Sitting of 1 July 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    LEEDS SUPERTRAM BILL
      PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      Considered: to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Trinidad and Tobago
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Trinidad and Tobago.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): United Kingdom relations with Trinidad and Tobago are good. Several ministerial exchanges have taken place in recent months.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that I have just returned from Trinidad and Tobago, where I led a delegation on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? Representatives of 26 Commonwealth countries were there. They are concerned about what their relationship will be with this country post-Maastricht. As this is the first day of Britain's assumption of the presidency of the European Community, will my hon. Friend reassure the Commonwealth, whose ties with Britain go back far longer than those with the European Community, that relationships with the Commonwealth will continue to be excellent and, most important, that the British Government will do everything that they can to ensure that the favoured trading conditions continue and expand, not only with Britain but with all European Community countries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I share my hon. Friend's appreciation of the value of the Commonwealth and of the CPA in particular, which plays an essential role in reinforcing the ties between Commonwealth Parliaments and parliamentarians. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to our ties with the Commonwealth, which are long and deep. We have worked hard to achieve the best possible trading arrangements for the developing countries of the Commonwealth within the framework of the Lomé convention, and we shall continue to do so.

    Purchasing Policy
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on purchasing; and what priority he gives to British suppliers.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): In accordance with Government guidelines, the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to purchase goods and services on a value-for-money basis and in accordance with our international obligations. British suppliers are used where they are competitive on quality, price and delivery.
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he comment on reports that the British ambassador to the United Nations has traded in his British-built Rolls-Royce for an American-built Lincoln Continental? What image does he think that gives to British industry and what hope does it give to British car workers? Can he imagine any other car manufacturing country that would behave in a similar fashion?
    Mr. Goodlad: The Rolls-Royce is the finest car in the world. It will succeed in international markets, regardless of whether Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington abides by the criteria that I described. I am delighted that he does.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box, have regular discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury about seeking value for money in the procurement of items for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? What is the view of his Department's officials, who have to make the decisions, about the directive to impose on the United Kingdom a minimum level of value added tax of 15 per cent? At some future date they would surely welcome a VAT rate below 15 per cent., as would all of us, but that, apparently, is precluded for the next four years.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I welcome his interest in VAT. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is spending £164 million in the current year on buying in goods and services. In the context of the increased globalisation of international trade, it is difficult to calculate the detail of that expenditure with the precision that both my hon. Friend and I would like, but I am sure that he will be as interested as I was to know that it is estimated that more than 85 per cent. of the expenditure is with British-registered companies.

    Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will implement a moratorium on United Kingdom nuclear tests.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): No. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom has a continuing requirement to conduct a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Etherington: On 8 April the French Government decided to impose a moratorium on nuclear testing and, following that, President Mitterrand made an offer to negotiate with other countries willing to go along the same lines. Also, expert opinion in the United States believes that nuclear testing is not necessary to maintain the value of nuclear deterrents. In view of all that, when can we expect the Government to start acting in a positive and constructive manner, or will we continue to stand on the sidelines and wait to see what happens?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: France's nuclear-testing requirements are matters for the French Government and the moratorium has no direct bearing on the United Kingdom's policy. The United Kingdom's test programme in Nevada is conducted in accordance with the 1963 partial test ban treaty. It is minimal and poses no threat to the environment or public health.

    Thailand
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Thailand.
    Mr. Goodlad: Her Majesty's Government were horrified by the events in Bangkok in mid-May, about which we expressed serious concern at the time. We look to the inquiry which is now under way to identify those responsible and to take action. We wish to maintain friendly and constructive relations with Thailand. We welcome the appointment of an interim Government and the announcement of new elections on 13 September.
    Mrs. Prentice: We all welcome the fact that the new Prime Minister has promised elections in the next few months and I am pleased that the Minister has condemned the atrocities that took place in May. However, does he also condemn the amnesty that has been granted to those behind the slaughter of unarmed demonstrators, and will he assure the House that the Government will do all in their power to pressurise the Thai Government to use the investigative committees to bring to justice those responsible for the atrocities? Does the Minister agree that no new regime can be credible unless the guilty people in the army and the Government are brought to trial?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Her Majesty's Government will continue to make our views known forcefully to the Government of Thailand.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last visit by a Foreign Office Minister to Hong Kong to discuss the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)—visited Hong Kong in May. I hope to visit Hong Kong from 26 to 28 July.
    Mr. Banks: Why are the British Government trying to distance themselves from the democracy movement in Hong Kong? Do the Government stand by the view that 30 members should be directly elected to the Legislative
    836
    Council by 1995? Is it not true that the best defence for the people of Hong Kong would be full democarcy by 1997, not pieces of paper exchanged between the Chinese and British Governments?
    Mr. Hurd: That depends on whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is important that the arrangements in 1995 should continue after 1997. We do. We have said that we shall discuss the 1995 elections with the Chinese, with the aim of ensuring as much continuity as possible. The new governor will be going out there this week. He will want to consult widely and put his views to us. That will take him some time, so I shall not announce any decisions on this matter when I go to Hong Kong at the end of this month.
    Mr. Adley: Is it not a fact that fewer than 10 per cent. of those eligible to register to vote actually did so and that the main winner in the election was the apathy party? That being so, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Her Majesty's Government's view that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong continue to be served when the relationship between Britain and China is better rather than worse?
    Mr. Hurd: That is highly desirable. There is a wide range of views in the House and in Hong Kong on the subject of the 1995 elections. Many different views are expressed by people from Hong Kong who come to see me. Mr. Patten must consult widely when he gets there, weigh up the views and the different factors, including the one that my hon. Friend mentioned, and then let us have his advice.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Foreign Secretary goes gallivanting to Hong Kong, will he call on the Hong Kong business man whom the Prime Minister met just before the general election? Taxpayers' money, supposedly, paid for the flight. When the Prime Minister got to Hong Kong, all he was bothered about was raising money for the Tory party and getting money from Hong Kong business men. Is the Foreign Secretary going to do the same?
    Mr. Hurd: I expect to keep in touch on Hong Kong matters with a range of opinions, including business opinion in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Churchill: Was not the principal failure of the 1919 treaty of Versailles that it rode roughshod over the democratic aspirations of many peoples? Can my right hon. Friend name any other instance in modern times when a colonial power has handed over a colony to another power in defiance of the wishes of the local people? What has happened to the hallowed principle of self-determination?
    Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, we are following the agreement that was reached in 1984 with the Chinese Government. That and subsequent agreements arrange for a steady increase in the directly elected members of LegCo. That, of course, has never happened before under any British Government or under any Government in Hong Kong. Eighteen members were directly elected in 1991 and 20 will be elected under the Basic Law in 1995. It is that second figure which we need to discuss. I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that the issue depends entirely on the number of directly elected members. There are

    837
    other constituencies in Hong Kong in LegCo, and the new governor will want to consider the range of the subject, not just the number of directly elected members.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we welcome the robust declaration by Chris Patten to the Chinese, which was widely reported today, to keep their hands off Hong Kong for the next five years while we retain responsibility? However, will the Foreign Secretary guarantee that when the Chinese put the heat on and try to blackmail us on issues such as the airport, he will stand firm behind Chris Patten and maintain our right to appoint members—whoever we wish—to the Executive Council, to extend democracy by extending direct elections to the Executive Council and to bring into force a system that protects human rights not only for the next five years, but well beyond? We have that responsibility to the people of Hong Kong and we must exert it fully over the next five years.
    Mr. Hurd: The three matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are within our jurisdiction under the agreement and under the joint declaration between now and 1997. Not only the new governor but the Minister of Stale—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury—have made it plain to the Chinese that, in particular, appointments to ExCo are a matter for the governor, with my approval.

    Maastricht Treaty
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to renegotiate the terms of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 25 June and 29 June, the Maastricht treaty was negotiated in good faith by all member states and we intend to stand by it.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made yesterday evening by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom presidency of the Commission provides a priceless opportunity for the Government to set the European agenda? If he agrees, will he accept that that will entail positive steps being taken by the Government? One popular measure would be the endorsement by the Government of the protocol in the Maastricht treaty on the social chapter. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that such popular measures are essential to stem the tide of opinion inside the House and in the country, which is clearly running against the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Hurd: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. If we followed his advice, the results would certainly be unpopular and would even more certainly destroy jobs in this country.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that article 236 of the treaty of Rome would appear to invalidate any treaty of Maastricht that excluded the Danes? Does he agree also that there can be no question of the British Government letting anybody down over the treaty of Maastricht, and that no one could ever be accused of breaking his word, given that it is the sovereign right of this Parliament to make such a decision?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course that is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht with the terms that
    838
    he asked for and later obtained. Those terms were approved in advance by the House of Commons, and they were again approved when he returned from Maastricht.
    My hon. Friend is right about article 236. I do not see how one could imagine the treaty of Maastricht entering into force without the assent of the Danes. What the Danes have done is to come to us following their referendum and to ask for time. That is their right. Time has been granted to them and we must wait until the autumn to see what suggestions and ideas they bring forward for resolving the matter.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Foreign Secretary face the fact that, in so far as it relates to the United Kingdom, the Maastricht treaty is, to coin a phrase, an opt-out too far? Does he accept that if he abandoned the social chapter opt-out, which would require no renegotiation of the treaty, he could at one stroke benefit millions of British workers and, in addition, give the Danish electorate a signal of real change in the Maastricht treaty? Such a move would also have the bonus of irritating alarmingly at least one lady down the Corridor.
    Mr. Hurd: If we did that, we should also be abandoning British business and people—
    Mr. Robertson: No.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should ask the CBI. In particular, we should be abandoning people who are unemployed and looking for jobs and those now in employment who would lose their jobs if the regulations were applied in this country.
    Mr. David Howell: I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's policy of building on our version of the Maastricht treaty rather than destroying it or throwing it over. But will my right hon. Friend undertake in meetings with the Commissioners, today and in future, to make it clear that, when it comes to redefining the functions of nation states and Community institutions, the nation states and not the Commissioners should do the redefining and decide who does what?
    Mr. Hurd: That is right, and the treaties have come to pass through the agreement of member states. In the Lisbon conclusions last weekend, what we were asked to do, and what we began to do in conversations with the Commission this morning, was to take the doctrine of minimum interference or subsidiarity—whatever one likes to call it—and start putting it into practice in advance of the treaty of Maastricht and in advance of ratification. That will mean a great deal of work by the Commission and by us during the British presidency, in identifying how we can make that doctrine not just a principle in a future treaty but something that guides the daily life of the Community in terms of future proposals and decisions already on the Community statute book.

    Sudan
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with the Sudan.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We maintain diplomatic relations with Sudan, but our relationship is not an easy one. Our main concerns are the regime's record on human

    839
    rights, its apparent lack of resolve in combating international terrorism, its failure to co-operate in the provision of humanitarian aid and the need to make progress towards more accountable Government accept-able to all parts of the country.
    Mr. Wardell: What initiatives or help are the Government making available to end the tragic civil war in Sudan, and what contacts or meetings have we had with democratic political movements in that country?
    Mr. Hogg: The truth is that we have precious few levers with the Government of Sudan. I welcome what the Nigerians have been doing in persuading the parties to hold discussions in Abuja, and we hope that those discussions will be profitable. We also make our views clear to the Government of Sudan on every possible occasion—including today, here.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that the talks in Abuja ended without any positive result. Does he accept that any talks aimed at solving the problems of the civil-war-stricken country of Sudan must seek a solution that is based on multi-party democracy, a secular state and a constitution that enshrines human rights and individual rights? Surely, as the old imperial power, the British Government must have some opportunity to instigate talks. Perhaps the Government could talk to their partner from the old imperial days— Egypt—about instigating such talks.
    Mr. Hogg: We must face the fact that the Government of Sudan are difficult. The objectives that my hon. Friend has outlined are entirely right. We want to see a multicultural, multilingual, pluralistic society in Sudan that is committed to democratic institutions, but our ability to bring that about is remarkably limited. For example, we do not give developmental aid to the country because of its past policies. Our ability to persuade the Government of Sudan to do that which is right is less than we should like.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many refugees, both internal and external, in Sudan? They live in the most desperate poverty in great danger to themselves. They suffer a severe degree of ill health. In those circumstances, is he prepared to reconsider the statement that he just made about aid to Sudan? Will he consider whether humanitarian aid can be sent to refugees who are the victims of civil wars throughout the region for which they bear no responsibility?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I said that we gave no developmental aid to Sudan. We have in place a humanitarian aid programme. We have contributed more than £53 million in humanitarian relief to Sudan since the beginning of the present food crisis in 1990. We make a distinction between developmental aid, which we do not give, and humanitarian aid, which we do give.

    South Africa
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards democracy in South Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: Before the negotiations were suspended, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa had made
    840
    remarkable progress in securing agreement on transforming South Africa into a non-racial democratic society. That makes all the more tragic the recent increase in violence. I remain convinced that the interests of the majority of South Africans are best served by concerted efforts to put the negotiations back on track as quickly as possible.
    Mrs. Lait: May I please begin by mentioning that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. West (Sir J. Spicer) is missing from his place in the Chamber today because he is organising the parliamentary plunge on behalf of Macmillan nurses, which is well on the way to raising a substantial sum of money for that well-known charity.
    Following the tragic events in the beautiful and sad land of South Africa, does my right hon. Friend agree that mutual trust is at the heart of any peaceful settlement? What concrete examples does he have of ways in which Britain can help the parties in the dispute?
    Mr. Hurd: It is clear that the problem of violence lies at the heart of the difficulty and mistrust. That is why we are keen to help Judge Goldstone and his commission of inquiry into public violence and intimidation. Dr. Waddington of Reading university is helping the commission in its work. I can tell the House that, in addition, two senior Metropolitan police officers, Commander Tom Laidlaw and Detective Superintendent David Don, are going out to South Africa to help Judge Goldstone with his work. That is a practical example of how we can help to curb the violence and thus reduce the mistrust.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the awesome scale of the disaster that may face South Africa as a result of the breakdown of the negotiations? As a matter of urgency, will he activate a decision taken by the European Council to send the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Portugal and the United Kingdom—the troika —to South Africa to investigate what is happening? The Foreign Secretary will learn there at first hand of the desperate need of the people of South Africa for outside intervention and influence to resolve matters.
    Mr. Hurd: I am in touch with the South Africans about that. For example. I telephoned the South African Foreign Minister last night. At the right time and with the right purpose, a visit by the troika of Ministers—which I would lead—could be useful. I am anxious to do it at the right time, in a way that will help to bring people back to the conference table, and not merely as a prestige gesture.
    Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cause of democracy in South Africa is ill served by those who would pin all blame for the breakdown in negotiations on one party? The obvious answer is to get the talks going again as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that the British Government wish the outcome of the talks to be a constitution in which all racial groups can play their part, and that it would not be in our interests for South Africa to slide down the road to one-party rule?
    Mr. Hurd: It is clearly for the parties who have been sitting round the negotiating table in South Africa to decide among themselves what their country's future constitution should be. It is tragic that they made a lot of progress, as my hon. Friend knows, and were separated by

    841
    a narrow but important difference, before trust was undermined and the conference temporarily suspended as a result of the violence. I confirm that the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is yes.
    Mr. Hanson: In condemning the recent violence in South Africa, would the Secretary of State impress upon the South African Government that the patience of the African National Congress is running out? Does he agree with the view expressed in early-day motion 347 that a re-imposition of the sports boycott on South Africa would be appropriate to show international condemnation?
    Mr. Hurd: Everyone has to show patience and it is a bad sign when people start talking about patience being exhausted. Great reserves of patience will continue to be needed in South Africa—not for apartheid, but for the difficult business of replacing it with a democratic constitution. A sports boycott would not be a good idea. It is for sporting bodies to decide and not for Governments, but to start to go down that weary road again would give entirely the wrong signal.

    Kosova
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to recognise the republic of Kosova.
    Mr. Hurd: We have no plans to recognise the republic of Kosova.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the 90 per cent. ethnic Albanian population in Kosova have been regularly and cruelly oppressed by the Serbian military and police, and that in a recent poll—with turnout of approximately 80 per cent., which is creditable by our democratic standards—99 per cent. of the population voted for autonomy?
    Mr. Hurd: And that surely must be the right answer. I agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, Kosova is largely inhabited by people of Albanian origin, but it is also regarded by Serbs as the heartland of their country. A few months ago Lord Carrington's peace conference suggested the same answer as my hon. Friend—full autonomy.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: While accepting the Government's reservations about the employment of ground forces in the Balkans, if it becomes clear that combat aircraft and Royal Navy ships are necessary to achieve the purpose of the United Nations, will the Government make such resources available to the UN?
    Mr. Hurd: We are considering, almost daily, in the Security Council and with our partners in Europe and in NATO, what help we can give, first with the humanitarian air lift. Our planes are standing by, ready for the go-ahead which the UN has asked us to await before we start to send supplies to Sarajevo. We have to look ahead—
    Mr. Skinner: The question is out of order.
    Mr. Hurd: I am answering the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We have to look ahead, and I am sure that we would play our part, although not with ground troops, in any future UN plans for humanitarian relief.
    Mr. Wareing: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's answer to the orginial question. I advise caution before making the same mistake in prematurely recognising Kosovo as we made with Croatia and Bosnia. Does he realise that to give in to those who want Kosovo to be recognised prematurely would simply send the same message to the minority Serbs in that region as was sent to those in Croatia? They would fell that they had been abandoned, and such action would play into the hands of the extreme Serbian nationalists in Belgrade.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not want to add to what I have said about Kosovo. On Croatia, which was one of the republics of the former Yugoslav federation, there was an argument about timing, but I am sure that it was not wrong to recognise it. Last week, we followed up that action by establishing full diplomatic relations with Croatia, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman would consider to be right. I hope to name the first British ambassador in Zagreb soon.

    Cyprus
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the continued occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend recently met a delegation from the friends of Cyprus parliamentary group. He has received 10 letters on this subject this year. The problem of foreign troops in Cyprus is likely to be resolved only within an overall settlement of the Cyprus dispute. Recent proximity talks in New York chaired by the United Nations Secretary-General went well and will resume on 15 July. Dr. Boutros Ghali has expressed confidence of success, given the necessary political will from all parties. We continue to be active, both bilaterally and through the Security Council, in working to encourage progress.
    Dr. Spink: What help has Britain given to the United Nations to try to broker a settlement to the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right that the United Nations offers the best hope of progress. It provides the necessary authority and impartiality to encourage the two communities to reach a mutually acceptable and lasting solution. The United Kingdom attended the talks at senior official level at the express invitation of the secretary-general. We have continual contact with all parties while trying to assist them in reaching an equitable settlement. We aim to remain particularly involved because of our status as a guarantor power.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As Greece, like Turkey, also has troops in Cyprus in excess of the number allowed by the treaty of guarantee, what representations has the Minister made to Greece about its occupation troops in southern Cyprus?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I believe that a resolution of troop numbers and all the issues that are so difficult in Cyprus will take place only in the context of an overall solution. We are working with the United Nations Secretary-General to achieve such a solution. The difficulty to which

    843
    the right hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention is one of many that we would seek to resolve within that overall solution.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is necessary for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots since international guarantees failed to protect them from massacre by Greek Cypriots in 1963, 1967 and again in 1974?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: There is no doubt that a significant reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. However, as I said to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), that is unlikely to take place other than in the context of a wider solution.
    Mrs. Roche: Given the continuing occupation by Turkish troops, what representations has the Minister made to the Turkish Government about the fate of the missing people, some of whom have families living in my constituency?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: A few days ago, accompanied by one of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, I received in the Foreign Office a group of Cypriots acting on behalf of the missing people. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this is one of the most tragic aspects of the whole Cyprus dispute. What we can do is to continue to work as closely as possible with the United Nations to bring about the overall settlement within which I think that this problem would be resolved.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of those missing persons were killed by the Greek Cypriots?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The United Nations committee for missing persons has found it extremely difficult to obtain proper evidence from either side of the argument. I revert to the answer that I have given to other hon. and right hon. Members—this is one of the many tragic problems which will be resolved only in the context of an overall solution.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the most specific terms, allay the fears that have been expressed to me from authoritative quarters in Cyprus that in the current talks pressure is being put on the legitimate Government of Cyprus to make concessions that would water down the sovereignty of that official Government? Will the Minister state very specifically indeed that the British Government will not be a party to any settlement of the Cyprus problem unless that settlement is absolutely acceptable to the present legitimate Government of that country?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I repeat that our view of the way forward rests firmly on the concept of one country, two communities.

    European Union Treaty
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to arrange for the essential elements of any treaty on European union to be circulated to every household.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The Government have no plans to do so. Copies of the treaty on European union and of the memoranda produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth
    844
    Office and Her Majesty's Treasury are available to members of the public from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the precedent in the previous Parliament whereby certain aspects of Government policy were brought to the attention of every household. If the treaty on European union is in the best interests of the British people, why is my right hon. Friend so keen to stifle wider public debate by refusing the public a referendum and denying them the essential information on which to reach their own conclusions?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that the accusation of stifling debate on this matter can be levelled against this House, the press or the British public.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister tell us why the Government, for the second time, are blocking the progress of the European Union (Public Information) Bill? What are his objections to the principles of that Bill? Can it be that he is afraid of the expenditure? Will he consider putting down a money resolution? Surely the expenditure involved would be a far less than that involved in the 19 charters, including the one just mentioned.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Unless I am mistaken, the Bill to which the hon. Member refers has been introduced at the back of the Chair. The fate of such Bills tends to lie in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, rather than in my hands.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend think again about the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)? Does he accept that many of us who are not Euro-sceptics believe that there is a great deal to be said for thoroughly informing the people of this country about the benefits of Maastricht?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says. The Government have to judge very carefully. In the first instance, I am sure that the House will accept that copies of the Maastricht treaty were made available to the House quickly and in large quantities. Given the way in which the debate is developing, the Government will have to consider whether it would be in the interests of the House and of the country at large to make further information about the many benefits of the Maastricht treaty available to a wider public.

    EC Presidency
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the priorities of the British presidency of the EC.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom current policy priorities for the EC presidency.
    Mr. Hurd: The House will debate that question tomorrow. We aim to complete the single market; make progress toward limiting the scope of Community interventions; complete future financing negotiations; prepare for enlargement of the Community; conclude, if possible, the GATT Uruguay round; and build stronger

    845
    relations with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. All those matters were usefully discussed with the Commission in London this morning.
    Ms. Quin: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the European Union of Women yesterday, is he worried that his priorities for the United Kingdom presidency will be blown off course by political spivs dressed in ermine?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is getting her news from headlines. I would not have dreamed of calling anyone in either House, or outside, a spiv or a gazumper. What I was criticising was the suggestion that the Prime Minister should have put himself in that position.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that to understand how the Community works some Members of this House, as well as people outside, could also do with an information pack? After recent hysterical attacks on the European Commission, will the Government remind hon. Members that the Commission—including the two British Commissioners—speaks with one voice and that the Council of Ministers of sovereign member states makes the decisions which are supplied and proposed by the Commission unless it is delegated legislation? It is a weird notion that some hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that the European central bank should be in London but that we should not join European monetary union.
    Mr. Hurd: That question is an intriguing mix. It is important to make it clear that the Commission proposes and the Council of Ministers decides. What both the Commission and the Council need to do now—after the meeting in Lisbon and before they begin to discuss the merits of any proposal within the Community's competence—is to work out whether it is for the common good that the Community, rather than nation states, should do that. Unless it is clearly for the common good, it should be left to nation states.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, during the British presidency, one of the highest priorities is given to support for the new Government of Israel and its determination to have a continued dialogue towards resolving the conflict there? Will he also take the opportunity, on behalf of the House, to wish the new Israeli Government every success when it is formed? I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that that Government have won on their policies. Both Jews and Arabs in Israel have voted for policies which ensure that territorial compromise is the name of the game. We wish them every success in that continued dialogue.
    Mr. Hurd: That is gracefully expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who has a keen and continuing interest in the Palestinian problem. We shall do our best during our presidency to support the peace process and I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that it will now resume with renewed impetus.
    Sir Peter Hordern: To deal with the high level of fraud in the European Community, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the provisions of the Maastricht treaty which deal with the extra powers given to the European Parliament to investigate the European Commission are carried through successfully?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, it is important that the provisions in the Maastricht treaty that enable the Parliament and, indeed, the Court of Auditors to do more, should be put into effect. We see no contradiction between that and the exercise that I have already described of restricting Community institutions' scope for intervention.
    Mr. Kaufman: Consequent on the right hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will the Minister express the anger of this House at the admission by the outgoing Prime Minister of Israel that he deliberately intended to sabotage the Madrid peace process? Will the right hon. Gentleman offer his congratulations to Mr. Rabin, not only on his excellent victory, but on his stated determination to speed up the talks with the Palestinians to try to achieve a settlement as quickly as possible? Above all, will he congratulate the electorate of Israel on voting to rescue the true identity of their country?
    Mr. Hurd: I have not seen Mr. Shamir's statement, so I cannot comment on that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a warm message of congratulations and support to Mr. Rabin. We hope that the Government of Israel will be able, with the co-operation of others, which is also necessary—I am thinking of Syria and Palestine —to set the peace process going again with renewed impetus. That is important for us all. What was the right hon. Gentleman's last point?
    Mr. Kaufman: My last point was about the decision of the Israeli electorate.
    Mr. Hurd: On the whole, I am in favour of congratulating electorates, particularly our own.

    EC Foreign Policies
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European Community foreign policies.
    Mr. Hurd: I meet my European Community partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Maastricht treaty will enable Britain, through Europe, to exert much more influence in international affairs and thus protect British interests much more effectively?
    Mr. Hurd: What the Maastricht treaty does in that respect is to underline and strengthen the co-operation between member states of the Community in foreign affairs. It takes foreign affairs out of any possible conveyor belt into integration with the Commission's monopoly of initiative and the jurisdiction of the court. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that that is the right framework in which Community members should conduct their essential work together on foreign policy.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Foreign Secretary try to convince the other Community Foreign Ministers to condemn the decision of the Government of Norway to resort to international piracy by walking out of the International Whaling Commission, which is meeting this week in Glasgow in my constituency? Does he agree that

    847
    Norway's decision to return to the killing fields, thus turning the oceans of the world into bloodbaths with the tracking and butchering of those beautiful and important creatures, makes Norway singularly unsuitable for membership of the European Community?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made our position clear before the conference. We shall seek to persuade others, inside and outside the Community, that our position is reasonable and right.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary turn his attention to the letter in today's edition of The Times from the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Dr. Karadzik, explaining why they have initiated a ceasefire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an extremely welcome development?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course I do. I congratulate The Times on resuming something of its ancient role in receiving such letters from all over the world. What counts is not the letter to The Times or radio broadcasts to the same effect, but whether the policy works on the ground. That is being tested in these hours. I hope, as the United Nations hopes, that within the next day the United Nations commander, General Mackenzie, will be able to tell us and others that as a result of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred Sarajevo airport is open for a regular flow of supplies. We shall then send in our supplies. It will clearly be important to continue that flow, to ensure that the road to Sarajevo is open and that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross can distribute supplies in Sarajevo. I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that the letter in The Times and similar statements elsewhere will lead to the permanent relief of Sarajevo.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process in Cambodia.
    Mr. Goodlad: Much progress has been made towards the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict. The United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia—UNTAC—was established on 28 February; repatriation of those Cambodians now in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border is continuing and the international community has pledged some $880 million of aid to help reconstruct Cambodia. We remain concerned, however, at the continuing unwillingness of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate with UNTAC.
    Mr. Mullin: Given that the failure of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate was predicted and predictable, does the Foreign Secretary regret that Britain went along with the Governments of China and the United States in sustaining the Khmer Rouge for a long period in the 1980s? Does he agree that sooner or later the Khmer Rouge will have to be confronted?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in these matters, is historically less than his usually accurate self. We did not sustain the Khmer Rouge. We remain concerned by its unwillingness
    848
    to co-operate with UNTAC, notably in moving to phase 2 of the ceasefire, and we have registered our concerns with the Khmer Rouge, most recently in the declaration that I made at the international conference on the reconstruction of Cambodia in Tokyo last week. It is vital that all factions work fully and unconditionally with UNTAC so as to move to phase 2 of the ceasefire as planned. We are determined to exert the maximum pressure on the Khmer Rouge to comply with its commitments under the Paris accords. The Supreme National Council will meet in Phnom Penh tomorrow to assess the situation. Thereafter, the United Nation's Secretary-General's special represen-tative will report to the secretary-general and the Security Council. Together with our international partners, we shall then need to consider what further action is required.
    Mr. Bowls: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can keep pressure on the Khmer Rouge only if the peacefkeeping forces are provided with adequate troops? Can he confirm that the promises from the United Nations have now been fulfilled, because if the United Nations cannot control the Khmer Rouge the people of Cambodia certainly cannot and we shall be back to the real killing fields of Cambodia all too soon?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is intended that UNTAC should consist of just under 16,000 military personnel, 3,000 police, and up to 4,000 civilians, together with 60,000 locally recruited personnel. The cost are estimated at just under $1.7 billion. The deployment of UNTAC is on course, and most UNTAC troops are now in the country.

    South Africa
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives from South Africa on the progress of dismantling apartheid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We maintain a close dialogue with all the parties in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister keeps in contact with President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. We are also in close touch with Chief Buthelezi.
    Mr. Pike: As the former Prime Minister said in this House that the Government of post-partheid South Africa would have to be acceptable to all the people of South Africa, will the British Government make it clear to President de Klerk that when negotiations resume after their suspension it is crucial that the power of veto be overcome? The veto must not preserve apartheid and privilege in a different form in post-apartheid South Africa.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is precisely because the future Government of South Africa must be accepted by all the parties there that this question is a matter for the Convention for a Democratic South Africa to decide. It would be quite wrong of me to comment on the matter.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: As part of this process, is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the South African security forces are doing all that they can to police the Zulu hostels in the townships? If he shares my concern about that—it is widely shared—will he communicate it to the South Africa Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is clearly most important that the South African security forces should police those areas in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The South African Government are in close contact with my right hon. Friends, who have discussions with them on these points.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister agree that unless Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the South African Government that the South African security forces must be wholly divorced from political incitement to violence—that is the only way in which anyone can ever begin to negotiate—there will be a tradgedy to which the inaction of the British Government will have contributed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt extensively with that point. Obviously, the escalation of violence is the real and terrible problem in South Africa which is preventing meaningful negotiations. My right hon. Friend said that he was in touch with the Foreign Minister of South Africa only yesterday and discussed the very matters to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention.

    Lithuania
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Lithuania.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with Lithuania are very good.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that good relations require efforts by both countries? While welcoming our Government's steps to improve relations with Lithuania, may I ask whether they will make representations to the Government of Lithuania about their failure to compensate my constituent Mr. Salt for the value of property in Lithuania expropriated in 1940?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has a point. He puts the case for his constituent extremely persuasively and has corresponded with me on more than one occasion. There are problems in that Lithuania's domestic legislation puts a barrier in the way of his constituent's claim. However, I shall see what we can properly do to impress on the Government of Lithuania the consequence of their prohibition.

VSEL (Redundancies)
3.30 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
Today my constituents have learnt that another 1,000 jobs are to be lost at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard. Those are on top of 5,500 jobs that have been lost in the shipyard since 1990, and brings the total of jobs lost there this year to 2,000. A particularly disturbing and worrying aspect of this round of redundancies is its impact on young people in my constituency, because 250 of the 1,000 jobs that are now to be lost are the jobs of young people who are completing their apprentice training this year. These young men and women are just starting on their careers, and this is a devastating blow to them and their families.
The situation facing my constituents is now so grave and serious that it merits an emergency debate. Many hon. Members will know that my constituency has an historic reliance on one employer VSEL. No other jobs are available for my constituents, and they and the south-west Cumbrian economy as a whole simply cannot sustain such job losses. I am fearful of the effect that the redundancies will have on the fabric of life in my community. After many decades of loyal service to the defence needs of the United Kingdom, my constituents deserve better treatment than this.
We need an immediate opportunity to hear the Government's response to this latest crisis affecting my constituents. Today marks a turning point in the life of my constituency and in the lives of many thousands of my constituents. I earnestly hope that you will accede to my request, Madam Speaker, and give my constituents the chance to let their voices and feelings on this matter be heard in the House.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to give my decision on the matter without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret making points of order on two days in a row, but my point of order today is totally different. You will remember that up to a few years ago on Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions we had about 20 minutes for questions about the European Community. Things changed and there were reasons for that at that time. As you realise, the issue for debate in the House above all others and the issue for debate in the country is Europe. Is there any way in which a slot for European questions could be reintroduced?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker, and before you answer it, perhaps I can help.
Madam Speaker: The ever-helpful Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Marlow) is absolutely right. Time used to be allowed after half-past 3 for Common Market questions. One reason for the change was that the Tory Government at that time were very much in favour of everything that happened in the Common Market. That was when the previous Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, was pushing through the Single European Act with a guillotine. Everyone on the Government Benches seemed to think that everything in the Common Market garden was fine and lovely. They decided therefore to get rid of that question time. It is interesting that, now that the Tories are split down the middle, they want it restored. I am prepared to give them a chuck on.
Madam Speaker: I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members should delay the business of the House on points of order of which I am already very well seized. Both hon. Gentlemen know that their points of order concern a matter that is for the Government, not the Chair.

Secret Societies (Declaration)
3.35 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that an occupant of, or candidate for appointment or election to, a public office or a post in a public service shall make a public declaration as to his membership or otherwise of any secret society; and for connected purposes.
My Bill seeks to ensure that candidates either for appointment or election to public office should declare their membership or otherwise of any secret society. It will require also that the record of any such declarations is made available to the public.
The Bill should appeal to democrats of all political persuasions. It does not seek to ban anything or to discriminate against anyone. It is based on the simple principle that membership by public servants of secret societies is incompatible with democracy and undermines public confidence in public institutions.
For those who fear that a declaration of membership of a particular organisation could result in discrimination, I shall include a clause that outlaws discrimination against anyone on the basis of any declaration that they have been obliged to make under the Bill.
Although no particular organisation is mentioned and the scope of my Bill is not limited to any particular organisations, you. Madam Speaker, may not be surprised to learn that freemasons will be among those who fall within its scope. A number of speeches made recently by senior masons were designed to persuade the public that masons have entered an era of glasnost. I may add that this does not extend to masons being willing to appear with me on "The World at One" to discuss the issue. This afternoon, a request was made to the Grand Lodge to provide a spokesman, but the answer was no. I regret to say that the BBC, with characteristic gutlessness, therefore cancelled the interview.
Leading masons have been at pains to emphasise that freemasonry is a bit of harmless fun and that its objectives are mainly sociable and charitable. It would be easier to convince non-masons of that were it not for the secrecy— reinforced by blood-curdling oaths—to which all masons are sworn.
I want to stress that the Bill makes no objection to the practice of freemasonry. If grown men want to wear aprons, bare their breasts, and indulge in strange rituals, that is entirely a matter for them. I object to the secrecy, and to the corrosive effect that it has on public confidence in many of our most respected institutions.
It is said that there are about 320,000 masons in England and Wales, 100,000 in Scotland and 55,000 in Northern Ireland. The nearest that we have to a definitive account of their activities is Martin Short's excellent book "Inside the Brotherhood". Its author suggests that freemasons are particularly well represented at all levels of the legal profession, in the police up to the highest level, in local government, places of higher education, and among hospital consultants. There is even a lodge in the House of Commons, membership of which, I understand, includes the hon. Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and a number of Officials of the House. There is also a lodge for the Press Gallery—about which considerably less is known than of the New Welcome lodge to which Members of Parliament and Officials of the House belong.
854
According to the 1991 masonic handbook for County Durham—which for masonic purposes includes Sunderland—Sunderland has 29 lodges with a total membership of 1,597. There are also various other masonic bodies, including eight royal arch chapters with a membership of 390, Master Masons with 24 members. Royal Ark Marines with 31, the Rose Croix with 59 and Proceptories—do not ask me what all this means, Madam Speaker—with 32. Several other masonic bodies do not list the total number of members. They include the Knights Templar Tabernacle, the Royal and Select Masters, the Order of the Secret Monitor, the Harte Conclave and Allied Masonic Degrees.
Lodge 5841 is the civic centre lodge. It has 62 members, and meets at a masonic temple conveniently situated less than 100 yards from the headquarters of the borough council. A number of other officials belong to lodges elsewhere. Some idea of the scale of masonic influence in County Durham may be gained from the handbook, a publication which, while not exactly secret, is not readily available to non-masons. It lists every lodge, in each case giving the number of members and the names of current officers and past masters. The names listed amount to about 10 per cent. of the total membership of each lodge. Altogether, they cover about 250 closely typed pages.
As I look through the names of officers listed for the Sunderland lodges, my eye alights on a number of familiar names—names of people who are or were prominent in local public life. I see the name of a former chief executive of the borough council, and of the late Tyne and Wear county council. I see the name of a former leader of the council—a Tory, I should add. I see the names of former directors of housing and architecture. I see the names of policemen, magistrates and consultants—including that of a consultant whose wife is a magistrate.
In an earlier handbook, I see the name of Mr. Ray Delaney, a former deputy director of engineering in the borough of Sunderland, who was obliged to resign two years ago after allegations of conflict between his professional duties and outside business interests. Mr. Delaney's name is preceded by the letters "IG": I understand from those who know about such matters that they stand for "inner guard". I have no idea what the duties of an inner guard entail, hut, if masons are worried about the sinister connotations that non-masons sometimes place on their activities, I put it to them that they have only themselves to blame.
As you know, Madam Speaker, for some years I have taken a particular interest in miscarriages of justice. That interest has brought me into contact with people at all levels of public life in the police and the legal profession, particularly in the west midlands. I make no allegations of impropriety, but one would have to be blind not to notice that many of those with whom I have dealt are freemasons.
In particular, those people include police officers up to and including the rank of chief constable. With the possible exception of the legal profession, there can he few professions in which freemasons are as well represented as they are in the police. That has been widely remarked on, and it is hard to think of anything more damaging to public confidence in the police. I know that it is deeply resented by police officers who are not freemasons.
In April 1985, Sir Kenneth Newman, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who did more than anyone else to clean up the Met, issued the following guidance to police officers who were freemasons. It appeared in an

855
official document entitled "The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour", and was drafted by Assistant Commissioner Albert Laugharne. He wrote:
"The discerning officer will probably consider it wise to forgo the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in freemasonry so as to enjoy the unreserved regard of all those around him."
Those words might well apply to anyone in public life who is a freemason. My Bill, however, does not go as far as Sir Kenneth. It does not ask public servants to renounce freemasonry; it merely asks them to renounce secrecy.
I believe that this simple measure will enjoy the widespread support of democrats of every political persuasion, and I am confidant that it will find support on both sides of the House. It is entirely consistent with the Government's stated ambition to create a classless society, and is essential to the stated intention of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice to restore public confidence in the police and the legal system.
My proposal has a good deal of support in high places. In 1986, the author Martin Short sent a questionnaire on freemasonry to every Member of Parliament. Questions 6 and 7 asked whether Members of Parliament and other public servants—including councillors, judges, policemen, civil servants and local government officers—ought to be obliged to declare their membership of masonic bodies. Among those who completed the questionnaire and agreed that public servants should declare was the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who is now the Prime Minister. I have a copy of the questionnaire that he signed, with his signature at the bottom, and it is available for inspection. I look forward in due course to the Prime Minister's support and help in ensuring that my Bill becomes law.
A great deal of paranoia surrounds freemasonry, much of it no doubt unjustified, and I have no wish to add to it. As I said at the outset, my Bill is based on the simple principle that membership of a secret society is incompatible with office in a modern democracy. Take away the secrecy, and the problem is resolved. I believe that my Bill will have the support of all those who believe. as I do, in greater openness in public life. I hope that it will also enjoy the support of honest freemasons—I am sure that they are the overwhelming majority—who arc concerned at the poor public image that their organisation currently enjoys.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend and Mr. Bob Cryer.

SECRET SOCIETIES (DECLARATION) BILL
Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to require that an occupant of, or candidate for appointment or election to, a public office or a post in a public service shall make a public declaration as to his membership or otherwise of any secret society; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [Lords]
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION IN PREMISES MANAGED BY VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS ETC.
  3.46 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 1. in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  '(1A) No arrangements shall be made by virtue of this section with respect to a person being transferred into accommodation from an NHS hospital or trust unless the voluntary organisation or other person concerned has ensured that that person is provided with a care plan and the authority is satisfied that such arrangements will facilitate this plan.'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to provide for a clear care plan when individuals are placed in an establishment under the Bill. I shall give the reasons behind the Opposition's concern, and will refer first to the White Paper "Caring for People—Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond". It sets out clearly the national health service's role in providing continuous health care. I refer to the White Paper because my hon. Friends and I believe that the Government's actions do not follow the words of the White Paper. Paragraph 4.20 states:
  "There will … always he some people who cannot be supported in their own homes. Where such people require continuous care for reasons of ill-health, it will remain the responsibility of health authorities to provide for this."
  In practice, that paragraph is meaningless. Continuous care is not occurring in hospitals and other places throughout the land.
  There have been huge reductions in the provision of care for the elderly. The national health service is clearly divesting itself of its responsibilities, with, I believe, the implicit blessing of the Government. Figures in the "THS Health Summary" of January 1992 show clearly what the position is. According to that journal, three quarters of health authorities had reported that in recent years they had cut the number of long-stay beds for the elderly. It also stated that closure plans would reduce NHS beds for the elderly mentally ill by 36 per cent. from 1990 levels. Everyone is aware that that number had been substantially reduced before 1990. The plans would reduce other geriatric beds by 25 per cent. and, even counting the private beds that have been bought for the NHS, the numbers would be down by 15 per cent. and 12 per cent. respectively.
  There have been many expressions of concern about the implications of that process. The Age Concern report entitled "Discontinuing Care" and published in 1991 shows great anxiety about the attitude of the NHS towards care of the elderly. At that time, the director, Sally Greengross, said:
  "Long term hospitals may not have appropriate places for the care these people need, but this does not relieve them of the responsibility to provide and fund care for people who are defenceless and in need of total care."
  The Age Concern report showed that some district health authorities now have no provision for elderly people needing continuing nursing care. That is worrying for many patients and their relatives and carers.

