations for their contribution. As a result of considering the points made, we have decided to make a number of amendments to the draft regulations. I shall outline those shortly. We concluded that it was not necessary or right to amend the provisions now in the Bill.
As regards the draft regulations, we have taken up a number of points made by the associations. We have extended the coverage of the regulations to all hearings that may take place in a magistrates' court in relation to enforcement of the community charge and non-domestic rate. Those procedures are the obtaining of a liability order, the hearing of a complaint against the levying of distress and the committal hearing. Computer evidence, subject to the certification procedure, will be admissible in any such hearing. Similar regulations will of course be made to cover the council tax.
424
The associations were also concerned about what the certificate to accompany computer generated evidence should contain. We have made a number of changes to make the certificate more straightforward. In particular, authorities will now be required to identify only the document concerned and the computer which produced it rather than, as previously proposed, describing the manner in which the document was produced and giving particulars of any device involved in its production. We have placed a revised draft of the regulations in the Library.
I hope that what I have said demonstrates that we have considered the views of the associations very carefully and that we are seeking to produce a workable system that will enable authorities to present the evidence they need. Once this Bill receives Royal Assent and the necessary regulations are made, the Department of the Environment will immediately write to all authorities with the regulations and some guidance on their application. Officials will be discussing that guidance with the local authority associations. Meanwhile, the latest draft of the regulations will be sent to authorities tomorrow to give them warning of the new arrangements.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that lengthy and often helpful explanation of the Government's viewpoint.
First, I should correct something that I said earlier. I talked about £15 billion of poll tax arrears. Of course I meant £1.5 billion. I apologise for the mistake.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that when he is in Opposition later in the year, for the price of a lunch I shall be happy to explain to him the way in which the Opposition frame paving amendments so that matters are discussed for their convenience and for the convenience of the House. We recognise that paving amendments are not very significant in themselves but they help to put together groups of amendments which it makes sense for the House to debate.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am overwhelmingly relieved to understand that Amendment No. 11 had some purpose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is obvious, not least from the fact that I found it necessary to speak for 10 minutes, the issue is extremely complicated. It is complicated not merely because the law is unclear but because different magistrates' courts and their advisers throughout the country have taken different views.
The Minister is right to say that in some parts of the country this does not appear to be a major problem. However, in other parts of the country magistrates' courts are cancelling poll tax hearings. That makes it impossible for any local authority to make progress in pursuit of arrears. Some courts are hearing appeals, some courts are hearing committals and some are hearing liability orders and any stage in between. Therefore, the fundamental point still applies; namely,

425
that it is the uncertainty of the law which is causing uncertainty in its application in different parts of the country.
It is still not certain what the law is. Despite the fact that the regulations are helpful and that contact with local authority associations has been helpful, it is not certain that all points have yet been cleared up. For example, what is the position of summonses that have already been issued which could be challenged between now and Royal Assent? Will the regulations cover those summonses? What is the position where liability orders have already been made? Will the Minister tell the House whether enforcement of those liability orders is safe or whether it is possible for them to be challenged? Clearly, many people have a strong interest in challenging those liability orders.
It may be that the most moderate of the three amendments is Amendment No. 25 which refers to the possibility of special grant. The Minister said that she recognises that the process of pursuing poll tax defaulters had been hindered by the inadequacy of the law. In all seriousness I must ask the Government whose fault they think that is. It is not the fault of the local authorities and it is not the fault of the Opposition. It is the fault of government that it has taken so long between the first flagging of the problem last year and the final implementation of even this partial solution. As has been made clear, the amounts of money are immense. The longer the delay, the larger the losses are likely to be and the more difficult it will be to obtain payment in the future.
It is not only with what happened in the past that we must be concerned; we must be concerned that for many months there has been uncertainty about the enforceability of the poll tax. That will affect not only the 1990–91 and the 1991–92 poll tax, but also the poll tax levied for 1992–93. Any unnecessary uncertainties or difficulties placed in the paths of local authorities—which are trying hard, as the Minister will agree, at enormous expense to reduce the backlog of arrears—should be avoided.
I return to the issue of retrospective legislation. I agree with all those who have said that it is undesirable. But we are making only a modest move towards retrospection. If we really wanted retrospective legislation we would have gone back to 1st April 1990, when the poll tax was first introduced. It was clearly the intention of the Government that the poll tax, having been introduced on 1st April 1990, could be enforced and collected; that magistrates' courts could issue liability orders where necessary. It was not anticipated by the Government or anybody else that this problem could arise. The problem should have been corrected much earlier. The least we can do is recognise that even a saving of a few days or a month or two in uncertainty is good for now and good for the future.
We are within possibly a week of Royal Assent. For that reason and on reflection it would be unwise for me to seek the opinion of the House on this matter although I fully intended to do so. That is not a matter for which I should apologise. It is the inadequacy and
426
tardiness of the Government's response to this well recognised problem that placed us in this unfortunate position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 23 [.Contents of lists]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert ("and whether the assignment of the dwelling to the applicable band was carried out by a person appointed under section 21(3) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. What a strange state of affairs we find concerning estate agents. Despite the opposition by a number of noble Lords opposite, we pointed out that the proposals for the valuation into bands of all the domestic properties in the United Kingdom were severely defective. We did that not merely because the bands are crude and the differences between them inadequate, but because the process of privatising a large part of the valuation procedure, which has never been privatised in the past, was fraught with risk.
As long ago as December, when the first contracts were let to private estate agents, it was clear that a number of estate agents had a good deal of doubt about whether it was possible for them to do a decent job. A number of them expressed anxiety in regard to the unfairness of a procedure where they are not allowed access to the property; whether or not they can see a back extension to a house, for example, depends entirely upon the height of the garden wall or whether there is a public footpath behind the house. Some noble Lords may recall publicity in the press for the anxieties felt by estate agents and others in regard to the valuation procedure.
We said that it was being done on the cheap and that if we were offered something for £20 million when we had estimated that it would cost £120 million, we should ask ourselves whether it would be done properly. Ministers brushed that aside and said that it would be all right. Unfortunately evidence is starting to emerge which already makes clear that we were entirely right.
The valuation office of the Inland Revenue produced a document which has become available to us—V07421NS. That shows that the differences between valuations carried out by the valuation officers and private contractors are huge. Of the first 4,704 batches checked by the valuation office and carried out by private contractors, almost 10 per cent. —437—failed the test. Even when they were resubmitted nearly 10 per cent. were still failing the test—that is, 30 out of 368.
In comparison, the valuations carried out by the valuation officers in a first issue of 2,379 resulted in only 96 failures and on resubmission in no failures at all. Those are large differences and clearly show that there is a high number of failed batches from private contractors. I gave the total figures for the whole country. We have the figures for each of the regions and those from a number of valuation officers. In Cambridge, of the batches checked, 68 per cent. of

427
those carried out by private contractors failed the test; in Worthing the figure was 54 per cent.; in York 40 per cent.; in Darlington 37 per cent., and so on. The rest are of course lower because the average, as I said, is 10 per cent.
That indicates that something is seriously wrong when the quality of work carried out by private contractors is so conspicuously worse than the quality of work carried out by valuation officers. One is bound to ask whether even the £19 million that the process will cost is money well spent if it results in something which appears to be as largely arbitrary as the valuations being carried out.
The cost is not merely the cost of reassessment by the valuation office or the resubmission of batches; the cost is that there will be no public confidence, justifiably, in the valuation process. That in turn will lead to a large number of appeals against the banding, again as we predicted and as Ministers denied. Those appeals will be fuelled by the knowledge that the work of private contractors is unsatisfactory. The Ministers will no doubt say in reply that it is all right because those failures were revealed by the quality control procedures of the valuation office. That is all very well, but even Ministers will not claim that the quality control procedures cover all batches. They can only be a sampling process. I do not think that anybody would claim that they would be valuations of all the properties within any individual batch. Again, it must be a sampling process. It is public confidence that is at stake. Public confidence cannot be assured by the way in which the valuation process has been proceeding and by the results so far produced by the valuation office.
The amendments seek to provide the minimum of freedom of information. People should know whether their dwelling has been valued by private contractors or by valuation officers. Amendment No. 13 provides that anyone wishing to appeal against a valuation will have an indication of the standards of work of the estate agent who carried out the valuation of the dwelling. If the Government accept the amendment, they will avoid enormous difficulty with appeals later on. Those who have had their valuations properly conducted, either by valuation officers or according to proper procedures, will be discouraged from appealing. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a very curious way of looking at the matter. Although we all read in the Sunday papers of the valuation office's recent report and the sample figures from it—I understand that the noble Lord has quoted from the report itself—nowhere was the suggestion made, as far as I can see, that all private sector valuations were in error. The noble Lord has not made that point himself. Therefore, that leads me to suppose that there will be many cases where private sector valuation is perfectly satisfactory and above board. By highlighting, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests we do, the private sector valuations in the valuation list, we are causing more uncertainty rather than less. I suspect that this is a direct attack on private sector valuations and I do not think that that is right.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I too have very strong reservations about the amendment. The noble Lord opposite spoke of public confidence. I cannot see a more effective way of undermining public confidence than by having asterisks and footnotes which would tend to raise doubts. He certainly pointed out that there have been inconsistencies in some valuations. I am satisfied that the valuation office has clearly been doing a good job in various areas in picking up the discrepancies.
If the noble Lord had been arguing that there was a case for more internal scrutiny of the same kind I believe that he could have persuaded me that he had a significant point. When it comes to the details of the amendments I am not at all clear, as is often the case, that they will achieve even what he intends. He wants an addition made to the valuation list under Amendment No. 12, but he has not included a provision that when the notice goes out to householders or residents that the same point will be made. The notice has to include the valuation—that is to say, the banding within which the property falls. But the noble Lord has not made that provision.
As regards Amendment No. 13 we find a curious point. We have a long supplementary statement which the noble Lord wishes to have made and which he wants the listing officer to state. But nowhere does the noble Lord tell us to whom or where the listing officer shall make the statement. I am not being unduly pedantic here. It is not at all clear in exactly what way the listing officer will make the statement. He could append this very copious supplement to the valuation list referring to each property, but that would not necessarily do a great deal. If the amendment required it, he could include a long supplement in each notice sent to each householder. That would be bureaucracy run wild. That appears to be the trouble with this amendment. It would result in bureaucracy run wild. If anything, it would undermine public confidence in the procedures. I agree very much with the noble Lord's point that it is important that there should be public confidence in the procedures. I am sure that that would only be enhanced if there were more internal scrutiny of the kind which has already brought to light the discrepancies to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to discourage the use of private professional firms. If the amendment were put into law and a notice was put on every assessment which was carried out by professional firms that it was done by them, that would plainly be read as the noble Lord intended that it should be read; namely, as an indication that the assessment was done in an inferior and perhaps inadequate way. That is clearly the purpose of the amendment. I do not believe that your Lordships need waste very much time on what is simply an example of the prejudice of noble Lords opposite against the private sector and private enterprise.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord doth exaggerate his case. This is no more than a vendetta against the private sector.
Amendment No. 12 proposes that those dwellings which were valued by private sector valuers should be identified on the valuation list. Amendment No. 13 proposes that, where there is a disagreement between a listing officer and the person making a proposal to alter a valuation list, the listing officer should be required to say whether the valuation was carried out by a private sector contractor and what quality controls were applied by the valuation office. I would suggest that the real objective of noble Lords opposite is to make mischief with the thinnest, and indeed the most immaterial, of evidence.
The valuation office understood from the start that there would be some variation in standards at the beginning of a large exercise like this, whether it was being conducted by private sector valuers or by their own staff. That is why it put in place such stringent quality control procedures. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew on that.
Noble Lords opposite have tried to argue that the valuation exercise is running aground; that unqualified and unscrupulous estate agents are producing poor quality work jeopardising the integrity of the valuation lists now being prepared. If I may say so, I believe that they have proved quite the opposite. They have demonstrated that the Valuation Office Agency is very much in charge of the valuation exercise, that the quality control procedures that it has adopted are working effectively and that the overwhelming majority of private sector valuers are satisfying all the required standards—again a point picked up by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
We made it clear from the very first that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are responsible for all council tax valuations. There was never any possibility that the valuation office would unquestioningly accept whatever valuations the private sector produced. What noble Lords opposite have produced is in fact evidence that the valuation office is very much in control and very much on top of the job.
Each batch of valuations provided by private sector valuers is carefully checked by the valuation office. If the private sector fails to come up to the mark, it can be asked to value the batch again. If the work is still not up to the required standards the contractors can be dismissed. To date over 90 per cent. of the batches completed by private sector valuers have met the required standard. Only about 9 per cent. of batches were not accepted. In all such cases the valuation office and its contractors discussed any disagreements and the work was repeated by the contractor. Following such further consideration, over 99 per cent. of private sector valuations were in line with valuation office requirements.
The net result of applying this stringent and thorough quality control procedure is that the valuation office has had insurmountable problems with only four out of the 512 contracts. Those four contracts have been terminated. I think that noble Lords will agree that that is a pretty good record.
430
Progress on the valuation exercise as a whole has been excellent. I can assure noble Lords that all properties will have been valued in good time for the introduction of the council tax in 1993. The systems that we have put in place ensure consistent and reliable valuations while providing excellent value for money. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that the work is being carried out to a high order and that it is acceptable. I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that he may have been pedantic. For an archaeologist being pedantic is a virtue, is it not? I am sure that he brings his academic virtues to the deliberations of this House. We do not criticise him in that way. He is wrong though. He is wrong in saying that the amendment requires that the notice of valuation going out should include all the additional material. He is wrong because there is no notice of valuation going out. The first that householders will know of what band they are in is when they get the bill. That is another of the problems that has been pointed out from these Benches over and over again.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, accused us of highlighting the problem. What we are doing here is pointing out, as the Minister rightly said, that the problems are in a small minority of cases. The problem is that unless people know whether they are part of that small minority of cases which have been badly valued they will lose confidence in the whole process. The effect of what we are saying is that the quality control procedures which are quite rightly being applied by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall be made public and on an individual basis.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I actually said, and what I believe, is that marking all such properties on the list as these amendments propose would result in the valuation exercise being devalued per se. That is what I said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not what the amendments say. Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that a valuation list must show whether the valuation has been carried out by a private sector estate agent or not. Someone wishing to appeal against the valuation will then have an indication of the standard of work carried out. The hope is that, if that happens, a high proportion of those appealing will know that the work has been carried out to a high standard.
I am not sure that at Third Reading I ought to give way to a noble Lord who has not taken part in the debate. I will do so on this occasion, but it is dangerous.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy. Speaking as a surveyor who has been involved in valuations, the private sector has far more experience of the values at which properties change hands than does the public sector and is therefore far more likely to be accurate in its valuations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately the evidence gives the lie to that. I cannot keep giving way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the evidence does not give the lie to that. The evidence bears out what my noble friend has just said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary. The evidence which I read out, and which is on the record, is that the internal valuations of valuation officers were to a much higher standard than the valuations of private contractors. I do not wish to repeat the figures, but the Minister has confirmed that 9 per cent. of the private contractors' valuations failed the quality control test, whereas—though I have not calculated the percentage—of the valuation officers' bandings only 96 out of 2,379 failed the test. The valuation officers did a better job than the private contractors. That is a matter of record.
Fundamentally it is an issue of public confidence, is it not? If we are to have a system which is accepted, understood and believed in, then there has to be public confidence. It is simply no good to say that public confidence will be maintained by concealing the facts. That is what is being suggested; it is the bearer of bad news who should be shot rather than that the bad news should be accepted. What I have revealed today in this House is an unacceptable level of valuation by private contractors. By anybody's standards to have 9 per cent. of batches failing the tests of the valuation officers is unsatisfactory.
The point for the future is that nobody knows whether they are in the 9 per cent. or not. The point about quality control is that, unless valuation officers will value all the properties in all the batches, nobody will know whether the quality control applies to their own dwelling. That is the fundamental problem that Ministers will face, as will the new government, as the time for appeals against valuation and banding comes into effect.
I have been accused of a vendetta against the private sector. I do not think that was true, even when we started to criticise the use of private contractors, but now that we have been proved right by the figures it can hardly be called a vendetta. I would not dignify it with the name of "crusade" but I would say that the Government are creating enormous difficulties for themselves in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Alteration of lists]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("physically").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. In the light of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on a previous amendment that the disabled included the severely mentally impaired, I am hoping that he will spring up and say that this amendment is not
432
necessary; in which case I shall gladly sit down and withdraw it. As so far he has not done that, I shall proceed briefly.
At Committee stage there was widespread support for the principle of this amendment that the disabled who are eligible for a valuation discount should not be just those with physical disability. The wording which we put forward then was thought to be too narrow. As a result of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart among others, that amendment was withdrawn. This amendment has been brought forward in a way which I hope will faithfully meet the points they sought to raise then.
At Committee stage on 20th February the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"It is not our intention to exclude any group of people who might benefit from these regulations".—[Official Report, 20/2/92; col. 1347.]
This amendment would seek to turn that helpful and conciliatory tone into an effective undertaking by placing it on the face of the Bill, because, as the Bill stands, those suffering severe mental impairment will be excluded from its benefits.
It is often assumed that the homes of those with severe mental impairment need little or no adaptation. There are many people in your Lordships' House who have had much more experience than I have and they will know, as even I do, that often extra soundproofing is needed, as may be extra heating for those who tear their clothes. Reinforced doors and windows may also be needed, as well as additional safety precautions and special fittings in kitchens and bathrooms to prevent scalds, burns, electric shocks, gas leaks and fires.
MENCAP gives further examples of walls needing to be replastered with plaster that cannot be ripped off the wall and eaten and of woodblock floors which, because they formed a pattern which was unacceptable to someone with a certain severe mental impairment, were continuously pulled up and had to be replaced by concrete. MENCAP also makes the point that mentally disabled and severely handicapped people may simply need extra space not shared, for example, with other children. Therefore an additional bedroom or bathroom may be required.
Amendment No. 15 refers to the concept of serious illness and is designed to help those suffering from a sustained and severe condition—for example, rheumatoid arthritis, which may leave the patient wheelchair bound. It might also apply to some terminal illnesses where the term "disabled" is not always appropriate but where the sufferers may need material adaptations and who under the old rating system would have qualified for rating relief. The rates referred to a person handicapped by disability or illness. This amendment, while more acceptable to the disability organisations, would reach the same groups of people. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to accept the substance of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can be somewhat more conciliatory than I have been in the past. I was tempted to intervene, as the noble Baroness

433
invited me at the beginning, to say that the amendment was not necessary. However, I should not like to go quite as far as that. It is certainly important that I get certain things on the record which I hope will go most of the way that the noble Baroness wishes me to go.
Clause 24 deals with circumstances in which valuation lists may be altered after the initial valuation of a dwelling. It enables regulations to be made providing for the lists to be altered in cases where there has been a material reduction in the value of a dwelling. Material reduction is defined as including a reduction caused by an adaptation which makes a dwelling suitable for use by a physically disabled person.
These amendments would enable lists to be altered where a dwelling is adapted to make it suitable for use by a disabled person or a person suffering from serious illness. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed similar amendments at Report stage. I explained then that the amendments, worthy though they were, were simply not necessary. I said then—and the noble Baroness quoted me—that we do not intend to exclude any group of people who might be expected to benefit from these regulations. The question of the material reduction only arises if the alterations made are so substantial that they reduce the value of a dwelling to the extent that it is appropriate to assign it to a lower band. I gave the example of a lift for a wheelchair user which takes up a large proportion of the living space in a dwelling and is unsightly. Such a facility may well reduce the capital value of a dwelling to such an extent that it would be appropriate to allocate it to a lower band. I should make it clear that the facility does not necessarily have to be used by a person with a physical disability. The regulations will be about the changes that have been made to the dwelling and will not depend on the residence of a physically disabled person.
Any dwelling adapted in the way that I have described would be covered by regulations under Clause 24 whether the facility was actually used by a physically disabled person, a mentally impaired person or someone suffering from a serious illness. Since our previous discussion MENCAP has put to me in a letter examples of the type of adaptations that have to be made to the homes of people with learning disabilities. The noble Baroness gave some of the examples which MENCAP put to me. People with severely disturbed behaviour may require special wall and floor coverings of a type that cannot be stripped off. They may need polyurethane windows in place of glass and reinforced doors may be necessary.
However, having considered those examples, I still take the view that such adaptations would not be significant in terms of the downward rebanding of a dwelling. I am also hard put to think of any significant adaptations for a seriously ill person that would not be suitable for use by a physically disabled person and thus be already covered by the clause. I therefore see no reason to amend it.
I do, however, accept MENCAP's case that there are a small number of people with severely disturbed
434
behaviour who may require extra space in the form of a room which is specially equipped; for example, to prevent injury or to provide sound insulation. While this would be unlikely to reduce the value of a dwelling significantly, it could well mean that such people and their families had to live in a larger dwelling than would otherwise be the case. So while this would not be relevant to Clause 24, it would be appropriate in these cases for a one-band reduction to be given under the special reduction scheme which we propose to introduce by regulations under Clause 13 of the Bill. That would allow a reduction where a person with a learning disability requires a room to meet his needs because of his disability. We are currently consulting on the precise terms of the regulations setting out the scheme and we shall certainly ensure that the scheme extends to such people.
We feel that this is the appropriate way of meeting the case of the person with a learning disability who may require extra space in the form of a special room. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we have gone a considerable way towards meeting what she seeks and I trust that she will welcome these measures and will therefore not need to press her amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if we are as close as he says we are on these amendments, can he say why he cannot accept them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we feel that our wording does these things better and that it is not necessary therefore for the noble Baroness to press her amendment. We go a considerable way towards meeting what she seeks. As I made clear, I do not accept all the arguments put forward in the letter from MENCAP but I have accepted that some people ought to be provided for, as I explained towards the end of my speech.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he not accept the first of the two amendments? That would seem logical in view of what he said to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. But I may or may not be right.
Lord Henley: No, I do not think I can accept the first of the amendments. I have tried to meet the spirit —the noble Lord nods his head—and obviously I have in large part met the spirit of the amendments. I would not wish therefore to accept the amendment itself.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that genuinely places us in some difficulty. I entirely take the point that the noble Lord has met the spirit of the amendments. He is saying that where the provision says "physically disabled" one should read "disabled". That is fine in so far as anyone who is disabled requires sufficient material adaptations to bring that property down a band. The trouble is that we are dealing with words on the face of the Bill. Anyone reading the words,
"to make it suitable for use by a physically disabled person",

435
will not, unless he carries around with him a portmanteau of Hansard, know that what the Minister actually meant was to disregard the word "physically" and concentrate on the word "disabled". It was genuinely in a spirit of trying to meet the issue that was raised in Committee and on Report that the first of those amendments to leave out the word "physically" was intended.
Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I do not understand why the noble Lord is resisting the amendment. He said that where the provision says "physically disabled" the spirit of it means "physically and mentally disabled" in so far as that produces a reduction in value by virtue of material reductions. Either one says "physically and mentally disabled" or one crosses out "physically" and says "disabled". What one surely does not do is keep on the face of the Bill "physically disabled" to be understood within a framework tucked away in the columns of Hansard that it includes severely mentally impaired people as well.
I ask the noble Lord for help here. Can we perhaps follow the position of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson? We are seeking now to turn the words of the Bill into the spirit of what the Minister said. I welcome the Minister's conciliatory tone; it was very helpful. But the words in the Bill do not reflect what the Minister has now said. The only way to do that is by means of a tiny amendment to cross out the word "physically". That would bridge the gap between us. I invite the noble Lord to make that change.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can go no further. I have explained that that part was unnecessary. Though the words "physically disabled person" are used, the provision does not mean that it has to be a physically disabled person living there; it is suitable for use by a physically disabled person. As I explained, that can very easily cover the other categories that the noble Baroness mentioned: those who are mentally impaired or those suffering from long illness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if it were not Third Reading I would seek to press the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister could not accept a modest tidying up which would have embodied the spirit of what he was saying. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 31, after ("given") insert ("to the occupier").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when on Report my noble friend Lord Balfour moved a similar amendment to insert "owner or occupier", he received approval from all round the House, if, that is, with the Liberal Democrats, silence means consent. They were the only sector of the House not to utter on that occasion.
My noble friend argued that Clause 26 of the Bill did not say to whom a notice specifying the powers of entry to a particular property, where needed—on the fairly rare occasions that they will be needed at all
436
—should be sent. In the course of our short debate on that occasion the Government responded that it was not necessary for the notice to be sent to the owner because it is the occupier who is most incommoded when the powers of entry are required. I accept that point of view, especially as, if the notice does not provide results and the valuation officer cannot gain entry, he may under Clause 27 serve a notice requiring information on either the owner or the occupier of the property. So far, so good. However, I for one was unconvinced by the answer that there is no need to refer to the occupier in Clause 26. But it was not my amendment and my noble friend duly withdrew it.
I decided to do a little research on the matter and discovered that the words of the Bill are rather better in one respect than those of its progenitors—Section 60 of the Local Government Act 1948 which was repealed in favour of Section 86 of the General Rate Act 1967, neither of which mentioned that notices must be sent to the occupier. The respect in which they are better is that in this Bill three days' notice is given to the occupier but in the previous Acts the time was,
"not less than 24 hours".
So that is a clear improvement. The reason that I put down the amendment is to ask my noble friend whether there have been problems in notices getting to where they are needed; namely, the occupier. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, this to me is one of those fascinating examples of where there is a distinct difference between English and Scottish legislation. Like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I went back through quite a number of the Acts to see what the wording was. I must in all fairness say that the drafting of Clause 26 is very much better than any previous legislation I found. I went as far back as 1948.
The real problem is that I failed to find the word "occupier" in any of the previous legislation. The reason behind that is that in English law an occupier is a rather different person from what he would be under Scots law. For what it is worth, if noble Lords compare Clause 6(2) with its mirror clause, Clause 75(2), they will find that the people there listed are almost exactly reversed.
I have come to the conclusion that to insert the word "occupier" into English legislation could perhaps create a minefield. I am very grateful to my noble friend for tabling the amendment. It was certainly worth airing the issue and the differences involved. I merely wished to point out the result of my research. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
Earl Howe: My Lords, on Report my noble friend Lord Strathclyde explained why the wording of Clause 26 is as it is, and why the equivalent provisions for Scotland are different. There is no need for me to traverse that ground again. However, it may be helpful to the House if I were just to summarise why the Government are completely comfortable with the wording of the Bill.
The occasions when a right of entry is needed will be few and far between. When that right is needed, it