  857
  The Government say that provision is now in the private sector. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux evidence produced not long ago shows that many patients and their families are never told that NHS funding is available for continuing nursing care. When they have to obtain such nursing care within the private sector, those patients and their relatives are often forced to meet the huge gap between what income support will provide and the weekly cost of the fees. I am aware of many people who have to spend their entire pocket money from their allowances on meeting the cost of care fees. This has been discussed many occasions.
  I am concerned about the implications in my locality of the process that I have described. Since 1979, in the Wakefield health authority area, I have seen 1,000 beds removed from the NHS. Those beds were taken from hospitals catering for people within my constituency and were used mainly for elderly people. That shows why we feel that, especially in care for the elderly, there must be care plans for people discharged from hospitals and trusts. Some 200 of those beds in the Wakefield area were in the acute sector. The Government's figures show that about half the people catered for within the acute sector are elderly people.
  In my constituency I have seen the closure of County hospital and Snapethorpe hospital in Wakefield, both of which catered primarily for the elderly on a long-stay or short-stay respite basis. The needs of those people are now met primarily, if they are met at all, by carers in their own homes or by the private sector. We know from the Carers National Organisation the struggles that many people have in caring for their relatives or loved ones. The recent report, "Speak Up, Speak Out", produced by the Carers National Organisation reveals the problems. Those who are not cared for within their own homes are placed in private homes. The process in my constituency—it is reflected in every constituency throughout the country—is that NHS provision has been run down or closed and people are shunted into the private sector. If that is not privatisation of the health service, I do not know what is.
  At a national level, we are seeing the trend towards shifting the cost of long-term care from the health budget to social security. The National Institute for Social Work produced a commendable report in January 1992. It was entitled "Great Expectations". That report says that the transfer of elderly care from the NHS to the social security budget is feasible
  "while the social security budget for such care remains open ended but will present a very different picture when that budget becomes cash-limited on transfer to local authorities in 1993."
  There are serious questions being asked about whether the 1993 changes will go ahead as planned. That point may be picked up by my hon. Friends or by some Conservative Members. We are well aware that the options include a further deferment of these proposals or the transfer of the lead agency-purchaser role directly to health authorities either at local or regional purchasing level. That would avoid the local authorities having that lead agency function.
  That option has been talked about widely within the care community. Such uncertainties make the need for care plans related to the placement of' people directly from hospitals or from trusts even more essential and back up our belief in the need for such plans to be prescribed in the Bill.
  858
  Amendment No. 1 refers specifically to trusts as well as to NHS hospitals. We have reasons for including the term "trust". We believe that there is clear evidence of trusts positively obstructing the processes of proper community care planning. I made the point in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 that the NHS and community care elements of the Act were contradictory. We are now beginning to see in practice that those of us who made that point on many occasions were correct in our assessment of what was likely to happen.
  I give one fairly well known example which explains our belief in the need for the amendment and ties in with the concern about trusts. The City and Hackney health authority, which was slimming down for trust status, shunted about 30 elderly demented patients to a private nursing home called the Pines near Skipton in Yorkshire. That private care home was run by an organisation called Burley Health Care. I asked the Minister where the care plans were in respect of the placement of those vulnerable demented people. The care plans did not exist. That case, along with many others that we could quote, evidences the need for amendment No. 1.
  The case of those elderly people was exposed by "Panorama", to its great credit. Those people were dumped by a trust applicant and sent up to Yorkshire, where there would be Department of Social Security funding away from the health service budget and away from the area in which they had been brought up and had lived all their lives. They were sent to a strange locality and to a different system of funding. As we know from "Panorama", conditions at the Pines were appalling. Serious questions need to be asked about the role of the City and Hackney health authority and about Airedale health authority.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his place today. He was Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, and I normally have a reasonable relationship with him, but on one occasion he ruled me out of order. When we were studying the issue of trusts, I asked a question about the role of Airedale health authority. The hon. Member for Macclesfield will recall that, on 4 March 1992, Mr. Edward Bishop, who was described as "director of healthcare contracting" in the Airedale health authority, gave evidence on trusts. I raised with him the way in which the 30 people from City and Hackney health authority had been treated and the role of Airedale health authority in that respect.
  I am not sure that the hon. Member for Macclesfield, for whom I have some respect in his role as Chairman of the Select Committee, fully understood my point. What was clear from the evidence given by Mr. Bishop was that he washed his hands of any responsibility for those people's appalling situation. I quote from Mr. Bishop's response to a question of mine on 4 March 1992 in the Select Committee:
  "I have to make it quite clear, there is no role for what might become the Health Authority of residence to play in that we are free as individuals in this country to move from one part of the country to another."
  That was his response to the case of people who had been sent from London and dumped in a completely unsuitable, shabby private nursing home in the Yorkshire dales. There was no proper monitoring and no proper care plan.
  When Mr. Bishop talks about freedom, he is talking about 30 seriously demented elderly patients who, I

  859
  suspect, had no choice about moving from London to Yorkshire. On care planning, the key issue is that Airedale health authority was responsible for the registration of the Pines nursing home. It had a clear responsibility, although that was obviously not accepted by the gentleman who gave evidence to the Select Committee. That is one example among many that we could cite to show that the need for clear care plans in the Bill is self-evident.
  4 pm
  The need for care plans as a result of the creation of trusts is also evident from comments on behalf of other service users. I have spoken primarily of the elderly, but other groups such as the mentally ill benefit from care provision and will be affected by the Bill. In its evidence to the Select Committee, MIND made it quite clear that it saw no incentive for trusts to collaborate with agencies outside the health sector.
  In respect of people with learning difficulties—some use the term "mentally handicapped"—with the advent of trusts, the Government have introduced a policy that contradicts the thrust of community care policy over the past 30 years. The Mental Health Act 1959, the 1971 Command Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped", the 1979 Jay report and numerous reports issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in the 1980s, including "Getting Mentally Handicapped Children Out of Hospitals", were all about the normalisation of care of people with learning difficulties, away from hospitals. They were all about the community. With the advent of trusts, the Government are thus running counter to the trend that has prevailed for the past 35 years. No one seems to have picked that up.
  I note with interest the evidence given to the Select Committee by the organisation Values Into Action. The hon. Member for Macclesfield will recall that evidence, which was impressive. According to that organisation, the effect of granting trust status to health service learning difficulties units has been actively to promote the concept that they are the appropriate provider of care for people with learning difficulties, and that those people should be retained in long-stay hospitals. That contradicts the thrust of successive Government policies on community care over the past 30 years.
  The Values Into Action report "When the Eagles Fly" substantiates that argument in great detail and clearly shows that the Government's health changes are working against the wishes and best interests of people with learning difficulties. The report states:
  "As far as learning difficulties are concerned, the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act introduces a direct conflict between ongoing health care, as perpetuated by the new trusts, and the development of community care as the responsibility of social services."
  The organisation's worrying comments conclude:
  "The overall picture emerging from the research is one of chaos and confusion in services for people with learning difficulties … Anarchic is hardly too strong a description of a situation in which service models vary so widely and frequently display disregard for stated public policy."
  The organisations that gave evidence to the Select Committee stated clearly that community care is in disarray. The term "anarchic" is used by an entirely responsible national organisation that knows what is happening at grass roots level. It is deeply concerned—as
  860
  are a vast number of organisations dealing with a whole range of client groups—about where we are heading on community care.
  Dr. Liam Fox: If there is disarray in the implementation of the community care provisions, it is because left-wing social service units are refusing to take full account of the discussions that they were supposed to have with medical units and so on. Why is it that the Royal College of Nursing tells us that 75 per cent. of carers are not being asked by social services what they should do, that local management committees are not being asked, as the British Medical Association told us last week, and that private homes are having no discussions about how they can be involved in the plans? The failing lies not with Government plans but with implementation by social services.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman will get a chance to air his views as the debate continues. It is silly and naive to talk of left-wing councils because there are concerns about local authorities of a variety of political complexions. There are also concerns within local authorities that they have not been enabled to enact the provisions contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  If the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) wants to debate the position of local authorities, I am happy to refer him to information in the House of Commons Library which shows that the Government that he supports have taken £6 billion out of local authority personal social services, which is one reason why community care is in such a shambles at local level. I shall be happy to intervene on the hon. Gentleman when he is able to advance his argument in more detail.
  In Committee, the Minister responded that we were suggesting interference with the free play of market forces by proposing additional legislation for care plans and a range of other issues that we felt should be covered by statutory provisions in the Bill. The Government's philosophy is clear from their record on community care. It entails abandoning vulnerable people to the free play of market forces. We are not talking—[Interruption.]
  If Conservative Members do not agree, we can consider what has happened in detail. Frankly, the record of some care homes is abysmal; care is being left to the market. We are not talking about distributing sacks of potatoes, but about human beings. Sacks of potatoes might well be usefully distributed by market forces, but that is not a mechanism to deal with the care of elderly, learning-disabled and handicapped people. It is not the correct model. That is apparent if one studies what has happened in the past decade.
  The Bill deals with human beings and they deserve proper treatment—the best treatment, which should be secured by ensuring that appropriate plans are made. They are set out in amendment No. 1 and I hope that the Minister will see fit, just for once, to accept an amendment to the Bill.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has deployed his case in support of the amendment extremely well. He played a vital and informed role in the previous Parliament as a member of the Select Committee on Health. He drew our attention to an occasion when, as Chairman of that Committee, I was forced to rule him out

  861
  of order. He has not advanced all the detail of the incident to the House, but I am sure that he will admit in the mature light of day that I was not out of order in ruling him out of order in what he was seeking to do. Having done so, I was entirely confident that the hon. Gentleman was ingenious enough to secure an even larger audience for his remarks, and he has done so today. I commend him for doing so because, as a Conservative Member, I share his concern. We must ensure that proper, responsible and well-prepared care packages are available for every person discharged from a long-stay care institution into the community.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield drew our attention to 30 demented and confused elderly people, who were discharged from a hospital in the City and Hackney health authority to an institution in Skipton, Yorkshire. That is thoroughly undesirable, and I was tempted to intervene when he discussed the matter to ask whether those involved with the 30 elderly people—parents, relations and other close acquaintances—were consulted about whether the elderly people should be discharged to places almost at the other end of the country.
  Surely, part of any care package is visiting rights for the friends, next of kin and relations of the people in care. That is clearly important when caring for elderly people. I wonder whether any thought was given to how those who were involved with the 30 elderly people might keep in contact when the group was moved hundreds of miles away to Skipton in Yorkshire.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has a splendid history of concern and, dare I say it, involvement in working for vulnerable and minority groups. His involvement with the Spastics Society was well known and respected. Is he worried that the national health service appears to be interested only in treatment and is decreasingly interested in the provision of care? That is a matter about which Conservative Members are gravely worried. I have expressed my anxiety to the Government for a long time, so my hon. Friend the Minister cannot find my position unexpected.
  I suspect that I share much of the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield about establishing almost a private sector monopoly in the provision of care for the elderly. Many of us believe that the health service has a role in not only treating but caring for people. We fear that the role is increasingly being discharged to the private, independent or charitable sectors.
  I do not suggest that the independent, private or charitable sectors do not have a vital role to play. I believe that they have and that in many instances they can make provision that is supplementary and complementary to NHS provision. I should hate however, to see the provision of care for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped fall entirely into private and independent hands. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will give us some assurances. Those of us who have taken a deep interest in these matters for many years are worried that some of the accommodation provided by the independent sector leaves much to be desired.
  We also place in some difficulty the families of people who are discharged from the NHS into the independent and charitable sectors. As the hon. Member for Wakefield said at the beginning of his speech, when people are cared for by the health service all the facilities are provided free. The total cost of the care, the accommodation and so on
  862
  is covered. When people are discharged from the NHS, however, charges are levied. Whether those charges are picked up by the social security system through income support or in other ways, or whether they are picked up in part by the families, charges are made.
  I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had traumatic experiences in dealing with families who have come to us about their difficulty in meeting the additional cost, which cannot be met through social security, of care for relatives who have been discharged into accommodation in the independent, private or charitable sectors.
  I hope that in this short debate my hon. Friend the Minister will give some assurances, especially to Conservative Members who understand the concept of what the Government seek to achieve. We believe in the concept of community care, which draws considerable additional private resources into the provision of care for the elderly and other vulnerable groups, such as those with learning difficulties. Those additional resources were not available previously. We believe that our policy will provide choice.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield always speaks with great clarity, knowledge and experience, but he did not refer to the element of choice. One of the key concepts of community care is the provision of genuine choice for the individual. I wonder whether the system that will operate after 1 April 1993 will provide such genuine choice, which is the essence of a successful community care policy.
  I hope that, on this occasion, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be a little more generous and perhaps a little kinder in his response to a very humble Back-Bench Member who feels things deeply.
  4.15 pm
  Ms. Liz Lynne: I support the amendment because it is essential that we have a care plan for those who leave NHS hospitals and trusts. Without such a plan, tremendous difficulties could arise. That plan must be the result of full consultation with everyone concerned. The user, the client, must be consulted or, if that is not possible, that person's relative or advocate should be consulted.
  Without a care plan, problems could arise as a result of people being transferred into inappropriate residential accommodation. I accept that large organisations, such as Age Concern, have been consulted and I know that carers in some local authorities have also been consulted. However, smaller voluntary organisations have not had access toomuch of that consultation process.
  In Rochdale, I formed the alliance for community care with another person to ensure that smaller voluntary groups were consulted and were able to discuss the care plans for people coming out of NHS hospitals. It is essential that the Bill is amended to ensure that all voluntary organisations are consulted.
  Adequate resources must be made available to assist transfers. The other day, I met the Rochdale social services director to discuss the problems that might arise when people are transferred to private or residential nursing accommodation without the necessary resources being made available. In the past, I have drawn attention to the problems caused by the income support levels, which do not meet the costs of residential or nursing home care. Invariably, a patient's relatives have to top up the patient's share of those costs. It is essential that the actual cost of

  863
  residential or nursing home care is met by the Government rather than through income support. The problem is particularly severe in the north-west where more people are in residential accommodation than the population figures would suggest. For that reason, I make a plea for the real costs of such accommodation to be met.
  Local authorities of different complexions—Labour. Conservative and Liberal Democrat—have had problems in attempting to implement all the community care provisions by 1 April 1993. We therefore need a national plan so that each local authority knows what is expected of it. I know that the Bill provides for some planning, but a true care plan for those coming out of NHS hospitals is essential. For that reason, I support the amendment.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I support the amendment. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but I know that the majority of its discussions centred on the transfer of patients out of local authority care into that of the independent sector. I am concerned about the future role of health authority care and the transfer, or non-transfer, of patients who currently receive chronic, long-term residential accommodation and nursing care in the NHS.
  I was struck when, in October 1991, I saw the concerns that were expressed in the fourth report of the Select Committee on Social Security. One of these was
  "that the obligation on health authorities to provide nursing care for those who cannot or do not wish to pay for it should be strictly enforced and that health authorities should not evade what are properly their responsibilities."
  That is an important recommendation, and it is well understood by patients in my constituency who live in one of the few community-based residential nursing homes run by the health authority. It is a small establishment in which there are 30 elderly patients. The staff are most experienced and very well established. The home has close links with the community and the local general practice. I have some personal experience of private and independent sector private nursing homes, having been involved in casework, and I know that the home is a model of what residential nursing homes should be.
  When it was proposed that these elderly patients should be transferred from health authority care into the independent sector, it was clear that they understood exactly that the central feature—with which I agree—of the NHS is that it is not free and that they had paid all their working lives for what they were to receive. They were of the view that, having reached the stage of requiring nursing care day and night, they should be entitled to receive it through the health service.
  This point must be made strongly. Like Sheffield community health council, I am extremely concerned about some of the implications of the report of Sheffield health authority on the future strategy for services for elderly people in our area. In the report it is argued:
  "There are no clinical reasons … why an individual in a chronic, stable condition should be cared for in an NHS setting rather than in a nursing home outside the NHS, or"—
  and this is fine—
  "in his or her home".
  The authority tries to draw a distinction between elderly people with dementia and elderly people who simply require nursing. It is quite impossible and entirely inappropriate to draw such a distinction.
  864
  The authority goes on to argue that the NHS should therefore work towards supporting provision in the independent sector and should seek to withdraw its own capacity to provide long-term care for such individuals. It then argues, entirely illogically, that that is especially important because there is an increasing need for elderly people to receive such long-term care, that the cost is too high for the NHS to bear and that there must therefore be faster work to transfer the duty from the NHS to the independent sector.
  It is my view, and the view of Sheffield community health council, that the important thing is need and not the resources of the health service in any particular areas and that, until it is absolutely clear that there is adequate provision in some other context for elderly people in need of long-term nursing care, no more beds in the health service in the Sheffield area should be withdrawn.
  The debate is an opportunity for the Minister to make it clear to health authorities that they have a duty to provide a service for chronically sick or disabled people in need of day and night nursing, whether it is provided in their own homes through community nursing services, by a combination of home, day or short-stay residential care, or in long-term accommodation. The Government will accept that the most appropriate residential care is delivered in community-based nursing homes with easy access to family, friends and local general practitioner services. We have heard about the appalling example of the transfer to Skipton, where people were moved a long distance from where they were content and felt comfortable.
  Patients in the model nursing home in my constituency kept saying, "This is our home." They meant that they were familiar with the rooms, the staff, the locality where they had lived all their lives and the costing system. It was helpful w hen the Minister said a few weeks ago that it was Government policy that no NHS patient should be transferred into private or independent care without his or her consent. That is an important principle, but we need to go further and recognise the significant difference between long-stay patients in the NHS and residents in nursing homes for the elderly, run by private or charitable institutions. In the first instance, payment has been duly made during a lifetime of work. In the second, payments must be requested from the social security system after full disclosure of the household's income and means. If top-up moneys are required, the family pays a second time for a service that it has already financed.
  Will the Minister make it crystal clear to health authorities throughout the country that whenever a transfer is proposed, whether patients are to be physically transferred to another place or not, it amounts to a substantial change for the patient and his or her family. It must therefore be the subject of full consultation with the patient and his family, as well as the community health council in the case of an institution such as the one in Sheffield. It needs to be made clear that the financial change is so substantial that it must be subject to the full consultation procedure.
  I make these points not only on behalf of my constituents and my relatives, with whom I have a personal and close relationship, but for ourselves, too. We are paying into the NHS, week in, week out, and so are our families. Where do we want to receive nursing care when we reach an age at which we may require it?
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: It makes a change to take part in a debate in which there are few differences between the Conservative party and the Opposition. However, that has its drawbacks, as it tends to attract little, if any, media attention. The issues, which we have already debated in Committee and on Second reading, are important to those they affect. It is unfortunate that, as there is little difference and not much political fighting between the parties, there will be little media coverage.
  Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that a person in residential care such as the Bill provides is given a care plan. In the context of community care, the provision's central plank is high-quality care for vulnerable adults who require it. While much emphasis is placed on the care needs of those living in their own homes, there is a danger that the needs of those in residential care will take a back seat, so enabling such residential establishments to be seen as a place of last resort. That is unacceptable.
  4.30 pm
  As I said in Committee, residential care should be a positive choice made by the resident, the carer and, ideally, the care manager who helps to put together the care package. There should be plenty of time for people to shop around and see which care home is appropriate for their needs. They should have time to look at the inspection reports of various homes and make a positive choice of which one they prefer to live in. If that is done properly, care plans—emphasising the needs and views of the person involved—can be made. The informed choices and expectations of the individual should be followed wherever possible.
  Care plans should recognise the rights of individuals to achieve the highest possible quality of life and, where appropriate, to receive a range of therapeutic and remedial services to maximise and maintan levels of independence. They should be able to exercise choice about how they live and ensure their dignity and self-respect, including their physical, emotional and spiritual needs.
  Research has shown that most older people do not wish to live in residential care. It is widely acknowledged that, given a choice, they would prefer to live in their own homes. The importance of residential care as a stepping stone hack into the community has been neglected. A good care plan would seek to achieve that preferred option for the individual where appropriate. That would apply particularly to many of those who live in the smaller residential homes to which the Bill relates.
  However, there is no incentive for private residential homes, particularly smaller ones, to have a care plan that envisages using those homes as a stepping stone back into the community. I do not want to repeat the arguments adequately made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in Committee. Due to the funding that private residential homes receive, there is no incentive for them to work towards getting people back into their own homes and into the community.
  National health service hospitals and trusts should not be allowed to divest themselves of their responsibility to provide continuing care where appropriate. It is unacceptable to place pressure on vulnerable adults and their carers to accept a standard of care that is inappropriate for them. If it is to have real meaning, the concept of choice and seamless care requires recognising an individual's needs as paramount.
  Mr. David Lidington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for close co-operation between NHS trusts and county or borough social service departments, which is exactly what is happening in my own authority, Buckinghamshire. Will the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends give the House an assurance that they will do all in their power to encourage and persuade Labour-controlled local authorities to consult those in NHS trusts about how they can work together to provide the highest quality of care?
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me the chance to tell the hon. Gentleman that I spent five years chairing the social services committee of Doncaster metropolitan borough council. The consultation process that took place in Doncaster. a Labour-controlled authority, included as many bodies as possible—the area health authority and voluntary and private sector organisations. Some Conservative Members get carried away by their own propaganda and forget the facts of real life.
  I had a meeting with the management of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu trusts a week ago at which I asked board members why they never sent delegates to the joint committee meetings. I was none too happy with their answer.
  All the services in Doncaster have opted out, which is unfortunate because it will now be even more difficult to put together seamless services for vulnerable and elderly people. So many organisations have to be consulted: social services departments, district health authorities, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary trust, the priority and community care trusts, South Yorkshire ambulance service, GPs and GPs who have become fund holders. The list is becoming endless.
  I think that we all agree that under this legislation we are trying to do away with many of these problems. The customer should enjoy a seamless service and not suffer from the unfortunate arguments that can take place between the organisations that I have mentioned.
  The establishment of the trusts in Doncaster—the DRI and the priority and community care trusts—with their emphasising cost-effectiveness and increased bed throughput, has led to considerable anxiety among many professionals that too many rushed and unplanned discharges are taking place. Some of these discharges are into residential care, with no discussions, no choice and no care plans. If matters are not to deteriorate further, the production of an individual care plan and the provision of the time in which to ensure that it is effectively implemented are essential.
  A care plan is not carved in tablets of stone. It needs to be subjected to regular review and, if necessary, renegotiated. The process must involve those concerned and especially the residents. Systems of review must ensure their full participation and must be structured accordingly. It is essential to recognise that many residents will need a formal or an informal advocate to assist in the process. Such involvement should be covered by the legislation, to ensure that residents can exercise their rights and not have their future left to the sole discretion of the professional workers. We must put a stop to the agist attitude that seems to prevail in our culture which presumes that professionals and others can make decisions for people without seeking their opinion or consent.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I had not planned to speak on this amendment, but I want to respond to one or two of the comments of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I see that he is smiling, so I must have got his constituency right. It is a peculiar tradition that we do not use people's names in the same way as anyone else would.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the fears that have been expressed about a move away from a mixed economy of public and private sector care to a reliance on private-sector accommodation. That implies a lack of choice between the types of regime offered by the public and private sectors.
  About two years ago I conducted a study into care for the elderly which involved interviewing 1,300 elderly people in nursing and residential homes, sheltered housing and health service long-stay accommodation. We asked people in public sector homes whether they had considered entering a private sector home and we found that fewer than one in 20 had even considered such a home. We put the same question to people in private sector homes and found that they were even more determined about the rightness of their choice. Fewer than one in 30 had considered moving into public sector homes.
  I fear that the choice will be reduced if the number of public sector places continues to be reduced. North Yorkshire county council is considering divesting itself of 20 of its part III homes to a private or voluntary sector body. That will change the nature, pattern and mix of the accommodation that is available in the county.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Developments similar to that which the hon. Gentleman describes in his county are taking place in many counties, not least in Cheshire where the county council has contracted out the running and management of its part III residential homes to a non-profit making charitable organisation but has retained ownership of the capital assets. Has that happened in North Yorkshire? Labour controls Cheshire county council with Liberal Democrat support and has engaged in contracting out in order to avoid being capped. It has transferred the cost of provision to the Department of Social Security until 1 April 1993. Has North Yorkshire county council disposed of all its capital assets as well as its revenue costs?
  Mr. Bayley: That is a perceptive comment. North Yorkshire county council has commissioned a firm of consultants to carry out a study and is examining the option that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) describes. However, for whatever reason, Cheshire has for some time had the benefit of being able to transfer the cost of part III accommodation from the poll tax payers' budget to the Department of Social Security budget. Even if North Yorkshire county council moves with lightning speed—an uncharacteristic speed for that council—transferring the budget would benefit it for only a month or two.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have taken steps to stop local authorities taking action of the kind that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) describes? The Minister may correct me, but I understand that the Department of Social Security has prevented claims for income support for people placed in local authority trust homes. It has blocked the loophole that allowed the sort of policy development that took place in Cheshire.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Bayley: I think that my hon. Friend is right and therefore I should withdraw the comment about a month or two of benefit for North Yorkshire county council if it gets its skates on.
  It is not just a matter of playing with figures in the budget but of the type and quality of care that an authority is able to provide. One of the sets of data collected in the study to which I referred was a standard form of dependency assessment for residents. We were able to compare dependency over time because of an earlier survey carried out in the authority area in which we were working. We discovered that although the overall dependency of public and private sector residents was similar, the physical dependency of those in private sector homes tended to be greater. However, what might be called the mental state dependency of people in public sector homes was greater and getting greater than that of people in private sector homes.
  The private homes were good at dealing with the physically frail but mentally alert, while the public sector homes were left to deal with a growing proportion of the mentally frail and confused. That meant that the nature of the regime in the public sector homes in Lincolnshire, the county in which we undertook our study, was changing. The quality of life was deteriorating in public sector homes because people who are mentally alert prefer to be surrounded by others who are mentally alert, albeit physically frail, than by people who are confused and who may exhibit unnerving behaviour.
  If the North Yorkshire plan goes ahead, the council will divest itself of more than half its homes, and that will speed up the process of concentrating the confused elderly in public sector homes.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield expressed surprise that relatives of those elderly people from east London who were placed in a home in Skipton had not complained that they found it difficult to visit. Many people in long-stay residential and nursing care receive no visitors at all. Our study showed that one in 10 residents were never visited. They are on their own. We also found that one in three received fewer than one visit a month. Many people will be lost unless local authorities take action to befriend them.
  Some of the people whom I interviewed said, "There is no way out." They were in places such as old rectories and probably 3 miles from a main road and 15 miles from a town. They said. "I have no one to turn to and if I have a complaint I have no means of redress." Later amendments address that extremely worrying issue.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I should like to address the need for a care plan based on what we should have learnt from our past mistakes and from the wholesale institutionalisation of a generation of elderly people. That happened because the Government were ideologically committed to closing parts of the national health service and to waging war on local government authorities because most local authorities were Labour controlled. Over the past 13 years, some destructive policies have resulted from the Government's rather bigoted and narrow-minded approach to community care.
  I shall concentrate on an excellent document produced by the Royal College of Nursing. It is called "A Scandal Waiting to Happen—Elderly People in Nursing Care in

  869
  Residential and Nursing Homes". I commend it to every hon. Member as a well thought out document showing not only what has happened in the past but what we can expect to happen in the future if the Government are not truly committed to community care.
  Over the past decade, there has been wholesale privatisation of care for the elderly. To all those who shout, "You can trust the Government", I say that, when I took part in a series of "World in Action" programmes in 1985, I was more or less marginalised by health managers and Conservative politicians, who said that I was telling scare stories and making things up about the care of the elderly in the NHS. I have been completely vindicated. The Government closed NHS beds and starved local authorities of precious resources. The elderly had to vacate long-stay beds, and were left with no choice but to enter private nursing homes.
  We all know of the huge amounts of income support paid by the Treasury to prop up the private sector. That is meant as a wholesale criticism not of the private sector but of the Government's privatisation of the elderly.
  The Royal College of Nursing is concerned at the amount of money allocated to local authorities to implement the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. They argue, as we have done many times, that those resources should be ring-fenced, and there remains a desperate need for that to be done. Care plans are also needed if past mistakes are not to be repeated. The RCN's report highlights many reasons why that is important
  One of the 1990 Acts pruposes was to shift the emphasis away from institutional care to care in the community. The RCN's report points out that there are inadequate resources to allow people to remain in the community. Their institutionalisation flies in the face of the cross-party consensus on keeping the elderly in their own homes. Because local authorities were given insufficient funds, care packages that would have provided home helps and intensive care—by ensuring that nurses were available to put people to bed and to nurse them early in the morning—were not made available to district or community nurses.
  The royal college's report highlights that many elderly people were institutionalised when there was no need. Its report quotes a community nurse manager saying that the elderly were admitted to residential homes because community care could not be provided. That is a real tragedy. That manager stated:
  "Too great a demand is placed on the district nursing service, and they are operating with unsatisfactory accommodation and with insufficient resources, placing an ever-increasing strain on neighbourhood budgets."
  We know that the elderly are being shifted into residential care at great personal cost, and at a high financial cost to the Treasury and the taxpayer.
  The absence of any care plan also means that some of the elderly are given inappropriate assessments of their nursing needs and accommodation. A plan would take such factors into account. I repeat that I criticise not the homes themselves but the system that has developed. The RCN report adds:
  "Others were readmitted to residential homes from hospital because of pressure on health service beds."
  We know that many of the elderly are not given a choice, and that many NHS forms list only private homes.
  There is no plan either to meet the changing health and social needs of those in residential homes. Like the rest of
  870
  us, their lives do not stand still, and a medical condition will often develop further. Residential homes often do not have staff who are sufficiently trained to identify the progression of the many illnesses and disabilities to which the elderly are prone.
  The RCN's excellent report highlights many of the problems created by the Government's disastrous policies over the last 13 years. If the Government fail to grasp the nettle and to do something, even at this late stage, there will be depressing consequences. I do not trust the Government when it comes to community care. There is no evidence that we will get from them anything but nice words, glossy pamphlets, and lots of press releases. I do not know about other right hon. and hon. Members, but I am sick of receiving copies of Department of Health press releases that mean nothing.
  The Royal College of Nursing's report concludes that, as the elderly population increases, there is mounting unease that their health and social needs will not be met. Nor are the financial difficulties encountered by the elderly when they move into private homes being dealt with by the Government, who are abandoning their responsibilities. The gap between the cost of public and private care is growing wider, and someone has to pick up the bill. It should be the Government, and it is time they took their responsibilities more seriously.
  The Government's own guidelines in health circular HC 895 are being ignored. The elderly are being offered no choice. Nothing is on offer to those who choose to remain at home. It is no secret that many concerns have been expressed about the standards of care in some residential and nursing homes—notably in a "Panorama" report in January. The Government have yet to make a convincing response to some of the criticisms highlighted in that programme. I am pleased that the Royal College of Nursing's report chose to mention it. Sadly, I expect that there will be grounds for similar criticisms in future.
  I want the growing number of elderly people in nursing or residential homes matched by an increase in nursing resources, so that we can correct the scandalously inadequate treatment, because staff are not properly trained, of elderly people suffering from illnesses associated with old age. Unless the Royal College of Nursing's recommendations are acted upon, the elderly will continue to suffer—until a major scandal forces the Government to take action.
  Ms. Tessa Jowell: This is almost a technical amendment—a statement of good practice. It has been tabled because common-sense arrangements are frequently not observed. One of the difficulties of developing high-quality community care and of creating around the elderly or disabled person a set of arrangements that maximise the quality of that individual's life is that their effectiveness is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain.
  Someone must take responsibility for specifying who will implement the various elements of a care plan. Someone must also be named as the person responsible for implementing the plan. Arguably, that is the job of the care manager, who should be independent and speak. in a partisan way, on behalf of an elderly or disabled person. He or she should safeguard the interests of such a person. and ensure that the needs identified in the assessment are met with practical care and support.

  871
  5 pm
  There is a good deal of evidence that people have been placed in residential care and nursing homes a long way from their own homes. As other hon. Members have pointed out, that results in their not being visited and leading isolated lives. Such people may derive no more benefit from the new policy than they derived from the old one.
  Earlier this week, a constituent rang me in tears, having just been discharged from hospital. She had not been placed in residential care; she had gone home. No plans seemed to have been made for her support, and she telephoned me in desperation. When I visited her, she was writing to her only relative, a daughter living in Cheshire. Cheshire is a long way from Dulwich, and my constituent —desperately frail and ill—was left with no means of support. That is one of many such instances, which show that nothing can be left to chance. We cannot simply hope that, because there has been so much talk suggesting that this is the best way of managing people's care, it will prove to be so.
  A care plan creates a specific set of guarantees for elderly people and their relatives, who will then know what to expect. We know that there will be a discrepancy between the assessment of people's needs—led by the local authorities—and the resources that are likely to be available. Broadly speaking, people accept the inevitability of that, but they need to know what they can rely on. An elderly person once said to me, "One promise is better than 30 maybes.- We need to remember that; it is an important mechanism for the achievement of the commitment to more user-centred community care that I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The establishment of a specified care plan is also an important way of turning the needs and experiences of hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled people into the big decisions that bring about changes in the nature of services. The information should be fed into the community care plan, which can then be used constantly to audit the quality and range of provision. The amendment proposes good practice. It commends user-centred community care, and it will be welcomed by elderly and disabled people all over the country.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) appeared still to doubt the Government's determination to proceed with the implementation of stage 3 of our "Care in the Community" policies. Let me make what I hope is an unequivocal statement, which has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State or me each time one of us has spoken from the Dispatch Box since the general election. Stage 3 of the implementation of "Care in the Community" will go ahead in April 1993. It is on target, and there has been no change in either the policy or the timetable. The local authorities will assume their enhanced responsibilities at the time of implementation —responsibilities that will include assessing individual needs and arranging for them to be met.
  Mr. Bayley: When will the Government tell local authorities what additional resources they will receive? The new regime will begin in exactly nine months, but it is almost impossible for authorities to plan if they do not know what resources they will have.
  Mr. Yeo: Local authorities can be assured that the funding of the policy will be fair. The details will be available to them in the autumn.
  We believe that one of the consequences of giving local authorities an enabling role will be the introduction of a larger element of market forces in the provision of community care. I am sorry that that has caused the hon. Member for Wakefield so much dismay. I am confident that it will drive standards up, and ensure that we receive the best possible value for money. The Government want all local authorities to make the fullest possible use of the independent sector.
  Mrs. Mahon: Has not the Minister learnt any lessons from the Royal College of Nursing report, which states that the independent sector is not equipped to deal with some of the health problems of elderly people?
  Mr. Yeo: There is abundant evidence that the arrangements that we have put in hand for the inspection of nursing and residential care homes run by independent sector organisations are adequate to ensure that standards are maintained at a high level.
  I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in the Chamber, and I am grateful for his contribution. He is well known in the House for his expertise in this regard. He and I served together for a number of years on what used to be the Select Committee on Social Services; I did not serve for quite as long as he did, but I recall his robust and independent contributions with much pleasure. His style has not changed at all since those days.
  My hon. Friend raised a serious point about possible changes in the national health service. He need not fear that the NHS is losing interest in provision and becoming interested only in treatment. It remains the duty of all health authorities to arrange to meet the health needs of the population in the districts that they represent. As health needs and social needs are so closely related—in some cases, they are intertwined—we have required local authorities to consult health authorities when drawing up their community care plans, under the terms of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have also required them to consult the voluntary organisations, and the same applies to users and carers.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned NHS trusts. It is highly desirable for trusts, as well as other bodies, to become involved in local community care planning if they are involved in the provision of community care services. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) was rather smoked out by an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which finally exposed his underlying hostility to NHS trusts.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned a cut in the number of NHS beds. It is true that the number of geriatric beds in the NHS has fallen, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention the enormous increase in the number of nursing home beds, which has risen from 28,000 to 119.000. There has been a similar increase in provision in private residential homes, and a substantial proportion of the occupants of those beds are funded by income support payments—a quarter of a million people, compared with 10,000 13 years ago.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister not accept that that is precisely the example of privatisation of the national

  873
  health service that the Opposition gave during the general election campaign? It is happening in my area and in every other area. Individuals previously received a free service from the national health service; now they have to pay for it. Many people in my area do not have a penny to spare after all their income support and pocket money has been spent on their care fees. Is that acceptable to the Minister?
  Mr. Yeo: When people are funded by income support payments, that is not privatisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the cost to the Department of Social Security has risen from £10 million to getting on for £2 billion today. If people's fees are paid from income support, that is not privatisation. It is not a definition of privatisation that any of my hon. Friends could even begin to understand.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister agree that privatisation is about the operation of a service? It is not about how the client of the service gets the money. The question, as I understand it, is whether a privatised industry is run for profit. The private nursing homes that we are talking about are, in that sense, privatised institutions.
  Mr. Yeo: I shall not be inclined to give way again if there are to be somewhat arcane debates about what the word "privatisation" means, but according to my book —and, I believe, according to all my hon. Friends—as long as the Government accept responsibility for assessing needs and for funding the provision of those needs, that is not privatisation. Indeed, I positively welcome the fact that we now have a much greater variety of providers many of whom are in the private sector. Some conic from voluntary organisations; others remain in the statutory sector. That is a wholly welcome development.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I must make some progress. I have already given way a great deal.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) raised an important point about the shortfall between income support levels and the cost of residential care. We expect that, after April next year, local authorities will be able to negotiate very good terms in order to keep the costs of residential care down. We have acknowledged, however, that there is a gap between income support levels and the actual cost in some areas of residential and nursing home care. We shall take that gap into account when we make decisions about funding.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point that I raised during my contribution to the debate on the amendment: that people are being discharged from national health service hospitals into accommodation in the independent private or charitable sector and that, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) pointed out, there is a gap between what people will get from the Department of Social Security through income support and the fees that they or their families may be responsible for paying? Is it not wrong that they should be discharged from, perhaps, a geriatric ward, where all the costs are met through the taxation system, and put into a system whereby they as individuals, or their families, have to pick up an additional bill for their accommodation?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Yeo: The policy is that nobody should be discharged into a private sector establishment against his or her will, unless the full costs are to be met from public funds. If a contribution is required, the agreement of the individual will be needed.
  Mr. Winterton: Does that apply only at the time of the person's discharge, or does it also apply if the cost of the accommodation goes up?
  Mr. Yeo: It is difficult to envisage being able to define at the moment of discharge every conceivable possibility that might arise in the years ahead, but in general I do not think that we shall have a significant number of cases where the rate at which costs go up exceeds the rate at which public funds are available to meet those costs. From April next year, anyone discharged in that way for whom the local authority accepts responsibility will find that the local authority has to negotiate, year on year, the cost of maintaining that provision.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) referred to the role of the health authorities. Their role is to secure provision where there are continuing medical needs. As the hon. Lady acknowledged, that does not have to be in a hospital. It could be in a nursing home. Nevertheless, where medical needs continue, the health authority has a continuing responsibility.
  Ms. Ann Coffey: If I may return to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), does the Minister agree that, contrary to what he said about being unable to envisage the cost of private care rising to the point at which it cannot be publicly funded, that is exactly and precisely what has happened over the past few years? Public funds that have been made available through Department of Social Security grants have been insufficient to meet the actual cost of care. The resulting gap has caused enormous difficulties for a great number of people. Does the Minister not accept and envisage that that might continue to happen, even though the funding is being transferred from the Department of Social Security to the local authority?
  Mr. Yeo: From April next year, if discharge is to an independent sector establishment and the local authority accepts responsibility for funding, it will be for the local authority to provide the resources to cover any increase in charges. I hope that the local authorities will use their strong position as negotiators in contracting with the private sector to ensure that any increases are kept to a minimum.
  Mr. Gunnell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I really must make some progress. I have already been speaking for 13 minutes.
  If I may comment specifically on the amendment—I sympathise with the principle behind it—I believe that it is unnecessary in the context of the Bill. When the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is fully implemented, local authorities will have this responsibility for assessing individual needs, for designing care arrangements and for securing them within the available resources. That will include all individuals requiring public support who are discharged from hospital into private and voluntary residential or nursing home care. Our intention is to ensure that all individuals, whether in hospital or

  875
  referred from the community, receive a proper assessment of their needs and that an individual plan is put together for the care that should be provided.
  Mr. Roger Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Bromley, assessments along the lines of the guidance issued by his Department are already being carried out and that they are not considered complete until the assessment itself and the care package proposals have been completed and agreed by the client? Does my hon. Friend not think that that is good practice which could be adopted generally?
  Mr. Yeo: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is good practice and it is certainly our intention that where an assessment has been made the results of that assessment should be shared with the client. I am glad to hear of the practice already adopted by my hon. Friend's authority.
  Work is in hand to develop arrangements for the introduction of needs-based assessment. It is a key task for local authorities. It is one on which they should co-operate closely with health authorities and other agencies. We have made it clear that authorities should make effective arrangements to inform the public about the details of any new arrangements for assessment and care provision. Effective arrangements for community care require robust agreed procedures for discharging patients from hospital —either, where possible, back into their own homes with the right package of support and care or, if appropriate, into nursing home or residential care. We have issued guidance to health and local authorities about discharge. Discharge arrangements are also covered by the patients charter. We have encouraged health authorities to undertake a sample quality audit of their discharge arrangements to get a better understanding of how these policies work in practice.
  The new arrangements for assessment and the provision of care that are being introduced next April will address the concerns behind the amendment. Social services authorities will assess the needs of individuals who are about to leave hospital and who are in need of residential or nursing home care and will plan a package of care accordingly. Contracts with providers will reflect those care plans and specify the service which they are to provide to the resident. These arrangments, including individual assessment of need and the agreement of a care plan, will cover those patients discharged from hospital into nursing home and residential care who require public support. Most local authorities and health authorities are working hard now to ensure that those new arrangements are introduced smoothly and that across the board they work closely to ensure a seamless provision of care. For all those reasons, I believe that this well-meaning but unnecessary amendment should be rejected by the House.
  Mr. Alun Michael: The debate shows the importance that the Labour party attaches to care in the community. That is why we have given the Bill a speedy passage through the House, but taken the opportunity, as we do again now, to voice concern about the danger of failing to get community care right. It was an instructive Committee stage and I appreciated the opportunity, with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and others, to probe the Government on a series of points. It
  876
  is notable that many new Members played a significant part in Committee, and it is clear today that we have a remarkable number of hon. Members in the Chamber, considering the hour and the nature of the debate.
  In moving the amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has brought us to the heart of concern over the implementation of community care; a principle that is supported on both sides, but which is meaningless unless we will the means, the resources and the methods.
  The amendment looks at method at the difficult interface between health provision and care provision and suggests that no arrangements should be made for a person being transferred into accommodation from an NHS hospital or trust.
  "unless the voluntary organisation or other person concerned has ensured that that person is provided with a care plan and the authority is satisfied that such arrangements will facilitate this plan."
  The amendment seeks to place those clear obligations on the organisations concerned in decision making. Advocacy is involved in the next amendment, but in this debate we are stressing the need for personal consideration and real care for the individual.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) responded to the amendment by demonstrating the breadth of concern on this issue. He made a thoughtful contribution and it is sad that, apart from the Minister, his was the only speech from the Conservative benches, unless one counts the intervention from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which I can describe only as a petty party political sound bite. He has clearly spent too long working for Conservative Members and I hope that in time he will learn to listen to Opposition Members who have knowledge and experience. In fairness, that is the spirit in which the Minister approached the Committee stage and appears to be approaching today's debate, although I disagree with some of the points he made in his response.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who has direct experience of residential care, made it clear that we are dealing with the way in which individuals see their placement—as the place in which they live, their home. She was right to do so and to say that the patient and the family should be involved. It is easy to say that, but it is difficult to achieve and even more difficult to guarantee. She is right to stress that as a reason for the amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) made a valuable contribution to the Committee, and emphasised the need for choices to be positive choices, not just to be imposed on the individual as a matter of convenience, without attention to the long-term care and needs of that individual.
  When he responded to the debate, the Minister confirmed the Government's determination, as he put it, to implement the rest of the community care provisions in April 1993. We still wonder whether he and his colleagues will do it properly. Will the cash be there? My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) asked about that, and the Minister answered with as near to a straight face as he could manage. If, as he suggests, the resources and cash are to be there, why is the Secretary of State for Health finding it so difficult to achieve ring fencing?
  Some of my hon. Friends who have been dealing with this Bill were also members of the Committee dealing with

  877
  the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. From the outset, we told the Government, "If you are going to do this properly and if you are serious in pursuing the idea of ca re in the community, you must ensure that the resources are provided and seen to be provided." We still wait for a positive response to that. It seems that the Secretary of State for Health has been convinced of the case we made in Committee. I do not know whether she was convinced by the golden tongues of Labour Members or by experience since becoming Secretary of State. The important thing is that she appears to understand the point we were making at that time, which is still the kernel of our concern.
  I regret that the Minister characterised the comments of one of my hon. Friends as antagonism to trusts. Throughout the consideration of trusts, we have said that we do not believe that they will work to the benefit of the community and the individual. We are making predictions about what will happen as a result of the pressures on those running trusts, however well meaning they may be. At the time of the privatisation of water, we predicted precisely the behaviour of plcs, and we have seen our words justified. If one is to introduce trusts, one must put in place the systems to protect the individual in the market that is being created.
  The Minister also said that it was not the Government's intention to see discharges into residential care at a cost greater than that available for public funds. As has been said by several of my hon. Friends, that is not what happens in practice. Often, families with a loved one in care or being cared for in one of a number of circumstances, are under great pressure and find themselves filling a gap to avoid that relative being moved and unsettled. It is not just a question of convenience of placement to lit the finance available: we are talking about the loss of someone's home.
  There is also the issue of the loss of disposable assets. That is a matter for this Minister and for the Department of Social Security. It is not good enough to leave it to the local authority to tighten the screw on providers, which is effectively what the Minister is saying. A theory that the Government have applied in a variety of circumstances is that, if one places a cap on the money, magic will create greater efficiency, and an improved quality of service will be provided for less money. Good practice needs resources. We all applaud the search for efficiency, but too much capping will distort the quality of service provided. In his response, the Minister described the Government's intention to cap the funds available for care in the community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the effects of policies that may look fine on paper but which fail to provide individual care. She referred to the worrying report that has been produced by the Royal College of Nursing. Another example is day surgery. That is promoted on the grounds of efficiency, but it is risky if community support and care are not adequate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York made a clear distinction between the needs of different clients or patients and the importance of the environment in which individuals find themselves. He was right to underline the position of those who are never visited. He said that they are on their own. At certain times during this debate, and, I suspect, in later debates, the Minister will start to
  878
  understand how they feel. Those individuals are on their own, and they need the protection of proper procedures to ensure that they are not abandoned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) rightly said that all that we are talking about in this amendment, and in many others with which we shall deal, is good practice and arrangements that maximise the quality of life. That is what the Opposition are pursuing in our amendments. The importance of this amendment is that key decisions are made at the point of discharge. If the arrangements are not made properly or if issues are overlooked, the arrangements can become dangerous and potentially disastrous for the individual. As has often been said, care in the community is in danger of becoming neglect in the community or neglect in a home unless these matters are addressed properly in procedures that must be taken into account of and followed at the time of discharge.
  5.30 pm
  There has been great concern about the closure of certain health service institutions, such as the William Nichol home in my constituency, because people are being moved from NHS institutions which have been their homes, often for many years. We should not treat lightly the arrangements made for those individuals at the time of discharge.
  The pressure for arrangements for discharge to be made long before the date at which it has to happen and to be tailored to the individual has been accepted by the health authority and the Welsh Office after a lot of debate. We want such good practice and such important considera-tions to be written into the legislation and into the regulations that have to be observed. It is a personal matter; we are dealing with individuals.
  There have been occasions when hospitals have discharged patients, especially the elderly, into circumstances in which they were without the care and support they needed and the pressure of cash limits is always there. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who also intervened with a sound bite, may not share our view but this is now generally accepted as being bad practice. In recent years, efforts have been made to ensure that discharge is properly planned but the change to trusts, and indeed a financially driven regime for directly managed units too, will increase the risks of hasty discharge or discharge into inappropriate circumstances. We must take great care.
  I hope that the Minister will take on board the spirit of the amendment. We have made it clear that it is not the Labour party's intention to delay this limited and sensible Bill. We seek to persuade the Minister and his colleagues of the importance of the Government acting on their own and in their own right to respond to our concern, to recognise the strength of our case today and to ensure that proper procedures are put in place to protect the individuals concerned.
  We believe that history will show the need for the arrangements proposed in the amendment, but because we do not want to delay the House or the Bill, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who moved it so ably, to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  '(IB) Arrangements shall only be made by virtue of this section where the voluntary organisation or other person providing the accommodation operates clear procedures providing opportunities for residents to review their own situation regularly with a friend or adviser and the care managers.'.
  The amendment deals with opportunities for elderly people to review their situation with a friend or adviser and the care manager. We are debating community care yet again. I am pleased by the opportunities to do so in this Parliament, in contrast to the previous Parliament. One reason for the change was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) when she referred to a constituent who came to see her. She underlined what some of us said on Second Reading, which is that, although the House may be packed for debates on Maastricht, people come to our surgeries on community care issues far more than they do on the bigger issues. That will be reflected as our debates on these matters continue.
  The reason for tabling the amendment is that community care cannot be complete unless an essential ingredient is the recognition that the individuals whom we seek to serve in our communities and in residential homes have rights and views, and a desire to have an environment that is acceptable to them. We believe that the case for advocacy, which we debated in Committee, is overwhelming. Although the amendment does not go as far as we wish, it would give the opportunity, when vital decisions are being taken about community care, for the involvement of a friend or adviser, or for the presence of someone acting for and with the person. The person's needs are absolutely paramount when care managers make recommendations and take crucial decisions about the lifestyle of the individual.
  As we debate community care, we recognise the growth of private residential homes, with which the Bill deals. One Scottish Tory newspaper refers irreverently to "granny farms". That term could apply if we denied the residents of such homes the rights that an advocate would insist that we recognise.
  Demographic changes mean that there are more elderly people, so a strategy for care in the community must recognise that there will be some people in residential care. However, we strongly assert that support should be given within the community to ensure genuine independence for elderly people. We believe that the existence of advocacy would be a step in that direction. The Bill concerns the rights of many elderly people who may, at their age, become a little confused. If people are confused, the need to have a friend, an adviser or an advocate when decisions are being taken about individuals becomes all the greater.
  Some of us received a report yesterday published by the Consumers Association. It was headed:
  "Contracting for residential care: individual contracts for older people in residential care and nursing homes."
  It dealt with contracts and specifically with confused residents. The House will recognise, as I quote from the report, that some of the points made are consistent with the wording of the amendment although the amendment was tabled before the report was published.
  The report says:
  "The situation becomes less easy with people who are confused or suffering from dementia. The same principles apply—just because someone is mentally impaired, it does not mean that they do not have preferences which are worth
  880
  formalising … Also, it may be that more active participation would be needed on the part of a spouse, relative, friend or professional advocate drawing up the contract."
  That is almost the wording we have chosen to use in the amendment.
  The amendment also refers to voluntary organisations, if only because so many voluntary groups are involved in the provision of care and in preparing care plans. It is important for us to acknowledge that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations Community Care Alliance has given support to the general principles in the amendment. In its manifesto prior to the election, the alliance said about user and carer participation:
  "Community care envisages the active participation of service users and carers both in individual needs assessments and in the planning of services. Achieving this will involve challenging vested interests and shifting power to service users.
  Training and support, in some cases advocacy support, are needed to give service users and carers the confidence to participate."
  I suggest that that applies to elderly people, too. Elderly, frail, vulnerable people in residential homes are in a difficult position. The decisions that are taken about them and the services that are or are not provided are of crucial interest to them. In that context, health provision becomes a very personal matter and is pivotal to the lifestyle and the quality of life of elderly people.
  The amendment gained considerable support in the BMA's recently published document on this very issue— the tensions between care provision and what is happening in the health service and the health care problems of individuals. At risk of wearying the House, I should like to quote from that BMA report, which the all-party group on disability considered yesterday:
  "The provision of residential and nursing care perhaps demonstrates most clearly the need for effective collaboration between health and local authorities, relevant professionals and voluntary organisations. The 'Caring for People' White Paper imposes a delineation between health and social care to explain the funding of the new arrangements. In reality, many dispute that this delineation actually exists. This is especially apparent when related to care for people with chronic, severe ill health, such as the frail elderly. As both health and local authorities will, understandably, he keen to limit expenditure, there is a danger that each will view the patients' needs as being the responsibility of the other authority."
  In the absence of the advocacy of a friend or companion who is willing to speak for the patient, and with two authorities tugging away at the provision of health care, what opportunity do frail or vulnerable people have to say anything about their needs and rights?
  Ms. Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the advocate must be an independent advocate and not tied to a local authority? If the advocate is not independent, there is a danger that he will decide what the individual needs by reference to what the local authority can provide.
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree, and I hope to come to that point in due course.
  Let me quote another section of the BMA report, remembering the crucial importance of health care for elderly people:
  "The BMA has received several reports from hospital specialists who have been frustrated by the lack of information on the rapid changes taking place in the private home sector. The lack of consideration given to the provision of general medical services when private homes are set up is also of grave concern."