437
is essential that the powers provided by the legislation give the desired result. Clause 26 is based on precedents from rating, both domestic and non-domestic. The wording in the Bill as to notice has operated successfully in England and Wales since 1948. Similarly, the wording used for the Scottish provisions has operated successfully in Scotland since 1928.
The effect of the provisions is precisely what my noble friends say that they are seeking. In practice, notice would be given to the occupier in most cases, although where no one is living in the dwelling, notice to the owner may be more appropriate. Notice to, for example, the next door neighbour—a hypothesis put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour on Report —would not be adequate.
It is fair to say that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has looked at the clause and has detected an apparent lacuna. I ask him to take it from me that there is no such lacuna. If he can take that from me, I would ask him to go further and accept the argument that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Adding the words suggested by the amendment is unlikely to make any difference in the majority of cases. But I am advised that it could in the minority of cases, especially where the occupier and resident are not one and the same person.
My noble friend asked a specific factual question regarding whether there had been problems in getting notices to occupiers. I can tell him that there have not been. Indeed, the increase to "three clear days' notice" in the Bill was to allow people more time to make arrangements to be at home; for example, by getting time off work. I hope that what I have said has reassured both my noble friends. I also hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his support. I must say that I would not have the temerity to involve myself in Scots law, especially from the Back Benches. My noble friend on the Front Bench said:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
He gave me good reason to suppose that it was not broke. But if it becomes broke in the future, I have no doubt that the House will come down on the Government of the day like a ton of bricks. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Precepting and precepted authorities]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 28, line 4, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. I do so because Amendment No. 17 is merely a paving amendment. It is not my intention to repeat the speeches that I made on the matter both in Committee and on Report. However, there are one or two points which I ought to make.
The House will recall that the Local Government Finance Act 1988 changed passenger transport authorities from being precepted authorities to a
438
levying system. Noble Lords will also recall the very powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who argued the case for PTAs being precepting authorities.
In Committee, I proposed an amendment to add metropolitan passenger transport authorities to the list of precepting authorities set out in Clause 39. I commented that the local government Minister had said that representations for the change had been made vigorously to the Minister for Public Transport. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, who replied on behalf of the Government in Committee, said:
"The Government do not have a closed mind on the return to the precepting status. We are alive to the views expressed". [Official Report, 28/1/92; col. 1275.]
As it was clear that the Government were to give serious consideration to the representations so vigorously made, I withdrew the amendment at that stage.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—who I am pleased to say has added his name to the present amendment—proposed an amendment not to insert a statutory provision but instead to give the Secretary of State order-making powers should the Government decide on the principle of PTAs becoming precepting authorities. That was all that the noble Lord's amendment, which I supported, sought to achieve. In other words, if the Government decided that PTAs should become precepting authorities, then the Secretary of State would have powers to issue an order.
I recognise the fact that the noble Earl has always been very courteous and careful in studying the briefs which he has to use. However, I think that it will be agreed that, on Report, he did not deal with the representations which his own Minister said had been made so vigorously. He stated that the Government rejected any change. I am certain that other noble Lords shared my concern that we had been rather let down on the matter. We believed that the Government were giving serious consideration to the representations which, as I said, the Minister said had been made most vigorously. Yet, frankly, we did not hear the arguments as to why the Government had decided not to accept the mild amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot—and I think he will agree that it was a mild amendment—which merely sought to give the Secretary of State order-making powers.
For that reason I am tonight reverting to the original amendment which I proposed in Committee. I am certain that no one will criticise me for bringing it forward on Third Reading. I say that because I withdrew it in Committee and was prepared seriously to consider what the Government had to say on Report; but the reply was unsatisfactory.
It will be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that he had little enthusiasm for the general practice of preception. It will also be recalled that I drew attention to the fact that Clause 39 includes county councils in its list of precepting authorities. No one would believe, or take the view, that a county council could be anything else than a precepting authority so long as county councils still exist.
Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, explained, with the abolition of metropolitan counties the Government provided that the police, fire and transport services should be set up under joint boards. In the main, those bodies have worked satisfactorily. I should like the Minister who is to reply to say why police authorities should be left as precepting authorities but not PTAs. Why should the fire service and civil defence authority be listed under Clause 39 as precepting authorities when the Government will not move on PTAs being precepting authorities? Why should the Northumberland PTA be included but no other PTAs? The Government must give sound reasons as to why they have not been included and why they have not been prepared to include PTAs as precepting authorities under Clause 39. What serious consideration have the Government given to the representations which the Minister said had been so vigorously made on this matter?
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am happy to have put my name to this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I must first apologise to my noble friend Lord Howe because what I took to be an "incompetent" disadvantage on Report was in fact a "concomitant" disadvantage. I am afraid that I had never heard of the word and had to find a dictionary. For the sake of those less well educated, could not the phrase "further disadvantage" have been used rather than "concomitant disadvantage"? I should have understood that. My noble friend now knows that it is because the word "incompetent" is rather stronger than the word "concomitant" that I reacted so loudly.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned my "mild" amendment. I withdrew it because my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom I am happy to see in his place, said strongly that that procedure was unconstitutional. However, there may be a flaw which is the whole reason why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has returned to the amendment today.
As I have said previously, the issue of the precept and the levy is thorny. I now have a totally unscripted speech—on Report I had all the frills and everything with me—but I am now on my own and am probably making an absolute disaster of this as a consequence. The money has simply not got through to the projects as it should have. I mentioned previously all the metropolitan areas, apart from Strathclyde, which the Bill does not affect, and London. All the others have suffered in some way.
I should like to pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the police and fire authorities still have the precept, so why has transport been so very unlucky? Finally, although I do not dispute that my noble friend Lord Jenkin made his case very clear, are we not dripping at the stone despite the fact that one should not have to drip at the stone on a question such as this? The precepting situation has been unsatisfactory since 1958, since we went ahead with levying powers. I hope that if the Government will not reconsider this matter tonight, they will do so in the very near future.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was good enough to refer to an earlier
440
speech of mine in which I expressed a certain lack of enthusiasm for the procedure of precepting. He went on to say that county councils would always have to have the power to precept. I do not want to widen the debate too far, but the Local Government Commission is currently investigating the structure of local government on behalf of the Government. If, as may well be the outcome, only small county councils remain, there may well be no particular reason why they should be precepting authorities and why they should not, on the contrary, have to take the responsibility vis-à-vis the electors and voters of proposing a rate that they are prepared to justify. Your Lordships will recall that the difficulty about precepting is that it is perfectly easy to issue a precept to some other body which must then carry the can for raising the money and obtaining it from the voters. On the whole, that is not a sound procedure.
As to the exclusion of the passenger transport authorities, which is the immediate subject of the amendment, I am prepared to listen to the Minister. There is a remarkable list of those who are given precepting powers, including, I am delighted to see, the sub-treasurer of my own Inn of Court. That is a remarkable tribute to him. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's point about the transport authorities.
Earl Howe: My Lords, during the passage of the Bill we in this House have debated the issue on two previous occasions. In those debates my noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have set out clearly the arguments for making PTAs precepting authorities. As I have made plain in the earlier debates, we have considered very carefully the clear presentation which noble Lords have made in support of precepting status. I have again this afternoon listened carefully to the arguments.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin recognised at Report stage, there is a balance of argument as to whether PTAs are given precepting or levying status. Having looked carefully at all the arguments, our firm conclusion still is that the balance of argument lies fairly and squarely on the side of levying status. It is clear from the debates both in this House and in another place that this is no off-the-cuff or rapid conclusion. We have reached this view after well-measured and lengthy consideration and I have not heard anything this afternoon to sway me to the opposite view.
Before we made PTAs levying bodies, which took place for 1990–91, we believed that as precepting authorities they were insufficiently accountable for their spending decisions. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin explained on Report, by making PTAs levying bodies their spending is effectively lumped together with other district expenditure. We believe that this means that district councillors, both in their roles as councillors and as members of their PTA, will more easily be able to weigh relative spending priorities for the whole range of local services, including transport services. Proper consideration of spending priorities lies at the heart of effective local accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested that if these arguments are right for PTAs, then they apply

441
with equal force to the single service police and fire authorities which are precepting bodies. There is a crucial distinction between police and fire services and transport services. This is that, in the former case, the services depend in large measure on national standards—there are national minimum standards of fire cover, and the establishments of police authorities are a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In short, for police and fire authorities the scope for local discretion on spending priorities is limited. Hence we believe that for these authorities, unlike PTAs, the balance of argument lies in favour of precepting.
Perhaps I may summarise the three principal arguments that have been deployed in favour of precepting status for PTAs. The first is the fact that, with levying, there is no identifiable grant for PTAs. Secondly, with levying status PTAs make progress at the speed of the slowest district. Thirdly, with levying status there have been a number of perceived problems in practice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that I had not done justice to these points in earlier debates, I shall take each in turn briefly. As to having no identifiable grant for the PTA, we see that as a natural consequence of seeking to treat transport spending as simply one element of local spending. I have explained the very great advantages that we see in this. There is no more reason why there should be identifiable grant for transport services than there should be such grant for, say, social services, education or recreation services. I have rarely—I do not think that I have ever —heard arguments that revenue support grant should be hypothecated to particular services.
As to PTAs being restricted to develop at the speed at which the district least committed to transport spending wishes to see, I do not believe that to be the case. No district has a veto over PTA decisions. The number of councillors from each district who are members of a PTA is pro rata to the districts' population. Once on the PTA each member has one vote. I accept that if a majority of members on the PTA, perhaps from only several of the districts concerned, wish to restrict PTA spending, they can do so. But this is no more than the democratic decision of a majority of representatives of the area concerned.
Finally, as to the perceived practical problems, I do not dispute that PTA spending may have increased at a lower rate than other spending on local services. Nor do I dispute the fact that there have been perceived difficulties with certain major projects such as the Supertram in South Yorkshire. On analysis, those practical issues are often no more than a reflection of local spending priorities. In the case of authorities' perceived difficulties in relation to some major capital projects, we have made it clear that we remain as willing as ever to approach those difficulties constructively.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are interested, understandably, to see effective and adequate spending on transport. They are in essence seeking that transport spending should be partially isolated from the normal local democratic
442
processes of deciding spending priorities. Many of their arguments about the perceived problems of levying status simply amount to that.
If local communities have chosen to give priority to spending on services other than transport, that is a matter for them for which they are answerable to their local communities. For understandable reasons noble Lords see that as detrimental. It is not for us here to pre-empt the workings of local democracy. It is not appropriate to debate here the merits of those local choices.
Our case is simple: it is right that those local choices should be made. That is the basis of local accountability. It is our belief that levying status facilitates the making of those choices and hence enhances local accountability. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for offering a far better justification—I do not say that I accept it—for the Government's decision to reject PTAs as precepting bodies than I have hitherto heard. I wish to make one correction. I believe that I referred to the Northumberland PTA as being included in the list under Clause 39. I should have said the Northumberland Police Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that I had said that there would always be county councils with precepting powers. When the Official Report is read your Lordships will see that I did not say that. I am sure I said that no one could imagine county councils not being precepting authorities so long as county councils exist. If I did not use precisely those words, that is what I intended to say.
The Minister said a balance had to be drawn. He gave three reasons why the balance was on the Government's side. If we had had a full debate on the representations made to the Minister, I wonder whether we would have seen that the balance of the argument had come down rightly in the Government's favour. A number of passenger transport executives made powerful representations as to why the present levying procedure was hindering decisions on transport that they wanted to make on a countywide basis. That is one of the main reasons why I support preception.
Transport is vital to region after region in this country. Decisions can be made only on a countywide basis. I am certain that if the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who deals with transport matters, were here, he would nod his head and say that he agreed with that.
On local accountability, I am sure that my noble friends listened carefully to what the Minister said in the light of the discussions we have had on the Bill. Metropolitan district councils have the power to secede from their PTAs. It is strange but not one metropolitan district council has sought to use that power; in other words, district councils are not worried about how PTAs work. There is not much point in me pressing the case to a Division. I still believe that we are right to ask that PTAs should

443
become precepting authorities. I hope that the Government will reconsider whether there should be changes and at some stage use the order-making power that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, wished to have included through the amendment that he moved on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Persons liable to pay council tax]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 51, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any day on which one or more of the persons there mentioned fall to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired) and one or more of them do not; and liability to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day shall be determined as follows—

(a) if only one of those persons does not fall to be so disregarded, he shall be solely liable;

(b) if two or more of those persons do not fall to be so disregarded, they shall be jointly and severally liable.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Liability in prescribed cases]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 51, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) Subsection (4) of section 75 above shall apply for the purposes of subsection (4) above as it applies for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section.").
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Liability of spouses]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 52, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Substituted and reduced settings]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 65, line 26, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule 7 to this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment corrects a minor drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Transitory enforcement provisions for England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
("Rate appeal refunds
—(1) In this section—
(a)"relevant rates" means the aggregate of

(i) any rates which a rating authority within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967 has repaid under section 79(2) (a) of that act in respect of any period of rate prior to 1st April 1990 in consequence of any relevant alteration; and

444

(ii) any rates which a rating authority has refunded under section 9(1) (a) of the General Rate Act 1967 in consequence of a relevant alteration, and

(b) "a relevant alteration" means any alteration made in a valuation list by virtue of sections 71 to 78 of that Act after 1st April 1990.
(2) In the chargeable financial year commencing 1st April 1992 a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to relevant rates repaid by it prior to 1st April 1993 in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(3) In any subsequent chargeable financial year a charging authority shall be entitled to deduct and retain from the amount (the provisional amount) which it is liable to pay to the Secretary of State for that year under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act an amount equal to the relevant rates repaid by it during that financial year in consequence of any relevant alteration.
(4) For each chargeable financial year from 1st April 1992, the Secretary of State shall credit to the account kept by him under Part I of Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act a sum received from the Treasury equal to the aggregate of the amounts deducted and retained by charging authorities during such year pursuant to subsections (2) and (3) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the difficult problem of refunds on rate appeals for non-domestic properties running back to before the introduction of the poll tax. The matter was debated on Report when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, told us that the Secretary of State proposed to make an allowance of supplementary credit approvals to deal with the problem that a number of local authorities face of sometimes owing millions of pounds in respect of rating appeals which took place a long time ago. I shall not again raise the issue of principle as to what should be done about the problem. We have debated it at some length. I made it clear on Report that the issue of supplementary credit approvals—making local authorities pay for those appeals but allowing them to pay for them over a number of years rather than immediately —was a second, third or fourth-best solution and that we would rather that the Government had taken responsibility for what, after all, is a considerable national problem. However, it has been done.
Events have moved fast since Report stage. Local authorities had to get their bids for supplementary credit approvals in by Tuesday. I was glad to learn from the Minister that Mr. Portillo has decided to issue £9.5 million of supplementary credit approvals for 1991–92.
The purpose of moving the amendment is not to re-open the major issue but to try to find out what that approval means. The Minister said at the beginning that the Government would issue supplementary credit approvals above a given threshold for a percentage of local authorities' obligations. From the figures that I have it is difficult to calculate the threshold or the percentage. Newham is being allowed a supplementary credit approval of £3.225 million out of a cost of something like £6 million; Newcastle, £1.955 million out of a cost of £8 million; Camden, £1.391 million out of a cost of £3 million; and Gateshead only £941,000 out of a cost of £5 million. The figures appear to be erratic. That is presumably

445
because the threshold is a percentage of the council's total budget. Can the Minister tell us the threshold and the percentage?
Beyond that, there are two issues of policy on which we should like ministerial answers. First, what percentage of the applications have been granted? In other words, how much was asked for by the deadline on Tuesday? How much is being granted and on what basis has the percentage been worked out?
I come to the second issue. Presumably the amount comes from supplementary credit approvals unused in 1991–92. How much more in supplementary credit approvals is available which is still unused after this award? The more fundamental point is not really a question because I know that Ministers will not be able to answer it. What the public will wish to know is a point of political importance: what effect will residual costs, not covered by supplementary credit approvals, have on poll tax levels in 1992–93? If the Minister can give an answer to the third question, we shall really be getting somewhere. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment, which the House has discussed both in Committee and on Report, seeks to make quite inappropriate and unacceptable arrangements for dealing with the cost to local authorities of what are termed late rating adjustments. These adjustments take the form, in the main, of refunds to former ratepayers. They result from rating appeals for 1989–90 and earlier years which have been decided after the introduction of the current system.
The costs of these adjustments are shared between tiers of authorities, reflecting the fact that all authorities shared the rate income in the first place. As the noble Lord has said, in inner London this means that some costs are passed on to the London Residuary Body as successor to the Inner London Education Authority, since the ILEA was one of the principal beneficiaries of the original rate income.
I should tell the House that in essence the effect of the amendment is to relieve the authorities of any responsibility for meeting such costs. It would mean that they were met, instead, by the national taxpayer. We do not believe that such a course of action can possibly be justified. As I have made clear, local authorities originally received the rate income which has, in effect, been found to have been overstated. In part at least, the costs which they now face are directly related to their own past rating decisions. It would not be right to allow them to take the benefit, but ask the national taxpayer to foot the bill.
I am in some difficulty because the noble Lord appeared not to be talking specifically to the amendment but asking a series of questions for information. The answer to the point on the threshold is that it is 1 per cent. of an authority's budget. Credit approval covers 100 per cent. above that figure.
The noble Lord also asked what percentage of applications had been granted and whether there were any other unused credit approvals. These are matters for information and I shall give him a full reply in
446
writing if he will accept it. They do not seem to relate specifically to the amendment on the Marshalled List, which I hope will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is quite right. I was using the amendment as a convenient way of aiming at a rapidly moving target, if I may put it that way. Things have changed considerably since last week. I am glad to have had the figures which the Minister gave me and I am grateful for her assurance that she will write to me about the other matters. Perhaps she would also write to me about my final question on the effect of the residual costs not covered by SCAs on poll tax levels in 1992–93. I quite appreciate that she could not answer now, but if she would include the information in her letter, then I would be grateful. On receiving an indication that she will attempt to do so—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should put it on record now that I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord on all these matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Penalties]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Enforcement: England and Wales]:
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham had given notice of her intention to move Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
Page 103, line 6, leave out ("has made") and insert ("makes").
Page 103, line 7, after ("may") insert ("at the same hearing or subsequently apply to").
Page 103, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
("(2) Regulations under this paragraph shall provide that before granting a warrant for distress under sub-paragraph (1) above the court shall be satisfied that the authority has given the opportunity for the debtor to pay by weekly or fortnightly intervals (at no additional cost to the payer) on account of not less than an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State in regulation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32. I gave notification to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I wished to correct the third amendment. Amendment No. 32 states:
"Page 103, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—"
This was a mistake for which I apologise. The first line of the amendment should read:
"Page 103, line 15, at end insert—".
With the amendments, we turn to two issues. Local authorities should not adopt the use of bailiffs until the debtor has been given a chance to meet the debt by paying reasonable weekly or fortnightly instalments with a de minimis to be determined by the Secretary of State. We recall the debates in your Lordships' House which touched on the issues of bailiffs on the one hand and of the weekly or fortnightly de minimis payments on the other. The amendment has been given added—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness intending to take the opinion of the House? If so, there

447
ought to be a manuscript amendment because I for one have no idea what the amendment we are discussing states or where it comes in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that a manuscript amendment or any textual amendment is unacceptable at Third Reading; it would not be appropriate and therefore the amendment on the Marshalled List is defective.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I shall obviously accept the spirit of the House. The paragraph remains the same. If your Lordships are not agreeable, then so be it. I understand that a manuscript amendment is not acceptable. I notified the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, before lunch and I understood that it would be acceptable to pursue the matter. However, as an inexperienced Member of your Lordships' House, I obviously defer to the spirit of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the difficulty is that most of us are not the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or whoever else was told. These are technical amendments and one needs to be able to insert them into the Bill where appropriate. I suspect that the Companion to the Standing Orders makes it unacceptable for the House to discuss something other than what is printed on the Marshalled List at this stage.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the outset. It seems to me that if the noble Baroness wishes to move these three amendments, ordinarily the House would allow her to do so, even though one may not be in its proper form. What would not be acceptable is if the noble Baroness sought to insert them into the Bill by pressing the matter to a Division. However, I see no reason why she should not speak to them. I know of no standing order or any other provision that would prevent her from doing so.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, surely we are on the Third Reading of a Bill and nothing may be spoken to which is not on the Marshalled List. That is plain and obvious.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if it would be helpful, I can quote from the Companion in regard to Third Readings:
"Except for privilege amendments, which are moved without notice, notice of amendments must be given in sufficient time to enable them to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is proposed to move them. Manuscript amendments are not permitted".
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that is absolutely right. Manuscript amendments are not permitted. The House is usually generous in allowing someone to say what they wish, but obviously in the highly charged political atmosphere which is only too explicit on the face of the noble Lord, I believe it would be much better if the noble Baroness did not move her amendments on this occasion. Otherwise heat might be engendered.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may say so, I believe that that remark was rather unkind. This is
448
Third Reading. We are now in the final stages of the Bill and I do not believe that there is anything political or difficult about the matter. Looks on people's faces have more to do with the fact that, if we discuss the subject simply for the sake of discussing it, at this stage of the Bill it could be described as time-wasting.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the problem is that Amendment No. 32 mentions a warrant for distress. That is not a fact of life. A court does not grant a warrant for distress; it makes a liability order which authorises the local authority to distrain. In paragraph (7) of Schedule 4, noble Lords will find a reference to that. Thus, we should not debate the matter any further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I am not permitted to move the amendments then I shall not do so. It is a pity that that is the case as I understood from conversations with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there might not have been much between us on this matter. If I had been allowed to move the amendment, it would have given me an opportunity to place on record government policy on the matter of bailiffs where the Government have quite generously worked within the spirit of the House and have moved forward. The matter of weekly or fortnightly payments is of continuing concern to the House. It seemed to me I had an opportunity to restate the case. Perhaps the noble Earl could have indicated the Government's thinking. However, I can only be ruled by the conventions of the House. If the House requires it, I shall not move the amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Social Security: Council Tax Benefit.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 115, line 41, at end insert:
("(2A) In relation to any council tax benefit, the applicable amount in the case of a person aged between 18 and 24 years inclusive shall not be a lower amount than would apply to a person aged between 25 and 59 years inclusive, solely on account of the age of the former person.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the final amendment on the Marshalled List. It concerns the single person. We are again faced with the issue of DSS benefits which relate to income being projected onto DoE considerations of what counts as a household. There is an interface here between DSS considerations of income support and DoE considerations of a household and therefore liability to the council tax. I seek to probe that area with this amendment.
As we have revealed, uncovered, been told or learnt in both Committee and on Report, the social security system allocates lower rates of income support for the under 25s on the grounds that they tend to have lower earnings and government policy seeks to avoid an unduly favourable rate of benefit which might act as a work disincentive. On other occasions I might wish to take issue with that concept as income support levels assume a per hour payment of barely £ 1. Whether they are under or over 25 years of age must have little relevance to whether young people do or do not enter

449
work. However I accept that that situation exists and that to remedy it would cost some £250 million or thereabouts. That is probably too wide and too expensive an adjustment to make to the Bill at this point in time.
But if there is a logic for lower rates of personal income support—as I say, we may be divided on that matter but I shall not pursue it now—I would argue that that cannot apply to council tax and to housing benefit which are not so much personal income support as income support one receives by virtue of being a householder. Only a small number of under 25s are householders. That is not because they mostly live with parents—barely half do—but because they live with other young people in multi-person households. We wish to emphasise that those young people who are under 25 and who are householders—they may be 23 or 24 years of age—face exactly the same bills as those faced by people over 25 years of age. Nevertheless the income support levels for those under 25 are lower. They are faced with the same outgoings and have lower incomes and they also face a more severe rebate scheme.
A 24 year-old pays the same rent as a 26 year-old who lives in an identical flat next door. The 24 year-old faces identical water rates and virtually identical electricity and gas bills. The 24 year-old will pay much the same as the 26 year-old to furnish his flat and he will pay much the same to clean it and to insure it. As a householder the 24 year-old faces identical costs to a 26 year-old, but he is penalised twice over for not yet being 25 years of age. He receives a lower income support level and he faces a harsher rebate system with which to meet his council tax and his rent. Logic suggests that if he receives a lower level of income support, he needs a more and not less generous rebate scheme to meet the same outgoings as the 26 year-old householder.
This amendment quite clearly ring-fences the householder element. It reflects, as it were, the property base of the tax. Property bills remain the same whatever the age of the tenant. The amendment also ring-fences the householder for another reason. Whereas income support is normally issued through local benefit offices and benefit agencies, benefits to meet the council tax and housing costs—the local authority benefits—are paid through local authorities. Therefore they can be easily identified and easily ring-fenced. As I have said, were this amendment to apply to income support, the cost of implementing it would be £250 million. However, we are not asking for that.
As regards the council tax, it would not cost £250 million to eliminate the deduction that applies to those householders who are under 25. It would not even cost £100 million. It would cost just £5 million. To get rid of the age deduction for housing benefit—I understand that that can be altered by regulation, so it is appropriate to brigade it here—would cost just £25 million. If we ring-fence those two benefits on the grounds of equity—the benefits concern households —and also because they are the only two benefits that are handled by local authorities, the total cost of such
450
a measure would be £30 million. To implement the measure solely as regards council tax would cost just £5 million. I suggest to your Lordships that local authorities would virtually save that money in saving the administrative charges that arise in differentiating between those who are under 25 and those who are over 25. I hope noble Lords will support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a quite extraordinary speech. She accepted that the amendment relates purely to council tax benefit, but she said it must also extend to housing benefit. That is not my reading of the amendment. I understand that it relates purely to council tax benefit. We resist it on the grounds that, in all equity, if an amendment such as this—which I strongly resist—was accepted, its provisions would have to extend to housing benefit and then on to all other income related benefits. The noble Baroness has always rejected that idea. Now she says, despite the fact the amendment is couched purely in terms of council tax benefit, that it should somehow relate to another benefit even though that is not stated in the amendment. I do not criticise the amendment for being defective, but it is defective in terms of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. Now the noble Baroness is saying the amendment will also extend to housing benefit.
I do not think that I can take the noble Baroness much further. I have explained on many previous occasions, not just on this Bill, that the benefit system recognises the independent status of couples and lone parents for whom there is no age divide above 18. Neither of these groups will therefore be affected by the lower rate of benefit for young single people. They are also entitled to all the other premiums appropriate, for example, for families or for disabled people. The effect of these rules is that all young people claiming community charge benefit, and from 1993, council tax benefit will be left with at least their income support applicable amount to live on after paying their contribution towards local services.
The amendment of the noble Baroness would not help 18 to 24 year-olds on income support. They will not have to pay anything by way of council tax unless their claim is affected by a non-dependant who lives with them. Indeed the effect of the amendment would be to help only those single under 25 year-old householders without children whose incomes are above income support levels. In order to help single 18 to 24 year-olds on income support, the over 25 adult rate would have to be extended to them as well implying higher expenditure on income support of around £300 million.
If we confined the amendment purely to its wording on the Marshalled List, it would incur extra expenditure of some £5 million. If we followed the spirit of the amendment of the noble Baroness—that is as regards council tax benefit and housing benefit —we would incur expenditure of about £30 million.
There are inevitably many conflicting demands on the social security programme, including families with children, that many noble Lords might consider have a higher priority than under 24 year-olds who do not yet have family responsibilities. I know the noble

451
Baroness will say it is only a matter of £30 million to apply to under 24 year-olds the adult rate of benefit in housing benefit and in the proposed council tax benefit scheme. However, your Lordships ought to be aware that resources for the social security system are provided by taxpayers and that we in government have a responsibility to spend their money wisely. Inevitably choices have to be made. I must tell the House that the Government do not consider that single householders aged under 25 without children whose incomes are above income support levels should have priority compared to, for example, lone parents of the same age. For those reasons I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. Should she fail to withdraw her amendment, I certainly advise the House to reject it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was sorry to hear the Minster's response. Throughout his response he drew an analogy between lone parents and single young householders under 25 without children who are above the income support level. I did not make that comparison at any point. I made the comparison between a 24 year-old single householder without children above income support level and the 26 year-old single person without children above income support level.
That was the analogy, and at no point has the noble Lord sought to defend that discrimination between the 24 year-old and the 26 year-old who have identical household bills.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way, I said that the Government have to make very difficult decisions in terms of the allocation of social security resources. Fortunately, the noble Baroness will never have to make such decisions but, on the premise that difficult decisions have occasionally to be made, we do not consider the single adult householder under 25 without children to be a high priority.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was not asking for a high priority. I was asking for fairness between under 25 year-olds—23 and 24 year-olds—and 25 and 26 year-olds in identical situations with identical needs and outgoings. Although the noble Lord may, even at this late stage, be cracking unacceptable political remarks, some of the decisions, problems and issues will be very much welcomed by our side as an attempt to restore greater fairness to the social security system, which, during the past 13 years, has severely eroded the position of the poorest and the disabled.
As for the cost, we were talking about £5 million for council tax and £25 million for housing benefit. I was entirely frank about the fact that going for council benefit has consequential implications for housing benefit, and it stops there not because of any thin-end-of-the-wedge argument but because those two, benefits unlike the others, are householder and, secondly, they are administered by the local authority.
The Minister asked where that money might be found. It was not so very long ago in this House that
452
Members opposite were defending a situation in which some 30 district councils were going to receive £45 million more in Exchequer finance per year, this year and next year, than they were going to spend. They actually had £45 million left over per year from Government grant to district councils. Not only were the Government so flush with funds that they did not need to withdraw them back to the Exchequer but they were going to give them to the county councils to reduce their precept. It ill behoves the Minister to talk about high priorities and not being able to afford this, that and the other when the Government throw at a problem that does not exist money which they could have clawed back to the Exchequer. That sum alone would have funded this provision, before we come to any other issues such as discounts. But it is late, and, with the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. We are now at the end of the proceedings on this Bill, which has received thorough scrutiny. We have had six days in Committee and three days on report, and 62 noble Lords have contributed to the debate. A number of improvements have been made to the Bill, and once again the House has proved its value as a forum for detailed scrutiny and revision of legislation.
Throughout the discussion on this Bill noble Lords opposite have argued that the council tax system is unfair and complex, and that it will be unworkable. Not only do we believe that view to be misplaced but we also believe that the council tax will prove to be infinitely preferable to the alternative schemes which have been the subject of amendments throughout the passage of this Bill—for example, the system of local income tax with its burdensome bureaucracy advocated by the Social and Liberal Democrats, or the Labour Party's plan for an immediate return to the old 19 years out-of-date rating system with its iniquities and inequities. They would follow that with further legislation for another rating system involving annual valuations of properties based on capital values, rental values, rebuilding and repair costs, and linked with household incomes. That would indeed be unfair, complex and extremely bureaucratic.
All this would be accompanied by the plan to return non-domestic rates to local authorities without the protection of rate poundages not being increased above the rate of inflation. And furthermore a Labour Government would not be concerned about, nor would they exercise any control over, the total of local government expenditure. Those matters will be choices at the forthcoming election.
The council tax will, subject to parliamentary approval, be on the statute book in a few days' time. Therefore there can be no doubt about the importance of this Bill. It sets out a basis for local government finance which is fair, straightforward and stable. It is fair because it recognises that no household should be called on to pay an excessive amount towards the provision of local services. It is fair to single adult households. Most adults living on their own are over 60. It is right that they should pay less than

453
households with two or more adults. It is fair because it ensures that people on low incomes and vulnerable groups are helped through generous rebates of up to 100 per cent. of liability. It is fair because it ensures that regional differences in house prices do not result in excessive bills in high priced areas.
The council tax is also straightforward. It will be easier to administer than the community charge. There will be only half the number of bills. Many of those now liable for the community charge will have no liability at all under the new system. With council tax bills based on properties, collection difficulties should therefore be minimised.
There will be no need for a register. Most households will receive, and pay, a standard bill. There is no need for the local authority to concern itself with the number and status of adults in those households. Authorities will need to know only the name of the liable person. Amendments made to the Bill in your Lordships' House will ensure that they have the powers they need to establish that person's identity. But they will have no power to set up a general register of all adults, which is not necessary.
The discount system is straightforward. Authorities will have a duty to try to establish the discount entitlement of households. But where they have no information about a household they will be able to assume that it is subject to a standard bill. It is for households wishing to claim a discount to supply the information necessary to verify the claim.
The council tax will provide stability for local authorities. The tax base will remain fairly constant from year to year. The number of dwellings in an area is not subject to significant change. Movement of people will have much less effect than under the community charge, since in most cases it will not change the amount of tax to be collected from each household.
The timetable for implementation is challenging; but much has already been done to ensure that local authorities are well placed to have the new system working in April 1993. The Government issued detailed guidelines on implementation to all local authorities last October.
We have established regular discussions with local authority practitioners about the technicalities of the new system. We have issued a user requirements specification for council tax computer systems to help local authorities in their discussions with suppliers. We have already drafted and consulted on the major council tax regulations, and they will be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. Detailed practice notes are being prepared, and will be issued to local authorities very soon. Throughout the next 13 months, my department, and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, will continue to do everything possible to assist local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the new tax.
I should like to conclude by thanking the House for its forbearance throughout our deliberations. I mentioned that 62 noble Lords had contributed to this debate. I hope I can be forgiven for naming but a few. In particular I should like to thank the noble
454
Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her courtesy and for presenting, as she always does, an intellectual challenge which has served to keep me and my noble friends on their toes. I also thank her colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson and Lady Seear, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am grateful, too, for the customary informed, lively and robust but always courteous contributions from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Their colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, Lord Dean of Beswick, Lord Underhill and Lord Desai, have ensured that the Government's case for the council tax has been properly challenged. We must thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Renfrew for throwing in the odd economics lesson—without a fee, I may add. We have all benefited from their expertise in these matters.
Our debates have also been enriched by the contributions of Cross-Benchers: the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Monson, the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane, Lady O'Caithain and Lady Masham, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.
The support and involvement of my noble friends on these Benches have proved invaluable. They have proffered much constructive criticism and helpful advice. I therefore wish to record my thanks to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord Balfour, Lord Renfrew, Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Cockfield, Lord Wise and Lord Mottistone and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone; as well as to my noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Swinton, Lord Mountgarret, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Teviot, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Lord Mancroft, Lady Gardner, Lady Carnegy and Lady Faithfull. All have contributed valuably to the various stages of the Bill.
The officials in my department, in the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Social Security, have served my Front Bench team with great professionalism and much patience, and I wish to thank them for that.
Finally, I have been most fortunate to have had the support of my Front Bench colleagues. My noble friend Lord Henley has dealt with matters such as benefit, disabled persons and other sensitive issues. He has fielded the most difficult amendments with immense skill. I have to say that he only allowed the noble Lords opposite to defeat him on one amendment out of nostalgia for the more exciting times on social security Bills.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde proved extremely dextrous in bringing to bear his knowledge of matters Scottish combined with readiness to field both English and Welsh amendments. My noble friend Lord Howe has more than proved his competence in dealing with the intricacies of this Bill which was unfamiliar territory for him. I am most appreciative of his support both within and outside this House.