  881
  If it is of grave concern to an organisation as professional and as well informed as the BMA, is it not also of considerable concern to elderly people who are placed in such difficult circumstances?
  Fundamentally, the amendment advocates good practice, because advocacy is good practice. It would also give value for money. All the reports that we have considered—the Griffiths report, the Wagner report, which I know is of great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), and, indeed, the White Paper "Caring for People"—suggest that we may not be getting value for money even from the sums that are being made available for the services. If there is any doubt about an individual's needs, rights or desires —perhaps the word "desires" is more important than the others in terms of the individual's rights being paramount —we are not likely to get value for money.
  Each of the reports that I have mentioned supports the view that many elderly people are placed inappropriately, either in homes that are not suitable for them or in residential care rather than elsewhere in the community where they could benefit greatly. That is why advocacy is important.
  5.45 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but can he give us some examples of who the advocates will be and who will appoint and regulate them so that they look after the interests of patients independently and are not in someone else's pocket?
  Mr. Clarke: I hope to come to that point in due course. If he feels that, by the end of my short speech, he has not received an adequate reply, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the report of my speech in Committee. He could have intervened or even made a speech on that occasion, and I am sorry that he did not take that opportunity. He may find that speech good reading, none the less.
  We hear much about choice in relation to care in the community and care of the elderly, but we know that, in practice, it is, for the most part, mere waffle. How can an elderly person who has had a stroke, whose speech is impaired, who is blind—in some cases, deaf and blind—express his or her choice in the absence of advocacy? The community care provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 were introduced in response to the problems that we are discussing, and if that Act is to be given meaning, it is important that the amendment should be given a proper hearing. How can someone suffering from Alzheimer's be represented adequately when decisions are taken about him? In the absence of the kind of help that the amendment seeks to provide, how can the wishes of their carers be adequately represented when in some cases they are absolutely exhausted?
  Hon. Members have mentioned social security—not just individual payments for income support which might give rise to individual problems, but the whole system which the Minister tells us is still to be introduced in April next year; we wait with interest to see whether his words are prophetic—whereby the money will be switched to the local authorities which will be seen as enablers rather than providers. With all those changes taking place, life may become extremely confusing, and not just for professional bodies such as the BMA or for local authorities—my hon.
  882
  Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) gave an excellent response suggesting that local authorities are aware of the problems and genuinely seeking to deal with them on a day-to-day basis.
  Even when people are elderly, vulnerable and frail they have rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to make choices about clothing and food. That came to the fore in Committee, and we heard much disturbing evidence about those rights being challenged. People's privacy had been impinged upon and, although I do not say that it happens often, some elderly people have been locked up all night in circumstances that we regard as utterly unacceptable. We are entitled to ask who will protect those vulnerable people. In the absense of advocacy, do we really think that we can conceivably solve problems such as those discussed in Committee, which all of us found distressing.
  In Committee, the views of directors of social services were related to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich. If we wantto get to grips with the problem. examine what happens in residential care homes and improve matters—I accept that the challenge is enormous —the views of such directors are important. My hon. Friend quoted one director as saying:
  "It's not the children at risk who keep us awake at night, it's what might be happening to elderly people in residential care in the local authority's own homes and to the thousands of elderly residents who are cared for often a long way from home, in private residential and nursing homes."
  When directors tell us that, it is time for us to worry about what is happening to our elderly folk.
  How would any of us feel if such things were happening to any of our own parents or people in our families? We would be greatly worried and rightly so. When we have an opportunity such as that offered by the Bill to improve the position and introduce changes, we are right to take it. We must have some strategy for examining the system, the position of individuals and the quality of care. Those responsible for providing that care must know that that strategy exists.
  In Committee several of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), expressed anxiety about examples of elderly people being evicted from private residential homes. When an elderly person has no family or anyone to defend him or her, the availability of advocacy becomes important.
  In an intervention the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked me to define the role of the advocate. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) raised the issue of the independence of the advocate. Those were both fair points, all the more so because we must recognise that there are times when the interest of the elderly individual and the interest of the family conflict. That can often happen. It is right that at the end of the assessment and the decision-making process, the elderly person is given greater priority. Therefore, I accept the case for independence in advocacy.
  Of course, advocacy may vary. It does not always have to be on a professional basis. There are some excellent examples of voluntary advocates. For example, I commend the Sheffield advocacy alliance to the hon. Members for Woodspring and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I am sure that they wish to pursue the matter more fully and to see advocacy in practice, and I encourage them to do so.

  883
  We seek to discourage the idea that elderly people merely go into homes to receive services passively. They do not enter a home simply to be "helped". They want to feel that they are individuals who are encouraged to enjoy the best possible quality of life and to participate in their care. It is not always possible for elderly residents to participate if their views, needs and rights cannot be expressed.
  I also commend to the hon. Members for Woodspring and for Aylesbury the views of Citizen Advocacy and Age Concern. Those organisations have spent a great deal of time on the matter. They understand that the quality of care provision for elderly people can be improved by making provision for advocacy. Sometimes even close members of the elderly person's family cannot get near to the right solution to particular problems. The very independence of the advocate can be helpful in reaching a solution.
  We recognise the dedication of nursing staff, but we must accept that, despite their dedication, they are not always the right persons exclusively to take decisions on behalf of their elderly residents or clients. We dealt with that point in Committee. The independence of the type of advocate that we suggest in amendment No. 2 is extremely important. We accept that philosophy.
  I finish by dealing a little more specifically with the definition of the advocate's role. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich will forgive me for quoting her again, she did a service to the Bill and the debate about advocacy and representation when she gave the definition of advocacy drawn up by John O'Brien, one of the American pioneers of citizen advocacy. He described it as
  "the process whereby one individual represents the interests of another as if they were his or her own."
  That is the process which the amendment seeks to make available. The amendment is clear. It is consistent with the commitment to care in the community of my hon. Friends and the voluntary organisations the views of which we embraced in the amendment. As the amendment is both realistic and attainable, I hope that the Minister and the House will respond positively.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who feels passionately about the issue and has spent much of his time in the House arguing the case for advocacy. I commend his continuing efforts to persuade the Government to take seriously the issue with which he dealt in his speech to amendment No. 2.
  I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in a debate when you have been in the Chair. Those of us from the west riding of Yorkshire are proud to see you in the Chair. We all wish you well. It is a great privilege to have a Deputy Speaker who understands the important things in life like rugby league football and, of course, community care. I hope that you will see fit to call me on many future occasions.
  Amendment No. 2 attempts to include in the legislation the Government's own policy. I simply refer to two documents published by the Government on the requirement to review cases where people are placed in some form of care setting. First, the Minister will be familiar with the document "Home Life". It is the
  884
  guidance issued by the Government on the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984. In paragraph 2.1.5, entitled "Review of Placement" it states:
  "After the trial period the proprietor should discuss fully with the prospective resident and key supporter (relative, friend, social worker) the suitability of the placement and the prospective resident's feelings about it. The possibility of transfer if the placement is unsuitable and eventual discharge, should also be raised if appropriate. Review decisions should be recorded and implemented."
  Paragraph 2.1.6, entitled "General Reviews", states:
  "On admission a programme of general reviews should be established and the purpose and process of the reviews explained. These reviews will include general health and social needs, and should always be regarded as an opportunity to extend methods of rehabilitation and prepare residents for leaving when this is appropriate. The resident and key supporter should normally be amongst those involved in such reviews."
  That is the Government's guidance. That is what they say should happen in our care homes.
  The Government went on to commission a report which came out in 1988. The Wagner report was endorsed by the Government. Chapter 3, entitled "Enlarging and Safeguarding Choice", states:
  "We wish to ensure that people who begin to need assistance in order to care for themselves are able to exercise a positive choice over the combination of accommodation and personal services which they require."
  Paragraph (v) says:
  "The chosen service should be reviewed at appropriate intervals."
  On page 31, the same report states:
  "As and when needs change, either users or carers should be able to call a review. We are particularly concerned with those residents who are unable to exercise effective choice or give effective consent."
  That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West.
  The report continues:
  "where a general practitioner judges this to be the case, we recommend that it be a statutory requirement that a review be held at least every six months."
  In practice, reviews are virtually non-existent in care homes. Those reports, which supposedly form the backbone of the present Government's procedures for the management of care—whether in the public or in the private sector—are absolutely meaningless. Although they sound nice and have been endorsed by the Minister, his colleagues and his predecessors, in practice they mean nothing.
  6 pm
  The reason why the Government are reluctant to give detailed consideration to the introduction of a formal review system is not purely and simply because of their laissez-faire, laid-back and "let market forces run the system" attitude. If they introduced a review system, it would prove that a vast number of placements, especially those in the private sector, are utterly inappropriate, as many Opposition Members have feared. People who do not need to be in private care and nursing homes are placed in them and it is totally wrong. If the Minister were honest, he would admit that he knows that to be the truth. Any hon. Member who has looked into care homes in their constituency, or has talked to people in the private care sector or in social services departments, will accept that that is true in many areas.
  The main purpose of reviews is to check on the appropriateness of a placement. I recall a discussion with a gentleman for whom I have a good deal of respect—

  885
  Tony Pitacio—who was the chairman of the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors. Prior to that organisation having some internal difficulties, which I shall not go into, I attended a conference which I believe he chaired. The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) also spoke at the conference, which was held in Yorkshire. We gave different perspectives on our attitudes to private care and the care of the elderly. Mr. Pitacio told me that about one quarter of the people in his care home should not have been there. A substantial number of them would have been supported by finance from the Department of Social Security.
  Evidence to the Select Committee on Health, when it considered the wider issues relating to the operation of local authority social services was clear. The evidence was also clear when the Health Select Committee joined the Select Committee on Social Security to consider the financing of private care homes. For example, we heard clear evidence from the Association of Directors of Social Services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West was present in March 1991, when directors and deputy directirs from various London boroughs, controlled by different political parties, gave evidence. The consensus among them was recorded in the minutes of that meeting. They said that 50 per cent. of people in private care homes in London could and should have been living independently or semi-independently in the community.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that many residents in care homes are capable of independently living or living with some protection in the community. In Devon, his party has had the most to say when the social services department has rightly analysed the needs of people in care homes and has proposed the closure of residential homes. At the last Labour party conference, great political capital was made of the proposals by Devon county council social services to close some homes. Yet now, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that many authorities should be doing what Devon county council social services have been doing—providing more day care places and more care in the community for residents in care homes, having analysed their needs. Have I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I have spoken in virtually every community care debate in this place since 1987. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the main error of the Government's ways is that they have allowed an open-ended investment of income support in institutional care. Therefore, in many localities, including my own and possibly in the hon. Lady's constituency, although I do not know Devon well, many people end up in care because resources have not been invested in alternatives to institutional care.
  My authority in Wakefield had major problems with the standard spending assessment because it could not spend the money that it needed to provide statutory facilities and services for people outside care, because the Government prevented it from doing so by threatening it with rate capping; yet a huge amount of money has been invested in the private care sector.
  I know of many people who have gone into care when they did not need to do so. Their relatives have told me that they could not get the services to maintain them
  886
  independently in the community because the local authority and the health authority did not have the resources to provide them.
  Once people enter the private care sector, the money flows in—£288 per week. If that money were available to purchase facilities in the community, those people could have remained independent.
  If the change takes place in April next year, assessment will be meaningless unless we positively invest in developing alternatives to care of the sort that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) described. In some respects, I go along with the trend in Devon, but I suspect that my political colleagues there were telling the hon. Lady and her party that the alternatives to care were not sufficient for the authority to take the action that it was proposing. I undertand her argument, and she may expand it if she wishes to contribute to the debate.
  Reviews allow us to check on the appropriateness of placements in whatever sector—whether in what the Government call the independent sector and what I would call the private sector, or in the local authority sector.
  It is only right that each person's case should be looked into. Whatever type of home they are in, we should be aware of whether they are being placed appropriately. A review would also afford the opportunity to make an informal, objective check on the well-being of residents. At least every six months, there is a statutory check on whether a child is being properly looked after in the environment in which it has been placed, whether at home on trial, in a foster home, a children's home or a community home. That should also happen with elderly people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said that a person's medical position may change. I know of people who have entered care homes in an appalling state, but have made a marked improvement within a couple of weeks or months because they have been properly fed and looked after. They have changed fundamentally, put on weight, regained strength and sometimes been capable of returning to independent or semi-independent living in the community.
  People's social circumstances may also change. Relatives, friends or carers who could not look after or support a person at the time of admission to a home, may now be able to offer additional support.
  My hon. Friend also said that a review would offer a formal opportunity for residents to voice their opinions about what should happen to them. The Minister will recall that we discussed that in Committee, when I said that, for many elderly people, the idea of freedom of choice is nonsense. They are placed by hospitals or relatives in homes and often they do not want to go. I know of many people who have been placed away from their home area. They have had no choice. A review would allow them to have some say in what is happening in their lives and in what is often intimate care, in the establishment in which they have been placed.
  A review would also offer an opportunity to consider rehabilitation—an opportunity which is not allowed under the present system. I also said in Committee that there is an assumption that once an elderly person is in care, that is the end of it. That is nonsense. We should work towards rehabilitation for each elderly person, if it is at all possible and if they desire it.
  The assumption is that, once an old person is admitted to care, it will be downhill and decline until the end comes.

  887
  That is wrong. We should offer people a positive choice, should they leave care, between perhaps some sheltered accommodation and return to some form of semi-independent living. Such choice is not on the agenda now, and that is why we need a formal review system.
  It is worth repeating what was said in Committee about the central weakness of the Government's funding system for private nursing and residential care homes. That system rewards those private home owners who increase a resident's dependency. If one owns a jointly registered care home, one can make more money if one gets more of one's patients to transfer from just residential care to nursing care.
  What incentive is there for that owner to get someone back into the community? The private care sector is under pressure at the moment and there are vacancies in many homes, so what incentive is there for the private care home owner to rehabilitate a patient? If he does so, he will lose profits by virtue of the fact that he has one fewer resident. The Government's system of funding works against the idea of rehabilitating the elderly, disabled and handicapped people or persons with learning difficulties or mental illness. Rehabilitation means lost income—such is the inherent nonsense of the private care market.
  The Minister believes that our objections to the private care market rest solely on ideology, but I have sound practical concerns that make me argue that that market is the wrong one for the care of the elderly and other similarly vulnerable people. For that reason, the review system is urgently needed.
  In the past few months, I have also spoken to two Ministers at the Department of Social Security about the need for a review system to check the appropriate or inappropriate use of public funding through the payment of income support to care home owners. A worrying case that has arisen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) illustrates my concern. I shall pass on the details of that case to the Under-Secretary if the hon. Lady is happy about that, but I believe that it is the prime responsibility of the Department of Social Security.
  That case involves a woman who was moved from the care section to the nursing section of a jointly registered home without any need and without her consent. That lady is not even receiving any nursing care, but that transfer means that the home is getting more money a week because of the cost differential between the two types of care. Those who own that home may receive more income, but such nursing care is inappropriate for that woman. A review system would introduce a formal check on the appropriate use of public funding in such circumstances. It would also act as a check on the standard of care in any particular establishment.
  The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West reflects our practical concerns about the way in which the community care legislation is operating and will operate after 1 April 1993. Let us be honest about this: we are talking about the lives of individuals. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is about individual human beings—our constituents.
  The case of one of my constituents—I have his family's permission to raise it—illustrates precisely the need for the
  888
  amendment. I hope the Minister will take careful note of the circumstances of the gentleman's case, which is worrying, but not that unusual. His name is Mr. James Edward Bull, and he is 39. His two sisters, Mrs. Mary Banham and Mrs. Susan Turton, saw me on Monday to express their concern about their brother's circumstances and the way in which his case has been handled under the current community care system.
  Jimmy comes from Wakefield. In July 1986, this young man—39 is still young—lost his feet and fractured his skull when he was run over by a train. Unfortunately, he took a short cut across a railway line and was knocked down and seriously injured. In fact, his life was threatened as a result of the injuries he received. Sadly, while he was in hospital, he became ill with meningitis, and he is now severely brain-damaged, he has no sight, no hearing and little speech and he must take food intravenously. In a letter from his sisters, which I received yesterday, they describe him as a cabbage.
  That man was transferred from Pinderfields hospital in Wakefield in September 1991 to a private nursing home in Dewsbury. The hospital could not offer continuing care, and it was felt that he should be cared for permanently in a nursing home. That nursing home cared for him for a fortnight and subsequently returned him to Pinderfields. His family were very concerned at the marked deterioration in his general condition and weight in those two weeks.
  6.15 pm
  The family maintain that Pinderfields hospital exerted great pressure to discharge Jimmy. They maintain that the hospital felt that he did not require hospital care. In the letter that I received, one sister notes:
  "I was given a book of private nursing homes and told to get on with it myself, even mentioning the Yellow Pages."
  Unfortunately, that is the reality behind the care plans of the NHS. I am not singling out my authority for criticism, such practice is common across the country. All our constituencies are facing similar problems.
  Eventually, after various developments in Jimmy's case, he was placed at Stallingborough nursing home at Grimsby, 80 miles from his home town of Wakefield. He has been at that nursing home since last October. I had a meeting with his elderly mother, Mrs. Brett, about the problems caused to her because of his distance from Wakefield. She loved and cared for him very much, but a round trip of 160 miles meant that it was virtually impossible for that elderly lady to see her son regularly.
  I saw Mrs. Brett about that problem only recently, but I am sorry to report that she died a couple of weeks ago in hospital. I will not go into the circumstances of her death, but I am pursuing that matter with the health authority. Jimmy's sisters maintain that the fact that he was so far from home broke their mother's heart. I can accept that, given what I know about the case.
  I want to make it clear that the sisters are not in any way attacking the private care home. They have spoken highly of the care provided, and say in their letter:
  "He is loved and cared for as a person".
  However, they add:
  "but there is no follow up regarding his quality of life."
  Jimmy's case vividly illustrates the problems faced by many in care who have no voice and who cannot stand up for themselves.
  In their letter, his sisters list the problems caused by that lack of follow-up:

  889
  "His eyes—we have got a TV for him—but can he see it and how much can he see?
  Hearing—we know there is a problem with his hearing due to the fracture of his skull at the time of the train accident. But there has been no follow up on whether improvements can be made on his present hearing aid.
  Teeth—only roots left which cause recurring infections —needs specialised dental treatment.
  Speech—can say a couple of words—therapy may assist.
  Muscle therapy—after all this time just laid like a vegetable his muscles must have wasted away—can't they be improved?"
  I stress that the sisters are not knocking the home where their brother lives. However, in common with their late mother, they want him to be nearer to his home town. Unfortunately, that is not a practical possibility at the moment, but we are making every effort to do that.
  Those sisters want an independent, objective and comprehensive review of their brother's case, which will cover all the various points about which they are concerned. That is precisely why we have tabled the amendment calling for such a review procedure.
  The current legislation does not impose on the Wakefield health authority or the Wakefield social services department any requirement to carry out a formal review of the case. Nor is there any requirement in the case of the Grimsby health authority or the Grimsby social services department to monitor this man's circumstances objective-ly. Yet, as his sisters say, that is urgently needed. We desperately need a system of the type to which the amendment refers. Jimmy Bull does not have a great deal to be thankful for, as must be fairly obvious from my description of his circumstances. However, he does have a family who love him, care for him, stand up for his rights, and are concerned about the fact that nobody is formally assessing his circumstances in the home—medically, socially or in any other way.
  Many people in care are without mobility, hearing, sight or speech, and have no one like this man's two sisters to go to a Member of Parliament or kick up a fuss in the press. I hope that the Minister will take account of the circumstances of people like Jimmy Bull and do something about them. As someone who has worked with children, I can say that people like Jimmy have less of a voice than children do. There is a formal review system that gives children some voice and provides some check on the appropriateness of placement.
  This amendment is vital if the well-being of people such as Jimmy Bull is to be secured. I therefore hope that we shall have a positive response from the Minister, even if that means his introducing, at a very early stage, legislation to provide the requirement that is envisaged in the amendment.
  Mr. Gunnell: Following the very moving account of the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which illustrates the points that we want to make, it is difficult to return to statistics. It is difficult to take a wider look at the issue and to make the case that the amendment would be extremely helpful to the Government in terms of financing the whole package of community care.
  It is clear that there are many more people in residential care than there need be. The Firth committee, which was set up under the aegis of the Department of Health and Social Security, concluded that the increase in residential provision in the first half of the 1980s was not accounted for by the rise in the elderly population. That increase was
  890
  twice what was suggested demographically. Similarly, William Laing, a research specialist in private health care, concluded in his review of private health care, which was published in 1990–91, that there were 29 per cent. more elderly people in long-term residential care than might have been expected. There are in long-term residential care people for whom it is not the proper type of placement. A system of review and of advocacy, with a view to their possible removal from such care, is crucial to such people.
  In this connection, I want to pay tribute to a group that operates in my constituency. I refer to the Belle Isle Winter Aid Group, which is in contact with about 500 elderly people in one of the major estates that I represent. In the last year or two, the group has been part funded by the Leeds social services department and the Leeds health authority. The reason for that is that it has contact with many elderly people in the area.
  The social services department and the health authority were both very interested in the group's work. They wanted to ascertain how many of those 500 people wished to go into long-term residential care. I emphasise that this is a voluntary group and that, by and large, the people who did the visiting were volunteers. Their conclusion was that nobody they visited wanted to go into long-term residential care. Some people recognised that they might have to do so in the future, but they all emphasised that if services that would enable them to stay in their own homes were available, that is what they would want to do. This voluntary group does its best to see that services are in place for such people.
  The case for advocacy and review in respect of those in residential care is very important indeed. As a social services chairman, I have seen to it that my authority has funded some advocacy work. Independent advocates have dealt with some clients of the social services department. It is also possible to have professional advocates, and I know that the city council has one or two such people who have taken up complaints, some of them against departments of the city council.
  I want to draw the Minister's attention to a report called "Elderly People—Care, Participation and Satisfaction", which was based on interviews with more than 200 people, all of them over 75, some in community care, and some in residential homes. The carers, too, were interviewed. We have stressed how important it is that people should be able to make an informed choice. The report, which is reviewed in "Social Work Today" of 30 April, says:
  "Only 6 per cent. of elderly people in residential care had been given alternatives, such as sheltered housing. Only half talked to anybody about moving to a home. For some the decision had been made so rapidly that they did not even know they were a permanent resident until after the move."
  It is then recorded that when people were first seen they wanted services to take pressure off them. A quarter of those looking for help recorded gardening—their gardens were in a terrible state—as their highest priority, yet they ended up in residential care. In those circumstances, one must ask about the process.
  This report is somewhat critical of the practice adopted by some social services departments, but it takes the view that social workers have been, and are, under enormous pressure because of lack of resources. For that reason, discussions with people often do not take place at the appropriate level. Leaflets tend to be left. One organiser of domiciliary care said, "We should give advice, but we

  891
  don't. We are so busy that I just give a telephone number or a leaflet and don't get personally involved." Everybody knows that elderly people do not read those leaflets. They do not necessarily understand the choices that are available. It is evident from that report that people do not know how to complain if they are dissatisfied with what is happening to them. One woman who was interviewed was under the impression that she should write to the Foreign Secretary and one third of local authority home residents did not know where to start to make a complaint.
  This report reveals the importance of having a case review for elderly people. It shows that many people have had very little say. In response to an earlier debate, the Minister emphasised the importance of choice. By way of the Bill, we are correcting omissions with a view to ensuring that people have a range of choices. At one level, we can ensure that there is choice, but we cannot ensure that it is made available to people going into residential care. The amendment would create that possibility. It seeks to provide for a review of people's cases and to ensure that someone is available to speak on their behalf.
  The issue of advocacy is important. The Minister said that a great deal of money is being spent on residential care. If that money were spent on community services, it would help far more people. We should look seriously at the many people who are clearly misplaced in residential care, with no opportunity for a review and no knowledge about how to change their situation.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should have thought that of all the amendments that the Opposition have proposed, No. 2, which makes fairly modest demands, would be by far the easiest for the Minister to accept. It does not cost much and requires no money from public funds. It is not exactly the same as implementing the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). I was reminded of that legislation earlier today when a Conservative Member intervened in my hon. Friend's speech and asked about advocacy and what he was doing about it. I expected my hon. Friend to refer to the proceedings on his legislation that has gone through the House.
  Most of my hon. Friends have given examples of people in residential and nursing care who may not need to be there. I do not share the certainty of some of my hon. Friends, but it is clear that some people end up in care away from their own homes, for no other reason than that they lost the opportunity to have aids and adaptations in their homes. The lack of opportunity for changes in their homes forced them out of their homes and into care.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend referred earlier to some Conservative Members who are no longer present, but who intervened in my speech. I was far too modest to mention the Act that I introduced, but my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, because the anniversary of its Royal Assent is 8 July, those two Conservative Members, in common with every other Member of the House, will receive strong representations from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—and many
  892
  other voluntary organisations. Therefore, if those hon. Members do not know about the Act now, they will know about it then.
  Mr. Rooker: I realise that my hon. Friend is much too modest to have mentioned the Act and that is why I mentioned it for him. Those absent Conservative Members should know that they challenged the one hon. Member who has done something about community care problems by putting an Act on the statute book.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned Devon in an intervention. I visited Devon earlier this year—not the wider part of Devon which the hon. Lady represents, but your beautiful city, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited two residential homes, both under threat of closure. One, Tory Brook, was purpose-built about 16 or 17 years ago. I do not think that it is in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I saw your letter pinned on the notice board, supporting the demand of residents that the home be kept open. Let there be no misunderstanding about the reason given at the time for the home's closure. By and large, we were talking about all local authority homes.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West when he was specifically referring to the private sector. He was not talking about the local authority public sector.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I invite the hon. Member for Tiverton to get up from her seat and make a speech to tell the House about social policy and community care policy in Devon. We should like nothing more than for her to make a speech rather than an intervention. We have not yet heard a speech from any Conservative Member on Report or in Committee about community care policies in their parts of the country. We want to share experiences with them. In the past few minutes, the Chamber has heard about the real-life experiences of ordinary people in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). That is what community care policy is about. We must put legislation on the statute book to meet the needs of ordinary people, their life experiences and those of their carers.
  The two homes that I visited in Plymouth were wonderful. I had lunch with and spoke to many of the residents who were in their 70s and 90s. They invited me to visit their rooms, explained their backgrounds and gave me letters to bring back to the Prime Minister, which I sent to him. They told me that people get a false impression when they visit such homes and see that the residents are well cared for and happy, with companionship. Visitors go away saying that the residents so look fit and healthy, can talk and are not stupid, that they should be living in the community.
  However, the residents say that the quality of care that they receive in the home enables them to have a quality of life which they do not feel that they could get outside. That does not mean that some of those people could not be in sheltered housing if they had a choice. They may lose the companionship, and loneliness is a great scourge of the late 20th century. We underestimate it at our peril when forcing people to stay in their homes.
  I came away from the two homes in Plymouth with mixed feelings. First, many of those people had not been consulted, which is the subject of the amendment. The

  893
  proof of that is that one of the residents—I think that her name was Annie—had got a judge to agree to a judicial review of the local authority's decision. That is positive proof that there has been no review of the residents' circumstances.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she will undertake to make a speech at some time tonight.
  Mrs. Browning: When I intervened on the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), he was saying—if I understood him correctly, and I asked him whether I had —that as circumstances, local area needs and the needs of the individual residents change, we should be much more open minded about considering the needs of residents who could go back into the community, having been in residential care. By the same definition, particularly with regard to local authority homes, if a review of immediate and future local needs is taking place, as happened in Devon—although I have not had the experience of visiting the two Plymouth homes, I know the situation in my constituency where local needs were deemed to be that more day care back up services, day care services for the elderly, and respite care for carers—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but her intervention is now becoming too long.
  Mrs. Browning: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Based on that —
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That means sit down, in polite language.
  Mr. Rooker: I simply invite the hon. Lady to make a speech when I sit down and before the Minister winds up the debate. We are under no pressure and do not intend to filibuster. We just seek to make a point about community care policy arid share our experiences in different parts of the country to send a signal to the Department so that matters can be put right from April. We are all concerned to ensure that the policy is right. We do not want a uniform policy across the country—it would be stupid for anyone to advocate that. However, we visit each other's constituencies and sometimes we have to share our experiences.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on her intervention, which was longer than the totality of contributions made by Tory Back Benchers in Committee and, so far, on Report?
  The point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which we need to clarify, is that there are differences between the level of need catered for by local authority part III accommodation and by private care homes. I take a different view from the hon. Lady on the closing of part III accommodation. With the advent and growth of private sector accommodation, part III accommodation has to cope with people who are more dependent and are frequently rejected by private sector homes, whose officials say that they cannot cope with such residents. There is a big difference between private care homes and local authority accommodation described by the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Rooker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I came away from Plymouth believing that the decision had been taken on ideological grounds, and was not based on the residents' needs. I came to that conclusion because of what I heard in the two homes from the staff, carers and residents. It was that fact that we objected to; no one objects to change based on needs.
  I should have thought that the Government would accept the amendment. The examples given today are not random, but it is clear that it is much more complicated for a social worker to assemble a community care package for someone in the community, either in their own home or in some form of sheltered housing, than it is merely to place them in residential care, which is the easy option. It saves on the leg work, the telephoning, the case conferences and avoids a great deal of organisation if one can say, "You need to go into this nice little home where you will be well looked after," and that is the end of the problem. We are seeking to stop that.
  One way to place a check and balance on such a policy is to have regular reviews involving the residents, their advocates, friends, advisers and care managers. Like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), I distinguish between care managers and care providers. It is crucial that those undertaking the reviews do so with open minds and place the users' needs first.
  Earlier, one of my hon. Friends quoted the views of the British Medical Association. While the BMA wants the assessments to be separate from the service provision and general practitioners to be involved in the assessment process—which is essential for the patients—it believes that the patients' GPs should not be involved, but someone more removed so that an independent overview is given.
  There are many examples throughout the country of people who have entered residential care when they need not have done. How can we, as legislators, draft legislation to help them in future? One way to do so would be to introduce a systematic review. I think that the period of six months, which was mentioned in the debate, is too long. I think that the review needs to be carried out more frequently—perhaps every three months. I would not be too rigid about that, but there must be a review; people must know about it and must be able to share their experiences. Carers, care managers and individual users must know that whatever is wrong or whatever progress is being made can be reported to the review. The residents may well become more independent.
  6.45 pm
  Private sector home owners have told me that the demographic changes in the country—the increase in the number of elderly people that has occurred this decade —mean that they will have no difficulty in filling residential places, despite the various adaptations and community care plans. Therefore, home owners are not reluctant to encourage residents to become independent or semi-independent. They know that allegations have been made—sometimes with justification—that they want their beds filled.
  The financial policy suggests that home owners may have an incentive to keep residents in their homes—they may have, but they need not be the same residents. One test of whether private sector home owners are interested in quality care is whether they have regular, systematic reviews of their residents. If they are not having them now,

  895
  one task for Opposition Members next April will be to ensure that local authorities require such reviews to take place. If that policy is carried out, there is a good chance that some residents will regain independence or semi-independence.
  Ms. Jowell: Given that the average age of elderly people admitted to residential care has increased in the past decade—those of us who have visited homes know that the average age is now about 85—and if the assessment has been properly carried out, it is unlikely that residents will leave residential care. The review process should identify ways in which the regime of the home should bend and adapt to accommodate residents' changing needs.
  Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The thrust of the speeches of some of my hon. Friends has been that people are misplaced. I gave an example in Committee of homes in my constituency that had closed or changed, making it necessary to reassess residents. Assessments had not been regular events in the past. In one case, papers were studied and assessments carried out, and it was found that a resident was admitted to part III accommodation 10 years ago, who should not have been. That resident is now happily re-established in the community, but that was an exceptional case.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) said, of necessity, regular reviews involving friends and advocates, users and care managers, will be directed more towards improving the quality of care and the life style in the home than moving people around. Many people who are admitted to residential care today are at an age where they do not want to be moved around. They are looking for peace, tranquillity, companionship and care. They may have left behind the chores of looking after a property. They may have been carers who, worn out by caring for a loved one who has died, now need to be cared for themselves. They are not looking to return to the community or to move around, but they do not deserve to be forgotten. That can be achieved only by a regular review.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the amendment cannot be accepted. It will cost nothing—it contains no requirements for further public sector manpower and calls for no resources over and above those that will be needed if the community care policy operates as Ministers have said it will from next April. The Minister assured us that there would be no change in that policy.
  Accepting the amendment would send the signal to the public, voluntary and independent sectors that the House of Commons is serious about community care and that we seriously intend to ensure that these policies, which are by and large bipartisan, operate successfuly from next April in the interests of our constituents. We must advocate a better system that will ensure improved quality. We all know of enough examples to prove that, without giving this idea a statutory basis in the Bill, it will not come about. That is the reason for the amendment.
  Mr. Yeo: The amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who made another powerful speech in favour of advocacy. He is an expert on that subject, so his views will always be heard with respect. I shall return to the question of advocacy shortly.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), supporting the hon. Member for Monklands, West,
  896
  concentrated on the need for regular reviews of people's situations. Of course people should be able to have their circumstances reviewed and to take part in reviews themselves. As time moves on, so their needs will change. Some people may find that their health has deteriorated, so they have become more dependent; others move in the opposite direction—their health improves so the nursing that they needed at one stage becomes unnecessary.
  It is also true that a person whose social needs were met by a particular type of establishment—a large home, say —might change his preferences and attitude and require a smaller, quieter, more family-like setting. All sorts of changes can take place, which is why our community care policies are based on the principle that just as the needs of any two individuals may differ, so the needs of one individual can change from time to time. Each individual situation requires an individual solution.
  The policy puts the emphasis of care where it should be: on meeting the needs of the users of the services and, in certain circumstances, on meeting the needs of their carers, too. The White Paper is based on the idea of giving local authorities the freedom and flexibility that they need to develop individual solutions which will provide services and support, especially for frail, elderly, vulnerable or disabled people—always with the aim of enabling them to lead as full and independent a life as possible.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield underestimated the effectiveness of the code of practice "Home Life", which, as I said in Committee, we are about to update in any case. I believe that there are many advantages in a code of practice which is more flexible than law and which can therefore reflect more quickly the latest attitudes and methods of providing services.
  The assessment process and the third stage of our community care policies which come into force next year will eliminate the kind of problem to which the hon. Member for Wakefield referred. He deplored unsuitable placements—an issue about which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) was also worried. The solution to the problem of inappropriate placements is therefore at hand.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made an important intervention, which I welcomed, although I was not sure how much it was welcomed by Labour Members. They seemed inclined to tease her a little about it, but what she said about the delivery of domiciliary services in Devon was significant. The Government expect one of the consequences of the third stage of our community care policies to be an acceleration in the delivery and provision of services. We also expect the independent sector to play an increasing role in their delivery.
  I must take issue with the argument of the hon. Member for Wakefield that the existence of the independent sector actually works against the process of rehabilitation. I share his concern to encourage rehabilitation—
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister distorts my point. I said that the financial arrangements for the private sector reward increased dependence—the Minister must accept that. If someone with a jointly registered home moves a person from residential care to nursing home care, thereby receiving more money, that is a financial incentive to making the person in question dependent. The Minister knows that I can give him examples of that.
  Mr. Yeo: I do not accept that, for two reasons. The first reason is that the cost of providing nursing home care will be greater, so even if the fee charged is higher, the margin earned on the delivery of the service may be no greater. More importantly, there is a threshold which someone who moves from residential care into a nursing home must cross; the health authority will act as a policeman of that threshold and no one will be able to move from residential care into a private nursing home, even within the same establishment, without the approval of the local health authority.
  As it will be the local authority contracting with the providers, the authority will buy a certain number of places. Someone whose condition has improved and who benefits from rehabilitation may leave an independent sector establishment and his place may be taken—the local authority may have contracted to take the place—by someone newly discharged from hospital who needs the services more.
  It could therefore be argued that the independent sector favours rehabilitation more than the statutory sector does, as in the latter the local authority may feel that for its own financial needs it must keep its establishments full, and it may be reluctant to move people out even though their condition justifies that.
  Mr. Gunnell: As the Minister knows, I was a member of a health authority for two years before coming to this place, as well as chairing a social services committee. I was worried because people discharged from hospitals almost always went into private residential care; very few went into local authority residential care. It is not true that local authorities seek to maximise the numbers in residential care. As I explained fully in Committee, my local authority outdid that of the hon. Member for Tiverton in respect of the number of residential homes that it closed, because we did not need the places. We did not try to keep places going for the sake of it. Nevertheless, I was worried about the disparity, so I looked into the health authority's procedures—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this intervention is getting rather long—although on this occasion the Opposition Whip does not seem to have made any comment.
  Mr. Gunnell: I shall bring it to a conclusion, then.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Rapidly.
  Mr. Gunnell: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. The health authority said that when it wanted to place people, it had to place them rapidly; it could not wait for the local authority's assessment procedures because it wanted a rapid move from hospital to residential care.
  Mr. Yeo: I have tried to give way generously but it is not an incentive to generosity when interventions are prolonged. In any event, the hon. Gentleman has had a good opportunity to make his point.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to the recent BMA report and spoke of health authorities and local authorities each trying to pass on to the other responsibility for meeting the needs of certain people. Health and local authorities co-operate properly in many parts of the country—I have visited a number of them in the past three months.
  898
  At member level, management level and at the sharp end there is good co-operation. The Government would take a serious view of authorities that could not reach local agreement about the responsibility for meeting a person's needs. That is a serious matter and local authorities must not try to shift responsibility. The hon. Member for Monklands, West used that as an argument in favour of the provision of advocates.
  7 pm
  The hon. Member for Wakefield, in support of the need for advocacy, described the tragic case of a constituent. The family to which he referred has the sympathy of all hon. Members. In that context, the implementation of the third stage of our community care policy next year is important. If those policies are properly implemented and agencies co-operate in the right way, such tragic cases as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman can be minimised.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: What difference will the policy to be implemented in April make to Jimmy Bull's case? No one in a placement of that kind will find any difference. Jimmy Bull is more dependent than many children in care, but he does not have the same legal rights to independent objective monitoring of his circumstances in care.
  Mr. Yeo: That case will not be affected by the changes in April because they will apply only to people who are coming forward for the first time. The change is incremental and will not affect people whose situation has already been determined.
  It is difficult to define who should be the advocate in a particular case, and there is some difficulty about deciding accountability. The hon. Member for Monklands, West acknowledged that conflicts of interest can arise even within a family. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, sometimes residential care is an easy option not just for the authority but for the relations as well. The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke seductively at the start of his speech when he said that the amendment contained few cost implications. The Government's approach, not just to the amendment but to the whole matter, is driven by the needs of individuals and community care policies. It is not driven exclusively by financial considerations, although of course they cannot be entirely ignored.
  As the House is aware, one of the key objectives of our policy is to ensure that service delivery is based on an assessment of need and that clients are involved in that assessment and in the choices made about care provision. The basic aim is an individually tailored care package, not an off-the-peg version that may not fit a person's needs and circumstances or the needs of his carer. I agree with the hon. Member for Perry Barr that that will involve regular reviews, although, because of the diversity of individual need, I do not think that it is possible to prescribe a time scale.
  The review of care needs is an integral part of the assessment process. It is right that responsibility for that should rest with local authorities because it lies better with them than with the operators of a residential or nursing home. Many people who will need regular reviews of their care needs are not in residential or nursing homes at all. Our policy guidance "Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" states:
  "Care needs for which services arc being provided should be reviewed at regular intervals … The purpose of the review

  899
  is to establish whether the objectives set in the original care plan are being, or have been, met and to increase, revise or withdraw services accordingly … The other purposes of reviews are to monitor the quality of services provided and, in particular, to note the views of service users and carers and any changes in their wishes or preferences'.
  The Registered Homes Act 1984 also states that residents' wishes should be taken into account where possible and "Home Life" recommends that residents should, where possible, have access to external advice, representation or advocacy.
  We recognise the importance of advocacy schemes but, as I said in Committee, we would prefer to see them develop flexibly according to local circumstances rather than under a uniform scheme imposed from the centre. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South confirmed that local schemes exist and flourish. It is undesirable to enshrine every detail in legislation in order to achieve the desired results. We want good practice to develop in line with local circumstances, and we have asked authorities to develop local advocacy schemes or to use those that are already available locally for clients who need that kind of help. We have ensured that material on the subject is included in our guidance on complaints procedures and in care management and assessment guidance. A regular review of care needs and the care plan are fundamental elements of the assessment and care management process. That underpins the whole of our new community care arrangements.
  Mr. Rooker: We have heard about a northern local authority suggesting to someone with a problem that he should look in Yellow Pages. I could give the name of a London authority which gave exactly the same information. I accept the thrust of the Minister's argument. Will he make it clear that the signal going from the House must be that no local authority should tell advocates, carers or anybody else to look in Yellow Pages?
  Mr. Yeo: I agree that such a clear message must be sent. We are engaged in monitoring the preparations being made by local and health authorities for the implementation of the policy in April. We are satisfied that the bulk of the 108 social services authorities will have the right mechanisms in place, if they work hard, but some give rise, to concern. We have a list of authorities—I shall not describe it as a hit list—to which Ministers will pay close attention. The authorities on the list are not confined to any specific part of the country or type of authority. Given the emphasis that we all place on meeting individual needs, it is quite unacceptable for anyone to be told to look in Yellow Pages. For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: This has been an interesting debate and the Minister's speech seems to show that he knows what advocacy is about. He did not go much further than that, but in one sense his recognition is progress. We are debating advocacy and the role of the elderly in a changing and traumatic situation.
  The Minister conceded that there was some merit in the argument advanced by the British Medical Association. It is deeply worried, as it said in its document, that, following the changes in April, some health authorities will dispense with their responsibilities by saying that they are matters for local authorities. Some local authorities will say that
  900
  they cannot cope. In the middle will be the elderly people who expect community care and who will find that it is not there. In response to that, the Minister said that if such a situation arises the Government will step in because it would imply that joint planning was breaking down. That is exactly what it would imply.
  In many parts of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, joint planning has never operated. There have been no agreements, discussions or policy formulation involving the health authorities and the local authorities, with input from voluntary organisations and users. That is essential if community care is to have any meaning. Hundreds of thousands of elderly people are not receiving the democratic support embracing their rights that any approach to the provision of proper social services seems to suggest.
  The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) were anxious to know more about advocacy, and I am anxious to encourage them in their search for knowledge. They missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who suggested some further reading for them. It would do them no harm to study the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which clearly defines advocacy, assessment and representation. Perhaps they have the imagination to extend that Act's provisions to the elderly.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made a constructive intervention, and she should be encouraged to make a speech. She seemed to invite the House to become involved in an argument about Devon. I would not pretend to know much about Devon, but what if one multiplied her example and applied the argument elsewhere in Great Britain?
  The one element missing from our arguments is the view that elderly people take of the services that are or are not provided for them. The elderly and their advocates ought to contribute to any debate leading to decisions that are of enormous importance, for good or for ill, to elderly people.
  The Bill's origins are to be found in a report published by the Public Accounts Committee five or six years ago —which is recent history in terms of community care— saying that community care was in chaos. As a consequence of that and other strong representations, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, invited Sir Roy Griffiths to prepare a report. Given his previous report on the health service and the then Prime Minister's belief in market forces, she did so with some confidence. However, after close examination, Sir Roy found that allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends were staring him in the face in reality.
  My hon. Friend spoke of people being discharged from institutions and channelled into some other form of health care without proper assessment or any evidence of advocacy. Sir Roy was confronted with instances of that happening on a day-to-day basis, in a domestic sense.
  Sir Roy's report stated that there had been decades of rhetoric but no action, and that Government declarations had not been matched by resources. He said that there ought to be a community care strategy so that if elderly people, for example, were discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals into the community, proper assessments and arrangements could be made and genuine care in the community delivered.

  901
  Sir Roy said also that the problem of the boom in the number of elderly people was not being addressed. Even if the Bill is enacted, many elderly people will remain in the community. There is a strong case still for supporting local authorities in delivering services such as home help, so that the elderly can live independently and enjoy an improved quality of life.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I have no objection to passing references to matters of general and wider import, I hope that the hon. Member does not intend to go into great detail. He should bear in mind that the House is considering an amendment to one clause, not the genesis of the whole Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: Your perspicacity, Madam Deputy Speaker, never ceases to amaze me. You called me to order at exactly the point at which I intended to turn to the relevance of advocacy. Our objectives cannot be achieved unless more progress is made with advocacy.
  I will conclude in the generous terms with which the Opposition have approached the Bill. Although the Minister has not delivered, at least he acknowledges the problem. Because we have made at least that progress with him, if not with certain Conservative Back Benchers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Gunnell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  '(IC) Arrangements shall be made by virtue of this section only where the staff of any voluntary organisation or any other person providing the accommodation have undertaken a course of training recognised by the Secretary of State.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  '(ID) Arrangements shall be made by virtue of this section only where the establishment providing accommodation has a staff training plan, available for inspection by the authority, providing for appropriate training for all grades of staff.'.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Gunnell: When one visits a residential home for elderly people—and I am sure that many of the hon. Members present for this debate have done so—one quickly gains an impression of one kind or another. I refer not only to the home's physical appearance, but to its smell. Some homes immediately announce the nature of their residents—particularly if they suffer from dementia.
  That sense of the atmosphere is enlarged when one witnesses the interaction between the staff and residents. One learns a great deal about the nature of the home and whether its residents are settled and happy. I recently visited a home for the elderly in my constituency that I had previously visited two years ago. The moment that I went through the door, I sensed a difference. Whereas before I had found it riot at all a lively place, I became aware of a changed relationship between the staff and the residents.
  I discovered that about a year and a half previously, someone new had been put in charge of that home—and her attitudes had filtered down to the staff. She attempted to motivate her staff as a team, to meet more effectively the needs of the residents. She has ensured that her staff have an opportunity to develop their skills, and they enjoy greater job satisfaction because they have a better sense of career development.
  902
  That is not to say that things are perfect at that home. I was shown all sorts of examples of where greater resources are needed. Much has to be done, and I left with a list of the actions that ought to be taken to improve the residents' physical well-being and facilities.
  In relation to training, which is covered by amendments Nos. 3 and 4. There is much written evidence emphasising the importance of staff training in ensuring the quality of residential care establishments. I have quoted previously from the Howe report, which is the most recent to be published on residential care, and to which the Government are prepared to attach credibility. The Howe inquiry examined residential care for the elderly in the local authority sector in particular. The report concluded that training and staff development were a key element, affecting the quality of service and the status of residential care as a profession.
  That links two vital aspects of residential care. Training is, indeed, a vital part of any home. It not only determines what skills can be used in ministering to clients, but affects people's perception of their jobs and their future in residential care, and tells them whether it involves a career —a progression. That is important if a home is to give satisfaction.
  The amendment requires training issues to be spelt out and to become a statutory requirement. The major issue today relates not to the sense of the amendments, but to whether it is valuable for them to be incorporated in legislation. We are simply asking for the recommendations of inquiries that the Government have backed to be adopted in practice. The Griffiths report, which has been referred to several times today, recognised the crucial importance of training: indeed, all reports on community care have emphasised that. A report from the Audit Commission is due to be published tomorrow and I am sure that training will feature in it. Training is vital to the changes that we all want.
  The Bill aims to ensure that private and voluntary sector homes are covered by legislation, that they are used by local authorities and that residents are given a wide choice. It is important in that connection to spell out training requirements. According to the independent report on residential care produced by Gillian Wagner in 1988, published by the National Institute for Social Work
  —a body which the Government clearly respect—
  "The facts speak for themselves. The 1986 survey by the Local Government Training Board states that, of residential and day care staff only 7.5 per cent. working with adults … have a social work qualification."
  The proportion increased to 24 per cent. if a non-social work qualification such as teaching or nursing was included.
  That tells us that a quarter of staff have some training. In local authority field work, 67 per cent. have a social work qualification; the figure rises to 71.5 per cent. when other qualifications are included. The residental figures were, of course, produced in 1988, and we should like to think that they had improved since. The Utting report, however, does not suggest that any great improvement in residential care training has taken place. It suggests that only 30 per cent. of staff have some qualification.
  Our amendment focuses on the person who would be in charge of a home. I shall not go into all that the Wagner report says about the complexity of the work and the knowledge and skills that would be required, but it makes it clear that managerial and senior staff in residential work

  903
  require a full social work qualification. It also makes it clear that the inquiry team wanted a measure such as amendment No. 4 to be introduced as long ago as 1988, stating:
  "We recommend, that every establishment—in statutory, voluntary and private sectors—should be required to draw up a staff training plan which should be subject to inspection procedures. The plan should be closely related to the aims and objectives of the establishment, and to its specific functions and tasks."
  The report says that the training plans should have a common basis. There should be induction training for those who join the staff and continuing core training for those who become permanent staff members. There should be team development and a regular appraisal of each individual's training needs. People with non-social work qualifications who move into residential work should receive conversion training and those appointed to senior posts should be expected to undertake qualifying training in social work as early as possible. Part of the training should be internal. Regular staff meetings should be held and used to assist the development of staff as individuals and groups.
  The strong emphasis that the Wagner report places on training is understandable in view of the evidence that it cites. According to the written evidence that the inquiry received:
  "Training is the major preoccupation of contributors, being mentioned in their … Recommendations almost twice as often as any other subject. The reasons for this are many. Implicit is a feeling that lack of facilities for training reflects lack of appreciation of residential skills and consequently low status for residential workers in comparison with field workers."
  Giving people a sense of professional status is important in how they regard their jobs, and hence to how they are likely to perform their tasks.
  The personal evidence presented to the inquiry made similar points. The report states:
  "The personal evidence places the same emphasis on training, and for the same reasons, as the formal evidence, but it does add a vivid sense of the difficulty and frustration suffered by those who attempted to go on courses … The … overwhelming impression about training given by this evidence is how few correspondents have received it."
  A total of 116 individual staff from residential homes wrote to the committee, but only 13 appeared to have been given even rudimentary training. Seven of those 13 were working in child care.
  Again, I should like to think that the position had improved since the recommendations, but there has clearly been no dramatic improvement. That is why we believe that a training requirement shold be enshrined in legislation. If it is left to private homes, voluntary homes and even to local authority homes to decide on the level of training, progress will be slow towards the realisation of what the Wagner committee saw as the goal by means of which satisfactory residential care would be provided.
  7.30 pm
  Almost exactly the same views are expressed in the recent Howe report:
  "Training plans are of great importance in assisting with the delivery of quality care.
  The inquiry therefore recommends that local authorities require the production of training plans, which contain minimum standards, within the inspection procedures for their own homes and those of the private and voluntary sectors and demonstrate their implementation."
  904
  Our amendment can, therefore, be seen to be absolutely in line with both the 1988 and the 1992 reports.
  Sir William Utting, from his position as permanent secretary, stated that the Howe committee should look into residential care. It did so and it concluded that training was essential and that there should be training plans that affected all members of staff in private homes, voluntary homes and local authority homes.
  The Howe inquiry elaborated on that point and said that
  "a major aspect of residential care is the need for teamwork and consistency of practice, regardless of who is on duty. The provision of training programmes for complete staff teams is therefore of the utmost importance. New ideas cannot be reliably introduced to a home by training one or two staff outside the home and sending them back to influence the others; if new approaches are to be adopted or attitudes changed, it is necessary for the complete staff team to be involved and identify with the new thinking …
  The Inquiry therefore recommends that in every home a senior manager should have specific responsibility for (a) developing the staff training programme for the home, (b) ensuring that new staff have induction training, and (c) acting as a link with others responsible for training, such as the authority's training section or local colleges placing students, concerning matters such as training programmes about the authority's policies, secondment planning and placements for students."
  The report makes it clear that this is a very important aspect of improving the quality of care in care homes.
  The question, therefore, is whether provision should be made for this in legislation. We say yes. Only by including it in legislation are we likely to obtain the improvements for which we look.
  Reference has already been made to contracts for residential care. The Consumers Association has recently published a report on this question. The association states that a facilities document should accompany the contract. That would provide assurance, as part of the contract, of the care available. The number of staff and their qualifications would have to be stated. Those details would provide evidence that the staff had been trained and that they had the skills available to meet the needs of the clients.
  That could be written into the contract. Progress will be slow, however, if we have to rely on the contractual method alone for the introduction of training. We cannot afford to wait. In the absence of training, we have to pay particular attention to the avoidance of abuse.
  An article on abuse and its avoidance has been published by Patricia Riley. It is entitled "Professional Dilemmas in Elder Abuse" and it was written when she was a member of the directorate of Kent county council. In terms of institutional abuse she makes it very clear that the successful avoidance and detection of institutional abuse
  "requires quality assurance programmes to be a focus for all staff groups from all agencies … and requires staffing of establishments at a level allowing more than 'warehousing' care."
  In parenthesis she states:
  "have you ever heard the T.V. referred to as 'third member of staff, and seen rows of elderly people sitting round the walls staring into space while the T.V. blares away to break the silence?"
  Yes, we have seen institutions such as that. It is not just a question of the number of staff; it is a question of the attention to staff training. That is referred to as an essential part of avoiding institutional abuse.

  905
  Staff development meetings and training lead to people being aware of what is going on in homes. Some of the abuse that has led in the past to public scandals could thereby be prevented.
  Large numbers of people may be encouraged by this measure to set up care homes. We must therefore provide safeguards. I intend to refer to the reports of two cases that were looked into by the registered homes tribunal. Under the heading "No Place Like Home", my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) published those cases. One is a residential care home in Burnley. According to registered homes tribunal decision No. 129 of June 1990, an examination of that home showed that
  "care staff were not sufficiently skilled, experienced or qualified to provide adequate care for the residents … this led to serious consequences in the treatment of and attention to seriously ill residents."
  The proprietor of the home
  "had instructed residents to leave their beds and rooms when they were not fit to do so … residents were left with dirty clothing and bed linen and without proper incontinence pads. They were often smelly and damp."
  A series of other unfortunate practices was referred to, but the lady proprietor was described as
  "the only qualified or senior member of staff and was hardly in attendance, and she insisted that members of staff should tell untruths to cover up her absence."
  The second case involved the Harrogate health authority. Regarding a home run by a Dr. Crammer, the tribunal referred to the fact that the quality and quantity of staff required to run and maintain the nursing home on a daily basis was simply not there. It stated:
  "There was a high turnover of staff in charge and a persistent failure to meet the minimum staffing requirements of the Health Authority."
  The tribunal found in favour of the health authority, which said that the owner
  "shows a cynical disregard of social and statutory obligations which arise as a consequence of ownership of a Nursing Home."
  The crucial reason for the inclusion of our amendment is shown there.
  Dr. Crammer
  "sees ownership as an exercise in business matters … Much of his evidence went to his concern as to the reduction of costs in the Nursing home. Whilst financial efficiency is to be applauded, that does not mean standards should be reduced below acceptable levels."
  It is our contention that if our amendments on training were included in the legislation, there would be a greater
  guarantee of the level of care that we regard as important for our elderly people.
  One of those who spoke to the Wagner inquiry said:
  "Training is extremely important, especially for young people, but they must have within themselves a nature that is caring and courteous, to be able to relate to a person's integrity, not just to humour them … The dignity of the person is what matters most."
  Because that is what matters to us, it is important to provide for homes encouragement, by way of statute, that will ensure training and guarantee acceptable standards of care.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I want to say a few words on the amendments. [Interruption.] The frequency and length of interventions are no measure of sincerity.
  The issue of training is vital. The spirit in which the amendment was moved reflects the general view held by anyone who has any knowledge or understanding of the needs of those in residential accommodation. However,
  906
  the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) does not seem to have thought through the clear distinction that exists between the attainment of qualifications and training. They are not the same thing in any sense. It may be that certain qualifications are necessary for some of the staff in residential accommodation. Certainly, in nursing homes, nursing qualifications must be part of the procedure. However, in many residential homes the qualification that is most necessary is not a certificate or diploma, but a genuine concern to assist those who require personal help and support.
  Not everyone who works in a residential home is there to further his or her career. It may be that a woman—it is sometimes a man—who takes on the job of care assistant develops an interest and wishes to develop her knowledge and understanding through training courses to which she could be seconded. For many middle-aged care assistants, the main qualification is that they are concerned. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South referred to protection from abuse. The most potent protection from abuse is the motherly care assistant who would not consider falsifying reports or records at the behest of someone with a paper qualification.
  I am not suggesting that we should belittle regular training; it is important for those who hold senior management positions. Our task should be to reinforce best practice. I was interested to learn only last week of an example of best practice in my constituency. Senior managers have been meeting with a highly qualified psychologist and have been putting themselves in the position of residents in individual circumstances. That is the sort of high-level training that is extremely valuable for people in managerial positions.
  At the other end of the scale, there is the essential need for basic training for those who work in residential homes.
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall give way when I finish this point.
  Obviously, staff need to be trained to lift patients properly and to care for their intimate needs in a proper manner. However, that does not require legislation. No sensible owner of a residential home would allow staff to lift patients in an inefficient way because if, patients were injured, there might be challenges in the courts.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman has clarified his comments. He seemed to be saying that he did not think that any form of basic training was relevant to the role of care assistant. Clearly, he concedes that lifting and handling skills and first aid—basic caring skills—are essential. My concern is that he is giving the impression that Opposition Members are talking about degrees in sociology. We are not. We are talking about basic skills. From 1980 to 1987, I was involved in teaching courses on caring skills. During that time, I saw several hundred students, but there was not one from a private care home. The private care sector did not seem to recognise the need for or the importance of training. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is worrying? That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) moved the amendment.
  Mr. Griffiths: I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman immediately because I wanted to finish my point. I do recognise the need for qualifications for some members of

  907
  staff and the need for basic training for all members of staff. I am prepared to accept that there are probably examples of failure to provide adequate training. However, the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South was giving statistics about the number of people who hold qualifications. He was using that to suggest that the fact that only a tiny minority of those working in residential accommodation have qualifications means that staff are untrained. I was seeking to show that that is not necessarily so.
  We want to ensure that training follows best practice, but we need not do that by legislation. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said that we should encourage the development of training by legislation. That is an odd choice of words. Legislation should be used when encouragement has failed. We should seek to encourage best practice by making sure that it is widely publicised and well-known. Also, we should encourage best practice through the contract. The amendments deal with that, but the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South did not. When any sensible local authority awards contracts, it will take into consideration the way in which staff are trained.
  Mr. Michael: Why not make it compulsory, then?
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman asks me from a sedentary position why we should not require training. The answer is that to require training of all staff, as amendment No. 4 seeks, would mean a massive bureaucratic training programme for thousands of care assistants who would be required to go through forms of training which were beyond the training that they had already and which they were unlikely to want. If they are simply told that they must be trained, some of them will leave.
  Not only the motherly ladies would leave. In my constituency, sixth formers work in residential homes at weekends. They take part in the life of the home and bring a spirit of youth and vitality which could not be trained into them. They cannot do training courses when they are in the sixth form at school and they will soon leave for their own education and training.
  Ms. Coffey: The hon. Gentleman seems to distinguish between care and training. He seems to say that we need people who care and that care is enough. The problem is that caring is often not enough. I shall draw an analogy with residential child care. There may be homes in which people care about the children, while they also abuse them. There can be abuse by someone who is caring. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that caring is not sufficient.
  Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that there should be an objective measure of the balance between caring and the ability to transmit that into skills. If he accepts that, he must arrive at the conclusion that there must be training, in whatever way he cares to put it, for everyone involved in personal and close relationships with another individual which involve care. I am sure that there is not a division between caring and training.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments, because we are basically in agreement. I believe that care is the first and primary component that anyone should bring to the job, but I agree that care is not enough.
  908
  It must be skilful care and it must go beyond simple emotional commitment to the person who is being cared for. It must be recognised that people have needs, which requires a wider vision. I am sure that the hon. Lady and I do not disagree on that point.
  We may disagree, however, on the question of including such a provision in the Bill. It would be nonsense if it were included in the Bill, which applies to only a narrow range of institutions. Even if such a provision applied to all institutions, it would, first, discourage those who were pioneering best practice; secondly, discourage those who did not wish to go beyond basic training in the giving of care; and thirdly, mean that there was a marked increase in costs in homes.
  I assure Opposition Members that the idea that running a residential home is a licence to print money is certainly not true today, if it ever was. There is heavy competition, and there are homes that are not full and do not have waiting lists. The idea that there would have to be extra staff on duty while others were on training courses would lead to additional costs. If we want carers to have adequate training and adequate qualifications where necessary, the best way to achieve that would be through encouragement.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting contribution. I commend the fact that he, as a Conservative Member, has made a contribution and it is helpful that he has put forward his views.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the private sector's difficulty in financing training. Does he accept that, with the Government's requirement for increasing numbers of individuals who work in care in the private sector to be qualified, the logic of his argument is that the expense falls on the public sector?
  The time for the private sector to take training seriously is long overdue. The simple fact is that the private sector relies on people being trained entirely at public expense. It is becoming increasingly difficult for local authorities, because of the pressure on expenditure on personal social services, to train people, who subsequently move into the private sector.
  Mr. Griffiths: There has always been a movement from training in the public sector into the private sector, whether it has involved people trained at the royal naval dockyard in Portsmouth in years gone by going into private industry or people trained in medical and nursing schools going overseas. That is not new and strange; it is reasonable and it is part of the normal career process in a free society that people should move.
  I have not suggested that the burden should fall entirely on the public sector. I have said that the burden placed on the private sector should be a burden that the private sector is capable of bearing. There should be a requirement that will encourage best practice and not simply impose a rigid straitjacket to which the existing residential accommodation units cannot conform between now and next April.
  The amendment would lead to a rushed and botched scheme which would not be to the advantage of those in residential care. I welcome the spirit of the amendment, but I hope that Opposition Members will not press it because to do so would be simply to go beyond the point

  909
  at which they would be most likely to help the residents in the homes, which is the task that all of us have set ourselves.
  Ms. Liz Lynne: I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) made a terrific contribution to our debate.
  The Royal College of Nursing report "A Scandal Waiting To Happen", which has been mentioned in the debate, states that a shortage of properly qualified nursing staff will not be solved by the present proposals due to take effect in April 1992. The Howe report, stemming from the residential staff inquiry, says that staff in residential and nursing homes must have proper qualifications and appropriate training. It is essential for people in residential and nursing homes to have a proper training.
  There is a need for the training of the complete staff team. We cannot have one person being sent off for training while others in the nursing home are not trained. What would happen when the trained staff were off sick? It is difficult for residential home owners and nursing home owners when staff are off sick and they have no one who is trained to bring in to take over the responsibilities. There should be a proper staff training plan so that everyone in a home has some training before becoming involved with the patients or residents.
  I take the point about the need for someone who is caring. It is essential that staff are caring, but it is also essential that they have some modicum of training before they are let loose on the residents or patients.
  8 pm
  One can see for oneself whether or not a home is well run. I have been to many homes in Rochdale and elsewhere. Some are light and a happy. The residents seem to be enjoying themselves and there is a lot of laughter. In others, everyone seems a little depressed—perhaps not greatly upset but a little depressed none the less. As soon as one enters such a home, one thinks, "There is something not quite right here." Ultimately, that comes from the top —from the person in charge of the home—and is reflected in the training of the staff.
  We must ensure that staff are trained. I have referred before to the 90-year-old lady in my constituency who came to see me. She had been in three different homes, both in my constituency and outside it, and was very dissatisfied with the standard of treatment that she had received. For a start, she had seen one elderly lady being bathed by a male member of staff who had no training whatever. Had he had medical qualifications or been trained as a nurse, it would have been different: no doubt the elderly person would not have minded being bathed by him. But an untrained new member of staff had been given the responsibility for bathing all the elderly ladies. Elderly people who have protected their modesty for many years may suddenly find, when they go into a residential home, that they have to take off all their clothes in front of a young man who has no training or qualifications. The young man in question went on to gain nursing qualifications in the end, but that is not the point.
  Dame Jill Knight: We are all following the hon. Lady's speech with great care, but can she tell us whether the home to which she refers was a private residential care home or a council-run home? Many of us have visited many of both in our time
  Ms. Lynne: Of the three homes, one was a private residential home and the other two were nursing homes.
  Dame Jill Knight: Were they private?
  Ms. Lynne: All three were private. The problem exists in all homes—local authority homes, private nursing homes and private residential homes. The need for proper staff training applies equally to them all.
  There are incidents in homes throughout the country. I am sure that every hon. Member could cite examples of inadequate staff coverage and training. Sometimes people want to go to the loo but are kept in their place for a long time because there are not enough staff around to take them there. Through training, we must ensure that staff realise that it is wrong for elderly people to have to stop going to the loo, because it is bad for their bladder control and can lead to great problems. That element of training is vital. Young care assistants need to be told that that is not good medical practice.
  The Howe report on residential staff says that the majority of care staff have taken short courses organised by a local authority but that, although they are effective in the transfer into residential work, little in the way of staff development and training is monitored. Training should be monitored by local authorities.
  Paragraph 21.1 of the report says:
  "The inquiry therefore recommends that local authorities require the production of training plans which contain minimum standards with an inspection procedure for their own homes and those of the private and voluntary sectors, and demonstrate their implementation."
  In its entirety, the Howe report makes the case for proper training. I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) that care assistants have to be caring, but I maintain that training, too, is essential.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would provide for the staff in the homes mentioned in the Bill to be appropriately trained. The case for the amendments was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who went into a great deal of depth and showed his knowledge of the subject.
  Training is generally acknowledged to be the key ingredient in achieving high-quality care for those requiring residential accommodation. In spite of that, there is evidence to suggest that a large number of staff in the residential care sector receive little or no training. Some lack any knowledge of even the most basic health care techniques, such as first aid and techniques for lifting and handling.
  The needs of those in residential care have changed greatly in the past decade. The incidence of dementia among elderly people has increased, and the figure is likely to continue to escalate given the current demographic trend, which suggests that the increase in the over-75 population will continue into the next century. Elderly people suffering from dementia may eventually lose their individual pesonality. That is the spectacle with which they confront care staff, who are thus required to provide high-quality care for residents from whom they receive little or no recognition or communication, let alone appreciation or gratitude. Appropriate training recognises the great demands placed on all staff who care for the most vulnerable in our society.

  911
  No one would dispute the fact that the overwhelming majority of staff working in residential care are conscientious and dedicated individuals, in spite of poor pay and working conditions.
  In her report, published in 1988, Lady Wagner referred to residential care services as being in a demoralised state, with the staff concerned being held in low esteem. There is little evidence to suggest that there has been any significant improvement in recent years. Lessons have unfortunately had to be learned from the results of inquiries into serious incidents in the residential care sector.
  There can be no doubt that, in some instances, the lack of staff training has led to a vicious circle of low morale and poor-quality care. That creates a dangerous environment, in which the potential for abuse, neglect or exploitation exists. Despite the lack of willingness to address the issue throughout the 1980s, the abuse of vulnerable adults, especially older people, is now on the agenda, and several hon. Members have mentioned it. I have no desire to be alarmist or to denigrate the work of the vast majority of highly motivated care staff, many of whom recognise that such abuse exists and would welcome the opportunity to express their anxieties about the situation. Appropriate training that recognises the high levels of skill and commitment required by residential care staff is generally accepted as an essential element in prevention.
  Training costs money, however, and many proprietors of residential care homes give such expenditure the lowest priority and do not regard it as desirable. In fairness, I must say that a few homes in the private sector do spend money on training. When I was chair of social services in Doncaster, the metropolitan authority offered facilities for the training of staff in private residential homes. A few proprietors took those opportunities, and their staff were trained alongside the local authority staff. Many certificates were presented to people from the private residential care centre in Doncaster.
  I believe that legislation is essential to ensure that training is made available to all staff. The development of the national vocational qualification in care provides an excellent framework, and it is to be hoped that accreditation will soon be given to higher levels. Management training is also essential for those who are responsible for running and managing residential homes.
  Age Concern and other voluntary organisations have provided excellent charters in recent years for adoption by those who provide residential care. Those documents recognise the rights of residents to receive care in an environment which affords them the same rights as they would expect to have if they lived in their own home. Those rights include the right to privacy and the right to have their dignity and individuality respected at all times. The documents state that all care offered should start from the basis of promoting independence and choice. If those objectives are to become more than pious sentiments, a rigorous training programme is absolutely essential.
  The latest report, entitled "The Quality of Care", has been mentioned more than once in the debate. The committee was chaired by Lady Howe. The report made some 30 recommendations, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds,
  912
  South (Mr. Gunnell). Half of the recommendations make specific reference to the need for training to ensure the provision of high-quality care.
  The Minister may be aware of my early-day motion 175, which has already been signed by 188 Members of Parliament, and which welcomes the publication of Lady Howe's report. I hope that the Minister and the Government will support its call for increased funding to facilitate improvements in training, pay and conditions. I ask the Minister to support the amendments and in so doing to accept the need for legislation for training.
  Mr. Yeo: When the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) moved the amendment he rightly drew attention to the enormous effect that a change of management can have on the way in which an establishment is run. The whole atmosphere of the place can change. We all agree with him on that. He quoted figures to demonstrate that the proportion of trained workers was lower in residential homes than in some other areas of personal social services activity. That is true, but one of the reasons is that trained workers move out of residential work into other areas of social services.
  Mr. Michael: Why is that?
  Mr. Yeo: The reason is that the status of residential work is not as high as some other forms of social services work. One of the issues that I discussed recently with Lady Howe following the publication of her helpful report was finding ways of making it attractive to people, in terms of career development, to work in residential care and stay in it for a reasonable proportion of their career.
  Ms. Coffey: Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons why residential workers leave residential work is that it is almost impossible to support a family on the pay that they receive and that little opportunity for training is given to them and they receive little reward for what training they have? Does he agree that experienced residential staff will continue to leave simply because of pay?
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Yeo: People may decide to leave residential work for a variety of reasons. However, raising people's perception of the importance of that work would be a valuable contribution to ensuring that trained staff stay in residential work for longer than they do at present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made a constructive and perceptive speech with which I entirely agreed. He drew an important distinction between training and qualifications. I shall refer to other remarks that he made.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) and others referred to the Howe report. Most of the recommendations in that report are for the local authorities to follow up, but the Government are considering the actions which the report suggests that we should take and how we might take them forward. As I said, I have recently discussed the report with Lady Howe.
  All hon. Members will have sympathy with the aim of the amendments, which is basically to ensure that the highest possible standards of care are provided in all types of accommodation. However, I dare say that it will not

  913
  come as a complete surprise to Opposition Members to hear that I intend to resist the amendments. I do so on the grounds of both practicality and appropriateness.
  If the amendments were accepted, local authorities would find initially that they could use only a few establishments, because only a few met the requirements. The consequence of that would be that a substantial number of people who currently go into residential care would have to remain in hospital. The amendments would undermine the progress that we are making towards community care and the reforms that the caring for people policy is designed to achieve. Hospital beds would be blocked and a great many people would have to remain at home in conditions with which they might find it difficult to cope.
  Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to place on the record the undoubted fact that without the residential home care provided by private sector homes we could not possibly cope with the growing number of elderly people who need such care? Will he make it plain that the House cannot take action that would lead to the closure of large numbers of such homes, because we need them so much?
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad to have the opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case. It would be not merely a setback but a major crisis if the independent sector were forced to withdraw to any significant extent from the provision that it currently makes. The private sector houses a large and increasing number of elderly people. So my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, we are determined to ensure that the independent sector continues to make a growing contribution to residential care provision.
  Our most recent survey of the statutory sector dates from 1986. It showed that only a quarter of the staff in residential care for adults held a social work or other relevant qualification. It is estimated that as at September 1990, 18,921 care staff and a further 50,556 other staff would need to take a training course, only some of whom have been trained so far. To train all of them would be a massive task, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said.
  We have begun to tackle the training agenda with several initiatives, including the training support pro-gramme, which has increased in volume year on year to its current level of £29 million, which supports at least £41 million of expenditure by social services departments.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield suggested in an intervention that the independent sector lagged behind the statutory sector on training. We do not hold centrally statistics on the numbers of staff in the private or voluntary sectors or on the qualifications that they hold. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that more staff are qualified in the independent sector than in the statutory sector.
  We have addressed the need for better work force data by funding the local government board to develop and disseminate advice to social services departments on work force analysis. The board has published the "Social Services Work Force Analysis Handbook" and is holding seminars in various parts of the country.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister implicitly criticised the lack of qualified staff in the public sector of residential care, but, by his own admission, the Department of Health
  914
  does not have any similar information about the number of staff who are qualified in the private residential care sector. Why is that the case? I find it rather surprising.
  Mr. Yeo: I did not intend to criticise either the statutory or the independent sector. I am merely trying to set out the present position to demonstrate the effect of accepting the amendment.
  I recognise that data are inadequate. That is why we have begun to tackle the problem in the way that I described. It would be helpful to everyone if we knew what the situation was. Amendment No. 3 does not take into account the changes that we are introducing in vocational and professional training and education. As the House knows, the Government have supported the development of national vocational qualifications, NVQs, in the care sector. NVQs levels 2 and 3 for residential care staff became available only late in 1990. Their introduction makes a substantial change in vocational education and training. Whereas, previously, completion of a training course, which led to a qualification, was seen as indicative of quality of performance, with NVQs, performance has to be demonstrated in the workplace. Only when that performance has been assessed as competent is a person awarded an NVQ.
  As regards amendment No. 4, the Government fully support the development of training plans in appropriate circumstances, as a way to achieve improvements in the quality of service provision. The amendment would require the provision of training plans and training in some circumstances where that would be inappropriate —for example, in the case of a person or a couple who are simply providing homely accommodation. The consequences of accepting the amendment would be that some viable and highly valued establishments might need to close because local authorities would not be able to place people in them.
  Finally, the responsibility for training staff within the private and voluntary sectors rests with them as employers, but training is only a part of a complete quality assurance system. One of the great merits of the new framework, which will exist after April next year, is that it will be possible for the underlying aim of both the amendments to be achieved, if local authorities assess whether appropriate quality assurance systems are in place when they are setting contracts. That would include, as a minimum, examining the extent of training provision within a home, and the existence of a training plan. Against that background, I urge the House to reject both the amendments.
  Mr. Rooker: I am astonished at the contributions from the two Conservative Members who spoke in this debate. they were not what I would call constructive; they were extremely one-sided and were not part of the main flow of the debate around the Bill. We have not really been debating the Bill. From day one we made our position clear—we did not want to debate the Bill, as we agree with it, but we have used it as a vehicle for raising other issues.
  On training, I shall not use the quotes from the reports by Lady Wagner and Lady Howe that other hon. Members used. They are all relevant and repetition would serve no purpose. However, one argument from the original Wagner report that should be reinforced is the idea that we should treat all staff as officers and professionals, whatever they do. We should not argue that

  915
  because people are simply care assistants they do not deserve training. All staff who care for our fellow citizens have to be trained and to be treated as equals as regards their professionalism, whatever level of care they offer. I think that that was argued in the Wagner report, but it has not been taken on board. It is reinforced by the conclusions and recommendations of the Howe report, but has not been introduced in practice.
  As stated in the Wagner report, it is not merely a question of training. I am prepared to recognise the distinction that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made between training and qualifications. Recognition and registration are also issues. I do not wish to mention Maastricht in this debate, but come next year and the free movement of labour in 1993, they will become issues. In some of our European partner countries, one cannot work as a care assistant in residential care unless one is trained, qualified and registered. Therefore, people from this country will not be able to share in that movement of labour.
  If it is good enough for our partners in Europe to have a more regimented training system, we should consider it. By and large they beat us on training hands down, in all sectors of industry, which is why their economies are more successful than ours. I am not saying that everyone must be registered to be a care worker, but, as night follows day, that will have to come.
  Also, that should not merely affect care workers in residential care. Many care workers give domicilary care. People in their own homes or in group homes will be on the receiving end of the complex care packages that we discussed in Committee and will be taken care of by workers who may not be trained. They ought to be trained. Training should cover that area of care as well as workers in residential care.
  8.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, said something that was self-evident, but the way that he said it was interesting. Opposition Members accept that it is a fact of life that public sector industries train and private sector industries get the benefit. That is true. However, one cannot accept that and argue in the next breath, as many Tories do, that there should be competition between the two sectors and that costs in the public sector are higher and so the private sector is more efficient.
  Dame Jill Knight rose—
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) wishes to intervene and I shall make her the same offer as I made to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning). If I give way, will she make a speech later to show that she is committed to debating community care and is not passing through on the way from one dinner to another to make an aside?
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman can be as rude as he likes, but there are such things as Select Committees which one has to attend, as I have been doing this evening. It has not been my fault that I have been unable to be here because of other duties. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not been to one dinner, let alone two.
  Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people who go to private residential care homes, paid for by the taxpayer
  916
  —as many thousands do—have no right to benefit from people who have been trained by the public sector? That is certainly what it sounded like. Is he saying that people who go to residential care homes have no right to ask for help from people who have been trained elsewhere?
  Mr. Rooker: I offer the hon. Lady a fulsome apology as she has been in the Select Committee dealing with accommodation, but her second point was ridiculous. I am not saying anything of the kind. The hon. Lady has an obsession, and she has proved it because she has only mentioned one sector of provision in her interventions. We are not saying that. We want everyone involved in care to be trained and qualified—within the public, voluntary and private sectors. However, funding for that training ought not to be an impost on one sector, when the three sectors are in competition. That is unfair and that is what causes chaos in the financial arrangements for residential care.
  Dame Jill Knight indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady may shake her head all she likes, but I am right and I know it. She wants training and qualifications, but she is not prepared to will the financial means to take it into account. It is as simple as that.
  The public sector is more than happy to train, but in that case it is no good having multi-sector provision. We want multi-sector provision and choice born out of competition. We agree with that, but the hon. Lady does not. She wishes to snuff out the public sector and to establish a monopoly of private sector care. Opposition Members do not agree with monopoly provision of care, whether in the public, the private or the voluntary sector. Therefore, we want a level playing field of costings, although I hate that term, and it is unfair that the training impost falls on one sector.
  I mentioned care outside residential homes, and it is important that training takes place in that sector, too. As a society, we are entrusting our fellow citizens to the care system.
  The level of care or where it is delivered does not matter. When someone is placed in the care of another it means that society is duty bound to ensure that the quality of care is supreme. The quality of that care cannot be guaranteed unless one knows that the carer, at whatever level, is trained for the job.
  The test of quality of care has underlined all our debates. It is the only test that counts. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Minister has been extremely co-operative and we have had extremely interesting debates. In fact, the Bill would have gone through on the nod on a Friday in February were it not for a slight error in the mechanics of this place. However, the Bill had its Second Reading and was considered in Committee in four sittings.
  The short debate on the amendment has concentrated on training and I am afraid that the Minister's response has been so unreasonable that we must divide the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 155.

  Division No. 48]

  [8.30 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  917

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Maxton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Michael, Alun

  Davidson, Ian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

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

  Milburn, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Miller, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eastham, Ken

  Morley, Elliot

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Olner, William

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Galloway, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  George, Bruce

  Radice, Giles

  Gerrard, Neil

  Redmond, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Gunnell, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hall, Mike

  Short, Clare

  Harvey, Nick

  Simpson, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Wallace, James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Watson, Mike

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Audrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loyden, Eddie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Mahon, Alice

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alexander, Richard

  Faber, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fry, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Bates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hague, William

  Booth, Hartley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Bowis, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Heald, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burns, Simon

  Hendry, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Horam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan, Alan

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lidington, David

  918

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Roger

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Sproat, Iain

  Question accordingly negatived.
  8.45 pm
  Ms. Coffey: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  `(IE) Arrangements under this section shall only he made with small homes which register with the registration authority under the terms of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.'.
  The Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, which is not yet implemented, provides for the compulsory registration of residential homes with fewer than four residents. The requirements placed on the small homes that become registered under the Act are less onerous than the existing provision in respect of larger homes. For example, the only reason for which registration of a small home may be refused is that the owner or other person concerned with running the home is not a fit person. On the other hand, the registration of larger homes may be refused on one of the following additional grounds: that, for reasons connected with their situation, construction, state of repair, accommodation, staffing or equipment, the premises used or intended to be used for the purpose of the home, or any other premises used or intended to be used in connection with it, are not fit to be used; or that the way in which it is intended to carry on the home is such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required.
  The approach to the differentation between smaller homes—those with three or fewer people—is characterised by a general attitude referred to as the lighter touch. The differentation in respect of registration and conditions attached to registration and deregistration is fundamentally illogical and inconsistent. A smaller home will have only to submit an annual return. The person running the home will be required to state briefly his name and address, the number of residents cared for and their category, the names of other persons living at the same address, any criminal convictions since the last annual return and the position with regard to charges made since the last return.

  919
  As can be seen, the information in the return is very sparse. There is no obligation on the local authority to inspect the home. Larger homes have to be inspected twice a year, but smaller homes have only to submit an annual return. The local authority can, of course send an officer to visit and inspect if a complaint is received, but there is no obligation to inspect.
  This raises many questions. Let me give some examples. How will the registering authority know if the person running a home leaves or ceases to operate the service during the 12 months after registration or submission of an annual return? What precaution will be taken to safeguard residents from eviction as a result of the eviction of the owner himself? A person might have obtained a number of homes on a rented basis and might be unable to pay the rent or be found guilty of multi-mortgage fraud. In that situation, a small home would cease to operate, and presumably the residents would face eviction. The annual return that a home submits does not require the owner to reveal his financial situation. There is therefore no indication of the stability of the home. The eviction of an elderly person is, of course, a very serious matter for that person and his or her relatives. There is much evidence to suggest that the stress resulting from a move can be terminal for an elderly person. It is very important that elderly people are protected and given stability and protection in the homes in which they reside.
  I wonder why there are different registration requirements, particularly with regard to facilities and services. For example, it is proposed that, under section 10(1) of the Registered Homes Act 1984, the provisions concerning fire precautions and drills, precautions against accidents, first-aid requirements, consultations with environmental health officers, training and details about residents should not apply to small homes. It is difficult to see why those regulations should not apply to small homes, as the danger of fire in a small home is as great as in a large home if the premises are not safe, and the risk of accident in a small home is just as great as in a large home. The legislation in respect of homes quite rightly pays attention to this important matter.
  Elderly people tend to be very frail. Falls that in a younger person would not cause much injury can fracture the bones of an elderly person or cause other serious injury. The safety of a home is therefore important. Why should this be seen to be sufficiently important in the case of larger homes as to require regulation, but not in the case of smaller homes? There is no evidence that smaller homes are safer than larger homes. Safety is secured only to the extent to which precautions are taken. One can satisfy oneself only by requiring that those precautions are taken. It cannot be assumed that a home with three or fewer residents is safe, but that appears to be what the legislation says. It is therefore totally illogical.
  I strongly suggest that the registration for small homes should be the same as for larger homes. The same regulations should apply. If the Minister is unwilling to accept that, the information given on the annual returns that a home submits should be much more extensive. For example, greater attention should be paid to criminal convictions occurring after the registration process. There
  920
  should be an obligation to declare criminal convictions on the annual return, rather than waiting until the next annual return.
  More personal details should be given of the sex, category and number of residents cared for in the home. A copy of the assessment for each person admitted should be given. After all, elderly people's needs are the same whether the person is admitted to a large or to a small home. With that copy of the assessment in the annual return, details should be given about how the care provided has met the assessment of the person's needs, because that is a way of measuring the care that the home has given.
  Also included should be the full names, dates of birth, qualifications and experience of persons other than residents not living in the home but employed or working in a voluntary capacity. Details should be given of anybody who helps out in the home or has contact with it.
  I am sure that people will say that the amendment is unnecessarily prescriptive.
  Mr. Rooker: A bureaucratic nightmare.
  Ms. Coffey: Yes; but if it is a bureaucratic nightmare for small homes, why is it not for large ones? That is what the regulations demand of large homes. It is either right or it is not. There is no difference in the age, frailty or needs of the elderly people admitted, so there should be no differentiation in the standards and quality of care demanded, or how that quality of care is measured and inspected. If it is right for one, it should be right for the other.
  Another aspect that the Minister should take into consideration is what the term "registered" implies to the public. If a home has a plaque that says "Registered by the social services department", that implies that the home has a stamp of approval. If the Government are to continue to apply different regulations to small and to large homes, they should make it clear to potential residents that small homes do not offer the same protection as large homes, or residents will not know of the differentiation and will be misled.
  In examining why the differentiation is made and reading the introductions to parts of the Bill, it is clear that people think that because a home is small it provides a homely atmosphere and is therefore safer. However, at this very moment, incidents of horrendous abuse of one family member by another are probably happening throughout the country in small homes with a nice homely atmosphere. We should have learnt from past inquiries into incidents of abuse that homes do not protect the people within them. We have taken that seriously on board with children and should do so with elderly people. It is a fundamental mistake to assume that because a home has three residents or fewer, those people are protected by the homely atmosphere and that that home should therefore not be open to inspection or monitoring or be required to have the same fire precaution arrangements or standards of first aid.
  Abuse is more likely to happen in a small home because often that is the place where there will be kind, personal relationships that exist within a family, which can become distorted and abusive. Within a small home, elderly people have little ability to complain, because it is difficult to complain to somebody who cares for them every day that

  921
  they do not like what that person is doing to them, particularly if, from one year to another, they see no one from outside because there is no inspection requirement.
  I think that in a year's time a scandalous incident of abuse will take place in a small home and there will be a public outcry and a public inquiry. Thereafter, the regulations and rules will be tightened up but, in the meantime, before the scandal breaks, the person who is subject to abuse will continue to be abused without protection. Who knows, he or she might even die a victim of that abuse before the public outcry catches up and demands tighter regulations.
  In almost every incident of child abuse or abuse within a residential setting, the reaction has been to tighten up the inspection and monitoring process. I hope that we have learnt from all those public inquiries and that we will not set up a system that is open to abuse. We should ensure that the inspection and monitoring process that applies to larger homes is applied also to smaller homes to protect residents.
  9 pm
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) was not present in the last Parliament when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 was debated. The measure received all-party support and many of the issues that she has raised contradict, in some respects, that happy spirit of co-operation.
  Taken on face value, the amendment would undermine the purpose of the Bill because it would limit the extent to which local authorities could arrange residential accom-modation in small homes for those registered under the 1991 Act.
  The Bill's intention is to ensure that local authorities continue to have as wide a scope as possible to make arrangements for residential accommodation for people in need of care. We do not believe that residential accommodation should be restricted to residential care homes and nursing homes. It must go much wider than that and include housing provision where there is an element of care—for example, group homes or sheltered housing. Such accommodation has to be included in the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1991 if local authorities are to ensure that a full range of options is provided to meet the needs of the wide variety of people whom they seek to serve.
  A person in sheltered housing may have self-contained accommodation which is similar to that of someone living in the community. Separate but sheltered premises are homes for frail or disabled people, and it would be inappropriate to require such homes or similar premises such as group homes to be subject to registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984.
  I have no hesitation in defending the single criterion —the fitness of the person running the home—as the one on which the registration of small homes should be decided. It tackles the principle concern—which led to the introduction of the amending legislation—that some of those running small homes had criminal records or were otherwise unfit to care for vulnerable people. However, it does so in a way that will not deter carers by placing unreasonable regulatory burdens on them.
  We must bear in mind the fact that we are dealing mainly with homes that are not run on commercial lines but are run by individuals or families who take in and care
  922
  for one or two people, perhaps in their own homes. Some people will provide such care under adult placement schemes. It would not be right to deter carers by imposing on them additional demands or costs, which could result in them deciding that it was not worth their while to offer such care, which is just what many people prefer to receive.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stockport will not accept that it is wrong not to draw a distinction—we believe that it is a big distinction—between small homes and larger ones in terms of the requirements imposed on them. I recognise the concern about the intention not to impose a duty of regular inspection on small homes, while local authorities must inspect larger, independent homes at least twice a year. However, local authorities are not precluded from inspecting small homes. They have the powers to do so when they feel that that is necessary—for example, on receipt of a complaint.
  We wish to keep the annual return, to which the hon. Lady referred, as simple as possible. However, it must be sufficient to enable authorities to keep track of changes in homes that might affect the standards of care provided and alert them to anything that might require further investigation. We do not want to make the completion of the return an excessive burden.
  There will be a duty on those who run small homes to report major changes as they occur. Regulations already place that requirement on people running larger homes and we shall extend the requirement downward when the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991 comes into force. The changes that must be reported include changes in the number or category of residents for which the home is registered and any changes in the people running the home. It will become an offence for someone to take over the running of a home if they have not been approved as suitable by the local authority.
  We have had to strike a balance between competing considerations. I recognise the anxieties to which the hon. Lady referred, but I do not believe that it would be possible for any legislation, however tightly drawn, completely to eliminate the risk of abuse occurring. It would be impossible to introduce a system that allowed a variety of providers to fulfil their duties while acting as a guarantor against the risk of occasional abuse.
  We have brought small homes under regulatory control in a way that addresses the principle concern by providing an opportunity for local authorities to keep in touch with significant changes in those homes and giving registration authorities the power to close unsatisfactory homes. We have achieved that without imposing undue burdens or costs on local authorities. Therefore, I believe that we have struck the right balance and I invite the House to reject the amendment.
  Ms. Coffey: I do not think that it will come as any great surprise to the Minister when I say that I do not think that the Government have struck the right balance. The Minister said that he believed that the homes to which I referred would not be commercial enterprises. I can see no reason for him to make such an assumption, as it would be possible for many commercial enterprises to grow up around the care of three people. It is wrong to assume that small homes will not be commercial enterprises. That is why I am worried that there are not to be regular inspections.
  I welcome the fact that, acccording to the Minister, there are to be changes in the annual returns to cover some

  923
  of the issues that I raised. I understand the argument that we should not place unnecessary burdens on carers, but we should consider the matter from the view of those who are cared for. The protection of elderly people and those who are cared for should be our paramount consideration.
  I spent 20 years of my life enacting foster care legislation to stop children being abused, so I know very well that legislation does not stop abuse. But it does provide a climate of opinion in which local authorities and social services departments become aware of their obligation to inspect. Once a local authority has been asked to carry out inspections, it becomes responsible for ensuring that such inspections are adequate, knowing that if they are not it will be the subject of an inquiry. If we remove the obligation to inspect, that climate of opinion changes and authorities do not feel responsible. Such a climate of opinion will lead to a gap in care, and in that gap abuse may take place.
  The amendments that we moved in Committee were designed to deal with certain subjects. For instance, we mentioned the illogicality and the inconsistency in the Government's approach to larger and smaller residential homes. Be that as it may, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Rooker: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 34 at end insert—
  '(1G) Arrangements shall only be made by virtue of this section where the voluntary organisation or other person providing the accommodation makes a contract with the local authority as to the charges they will impose, the frequency of increase, the criteria to be used in raising charges and details of any supplementary changes to residents including a statement of policy regarding any differentiation between residents in accommodation at public expense and other residents.'.
  The amendment allows us to discuss once again the charge levied in residential and other homes. We mentioned them in Committee and we had hoped that the Minister would go away and think about them a little more. We were struck by the boldness of his approach in Committee; he thought that it was fine to levy extra charges for second helpings at dinner. He said that that was part and parcel of the system.
  We are pleased to see the Secretary of State present for the debate on this important amendment. I presume that she left her ring fence outside—we have been looking for it all day.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps she has won it.
  Mr. Rooker: That is quite possible. In any case, we are pleased to see her here.
  I am not attacking any particular sector. Some residential and nursing homes in this country provide top-quality care without extra charges for second helpings of food, single rooms, newspapers, hairdressing, trips, breakfast in bed, alcoholic drinks, incontinence pads or toothpaste. Such homes are, however, few and far between. Many homes do charge for these services. We should like to know whether the Minister has thought about the subject again.
  Before local authorities take out contracts with homes covered by this Bill, they ought at least to know what they
  924
  are paying for. They ought to know in advance what the supplementary charges are and how often charges are increased.
  In passing, I should like to mention the immoral funding arrangements brought about by the Government's practices. I refer particularly to the nursing home sector. All residents in such homes receive exactly the same service—there are no supplementary charges for different services—but residents pay different fees depending on whether they are staying at public expense with DSS income support or at their own expense, perhaps by spending the assets from a family home.
  I do not object to their being regarded as disposable assets. I cannot, however, see the morality of allowing home owners to charge some people more for the same services of the same quality. The differences are enormous and range from £70 to £90 a week for exactly the same services. Home owners have to ensure that a third or perhaps half of their residents are self-funded.
  The first question one is asked when seeking a nursing home for a friend or a relative is, "Do they have their own home?" I was asked that three times last year. In the case of single people, a residence for disposal immediately signals, that, for a while, such people can pay more. Residential home owners would go bankrupt if they did not charge some people more than others.
  Why should some residents subsidise the Government who are not paying the full whack in income support? There is a degree of immorality about that. No Minister has ever addressed that problem in correspondence, in written answers, in Committee or in a public speech. In Committee, the Minister spoke about supplementary charges for extras, and when one of my hon. Friends spoke about an extra charge for dumplings the Minister seemed to think that that was okay. I emphasise that differing charges apply for the same level of service and I am not discussing charges for single or double rooms.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a wealth tax.
  Mr. Rooker: It is.
  If differential charges were abolished overnight, many homes would go out of business, people would be thrown on the street and on the public purse. It is never fully explained to relatives or to the people immediately concerned that they will have to pay more if they have their own resources. The House should not remain silent on the issue, and the amendment provides an opportunity to raise the matter.
  Mr. Bayley: Money is the key to care: with it people can enter care: without it, they are locked out. That was brought home to me today when I received a letter about a constituent of mine from the trade union branch of which he was a member about 20 years ago. I shall read two short extracts:
  "Mr. Rogers is 88 years old, and until his wife died in April of this year they were both residents of the Fulford Nursing Home in York … for the last two years the annual increase in his payments have been immediately absorbed by increased residential fees … Mr. Rogers finds he can no longer afford to stay in the Home and has been obliged to seek temporary accommodation with his son. He does not know where he will go next, and fears that he will not be able to afford the cost of residential care in the future. He tells me that many elderly and frail people now live in daily fear of losing their homes. It seems to me that it is intolerable that the elderly are being

  925
  put in this situation, and f would be obliged if you draw attention to the plight of Mr. Rogers and other elderly people in residential care."
  The plight of Mr. Rogers is not isolated. An article in my local paper, the Yorkshire Evening Press, describes the case of two elderly women, Mrs. Lily Lupton aged 83, and Mrs. Mary Brennan aged 79. They had to leave the Riverside Lodge nursing home when it increased its charges to them by £35 a week. Ironically, the home's motto is "Where friendliness abounds". I was a member of York health authority at the time that those two elderly ladies were evicted from their home. The cost of caring for them fell immediately on the public sector.
  9.15 pm
  Earlier this year, the Social Services Policy Forum—a consortium comprising the Association of Directors of Social Services, British Association of Social Workers, National Institute for Social Work, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York, and other bodies—published a report on social services financing. It stated that the Government's community care reforms raised expectations, and added:
  "These expectations are likely to be dashed unless there is an informed public debate about the level of services that should be available and the resources required to provide them."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have listened attentively to the hon. Member, but the amendment specifically relates to charges, not to the overall provision of community care. I hope that the hon. Member will return to the subject matter of the amendment.
  Mr. Bayley: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is necessary for public provision to be made, to ensure that residents whose charges are met at public expense will obtain the care that they need. That is extremely hard for social services departments to plan, until such time as they are aware of the Government's budgetary allocation for the social services reforms.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of four matters. The current distribution of funding from the social security budget relates not to local care needs but to the local distribution of private residential care homes. That pattern should not necessarily be reflected in the long-term allocation of funds.
  There is a care gap—vividly illustrated by the two cases that I cited—between the level of support available In the form of social security payments and the cost of residential care. Unless that gap is closed, those requiring care will lose the accommodation that they need. Where such a gap exists, who picks up the tab? It is usually the resident's relatives, but often they are themselves elderly and on low incomes. Their ability to top up fees is limited, and they may be caused considerable hardship.
  In other cases, no one is available to top up the fees, and in those circumstances the resident will suffer the fate that befell my constituent, Mr. Rogers.
  I also ask the Secretary of State to take note of the existing strain on social services departments' budgets. They are under enormous pressure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) is relatively new to the House, but he must address the amendment, which concerns charges and negotiations between local authorities and residential homes. I am sure that the hon. Member can be creative
  926
  and constructive in speaking to the amendment, but he is not doing that. He must either speak to the amendment or sit down.
  Mr. Bayley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested, there should be no gap between the quality and range of care provided for those who are in homes at public expense, and provision for those who are able to pay for their care. Many people in private homes are required to pay additional charges on top of the basic fee, which will presumably be paid by the social services authority after April next year. I fear that, unless the Government clarify the level of funding of local authorities now, nine months from today, when the reforms come into operation, authorities will have had no time to negotiate contracts with the care providers to ensure that a comprehensive package of care is available.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has identified a cornerstone of community care provision. His point—which, let me add, relates to the amendment—is that the amendment refers to the differentiation that may or may not exist between private and local authority care. I hope that you are listening carefully, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is very important. My hon. Friend is pointing out that, if local authority funding is reduced or is not provided in the necessary proportion, there will be a difference between public and private care. I cannot for the life of me see how he can speak to the amendment without referring to public funding, and I hope that he will continue. I am listening carefully.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are all listening carefully; that is why, when the hon. Member for York was out of order, I drew the fact to his attention. His most recent remarks, however, were in order.
  Mr. Skinner: He is in order now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to listen to the hon. Member for York, not to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Bayley: Many studies show that a wide range of services for elderly people demand extra payment on top of the basic fee. They include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, chiropody in almost all homes, personal laundry in a few homes, medicines, hairdressing, incontinence pads —which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr—and, in some instances, entertainment. Unless local authorities are prepared to pay a comprehensive fee to cover all those services, we shall not secure the classless society that the Government wish to introduce. There will be two classes of resident: one class will enjoy the rewarding quality of life that old age deserves, while the other will be faced with a lesser quality of life. That is indefensible.
  Ms. Lynne: I wish to pursue the question of supplementary charges, to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) briefly referred. I understand that community health workers are not allowed into residential homes and, in particular, nursing homes, and I fear that nursing homes will start to charge for physiotherapy and other back-up facilities.
  At present, a general practitioner can be called in and recommend physiotherapy, but the physiotherapist cannot