455
This Bill and its sister, the Local Government Bill, which your Lordships considered earlier in the session, are the result of a thorough review of local government. Taken together they will provide a stable basis for the provision of local services for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is all too easy for those of us who have taken an active part in the Bill in all its stages and therefore have sometimes been obsessed by the details, to forget what an extraordinary parliamentary occasion this has been. When else has there been in a single Parliament a major piece of legislation—the flagship of the Government's election manifesto in 1987—passed by Parliament (as this was in 1988) only to be defeated and overturned within the same Parliament? It is an extraordinary state of affairs. It would be a politeness to say that it is an example of the Grand Old Duke of York marching his troops up the hill and down again.
Rather, what seems to have happened is that the Government dug themselves into an enormous hole and have been scrambling around trying to find a way out of it while incurring as little political, social and economic damage as possible. Such damage however was not only possible, it was inevitable; and that is what happened. I do not care about the political damage: that is a problem with which the Conservative Party will have to deal over the forthcoming weeks. But it would be wrong to forget the huge social and economic damage as well as damage to the relationship between central and local government and, above all, damage to respect for the law, which has been caused by the extraordinary enterprise of introducing and abandoning the poll tax within the course of one Parliament.
In the course of that extraordinary activity far more members of the public than ever before found themselves in the position of being law breakers. They did not want to be law breakers but they were faced with a tax which was profoundly unjust. They were confronted with a tax which in the name of accountability—now abandoned—insisted on charging the same amount to every person however poor. I cannot underestimate the extent to which the country has been sorely tried by that escapade. I still feel a sense of astonishment that at no stage have Ministers, Members of the Government or members of the Conservative Party felt it appropriate to apologise to the people of this country for what they put them through.
It will readily be admitted that the council tax, which replaces the poll tax, is a more complex tax than the poll tax was originally intended to be. No doubt it is a better tax—anything is better than the poll tax. But the principle behind it has been to climb out of the hole of the poll tax with as little damage as possible to the pockets of Conservative voters. Indeed, that is why we have a half return to the rating system and a half return to the property tax—literally half: 50 per cent. return to the property tax—but on a base which is as
456
flat and regressive as it has been possible to force through Parliament without retaining the poll tax itself.
This is a thoroughly bad tax and a thoroughly bad addition to the long history of financing local government in this country. It is a tax which will have to be modified quickly and as soon as possible changed radically under a new government. I take no pleasure in having taken part in these two Bills. I do not feel that we have contributed—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—"any net legislative utility" in the actions we have taken in Parliament in response to those Bills. On the contrary, I believe that the Government have done enormous damage and will come to regret that damage if they have not already done so.
I return to what are usually called the niceties of the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. First, I want to express my heartfelt thanks in particular to my noble friend Lady Hollis who has borne at least 50 per cent. of the burden of this Bill. She undertook to cover a large part of the Bill —the benefits part, in which she is extremely expert—and handled it with aplomb and enormous skill. I should like to express my appreciation of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her noble friends, which has been in considerable contrast to the differences which emerged between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party in another place. I hope that she will feel with me that the fact that we have been able to work so well together is a good omen. I am grateful to all my other noble friends who have already been named by the Minister for the work that they have done on the Bill. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Underhill, who is still with us at this last stage. With sincerity I express my appreciation of the work of the very large Government team. We must be very honoured to have facing us on this Bill three Ministers and a Whip. In many respects and on many occasions they have upheld the best traditions of this House.
I must say both to Ministers and other noble Lords opposite that on this Bill there has been a very unpleasant outbreak of election fever, which has been entirely inappropriate to the work that I believe we do in this House. Time after time, instead of responding to the criticisms of the Bill and defending it, Ministers have chosen to attack their version of what they conceive to be Labour Party policy. A number of noble Lords opposite, including Ministers but also noble Lords who came into the debates and participated briefly before leaving, have continued to repeat the straightforward lie that the Labour Party is in favour of law-breaking.
It happened so often that I cannot let the occasion pass without expressing my distaste for that procedure and the way in which it has taken place. My view, which I have stuck to all the way through the proceedings, is that the purpose of this House is to act as a revising Chamber. Therefore, the proper subject of our debates has been this Bill and not a second or third-hand version, filtered through Conservative Central Office, of what the Government think is Labour Party policy. I can also see it happening on the Education (Schools) Bill. I can only say that if it

457
continues between now and the general election, the damage done to this House, from something which in another place Mr. Speaker firmly ruled out of order, will be immense. The situation is very serious when we are reduced to that level of debate.
This is a bad Bill. It has been defended with great skill by Ministers opposite and opposed with skill and determination by my noble friends and others, in particular noble Lords on the Cross Benches. I am grateful to all who have taken part.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too must welcome the end of the poll tax which was driven through Parliament with such determination and against wise counsel, which very quickly was seen to be right. I am sad that we have not taken advantage of the occasion of this Bill to end for the last year of the poll tax the 20 per cent. provision which is a matter with which we could have dealt and for which we would have been thanked very much.
I find the council tax an uneasy conjunction of a personal tax and a property tax. I found it more complex, the more I heard the House consider it. My worries about the cost of administering it and how far it would be understood by taxpayers have increased at each stage of the Bill. However, in saying that, I hope that I shall not be thought to be suggesting that anyone in local government—I find it hard sometimes not to wear two hats at the same time—will not do his best to explain it and ease its passage.
As I have said, no doubt at boring and inordinate length, I believe that the banding system will cause problems for the future as anxieties rise to the surface from among those who find themselves under what they consider to be the wrong regime. I am sad that we do not have a tax that better reflects people's ability to pay, as I believe a local income tax would do. Such a tax could be added on to existing administrative arrangements in a much simpler and more straightforward way than the Bill provides.
It is right to acknowledge that there have been important amendments to the Bill. I am impressed by the fact that the Minister listens carefully to all that is said. She may not necessarily agree with it, but she takes on board the comments that are made. Where she has sensed anxieties I am sure that she will continue to consider them in the context of regulations. I thank the Minister for that reassurance. Perhaps I should not speak for others, but I am reassured, as are other noble Lords on the Front Bench, to know that what is said is listened to carefully.
I am not sure how to respond to the public wooing that we have witnessed recently. My right honourable friend the Leader of the Party has a phrase about picking up the phone and knowing what you will say before you do so. Perhaps that may be my response.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for the experience of working with him on many amendments. Some have been directed towards small but very deserving sectors of our society. I shall not list them, but I thank my noble friends who have assisted me on these Benches in moving amendments on matters about which they have been concerned. Like
458
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I suspect that it is a case of sitting back and seeing how the Bill goes. I am sorry that I do not predict a better future for the tax.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
7.53 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

London Underground Bill
7.54 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Power to make works]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("subject to section 4(5) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 2. The second amendment is the substantive one. It proposes that work will not proceed as set out in the amendment unless London Underground is satisfied,
"that a survey of the foundations of all works has been carried out".
The amendment may sound a little bland and general but perhaps I may explain the reason behind it. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give me some assurance that the anxieties of the people who are affected by the works will be taken on board. That would be extremely helpful.
The specific anxiety is in respect of the Canada Estate in Rotherhithe. It is a small council estate of about 250 homes. Its residents consist of a large number of pensioners and unemployed people. The estate was built in the early 1960s and shows some of the problems that we have encountered only too frequently on estates built in some haste during that period. It is in poor repair. It has been a victim of considerable social transformation as the dockland developments have taken place with tenants having to contend with years of dirt, noise and traffic.
The community is anxious about the estate. The new Jubilee Line will run under it and rise towards the Canada Water station. Residents fear that the rising of the line will cause increased noise and vibration. Their fears for the condition of the estate were confirmed last summer when cladding began to fall off the high rise blocks. The estate consists of two high rise blocks with low rise blocks in between. The matter was serious enough for a survey of the structure of the tower blocks to be recommended by the Select Committee. Since last summer cladding and bricks have been falling off and the tenants have, through pressure, achieved netting around the blocks which reduces danger of injury.
Their concern is that the study was only of the two high rise blocks and not of the low rise blocks which they fear are in an even worse state of repair. The foundations have not been investigated. To say that they believe this may be putting the matter too strongly, but they are extremely anxious that the poor condition of the estate will lead it almost literally to fall apart when the line is built.
The Select Committee was anxious about the matter. It took the view that it should be left to the local authority which owns the estate to use its judgment and to deal with the matter. The Select Committee report states:
"We acknowledge the perfectly reasonable worries of the Canada Estate residents. The condition of their blocks is wretched. We record our astonishment that no detailed evidence could be produced to the Committee as to the nature of the foundations of these tower blocks".
I appreciate that it is a late stage at which to raise the issue, but it has been raised throughout. Given the very considerable and real anxieties of the residents who believe that they have had to keep on shouting their cause in order to achieve movement, it is right that the matter should be raised now. I hope that the noble Baroness will give the residents some comfort in her response. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that anything that I say on the Bill is in a purely personal capacity, even though I speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made a sound case for her amendment. In that respect I wish to support it.
The noble Baroness quoted from paragraph 22 of the Select Committee's report. The last sentence states:
"Recognising, however, that the residents need to be reassured the promoters have offered to analyse core samples from the blocks' foundations".
I do not profess to be an expert in English. However, that sentence does not appear to satisfy the points made by the noble Baroness. I rise to support her amendment.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I rise on behalf of a majority of the members of the committee to say a few words about the amendment. The noble Baroness correctly described the plight of the inhabitants of the housing estate. The exterior cladding has become a source of danger to passing inhabitants, accidents being prevented only by a sub-structure of scaffolding erected to catch the bricks or tiles as they fall.
The committee had considerable sympathy with the inhabitants in their plight. However, several other factors were brought to its attention which were important in forming an objective judgment. First, the blocks—in particular the tower blocks—are structurally sound. The girders and main uprights are in a vertical position and during the 30 years of their construction have not suffered any damage that the experts can detect. There was some anxiety about the foundations. Although the building is only about 30 years old the plans for the foundations could not be found. Despite vigorous requests from the committee, when it wrote its report the plans had still not been found.
460
However, throughout the length of its inquiry the committee had the expert evidence of an exceptional witness. The evidence of Professor Burland was sensible, intelligent, objective and well-informed. In large measure it went unchallenged. I believe that on the whole the committee accepted virtually without reservation his forecast of what would happen if the tunnels were driven underneath the housing estate. Professor Burland foresaw no problems of subsidence. He said that it did not matter whether the foundations proved to be of a rough type—which is slightly less stable than the conventional type—or pile driven. He said that it did not matter which of those two foundations were used; they would adequately resist the tunnelling operations and the subsequent operating of the tube line under the housing estate. I believe that the committee was convinced by his evidence.
Nonetheless, as is reflected in the report, we could well understand the anxiety of the citizens living in the blocks. Viewing their estate in the condition that it now stands, and knowing that tunnels are going to be driven underneath it, their apprehension is perfectly understandable. I hope that they were reassured, as was the committee, by the evidence that the tunnels would cause no further deterioration to the buildings in the Canada Estate.
I have one question to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Her amendment reads:
"a survey of the foundations of all works has been carried out".
Perhaps I missed part of her opening remarks but I am not sure whether the amendment is directed solely to the Canada Estate or whether it is intended to cover a broader sphere of operation including all the works in Newham and Southwark. If the latter is the case, I respectfully suggest that that is impracticable.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Government a question on this issue. No one has mentioned the fact that the promoters offered to loan money to the local authority in order to carry out the repairs. They did so partly to increase the morale of the people living on the estate. The local authority was told by the Department of the Environment that if it accepted the loan it would have to take the equivalent amount of money out of its ordinary programme. In view of the exceptional nature of the project perhaps the Government can make an exception and allow the local authority to borrow money from the promoters in order to carry out the repairs without putting a charge on the rest of their priorities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate if I answered the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, at this point. The housing revenue account subsidy determination requires authorities to reduce their HRA subsidy credit ceiling by any grant, contribution or compensation received in respect of works. It also requires authorities to treat any grant, contribution or compensation payments received in the form of annual loan charges in respect of works to