  927
  enter the nursing home. I am worried about the fact that patients will face charges because nursing and hack-up facilities are not allowed to come in.
  Ms. Jowell: Great uncertainty surrounds the implementation of the legislation. The Minister has provided us today with welcome assurances that the plans will proceed as intended, but I have one or two points to make about the funding of residential care which, if not properly addressed, will further compound the difficulties referred to in the amendment regarding the charges levied by individual residential care homes and nursing homes.
  If I may identify one source of uncertainty, according to a letter sent by Mr. Laming, of the inspectorate of the social services and Mr. Foster of the management executive to all directors of social services:
  "The current broad patten of funding through social security support should be regarded as an implied commitment for 1993–94 … in respect of new clients requiring residential or nursing home care."
  Otherwise interpreted, that means that about the same number of nursing home beds should be taken up after April 1993 as would have been taken up under the old system before 1993.
  There is a discrepancy between the estimates offered by the Department of Health and the Local Authority Associations as to how many new beds there will be. The Department of Health estimates that there will be between 20,000 and 25,000. However, the present rate of growth, at 8 per cent. per annum, suggests something more like 35,000 to 40,000 beds. That creates uncertainty not just for local authorities but for those homes that are directly affected. It has a direct bearing on their financial calculations and therefore on the additional income that they are likely to have to raise by levying charges to close the gap.
  I am particularly concerned about the responsibilities that will be placed upon local authorities after 1993. They will have to underwrite the full cost of a place in a residential or nursing home. If the funding level is not right and local authorities do not have enough money to cover the cost of all the people who have been placed in homes, or if, in particular, the manner of distribution is not right, local authorities will be engaged in searching for cheaper and less effective solutions. We must also assume that nursing homes and residential care homes will be looking at new ways to levy supplementary charges to make up for the money that is not available from the local authorities in order to meet the full cost of the care that they provide.
  In the early stages of the national health service reforms, the Government found it possible to provide contingency funds so that some trusts, for instance, could avert their looming financial crises. I ask the Minister to announce similar contingency funding in order to provide protection for elderly and vulnerable people throughout what is likely to be a pretty choppy transitional period.
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to advise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that I have had another think about the line that I took in Committee, in particular on the question of additional charges. I know that he will be pleased about it. I recognise that I was wrong in Committee to take the line that I did. I did not express myself anything like robustly enough.
  928
  I have no hesitation in saying that the Government see absolutely no reason to intervene in the negotiations between home owners and individual residents who are paying their own fees. We do not wish to dictate what are freely negotiated terms between two private parties. We see no reason to impose our judgment on what those parties should agree to.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: We are talking not about companies in the City but about vulnerable elderly people. I am astonished to hear the Minister's language. Will he listen to what Opposition Members have said?
  Mr. Yeo: I know who we are talking about, just as much as the hon. Gentleman does. In fact, the category with which we are dealing now involves those who are able to meet the cost of the charges from their own resources. Therefore, their vulnerability is qualified by that.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister accept that many people are in difficult circumstances when decisions of this sort are being made? Often, not only the individual, but the carers who share in those decisions, do not have professional advice. I am sure that he is aware of the document that has been produced by the Carers National Organisation which shows that 33 per cent. of carers have no access to professional services or support. Therefore, does he accept that we should be making sure that there is protection along the lines urged by my hon. Friends?
  Mr. Yeo: Opposition Members are suggesting that people should be denied the right to use their savings in the way they choose. No Conservative Member will support a measure that compels people to limit their charge for a particular service to a level that has been set arbitrarily and centrally and which prevents people from legitimately devoting resources to obtaining a service if they are able to do so. That would be an absurd imposition. It would be east European in its nightmarish consequences.
  It is for local authorities to negotiate the best possible terms for the residents they sponsor and we will expect them to negotiate toughly in order to secure the best value for money. If the analysis given by the hon. Member for Perry Barr is correct, the effect of preventing home owners from setting their own charges would be directly to raise the cost to the public sector of keeping other residents in those homes.
  Mr. Rooker: That is exactly the point. The public sector —the Government through the Department of Social Security—can bulk-buy by using income support. Therefore, it gets the same service at a lower cost than my individual constituents who cannot bulk buy because they have an asset. In effect, such individuals are institutionally ripped off. That is indefensible.
  Mr. Yeo: I have already explained to the House why I do not think that the Government or the House should seek to impose terms between two private parties that are free to negotiate. As I have said, the consequence of accepting the analysis of the hon. Member for Perry Barr would be substantially to increase the cost to the taxpayer of keeping the residents in residential homes and private nursing homes.
  I must correct the impression that the hon. Member for Perry Barr gave about the view that I expressed in Committee on the issue of extra payments. I do not think

  929
  that any of my remarks in Committee could be construed as meaning that basic services could be subject to any additional charge. Part of the contracting process, in which local authorities will be engaged after April next year. is to ensure that home owners provide a proper and adequate standard of service for all residents, including all publicly funded residents. I must make it clear to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) that I see no reason why those same residents should not purchase additional items or services out of their own resources or the resources of their families.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) asked about entitlement to NHS services. Those who live in residential homes have the same rights and access to NHS facilities without payment of any charge as they would if they were living in their own home.
  Ms. Lynne: In nursing homes, even if someone is registered with a general practitioner, he or she does not get the community nursing facilities, physiotherapy or any of the other community health services.
  Mr. Yeo: It is part of the contract that the services provided by the nursing home will include some that would be health services if someone was not living in the nursing home. The price charged by the nursing home includes those services. For that reason, they will not also be available free under the national health service.
  Mr. Skinner: When the Minister was banging the Dispatch Box, he said that the Government had no intention of interfering between bodies that make charges or otherwise. He took a strongly purist line. Why do the Government interfere with dental charges, and charges for specs and teeth? Why do they force local authorities to put rents up? The Government cannot have it all ways. The Minister cannot say that the Government do not interfere and, then, when they want to hammer the people at the bottom of the pile by shoving rents up and having health service charges, give a different set of criteria. If the Minister does not intend to interfere with people who negotiate will he, as a member of the Government, vote for the 30 per cent. for the top people's salaries, or will the Government interfere?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Minister will not be tempted down that route.
  Mr. Yeo: I welcome rather belated arrival of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the proceedings on the Bill. We had half a day on Second Reading and 10 hours in Committee. I have been on the Bench since 3.40 pm, whereas the hon. Gentleman has just drifted in after what must have been a pretty good dinner.
  Mr. Skinner: Unlike the Minister's hon. Friends sitting behind him and unlike those who are missing, I do not come in here half drunk because I do not go to the bars. So—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady is the least bit drunk in the Chamber.
  Mr. Yeo: I was doing my best to be charitable to the hon. Member for Bolsover because he was talking such indescribable claptrap that I thought that there was only one possible explanation. Naturally, I accept his assurance that he has not been anywhere near the bars.
  930
  I will explain to the hon. Member for Bolsover a distinction which, I hope, is not beyond even his understanding of these matters. My concern is that there should be no interference by Government or by Parliament between two freely contracting parties when both are in the private sector. It is quite another matter to say that the same principle should apply when individuals are contracting with the state, whether for the renting of a council house or for the purchase of dental services or eye tests. There is no point of comparison between the delivery of those services, the price at which they are charged and the way in which that charge is set, and the situation between the private owner of a private residential or nursing home and a private individual who has the resources to pay his own way into it. There is no point of contact between the two cases.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) raised a point about the shortfall in funding. After next April, local authorities will be increasingly important purchasers of services from the independent sector. After a year or two, they will be by far the largest purchasers. As a result, they will be able to obtain good value for money from the providers. We should expect them to negotiate extremely toughly to ensure that the present gap between the charges levelled by residential homes and nursing homes in some areas and income support limits—there is no concealment of that fact, which we acknowledge—should be narrowed by the negotiating position that the local authorities will then be in. To the extent that there is still a gap, we will consider it when settling the funding arrangements for the policy.
  The amendment would represent a gross intrusion on people's ability to decide the level at which fees should be set for residential homes. It also implies that the local authorities will not build into their own contracts arrangements that govern the basis on which fees will be increased in future. For those reasons, it would be in the interests of all those who will benefit in the long term from our community care policies if the House rejected the amendment.
  Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply. I became more and more angry as the Minister spoke. You or I would hardly expect to walk into a shop in Whitehall or Victoria tomorrow and be asked to pay a different price for a commodity on the shelf depending on whether we got our money from the DSS, from investments or as salary. The Minister now accepts that that is what will happen. Frankly, that is just not on. The Minister says that, from next April, local authorities will be in a position to bulk-buy at a lower cost residential care places, but such deals will not be forthcoming in respect of people who fund themselves.
  Some 68 per cent. of dwellings in England are owner-occupied and there will he a substantial increase in the number of people who will be releasing their disposable assets as the first call in respect of their care costs. I make no complaint about that, but I cannot see the morality of charging people more than their neighbours on a daily and weekly basis for the same service in the same home just because their neighbours are funded by the local authority, as it will be in April, or the DSS, as it is at present. We want equality of treatment—the same charge for the same service, and I find it unbelievable that the Minister should regard that concept as in some way east European.

  931
  It would be a wholly different matter if this were a question of taxation, although I suppose that, in a round-about way, that is what it is. The nursing home owners do not like having to do what they do; they have to do it to stay in business, but they are apologetic about it. They have told me that they have never heard a Minister address the issue in public. Now, we have the Minister's remarks on record and I suppose that we must be grateful for that.
  If there were a price commission in this country, we should be the first to complain that our constituents were being charged different prices for the same service. That position cannot be tenable and I do not see how we can possibly accept it. It is as though Sainsbury's were charging people different prices for the same goods because their income came from different sources. The Minister must know that there is no foundation for his argument and that he could not sustain it before an independent body.
  The practice has been allowed to grow like Topsy. The Government intend to allow it to continue and to shift the blame to local authorities from next April.
  We did not intend to vote on any of the amendments and we are not complaining about the Bill, but the Minister has made me so angry that I shall be happy to hear whether my hon. Friends wish me to withdraw or press the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Vote."] In that case, I shall press it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 154.

  Division No. 49]

  [9.43 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth. Robert fCov try NE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D side)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ashton, Joe

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Livingstone, Ken

  Beggs, Roy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Meale, Alan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Michael, Alun

  Connarty, Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morley, Elliot

  Davidson, Ian

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Rooker, Jeff

  Donohoe, Brian

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Str'gf'd)

  Eastham, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Flynn, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Watson, Mike

  George, Bruce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Hall, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Hoyle, Doug

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  932

  Booth, Hartley

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Knox, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Brazier, Julian

  Legg, Barry

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lightbown, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Luff, Peter

  Butcher, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Cash, William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Merchant, Piers

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mills, Iain

  Clappison, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Moate, Roger

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Coe, Sebastian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Couchman, James

  Paice, James

  Cran, James

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Day, Stephen

  Richards, Rod

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Riddick, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Duncan, Alan

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Elletson, Harold

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Sims, Roger

  Faber, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Fabricant, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Sproat, Iain

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Steen, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Stephen, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Stern, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Gallie, Phil

  Sweeney, Walter

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Sykes, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Hague, William

  Thomason, Roy

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Hawksley, Warren

  Waller, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Watts, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Horam, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Whirtingdale, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

  Yeo, Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Mr. Timothy Boswell and

  Knapman, Roger

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 34, at end insert—
  "(1I) The making of an arrangement by virtue of this section shall not preclude the making of any other

  933
  arrangement or payment under any other enactment in respect of any other occupant whereby the same accommoda-tion is treated as sheltered accommodation.'.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment briefly—I hope without further provocation from the Minister. We get the impression that he has decided that his reputation for being reasonable was voiced too generously by the Opposition. Perhaps that is why he reacted so fiercely to the sensible amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) a short time ago. That is our explanation. I now invite the hon. Gentleman to balance his response to the previous amendment with a measured and constructive response to amendment No. 9, because that is the way in which he responded in Committee.
  The amendment will give the Minister the opportunity to do what he promised—to examine the matter and, if necessary, to amend the Bill on Report. The point is a simple one. Where premises are used for the type of arrangement for which the Bill allows and are, therefore, defined as residential accommodation, and not as sheltered accommodation, it would be possible to introduce flexibility on one side of the line and reduce it on the other.
  We seek an assurance from the Minister that where the type of accommodation for which arrangements can be made under the Bill can appropriately be dealt with as sheltered accommodation that will be possible under appropriate legislation. I hope that the Minister can assure us that such flexibility can continue to operate. I look forward to his response.
  Mr. Yeo: After 10 hours in Committee and six hours on Report, I think that it was inevitable that the constructive mood would have to come to an end. I was glad of the chance to find some issue on which there was not complete harmony between the two sides of the House. Unfortunately, I cannot maintain my disagreeable mood.
  We debated this issue in Committee and since then I have reconsidered the need for the safeguard that the amendment would introduce. I can confirm that it is our intention, as I said in Committee, that local authorities should have the widest possible flexibility to identify the most suitable type of accommodation to meet the needs of each individual who comes forward for assessment. That package of care will sometimes include sheltered housing.
  It is worth pointing out the significance of that type of accommodation. The work done by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1990 showed that, on average, out of every 100 people aged 65 and over, 89 were in ordinary housing, just over five were in various kinds of communal care and 56 per cent. were in sheltered housing. That is an important component of the total range of options available to local authorities. That accommoda-tion is making a significant contribution to meeting the needs of elderly people. We do not intend that the Bill should jeopardise that contribution.
  I believe that the assurances that I gave in Committee, and which I have re-examined, still hold good. For that reason I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Michael: I am pleased that the Minister has returned to sweetness and light. I can understand his sense of frustration in the course of a long debate, but I can only commend the example of my hon. Friend the Member for
  934
  Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my colleagues who have remained constructive and positive throughout our consideration of the Bill.
  In view of the assurances that the Minister has given, which I am pleased to welcome, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Sims: I do not wish to detain the House, but I understand why the Opposition wanted to debate community care, which is an extremely important issue that merits such debate. However, it is a pity that they chose to stage the debate in the way that they did.
  The Bill is a small, technical one and I believe that it would have been helpful to allow it to go through swiftly. We could then have devoted a day by some other means to debate the range of issues covered by community care. Alternatively, we could have had a longer Third Reading. I should have liked to emphasise a number of issues raised in our various debates and I suspect that my views would have commended themselves to the Opposition. I intend to forgo making such a speech, however, as I do not want to be out of favour with the Whips or, in particular, my parliamentary colleagues.
  However, I want to take the opportunity to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in Committee last Thursday. As can be seen at column 116 of the report of the Committee's meeting, the hon. Gentleman was very critical of the home help provision of the London borough of Bromley. It is true that that borough has separated personal care services and domestic cleaning services, and it is true that the latter were put out to tender. All the tenders that were offered were rejected, on the ground either of cost or of quality, so the cleaning service remains in house. Bromley has drawn a clear distinction between people living in their own homes who need a degree of personal care—bathing, perhaps cooking, and so on—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered.
  That, at this day's sitting, the Community Cure (Residential Accommodation) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Sims: I was saying that Bromley has drawn a clear distinction between those who need a degree of skilled help and those who can look after themselves perfectly well, but may have difficulty with, for example, Hoovering and cleaning the bath and the loo. I suggest that it is a sensible use of limited human resources to use for cleaning those who can help in that sort of way, as distinct from those who are able to give more personal care. There is no question of neglecting people who use just the cleaning service. If help is needed, it is available at the end of a phone line. There are neighbours, friends, possibly the cleaning person, and in many cases the care link system, by which, at the press of a button, the person in need is put straight in touch with the help centre.
  I hope the hon. Member for Wakefield will accept that if he did not misinterpret the schemes that Bromley runs,

  935
  he misunderstood them and that they are an example that other boroughs could follow, with a view to achieving greater flexibility of home care services.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My central point concerns how a home care organiser determines on any Monday morning whether Mrs. Smith needs a carer or a cleaner. The hon. Gentleman has not addressed that point.
  Mr. Sims: I have given an exact answer—that a person should be assessed as to his needs.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Every day?
  Mr. Sims: Of course not.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: That is the point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not intervene from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Sims: If a person is coping perfectly well, but needs someone once a week or once a fortnight to help with cleaning, it is not sensible to provide him or her with more skilled help. As I have said, however, there should be easy access to a higher degree of help if circumstances change.
  I hope that the House will not divide on the Third Reading, as I am sure that we should all like to see the legislation go through. There are many questions yet to be cleared up, and there are many understandable concerns about community care, but the sooner local authorities can learn more about how they will have to operate the system, particularly with respect to the resources available to them, the better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Miss Helena Thompson
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: As we have been reminded by the business that has just been transacted, the Government's long-awaited plans for community care based on the Griffiths recommendations are to be implemented on 1 April 1993. Henceforth, social services authorities will assume full responsibility for community care of the frail, the elderly, the disabled and other vulnerable groups to enable them to live as independently as possible. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly, and not stand in the aisles.
  Mr. Atkinson: The three years between the legislation being enacted and its implementation have raised the expectations of professionals, carers and patients. They have also enabled a better appreciation of the costs involved to ensure that implementation will ultimately be successful.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly confirmed that resources will be adequate, so I look forward to learning tonight from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), when local authorities can expect to learn precisely how much they are to receive next year to enable them to complete their community care budgets.
  One of the principal areas of care for which expectations for a better quality of life in the community are high is provision for the mentally ill. I have taken a personal interest in that subject as honorary parliamentary adviser to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. My interest is firmly shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), whom I am glad to see in his place tonight.
  Your records, Madam Deputy Speaker, will show that I do not make long speeches in this House. However, I made a far longer speech than I intended on Second Reading of the Mental Health Act 1983, only because, regrettably, too few hon. Members were waiting to follow me in the debate. That speech enabled me to describe in detail the nature and problems of schizophrenia, of which I had not been aware until a friend, who I did not know was a sufferer, committed suicide because he could not face another day.
  Fortunately, there has been a growing public awareness of schizophrenia in recent years, as well as awareness of how widespread its incidence is. It is estimated that 1 per cent. of the population—some 600,000 people—can expect to suffer at some stage during their lifetime. That growing public appreciation is due in large measure to the excellent work of the NSF, MIND and, more recently, SANES— Schizophrenia—A National Emergency—which is currently raising £3.5 million for research into schizophrenia and has introduced a helpline for sufferers to telephone when they are desperate. Those organisations welcome, as I do, the introduction of the specific grant last year to social service authorities, which was ring-fenced for the

  937
  mentally ill and increased by 50 per cent. this year. They also welcome the doubling of the size of the homeless mentally ill programme in London.
  In turn, Parliament should recognise the major contribution that the voluntary sector makes to services for the mentally ill and their carers and relatives, as we do through the Health Departments' funding. I look forward to learning from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary how much extra support those voluntary organisations can expect from April next year, including the resources for organisations providing shelter for the mentally ill outside London in areas like Bournemouth, which do not benefit from much of the new money being made available to the south-east.
  One of the greatest challenges that faces our so-called civilised society today is to reverse the cycle of deprivation and despair that afflicts the homeless mentally ill, a problem to which far too many people continue to turn a blind eye. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to his new post, to which he brings his previous experience as Minister responsible for housing and his wide experience in dealing with the handicapped before he came to the House.
  Regrettably, whatever provision is made in the community, there will always be a minority among the mentally ill who pose such a threat to themselves or others that they need to be admitted to hospital compulsorily under the Mental Health Act 1983. Although there appears to be widespread agreement that the provisions of the Act are satisfactory, concerns continue to be expressed, not least by the NSF, regarding the interpretation of the Act as described within its code of practice. The code of practice is the prime focus of this debate. Unfortunately, I must refer to a tragedy in my constituency to illustrate the deficiencies in the code.
  In January 1990, I prayed that the code of practice issued by my hon. Friend's Department in December 1989 be withdrawn. My prayer received support from both sides of the House, and Lord Mottistone tabled a similar prayer in the other place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his continuing and personal commitment to sufferers of schizophrenia.
  Our opposition to the 1989 code was based on its failure to qualify adequately the powers created by the very Act under which it was issued. I believe that the 1989 code had three major deficiencies. First, section 2(2)(b) of the Act clearly states that compulsory admission of an individual to hospital for treatment can be made
  "in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons."
  By the use of the word "or" the Act stresses that any one of those three criteria is a sufficient condition for compulsory admission. But as the code lacks that stress, it is possible to form the impression that all three criteria must simultaneously be present before the sufficient condition for compulsory admission has been met.
  The second deficiency is the 1989 code's emphasis, found in paragraphs 18.23 to 18.28, on the patient's freedom to dismiss himself from treatment even under compulsory admission. That emphasis does not exist in the Act. A code of practice cannot create rights or bestow freedoms that do not exist in the Act that necessitates the code's creation.
  938
  The third deficiency is that the 1983 Act provides for admission in cases of emergency under which a person can be detained for 72 hours for the purpose of mental assessment. Section 4(2) of the Act states:
  "An emergency application may be made either by an approved social worker or by the nearest relative of the patient".
  However, the 1989 code greatly weakens the right of the nearest relative to apply for emergency admission by stating, in paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30, that a relative should be informed of his right only "where necessary" or if necessary".
  Sadly, the 1989 code of practice was not withdrawn. Obviously, it was believed at the time that a badly drafted code was better than no code, as it has been six years since Parliament passed the legislation. That was not the first code of practice; years earlier, the Mental Health Act Commission drew up a code that was never officially published because it was completely unacceptable to the mental health professions, principally the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  As an acknowledgment of the 1989 code's deficiencies, the Government agreed that the code's text on the rights of the nearest relative was "very definitely ambiguous" and undertook to make the "proper meaning clear" in an introductory letter to the code. In addition, the Government referred the other two deficiencies to the Mental Health Act Commission. In March 1991, the commission recommended to my hon. Friend's Department that the wording on admission criteria needed amendment, but that the criticism of the wording on patient security was invalid.
  My hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) accepted the commission's recommendations for an amendment to the code, which was laid before the House on 28 November last year. Why did not the Department of Health consider the security of a detained patient of paramount importance, both for the patient's own safety and for the safety of others?
  Due to the fact that it was an inferior amendment and did not clarify the admission criteria, I prayed in December 1991 that it be withdrawn. Although I withdrew my latter prayer—I assume, and perhaps my hon. friend the Minister will give me confirmation, that the amendment came into force on 13 January this year—I believe to this day that the code of practice inadequately clarifies the powers created by the Act.
  Sad to say, my belief in the code's inadequacy has been borne out by the death of my constituent, Miss Helena Thompson. Miss Thompson, who was living with her mother at Darracott road, Boscombe, died of malnutrition in Poole general hospital on the evening of 17 February last year. Before her death, Dorset social services had been aware that her mother, Mrs. Nellie Thompson, suffered from schizophrenia but felt unable to act, as she refused all help.
  Over the years the Thompson house fell into a state of disrepair and after Miss Thompson's death it had to be demolished because it was uninhabitable. The chronology of events that led to her death clearly showed the inadequacy of the code of practice. On 16 February last year, having received telephone calls from neighbours who claimed to hear screaming coming from the Thompson house, Dorset police made a forced entry under the Police

  939
  and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which permits such action when life is believed to be in peril. The police found Miss Thompson bedridden and near death.
  The following day Miss Thompson was removed from her home in Darracott road, under the National Assistance Act 1948, by Dorset social services and she died in hospital a few hours later. Under section 135 of the Mental Health Act, Mrs. Thompson, now clinically diagnosed schizophrenic, was compulsorily admitted to hospital for treatment.
  I do not seek to place the blame either on Dorset social services or on Dorset police, who I believe acted properly in this tragedy. Indeed, they acted to the best of their ability. Nevertheless, they were acting under their interpretation of the 1983 Act—an interpretation reinforced by the incorrect and ambiguous wording of the code of practice.
  I place the blame for my constituent's death squarely on the code of practice, which inadequately clarifies the powers created by the Act and thus misinforms local authorities, which are largely responsible for enforcement of the Act.
  The Act permits social services officers to seek compulsory admission based on the three admission criteria, but because the code implies that the three criteria must simultaneously be present, Dorset social services felt that they could not act. The code of practice does not adequately clarify the criteria for compulsory admission, thereby preventing Dorset social services from acting sooner.
  Would it not be better for the code to quote the Act's criteria for compulsory admission directly and to state explicity that any one of the three criteria is a sufficient condition for such admission? Furthermore, despite the frail condition of Miss Thompson and the known mental state of her mother, more than 24 hours were required to issue a warrant for the compulsory admission of Mrs. Thompson under section 135.
  Finally, the Mental Health Act rightly permits relatives to seek emergency application for compulsory admission. Regrettably, because the code wrongly qualifies that right, Miss Thompson's sister—she is not my constituent—has told me that she was not specifically informed by Dorset social services of her powers to seek an emergency admission for the purpose of assessment because the code does not explicitly state that that power exists under the law. Rather, it relies for clarification on a circular issued by the Department of Health.
  Given that a circular does not carry the same weight or importance as the Act's text, would it not be better to amend the code itself?
  The untimely and unnecessary death of my constituent, Miss Helena Thompson, has shocked my constituents, who rightly ask why, in this so-called civilised age of the welfare state, the tragedy and the circumstances and events leading up to it could not have been avoided. Had the code of practice issued under the Act properly clarified the rights created in the Act Miss Thompson's death could have been avoided. If the code were properly amended in the way that I have outlined, such tragedies could be prevented in future. I understand that the code is currently the subject of a further review, and I hope that what I have told the House will result in such an amendment.
  10.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on raising this extremely important subject, and I pay tribute to his interest over the years in the whole issue of schizophrenia. I am grateful for the interest shown by other hon. Members. The attendance for this Adjournment debate seems to be higher than it usually is when I finish the day's proceedings.
  Before responding to the particular points that my hon. Friend has raised, I should like to put them in the general context of our approach to the care of mentally ill people in the community. Our policy is that people with a mental illness should have access to all the services that they need, as locally as possible, from long-term in-patient care to domiciliary support for those who can live nearly normal lives outside hospital.
  From 1 April last year, all district health authorities were required to initiate, in collaboration with social services departments, explicit individually tailored care programmes for all in-patients about to be discharged from hospitals and for all new patients accepted by the psychiatric services. At the same time, we introduced a new revenue grant to local authorities to encourage them to improve social care and support provision for mentally ill people. This year, the grant has been increased by nearly 50 per cent. to over £31 million, which supports expenditure of over £43 million. To complement this, we authorised additional capital spending of £10 million last year and £10.5 million this year.
  The care programme approach and the mental illness specific grant are designed to secure improvements in community services and to ensure that mentally ill people are cared for in the community only if there are adequate health and social services to meet their needs.
  My hon. Friend asked about the resources for community care. Standard spending for personal social services this year has been set at £4.85 billion—an increase of 7.7 per cent. in cash terms or 3.1 per cent. in real terms over the previous year, and about 6 per cent. over 1991–92 budgets. Over the past two years, standard spending will have increased by nearly one third, or 19 per cent. in real terms. We estimate that local authorities plan to spend over £5 billion in the current year, which is about £400 million more than they spent last year. We are currently looking at the levels of resources which local authorities will require next year for social services.
  This will, of course, be the first year of implementation of our community care policy. We are committed to resourcing the new policy fairly. We will be transferring to local authorities the resources that we would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential care and nursing homes. We will make that transfer transparent and separately identifiable. I am happy to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the voluntary sector in the provision of local services for mentally ill people. Voluntary organisations are noted for being user-friendly and for providing flexible services to meet individual needs. Because of their independence from mainstream services and generally closer contact with grass roots opinion, voluntary bodies are often at the forefront of innovation and service development.

  941
  In the mental illness field, we are supporting more than 20 voluntary organisations at a total cost of over £2 million. MIND receives £415,000 a year towards its headquarters administrative costs and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship receives £173,000—a core grant of £91,000 plus two project grants. We are also contributing £150,000 over three years towards the running costs of SANE's telephone advice service, the launch of which I attended during my first few weeks at the Department of Health.
  The three-year core grants awarded to MIND and NSF in 1990–91 expire on 31 March next year, but these organisations are eligible to apply for renewal of grant aid. I cannot at this stage predict the level of grant that might be applied for or agreed for next year, but I can tell the House that we will give full consideration to the continuing needs of these organisations within the constraints of our grants budget.
  I assure my hon. Friend that the Government appreciate the cycle of despair and deprivation which affects homeless mentally ill people. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the work done in London during the past couple of years. We have now increased the money to be put into the homeless mentally ill initiative to over £20 million by 1994–95, which will provide for four community psychiatric teams and up to 150 short-term specialist hostel places.
  We are not taking the responsibility for providing care for homeless mentally ill people from local health and social services authorities, where it rightly lies, but we recognised that central London had particular problems because of the concentration of people sleeping rough and traditional difficulties in securing inter-agency cooperation in the capital.
  At the beginning of last year, we announced a £3 million scheme to stop young people drifting into central London and to develop innovative ways of supporting them in their own communities. We have a further £3 million plan over three years to get doctors out to hostels, night shelters and day centres to make sure that homeless people have the health care to which they are entitled. The rough sleepers initiative by the Department of the Environment to help people sleeping out in London will cost £96 million over three years. The vital role of voluntary agencies in this area is fully recognised, and the Department of the Environment will pay £20 million in grants over the next three years under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985.
  The sum of £6.1 million has been allocated in the current financial year, supporting 147 projects around the country, which give practical help to single homeless people. My hon. Friend may know of two projects undertaken by the Bournemouth Churches housing association in south-east Dorset, which are assessing the needs of homeless people in the area, developing a strategy for helping them, and providing resettlement for people at the south-east Dorset night shelter.
  The duty to prepare and revise the code of practice is laid on the Secretary of State by section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The code's purposes are defined in that Act as the guidance of doctors, hospital managers and staff, and approved social workers in relation to the admission of patients under the 1983 Act; and the guidance of doctors and members of other professions in relation to the medical treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder.
  942
  That makes it clear that the code is intended not just to explain the meaning of the Act but to serve as a guide to good practice generally. Doctors and social workers are expected to have their own first-hand knowledge of the 1983 Act as part of their specialist training. A separate publication, "Memorandum on the Mental Health Act 1983", helps them in that.
  In contrast, the code quite properly can and does deal with matters beyond the strict scope of the statutory requirements. It must of course be fully consistent with the letter and the spirit of the 1983 Act, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the code cannot create rights or bestow freedoms that are not in the Act itself.
  When the present code was introduced in 1990, we announced that we were asking the Mental Health Act Commission to monitor the operation of the code and to propose amendments. Earlier this year, the commission reported on its monitoring and submitted a number of proposed amendments. Generally, the commission reported that the code had been well received by those concerned.
  In April, we wrote to all interested bodies to seek their comments on the proposed amendments. The commission told us that it will be submitting further proposals. When they have all been fully considered and consulted on, we shall be laying a revised code, as the 1983 Act requires.
  My hon. Friend's first criticism related to the discrepancy between paragraph 2.6 of the code as originally drafted and the wording of the 1983 Act, which allows a patient to be detained
  "in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons."
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, that paragraph has been amended, and I confirm that the amendment came into force on 13 January. That amendment is now part of the code, and carries precisely the same weight as the rest of it.
  I am aware that the terms of the amendment attracted some criticism, including, as my hon. Friend said, his own prayer. I am glad to report that the terms of the circular published with the amendment last February were endorsed by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which issued a press release welcoming it.
  My hon. Friend's second criticism was the emphasis, as he referred to it, in paragraphs 18.23 to 18.28 on the patient's
  "freedom to dismiss himself from treatment".
  We asked the Mental Health Act Commission to consider that passage along with other points that were criticised when the code was introduced. The commission did not agree that the paragraphs in question would necessarily lead to inappropriate laxity in supervising detained patients.
  The commission undertook to monitor that part of the code, and in particular to assess the reaction of units to the practicality of the advice it contained. Rather than address the substance of that point, I will say that the proposals for amending those paragraphs are being considered together with the other comments that we receive in the current consultation exercise.
  My hon. Friend's third point concerned the right of a patient's nearest relative to make an emergency application for his admission to hospital. We fully agree with my hon. Friend that the words "where necessary" and "if necessary" are misleading. In the circular to which my hon. Friend referred, we say:

  943
  "The words 'where necessary' in paragraphs 2.27 and 2.30 are ambiguous. They should he interpreted as meaning that where a nearest relative is unaware of his or her rights under the Mental Health Act 1983, then either the approved social worker or the doctor(s) involved in the patient's assessment should positively draw the nearest relative's attention to the existence and substance of these rights."
  I take my hon. Friend's point about the relative weight of the code and the covering circular, but the circular is printed as part of the same volume as the code, and arguably that gives the nearest relative's rights more prominence that they would otherwise have. The circular that we published last February with the amendment to paragraph 2.6 took the opportunity to remind users of the code of their obligations to the nearest relative—so that point was rubbed in yet again.
  Even if a code technically outranks a circular, in this instance the circular relies on the 1983 Act, which trumps them both. In any case, I assure my hon. Friend that the offending words "where necessary" and " if necessary" will not appear in the revised edition of the code that will be introduced when we have completed consultation.
  As to the very sad case of my hon. Friend's constituent, Miss Helena Thompson, I have carefully considered what he had to say, but I do not believe that the blame for that tragedy can be put entirely at the door of the code of practice. I know that my hon. Friend has received several reports on the case from the director of social services and, from the information I have, it appears that both the social services department and the medical staff concerned discharged their duty in a highly conscientious and professional way.
  The case, as my hon. Friend has recounted it, seems to reflect the coincidence of two tragic circumstances. It is the case of a mentally ill mother with a daughter who was bedridden and starving to death in circumstances that remain somewhat mysterious. As far as I can ascertain, the real failing arose not from any misunderstanding about the powers available under the Mental Health Act or other legislation, but simply because Miss Thompson was not
  944
  known to be in the house and in such a desperate state. When that was discovered, action was taken—as my hon. Friend reported—to remove her to hospital under the National Assistance Act 1948. I must underline that, if her presence had been discovered any earlier, that would not in itself have made any difference to the judgment about whether her mother met the statutory criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act.
  There is no question of the social services having been misled by anything in the code of practice about the scope of their powers. or about their obligations to Mrs. Thompson's other daughter. The reason why they could not take action earlier to secure her admission to hospital was that the doctors concerned did not consider that she was suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree that warranted her detention under the Act. Therefore, neither an approved social worker nor Mrs. Thompson's nearest relative could have made an application under section 2 or section 3 of the Act.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the delay in arranging Mrs. Thompson's eventual admission to hospital. I am satisfied that that was not a result of any doubt about the powers available to the local authority. In fact, it was arranged to remove Mrs. Thompson at a time agreed between all the parties concerned—the consultant psychiatrist, the GP, the approved social worker, the community medical officer, the police and the ambulance service. After they had entered the house under the section 135 powers, Mrs. Thompson was immediately admitted to hospital under section 3 of the Act.
  As I have said, we are considering very carefully all the amendments that have been proposed to the code of practice, and will he laying a revised version when the process has been completed. I hope it will be some reassurance to my hon. Friend that I do not believe that the present wording of the code has contributed to the very sad death of his constituent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Maxwell Arrests
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General what principles the director of the Serious Fraud Office applies on the execution of a warrant for arrest; and whether he will make a statement on the arrest of Mr. Ian Maxwell and Mr. Kevin Maxwell.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the policy of the Serious Fraud Office to procure the arrest of persons suspected of serious fraud with the assistance of the police. The process of arrest is an operational matter for the police who will decide questions of timing, whereabouts and related matters as part of their operational duties. Where police are conducting investigations in conjunction with the Serious Fraud Office, they may be advised, but not directed, on such matters by the SFO. Such advice will have regard to the seriousness of the alleged offences, the need to secure evidence at the time of the arrest and any circumstances material to the risk that a suspect may seek to abscond, including the likelihood that such suspect may have the means and ability to do so and to support himself outside the jurisdiction. Each case will be considered impartially on its merits.

  Ian Maxwell, Kevin Maxwell and Larry Trachtenburg were arrested without warrant on suspicion of having committed the offences for which they have subsequently been charged. Similar principles govern both the execution of warrants of arrest issued by the courts and arrest without warrant.

  De Lorean Cars
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the remarks of Lord Justice Murray at Belfast Crown Court last week in relation to Fred Bushell, the late Colin Chapman and John de Lorean; what obstacles stand in the way of extraditing Mr. De Lorean from the United States of America to face charges in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  My attention has been drawn to the remarks of Lord Justice Murray in the course of sentencing Federick Bushell at the conclusion of his trial. These followed a joint investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Serious Fraud Office. Frederick Bushell resided and was arrested in the United Kingdom.

  Although the Royal Ulster Constabulary holds a warrant for the arrest of Mr. De Lorean for conspiracy to defraud, I am advised that the laws of the United States provide a limitation period after which extradition is not normally possible. Although the period varies depending on the offence alleged, the period in this case expired before the Serious Fraud Office was created. It was the
  552
  Serious Fraud Office investigation which produced the evidence justifying the obtaining of the warrant against Mr. De Lorean.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  The Attorney-General
  Proposals for market testing relating to the Departments for which I am responsible are being considered and an announcement will be made later in the year. Any relevant information will be made available, subject to the need to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1991 the Crown prosecution service contracted out its headquarters reprographic operation at a saving of around £90,000 per year. No other estimates have been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  The Attorney-General
  The cost is £15,500.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional places he has provided for the purposes of detaining applicants for asylum; and where these places are located.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  New accommodation, providing about 300 additional places for detention under Immigration Act powers, will be delivered in phases from September 1992 to spring 1995, and will be located at Harmondsworth, Gatwick airport, Kidlington in Oxford and Stansted airport.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer on 24 June,Official Report, columns 193–94, if he will list the organisations with which he has held meetings in connection with proposed legislation on asylum applications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have discussed legislation on asylum at meetings with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International and Westminster city council. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are ready to hear the views of interested organisations.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.
  553
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A provisional programme of areas of work to be market tested in my Department in 1992–93 has been drawn up and promulgated to Home Office staff. As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", departmental targets for market testing in 1992–93 will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department wht estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The purpose of the market-testing programme is to test by competition the value for money represented by the present arrangements for undertaking activities and thereby to identify and introduce more effective arrangements. No estimate of likely savings has yet been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The cost of the market-testing initiative in my Department from November 1991 to June 1992 is £150,000.

  Racism
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's position on reducing racism and xenophobia in Europe.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government abhor all manifestations of racism and support all the practical steps taken by member states to counter this. We were very pleased to support the European Council declaration on racism and xenophobia agreed at Maastricht in December 1991.

  Metropolitan Police (Accidents)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of how many accidents involving Metropolitan police vehicles and third parties have been reported for each year since 1985; and on how many occasions in each year the Metropolitan police were held to be liable for the accidents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Shamrock Farms
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection on Shamrock Farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received no representations from the BUAV on Shamrock Farms to date.

  Expatriate Voters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the basis on which expatriate voters were allocated to each constituency.
  554
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Overseas electors are registered in the constituency in which they were last registered as electors before leaving the United Kingdom. If they left the country before they were old enough to vote, they are registered in the constituency in which a parent or guardian was registered at the time they left the country.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it a policy to extend minimal standards of care and accommodation as set out in the code of practice for the housing and care of animals used in scientific procedures to all suppliers of animals;

  (2) what minimum standards primate traders must meet to be licensed by his office; what are the dimensions of the smallest cage British primate suppliers may legally use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is already the practice of the Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate to seek compliance by designated suppliers with the standards of care and accommodation set out in the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association's guidelines on the care and housing of animals bred for scientific purposes. There is therefore a recognised standard against which such establishments can be assessed.

  The recommended minimum size of cage is determined by the weight of the primate to be housed. The smallest cage size recommended by the LABA guidelines is for animals up to 700g in weight. The minimum recommended height for such animals is 100 cm, and the minimum recommended floor area is 1,200 sq cm per animal when the animals are housed in groups, or 2,500 sq cm when they are housed singly.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of all British primate suppliers and for each the number of primates which(a) were dead upon their arrival to Britain, (b) died before reaching British research laboratories and (c) were slaughtered before research was undertaken.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office does not hold information on the number of primates imported into Great Britain which are dead on arrival or which have died before reaching British research laboratories.

  Figures on the number of primates humanely killed after receipt and before use are not collated centrally. The humane killing of primates in British research laboratories in such circumstances is known to be uncommon, but might take place, for example, to terminate suffering from otherwise untreatable disease.

  It is not our practice to give details of individual establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outstanding backlog of naturalisation applications as at 1 January 1990, 1991, and 1992 and for the most recent available date; and what is the current rate at which applications are being cleared.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers of outstanding applications for naturalisation on the dates referred to were as follows:
  555

  1Applications awaiting allocation

  Allocated applications

  1 January 1990

  2,914

  64,930

  1 January 1991

  1,645

  62,949

  1 January 1992

  6,266

  38,382

  1 June 1992

  582

  43,569

  1 It is not possible at this stage to distinguish beween applications for naturalisation and those for registration.

  These cases are currently being cleared at the rate of around 2,600 per month.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he now expects Operation Container to end in Greater Manchester;

  (2) how much Operation Container has so far cost; and what is his estimate of its final cost.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since April 1990, the total payment made to the Greater Manchester police for holding prisoners in police cells has been £40,121,851.19 This figure does not include payments for Manchester prisoners held by other police forces, information on which was not collected separately. As has been explained to the hon. Member, while the ending of the police cells problem is a matter of the highest priority for the prison service, it is not possible to say exactly when Operation Container will no longer be required or the final cost.

TRANSPORT

  National Exhibition Centre
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the likely completion date of the proposed dedicated access road and signalling system from the M42 to the national exhibition centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The contract for the construction of the improved access road from the southway exit of the national exhibition centre to the M42 slip road is due to be let very shortly. This should enable it to be open in time for the motor show in late October. Improvements to the roundabout at the intersection of the A45 and the M42, including the provision of further traffic signals and the widening of the approaches to the roundabout, are currently being designed in detail. These should be completed summer 1993. Together with the other improvements which we have in hand at and around this intersection, access to and from the NEC and the other important facilities in the area will be easier.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Norris
  Following the publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" in which a new market testing initiative was announced, the efficiency unit will announce the programme for all departments later this year. All relevant information will be made public.
  556
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost so far of the market testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  The identified cost since November 1991, mainly consultants' fees, amounts to some £10,000. Other expenditure involving the salaries of civil servants is not kept in a suitable form and ascertaining what it might be could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market testing programme.

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1986–87 the total estimated savings made to date as a result of the market testing programme amount to approximately £7.3 million.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage is still in the process of being set-up and the information to answer this qestion is not yet centrally available.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Key
  The numbers and percentage of women in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are as follows:—

  Grade

  Number of officers

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  1

  1

  —

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  1

  33

  4

  1

  —

  0

  5

  15

  4

  26

  6

  3

  1

  33

  7

  46

  10

  21

  The figures for staff in post are for the latest available date. The figures for officers in other grades are not yet centrally available as the Department is still in the process of being set up; this includes setting up the central personnel and manpower planning function.

  Hyde Park (Traffic)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance he has issued to the authorities responsible for Hyde park as to the parking arrangements admissible for coaches in connection with demonstrations and marches in order to ensure the free flow of normal traffic in the surrounding streets.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: That the organisers be asked to make arrangements with the public transport authorities to use public transport to get to and

  557
  from the park whenever possible to avoid unnecessary disruption in local streets. When coaches have to be used it is recommended that they liaise with the police to organise transfers on to the London public transport system before reaching central London; and as a last resort, arrangements be made for coaches to park at agreed locations close to the park. The possible disruption to traffic and local residents is a key factor in early discussions with organisers before any event takes place.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: My Department is in the process of appointing a consultant to assist in preparing its market testing programme.

  Bushy Park
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the opening hours on weekdays and Sundays of the woodland garden in Bushy park; whether the park contractors are obliged to comply with these hours; if he will state why the gates were not open by 9.45 am on Sunday 31 May; and what action will be taken to prevent a recurrence.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The woodland garden in Bushy park opens at 9 am seven days a week. It closes at dusk.

  Contractors are obliged to unlock the gates at the stated time. This is a scheduled item within the ground maintenance contract.

  Due to an oversight on the part of the contractor a member of his staff was not available to open the gates at the required time on Sunday 31 May 1992.

  The contractor was financially penalised for failure to comply with the contract and subsequently gave assurances that it would not happen again. It has now been agreed with the contractor that in order to make sure all gates are open by 9 am he will start unlocking earlier than hitherto.

  The client duty officer for the day has also been instructed to pay particular attention to the contractor's performance in this area and report any lapse to the park superintendent.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the average depletion of the ozone layer on an annualised basis(a) at British latitudes and (b) at all latitudes; and what are the projections of the extent of depletion over the period 2000 to 2050.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest estimates of ozone layer depletion remain substantially the same as published in the 1991 report of the Department's stratospheric ozone review group, copies of which are in the Library. Ozone depletion at British latitudes is at a maximum in the early spring, averaging 0.8 per cent. per year. Ozone levels recover substantially during the summer. The annual 558
  average depletion taken over all latitudes is about 0.3 per cent. per year—we do not have an equivalent figure for British latitudes. The extent of ozone depletion in future years will depend on how the Montreal protocol controls are tightened, but the review group estimate that under the present controls the potential for ozone depletion will increase until at least 1997, and then decline slowly over the next century.

  Marsham Street Offices
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 19 June,Official Report, column 694, what is his timetable for demolishing the Marsham street Government offices.

  Mr. Howard
  The planning and development consultants, whose appointment was announced in the answer of 19 June, have just started work. Their advice will assist in identifying the best alternative uses for the site at 2 Marsham street and thereby in establishing a timetable for the reuse of the site. Until that is established I cannot be precise on the timing of demolition.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons were registered as homeless in the London borough of Newham for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 17 June 1992,Official Report, columns 569–70.