461
be treated as reckonable income and that reduces their entitlement to subsidy on a pound-to-pound basis. That matter is currently under review.
Notwithstanding that, the London borough of Southwark should be aware—and I hope that it is aware—that it is always open to authorities to present a case seeking a special determination from the Secretary of State to disapply the requirement for grant towards works to be used to reduce subsidy. I hope that I have clarified the issue.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his committee, which listened to a great deal of evidence. My point of view is purely personal. In putting it forward I wish to reassure those people living in the blocks concerned. As some noble Lords will know, I live within 18 or 20 feet of the Bakerloo Line. I do not live in a block, I live in a basement. I can assure the residents that one becomes used to the fact that the Underground rattles up and down beside one. In fact, one becomes so used to it that one does not notice it. I can also assure them that, although during the many years that I have lived in my building, which is fairly substantial but not a tower block, we have had a few problems, we have never had one relating to the fact that the Underground is close to us.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment so clearly. I was not entirely clear about its intention. I have technical problems with the amendment in that it appears to be defective. The proposed clause and its numbering system does not make sense when it is incorporated into the Bill. The proposed clause requests a survey of the foundations of all works. However, as the works and their foundations do not yet exist, London Transport cannot survey them. That is the technical problem.
I appreciate, however, that the substance of her second amendment is of much greater importance and I shall concentrate on that in my reply. It is important for the noble Baroness to know that London Transport is aware of the anxieties of the people affected. Indeed, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, it was willing to make an interest-free loan in order to help but that was not appropriate. It is natural for everyone to be anxious, in particular for elderly people. My home subsided and had to be demolished and rebuilt and therefore I know how unnerving the situation is. I have seen the blocks and found them disturbing to look at. However, experts from London Underground have inspected them and found them to be structurally stable. In order to reassure the residents, they are now in the process of arranging foundation investigations of both the high-rise and low-rise blocks, which the noble Baroness queried. Monitoring is already under way. An analysis of the type of concrete is being commissioned. All that has been agreed in writing with the borough of Southwark as the owner of the blocks.
462
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure residents that every necessary step is being taken. In those circumstances, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that and for the comments of other noble Lords. As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, when I saw the amendment I realised that there was a problem with the drafting. I apologise to your Lordships for that. That matter was raised with me about 10 minutes before the amendment had to be tabled and I agreed it over the telephone. I thought that it was more important to raise the substance of the matter rather than ensuring that the wording was perfect. For that reason, if for no other, I could not pursue the matter this evening.
I am glad to hear the reassurances about the investigation of the low-rise as well as the high-rise blocks. The noble Baroness appreciated that that is indeed the point. The continued encouragement given by both this House and another place to London Underground to conduct the necessary surveys will reassure the tenants. It is obviously important that London Underground should make available information. The residents will listen to the generalities and reassurances, but they will also wish to see the detail of the investigations and that will be extremely welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 36 [For protection of London Residuary Body]:
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 30, line 20, leave out ("not") and insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was my first experience as a member of a major committee. I should like to place on record my thanks to the chairman and other members of the committee for making it an original and extremely pleasant exercise.
I have no doubt that most noble Lords in the House know about Jubilee Gardens. However, it is my duty to sketch in the background of Jubilee Gardens and then to go on to the purpose of the amendment.
Jubilee Gardens were laid down in 1977 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the reign of the Queen, hence the name Jubilee Gardens. Of course, there was also a Jubilee Walk. When the Bill was first proposed by the promoter—London Underground—it no doubt looked at Jubilee Gardens and looked at the best place for a site to which to remove the spoils from the main tunnel so that they could be disposed of by barge. Nobody would quarrel with that.
A site was chosen next to County Hall. That left Jubilee Gardens untouched and they are now enjoyed by many people. Those noble Lords who visit the South Bank will know that those gardens represent the open air aspect of perhaps the best cultural area in the United Kingdom. They are certainly the only riverside gardens on the Thames in that area. They are certainly well used by all the office staff in that vicinity. I am quite certain that the residents there are so keen on

463
their use that we should give them some encouragement. We should in no way reduce the morale of the people in that area. If your Lordships walk—as I and other members of the committee have done—in that locality, your Lordships will realise the uniqueness of the gardens. It almost seems as though somebody has taken a community and deposited it in the centre of commercial and transport activity. I believe that an extremely good job has been done in trying to defend those gardens.
The gardens are used for many functions; for example, the marathon, the circus, open air concerts and, of course, as the lawn for that cultural centre. The South Bank development has always been criticised because there is too much concrete around. The gardens provide a foil for that heavy, dense concrete. When people come to London and visit the South Bank, I believe that they take real pleasure in walking in those gardens. So far, nobody will disagree with me. We all agree that it is a very useful place which contributes to the cultural life of our capital.
When London Underground decided to build a line, it chose a site which did not disturb those gardens so that they would be left for public use. A site was chosen alongside County Hall. There are few noble Lords in this Chamber who are unaware of the history of County Hall and what is happening about it. It seems certain that the London Residuary Body is having the devil's own job to get rid of County Hall. I shall not go into the reasons for that. Noble Lords will have their own ideas.
There was a big developer who was going to construct all kinds of things there but he suddenly backed out. Whether that was because of the advent of Canary Wharf and its consequential effects on the rents of other properties within the City of London, I do not know—anybody can guess. However, the developer backed out and at present there is no evidence of any firm intention to develop that site.
The residuary body said to the committee in another place that if an attempt was made to take this land it would take away its ability to construct an underground car park housing 87 cars. If that happened, it would reduce the value of the site and it would not be able to let it. If that were attempted it may well sue London Underground and it could well cost London Underground £50 million or £100 million. For a start, I do not believe that. The delay in constructing that car park could not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, give rise to such costs. The residuary body would have to say to a developer that there would be a delay in providing the space for the car park but that it would be available within—I think a figure is mentioned in the Bill—54 months. It would take that long to carry out a development. It would still be possible to sell the properties on the basis of that promise. I am certain that in the interim period there would be no problem in providing temporary parking spaces. Therefore, on close examination, the case of the London Residuary Body falls to the ground.
However, the committee in the other place agreed with the London Residuary Body. An amendment was moved and carried in Committee. The legislation
464
was then discussed in the Chamber and the matter was queried in the way that I have just queried it. The MP for the area tabled an amendment that would have meant removing that protective clause of the LRB —and I use the words "protective clause" advisedly. Your Lordships will later understand the reason for that.
Nothing happened. Speeches were made. Everybody agreed that the gardens were a valuable amenity which should be kept. There was no disagreement about that. London Underground wanted the work site there for 54 months. Nobody disagreed about that. But the MP concerned, supported by an MP of another party and by many MPs from all over London, was quite wrongly advised that it would be better to leave it to the House of Lords. That should give your Lordships cause for pleasure, to think that the Commons had said, "Leave it to the House of Lords. It will sort it out".
The matter came before your Lordships' committee. What happened there? Having some knowledge of the kerfuffle over the gardens, the matter was raised; petitioners were ready to present a petition against it and to speak against it. But lo and behold we were told, "You cannot do that. According to practice you cannot even discuss the question of removing a protective clause that was inserted in the Bill in another place". I greeted that with some amazement.
My mind went first to the question of democracy in our Parliament. I wondered whether it worked the other way. Does it mean that if the House of Lords considered a Bill first and included a protective clause, that the House of Commons could not remove it because of something called comity? I was told that that was right, to which I replied, "I am sure that Members of the House of Commons will be somewhat concerned to know that we are the dog; we are wagging its tail". I therefore queried it again and again. The committee proceeded on the basis that we could not consider the matter, and we did not consider it.
I must prove that what I have said is right. It sounds somewhat strange. I therefore took up the matter. Ultimately I received a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Wheeler-Booth. I dare not lose it because I am inexperienced at this kind of thing and need documents. The letter stated:
"So far as Jubilee Gardens is concerned, everything Lord Sefton says is correct".
When I read that I thought to myself, "Oh, I am coming on". The letter continued,
"It appears that Miss Hoey [the Member concerned] was badly advised in the Commons and that the practice about protective provisions was overlooked or insufficiently emphasised or misunderstood".
But one thing is quite certain. The matter was withdrawn in the Commons because the MP concerned was advised that she should leave it to the Lords. I strengthen that point because at Second Reading the noble Baroness, briefed, I presume, by the promoters, also said that the issue of Jubilee Gardens should be left to the committee of the House of Lords. I can give the column number but I am sure that noble Lords will not want me to do that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. I understand that it is not the custom to quote letters from the Clerk of the Parliaments. Perhaps it will be possible for the noble Lord to paraphrase the letter. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean to quote.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am sorry about that. I said that I was inexperienced but we live and learn. I shall paraphrase it. The letter that I received from the Clerk of the Parliaments indicates that everything I said is correct.
I turn to another point. The committee sat and made its decision which was published. When the decision was made public I received information—this may give rise to debate; I do not know how we will settle this unless I can quote letters but I shall try not to—that there was already a precedent established whereby a protective clause inserted in one House was removed by another. That precedent had occurred only recently.
I was told by the experts, and will no doubt be told again tonight—if I cannot quote the letter I am in a spot—that the matter was on all fours. I do not believe that. I believe that "all fours" was a legal expression used to try to demonstrate that the two cases were practically the same from a legal point of view. It was not that the subject was different. That has nothing to do with it from a legal point of view. I therefore do not accept that there is a difference. The fact is that a protective clause inserted in one House was removed in another.
But that is not the fundamental point. One of the main reasons I tabled the amendment has nothing to do with the Jubilee Line; it concerns the parliamentary processes of which we are so proud. If the amendment is not accepted, then the House of Commons will be unable to discuss the matter again. That will not delay the Bill. It should delay the Underground line. But it will mean that the Commons cannot discuss this item. It has already been barred once: the House of Lords Committee was barred from discussing it.
In effect, we are facing a situation which means that the matter will never be debated. I have tabled a Motion, which we shall come to later, which suggests that the Bill does not come into effect for six months, which in fact kicks it into touch. I shall have something to say about that later because I also believe that problems arise as to whether the Bill should have been a Private Bill at all. However, we will leave that for now.
I shall summarise the position. I have explained the main point. A Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned was barred from discussing this important issue regarding the cultural aspect of this site.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I realise that I shall have a chance to speak in a moment on the subject. I was a Member of the committee. However, it will help the House if the noble Lord can tell us the nature and status of the advice given to the Member of Parliament in another place. The impression that I received was that it was very much a matter of
466
informal advice; that is, someone perhaps asking a clerk casually in the corridor rather than written advice from the Table of the House in another place. That may have a bearing on how we decide Miss Hoey deprived herself of the opportunity, maybe mistakenly. That is what she did. If that was the incident, then we should know how it came about.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I have just been told that I should not quote letters. How can I answer? All I can say, without quoting anything that I was told by the Clerk of the Parliaments, is that Miss Hoey was badly advised in the House of Commons. I do not see how I can say anything else unless I start quoting the letter, and it is a long letter. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount that Miss Hoey did receive the wrong advice, and followed it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may clarify the matter. The question the noble Lord was asked did not require him to quote the letter addressed to him. He was asked whether Miss Hoey received a letter of advice, or whether hers was informal advice received in another place.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I can tell you that. Miss Hoey informed us that the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons told her that it would be quite all right and the matter could be debated in the House of Lords in Committee. Perhaps that answer will be satisfactory. I cannot give the House chapter and verse because of the question of quoting letters, at which we will look later. But it is a peculiar circumstance.
I shall continue where I left off. For the reasons I have mentioned, the fact is that Parliament has been deprived of the right to debate this issue except in this House and that has only been allowed after a long fight. It is quite evident that we cannot go into such detail in this Chamber as in committee because the House would not tolerate such a long debate at this hour of the night. It is ironic that in the 40th year of the Queen's reign we should be talking about removing a garden which celebrates the 25th anniversary of her reign when people are getting hot under the collar as to whether or not there should be a fountain in London to celebrate this later occasion.
Perhaps I may point out that when London Underground thought about using Parliament Square, which in effect is nothing but a roundabout, it soon changed its mind because some MPs said they were not going to have their piece of lawn disturbed, so the procedure was changed. The line was quickly moved and everything was put in the station.
The petitioners were inhibited in putting their case in committee. To me that is perhaps more important than the question of MPs being denied the right to debate the matter. The Jubilee Walk Society did a tremendous job and it has been spurned. Its representation has been cast aside with practically no consideration. That would destroy the morale of a great many volunteers who have done much good work for London.

467
The plea is that common sense should prevail. I was told that the responsibility of the London Residuary Body was to get rid of the land at the best possible price. I was told that by counsel appearing for the promoters. That is also what the committee was told. I asked questions. I asked: can counsel tell us whether or not the Minister, in setting up the residuary body, did or did not retain powers to direct that body? He had to admit that the Minister did. Therefore, it is not a absolute statutory duty on the LRB to obtain the best money for the land. It can apply to the Minister to be relieved from that obligation. The Minister can dictate to it and tell the body to give this site to London Underground or to the local authority as an open space. That is why there is reference to common sense being applied to the intervening period between Miss Hoey's representation in the House of Commons and the Bill coming here.
I believe that, if we can hear from the Government that they are prepared to use a little common sense and do what everyone concerned wants to do—namely, keep Jubilee Gardens—we could rest the matter there. I should need a fairly certain assurance, because I have no intention of withdrawing this amendment unless I have an assurance from the Minister that he will do that. I am not satisfied that we should deny to a Member of Parliament, a Member of this House or the petitioners, the right to have the issue debated in the right and proper place, which was in that committee.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it might be helpful if I gave the Government's view on the noble Lord's amendment at this stage of the proceedings. I do of course appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the impact which the decision to move the worksite for tunnelling spoil to the north end of Jubilee Gardens will have on public access to that very pleasant open space by the riverside. It is always unfortunate when the enjoyment of public amenities such as this has to be curtailed. It is clearly incumbent on us to ensure that there are good reasons for doing so, and that there are no feasible alternatives.
However, I am afraid that that is indeed the position in this case. It was only to protect their vital interests—and the vital interests of the local charge payers of London —that the London Residuary Body successfully petitioned to have the original form of the Bill changed to move this site from the south to the north end of Jubilee Gardens. As noble Lords will know, the ownership of County Hall is vested in the residuary body. Under the Local Government Act 1985 the residuary body has a clear statutory duty to dispose of this major building in such a way as to achieve the best possible return for the local charge payers of London as a whole.
Its decision to petition as it did to have the site moved was certainly not taken lightly. On the contrary, it felt —and the Government believe felt rightly—that it would have been failing in its duty to the citizens of London if it had not taken this course. For the fact is that, if this site had remained at the south end of the gardens, immediately next to County
468
Hall, which is where the noble Lord's amendment would place it, then the plans for the development of County Hall—the plans on the basis of which it has been negotiating with potential purchasers—would be very largely undermined. That is because the south end of the gardens is needed for the underground car park which would form a key—an essential element —of its plans for the whole development of the County Hall complex.
The LRB has put a price on the loss which a decision to move the site back to the south end would entail. This appears in the claim that the LRB has put forward for compensation in the event of that decision being adopted. It is put, as the noble Lord said, at between £50 and £100 million. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, questioned that figure, but he gave no evidence for questioning it.
That would be a very high price for Londoners to have to pay for avoiding the use of the north end of Jubilee Gardens during the 54 weeks maximum period when tunnelling work was in progress. We believe that it is too high a price to ask them to pay for this purpose.
The residuary body has in the meantime made it clear that it is prepared to do all it can to co-operate with London Underground Ltd by grassing over the south end until such time as it is actually needed for construction of the County Hall car park, and by doing all it can to assist in resiting the playground which is now situated in the northern end of the gardens.
Noble Lords will understand from this why my right honourable friend would be unwilling, should this amendment be rejected—as I hope it will be—to use any power which he had to direct the residuary body to drop its objections to the use of the south end as suggested by your Lordships' Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. But we are advised that he would in any case have no such power. It is true that under Section 65 of the Local Government Act 1985 the residuary body is required, in discharging its functions under that Act, to comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State. We are advised, however, that my right honourable friend would only have the power under this section to give directions required for achieving the purposes of the 1985 Act itself, and we can see no way in which the return of the site to the south end could be regarded as falling within those purposes. My right honourable friend would therefore be exposing himself to a grave risk of challenge by way of judicial review if he were to give directions to the residuary body on the lines envisaged by the noble Lord.
The London Residuary Body put forward in another place the arguments for moving the site to the north end of the gardens and it was successful in convincing our colleagues there that those arguments were justified. I do not believe that sufficient contrary arguments have been put forward to justify us in reversing that decision, especially since such a reversal would have such serious consequences for the plans being developed for the disposal of County Hall and for the local taxpayers of London, who would have to