  Paris Commission
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the United Kingdom will be represented at the 21 and 22 September meeting of the Paris commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  I shall be representing the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at this meeting, together with officials from my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which substances the United Kingdom expects to agree completely to eliminate from discharges to water in the United Kingdom, at or as a result of the 21 and 22 September meeting of the Paris commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on proposals from other countries regarding the complete elimination of certain substances in discharges to water, at or as a result of the 21 and 22 meeting of the Paris commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  The major business of the meeting is the agreement of a new convention concerning the protection of the marine environment in the north-east Atlantic which will replace the existing Oslo and Paris conventions. There are also a number of recommendations to be considered, but none calls for the complete elimination of substances in discharges to water.
  559
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the United Kingdom has made in eliminating discharges to water of substances controlled under agreements of the Paris commission; and if he will publish such data.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has made good progress in implementing Paris commission decisions and recommendations. At the ministerial meeting of the Oslo and Paris commissions being held in September a number of reports will be published on their activities and these will give details of the data submitted by the United Kingdom.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) motor cars, (b) lorries and (c) buses on air quality in (i) urban and (ii) rural areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Motor traffic is a growing source of urban and rural air pollution, and much action is already in hand to tackle it. The current position is conveniently summarised in the air quality chapter of the Department's annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics". A copy of the latest volume has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, the Royal Commission on environmental pollution reported in September 1991 on emissions from heavy duty diesel vehicles.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992,Official Report, column 102.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Howard
  The full cost of the market testing initiative in my Department since November 1991 is estimated at £223,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Howard
  No such estimate has yet been made.

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any Government Ministers or officials attended any of the half-day round table meetings sponsored by UNESCO at the recent United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
  560
  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Inner Cities Religious Council
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Inner Cities Religious Council will hold its first formal meeting; and what its purpose and membership will be.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The first formal meeting of the Inner Cities Religious Council will take place on Monday 20 July. Members will be drawn from the Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim anhd Sikh faiths, under my chairmanship.

  The Inner Cities Religious Council will allow representatives of the faith communities to discuss policy and practical issues with Government and each other. It will give consideration to the needs of communities in inner cities and deprived urban areas, and the assistance available to meet them, and will also seek to create opportunities for action in such areas involving faith communities in partnership with other local residents, business, voluntary organisations and local and central Government.

  Relocation
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in negotiations about his Department's move to Docklands since his oral answers of 2 June,Official Report, columns 707–13.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department's advisers are continuing to negotiate in respect of Harbour Exchange, East India Dock and Canary Wharf. In the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 9 June,Official Report, column 150, I said that a fourth docklands development at Thomas More square, Wapping had been ruled out on the ground of cost. However, the owners of Thomas More square have now sought my agreement to be allowed to enter into the negotiations on the same terms as the other three contenders in docklands. I have agreed that they may do so.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered relocating staff from Marsham street to County hall.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 June to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), Official Report, column 368. In the light of that answer, I am not considering the relocation of staff to County hall.

  Recycling
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 126, to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) when the commissioned study into the use of economic instruments to promote recycling will be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: We expect to receive the final version of the study shortly. I will then discuss the next steps with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, whose Department is co-sponsoring the study.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce a citizen's charter for the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no plans to introduce a charter for the Public Record Office, though the office has published its quality of service and efficiency targets.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total cost of the market testing initiative in my Department since November 1991 is estimated to have been £139,300.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992, at column 102.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Market testing in the former Management and Personnel Office and in the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service is estimated to have saved some £290,000 in cash terms between 1986–87 and 1991–92.

  Land Holdings
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 15 June to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, columns 360–61, if he will list each individual land or property holding of the Duchy, together with its location and capital value.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It would be impractical to list each individual land and property holding belonging to the Duchy, which amount to over 1,000. A summary of land and property holdings is therefore set out.

  £ per week

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  Average Earnings1

  89.60

  23.0

  110.20

  13.3

  124.90

  9.3

  136.50

  8.6

  148.30

  7.4

  159.30

  7.3

  171.00

  Senior Civil Servants

  Head of the Civil Service

  593.87

  8.1

  641.76

  7.0

  686.69

  17.2

  804.60

  14.3

  919.54

  6.8

  981.80

  46.3

  1,436.78

  Permanent Secretary to the Treasury

  593.87

  8.1

  641.76

  7.0

  686.69

  17.2

  804.60

  14.3

  919.54

  6.8

  981.80

  36.6

  1,341.00

  Grade 1

  545.98

  8.8

  593.88

  7.0

  635.44

  13.8

  723.18

  13.2

  818.97

  6.4

  871.65

  31.9

  1,149.43

  Grade 1A

  498.08

  9.6

  545.98

  7.0

  584.19

  14.8

  670.50

  12.9

  756.70

  6.3

  804.60

  31.0

  1,053.64

  562
  There are estates predominately agricultural in nature, in the following counties:

  Approximate acreage

  Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire

  3,031

  Staffordshire and Cheshire

  10,901

  Lancashire

  10,617

  Yorkshire

  8,111

  In addition, the Duchy owns some 15,000 acres of moorland in north Yorkshire and south Wales, most of which are subject to common rights.

  The estates include some 273 agricultural tenancies and 3,696 acres of woodland.

  Other property ownerships (all of which are freehold except for a long leasehold property in the City of London) may be summarised as follows:

  (a) Greater London

  The freehold of properties in the Manor of the Savoy bounded by Lancaster place, the Embankment, Savoy hill and Strand, including the Savoy chapel, and a building at 2/4 Lancaster place to 137 Strand.

  (b) Miscellaneous commercial properties in Harrogate which include five shops, 2 hotels and a house now converted to offices. These properties, in the main, are let on occupational leases. There is also the remainder of a residential estate developed over a period of 100 years or so producing 36 ground rents. The freehold reversions are sold to the lessees on terms which follow the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Acts.

  (c) Single holdings—those not forming part of an estate—of commercial property in Hadley Wood, Leicester, Lewes and London, other than the Savoy estate. Except for four properties in London which are let on ground rents, these are let on occupational leases.

  On the question of capital value, the Duchy values its properties for internal purposes only and figures are not published.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage increase and actual size in pounds per week, in pay for each main group covered by the Top Salaries Review Body for each year since 1979; and what the comparable figures were for an employee on national average earnings for each of those years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  563

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  Grade 2

  range minimum2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  766.28

  range maximum

  431.03

  8.9

  469.35

  7.0

  502.20

  15.4

  579.50

  13.2

  656.13

  6.6

  699.23

  15.1

  804.60

  Grade 3

  range minimum2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  593.87

  range maximum

  344.83

  13.9

  392.72

  7.0

  420.21

  14.0

  478.93

  11.0

  531.61

  6.3

  565.13

  15.3

  651.34

  Senior Officers of the Armed Forces

  Admiral of the Fleet

  593.87

  8.1

  641.76

  7.0

  686.69

  17.2

  804.60

  14.3

  919.54

  6.8

  981.80

  46.3

  1,436.78

  Field Marshal

  Marshal of the Royal Air Force

  Admiral

  545.98

  8.8

  593.88

  7.0

  635.44

  13.8

  723.18

  13.2

  818.97

  6.4

  871.65

  31.9

  1,149.43

  General

  Air Chief Marshal

  Vice Admiral

  431.03

  8.9

  469.35

  7.0

  502.20

  15.4

  579.50

  13.2

  656.13

  6.6

  699.23

  15.1

  804.60

  Lieutenant General

  Air Marshal

  Rear Admiral

  344.83

  13.9

  392.72

  7.0

  420.21

  14.0

  478.93

  11.0

  531.61

  6.3

  565.13

  15.3

  651.34

  Major General

  Air Vice-Marshal

  Members of the Judiciary3

  Lord Chief Justice

  708.81

  8.1

  766.28

  11.3

  852.49

  18.0

  1,005.75

  14.3

  1,149.43

  6.7

  1,226.05

  17.2

  1,436.78

  Lords of Appeal

  651.34

  8.8

  708.81

  10.8

  785.44

  17.7

  924.33

  14.0

  1,053.64

  6.4

  1,120.69

  17.9

  1,321.84

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  593.87

  8.1

  641.76

  11.9

  718.39

  21.3

  871.65

  14.3

  996.17

  6.7

  1,063.22

  18.9

  1,264.37

  High Court Judges

  545.98

  12.3

  613.03

  9.4

  670.50

  21.4

  814.18

  12.9

  919.54

  6.8

  981.80

  17.1

  1,149.42

  Senior Circuit Judges

  387.39

  11.3

  431.03

  8.9

  469.35

  18.4

  555.56

  12.9

  627.39

  6.9

  670.50

  27.1

  852.49

  Circuit Judges

  373.56

  12.8

  421.46

  5.7

  445.40

  19.4

  531.61

  11.7

  593.87

  6.5

  632.18

  21.2

  766.28

  District Judges

  330.46

  11.6

  368.77

  6.5

  392.72

  17.1

  459.77

  11.5

  512.45

  6.5

  545.98

  7.0

  584.29

  £ per week

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  Average Earnings1

  8.0

  184.70

  7.7

  198.90

  9.8

  218.40

  9.7

  239.70

  9.8

  263.10

  8.2

  284.70

  Senior Civil Servants

  Head of the Civil Service

  3.2

  1,482.76

  4.7

  1,551.72

  5.2

  1,633.14

  5.0

  1,714.56

  7.0

  1,834.29

  9.4

  2,006.70

  Permanent Secretary to the Treasury

  3.4

  1,386.97

  4.6

  1,451.15

  5.3

  1,527.78

  5.0

  1,604.41

  6.9

  1,714.56

  9.5

  1,877.39

  Grade 1

  3.5

  1,189.66

  4.7

  1,245.21

  5.4

  1,312.26

  5.1

  1,379.31

  6.9

  1,475.10

  9.4

  1,613.98

  Grade 1A

  3.3

  1,088.12

  4.8

  1,139.85

  5.5

  1,202.11

  5.2

  1,264.37

  7.2

  1,355.36

  9.5

  1,484.67

  Grade 2

  range minimum2

  3.8

  795.02

  4.8

  833.33

  5.3

  877.39

  5.0

  921.46

  14.1

  1,051.72

  9.5

  1,151.34

  range maximum

  19.4

  833.33

  7.7

  1,034.73

  5.6

  1,091.95

  4.9

  1,145.59

  7.5

  1,231.80

  9.5

  1,348.66

  Grade 3

  range minimum2

  4.4

  619.73

  5.1

  651.34

  5.3

  685.82

  5.0

  720.31

  16.5

  839.08

  9.6

  919.54

  range maximum

  17.6

  766.38

  7.5

  823.75

  5.3

  867.82

  5.1

  911.88

  9.5

  998.08

  6.9

  1,067.05

  Senior Officers of the Armed Forces

  Admiral of the Fleet

  3.2

  1,482.76

  4.7

  1,551.72

  5.2

  1,633.14

  5.0

  1,714.56

  7.0

  1,834.29

  9.4

  2,006.70

  Field Marshal

  Marshal of the Royal Air Force

  Admiral

  3.5

  1,189.66

  4.7

  1,245.21

  5.4

  1,312.26

  5.1

  1,379.31

  6.9

  1,475.09

  9.4

  1,613.98

  General

  Air Chief Marshal

  Vice Admiral

  3.6

  833.33

  4.6

  871.65

  5.5

  919.54

  5.0

  965.52

  9.7

  1,059.39

  9.6

  1,160.92

  Lieutenant General

  Air Marshal

  564

  565

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  per cent. increase

  £

  Rear Admiral

  4.0

  677.20

  4.7

  708.81

  5.4

  747.13

  10–5

  825.67

  9.7

  906.13

  12.1

  1,015.33

  Major General

  Air Vice-Marshal

  Members of the Judiciary3

  Lord Chief Justice

  3.2

  1,482.76

  4.7

  1,551.72

  5.2

  1,633.14

  5.0

  1,714.56

  7.0

  1,834.29

  9.4

  2,006.70

  Lords of Appeal

  3.5

  1,367.82

  4.7

  1,431.99

  5.4

  1,508.62

  5.1

  1,585.25

  6.9

  1,695.40

  9.6

  1,858.24

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  3.6

  1,310.34

  4.9

  1,374.52

  5.6

  1,451.15

  5.0

  1,522.99

  6.9

  1,628.35

  9.4

  1,781.61

  High Court Judges

  3.5

  1,189.65

  4.7

  1,245.21

  5.4

  1,312.26

  5.1

  1,379.31

  6.9

  1,475.10

  9.4

  1,613.98

  Senior Circuit Judges

  3.4

  881.23

  4.9

  924.33

  5.5

  975.10

  4.9

  1,022.99

  10.3

  1,128.35

  16.1

  1,310.34

  Circuit Judges

  3.8

  795.02

  4.8

  833.33

  5.3

  877.39

  5.0

  921.45

  10.3

  1,016.35

  16.1

  1,180.08

  District Judges

  4.4

  610.15

  5.2

  641.76

  11.9

  718.39

  5.1

  754.79

  10.3

  832.37

  16.2

  967.43

  Notes:

  A. All rates quoted are national rates. They do not include a London scale introduced for Civil Service grades 2 and 3 in 1990.

  B. All rates quoted were either paid from 1 April or phased in during the following year.

  Footnotes:

  1 Source New Earnings Survey.

  2 Range pay introduced from 1985.

  3 Posts shown are key examples of those within the judicial salary structure.

  Taxation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue guidelines to local tax offices on the taxation of payments made to employees by way of compensation for breach of contract, classifying the schedule under which such tax is collected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Payments of compensation for loss of office are chargeable to income tax under section 148 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Local tax offices have detailed instructions on how to deal with such cases.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table of expenditure on the business expansion scheme cross-referenced to standard regions, showing Greater London as a separate region, for each year from 1984–85(a) at cash prices and (b) at 1984–85 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Available information is published in chapter 7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991". Regional analyses are given in tables 7.5 and 7.6.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Portillo
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Portillo
  No estimate has yet been made, since details of the programme have still to be settled.
  566
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which parts of his Department are going to be market-tested following the review which has recently been undertaken as a result of 'Competing for Quality'.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: An announcement will be made in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Nelson
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 June 1992 c. 223–24]: I regret that a column in the table was omitted from the reply. The complete reply is as follows:

  The responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in the Treasury are as follows. The information on the numbers of staff reporting to each is contained in the table.

  Deputy Secretary (Overseas Finance):

  Responsible for:

  European Community Group

  Aid and Export Finance Group

  International Finance Group

  Deputy Secretary (Public Finance)

  Responsible for:

  Fiscal Policy Group

  Monetary Policy Group

  Deputy Secretary (Public Services)

  Responsible for:

  Local Government Group

  Health, Social Services and Territorial Group

  Running Costs Division (part)

  Central Unit on Purchasing

  (also has responsibility for CCTA which is to be transferred to the Office for Public Services and Science in due course)

  Deputy Secretary (Civil Service Management and Pay)

  Responsible for:

  Pay Group

  Personnel Policy Group

  Management Policy and Running Costs Group

  CS Catering Organisation (Forward)

  567
  Deputy Secretary (Industry)

  Responsible for:

  Public Enterprises Group

  Industry, Agriculture and Employment Group

  Home and Education Group

  Grade

  DS Overseas Finance

  DS Public Finance

  DS Public services

  DS CS Management and pay

  DS Industry

  DS Financial institutions and markets

  G3

  4

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  G4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  G5

  7

  4

  8

  11

  7

  5

  G6

  1

  1

  2

  7

  2

  1

  G7

  17

  9

  16

  42

  17

  16

  SE0

  3

  1

  6

  37

  3

  6

  HEO

  4

  1

  10

  30

  13

  13

  HEO(D)

  2

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  AT

  —

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  EO

  9

  4

  8

  45

  10

  12

  SAS

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  AS

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  SSO

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  HSO

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  SEA

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  EA

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  11

  6

  10

  43

  16

  14

  AA

  4

  3

  7

  17

  6

  8

  SPS

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  PS

  11

  8

  9

  16

  10

  8

  Typist

  2

  3

  2

  4

  4

  6

  SB2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  81

  48

  87

  265

  97

  97

  Notes:

  1. Staff in post figures as at 1 June 1992, except for Financial Services command which includes latest estimate of staff being transferred from DTI.

  2. Figures for part-time staff rounded down.

  3. In addition to the above staff there are 761 staff in the following commands:

  First Permanent Secretary, Second Permanent Secretary responsible for Public Expenditure (ie, the General Expenditure Policy Group and the Defence Policy and Material Group), Chief Economic Adviser, Chief Accountancy Adviser and the Establishments and Organisation Group.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Recycled Stationery
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission if steps will be taken to ensure that stocks of recycled stationery are permanently kept in all the stationery cupboards adjacent to offices.

  Mr. Beith
  I understand that steps have been taken for stationery cupboards to be stocked with recycled stationery where a particular demand has been identified.

PRIME MINISTER

  Freedom of Movement (Doctors)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will use the British presidency of the EC Council of Ministers to press for reform of the EC directive granting freedom of movement within Europe to doctors so as to include doctors who qualified in non-EC countries.

  The Prime Minister
  Before we could agree to any such proposals we should need to be satisfied with the standard of non-EC qualifications recognised in other member states.
  568
  Deputy Secretary (Financial Institutions and Markets)

  Responsible for:

  Banking Group

  Securities and Investment Services Group (formerly the Financial Service Division of the DTI, transferred to the Treasury in June 1992).

  Our overriding aim must be to ensure that the safety and high quality of medical care provided for NHS patients is not endangered.

  The Commission is examining the issue and negotiations are taking place between health officials of member states.

EDUCATION

  Schools, Buckinghamshire
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to determine the school standard number reductions proposed by Buckinghamshire county council in respect of(a) Shelburne County first school, High Wycombe, (b) Loudwater County combined school, High Wycombe, (c) Gerrards Cross Church of England combined school, Gerrards Cross and (d) Waddesdon County combined school, New Aylesbury.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the applications made by Buckinghamshire county council to reduce the standard number at these schools. He hopes to announce his decision on the applications in the very near future.

  Examinations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he will publish information collected from the 1991 school examination survey.

  (2) when he will publish information collected from 1991 Form 7d about the national performance in GCSE and A/AS level examinations.

  Mr. Forth
  The standard statistical bulletin drawing from the information collected by the 1991 schools examination survey—Form 7d—is expected to be published towards the end of July.

  School Governors
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many new school governors he expects to recruit as a result of the school governor recruitment campaign.

  Mr. Forth
  Evidence suggests that around 75,000 school governor vacancies will need to be filled in the autumn. Our national campaign to raise awareness of governor issues is proving successful. We are confident that sufficient numbers of potential school governors will come forward.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to bring forward proposals to empower the Audit Commission to audit or appoint auditors for the accounts of grant-maintained schools;

  (2) how many grant-maintained schools have sought the advice of the Audit Commission under section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The Audit Commission is empowered to audit grant maintained schools, but it is for the governing body of each school to appoint their auditors. My Department does not have any information on the number of schools that have sought advice from the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what projections have been made for the number of grant-maintained schools for each year for the next five years.

  Mr. Forth
  I expect the numbers of grant-maintained schools to continue to increase markedly over the next few years and to see grant-maintained status become the natural organisational model for schools.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will carry out an investigation into the effect of the grant-maintained status of schools on parental choice in Hillingdon, Ealing and Bromley education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The option of grant-maintained status for schools enhances choice for parents. We are aware that the allocation of secondary school places for September has taken slightly longer than usual this year in Bromley and Hillingdon. The Department has discussed the position with the two local education authorities and is encouraging co-operation between the LEAs and grant-maintained schools on a voluntary basis in order to minimise delays in allocations without restricting choice. The Department is not aware of any difficulties over parental choice in Ealing.
  570
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether schools applying for grant-maintained status have to supply him with details of their admissions policy.

  Mr. Forth
  All proposals for grant-maintained status must set out the proposed admission arrangements for the school. The arrangements have to be approved by my right hon. Friend as part of the approval of grant-maintained status.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will establish a national system to monitor the number of exclusions of pupils from schools.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils have been expelled(a) permanently and (b) temporarily from schools in the United Kingdom for each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Where schools in England are concerned, information on temporary exclusions is not collected centrally. Information on permanent exclusions is being collected under the national exclusions reporting system —NERS—over a two-year period beginning with the summer term 1990. Data from year one of the exercise are being analysed; those for year two are still coming in. My right hon. Friend will review the operation of the exclusion provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in the light of the NERS data and other evidence.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the role of Coopers and Lybrand in assisting further education and sixth form colleges with their new management responsibilities.

  Mr. Forman
  Subject to contract, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte has been asked to carry out a review of the preparations being made for independence by each of the colleges that will enter the new further education sector on 1 April 1993. It will provide advice and assistance to individual colleges and will assess whether their controls and systems are adequate to safeguard the public funds to be entrusted to them by the Further Education Funding Council.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Forman
  A preliminary estimate of the full cost of the market testing initiative within the Department and the Teachers' Pensions Agency since November 1991 is £55,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Forman
  No such estimate has yet been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.
  571
  Mr. Forman
  As stated in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", targets for the market testing programme for 1992–93 for the Department and the Teachers' Pensions Agency will be announced later this year.

  Transitional Funding
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money has been allocated to further education councils under transitional funding arrangements; and on what specific projects.

  Mr. Forman
  A total of £25 million will be made available to the Further Education Funding Council for England in 1992–93 to meet transitional costs involved in establishing the new further education sector, including grants to FE corporations and the running costs of the council. Funding for the Further Education Funding Council for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am advised that he has allocated £2 million to the council for Wales to meet transitional costs in 1992–93.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a list setting out the percentage of children statemented in primary schools in each local education authority area in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  The percentages of pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained primary schools, in each local education authority in England, in January 1990 and 1991 are shown in the table. Information for January 1992 is not yet available.

  Percentage of pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England

  1990

  1991

  City

  —

  0.96

  Camden

  —

  0.90

  Greenwich

  —

  0.94

  Hackney

  —

  1.06

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  0.90

  Islington

  —

  1.27

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  0.51

  Lambeth

  —

  1.19

  Lewisham

  —

  0.52

  Southwark

  —

  0.99

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  0.50

  Wandsworth

  —

  1.50

  Westminster

  —

  0.59

  ILEA

  0.90

  —

  Barking

  0.41

  0.63

  Barnet

  0.46

  0.48

  Bexley

  0.98

  0.97

  Brent

  0.24

  0.27

  Bromley

  1.64

  1.71

  Croydon

  0.79

  0.66

  Ealing

  0.41

  0.55

  Enfield

  0.09

  0.08

  Haringey

  0.24

  0.27

  Harrow

  0.75

  0.87

  Havering

  0.69

  0.92

  Hillingdon

  0.34

  0.38

  Hounslow

  1.38

  1.70

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.52

  0.67

  Merton

  0.55

  0.76

  Newham

  0.47

  0.69

  Redbridge

  0.20

  0.25

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.90

  1.02

  Sutton

  0.73

  0.92

  Waltham Forest

  0.29

  0.33

  572

  1990

  1991

  Birmingham

  0.35

  0.34

  Coventry

  0.26

  0.27

  Dudley

  0.56

  0.52

  Sandwell

  0.17

  0.17

  Solihull

  0.76

  0.77

  Walsall

  0.48

  0.67

  Wolverhampton

  0.73

  0.76

  Knowsley

  0.28

  0.50

  Liverpool

  0.24

  0.28

  St. Helens

  0.56

  0.65

  Sefton

  0.56

  0.68

  Wirral

  0.93

  0.98

  Bolton

  0.29

  0.37

  Bury

  1.39

  1.55

  Manchester

  0.12

  0.13

  Oldham

  0.76

  0.96

  Rochdale

  0.56

  0.64

  Salford

  0.33

  0.41

  Stockport

  1.25

  1.46

  Tameside

  1.19

  1.23

  Trafford

  0.88

  0.88

  Wigan

  0.50

  0.94

  Barnsley

  0.51

  0.76

  Doncaster

  0.33

  0.35

  Rotherham

  0.52

  0.78

  Sheffield

  0.79

  0.66

  Bradford

  0.22

  0.24

  Calderdale

  0.61

  0.69

  Kirklees

  1.06

  1.24

  Leeds

  1.13

  1.07

  Wakefield

  0.43

  0.45

  Gateshead

  0.22

  0.22

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.64

  0.64

  North Tyneside

  0.77

  0.90

  South Tyneside

  0.65

  0.63

  Sunderland

  0.51

  0.55

  Isles of Scilly

  0.00

  0.00

  Avon

  0.94

  0.71

  Bedfordshire

  0.61

  0.69

  Berkshire

  0.65

  0.79

  Buckinghamshire

  1.05

  1.17

  Cambridgeshire

  0.89

  0.86

  Cheshire

  1.30

  1.38

  Cleveland

  0.74

  0.75

  Cornwall

  2.12

  2.16

  Cumbria

  1.28

  1.44

  Derbyshire

  1.07

  1.17

  Devon

  1.42

  1.61

  Dorset

  0.46

  0.39

  Durham

  0.66

  0.75

  East Sussex

  0.12

  0.19

  Essex

  0.66

  0.66

  Gloucestershire

  0.30

  0.43

  Hampshire

  0.64

  0.91

  Hereford and Worcester

  0.30

  0.45

  Hertfordshire

  0.89

  0.98

  Humberside

  0.53

  0.55

  Isle of Wight

  0.64

  0.58

  Kent

  0.57

  0.70

  Lancashire

  0.70

  0.84

  Leicestershire

  0.74

  0.83

  Lincolnshire

  0.83

  0.98

  Norfolk

  1.50

  1.65

  North Yorkshire

  0.89

  0.99

  Northamptonshire

  0.48

  0.57

  Northumberland

  0.72

  0.83

  Nottinghamshire

  0.06

  0.12

  Oxfordshire

  0.07

  0.24

  Shropshire

  1.01

  1.37

  Somerset

  1.29

  0.90

  Staffordshire

  0.49

  0.59

  Suffolk

  1.51

  1.41

  Surrey

  1.56

  1.67

  Warwickshire

  0.44

  0.53

  West Sussex

  0.37

  0.40

  Wiltshire

  1.79

  2.02

  England

  0.73

  0.81

  School Places
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the number of schools which do not have sufficient places to meet the demand from parents for their children; and what provisions are proposed to enable schools to expand to meet the demand.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally.

  It is for local authorities to ensure that there are sufficient school places within their area to meet the demand. We have recently announced that we intend to make capital resources available to enable good schools which are popular with parents to expand, provided that, for schools which they maintain, the LEA give their application appropriate priority. We have consulted the local authority associations, denominational bodies and others concerned about this. Details of the operation of this initiative will be issued shortly to LEAs and others.

  Second-tier Schools
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his oral answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 123, what time scale he puts on the elimination of second-tier schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are committed to raising standards across the board, in particular through the national curriculum and by maximum delegation of responsibility to individual schools through local management of schools and, increasingly, by the acquisition of GM status. Steady progress is being made towards our objective of the highest possible standards in all schools.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Bill
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he proposes to appoint any special inspectors in terms of the Asylum Bill introduced in the last Parliament.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no provision for special adjudicators in current immigration legislation. The Asylum Bill introduced in the last Parliament fell with the dissolution of that Parliament. The designation of special adjudicators will be addressed after the enactment of the legislation the Government propose to introduce later this Session.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested: and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992, at column 102.
  574
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The full cost of the market testing initiative in our Department since November 1991 has been £84,495.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No such estimate has been made.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry executive agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table sets out the key performance targets that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry executive agency for 1992–93.

  HM Land Registry Executive Agency Key performance targets 1992–93

  Indicator

  Target

  1. PRODUCTIVITY

  Progressive reduction in unit costs

  To achieve or better a 6 per cent. improvement over the 3 year period 1991–92 to 1993–94

  Progressive increase in output per post per year

  2. QUALITY OF SERVICE

  Speed

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled in three days

  92 per cent.

  Average handling time for post completion applications

  6 weeks

  Accuracy

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled free of error

  99.65 per cent.

  Percentage of post-completion applications handled free of error

  97.50 per cent.

  Complaints

  Number and kind of complaints

  Targets to be established

  3. DEVELOPMENT OF LAND REGISTRATION

  Number of registered titles compared with estimated potential titles1

  Registered 14.50 million

  Potential 21.00 million

  New and converted computerised titles compared with manual stock1

  Computerised 6.00 million

  Manual 8.50 million

  1 Activity in the conveyancing market and the consequent number of transactions directly affects totals at the year end.

  Legal Aid
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what contributions to criminal legal aid by defendants over the past 10 years have(a) been ordered by the court and (b) been paid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the amount of contributions to criminal legal aid paid by defendants over the last 10
  575
  years, I refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 21 May 1992, Official Report columns 207–8. Information on the amount of contributions ordered by the courts is not collected centrally.

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the cost of criminal legal aid to the Exchequer over each of the past

  Criminal legal aid expenditure (£ million)

  Financial Year

  Magistrates' courts payments

  Higher courts payments

  Other payments

  Receipts

  Cost to the Exchequer

  1982–83

  56.12

  51.98

  5.77

  1.77

  112.10

  1983–84

  62.18

  58.81

  7.12

  2.03

  126.08

  1984–85

  68.06

  67.95

  10.21

  1.98

  144.23

  1985–86

  81.35

  75.29

  15.22

  1.98

  169.88

  1986–87

  87.07

  91.83

  29.59

  2.35

  206.14

  1987–88

  114.02

  100.09

  37.84

  2.90

  249.05

  1988–89

  127.39

  119.30

  39.78

  3–06

  283.41

  1989–90

  151–48

  135.05

  47.94

  3.68

  330.79

  1990–91

  174.90

  157.81

  56.01

  4.54

  384.18

  1991–92

  212.03

  187.47

  76.32

  3.38

  472.44

  Note: It was not possible to divide legal aid expenditure between the Crown and Appeal courts in each of the past 10 years, therefore higher courts expenditure has been provided instead.

  Criminal Proceedings
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in criminal proceedings over each of the past 10 years(a) what amount of fines have been paid by defendants and (b) what amount of costs have been recovered from defendants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total income from fines, fixed penalties and fees, and the total costs recovered from defendants and others in the last 10 years is set out in the table. The substantial fall in the amount of costs recovered between 1985–86 and 1986–87 followed the establishment of the Crown prosecution service: since 1 April 1986 most orders for costs are in respect of costs payable to the Crown prosecution service.

  Year

  Fines and fees £ million

  Cost recovered £ million

  1982–83

  113

  3.215

  1983–84

  128

  3.379

  1984–85

  124

  3.509

  1985–86

  143

  3.775

  1986–87

  159

  0.057

  1987–88

  185

  0.111

  1988–89

  189

  0.040

  1989–90

  241

  0.044

  1990–91

  269

  0.043

  1991–92

  238

  0.046

  War Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many files relating to war crimes in the Channel Islands during world war two are retained by his Department and withheld from the Public Record Office.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No files relating to war crimes in the Channel islands are retained by my Department.
  576
  10 years; and how that cost divides between (a) magistrates courts, (b) Crown courts, (c) the Appeal court and (d) others.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In each of the past 10 years, the cost to the Exchequer of criminal legal aid, divided between magistrates' courts, higher courts and others, was as follows:

  Court of Protection
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the Court of Protection produces annual reports or any other review of its performance in managing investments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Reviews of investment performance for individual portfolios which need active management will normally be undertaken by the appointed stockbroker or financial adviser. These are examined by the receiver and the court.

  At a more general level, the Lord Chancellor's honorary investment advisory committee meets regularly to review and comment on investment policy.

  Public Trust Office
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set up an inquiry into the way in which the Public Trust Office cares for and protects the assets of people who are, due to mental disorder, incapable of managing their own property and affairs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The work of the Public Trust Office, and in particular the work connected with the administration of the financial affairs of mentally incapacitated adults, is presently, or is shortly to be, the subject of a number of reviews. The office is being reviewed by officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department as part of the Government's next steps initiative. The Comptroller and Auditor General has begun a value for money study of the work the Public Trust Office undertakes in the care and protection of mental patients' assets. In addition, the Law Commission is also undertaking work in this area. In view of these studies I do not believe it would be right, or necessary, to set up a separate inquiry.

  Mentally Incapacitated People
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Law Commission to publish its proposals relating to the adequacy of legal and other procedures for decision-making on behalf of mentally incapacitated adults.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Commission published its consultation paper "Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making: an Overview" on 30 April 1991. That paper produced a large number of responses in the light of which the commission is now considering its future programme of work on this topic and may undertake further consultation before publishing any final proposals.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population Growth
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what specific respects the projected new United Nations Sustainable Development Commission takes account of world population growth.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The details of the Sustainable Development Commission will be considered by the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn. The commission will be looking at all aspects of the follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, of which population growth is an important part.

  Malawi
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to ensure that the humanitarian aid for Malawi is reaching the targeted groups.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The £7 million of United Kingdom bilateral humanitarian aid recently committed to Malawi is being channelled through the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations which have established procedures and the capacity of targeting beneficiaries and for monitoring the effectiveness of aid delivery.

  In Malawi, Her Majesty's Government's representatives are participating in a committee, consisting of the Malawi Government, donors and non-governmental organisations which has been established to monitor the drought situation, including the identification and targeting of those most in need.

  Population Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sums given to (a) the International Planned Parenthood Federation and (b) the United Nations population fund in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:578

  £ thousands

  IPPF

  UNFPA

  1981

  2,150

  2,250

  1982

  2,550

  2,650

  1983

  2,700

  2,700

  1984

  3,000

  3,000

  1985

  4,500

  4,500

  1986

  5,400

  4,500

  1987

  6,000

  5,000

  1988

  5,479

  5,250

  1989

  18,255

  5,500

  1990

  17,488

  26,000

  1991

  7,2623

  7,500

  1 From 1989 onwards the figures include contributions to IPPF Aids unit.

  2 £3 million of 1990 contribution actually paid in February 1991.

  3 Provisional.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what sums have been given to the Chinese Government for the purposes of population control;

  (2) what grants have been given by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund partly or wholly for the purpose of aiding population control programmes in China; and what sums are involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made no bilateral contributions to the Chinese Government for the purposes of population control.

  The International Planned Parenthood Federation is contributing some US$1 million a year in technical and financial support to the non-governmental Family Planning Association of China. The Chinese FPA's programme covers family life and parenting education, including information on the full range of contraceptive methods provided through the Government services, to help increase people's awareness of the choices available to them. It supplies no clinical services.

  The United Nations population fund contributes some US$10 million a year focusing on provision of reliable contraceptives, the extension of maternal and child health care and family planning services, development of special income generating and community development projects to improve the lives and status of rural women, and strengthening population education in schools.

  The British Government do not and will not support coercive approaches to family planning or the use of abortion as a means of contraception: nor do either of these organisations.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the refusal of the United States Government to provide funds for both the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United States Government do not support the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations population fund under its "Mexico City Population Policy" set out in 1984, and the subsequent Kemp-Kasten amendment enacted in 1985. A United States Administration explanation of their policy has been deposited in the Libraries of the House. The United States has not withdrawn from funding
  579
  population programmes worldwide and remains the largest bilateral aid donor for family planning programmes.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value of(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1989–90 overseas aid budgets expressed in 1991–92 price terms.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: Net expenditure on overseas aid expressed in 1991–92 prices was £1,853 million in 1979–80 and £1,738 million in 1989–90.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what share of gross national product has been devoted to overseas aid in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The information is as follows:

  Calendar Year

  Net Official Development Assistance as percentage of GNP

  1979

  0.51

  1980

  0.35

  1981

  0.42

  1982

  0.37

  1983

  0.35

  1984

  0.33

  1985

  0.33

  1986

  0.31

  1987

  0.28

  1988

  0.32

  1989

  0.31

  1990

  0.27

  1991

  0.32

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what share of their gross national product is devoted to overseas aid by each OECD and EC country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: This information is available for countries which are members of the development assistance committee of the OECD, of which 10 are member states of the EC. The latest figures are for 1991:

  Net official development assistance as a percentage of GNP

  Country

  Per cent.

  EC member states

  Belgium

  0.41

  Denmark

  0.96

  France

  10.56

  Germany

  0.40

  Ireland

  0.19

  Italy

  0.25

  Netherlands

  0.88

  Portugal

  0.28

  Spain

  0.23

  United Kingdom

  0.32

  Non-EC member states

  Australia

  0.38

  Austria

  0.34

  Canada

  0£45

  Finland

  0.76

  580

  Country

  Per cent.

  Japan

  0.32

  New Zealand

  0.23

  Norway

  1.14

  Sweden

  0.92

  Switzerland

  0.32

  United States

  0.17

  1 0.80 if assistance to Overseas Departments and Territories is included.

WALES

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money Housing for Wales has invested in the provision of rural housing in each of the last three years; and what proportion that represents of Housing for Wales' overall budget.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Net programme expenditure on rural housing is given in the table:

  Year

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  19.0

  22.5

  1990–91

  23.6

  24.3

  1991–92

  34.7

  28.0

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals were registered under the homeless persons legislation as being homeless in Cynon Valley in each year since 1979; and what was the percentage change in each year on the previous year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Numbers of persons in households accepted as homeless by Cynon Valley borough council under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and part III of the Housing Act 1985 are given in the table:

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless Cynon Valley

  Year

  Number

  Percentage change on previous year

  1979

  898

  —

  1980

  1,018

  13.4

  1981

  965

  -5.2

  1982

  985

  2.1

  1983

  1,207

  22.5

  1984

  959

  -20.5

  1985

  840

  -12.4

  1986

  942

  12.1

  1987

  603

  -36.0

  1988

  710

  17.7

  1989

  530

  -25.4

  1990

  623

  17.5

  1991

  1,017

  63.2

  Council Tax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that districts and boroughs in Wales have received sufficient central Government moneys to enable them to prepare for the council tax; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will fully reimburse the boroughs and districts of Wales their costs on council tax preparations.
  581
  Mr. David Hunt
  My proposals for assisting local authorities in Wales in preparing for the council tax were debated and approved by the House on 24 June.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals have been determined in respect of nurse grading(a) in Wales and (b) in each health authority in Wales, in each month since the current process started; and how many, in each case, were (i) allowed and (ii) disallowed in each month.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in the form requested on numbers of clinical grading appeals determined by employing authorities is not collected centrally. Current available information on total numbers of appeals heard at employing authority level is shown in the table:

  Year

  Month

  Appeals heard

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Failure to agree

  Clwyd

  1990

  October

  12

  —

  1

  11

  1991

  October

  15

  —

  —

  15

  1992

  May

  10

  —

  —

  10

  TOTAL

  37

  —

  1

  36

  East Dyfed

  1990

  November

  8

  —

  —

  8

  1991

  April

  7

  1

  —

  6

  September

  3

  3

  —

  —

  October

  7

  —

  —

  7

  TOTAL

  25

  4

  —

  21

  Gwent

  1990

  April

  6

  3

  —

  3

  1992

  February

  27

  4

  12

  11

  April

  35

  —

  24

  11

  May

  7

  2

  —

  5

  TOTAL

  75

  9

  36

  30

  Gwynedd

  1989

  November

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1990

  January

  5

  2

  —

  3

  April

  10

  4

  —

  6

  May

  12

  1

  —

  11

  August

  15

  3

  —

  12

  1991

  January

  15

  6

  1

  8

  April

  7

  4

  1

  2

  June

  10

  8

  —

  2

  August

  13

  4

  1

  8

  TOTAL

  89

  32

  3

  54

  Mid Glamorgan

  1991

  June

  11

  —

  —

  11

  October

  8

  4

  4

  —

  1992

  April

  9

  3

  2

  4

  TOTAL

  28

  7

  6

  15

  Powys

  1990

  May

  12

  9

  —

  3

  1991

  February

  7

  4

  —

  3

  1992

  April

  9

  2

  1

  6

  TOTAL

  28

  15

  1

  12

  South Glamorgan

  1990

  October

  8

  —

  —

  8

  1991

  January

  15

  —

  2

  13

  July

  2

  —

  —

  2

  582

  Health authority

  Appeals heard

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Clwyd

  355

  99

  256

  East Dyfed

  278

  80

  198

  Gwent

  710

  86

  624

  Gwynedd

  704

  54

  650

  Mid Glamorgan

  531

  64

  467

  Pembrokeshire

  85

  13

  72

  Powys

  578

  312

  266

  South Glamorgan

  670

  84

  586

  West Glamorgan

  293

  17

  276

  WALES

  4,204

  809

  3,395

  Other appeals have been withdrawn or conceded without a formal hearing.

  At the Welsh appeals committee—regional—level 345 appeals have been dealt with and are as follows:
  583

  Year

  Month

  Appeals heard

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Failure to agree

  1992

  May

  1

  —

  —

  1

  TOTAL

  26

  —

  2

  24

  West Glamorgan

  1990

  September

  5

  2

  —

  3

  1991

  March

  19

  —

  —

  19

  July

  5

  —

  —

  5

  August

  4

  1

  1

  2

  1992

  February

  2

  1

  —

  1

  March

  2

  1

  1

  —

  TOTAL

  37

  5

  2

  30

  At the national, negotiating council level, six Welsh appeals have been heard and are as follows:

  Health authority

  Appeals heard

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Failure to agree

  East Dyfed April 1991

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Gwent January 1991

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Powys April 1991

  4

  —

  —

  4

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will he made publicly available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality" Cm. 1730, targets for the market testing programme will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total cost so far of the market testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The estimated cost to date is £76,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result a the market testing programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The purpose of the market testing programme is to test by competition the value for money represented by the present arrangements for undertaking non-core activities and thus to identify and introduce more effective arrangements. We have made no estimate of likely savings because no pre-emptive judgment has been made of the relative efficiency of the present arrangements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cardiac Surgery
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in tabular form the number of patients sent for cardiac surgery by the several health and social service boards to hospitals outwith Northern Ireland in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures for 1991–92 and the current year to date are as follows:
  584

  Year

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  1991–92

  8

  5

  7

  24

  1992–93

  4

  3

  7

  nil

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively, and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Mates
  The information requested is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Civil Service (1)

  Home Civil Service (2)

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  2

  0

  —

  0

  —

  3

  1

  2.4

  0

  —

  4

  0

  —

  0

  —

  5

  14

  7.4

  0

  —

  6

  60

  17.2

  0

  —

  7

  81

  9.7

  4

  20

  OVERALL

  12,661

  43

  106

  50

  Notes: 1. As at 1 January 1992.

  2. As at 1 June 1992.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is target for special protection area designation under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds during 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  Two. These are Swan island, Larne lough, Co. Antrim, which was designated on 10 March 1992 and Sheep island off the north Antrim coast, which will be designated later this year.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff in his Department and of
  585
  what grades are engaged (a) full time and (b) part time, in preparing designations of special protection areas under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds.

  Mr. Atkins
  While there are no staff engaged full time in preparing designations of special protection areas, a portion of time is spent by the following on this work:

  Grade

  Number of individuals

  Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  Senior Scientific Officer

  2

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  Scientific Officer

  4

  Principal Officer

  1

  Deputy Principal

  1

  Staff Officer

  1

  Executive Officer I

  1

  Executive Officer II

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Board

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Belfast

  675

  675

  675

  675

  675

  675

  700

  700

  700

  700

  Western

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  North-Eastern

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  725

  South-Eastern

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  500

  475

  475

  475

  475

  Southern

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  525

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide additional funding for education and library boards to increase provision of nursery school places in Northern Ireland to the same level as nursery provision in England.

  Mr. Hanley
  Government recognise the value of nursery education but limitations on resources for school building, and the need to give priority to provision for children of compulsory school age, have meant that only limited expansion of nursery provision has been possible in recent years. I can offer no immediate prospect of change.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Mates
  As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality" departmental targets for market testing in 1992–93 will be announced later in the year.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Mates
  Information on the total cost of the initiative is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Mates
  No such estimate has been made

  Cyclists (Helmets)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make the wearing of helmets compulsory for child cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. However, it is Government policy to encourage all cyclists to wear helmets and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland's ongoing programme of promoting cycle training for primary school children is designed to raise the child's awareness of the potential dangers of cycling on the road and to encourage the wearing of cycle helmets.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nursery school places were provided by each education and library board in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The full-time equivalent pupil places provided in controlled nursery schools, by each education and library board, were as follows:—

  Health and Social Service Boards
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the perceived religious affiliation of the executive and non-executive directors of each of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: Information is available only on the perceived religious affiliation of executive directors which is as follows:

  Health and Social Services Board

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Not Known

  Eastern

  2

  3

  —

  Northern

  5

  —

  1

  Southern

  2

  3

  1

  Western

  1

  2

  1

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the perceived religious affiliation of persons working in each of the health and social services hoard planning sections in Northern Ireland by grade.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The perceived religious affiliation of persons working in each of the health and social services boards planning section is as follows:

  Health and Social Services Board

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Not Known

  Eastern

  11

  16

  5

  Northern

  16

  4

  1

  Southern

  4

  7

  —

  Western

  4

  4

  —

  It would not be appropriate to break these down by grade.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what submissions have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Secretary-General following the Security Council's summit initiative of 31 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary-General's report on peacemaking, peacekeeping, and preventive diplomacy which was commissioned by the Security Council summit of 31 January is now available. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The 12 member states of the European Community submitted a paper on preventive diplomacy as their contribution to the Secretary-General's work.

  Punjab and Kashmir
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India about human rights in Punjab and Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Both bilaterally and with our European Community partners we have raised our concerns about human rights with the Indian Government on some 17 occasions over the last 12 months. I raised this with the Indian High Commissioner in May, and our High Commissioner did so with the Indian Home Affairs Minister in New Delhi in early June.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to the Indian Government on the question of self-determination for Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We take every opportunity of impressing on the Government of India the need for a political process in Kashmir, which will allow the aspirations of its population to be expressed.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the relations between the British Government and the Government of Azad Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We maintain working contacts with the authorities of Azad Kashmir, as with the authorities of Jammu and Kashmir.

  South Africa
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the parties to the Conference for a Democratic South Africa talks in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I indicated earlier, we maintain a close dialogue with all the parties in South Africa.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet representatives of the African National Congress to discuss the situation in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already been in contact with both Mr.588
  Mandela and President de Klerk. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey saw Mr. Walter Sisulu. deputy president of the ANC on 26 June, and Mr. Frank Mdlalose, chairman of Inkatha Freedom party on 19 June.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Republic of South Africa in the light of the Conference for a Democratic South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before the negotiations were suspended CODESA had achieved remarkable progress in agreement on transforming South Africa into a non-racial democratic society. We are deeply concerned about the recent escalation of violence and the tragic loss of life at Boipatong.

  We note the South African Government's determination to bring to justice those responsible. We believe that the interests of the majority of South Africans are best served by concerted efforts to get negotiations back on track as soon as possible. The South African Government's enormous strides towards representative democracy and considerable progress already achieved at CODESA show that negotiations work.

  NATO Information Budget
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation information budget for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The NATO information budget for this year is about £3 million, to which the United Kingdom will contribute about £570,000.

  The information budget pays for programmes which complement NATO members' national efforts to explain defence policy, and for programmes to spread NATO's message of dialogue, co-operation and collective security in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  European Community
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss developments in the European Community.

  Mr. Hurd
  I met the President of the Commission and other Commissioners this morning to discuss the programme for the United Kingdom presidency of the Community. There will be further meetings from time to time.

  Middle East
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met the Israeli ambassador in February; we are in frequent contact with the Israeli Government at ministerial level to discuss the peace process.

  Japan
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to strengthen the European Community's relations with Japan during the United Kingdom presidency.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We shall be looking to strengthen economic, political and technical co-operation with Japan, building on the 1991 EC-Japan joint declaration. This will be an important theme of the meeting which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission will have with the Japanese Prime Minister in London on 4 July.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to meet the Prime Minister of Japan to discuss avenues for mutual co-operation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will meet the Prime Minister of Japan in London on the morning of 4 July at the EC-Japan summit. This will be followed by bilateral talks between the British and Japanese Prime Ministers. We intend to use the opportunity to develop further our already close bilateral relationship with Japan and to strengthen co-operation between the EC and Japan.

  Cyprus
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will encourage the United Nations to help maintain the archaeological heritage located in the north of Cyprus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do so.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the principal objectives of the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Council.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom aims to run an efficient presidency. We shall pursue discussions on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Key themes will include the completion of the single market, the future financing negotiations, the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round and developing relations with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the objectives of the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.
  590
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom aims to run an efficient presidency. We will pursue discussions on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Key themes will include the completion of the single market, the future financing negotiations, preparations for enlargement negotiations, the successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round and developing relations with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the steps and initiatives he has taken to ensure redundant nuclear bomb-making material is properly stored, guarded and accounted for in eastern bloc countries.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The security of fissile material from ex-Soviet nuclear weapons is the responsibility of the Russian Government. However, we and our NATO allies have made clear that we are ready to help in various aspects of eliminating surplus nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. As part of a wider programme of assistance, the United Kingdom has offered to advise on the safe handling, storage and conversion of fissile material. We also continue to emphasise the importance we attach to early accession to the non-proliferation treaty and application of IAEA safeguards to nuclear materials by all non-Russian republics.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has held concerning the definition of subsidiarity in the context of the Maastricht agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the conclusions of the meeting of the European Council held at Lisbon on 26 and 27 June, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held on the proposed EC committee of the regions.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The committee of the regions cannot be established before the entry into force of the treaty on European union. The Government are considering the nomination of the 24 United Kingdom members.

  Guyana
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to monitor the forthcoming elections in Guyana.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Guyanese Government have invited the Carter centre and Commonwealth secretariat to send observer teams to monitor the forthcoming general election. Diplomats accredited to Guyana will also be permitted access to all stages of the electoral process.

  Angola
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to aid the electoral processes in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are providing bilateral assistance totalling £270,000 in support of the United Nations development programme's special project of assistance to the electoral process in Angola.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong to discuss the future of the colony.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit Hong Kong again fairly soon.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of people in Hong Kong eligible to register to vote at the recent election; and what was the percentage of those eligible to register to vote who did vote for each of the parties and groups standing for election.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 30 June 1992.]: The total number of people in Hong Kong eligible to vote in the Legislative Council elections of September 1991 was 3.7 million, of whom 1.9 million registered. The turnout for the 18 directly elected seats was 39 per cent. of those registered to vote. The votes were distributed between the parties as follows:

  Per cent.

  United Democrats

  45.14

  Meeting Point

  7.20

  Liberal Democratic Federation

  5.09

  Association for Democracy and Peoples Livelihood

  4.44

  Federation of Trade Unions

  3.28

  Hong Kong Citizen Forum

  2.18

  Kwun Tong Man Chung Friendship Promotion Association

  1.55

  Hong Kong Democratic Foundation

  1.44

  New Hong Kong Alliance

  0.87

  Independent Liberal Candidates

  9.35

  Other Groups and Independent Candidates

  19.43

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Public Security Bureau of China was invited to have an official presence in Hong Kong; what are the remit and jurisdictions of the Public Security Bureau in Hong Kong;592
  how many staff are employed in the Hong Kong office of the Public Security Bureau; to whom they are accountable within the Government of Hong Kong; what access the Public Security Bureau will have to information held by the Hong Kong police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  An agreement between the Royal Hong Kong Police (RHKP) and the Chinese Ministry of Public Security (PSB) to send one to three liaison officers to Hong Kong was announced on 9 May 1992. The aim is to enable quicker and more effective co-operation on criminal matters, particularly violent crime and smuggling, which is causing serious public concern in Hong Kong. As with the eight other countries with police liaison officers in Hong Kong, the PSB liaison officers will have no jurisdiction, constabulary powers or operational role. They will have no automatic access to information held by the RHKP.

  Malawi
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of Malawi in order to dicuss progress towards democracy in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey met President Banda of Malawi during a private visit to the United Kingdom on 29 May last year. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also met President Banda during the course of his visit.

  Switzerland
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Switzerland.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have excellent relations with the Swiss, who are, not least, important trading partners. We have welcomed Switzerland's application to join the European Community, and during our EC presidency will work towards the opening of formal accession negotiations as soon as possible.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the bilateral and multilateral agreements negotiated between the United Kingdom and Switzerland since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ten bilateral agreements have been negotiated between the United Kingdom and Switzerland since 1979. In the same period, 136 multilateral agreements were signed or accepted by the United Kingdom and Switzerland or accepted by the United Kingdom on behalf of dependent territories.

  Copies of computer printouts giving basic details of the agreements have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 208–9, what information he has on bilateral and multilateral agreements between the United Kingdom and Switzerland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has records of 123 bilateral agreements with Switzerland since the early 1800s. There are also records of well over 2,000 multilateral agreements to which the
  593
  United Kingdom is a party. All would need to be checked to ascertain Swiss involvement. This could not be done except at disproportionate cost.

  Croatia
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We established diplomatic relations with the Republic of Croatia on 24 June and hope to name the first British ambassador at Zagreb shortly.

  Israel
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We look forward to cooperating with the new Israeli Government when it is formed. There are important new opportunities in the peace process and we shall of course encourage Israel to make the best of these.

  Lebanese Hostages
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the Lebanese hostages, including Sheikh Obeid, held without trial and contrary to United Nations resolutions; and if he will initiate action to obtain their release.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcomed the release of the last western hostages. Although that particular episode is closed, we shall continue to call for the release of all those held outside the due process of law. We hope that we shall also see an accounting for those hostages who have died while in captivity.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No such estimate has been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The cost of the market testing initiative since November 1991 has been £10,600 in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and £15,000 in the Overseas Development Administration. These figures do not include staff costs incurred so far. I intend, however, to monitor the full costs, including staff costs, of implementing the market testing programme.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.
  594
  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 16 June 1992,Official Report, col. 491.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact or communication he or his officials have had with representatives of RENAMO.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom officials have contact with RENAMO through the forum of the joint verification commission in Maputo, of which we are members, and in our capacity as observers at the Rome peace talks. In March we began contact with RENAMO leader, Dhlakama, at senior official level in recognition of a more positive attitude by RENAMO to the peace talks in Rome, which we hope will continue. There will be no Ministerial contact with RENAMO until the negotiations have advanced considerably.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made since 1979 to the Mozambican Government about the abuse of human rights in the parts of Mozambique under its control.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There continue to be human rights abuses in Mozambique. We have discussed human rights with the Government of Mozambique on several occasions since 1979 notably when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the matter with President Chissano during his visit to Mozambique in October 1991. We have also raised RENAMO's human rights record with RENAMO.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively, and overall in his Office are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 4 June at column 638.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available;

  (2) what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991;

  (3) what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 29 June at column 366.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Manchester, Wythenshawe constituency qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  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 with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates and in what parts of the Manchester, Wythenshawe constituency the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in the Manchester, Wythenshawe constituency in response to a forecast of a qualifying period: and what were the periods taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total cost so far of the market testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total cost of the market testing initiative in the Department since November 1991 is estimated as some £215,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market testing programme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No estimate of the savings has been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992 at column 102.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount in allocated social fund budgets which was unspent by local DSS offices in each year of its operation expressed in(a) cash terms, (b) cash terms at 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of the gross social fund budget; if he will list the number of local DSS offices involved; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.
  596
  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: Information expressed in 1990–91 prices is in the tables. Real term figures have been calculated using the current GDP deflater and may alter. The balance of information requested is in the Library.

  Unspent budget allocations March 19891

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  London North

  Acton

  6,306.29

  Aylesbury

  80,590.18

  Banbury

  14,753.09

  Barking

  219,102.32

  Barnet

  15,940.20

  Basildon

  215,837.58

  Bedford

  131,395.48

  Braintree

  88,666.25

  Bury St. Edmunds

  65,785.69

  Cambridge

  82,201.89

  Chelmsford

  74,383.52

  Clacton-on-sea

  50,441.81

  Colchester

  28,300.55

  Cricklewood

  90,110.61

  Diss

  32,640.34

  Dunstable

  78,642.68

  Edgware

  48,362.54

  Euston

  144,121.49

  Finsbury Park

  282,621.88

  Grays

  18,661.49

  Great Yarmouth

  4,274.77

  Hackney

  360,632.04

  Harlow

  80,615.06

  Harrow

  116,578.60

  Hemel Hempstead

  88,373.29

  Hertford

  15,590.48

  High Wycombe

  110,389.87

  Hoxton

  152,035.05

  Ilford

  260,556.06

  Ipswich

  17,033.91

  King's Lynn

  70,722.93

  London, Plaistow

  130,560.60

  London, Canning Town

  82,543.50

  London, Ealing

  36,436.88

  London, Edmonton

  68,083.68

  London, Harlesden

  301,049.73

  London, Hendon

  72,822.98

  London, Highgate

  97,713.47

  London, Leytonstone

  198,533.79

  London, Notting Hill

  88,440.82

  London, Paddington

  13,989.45

  London, Poplar

  89,898.43

  London, Stoke Newington

  126,653.96

  London, Tottenham

  99,221.48

  London, Woodgrange Park

  233,778.29

  London, Wood Green

  13,958.58

  Lowestoft

  27,066.17

  Luton

  112,648.46

  Milton Keynes

  103,030.33

  Neasden

  384,270.02

  Norwich Chantry

  111,822.03

  Norwich Mountergate

  156,155.75

  Oxford

  306,933.37

  Peterborough

  229,241.08

  Romford

  48,101.96

  Shoreditch

  34,722.72

  Southall

  155,898.26

  Southend on Sea

  49,868.28

  St, Albans

  16.096.90

  Stepney

  431.48

  Stevenage

  89,179.70

  Thames North

  10,381.90

  Uxbridge

  50,121.20

  Walthamstow

  37,396.82

  Watford

  44,697.42

  Total

  6,667,417.45

  Percentage of Gross Expenditure

  2.88

  597

  Unspent budget allocations March 19891

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  London South

  Aldershot

  141,830.87

  Andover

  15,421.22

  Ashford

  16,469.04

  Basingstoke

  55,412.83

  Bexley

  57,140.72

  Bloomsbury

  121,860.74

  Bognor Regis

  60.076.41

  Bracknell

  77,711.06

  Brighton

  3,151.27

  Bromley

  69,109.22

  Canterbury

  1,931.48

  Chatham

  104,381.80

  Chichester

  45,589.28

  Crawley

  58,581.04

  Croydon

  131,748.94

  Dartford

  23,097.25

  Dover

  56,839.72

  Eastbourne

  165,710.72

  Eltham

  19,622.88

  Epsom

  57,275.22

  Fareham

  64,768.42

  Folkestone

  47,312.06

  Gravesend

  34,721.81

  Greenwich Park

  326,155.96

  Guildford

  79,382.01

  Hastings

  44,905.66

  Havant

  91,164.18

  Hither Green

  86,737.56

  Hounslow

  180,097.95

  Hove

  93,615.35

  Isle of Wight

  83,272.76

  Kingston

  104,499.83

  Lewes

  64,394.47

  London City

  65,292.47

  London Woolwich

  179,412.11

  London Balham

  131,866.88

  London Battersea

  112,596.36

  London Brixton

  211,860.73

  London Camberwell

  234,640.59

  London Chelsea

  128,886.37

  London Crystal Palace

  234,011.38

  London Kennington Park

  43.699.96

  London Kensington

  70.089.03

  London Lewisham

  446.414.86

  London Oval

  214,853.58

  London Peckham

  133,643.42

  London Southwark

  158,754.13

  London Streatham

  265,308.90

  London Thames South

  39,998.09

  London Wandsworth

  146,407.73

  London Westminster

  87,316.77

  London Wimbledon

  124,869.75

  Maidstone

  60,051.80

  Mitcham

  4,241.53

  New Forest

  97,570.38

  New Malden

  58,082.10

  Newbury

  65,290.34

  Orpington

  44,718.35

  Portsmouth North

  7,595.25

  Portsmouth South

  893.73

  Reading

  326,265.35

  Redhill

  78,231.33

  Rochester

  60,866.19

  Sittingbourne

  95,097.99

  Slough

  91,250.60

  Southampton

  245,951.58

  Sutton

  47,968.82

  Thanet

  6,969.10

  Tunbridge Wells

  52,376.03

  Twickenham

  69,948.49

  Winchester

  54,172.39

  Woking

  82,220.70

  Worthing

  105,393.91

  598

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Total

  7,269,068.81

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  3.14

  Unspent Budget allocations March 19891

  Total (90–91 prices)

  MIDLANDS

  Birmingham Bradford Street

  162,392.26

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  75,457.63

  Birmingham Erdington

  56,152.10

  Birmingham Handsworth

  187,775.74

  Birmingham Ladywood

  260.16

  Birmingham Northfield

  15,753.36

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  99,199.34

  Birmingham Ravenhurst

  43,317.40

  Birmingham South Yardley

  53,261.19

  Birmingham Sparkhill

  67,418.40

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  112,287.96

  Boston

  71,245.04

  Burton on Trent

  1,828.43

  Cannock

  95,927.63

  Chesterfield

  36,114.61

  Corby

  54,398.57

  Coventry East

  187,399.11

  Coventry West

  235,568.39

  Derby Beckct Street

  16,140.55

  Derby Heritage Gate

  38,704.18

  Derby London Road

  64,569.55

  Dudley North

  124,267.56

  Dudley South

  90,654.75

  Grantham

  76,780.33

  Hereford

  79,945.30

  Ilkeston

  58,496.14

  Kidderminster

  117,144.74

  Leamington Spa

  34,343.01

  Leicester Burleys Way

  71,394.24

  Leicester Lower Hill Street

  80,058.20

  Leicester Norton Street

  238,839.90

  Leicester Yeoman Street

  263,214.72

  Lichfield

  200,457.85

  Lincoln Newland

  60,348.73

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  61,459.63

  Loughborough

  87,113.24

  Mansfield

  106,868.35

  Newcastle (Staffordshire)

  94,425.05

  Northampton

  218,005.95

  Nottingham, Castlegate

  9,943.62

  Nottingham. David Lane

  22,071.93

  Nottingham, Shakespeare Street

  55,789.51

  Nottingham. Station Street

  26,175.93

  Nuneaton

  95,172. 27

  Redditch

  58,031.38

  Rugby.

  54,354.43

  Shrewsbury

  155,443.85

  Skegness

  17,005.20

  Smethwick

  251,426.45

  Stafford

  48,703.34

  Stoke on Trent, North

  17,391.60

  Stoke on Trent, South

  15,801.54

  Sutton in Ashfield

  40,761.79

  Telford

  129,292.79

  Walsall, East

  27,267.73

  Walsall. West

  63,667.77

  Wellingborough

  183,950.35

  West Bromwich

  155,781.09

  Wolverhampton, North

  173,721.73

  Wolverhampton, South

  203,932.31

  Worcester

  65,031.56

  Worksop

  59,759.94

  Total

  5,669,467.36

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  2.45

  599

  Unspent budget allocations March 19891

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  North East

  Ashington

  37,618.36

  Barnsley East

  161,184.59

  Barnsley West

  219,795.31

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  818.33

  Bishop Auckland

  155,397.65

  Blyth

  28,403.39

  Bradford East

  13,376.96

  Bradford South

  80,353.97

  Bradford West

  106,011.16

  Bridlington

  25,979.76

  Castleford

  32,272.34

  Chester le Street

  31,466.07

  Darlington

  257,074.16

  Dewsbury

  51,973.37

  Doncaster East

  0.00

  Doncaster West

  199,368.84

  Durham

  42,663.63

  Eston

  78,236.66

  Gateshead

  125,795.01

  Goole

  27,776.20

  Grimsby

  190,962.62

  Halifax

  4,639.20

  Harrogate

  130,845.93

  Hartlepool

  81,652.39

  Hemsworth

  30,387.48

  Hexham

  28,960.29

  Houghton le Spring

  32,416.35

  Huddersfield

  72,282.12

  Hull East

  13,235.29

  Hull West

  57,684.01

  Jarrow

  134,608.70

  Keighley

  293.31

  Leeds East

  38,203.56

  Leeds North

  141,042.95

  Leeds North West

  35,520.31

  Leeds South

  27,543.17

  Leeds West

  87,635.54

  Middlesbrough

  93,022.51

  Newcastle East

  72,955.10

  Newcastle St, James

  80,191.49

  Newcastle West

  41,946.71

  North Shields

  93,016.47

  Northallerton

  42,404.69

  Peterlee

  1,101.56

  Pontefract

  11,336.86

  Redcar

  14,007.31

  Rotherham North

  14,490.57

  Rotherham South

  7,741.53

  Scarborough

  48,025.73

  Scunthorpe

  100,572.64

  Seaham

  63.23

  Sheffield North East

  263,441.84

  Sheffield North West

  156,827.09

  Sheffield South East

  37,752.02

  Sheffield South West

  263,230.45

  Skipton

  13,009.69

  South Shields

  18,727.67

  Stanley

  55,570.63

  Stockton

  8,990.73

  Sunderland North

  293,984.87

  Sunderland South

  125,092.99

  Wakefield

  4,490.30

  Wallsend

  58,114.23

  Wath on Dearne

  99,577.23

  York

  25,067.05

  Total

  4,828,232.14

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  2.08

  600

  Unspent budget allocations March 1989

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  North West

  Accrington

  96,496.92

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  17,192.01

  Barrow in Furness

  8,380.65

  Birkenhead North

  39,540.92

  Birkenhead South

  17,755.27

  Blackburn

  82,642.80

  Blackpool North

  39,991.21

  Blackpool South

  71,049.35

  Bolton

  144,093.39

  Burnley

  105,496.24

  Bury

  237,268.30

  Buxton

  6,970.04

  Carlisle

  16,589.48

  Chester

  51,936.89

  Crewe

  50,962.48

  Ellesmere Port

  85,301.84

  Farnworth

  40,471.73

  Hyde

  121,494.40

  Kendal

  32,732.06

  Lancaster

  82,652.03

  Leigh

  38,342.41

  Liverpool City

  95,731.89

  Liverpool Bootle

  223,251.10

  Liverpool Breckfield

  114,805.53

  Liverpool Crosby

  51,411.49

  Liverpool Edgehill

  95,228.61

  Liverpool Garston

  68,475.13

  Liverpool Huyton

  133,406.71

  Liverpool Kirkby

  219,063.10

  Liverpool Norris Green

  86,339.71

  Liverpool Toxteth

  283,089.90

  Liverpool West Derby

  23,299.57

  Liverpool Belle Vale

  30,644.62

  Macclesfield

  34,946.82

  Manchester Cheetham

  7,064.76

  Manchester Middleton

  50,060.27

  Manchester Sale

  28,026.29

  Manchester Central

  4,610.57

  Manchester Chorlton

  27,600.87

  Manchester Failsworth

  68,012.48

  Manchester Longsight

  83,596.34

  Manchester Openshaw

  63,071.84

  Manchester Rusholme

  102,663.05

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  60,559.14

  Northwich

  85,852.71

  Oldham

  8,358.16

  Penrith

  11,712.63

  Preston North

  44,668.85

  Preston South

  42,095.03

  Rochdale

  56,118.68

  Rossendale

  26,214.30

  Salford North

  1,145.62

  Salford South

  4,988.05

  Skelmersdale

  87,125.53

  Southport

  99,402.68

  St, Helens

  153,644.24

  Stockport North

  86,104.58

  Stockport South

  91,359.80

  Wallasey

  125,265.79

  Warrington

  189,997.30

  Whitehaven

  7,472.23

  Widnes

  91,753.32

  Wigan

  3,691.99

  Wilmslow

  7,293.44

  Workington

  24,937.17

  Total

  4,591,522.26

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  1.98

  601

  Unspent budget allocations March 19891

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Scotland

  Aberdeen North

  45,855.42

  Aberdeen South

  84,118.30

  Airdrie

  214,078.65

  Arbroath

  7,396.19

  Ayr

  324,067.42

  Bathgate

  163,635.15

  Bellshill

  212,547.06

  Campbeltown

  5,928.41

  Clydebank

  198,311.14

  Coatbridge

  184,215.93

  Cowdenbeath

  484.81

  Cumbernauld

  141,383.08

  Dumbarton

  146,653.49

  Dumfries

  46,500.19

  Dundee East

  61,905.22

  Dundee West

  60,615.12

  Dunfermline

  44,388.74

  East Kilbride

  150,950.31

  Edinburgh East

  33,549.20

  Edinburgh City

  118,248.50

  Edinburgh North

  77,449.01

  Edinburgh South

  140,413.71

  Edinburgh West

  98,371.04

  Elgin

  52,931.68

  Falkirk

  299,868.39

  Fort William

  7,941.85

  Galashiels

  12,087.94

  Glasgow Anniesland

  258,666.67

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  11,807.89

  Glasgow City

  327,002.88

  Glasgow Craigton

  251,561.87

  Glasgow Cranstonhill

  41,461.25

  Glasgow Laurieston

  428,839.28

  Glasgow Maryhill

  392,656.97

  Glasgow Partick

  107,441.01

  Glasgow Provan

  10,701.95

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  302,137.42

  Glasgow Shettleston

  549,290.93

  Glasgow South-side

  202,166.36

  Glasgow Springburn

  367,953.94

  Greenock

  381,083.17

  Hamilton

  639,278.12

  Inverness

  36,778.53

  Irvine

  264,014.54

  Johnstone

  72,842.06

  Kilmarnock

  207,725.57

  Kirkcaldy

  112,260.38

  Lerwick

  8,644.25

  Leven

  41,599.61

  Motherwell

  218,426.97

  Oban

  32,447.83

  Paisley

  310,395.01

  Perth

  46,887.07

  Peterhead

  6,420.68

  Port Glasgow

  226,471.03

  Stirling

  87,660.41

  Stornoway

  7,514.19

  Stranraer

  5,208.74

  Wick

  26,891.94

  Total

  8,918,134.49

  Percentage of Gross Expenditure

  3.85

  Unspent budget allocations March 19891

  Wales and SW

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Aberdare

  3,874.61

  Abertillery

  18,139.98

  Aberystwyth

  29,184.36

  Ammanford

  3,211.44

  Anglesey

  49,220.68

  Bargoed

  54,746.60

  602

  Wales and SW

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Barnstaple

  45,793.72

  Barry

  28,961.90

  Bath

  94,849.17

  Blackwood

  37,512.64

  Bournemouth

  84,050.46

  Bridgend

  7,473.76

  Bridgwater

  45,220.42

  Bristol Central

  49,781.01

  Bristol East

  57,945.61

  Bristol Horfield

  49,689.81

  Bristol South

  84,518.20

  Bristol West

  33,488.62

  Caernarfon

  4,328.37

  Caerphilly

  23,039.75

  Cardiff Central

  14,789.98

  Cardiff East

  25,899.38

  Cardiff West

  6,773.73

  Carmarthen

  1,686.90

  Cheltenham

  56,556.94

  Chippenham

  412.99

  Colwyn Bay

  55,835.97

  Cymbran

  70,928.53

  Deeside

  144.38

  Ebbw Vale

  54,208.68

  Exeter

  88,499.28

  Gloucester

  989,829.26

  Haverfordwest

  17,040.91

  Launceston

  41,026.78

  Llanelli

  57,361.45

  Merthyr Tydfil

  71,325.15

  Morriston

  27,039.94

  Neath

  26,532.93

  Newport Gwent

  25,016.66

  Newtown

  38,865.14

  Pembroke Dock

  3,079.09

  Penzance

  157,064.52

  Plymouth

  112,958.30

  Plymouth Crownhill

  5,154.75

  Pontypridd

  3,001.50

  Poole

  135,552.50

  Port Talbot

  466.17

  Porth

  22,258.35

  Porthmadog

  30,715.94

  Rhyl

  5,203.17

  Salisbury

  3,576.33

  St, Austell

  82,298.44

  Stroud

  37,938.85

  Swansea

  0.00

  Swindon

  21,725.94

  Taunton

  105,840.59

  Tonypandy

  43,664.01

  Torbay

  281,194.59

  Trowbridge

  3,643.86

  Truro

  93,520.77

  Weston-Super-Mare

  33,367.49

  Weymouth

  52,272.21

  Wrexham

  82,275.93

  Yeovil

  24,593.25

  Total

  3,816,172.65

  Percentage of Gross Expenditure

  1.65

  Grand Total

  29,027,827.46

  Percentage of Gross Expenditure

  12.52

  Note: Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  London North

  Acton

  28,439.12

  Aylesbury

  17,889.19

  Banbury

  1,756.57

  Barking

  15,324.56

  603

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Barnet

  8,058.75

  Basildon

  83,143.63

  Bedford

  16,838.47

  Braintree

  1,098.99

  Bury St, Edmunds

  7,555.72

  Cambridge

  38,185.48

  Chelmsford

  0.00

  Clacton-on-Sea

  1,362.72

  Colchester

  433.85

  Cricklewood

  24,133.37

  Diss

  10,666.45

  Dunstable

  25,288.92

  Edgware

  49.63

  Euston

  0.00

  Finsbury Park

  12,276.56

  Grays

  17,164.75

  Great Yarmouth

  85.33

  Hackney

  70,321.00

  Harlow

  39,742.27

  Harrow

  29,298.29

  Hemel Hempstead

  55,333.27

  Hertford

  5,109.39

  High Wycombe

  15,517.98

  Hoxton

  2,416.57

  Ilford

  41,481.74

  Ipswich

  1.45

  King's Lynn

  431.48

  London Plaistow

  319.73

  London Canning Town

  332.61

  London Ealing

  8,210.35

  London Edmonton

  161.34

  London Harlesden

  33,808.55

  London Hendon

  5,650.20

  London Highgate

  302.04

  London Leytonstone

  26,608.76

  London Notting Hill

  5,971.81

  London Paddington

  20,422.16

  London Poplar

  15,120.34

  London Stoke Newington

  5,700.64

  London Tottenham

  48,932.04

  London Woodgrange Park

  21.90

  London Wood Green

  85.36

  Lowestoft

  16,882.58

  Luton

  9,143.76

  Milton Keynes

  3,781.56

  Neasden

  12,634.85

  Norwich Chantry

  14,174.75

  Norwich Mountergate

  54,837.25

  Oxford

  39,040.15

  Peterborough

  1,169.06

  Romford

  42.97

  St, Albans

  5,593.43

  Shoreditch

  1,568.47

  Southall

  4,799.06

  Southend on Sea

  1,557.60

  Stepney

  4,871.05

  Stevenage

  846.99

  Thames North

  4,186.74

  Uxbridge

  302.04

  Walthamstow

  724.13

  Watford

  4,643.37

  Total

  921,853.15

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.36

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  London South

  Aldershot

  84,443.85

  Andover

  1,018.93

  Ashford

  6,032.86

  Basingstoke

  11,449.36

  604

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Bexley

  65,887.98

  Bloomsbury

  59,650.21

  Bognor Regis

  5,339.02

  Bracknell

  8,998.47

  Brighton

  5,059.13

  Bromley

  3,873.48

  Canterbury

  2,636.31

  Chatham

  79,726.92

  Chichester

  4.86

  Crawley

  2,285.44

  Croydon

  5,915.00

  Dartford

  10,850.06

  Dover

  8,791.21

  Eastbourne

  50,820.82

  Eltham

  0.00

  Epsom

  12,056.83

  Fareham

  13,209.00

  Folkestone

  9,933.17

  Gravesend

  2,049.35

  Greenwich Park

  22,214.37

  Guildford

  28,331.25

  Hastings

  18,179.24

  Havant

  20,478.88

  Hither Green

  0.00

  Hounslow

  5,313.57

  Hove

  2,665.05

  Isle of Wight

  55.60

  Kingston

  47,130.77

  Lewes

  8,915.93

  London City

  16,418.64

  London Woolwich

  26,310.01

  London Balham

  0.00

  London Battersea

  113.25

  London Brixton

  79,499.76

  London Camberwell

  22,762.94

  London Chelsea

  1,579.53

  London Crystal Palace

  8,972.36

  London Kennington Park

  593.91

  London Kensington

  15,612.86

  London Lewisham

  25,422.82

  London Oval

  0.83

  London Peckham

  6,764.11

  London Southwark

  1,317.97

  London Streatham

  38,937.81

  London Thames South

  10,813.31

  London Wandsworth

  2.99

  London Westminster

  25,161.53

  London Wimbledon

  4,859.68

  Maidstone

  3.81

  Mitcham

  4,731.59

  New Forest

  15,918.18

  New Malden

  35,089.54

  Newbury

  25,403.72

  Orpington

  6,886.92

  Portsmouth North

  519.53

  Portsmouth South

  7.84

  Reading

  51,168.66

  Redhill

  2,169.57

  Sittingbourne

  128.84

  Slough

  4,175.39

  Southampton

  25,089.93

  Sutton

  30.77

  Thanet

  1,776.75

  Tunbridge Wells

  14,760.11

  Twickenham

  31,753.84

  Winchester

  21,476.79

  Woking

  26,134.11

  Worthing

  9,368.22

  Total

  1,165,055.32

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.45

  605

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Midlands

  Birmingham Bradford St,

  7,668.77

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  3,727.60

  Birmingham Erdington

  19,842.32

  Birmingham Handsworth

  14,568.67

  Birmingham Ladywood

  849.77

  Birmingham Northfield

  4.52

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  10,030.94

  Birmingham Ravenhurst

  9,624.62

  Birmingham South Yardley

  3,754.46

  Birmingham Sparkhill

  5,299.82

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  2,183.10

  Boston

  5,477.79

  Burton on Trent

  6,231.98

  Cannock

  2,965.24

  Chesterfield

  129.59

  Corby

  18,875.06

  Coventry East

  0.70

  Coventry West

  63,371.85

  Derby Becket St,

  5,874.26

  Derby Heritage Gate

  6,992.26

  Derby London Road

  12,888.68

  Dudley North

  28,031.39

  Dudley South

  3,819.52

  Grantham

  28,354.91

  Hereford

  11,636.83

  Ilkeston

  21,498.68

  Kidderminster

  8,117.31

  Leamington Spa

  103.66

  Leicester Burleys Way

  117.99

  Leicester Lower Hill St,

  400.64

  Leicester Norton St,

  40,900.13

  Leicester Yeoman St,

  6,318.32

  Lichfield

  56,391.26

  Lincoln Newland

  303.88

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  11,756.09

  Loughborough

  5, 957.47

  Mansfield

  848.74

  Newcastle (Staffs)

  10,420.46

  Northampton

  8,588.92

  Nottingham Castlegate

  67.30

  Nottingham David Lane

  6,866.31

  Nottingham Shakespeare Street

  1,300.50

  Nottingham Station Street

  15,783.93

  Nuneaton

  37.24

  Redditch

  13,705.15

  Rugby

  20,353.87

  Shrewsbury

  48,019.13

  Skegness

  37,401.43

  Smethwick

  58,664.09

  Stafford

  9,422.72

  Stoke on Trent North

  10,160.03

  Stoke on Trent South

  3,525.87

  Sutton in Ashfield

  6,209.82

  Telford

  0.00

  Walsall East

  3,343.30

  Walsall West

  2,562.54

  Wellingborough

  83.02

  West Bromwich

  899.90

  Wolverhampton North

  64,627.48

  Wolverhampton South

  33,716.23

  Worcester

  43,062.10

  Worksop

  104.64

  Total

  823,844.81

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.32

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  North East

  Ashinglon

  51.58

  Barnsley East

  34.24

  606

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Barnsley West

  37,767.27

  Berwick on Tweed

  789.19

  Bishop Auckland

  727.56

  Blyth

  2,485.52

  Bradford East

  192.36

  Bradford South

  9,751.90

  Bradford West

  12,013.26

  Bridlington

  9.33

  Castleford

  3,496.27

  Chester le Street

  711.26

  Darlington

  13,182.96

  Dewsbury

  6.20

  Doncaster East

  15,712.27

  Doncaster West

  52,430.51

  Durham

  222.22

  Eston

  1,222.30

  Gateshead

  212.68

  Goole

  9,794.40

  Grimsby

  23,410.93

  Halifax

  0.00

  Harrogate

  21,756.22

  Hartlepool

  15,957.58

  Hemsworth

  8,563.95

  Hexham

  10,169.37

  Houghton le Spring

  4,184.49

  Huddersfield

  366.72

  Hull East

  5,450.32

  Hull West

  183.17

  Jarrow

  2,671.17

  Keighley

  2,368.34

  Leeds East

  66.80

  Leeds North

  678.16

  Leeds North West

  16,524.51

  Leeds South

  4,688.79

  Leeds West

  18,207.69

  Middlesbrough

  122.37

  Newcastle East

  0.66

  Newcastle St, James

  1,380.46

  Newcastle West

  6.87

  North Shields

  810.02

  Northallerton

  5,005.06

  Peterlee

  202.75

  Pontefract

  34.51

  Redcar

  3,855.71

  Rotherham North

  81.98

  Rotherham South

  1.22

  Scarborough

  4,736.47

  Scunthorpe

  1,367.11

  Seaham

  150.45

  Sheffield North East

  4,693.94

  Sheffield North West

  5,788.89

  Sheffield South East

  311.02

  Sheffield South West

  45,297.45

  Skipton

  476.63

  South Shields

  1,805.34

  Stanley

  217.49

  Stockton

  3,601.20

  Sunderland North

  18,127.37

  Sunderland South

  12,538.71

  Wakefield

  6,728.51

  Wallsend

  0.00

  Wath on Dearne

  175.13

  York

  2,998.86

  Total

  416,577.69

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.16

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  North West

  Accrington

  20,394.74

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  15,210.09

  Barrow in Furness

  0.00

  607

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Birkenhead North

  5.83

  Birkenhead South

  123.64

  Blackburn

  18,429.46

  Blackpool North

  559.09

  Blackpool South

  18,641.47

  Bolton

  3,868.83

  Burnley

  10,732.51

  Bury

  40,052.22

  Buxton

  229.71

  Carlisle

  5,819.32

  Chester

  10,607.77

  Crewe

  15,856.85

  Ellesmere Port

  188.26

  Farnworth

  0.00

  Hyde

  31,133.17

  Kendal

  8,865.11

  Lancaster

  30.28

  Leigh

  15,345.27

  Liverpool City

  46,445.89

  Liverpool Bootle

  48,932.77

  Liverpool Breckfield

  11,253.09

  Liverpool Crosby

  20,638.37

  Liverpool Edgehill

  3,870.30

  Liverpool Garston

  5.01

  Liverpool Huyton

  25,365.48

  Liverpool Kirkby

  9,450.65

  Liverpool Norris Green

  53.11

  Liverpool Toxteth

  8,805.40

  Liverpool West Derby

  48.52

  Liverpool Belle Vale

  895.09

  Macclesfield

  2,866.24

  Manchester Cheetham

  20.52

  Manchester Middleton

  9,783.37

  Manchester Sale

  32.76

  Manchester Central

  0.00

  Manchester Chorlton

  1,998.42

  Manchester Failsworth

  0.26

  Manchester Longsight

  15,410.94

  Manchester Openshaw

  6.25

  Manchester Rusholme

  44.62

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  728.97

  Northwich

  2,697.52

  Oldham

  18,056.00

  Penrith

  5,852.33

  Preston North

  179.68

  Preston South

  39,614.65

  Rochdale

  26.65

  Rossendale

  579.40

  St. Helens

  6.46

  Salford North

  6,699.22

  Salford South

  1,262.69

  Skelmersdale

  22.40

  Southport

  29,677.54

  Stockport North

  8,669.43

  Stockport South

  13,103.91

  Wallasey

  17,270.92

  Warrington

  7,772.67

  Whitehaven

  473.13

  Widnes

  5,640.29

  Wigan

  145.00

  Wilmslow

  95.08

  Workington

  12,654.77

  TOTAL

  593,249.40

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.23

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Scotland

  Aberdeen North

  26,909.43

  Aberdeen South

  5,268.08

  Airdrie

  41.49

  608

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Arbroath

  2,271.39

  Ayr

  28,895.36

  Bathgate

  97.83

  Bellshill

  11.89

  Campbeltown

  0.08

  Clydebank

  5,764.24

  Coatbridge

  11,528.26

  Cowdenbeath

  3.45

  Cumbernauld

  31,700.98

  Dumbarton

  17,708.87

  Dumfries

  14,255.65

  Dundee East

  3,365.57

  Dundee West

  49 46

  Dunfermline

  11.40

  East Kilbride

  1,194.47

  Edinburgh East

  145.29

  Edinburgh City

  0.00

  Edinburgh North

  6.19

  Edinburgh South

  18,162.03

  Edinburgh West

  13,326.78

  Elgin

  2,569.20

  Falkirk

  892.06

  Fort William

  0.00

  Galashiels

  3,052.40

  Glasgow Anniesland

  89,410.29

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  16,715.43

  Glasgow City

  2,641.67

  Glasgow Craigton

  32,715.48

  Glasgow Cranstonhill

  12,951.65

  Glasgow Laurieston

  19,079.73

  Glasgow Maryhill

  42,115.30

  Glasgow Partick

  7.24

  Glasgow Provan

  987.20

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  37,691.64

  Glasgow Shettleston

  95,686.40

  Glasgow South-side

  17.62

  Glasgow Springburn

  19,209.17

  Greenock

  8.16

  Hamilton

  12,527.14

  Inverness

  8,534.53

  Irvine

  60,288.52

  Johnstone

  11,130.42

  Kilmarnock

  8,093.01

  Kirkcaldy

  2,105.72

  Lerwick

  2,882.96

  Leven

  62.87

  Motherwell

  0.60

  Oban

  7,737.38

  Paisley

  61,244.70

  Perth

  105.80

  Peterhead

  3,526.20

  Port Glasgow

  15,158.70

  Stirling

  2,801.66

  Stornoway

  1,047.15

  Stranraer

  5,163.23

  Wick

  3,803.13

  Total

  762,622.57

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.29

  Unspent budget allocations March 19901

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Wales and South West

  Aberdare

  3,128.83

  Abertillery

  1,092.60

  Aberystwyth

  3,338.00

  Ammanford

  2,984.98

  Anglesey

  19,395.94

  Bargoed

  3,744.14

  Barnstaple

  3,255.27

  Barry

  2,029.89

  Bath

  11,777.03

  Blackwood

  0.84

  609

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Bournemouth

  8,222.91

  Bridgend

  372.76

  Bridgwater

  4,542.97

  Bristol Central

  123.42

  Bristol East

  8,710.29

  Bristol Horfield

  3,796.69

  Bristol South

  7,707.26

  Bristol West

  3,650.65

  Caernarfon

  946.06

  Caerphilly

  1,076.48

  Cardiff Central

  37.93

  Cardiff East

  28,844.91

  Cardiff West

  5,870.55

  Carmarthen

  1,348.66

  Cheltenham

  23,042.49

  Chippenham

  291.67

  Colwyn Bay

  8,686.25

  Cwmbran

  16,379.12

  Deeside

  0.00

  Ebbw Vale

  17,978.11

  Exeter

  23,866.95

  Gloucester

  92,723.82

  Haverfordwest

  211.22

  Launceston

  912.60

  Llanelli

  397.13

  Merthyr Tydfil

  207.54

  Morriston

  3,390.44

  Neath

  1,419.19

  Newport Gwent

  6,373.84

  Newtown

  8,034.34

  Pembroke Dock

  443.90

  Penzance

  42,376.10

  Plymouth

  11,453.72

  Plymouth Crownhill

  0.00

  Pontypridd

  4,561.96

  Poole

  5,090.63

  Port Talbot

  21.35

  Porth

  4,914.22

  Porthmadog

  32,735.95

  Phyl

  16,387.59

  St, Austell

  21,292.46

  Salisbury

  1,256.77

  Stroud

  511.53

  Swansea

  0.00

  Swindon

  389.04

  Taunton

  11,679.92

  Tonypandy

  26,823.70

  Torbay

  15,082.30

  Trowbridge

  8,640.21

  Truro

  57.36

  Weston-super-Mare

  8,200.58

  Weymouth

  226.65

  Wrexham

  2,865.71

  Yeovil

  7,357.61

  Total

  552,283.08

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.21

  Grand Total

  5,235,486.02

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  2.02

  Note: Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

  Unspent Budget allocations March 19921

  District name

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Bankside

  85.49

  Barking and Havering

  26.45

  Barnet

  8,872.95

  Barnsley

  2.30

  Bedfordshire

  2,483.53

  Berkshire

  111.98

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  88.77

  Birmingham Heartlands

  0.40

  Birmingham North West

  23.53

  610

  District name

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Birmingham South East

  35,997.67

  Birmingham South West

  91.14

  Blackburn and Accrington

  185.08

  Blackpool

  57.09

  Bolton

  276.90

  Bradford

  1,602.40

  Bristol Severnside

  41,838.59

  Brunel

  0.00

  Buckinghamshire

  47,659.90

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  58.50

  Cambridgeshire

  13,993.36

  Canterbury and Thanet

  26,062.39

  Central Derbyshire

  15,482.12

  Central Staffordshire

  12.07

  Channel

  16,246.57

  Cheshire North West and Central

  0.00

  Cheshire East

  0.97

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  22.97

  City East

  17.91

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  45.67

  Coatbridge

  12.59

  Cornwall

  75.83

  Coventry

  0.00

  Cumbria North

  166.50

  Cynon Merthyr Rhymney Valley

  1,803.09

  Derbyshire North

  22.97

  Derbyshire South

  6.04

  Devonia

  134.37

  Doncaster

  25,484.78

  Dorset

  1,605.06

  Durham North

  4,946.46

  Durham South

  43,115.86

  Ealing

  5.66

  East Lowlands

  717.44

  East Nottinghamshire

  ERR

  East Sussex

  30,048.11

  Essex South East

  0.03

  Essex South West

  29,285.27

  Euston

  0.45

  Fife

  6.27

  Forth Valley

  4.44

  Fulham

  7,840.92

  Glamorgan South

  267.75

  Glasgow South West

  4.16

  Glasgow Anniesland

  793.29

  Glasgow City

  19.06

  Glasgow East

  36,609.38

  Glasgow Laurieston

  21,562.21

  Gloucester

  695.23

  Grampian and Shetland

  6,941.18

  Gwent North and Brecon

  18,388.03

  Gwyneddigion

  48,448.43

  Hackney and Islington

  326.20

  Halifax

  7.53

  Hampshire North

  2,705.83

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  9,225.05

  Hereford and Worcester

  38,173.56

  Highlands and Islands

  1,568.24

  Hounslow and Kingston

  328.92

  Hull

  7.29

  Irvine

  19,842.47

  Kent North

  23.59

  Kirkless

  0.17

  Knowsley

  683.35

  Lancaster

  4.80

  Lea Roding

  3.69

  Leaside

  88,016.32

  Leeds North

  16,598.45

  Leeds South

  102.89

  Leicestershire North

  14,097.96

  Lewisham and Brixton

  2,507.33

  Lincolnshire

  79,420.49

  Liverpool Central

  26,615.54

  Liverpool North

  15.32

  Liverpool South

  17.64

  Lomond and Argyll

  323.11

  London Central

  1,833.64

  611

  District name

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Lothian Central

  0.01

  Lothian West

  34.10

  Manchester Central

  19.08

  Manchester North

  26.21

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  29,122.79

  Motherwell

  19,828.19

  Neasden

  13,240.09

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  31.84

  Newham

  0.00

  North and East Hertfordshire

  8,039.58

  North Essex

  643.04

  North Staffordshire

  0.61

  North Tyneside

  9,362.08

  North Wales Coast

  38,885.54

  North Yorkshire

  20,295.92

  Northamptonshire

  19,076.49

  Northumberland

  86.11

  Norwich

  5,032.41

  Nottinghamshire North

  8,139.65

  Nottinghamshire West

  6,796.07

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  2.57

  Oldham

  0.78

  Oxfordshire

  5.23

  Preston

  4.17

  Renfrew

  3,741.82

  Rother and Dearne

  382.79

  South East Hants and Isle of Wight

  32.30

  Salford

  11,398.31

  Sandwell

  6.29

  Sefton

  5,513.37

  Sheffield East

  968.23

  Sheffield West

  30,085.84

  Shettleston

  36,609.38

  Shropshire

  0.07

  Solent and Forest

  13,319.57

  Somerset

  7,525.54

  South Cheshire

  1,279.10

  South Devon

  50,434.58

  South Downs

  6,556.07

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  1.87

  South Humberside

  3.49

  South Leicestershire

  0.01

  South Manchester

  37.41

  South West Lanes

  0.00

  South West Scotland

  30,910.15

  South West Thames

  1.36

  Springburn

  3.86

  Stockport

  250.39

  Suffolk

  1.78

  Surrey Downs

  7,892.43

  Surrey North

  5,346.64

  Swansea

  28.23

  Taff Rhondda

  6.89

  Tameside

  26.39

  Tayside

  5.94

  Tees North

  3,471.36

  Tees South

  1.59

  Thameside

  10,515.41

  Tyneside

  20,066.67

  Wakefield

  612.67

  Wales West

  470.33

  Walsall

  0.00

  Warwickshire

  4,456.30

  Wearside

  3,785.11

  West Herts

  8,838.76

  West Kent

  8,482.97

  West Lincolnshire

  34.15

  West Pennine

  87.70

  West Sussex

  1,408.21

  Wigan and Leigh

  81.93

  Wiltshire

  0.00

  Wirral

  140.19

  Wolverhampton

  32,737.21

  612

  District name

  Total (1990–91 prices)

  Worcestershire North

  40,511.15

  Yorkshire East

  9.25

  TOTAL

  1,333,943.95

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  0.42

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the(a) total number and (b) percentage of eligible applicants who have been awarded a social fund loan in each year since its introduction; and if he will provide a breakdown by (a) region and (b) DSS office.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: Such information as is available is in the tables. For 1988–89 and 1989–90 only regional summaries are available.

  Region

  Number of awards

  Percentage of eligible applicants awarded a loan

  1988–89

  Wales and SW

  101,631

  91.94

  Scotland

  165,019

  89.70

  Midlands

  125,850

  93.80

  North West

  150,963

  88.30

  North East

  163,410

  88.30

  London North

  93,844

  97.40

  London South

  78,692

  97.70

  1989–90

  Wales and SW

  114,390

  88.10

  Scotland

  192,067

  86.90

  Midlands

  138,704

  90.00

  North West

  172,924

  86.10

  North East

  190,315

  85.10

  London North

  115,873

  92.10

  London South

  102,907

  92.60

  The 1990–91 information for DSS local offices and 1991–92 information for
  Benefits Agency districts is in the tables.