469
foot the very considerable bill for frustrating those plans. Therefore I hope that the House will reject this amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask two questions. Are the powers of the London Residuary Body the same as those of the other residuary bodies in the country? Is it not a fact that the Minister has power to direct the London Residuary Body to get rid of land as open space to the local authority?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I gave the answer to the second of the noble Lord's questions in my speech. We do not feel that the Secretary of State would be justified in using his powers in this case. As to the first question about whether the powers of the London Residuary Body are the same as the powers of any other residuary bodies in the country, I do not know the answer to that. On the other hand neither do I see that it is relevant to this particular question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must repeat the statement that I made at the outset of this debate. Although I am speaking from the Front Bench I am doing so in a completely personal capacity and I do not expect my colleagues to follow any lead that I might give them. That is a convention which the Opposition has followed for many years.
I support the amendment of my noble friend. He has made his points calmly and he has built up a good case for consideration of his amendment. I must make it clear that I read the Report proceedings and Third Reading proceedings of the other place very carefully, including the speech of Miss Kate Hoey, the Member for Vauxhall, who endeavoured to move a very comprehensive new clause. Despite what I have said, the Opposition in the other place welcome the extension of the Jubilee Line—as do we all—and also the purpose behind the Bill.
I should like to ask the Minister a question. I presume he is entitled to speak again. I see the Minister indicates that he cannot. It is unfortunate, therefore, that he spoke when he did.
I was given to understand that in October 1990 Jubilee Gardens was declared metropolitan open land —that means Green Belt. Why does that decision stand if it is correct? Does the Department of the Environment have something to say about that decision? I understand it was taken by pressure on local authorities; that they should make a decision on the question of metropolitan open land. Therefore that matter is very much in the hands of the Department of the Environment.
It has been made perfectly clear in the Bill as originally deposited in the other place that the site required for the removal of spoil by barge is a small area ajacent to County Hall; a minor car park. There is no criticism anywhere of the desire of London Regional Transport, the London Underground, to carry out the intention of moving spoil by barge.
Reference has been made to the London Residuary Body's decision to develop the site. The Minister made
470
some reference to that. However, is my noble friend correct in saying that there are no plans now—the other plans fell through—for any development by any known developer of the County Hall site? That is an important matter. Did the special committee of this House know that position when it discussed the matter?
The question has been raised about the advice given to Miss Hoey. I am paraphrasing when I say that my understanding is that she said that she would listen very carefully to what the Minister had to say but she stressed that the purpose of the Bill had wide support from a substantial number of bodies. She urged that Jubilee Gardens should be saved and allow the Bill to proceed.
Miss Hoey added that she had great faith in what would happen in the other place. I am not suggesting that she was advised about that, but she said that she had faith in the other place, which is your Lordships' House, in the discussion of this matter. We shall have to look to see exactly what the other place did. We know it was referred to the Select Committee and I hope that everyone present has read the special report of that Select Committee.
The important decision concerned the protective provision given to the LRB. The Select Committee report states that there was great sympathy for the suggested reversion to the original site. Reference is made to Erskine May. The last thing I want to do is to open up a constitutional argument, but of course we generally look for advice to Erskine May. However, I have been looking at the Companion to the Standing Orders of our own House, where I find on page 147:
"Neither House reinserts a provision struck out by the other House unless by agreement in advance between the two Houses".
In my elementary knowledge of this constitutional practice, it appears that it would be possible for the two Houses to agree on striking out a provision.
There are two important statements in the special report to which I should like to refer. Paragraphs 12 to 16 deal with the whole question of Jubilee Gardens. The last sentence of paragraph 14 states:
"The promoters suggested that if it turned out that the redevelopment of County Hall proved compatible with allowing the promoters to use the original site, the Secretary of State could direct appropriate disposal of the land".
The Minister outlined a subsequent provision which prevented him from taking certain action on those lines. That is a statement by the Select Committee which considered the whole of this matter. Next, I find that the last sentence in paragraph 16 of the Select Committee's report states:
"However, we note that the Secretary of State has powers in relation to the LRB and we recommend"—
I emphasise that word—
"that he intervene to make it possible for the original site to be used after all".
Undoubtedly the noble Lord has told us what he understands to be the Minister's responsibility in these matters. But those are two statements contained in the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Did the committee know what the Minister was going to say tonight? If it did, then those two recommendations in the report are wrong. If it did not know, then someone was at fault in not advising the

471
committee. Alternatively, the Minister does have power to deal with this matter. That seems to be the essential factor in the amendment of my noble friend, to which I hope the Minister will be able to reply. Certainly, with the leave of the House, we should like to hear from the Minister on those points.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as a member of the committee, perhaps I may briefly address what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has said. Then perhaps our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, who did an excellent job on the committee, may wish to give a more measured and rounded view, based on what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said.
Perhaps I may make a correction. The Minister used the words "54 weeks" instead of "54 months". The whole House will realise that the timescale is four-and-a-half years. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, did give that impression. Therefore the whole House will be quite clear that we are talking about boarding up this central part of Jubilee Gardens for four-and-a-half years, as a maximum.
I shall try to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, and also to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just said, that the committee in its report said that it would prefer the site next to County Hall. As I said, the chairman of our committee may elaborate on that. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, also said that the committee had been deprived of a debate on the full scope of this point because we were prohibited in some way from debating it. Our report states, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just pointed out, that our committee—it did not need any further debate—was convinced, on the facts before it, that ideally it would like the site next to County Hall. However, the committee was not prepared to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. If noble Lords read the report, they will see that there was a vote and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was in a minority of one. That is on the record. I am not giving anything away.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, also said that Parliament had not had a debate on this subject. He may have been speaking in shorthand, but in fact the other place had a lengthy debate which took up many pages of Hansard. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was making was that at the last minute and for various reasons there was no vote. That is a very important point. It is my impression that the kind of advice which Miss Hoey received—she moved the new clause in another place—is the kind of advice that we all take from the Clerks in the course of business. I am not saying that she stopped someone in the corridor. It is my impression—I must confirm that this is my impression—that it was very much in the nature of informal advice which caused her not to put this matter to a vote in another place.
I would want to distinguish that kind of advice from formal advice. Had Miss Hoey had an official letter from the Table in another place giving her that advice, that would be a serious matter which we should have to consider. However, given the informal nature of the advice, and as we take that kind of advice ourselves from the Clerks—it turned out, as it
472
happened, to be wrong advice—the hands of the House of Lords were tied. I would put it in that context.
Perhaps I may deal with the matter of precedent and how this House should behave in dealing with provisions offered to it by another place. In paragraph 15 of our report we state:
"It is the practice that a protective provision granted by one House is not reversed by the other House".
We call it a practice rather than a precedent because an exception to that way of behaving occurred in 1980. Prior to 1980 the precedent, as I would like to call it, was violated in 1903. We are talking about the precedent being broken on one occasion between 1903 and 1992.
I have spoken at some length but perhaps I should briefly explain that I happen to have knowledge of that precedent. What happened in 1980 related to a Bill which involved a subject with which I was involved through another Bill. I was therefore particularly interested in the matter. It was to do with acupuncture. I shall not go into details but at that time acupuncturists were petitioning Parliament in order to try to have themselves accorded a higher status than people like tattooists. They persuaded the committee in another place that they should have that exemption. However, for various reasons, this was never discussed on the Floor of the House. When the Bill was presented to this House we decided to give the other House an opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House once and for all. The person who moved it said quite clearly—this was the spirit of the House—that we would simply send it back to the other place and if it insisted on the position as it was and sent it back to us we would automatically give way. That was the spirit in which it was dealt with. In breaking this precedent we were simply giving the other House a chance to discuss the issue. We then intended to give way if it insisted on its position. I would say that this case is different because the other House has had a chance to discuss the issue. The fact that it did not vote on it is unfortunate, but that is the situation.
I have indicated that I would ideally like the site directly next to County Hall, but having listened to the Minister's arguments on the matter and realising the way in which his hands are tied, I am not prepared to jeopardise the Bill in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is prepared to jeopardise it. I stand by the recommendations which we made.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of the Select Committee. Although I cannot personally agree with the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, on one or two points, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment which he proposes. I cannot support it for two reasons. The first reason has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Craigavon. I am convinced that we ought not to overturn the procedure about overruling a protective provision from the other place. That is sound parliamentary sense and I think that we should follow it. The other reason why I would not be inclined to accept the amendment is that, however bad is the proposed system of evacuating the spoil from the centre of the gardens, it is in my view at least

473
preferable to the alternatives, which are to move that spoil through the Southwark and Waterloo area by lorry or by train wagons. Both of those methods would be even worse for the citizens resident in the area. I cannot support the amendment, but in my view it has much to commend it.
The London Residuary Body has been entrusted for several years now with the disposal of County Hall. Through no fault of its own, because of a depressed property market, it has, so far as I understand it, failed to find any suitable developer who will put down money to carry out the development. Other possible plans for County Hall are at least discussed. One of them concerns the London School of Economics, which your Lordships might think would be the most elegant solution for that building. There is also the possibility, not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that, if by any misfortune we were to have a Labour Government in the next few weeks, it is part of Labour policy to create some kind of successor to the GLC. If that were done a logical place to put it would be County Hall, an unhappy eventuality but one which we cannot totally ignore.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the disposal of County Hall, it seems frankly ludicrous that the London Residuary Body should come forward with the statement that, unless it can construct an underground car park for 100 vehicles, the disposal of the whole of that vast complex will be prejudiced. I cannot help but think that 100 cars can be stored in a number of underground or overground sites in that area without prejudicing the development; or even if that is not true, I cannot conceive that the development of that rather small car park could not be postponed until after the work on Jubilee Gardens had been completed.
We have quite a simple equation. It is: should the citizens of London, and particularly the residents of Southwark and Waterloo, be deprived for 54 months of a very attractive piece of green space in order that this small underground car park should be constructed? Our only hope of redressing this matter is, if noble Lords will excuse the colloquialism, to lean on the Minister. We are probably debarred from any other route. The Minister has said today that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not be inclined to look with sympathy on any intervention in this matter. But if the Minister will think quietly about the equation as I have laid it before him, I cannot help but feel that he will realise that the true interests of our citizens and residents in Southwark would be better served by moving the evacuation spoil site close to County Hall. I am sure that that could be achieved by an unofficial word from the Secretary of State, even if that does not lie clearly within his competence and powers under the law.
9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, made a most appealing speech in favour of his amendment. However, I think that the House
474
should think very hard indeed before agreeing to it. In saying that, I am not expressing any views on the merits of any particular part of Jubilee Gardens as a spoil site. In my position as Chairman of Committees it would be quite improper of me to express any view on that question.
My concern is for the well-established private business practice with regard to protective provisions, which was mentioned by many noble Lords this evening. It is set out in Erskine May at page 910 where it states that,
"restrictive amendments imposed by one House on the promoters are not reversed by the other".
Clause 36 of the Bill commences:
"For the protection of the London Residuary Body",
and is such a restrictive amendment. That is recognised by the Select Committee in paragraph 15 of its report and was supported just now by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. The effect of agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, would be to set aside the long-established practice with regard to restrictive amendments. I do not say that Parliament may not do so. But I do say that the House should not do so without very careful consideration of the implications.
The practice has advantages. It means that persons and bodies who are are adversely affected by a Bill and who win a protection from the House which first considers the Bill know where they stand. They know that their position has been safeguarded and that there is no need for them to take any further action to protect their interests. It would clearly be unfair if a petitioner in the first House, who had secured from that House what he sought by way of protection and who therefore had nothing to petition against when the Bill arrived in the second House, could find himself deprived in the second House of the protection given to him in the first.
In other words, to put it in the context of the present case, if the Select Committee had ignored the usual practice and had agreed to the case on Jubilee Gardens put to it by the petitioners in this House, it would have deprived the London Residuary Body of the protection given to it in the Commons without having heard the case. That would also be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. The noble Lord raised the question as to which House started the business. I should like to emphasise the fact that the Commons was the first House to consider the Bill and this House was the second. However, what I said applies regardless of which House is the first to consider the Bill.
I ask the House to consider whether the advantages of the practice are such that it ought to be adhered to. The House may think that in the particular case of Jubilee Gardens the practice has led to unhappy consequences and hardship for the residents of Waterloo and for other users of the gardens. As I said earlier, it is open to the House to set aside the practice, but I ask the House to think hard about the implications for Private Bill practice before doing so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part on the technical aspect of the matter. I shall briefly speak on

475
the substantive part about Jubilee Gardens. As the House knows, I was a member of the Greater London Council for 12 years; and, indeed, I was there during Jubilee year. I believe that we are overlooking the point that the gardens will only be temporarily out of use—that is, four-and-a-half years maximum—and that they will be fully reinstated at the end of the work. The South Bank walkway will remain open for use, with a conveyor over the top to remove the spoil.
I shall not go into detail other than to refer to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that just a small area is involved. In actual fact the hatched area on the map is, if anything, slightly larger than the other area now being taken. One speaker said that this was a case of someone's right in the other place or that of the local residents. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, made that point. I believe that the essence of the matter is to consider whether or not we want the people of London to have the Jubilee Line.
As the matter stands tonight, I believe that the amendment should be defeated so as to enable the Bill to proceed smoothly. On the other hand, I must make it clear that to London Transport one site is as good as another; there is no issue in that respect. The issue is that any delay in the progress of the Bill would be very damaging to the people of London, especially those living in that part of London which has never had an Underground. They will benefit from the line.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of the House will agree with the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, that the matter should be given careful consideration. I think that I should apologise to the House for bringing the matter forward at this time of night. However, I sought to bring before this Chamber everything that I thought was relevant. Of course, I expected to hear the kind of statement from the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, that he made. But, nevertheless, a precedent was established.
I should like to deal with some of the points raised which I believe to be relevant. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I seem to take longer than perhaps they would to do so. But, having sat in the Select Committee for such a long time, my mind is completely full of the facts. I have read and reread the transcripts over and again. There is first the question of the four-and-a-half year period. That is not my advice. Officially, but with no documents to prove it, I am told that it could well be seven years before Jubilee Gardens is back in use. Of course, that advice could be right or it could be wrong. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It may be the case that it will be seven years before the gardens are back in use, but from when? On the evidence, my understanding is that it will be four-and-a-half years from when the work starts.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the important issue is: how long will Jubilee Gardens be out of use for the public? The rest are technicalities. They do not
476
count. I am told that the gardens could be out of use for seven years. I know that I shall be told that the promoters of the Bill are discussing the question of for how long they will require the work site. If we are to quibble like that we shall never get through the business. I know that that is what is in the Bill and I know the period that is specified by the Bill, but I am told that it will be seven years before the gardens are reinstated for public use.
That, however, is not the important issue. The important issue is that at the end of that period the gardens will still be owned by the London Residuary Body. If we agree to what we have been told to agree to tonight who is to say that the LRB will not sell the gardens? I must tell your Lordships that there has been some question about whether the LRB has the power to pass the gardens over to the public. I am not quoting my own words or giving the House my opinion on this. An inquiry has been held into the LRB's proposal to develop the site. Surely the inspector conducting that public inquiry knows his business. I hope that I shall be allowed to quote what he said—I have to be careful. He said:
"In this matter, the LRB have been regarded as acting in an unsatisfactory fashion".
He further said:
"It is not for me to comment on the course pursued by the London Residuary Body … It is regrettable that the London Residuary Body have chosen not to secure the existing use made by the public and the right of access by dedicating the walkway wholly to the public and ensuring that Jubilee Gardens becomes a public park in the ownership of the Borough".
The vast majority of the people who walk on that side of the Thames have always believed that Jubilee Gardens is a public park. They were amazed when the London Residuary Body put up notices saying, "This is owned by us. You are here only on sufferance". But that is what happened. That should clearly establish the fact that there is a question mark over whether the area will remain a public park.
It is not a question of whether we should have the Jubilee Line or not. Nobody is opposing the Jubilee Line. It is a question of whether we can find a more common sense approach and retain this valuable asset for the people of London. It is ironic that somebody has to come down from Liverpool to talk in this House about benefits for London people, but that is the situation in which I find myself. That should be a lesson to your Lordships: do not put me on the Committee.
The Chairman of Committees has emphasised that the provisions apply not only if they come from the other place to this House but also the other way round. I have dealt with that. As I have said before, I believe that those in another place would take a dim view of the House of Lords wagging the tail of the House of Commons. Of course they would. It is not a question of a procedure that has developed but of what is right and what is wrong. I believe that it is wrong that this clause should not return to another place for proper consideration. If the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, understood me to say that the provisions have not been considered in another place, I am sorry because I must have misled him. I detailed the discussions that took place there and said that we

477
were barred from voting in the committee. Advice was given to another place. Its mistake was to say that we could have voted when it turns out that we could not. Why was that advice given in another place? Why was the advice not given to us in the six months before the Bill came to this House?
Why was the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, allowed to say on Second Reading that this matter could be considered by the Select Committee? Why was she not advised that it could not be considered by the Select Committee? The passage of this Bill is riddled with unanswered questions.
The Chairman of Committees said that it was ludicrous to suggest that the question of the car park would affect the ultimate destiny and future of County Hall—I am paraphrasing because one must be careful. Of course it is ludicrous.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I never said anything of the sort. I kept right out of the controversy.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it was the Chairman of Committees.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am the Chairman of Committees.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am referring to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. Does that clear up the point? He said that, and I agree with him. It is ludicrous. Unfortunately, it is not sympathy that we want. It is a vote that we want. We want to restore to the other place the right to vote on this issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, let us vote.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I shall not go through all the points that have been made because it is evident that people are getting tired of being here. I am sorry about that. It is not my fault. Four-and-a-half years was mentioned. The Minister said—I repeated it—that it would not be advisable for the Minister to do it; but he has the power to do it. That is what matters.
I do not believe that the car park, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said, will have a deleterious effect upon the disposal of County Hall. I do not believe that the disposal of County Hall is as imminent as some people would have us believe. There is plenty of time to construct the line. It can be built next to County Hall and preserve County Hall for posterity by ensuring that the Minister tells the LRB to take notice of the inspector's report and make the garden a public one.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 59.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

478

Judd, L.

Sefton of Garston, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shackleton, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Limerick, E.

Astor, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Portsmouth, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Reay, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elibank, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Haddington, E.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Waddington, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston had given notice of his intention to move as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not keep the House long but there are some matters on which I wish to comment and to which I should like this House and another place to give consideration.
First, I said in the previous debate that I doubted whether this should have been a Private Bill. We are now well into the maelstrom of parliamentary procedure. Having been advised to consult Erskine May, I took the opportunity to go to the Library to look at the book. I did not know what was waiting for me. I thought perhaps it was 10 volumes but it was one. I looked at what constitutes a Public Bill and what does not. I know that noble Lords will say straightaway that I am wrong, but let me quote Erskine May. I assume that I can do that without being corrected. It states:
"Preliminary views of private bills:
In general there are four principles which have been followed in determining that a private bill should not be allowed to proceed as such, but should be introduced as a public bill".
It continues:
"These are as follows:
(1) That public policy is affected;

479
(2) That the bill proposes to amend or repeal public Acts. In these cases, the nature and degree of the proposed repeal or amendment have to be considered; (see pp 802–803.)
(3) The magnitude of the area and the multiplicity of the interests involved;
(4) The fact that the bill though partly of a private nature has as its main object a public matter".
There is a section concerning Bills relating to London. On that point Erskine May states:
"Owing to the large area, and the vast population, and the variety of interests concerned, bills which affect the entire metropolis used, as a rule, to be regarded as measures of public policy rather than of local interest. Such Bills were usually, though not invariably, introduced and proceeded with throughout as public bills or were dealt with as hybrid bills. Bills relating to the Metropolitan Police and to Metropolitan Magistrates Courts have always been public bills and where any of the principles outlined on p 794"—
I have already referred to that page—
"are involved the rule that bills affecting the metropolis should he introduced as public bills still applies".
I have read from page 794 and 795. The provision is reinforced on page 797 where it is stated that a Bill relating to a city other than London is a private Bill. That establishes the case that the Bill should never have been a Private Bill. It should have been a public Bill backed by the Government and it should have been open to full discussion. I shall explain why I think that that is the case.
When the Committee stage had finished I was asked whether we had discussed the matter of a listed building near Green Park. I replied that the matter had not been discussed. I checked that with the Clerk of the Parliaments, who confirmed that the matter had not been discussed. He said that it had not come before the committee. However, it was mentioned in the Bill. I wondered why it had not been mentioned in committee. It had not been mentioned in committee because it was not the subject of a Petition and it had not been deliberately brought to our attention by the promoters. That is absolutely wrong. This is a Bill that the Government are backing. Everybody knows that. It should have been a public Bill.
I shall not test the opinion of the House on this matter tonight as I realise there is not the faintest chance of gaining support. I have just had my lesson on that score. However, I wish to put it on record that I believe this should have been a public Bill. I fondly hope this Government will be out of office within a few weeks. In that case the succeeding government should look at this matter and consider how we regulate the matter of public and private Bills.
Before the Committee stage the Government had already announced that one of the factors influencing the way this Bill was proposed would be a contribution from the developers at Canary Wharf. I asked to see the agreement stating that that was the case. I was told that it was confidential and that it was a private matter between the promoters and the Canary Wharf developers, Olympia and York. I believe that that agreement should have been scheduled to the Bill to enable it to be examined.
I have a question for the Minister. Does the agreement contain any guarantees that Olympia and York will pay the amount that it has said it will pay? I have heard rumours that that will not be the case. Have the successors to Olympia and York guaranteed to pay that amount? If that is not the case, we have a
480
serious issue on our hands. In the House of Commons the Government stated that one of the reasons for initiating the Bill was that Olympia and York had promised a payment. According to the press Olympia and York is running into difficulties. There is talk of selling the second largest building in the development at Canary Wharf.
So what happens? Is the guarantee going to be made? As far as I am concerned, the Bill can be passed. Whether you like it or not, it is going back to the Commons. I established that with the Clerk of Parliaments today. But your Lordships will not be able to discuss the question of the agreement, nor that of Canary Wharf. That is disgraceful. It will be disgraceful if we do not have an opportunity to see the agreement and measure it for its worth or otherwise. I do not believe that Olympia and York will keep to the agreement. If it had been scheduled in the Bill it would have had the power of law.
Those are two points, and there are several others along the same lines in regard to whether this should have been treated as a Bill. I am not pressing the point, but I am asking the Minister to have a look at these issues because I believe that they are very important, not in the matter of the Bill, not in the matter of the Jubilee Line—although I have my own views on that —but in regard to the relationship between the private sector and this Parliament.
I would not describe a payment to induce the passage of a Bill in this respect as a bribe, but the Standing Orders of this House say that to offer an inducement to pass a Bill through Parliament is a bribe. It did not say that about individuals or about companies, but we are moving in a very dangerous field.
Perhaps I may conclude with an example. In Merseyside they are doing their best to comply with the Government's advice to get developments going. One of the important backers is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company which has said to the local authority concerned "Unless you withdraw your opposition to the Bill that we are putting through Parliament we shall not back your proposals for developing the community in your area". That statement was published in the Liverpool Daily Post. If that is true, it is absolutely disgraceful. I believe that it is true, as do some members of the local authority who are insisting on seeing the results of the meeting in which that statement was made.
That makes three points. I have the fond hope that the Government will undertake to look into those issues, in which case I shall not press the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the formal decision is taken I should like to make a few comments in support of what my colleague has said, because there is an issue of principle at stake. Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in this procedure tonight, this little charade, might like to hear some history of about three years ago.
There were strenuous objections in another place to people coming forward with Private Member's Bills to bypass normal planning procedures instead of matters

481
being put through the local authority and all objections heard in detail, minuted and debated. All-party discussions took place in the House of Commons and agreement was reached that this procedure, because it bypassed local authority objections, would be terminated. At the eleventh hour the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was persuaded by interested parties not to accept the recommendations of the all-party committee which was dealing with the matter, which was chaired by the then Leader of the House in another place, Mr. Wakeham. Had that procedure been abolished and had people had to go through normal planning procedures there would have been fuller protection than there is at present. If there is a change of government in this country at the next general election, that procedure will be disposed of very quickly.
Finally, one of the oddities and quirks of this procedure is the fact that the main perpetrator of what is taking place tonight—it is sad that the payroll vote has to be used to force through this Private Bill—is the London Residuary Body. They are the main people behind this situation. So far as I am aware, when the residuary bodies were set up it was intended that they should be of a temporary nature. All the other residuary bodies went out of existence two years ago. But the Government have thought fit to retain the London Residuary Body in order to bypass the local boroughs and the wishes of local people. I find it very strange. However, I am told that the London Residuary Body, even though the present Government continue to hold office, will be phased out in the autumn of this year.
My noble friend Lord Sefton has done your Lordships a service. This is the most unsatisfactory way of pushing through the Bill for the purposes of vested interests, against the wishes of the local authority and local people. My noble friend and colleague referred to Canary Wharf which was intended to be an outstanding success. Is it such a success? I understand that Mr. Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was the first initiator of the redevelopment of London docks, has decided to take the Department of the Environment there. Is that because Canary Wharf is not so attractive as the Government first thought? Has he had to bail out the residuary body by taking the Department of the Environment from Marsham Street to Canary Wharf? The whole position looks to me to be somewhat removed from the normal proceedings in your Lordships' House. I hope that this is the last time that we shall see the kind of things that have taken place here tonight, when the payroll vote has been used to push through a Private Member's Bill. I have never known such a thing happen before and it sets a dangerous precedent for the future, as another place found to its cost.
I am glad to support my colleague and noble friend. Noble Lords on the other side must not think that my noble friend stands in isolation. He does not. He has expressed the concern of many people.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I must put him right on one point. This is not a Private Member's Bill: it is a Private Bill. All railway Bills, whether for British Rail or London Underground, at the present time have to go through this procedure and through a Select Committee. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill had been rushed through. This Bill has taken months to go through both Houses. It is not a question of what has happened tonight. This Bill had a Second Reading and then spent some weeks before a committee of your Lordships' House. The Transport and Works Bill, which seeks to reform the procedure for taking through such railway Bills, will shortly come before your Lordships. I hope that the noble Lord will support it.
The local authorities had ample opportunity to petition both Houses on this Bill. To say that they did not have such opportunity is to insult the committee of your Lordships' House and another place.
The noble Lord made some assertions about Olympia and York's contribution and whether it was in a good financial state. He produced no evidence whatever for that assertion, other than hearsay, which he had read in the newspaper. I feel that the noble Lord should withdraw those assertions or back them up.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am sorry to say that this situation is becoming ridiculous. I should like to add my voice to the wide measure of support that this Bill already enjoys. The Jubilee Line confers many advantages on many parts of London: Docklands, which is mainly in the parish of Poplar; East and South East London; and the West End. They would benefit from being linked to the mainline stations and London Bridge, Waterloo and Westminster, which is a rather dreary station that ought to be improved.
There are other places. Bermondsey has long been denied a proper station. This project gives effect to two longstanding objectives of rail planning in London. London Regional Transport will complete the Jubilee Line so that it no longer simply terminates in the city centre but runs on to the east and uses its capacity more efficiently. It provides a high capacity rail access through the heart of Docklands which has been the policy aim for many years. Noble Lords may recall that previous incarnations of this idea were the Fleet Line and the River Line. With interchanges to the extension, the project will also add greatly to the general convenience and ease of use of London railway systems. Nine out of 10 of its stations—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I remind him that we are now debating the Motion that the Bill do now pass. We had Second Reading some months ago.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, through pressure from Members on this side of the Chamber I must sit down. However, it is a useful measure. Therefore I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite in order. Having been on the committee, and someone having mentioned Erskine May to me, I

483
learnt a lot about order. The only reason that I mentioned withdrawing the amendment when I did was that Members on the other side were indicating that they wished to go home. But the standing orders of this House state that I should move the amendment, allow others to speak to it and then, having wound up, withdraw it. Therefore the noble Lord is quite in order. I was questioning the Bill. The noble Lord's speech may have appeared like a Second Reading speech but it was not.
Let me clear up that point. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Dean was also perfectly in order. One cannot withdraw an amendment if the decision is not unanimous. My noble friend indicated that he did not agree to my withdrawing the amendment. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was in order.
No one ever suggested that there was opposition to the Bill. Some Members will know my views about over-development in the South East and in London. However, I sat on the Select Committee and carried out my duties. Never at any time did I oppose the Bill. I accepted completely that the Second Reading of the
484
Bill had been agreed to and that the Bill had some blessing. The reason that I tabled the amendment was to draw attention to the very real issues of parliamentary procedure.
The Minister seemed to be upset by what my noble friend said. Let him show how upset he is by considering the serious issues that I have raised. There were four or five matters. Perhaps we could discuss them at some time with a view to the Government setting up a committee to consider some of the important issues that have arisen.
I shall not press the matter now because it is still quite evident that Members wish to go home. I am sorry to have spoilt your Lordships' early night. Go home, my Lords.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. House adjourned at a quarter before ten o'clock.
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: IRAN AND TIBET
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: IRAN AND TIBET
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: RAPPORTEUR
  UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: RAPPORTEUR
  CHINA: TIBETAN POLITICAL PRISONERS
  CHINA: TIBETAN POLITICAL PRISONERS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: PERSONAL ALLOWANCES
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: PERSONAL ALLOWANCES
  INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS: COST OF INCREASE
  INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS: COST OF INCREASE
  HMP HASLAR: CITIZENS' ADVICE BUREAU
  HMP HASLAR: CITIZENS' ADVICE BUREAU
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER WITHIN UK
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER WITHIN UK
  CURFEW AND OTHER ORDERS: REHABILITATION PERIODS
  CURFEW AND OTHER ORDERS: REHABILITATION PERIODS
  DEFENCE SUPPLIERS: ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS
  DEFENCE SUPPLIERS: ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS
  THE COUNTRYSIDE: POLICY INITIATIVE
  THE COUNTRYSIDE: POLICY INITIATIVE