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Aberdare

  1,905

  88.11285846

  Aberdeen North ILO

  3,270

  91.8797415

  Aberdeen South

  2,592

  94.04934688

  Abertillery

  803

  73.06642402

  Aberystwyth

  1,001

  95.51526718

  Accrington

  1,224

  91.82295574

  Airdrie Local Office

  5,337

  95.88573482

  Aldershot

  830

  89.92416035

  Ammanford

  813

  91.76072235

  Andover

  1,042

  87.05096074

  Anglesey

  1,457

  84.31712963

  Arbroath

  1,213

  85.78500707

  Ashford

  1,516

  88.44807468

  Ashington ILO

  2,315

  95.66115702

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  2,114

  84.3575419

  Aylesbury

  927

  88.36987607

  Ayr

  5,900

  84.15347311

  Banbury

  913

  83.45521024

  Bargoed

  1,542

  75.99802859

  Barking

  1,601

  79.69138875

  Barnet

  646

  90.73033708

  Barnsley East

  3,567

  91.62599538

  Barnsley West BO

  2,256

  95.14972585

  Barnstaple

  1,409

  84.77737665

  Barrow in Furness

  1,298

  87.17259906

  Barry

  1,774

  78.7394585

  Basildon

  3,389

  97.44105808

  613

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Basingstoke

  673

  82.4754902

  Bath

  2,478

  91.40538547

  Bathgate

  5,505

  90.02452984

  Bedford

  1,824

  92.63585576

  Bellshill Area Office

  2,950

  89.09694956

  Berwick on Tweed

  328

  87.70053476

  Birkenhead North

  6,363

  84.51321557

  Birkenhead South

  2,721

  84.52935694

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  3,261

  89.90901572

  Birmingham Erdington

  3,831

  91.34477825

  Birmingham Handsworth

  4,702

  92.86984002

  Birmingham Ladywood

  2,954

  88.89557629

  Birmingham Northfield

  3,389

  90.44568989

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  2,647

  88.0572189

  Birmingham Ravenhurst ILO

  2,836

  89.07035176

  Birmingham South Yardley ILO

  3,155

  87.66323979

  Birmingham Sparkhill ILO

  958

  90.8056872

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  2,501

  87.05186216

  Bishop Auckland ILO

  3,475

  82.93556086

  Blackburn

  3,002

  90.23143974

  Blackpool North

  3,230

  90.4508541

  Blackpool South

  1,054

  94.86948695

  Blackwood

  872

  80.96564531

  Blylh

  2,159

  81.25705683

  Bognor Regis

  1,320

  90.34907598

  Bolton

  5,532

  92.5083612

  Boston ILO

  799

  84.1938883

  Bournemouth

  3,788

  92.57086999

  Bracknell

  1,281

  93.2993445

  Bradford East

  4,644

  87.8214826

  Bradford South

  3,522

  85.46469304

  Bradford West

  3,700

  90.06815969

  Braintree

  1,228

  92.67924528

  Bridgend

  2,007

  81.3538711

  Bridgwater

  1,681

  92.10958904

  Bridlington

  1,355

  87.41935484

  Brighton ILO

  5,495

  92.43061396

  Bristol Central

  2,490

  85.36167295

  Bristol East

  2,832

  91.97791491

  Bristol Horfield

  1,517

  89.76331361

  Bristol South

  3,474

  89.6516129

  Bristol West

  1,257

  93.45724907

  Bromley

  1,186

  92.80125196

  Burnley

  3,181

  85.35014757

  Burton

  1,013

  92.51141553

  Bury

  1,624

  93,33333333

  Bury St. Edmunds

  1,704

  93,47229841

  Buxton

  494

  90.80882353

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Caernarfon

  1,450

  84.54810496

  Caerphilly

  2,565

  86.94915254

  Cambridge

  2,212

  94.77292202

  Campbeltown

  440

  85.9375

  Cannock ILO

  1,310

  93.23843416

  Canterbury

  1,875

  90.66731141

  Cardiff Central

  2,304

  87.57126568

  Cardiff East

  3,815

  77.10185934

  Cardiff West

  5,025

  88.28179902

  Carlisle

  2,145

  86.94770977

  Carmarthen

  924

  88.16793893

  Castleford ILO

  1,448

  86.5511058

  Chatham

  1,914

  91.18627918

  Chelmsford

  788

  93.58669834

  Cheltenham

  1,075

  84.37990581

  Chester

  2,391

  89.01712584

  Chester le Street

  1,295

  82.32676414

  Chesterfield

  4,108

  93.19419238

  Chichester

  646

  96.27421759

  Chippenham

  1,086

  82.8375286

  Clacton-on-sea

  1,486

  93.81313131

  Clydebank ILO

  3,367

  89.85855351

  Coatbridge

  2,914

  90.6940554

  Colchester

  1,967

  89.04481666

  Colwyn Bay

  1,327

  86.16883117

  614

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Corby

  1,093

  90.93178037

  Coventry East

  6,474

  88.28583117

  Coventry West

  3,019

  96.29984051

  Cowdenbeath ILO

  1,933

  90.36933146

  Crawley.

  1,372

  90.20381328

  Crewe

  2,083

  84.91642886

  Croydon

  2,106

  82.75049116

  Crystal Palace

  2,245

  93.58065861

  Cumbernauld

  3,730

  91.13119961

  Cwmbran

  2,603

  84.70549951

  Darlington

  3,295

  86.2565445

  Dartford

  1,122

  90.77669903

  Deeside

  1,024

  87.29752771

  Derby Becket St, ILO

  2,638

  88.31603616

  Derby Heritage Gate

  1,267

  97.23714505

  Derby London Road

  3,106

  93.13343328

  Dewsbury ILO

  2,755

  84.3797856

  Diss ILO

  292

  93.89067524

  Doncaster East

  3,325

  88.66666667

  Doncaster West

  2,410

  96.05420486

  Dover

  1,560

  91.01516919

  Dudley North

  2,731

  89.54098361

  Dudley South

  1,496

  92.5170068

  Dumbarton ILO

  3,625

  87.244284

  Dumfries ILO

  1,597

  83.78803778

  Dundee East

  3,159

  85.28617711

  Dundee West

  3,422

  84.76591528

  Dunfermline

  2,370

  86.24454148

  Dunstable

  770

  94.3627451

  Durham ILO

  1,329

  85.96377749

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  East Kilbride ILO

  1,550

  90.80257762

  Eastbourne

  1,009

  96.18684461

  Ebbw Vale

  1,404

  87.58577667

  Edgware

  1,488

  80.91353997

  Edinburgh (East) ILO

  3,816

  86.7864453

  Edinburgh City

  5,018

  94.11102776

  Edinburgh North

  3,600

  90.52049283

  Edinburgh South

  2,956

  88.95576286

  Edinburgh West

  3,348

  92.02858714

  Elgin ILO

  2,103

  92.11563732

  Ellesmere Port

  1,309

  87.73458445

  Epsom

  329

  98.50299401

  Eston

  2,228

  79.77085571

  Euston Do

  4,812

  86.54676259

  Exeter

  3,402

  94.2121296

  Falkirk

  4,259

  82.41099071

  Fareham

  1,580

  89.61996597

  Farnworth

  1,432

  82.77456647

  Folkestone

  1,097

  88.61066236

  Fort William

  372

  89.42307692

  Fulham Do

  1,113

  94.5624469

  Galashiels

  1,620

  91.83673469

  Gateshead

  4,523

  87.08124759

  Glasgow Anniesland ILO

  5,225

  86.95290398

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  4,819

  83.47479647

  Glasgow City ILO

  4,227

  87.49741254

  Glasgow Craigton ILO

  5,896

  95.6676943

  Glasgow Cranslonhill

  2,668

  88.72630529

  Glasgow Laurieston

  5,373

  95.94642857

  Glasgow Maryhill

  4,756

  94.70330546

  Glasgow Partick ILO

  2,914

  90.89207735

  Glasgow Provan ILO

  9,377

  87.72569932

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  8,174

  88.3866782

  Glasgow Shettleston

  5,289

  91.14251249

  Glasgow South-Side ILO

  7,054

  84.34772211

  Glasgow Springburn

  8,424

  88.61771513

  Gloucester

  2,163

  94.28945074

  Goole ILO

  792

  90.82568807

  Grantham

  844

  96.45714286

  Gravesend

  970

  87.7034358

  Grays

  2,028

  94.23791822

  Great Yarmouth

  1,773

  81.36759982

  Greenock ILO

  4,881

  87.17628148

  615

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Grimsby

  4,144

  81.8487063

  Guildford

  1,119

  95.23404255

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Halifax

  3,348

  87.11943794

  Hamilton ILO

  5,969

  91.31099893

  Harlow

  1,457

  91.63522013

  Harrogate

  993

  96.12778316

  Harrow

  1,093

  88.3589329

  Hartlepool

  2,755

  79.53233256

  Hastings

  2,183

  92.03204047

  Havant

  1,644

  90.72847682

  Haverfordwest

  1,428

  88.42105263

  Hemel Hempstead ILO

  887

  99.3281075

  Hemsworth ILO

  1,433

  82.78451762

  Hereford ILO

  1,651

  97.92408066

  Hertford

  1,592

  93.53701528

  Hexham

  336

  95.45454545

  High Wycombe

  1,085

  92.34042553

  Houghton le Spring

  1,449

  81.63380282

  Hounslow

  2,860

  92.16886884

  Hove

  1,474

  91.26934985

  Huddersfield ILO

  4,157

  88.84377004

  Hull East ILO

  5,517

  89.7510981

  Hull West

  5,442

  85.17764908

  Hyde

  3,108

  89.93055556

  Ilford

  1,479

  98.20717131

  Ilkeston

  2,090

  90.20284851

  Inverness

  3,127

  90.95404305

  Ipswich

  3,022

  88.83009994

  Irvine

  3,896

  85.94749614

  Isle of Wight

  1,703

  90.48884166

  Jarrow ILO

  2,976

  87.8135143!

  Johnstone

  2,080

  81.34532655

  Keighley ILO

  2,111

  90.56199056

  Kendal

  408

  96.45390071

  Kidderminster

  1,641

  93.9862543

  Kilmarnock ILO

  2,801

  86.55747837

  King's Lynn

  2,382

  89.54887218

  Kingston

  958

  95.99198397

  Kirkcaldy ILO

  2,963

  88.31594635

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Lancaster

  2,827

  89.71754998

  Launceston

  739

  92.49061327

  Leamington Spa ILO

  1,546

  88.44393593

  Leeds East ILO

  4,544

  88.1645324

  Leeds North ILO

  5,024

  92.2850845

  Leeds North West

  3,643

  91.41781681

  Leeds South

  1,972

  85.62744247

  Leeds West

  1,971

  86.63736264

  Leicester Burleys Way

  1,685

  92.07650273

  Leicester Lower Hill Street

  2,251

  88.032851

  Leicester Norton Street

  3,024

  92.87469287

  Leicester (Yeoman) Street

  3,617

  95.10912438

  Leigh

  1,551

  85.92797784

  Lerwick ILO

  275

  94.50171821

  Leven ILO

  1,588

  76.56702025

  Lewes

  871

  96.13686534

  Lichfield

  1,618

  92.24629418

  Lincoln Newland

  2,434

  92.05748865

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  2,669

  89.5036888

  Liverpool City

  3,583

  95.49573561

  Liverpool Bootle

  4,060

  86.67805295

  Liverpool Breckfield ILO

  4,858

  86.27242053

  Liverpool Crosby

  2,785

  86.08964451

  Liverpool Edgehill

  5,435

  85.7661354

  Liverpool Garston

  1,936

  82.45315162

  Liverpool Huyton

  5,109

  90.8751334

  Liverpool Kirkby

  4,997

  84.68056262

  Liverpool Norris Green

  2,630

  83.65139949

  Liverpool Toxteth

  6,766

  88.96778435

  Liverpool West Derby

  1,278

  85.54216867

  616

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Liverpool (Belle) Vale ILO

  2,884

  84.77366255

  Llanelli

  2,223

  83.07174888

  London Plaistow

  1,906

  88.65116279

  London Balham

  2,869

  97.22128092

  London Battersea

  2,148

  92.78617711

  London Bloomsbury

  959

  100

  London Brixton

  978

  91.83098592

  London Camberwell

  2,224

  95.61478934

  London Canning Town

  1,724

  85.05180069

  London City

  396

  95.88377724

  London Cricklewood

  1,521

  92.74390244

  London Ealing

  6,501

  85.65217391

  London Edmonton

  2,862

  91.49616368

  London Hackney

  2,714

  91.87542316

  London Harlesden

  2,000

  91.15770283

  London Hendon

  1,354

  82.21007893

  London Hoxton ILO

  2,092

  90.87749783

  London Kennington Park

  2,243

  86.6023166

  London Lewisham

  3,338

  90.97846825

  London Leytonstone

  1,862

  94.18310572

  London Peckham

  2,106

  85.8190709

  London Poplar

  2,168

  77.04335466

  London Shoreditch

  2,316

  90.29239766

  London Southwark

  2,565

  88.29604131

  London Stepney

  1,290

  87.04453441

  London Stoke Newington

  1,655

  94.95123351

  London Streatham

  2,033

  95.85101367

  London Thames North

  819

  91.40625

  London Thames South

  803

  98.52760736

  London Tottenham

  4,456

  91.10611327

  London Walthamstow

  1,738

  85.07097406

  London Wandsworth

  1,136

  88.0620155

  London Westminster

  1,028

  94.39853076

  London Wimbledon

  1,116

  90.07263923

  London Wood Green

  1,744

  77.78768956

  London Woodgrange Park

  2,190

  89.71732896

  London Woolwich

  3,846

  86.11733094

  Loughborough

  1,245

  93.25842697

  Lowestoft

  1,941

  98.22874494

  Luton

  2,037

  79.16828605

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Macclesfield

  934

  94.05840886

  Maidstone

  1,601

  83.29864724

  Manchester Cheetham

  2,856

  79.97759731

  Manchester Middleton

  2,237

  85.25152439

  Manchester Central

  1,702

  92.24932249

  Manchester Chorlton

  2,794

  91.21776037

  Manchester Failsworth

  4,774

  92.69902913

  Manchester Longsight

  3,604

  93.95203337

  Manchester Openshaw

  3,465

  88.1006865

  Manchester Rusholme

  3,366

  97.59350536

  Manchester Sale

  1,612

  87.56110809

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  6,642

  89.62353259

  Mansfield

  2,843

  91.35604113

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,069

  78.2526475

  Middlesbrough

  6,881

  80.08612663

  Milton Keynes

  3,706

  95.36798765

  Mitcham

  898

  76.62116041

  Morriston

  1,870

  83.51942832

  Motherwell ILO

  4,181

  89.5672665

  Neasden ILO

  2,106

  91.20831529

  Neath

  1,151

  75.67389875

  New Forest

  1,114

  93.53484467

  New Malden

  408

  91.68539326

  Newbury

  1,306

  94.84386347

  Newcastle (Staffs)

  1,750

  88.07247106

  Newcastle East

  2,821

  82.84875184

  Newcastle St. James

  3,420

  84.59065051

  Newcastle upon Tyne West

  3,445

  73.18886764

  Newport Gwent

  4,377

  91.16850656

  Newtown

  975

  93.21223709

  North Shields ILO

  2,493

  84.16610398

  Northallerton

  397

  87.83185841

  Northampton

  2,051

  87.12829227

  617

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Northwich

  2,573

  96.875

  Norwich Chantry

  2,459

  93.74761723

  Norwich Mountergate

  2,603

  93.53215954

  Nottingham Castle Gate

  2,439

  80.38892551

  Nottingham David Lane

  3,005

  91.56002438

  Nottingham Shakespeare St

  3,431

  87.28059018

  Nottingham Station St ILO

  2,387

  89.53488372

  Nuneaton

  2,015

  88.53251318

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Oban ILO

  328

  86.54353562

  Oldham

  3,310

  89.55627706

  Orpington

  766

  86.65158371

  Oxford

  3,433

  93.51675293

  Paisley ILO

  6,109

  85.01252435

  Pembroke Dock

  1,079

  88.51517637

  Penrith

  333

  95.68965517

  Penzance

  1,079

  91.82978723

  Perth

  2,198

  88.23765556

  Peterborough

  5,826

  93.75603476

  Peterhead ILO

  1,337

  92.01651755

  Peterlee

  1,995

  77.71717959

  Plymouth

  4,938

  93.80699088

  Plymouth Crownhill

  3,362

  82.2407045

  Pontefract ILO

  1,608

  84.27672956

  Pontypridd

  1,692

  91.31138694

  Poole

  1,727

  94.3715847

  Port Glasgow

  2,437

  89.56266079

  Port Talbot

  1,111

  81.27286028

  Porth

  836

  86.7219917

  Porthmadog

  467

  89.46360153

  Portsmouth North

  1,159

  79.71114168

  Portsmouth South

  3,033

  91.85342217

  Preston North

  2,713

  83.27194598

  Preston South

  1,908

  94.08284024

  Reading

  2,520

  96.21993127

  Redcar ILO

  1,864

  79.65811966

  Redditch

  871

  88.51626016

  Redhill

  1,334

  94.81165601

  Rhyl

  2,206

  80.89475614

  Rochdale

  3,275

  87.0790481

  Romford

  1,655

  93.02979202

  Rossendale

  967

  93.33976834

  Rotherham North

  1,308

  82.00626959

  Rotherham South

  4,068

  85.6962292

  Rugby

  771

  93.79562044

  1990–91 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  South East Thameside DO Bexley

  2,586

  92.98813376

  Salford North

  3,589

  88.96876549

  Salford South

  2,046

  83.5443038

  Salisbury

  1,727

  92.35294118

  Scarborough ILO

  1,816

  85.21820741

  Scunthorpe ILO

  2,672

  90.27027027

  Seaham

  1,152

  75.59055118

  Sheffield North East ILO

  7,528

  89.80078731

  Sheffield North East

  5,164

  86.45571739

  Sheffield South West

  4,812

  83.02277433

  Sheffield South West ILO

  4,774

  99.91628296

  Shrewsbury

  1,911

  97.94976935

  Sittingbourne

  1,539

  86.46067416

  Skegness

  558

  93.31103679

  Skelmersdale

  3,362

  88.63696283

  Skipton

  514

  92.11469534

  Slough

  1,367

  90.05270092

  Smethwick

  2,650

  91.31633356

  South Shields

  4,274

  81.50266972

  Southampton

  4,489

  87.0467326

  Southend on Sea

  1,614

  84.99210111

  Southport ILO

  784

  95.96083231

  St. Albans

  1,366

  94.92703266

  St. Helens

  3,890

  82.2410148

  618

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  St. Austell

  2,508

  91.83449286

  Stafford

  799

  94.55621302

  Stanley ILO

  2,719

  87.93661061

  Stevenage

  1,135

  90.15091342

  Stirling

  2,922

  87.24992535

  Stockport North

  2,951

  95.37815126

  Stockport South

  2,723

  93.09401709

  Stockton

  5,158

  83.7201753

  Stoke on Trent North ILO

  2,955

  89.11338963

  Stoke on Trent South

  2,558

  86.41891892

  Stornoway

  672

  96.69064748

  Stranraer

  1,061

  78.01470588

  Stroud

  1,098

  87.14285714

  Sunderland North

  5,980

  81.43810432

  Sunderland South

  4,367

  82.39622642

  Sutton

  578

  85.75667656

  Sutton in Ashfield ILO

  1,467

  86.70212766

  Swansea

  3,350

  86.16255144

  Swindon

  3,072

  86.58399098

  Office name

  Awards

  Per cent.

  Taunton

  2,029

  93.24448529

  Telford

  3,267

  87.77538958

  Thanet

  3,382

  91.01184069

  Tonypandy

  1,673

  85.53169734

  Torbay

  2,705

  87.73921505

  Trowbridge

  962

  93.30746848

  Truro

  1,960

  96.36184857

  Tunbridge Wells

  998

  96.42512077

  Twickenham

  375

  100

  Uxbridge ILO

  2,142

  88.99044454

  Wakefield

  2,462

  93.18697956

  Wallasey

  2,105

  94.8625507

  Wallsend ILO

  1,999

  86.0525183

  Walsall East

  2,304

  85.68240982

  Walsall West

  2,769

  89.23622301

  Warrington

  3,341

  89.81182796

  Watford

  1,138

  90.53301512

  Wath on Dearne

  2,336

  87.58905137

  Wellingborough ILO

  2,626

  91.56206416

  West Bromwich ILO

  3,160

  85.72978839

  Weston-Super-Mare

  958

  94.10609037

  Weymouth

  1,721

  91.01004759

  Whitehaven

  775

  79.8146241

  Wick

  854

  84.72222222

  Widnes

  4,765

  87.72091311

  Wigan

  3,541

  90.10178117

  Wilmslow

  700

  93.08510638

  Winchester

  1,082

  94.74605954

  Woking

  1,418

  94.91298527

  Wolverhampton North ILO

  3,843

  90.33850494

  Wolverhampton South

  3,617

  99.20460779

  Worcester

  2,058

  94.79502533

  Workington

  676

  56.28642798

  Worksop

  1,581

  82.08722741

  Worthing

  1,355

  92.61790841

  Wrexham

  2,878

  80.5034965

  Yeovil

  986

  90.37580202

  York

  3,295

  93.42217182

  1991–92 Percentage awards of eligible
  applicants

  District

  Awards

  Percentage

  Bankside

  6,790

  87.692109

  Barking and Havering DO

  3,971

  84.11353527

  Barnet

  4,384

  86.64031621

  Barnsley DMU

  6,468

  90.89376054

  Bedfordshire

  6,616

  86.12340536

  Berkshire DO

  8,919

  93.38289184

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  7,735

  90.34104181

  Birmingham Heartlands

  6,670

  84.4624541

  Birmingham North West

  8,050

  89.5140665

  Birmingham South East

  4,353

  84.40954043

  Birmingham South West

  7,371

  87.98042492

  Blackburn and Accrington

  4,850

  87.43464936

  Blackpool DO

  6,127

  93.84285495

  619

  District

  Awards

  Percentage

  Bolton DO

  7,638

  90.66951567

  Bradford DM

  14,086

  88.88748659

  Bristol Severnside

  10,221

  91.14499732

  Brunel DO

  8,156

  94.36538239

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  4,929

  86.58001054

  Cambridgeshire

  8,375

  92.02285463

  Canterbury and Thanet

  6,545

  94.29477021

  Central Derbyshire

  8,346

  90.62873276

  Channel

  6,780

  93.40129494

  Cheshire East

  3,809

  92.60880136

  Cheshire North W and Cen A

  9,868

  87.42801453

  City East

  4,207

  85.1964358

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  7,836

  82.05235602

  Coatbridge

  11,287

  83.90573892

  Cornwall

  8,028

  94.53603391

  Coventry DO

  11,479

  89.77086103

  Cumbria North

  5,113

  90.80092346

  Cynon Merthyr Rhymnney Val

  8,689

  75.32726485

  Derbyshire North

  5,223

  95.13661202

  Derbyshire South District

  5,609

  91.99606364

  Doncaster DMU

  7,963

  83.5396559

  Dorset

  9,664

  92.63803681

  Durham North

  9,184

  79.40515303

  Durham South

  7,739

  79.890575

  East Lowlands

  9,783

  82.54999578

  East Sussex

  3,909

  91.58856607

  Essex South East

  2,791

  87.35524257

  Essex South West

  8,083

  92.55696782

  Euston DO

  11,924

  91.75130809

  Exeter and North Devon District

  5,649

  88.05923617

  Fife

  9,092

  78.66412874

  Forth Valley District

  7,379

  82.26309922

  Fulham DO

  14,543

  87.92623942

  Glamorgan South

  14,678

  84.38542026

  Glasgow (South-West) District

  13,544

  87.90809372

  Glasgow Anniesland

  8,421

  85.18106413

  Glasgow City District

  12,062

  88.4246023

  Glasgow Lauricston

  16,392

  87.26111259

  Gloucester

  5,939

  85.07377176

  Grampian and Shetland

  7,934

  90.37475795

  Gwent North and Brecon DO

  5,671

  84.6670648

  Gwyneddigion

  6,007

  90.82249773

  Hackney and Islington

  10,230

  89.73684211

  Halifax

  8,464

  89.87046082

  Hampshire North

  4,685

  90.63648675

  Harrow and Hillingdon DO

  3,339

  89.61352657

  Hereford and Worcester DO

  4,240

  90.88960343

  Highlands and Islands

  8,373

  92.18319938

  Hordan House, Wirral DO

  15,427

  86.19880427

  Hounslow and Kingston DO

  5,962

  90.87029416

  Hull East

  13,581

  85.69535588

  Irvine DO

  7,331

  81.45555556

  Kent-North Based

  9,004

  87.29035385

  Kirklees MDU

  9,571

  89.96146254

  Knowsley DO

  11,712

  87.03277105

  Lancaster

  5,933

  91.81367998

  Lea-Roding DO

  6,678

  88.52067869

  Leaside DO

  8,629

  91.49612978

  Leeds North

  9,655

  89.75550804

  Leeds South

  9,354

  83.94507763

  Leicester South DO

  8,073

  91.95808179

  Leicestershire North DO

  5,948

  91 14311983

  Lewisham and Brixton DO

  11,064

  89.11800242

  Lincolnshire East

  4,067

  89.05189402

  Liverpool Central

  11,065

  88.83269107

  Liverpool North District O

  11,242

  88.08964112

  Liverpool South

  12,921

  85.9223301

  Lomond and Argyll

  6,965

  82.24111465

  London Central District OFF

  3,105

  90.41933605

  London Ealing

  6,935

  85.58558559

  London Newham District OFF

  7,625

  88.98354534

  Lothian Central

  9,819

  90.84096586

  Lothian West Do

  9,216

  81.76011356

  Manchester Central District

  9,251

  89.08898305

  620

  District

  Awards

  Percentage

  Manchester North

  5,421

  85.91125198

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  4,780

  86.87749909

  Motherwell District

  11,613

  86.22661123

  Neasden District OFF

  7,551

  91.64947202

  Newcastle Upon Tyne District

  11,981

  80.37702938

  North and East Herts DO

  3,217

  92.68222414

  North Essex District

  5,417

  91.0267182

  North Stalls District OFF

  9,603

  90.37267081

  North Tees

  8,497

  73.52890273

  North Tyneside District

  4,949

  82.53835891

  North Wales Coast

  5,792

  88.17171563

  North Yorkshire

  5,781

  93.72568093

  Northamptonshire

  6,763

  85.03709292

  Northumberland

  6,494

  89.19104519

  Norwich

  8,527

  87.14358712

  Nottinghamshire East

  6,681

  87.13968958

  Nottinghamshire North

  7,361

  88.2296536

  Nottinghamshire West DO

  8,654

  85.14364423

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  5,615

  80.58266361

  Oldham DO

  9,763

  89.85734008

  Oxfordshire

  6,762

  92.26361032

  Paisley DO

  9,148

  86.17181613

  Preston DO

  5,686

  92.92368034

  Rotherham South ILO

  8,281

  83.51991931

  S.E. Hants and Wight DO

  11,273

  89.46825397

  Salford

  6,703

  90.92512208

  Sandwell DO

  7359

  88.6626506

  Sefton DO

  10,656

  87.30132722

  Sheffield East

  14,501

  88.96319018

  Sheffield West

  11,387

  90.47354203

  Shettleston

  19,224

  82.48165787

  Shropshire DO

  6,130

  90.34635225

  Solent and forest

  9,625

  89.85250187

  Somerset

  6,000

  94.10288582

  South Cheshire

  11,557

  89.74916518

  South Devon

  15,237

  88.2434702

  South Downs

  9,868

  93.1822474

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  7,185

  86.4412897

  South Humberside

  9,047

  84.18946585

  South Manchester

  15,627

  92.14033019

  South Tees

  12,462

  79.46690473

  South West Lanes

  8,108

  86.11789697

  South West Thames

  9,580

  89.51597832

  Springburn DO

  12,879

  83.07960263

  Staffordshire Central DO

  4,797

  90.74914869

  Stockport

  6,560

  95.40430483

  Suffolk DO

  7,623

  92.08746074

  Surrey Downs DO

  5,045

  92.79014162

  Surrey North

  6,586

  84.31698886

  SW Scotland District

  8,013

  80.25841346

  Swansea

  5,606

  80.76646016

  Taff Rhondda DO

  4,928

  83.56791589

  Tameside DO

  6,748

  87.62498377

  Tayside DO

  10,950

  80.42600073

  Thameside

  7,943

  86.86570429

  Tyneside South

  15,177

  84.03189192

  Wakefield DO

  8,420

  85.83953512

  Wales West

  7,290

  85.33302119

  Walsall District

  7,150

  86.7929109

  Warwickshire District

  5,191

  92.00638072

  Wearside

  13,719

  80.91418461

  West Herts DO

  4,381

  93.59111301

  West Kent District

  4,974

  89.75099242

  West Lincolnshire

  7,613

  92.01111917

  West Pennine

  8,784

  88.74520105

  West Sussex

  7,122

  91.89677419

  Wigan and Leigh District

  5,985

  86.45096057

  Wiltshire

  9,122

  90.98344305

  Wolverhampton

  8,999

  93.84711649

  Worcestershire North

  6,766

  89.32013201

  Yorkshire East

  5,136

  90.16853933

SCOTLAND

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total public expenditure on housing expressed in(a) cash terms, (b) at 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of total Scottish Office expenditure for each year since 1979 inclusive; and if he will provide a breakdown by local authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: The information is in the tables. Table 1 provides details of the total gross public expenditure on housing which lies within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend; tables 2 and 3 provide details of capital expenditure on housing by local authorities in each year since 1979. expressed in cash terms and at 1990–91 prices, using GDP deflators.

  Table 1

  Column 1 (£ million)

  Column 2 (£ million)

  Column 3 (per cent.)

  1979–80

  773

  1,677

  17

  1980–81

  855

  1,568

  16

  1981–82

  923

  1,544

  16

  1982–83

  870

  1,358

  13

  1983–84

  962

  1,435

  14

  Table 2

  Housing capital expenditure by local authority (cash terms)

  £ million

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.832

  0.957

  1.068

  1.225

  1.731

  1.182

  1.384

  1.169

  1.337

  1.579

  1.337

  1.419

  1.384

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.851

  0.737

  1.222

  1.395

  2.147

  1.421

  1.327

  1.668

  2.179

  2.733

  2.692

  2.536

  2.447

  Roxburgh

  2.497

  2.603

  2.605

  4.473

  4.807

  3.674

  2.860

  3.373

  4.454

  4.594

  4.989

  4.765

  4.010

  Tweeddale

  0.596

  0.712

  0.475

  0.261

  0.661

  0.516

  0.426

  0.934

  1.459

  0.767

  0.714

  0.873

  0.952

  Central

  Clackmannan

  2.688

  2.410

  2.165

  2.744

  3.444

  2.056

  2.207

  2.881

  5.738

  6.633

  5.766

  4.983

  4.811

  Falkirk

  5.085

  5.034

  5.819

  9.426

  11.790

  10.110

  10.842

  12.746

  16.990

  20.448

  15.105

  16.745

  19.011

  Stirling

  4.367

  5.157

  4.960

  5.312

  5.285

  5.121

  5.969

  7.085

  8.754

  9.159

  9.714

  8.813

  9.302

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  3.158

  3.707

  3.922

  4.516

  4.700

  3.623

  2.811

  3.271

  4.239

  3.832

  4.807

  4.711

  3.913

  Nithsdale

  2.118

  2.056

  2.168

  3.249

  3.970

  3.001

  3.631

  5.200

  6.460

  7.355

  7.164

  6.714

  6.214

  Stewartry

  1.311

  1.278

  1.560

  1.576

  1.954

  1.565

  1.682

  1.698

  1.976

  2.202

  2.229

  1.887

  2.144

  Wigtown

  1.547

  1.542

  1.889

  2.072

  3.930

  2.253

  2.614

  3.209

  3.933

  3.954

  3.698

  3.961

  3.941

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  4.951

  4.257

  5.453

  7.037

  7.949

  7.978

  8.928

  9.622

  14.627

  13.019

  11.244

  10.836

  11.143

  Kirkcaldy

  5.712

  5.875

  8.731

  11.237

  10.431

  8.010

  8.816

  9.339

  13.421

  14.165

  13.742

  13.227

  11.668

  North East Fife

  3.279

  2.960

  2.678

  4.010

  5.592

  4.629

  4.641

  6.553

  5.914

  5.262

  5.266

  5.833

  4.971

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  15.678

  14.618

  13.418

  10.162

  19.144

  19.334

  15.177

  19.269

  23.680

  0.000

  19.457

  19.096

  21.192

  Banff and Buchan

  4.867

  5.258

  4.412

  5.148

  5.824

  5.712

  5.327

  5.418

  5.602

  5.416

  5.139

  5.112

  6.110

  Gordon

  1.688

  2.338

  3.777

  6.023

  7.897

  4.856

  6.892

  7.339

  8.500

  8.619

  8.890

  8.266

  8.307

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0.838

  1.212

  1.884

  2.913

  4.063

  3.732

  4.330

  4.235

  5.212

  4.504

  4.803

  6.566

  5.090

  Moray

  6.465

  5.933

  5.247

  6.479

  6.545

  5.624

  4.777

  4.950

  7.538

  6.924

  6.446

  6.116

  7.007

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.810

  1.014

  1.479

  0.939

  1.201

  0.933

  0.720

  0.655

  0.902

  0.754

  1.779

  1 .664

  1.549

  Caithness

  1.863

  2.185

  1.855

  3.284

  6.995

  4.160

  3.481

  4.090

  4.764

  4.969

  4.094

  3.977

  3.320

  Inverness

  3.130

  3.473

  3.231

  3.940

  6.364

  4.228

  5.051

  5.564

  5.570

  6.144

  7.794

  7.988

  6.390

  Lochaber

  1.921

  2.153

  2.099

  1.638

  2.238

  2.526

  3.091

  3.788

  4.271

  4.421

  5.929

  4.562

  3.701

  Nairn

  0.389

  0.520

  0.987

  0.617

  0.669

  0.884

  0.924

  0.835

  1.194

  1.227

  1.226

  1.275

  1.279

  Ross and Cromarty

  3.594

  3.401

  3.793

  5.244

  8.500

  5.672

  5.959

  7.299

  8.317

  9.275

  8.773

  8.642

  8.390

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0.790

  0.674

  0.844

  1.116

  1.841

  1.508

  2.289

  2.591

  2.743

  2.949

  2.773

  2.654

  2.762

  Sutherland

  0.882

  0.690

  0.916

  1.664

  1.763

  2.209

  2.133

  2.717

  2.497

  2.741

  3.030

  2.626

  2.646

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  2.975

  3.696

  5.059

  7.540

  10.409

  6.706

  6.860

  8.765

  12.847

  14.907

  11.107

  9.759

  9.805

  Edinburgh

  14.328

  19.401

  25.963

  27.034

  46.977

  30.361

  42.521

  41.148

  67.142

  71.995

  70.282

  68.770

  54.263

  Midlothian

  1.986

  2.266

  2.720

  4.019

  5.793

  5.260

  4.570

  5.098

  6.331

  6.041

  5.652

  7.766

  6.018

  West Lothian

  2.879

  3.060

  4.258

  5.705

  6.434

  6.101

  6.958

  8.372

  8.931

  9.275

  12.066

  8.340

  8.937

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  3.784

  5.330

  6.575

  8.270

  9.169

  9.065

  6.403

  8.215

  9.539

  10.092

  9.893

  8.566

  10.398

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1.205

  0.751

  0.824

  0.771

  1.061

  0.869

  0.908

  1.540

  1.898

  2.405

  1.848

  1.977

  1.696

  622

  Column 1 (£ million)

  Column 2 (£ million)

  Column 3 (per cent.)

  1984–85

  705

  1,002

  10

  1985–86

  694

  935

  10

  1986–87

  710

  926

  9

  1987–88

  887

  1,097

  11

  1988–89

  913

  1,053

  11

  1989–90

  1,122

  1,214

  13

  1990–91

  1,083

  1,083

  11

  1991–92

  1,246

  1,081

  11

  Notes:

  1. Column 1 lists in cash terms the total gross public expenditure on housing in Scotland which lies within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This includes gross capital expenditure by local authorities, new towns. Scottish Homes and it's predecessors, the Scottish Special Housing Association and the Housing Corporation in Scotland, as well as current expenditure on grants and subsidies by central government. The figure for 1991–92 is provisional.

  2. Column 2 expresses the figures shown in column 1 in 1990–91 prices, using GDP deflators.

  3. Since gross total figures for Scottish Office expenditure are not available. Column 3 expresses the figures shown in Column 1 as a percentage of the total net public expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland for the relevant year, expressed in cash terms.

  4. The figures for years 1979–80 to 1983–84 are not directly comparable with those for 1984–85 to 1991–92 due to the changes in the definition of the Planning Total announced in Cm 441.
  623

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–921

  Clydebank

  1.963

  2.884

  2.441

  3.293

  4.013

  3.452

  4.458

  5.389

  6.975

  7.734

  7.744

  7.939

  7.397

  Clydesdale

  1.361

  1.338

  1.556

  2.060

  3.139

  2.249

  2.241

  2.679

  3.365

  4.723

  4.863

  4.887

  4.910

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1.848

  0.965

  1.104

  1.406

  1.571

  1.107

  1.383

  1.720

  2.544

  2.714

  2.161

  2.346

  2.103

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1.731

  1.866

  1.599

  1.836

  1.904

  1.492

  1.631

  2.255

  3.743

  3.656

  3.721

  3.720

  3.141

  Cunninghame

  5.527

  6.204

  6.371

  4.415

  8.049

  5.728

  6.194

  7.393

  11.262

  13.103

  14.606

  14.319

  13.742

  Dumbarton

  2.093

  2.428

  2.736

  2.064

  3.668

  2.267

  2.690

  4.057

  6.932

  6.901

  8.992

  9.050

  8.419

  East Kilbride

  0.767

  0.846

  0.995

  1.014

  1.390

  0.861

  0.755

  0.753

  0.731

  0.816

  0.953

  1.005

  1.289

  Eastwood

  0.391

  0.330

  0.472

  0.384

  1.132

  1.285

  1.165

  1.174

  1.438

  1.564

  1.455

  1.849

  1.380

  Glasgow

  77.250

  79.770

  79.614

  88.167

  143.049

  135.365

  106.981

  113.465

  154.780

  137.208

  153.598

  138.079

  124.443

  Hamilton

  6.597

  6.240

  5.274

  5.397

  5.387

  4.851

  6.132

  6.290

  11.899

  11.202

  13.152

  13.300

  11.406

  Inverclyde

  5.911

  5.809

  5.027

  6.888

  11.618

  5.570

  6.813

  7.776

  8.075

  9.658

  11.236

  10.352

  11.154

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3.083

  2.149

  2.079

  2.273

  4.269

  3.203

  4.040

  4.727

  6.077

  7.806

  8.480

  8.444

  7.910

  Kyle and Carrick

  4.408

  3.733

  4.412

  4.692

  6.227

  4.589

  5.640

  6.252

  9.419

  8.819

  8.201

  7.859

  8.001

  Monklands

  8.862

  8.524

  8.394

  10.425

  7.516

  5.077

  6.235

  8.363

  13.030

  13.075

  15.913

  16.414

  14.239

  Motherwell

  10.466

  9.547

  9.084

  8.329

  8.118

  6.801

  8.534

  10.955

  12.362

  18.284

  19.497

  19.296

  19.981

  Renfrew

  8.144

  9.646

  9.524

  10.968

  15.335

  14.201

  14.477

  15.563

  21.461

  26.238

  24.010

  25.429

  22.407

  Strathkelvin

  4.221

  4.460

  4.213

  3.506

  5.759

  3.573

  4.228

  5.775

  6.185

  6.670

  6.538

  6.545

  5.914

  Tayside

  Angus

  2.231

  3.512

  3.422

  3.812

  5.079

  4.159

  4.512

  4.875

  5.565

  5.178

  5.750

  6.210

  6.120

  Dundee

  7.210

  9.163

  9.020

  11.928

  16.298

  13.498

  14.405

  15.441

  22.458

  21.004

  26.106

  28.239

  24.329

  Perth and Kinross

  5.346

  4.997

  3.808

  4.518

  8.730

  8.903

  6.191

  6.716

  6.937

  9.790

  10.237

  6.807

  8.114

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  1.721

  1.761

  1.605

  2.005

  3.011

  2.731

  2.060

  1.433

  1.808

  2.201

  2.401

  2.124

  1.316

  Shetland

  3.530

  3.540

  2.753

  3.296

  3.732

  4.390

  3.793

  5.058

  4.364

  6.621

  5.557

  5.726

  5.415

  Western Isles

  3.097

  3.609

  4.982

  5.835

  6.719

  8.103

  6.721

  5.893

  7.867

  8.859

  8.748

  9.096

  8.101

  Table 3

  Housing capital expenditure by local authority (real terms at
  1990–91 prices)

  £ million

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  1991–92

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  1.805

  1.755

  1.786

  1.912

  2.583

  1.679

  1.864

  1.524

  1.653

  1.821

  1.447

  1.419

  1.200

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1.847

  1.351

  2.044

  2.178

  3.203

  2.019

  1.787

  2.175

  2.694

  3.151

  2.912

  2.536

  2.122

  Roxburgh

  5.418

  4.773

  4.356

  6.983

  7.172

  5.220

  3.851

  4.397

  5.507

  5.297

  5.398

  4.765

  3.478

  Tweeddale

  1.293

  1.306

  0.794

  0.407

  0.986

  0.733

  0.574

  1.218

  1.804

  0.884

  0.772

  0.873

  0.826

  Central

  Clackmannan

  5.833

  4.419

  3.620

  4.284

  5.138

  2.921

  2.972

  3.756

  7.095

  7.649

  6.238

  4.983

  4.173

  Falkirk

  11.034

  9.231

  9.731

  14.715

  17.590

  14.365

  14.599

  16.616

  21.007

  23.579

  16.342

  16.745

  16.489

  Stirling

  9.476

  9.456

  8.294

  8.292

  7.885

  7.276

  8.037

  9.236

  10.824

  10.561

  10.510

  8.813

  8.068

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  6.353

  6.798

  6.559

  7.050

  7.012

  5.148

  3.785

  4.264

  5.241

  4.419

  5.201

  4.711

  3.394

  Nithsdale

  4.596

  3.770

  3.625

  5.072

  5.923

  4.264

  4.889

  6.779

  7.987

  8.481

  7.751

  6.714

  5.390

  Stewartry

  2.845

  2.343

  2.609

  2.460

  2.915

  2.224

  2.265

  2.214

  2.443

  2.539

  2.412

  1.887

  1.860

  Wigtown

  3.357

  2.828

  3.159

  3.235

  5.863

  3.201

  3.520

  4.183

  4.863

  4.559

  4.001

  3.961

  3.418

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  10.743

  7.806

  9.119

  10.985

  11.859

  11.335

  12.022

  12.544

  18.085

  15.013

  12.165

  10.836

  9.665

  Kirkcaldy

  12.394

  10.773

  14.601

  17.542

  15.562

  11.381

  11.871

  12.175

  16.594

  16.334

  14.867

  13.227

  10.120

  North East Fife

  7.115

  5.428

  4.478

  6.260

  8.343

  6.577

  6.249

  8.543

  7.312

  6.068

  5.697

  5.833

  4.312

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  34.020

  26.805

  22.439

  15.864

  28.561

  27.470

  20.436

  25.120

  29.279

  0.000

  21.051

  19.096

  18.381

  Banff and Buchan

  10.561

  9.642

  7.378

  8.036

  8.689

  8.116

  7.173

  7.063

  6.927

  6.245

  5.560

  5.112

  5.300

  Gordon

  3.663

  4.287

  6.316

  9.402

  11.782

  6.900

  9.280

  9.568

  10.510

  9.939

  9.618

  8.266

  7.205

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1.818

  2.222

  3.151

  4.547

  6.062

  5.303

  5.830

  5.521

  6.444

  5.194

  5.196

  6.566

  4.415

  Moray

  14.028

  10.879

  8.774

  10.114

  9.765

  7.991

  6.432

  6.453

  9.320

  7.984

  6.974

  6.116

  6.078

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1.758

  1.859

  2.473

  1.466

  1.792

  1.326

  0.970

  0.854

  1.115

  0.869

  1.925

  1.664

  1.344

  Caithness

  4.043

  4.007

  3.102

  5.127

  10.436

  5.911

  4.687

  5.332

  5.890

  5.730

  4.429

  3.977

  2.880

  Inverness

  6.792

  6.369

  5.403

  6.151

  9.495

  6.007

  6.801

  7.254

  6.887

  7.085

  8.432

  7.988

  5.542

  Lochaber

  4.168

  3.948

  3.510

  2.557

  3.339

  3.589

  4.162

  4.938

  5.281

  5.098

  6.415

  4.562

  3.210

  Hairn

  0.844

  0.954

  1.651

  0.963

  0.998

  1.256

  1.244

  1.089

  1.476

  1.415

  1.326

  1.275

  1.109

  Ross and Cromarty

  7.799

  6.236

  6.343

  8.186

  12.681

  8.059

  8.024

  9.515

  10.284

  10.695

  9.492

  8.642

  7.277

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.714

  1.236

  1.411

  1.742

  2.747

  2.143

  3.082

  3.378

  3.392

  3.401

  3.000

  2.654

  2.396

  Sutherland

  1.914

  1.265

  1.532

  2.598

  2.630

  3.139

  2.872

  3.542

  3.087

  3.161

  3.278

  2.626

  2.295

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  6.455

  6.777

  8.460

  11.770

  15.529

  9.528

  9.237

  11.427

  15.885

  17.190

  12.017

  9.759

  8.504

  Edinburgh

  31.090

  35.576

  43.417

  42.202

  70.086

  43.848

  57.256

  53.643

  83.017

  83.019

  76.038

  68.770

  47.066

  Midlothian

  4.309

  4.155

  4.549

  6.274

  8.643

  7.474

  6.154

  6.646

  7.828

  6.966

  6.115

  7.766

  5.220

  West Lothian

  6.247

  5.611

  7.121

  8.906

  9.599

  8.669

  9.369

  10.914

  11.043

  10.695

  13.054

  8.340

  7.752

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  8.211

  9.774

  10.995

  12.910

  13.679

  12.880

  8.622

  10.710

  11.794

  11.637

  10.703

  8.566

  9.019

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2.615

  1.377

  1.378

  1.204

  1.583

  1.235

  1.223

  2.008

  2.347

  2.773

  1.999

  1.977

  1.471

  Clydebank

  4.260

  5.288

  4.082

  5.141

  5.987

  4.905

  6.003

  7.025

  8.624

  8.918

  8.378

  7.939

  6.416

  Clydesdale

  2.953

  2.454

  2.602

  3.216

  4.683

  3.195

  3.018

  3.493

  4.161

  5.446

  5.261

  4.887

  4.259

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4.010

  1.770

  1.846

  2.195

  2.344

  1.573

  1.862

  2.242

  3.146

  3.130

  2.338

  2.346

  1.824

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.756

  3.422

  2.674

  2.866

  2.841

  2.120

  2.196

  2.940

  4.628

  4.216

  4.026

  3.720

  2.724

  Cunninghame

  11.993

  11.376

  10.654

  6.892

  12.008

  8.139

  8.340

  9.638

  13.925

  15.109

  15.802

  14.819

  11.919

  Dumbarton

  4.542

  4.452

  4.575

  3.222

  5.472

  3.221

  3.622

  5.289

  8.571

  7.958

  9.728

  9.050

  7.302

  East Kilbride

  1.664

  1.551

  1.664

  1.583

  2.074

  1.223

  1.017

  0.982

  0.904

  0.941

  1.031

  1.005

  1.118

  624 625

  Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  1991–92

  Eastwood

  0.848

  0.605

  0.789

  0.599

  1.689

  1.826

  1.569

  1.530

  1.778

  1.803

  1.574

  1.849

  1.197

  Glasgow

  167.625

  146.276

  133.136

  137.634

  213.417

  192.332

  144.053

  147.920

  191.377

  158.218

  166.178

  138.079

  107.937

  Hamilton

  14.315

  11.442

  8.820

  8.425

  8.037

  6.892

  8.257

  8.200

  14.712

  12.917

  14.229

  13.300

  9.893

  Inverclyde

  12.826

  10.652

  8.406

  10.753

  17.333

  7.914

  9.174

  10.137

  9.984

  11.137

  12.156

  10.352

  9.675

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  6.690

  3.941

  3.477

  3.548

  6.369

  4.551

  5.440

  6.162

  7.514

  9.001

  9.175

  8.444

  6.861

  Kyle and Carrick

  9.565

  6.845

  7.378

  7.324

  9.290

  6.520

  7.594

  8.150

  11.646

  10.169

  8.873

  7.859

  6.940

  Monklands

  19.230

  15.631

  14.037

  16.274

  11.213

  7.214

  8.396

  10.903

  16.111

  15.077

  17.216

  16.414

  12.350

  Motherwell

  22.710

  17.507

  15.191

  13.002

  12.111

  9.663

  11.491

  14.282

  15.285

  21.084

  21.094

  19.296

  17.331

  Renfrew

  17.672

  17.688

  15.927

  17.122

  22.878

  20.177

  19.494

  20.289

  26.535

  30.256

  25.976

  25.429

  19.435

  Strathkelvin

  9.159

  8.178

  7.045

  5.473

  8.592

  5.077

  5.693

  7.529

  7.647

  7.691

  7.073

  6.545

  5.130

  Tayside

  Angus

  4.841

  6.440

  5.723

  5.951

  7.577

  5.909

  6.076

  6.355

  6.881

  5.971

  6.221

  6.210

  5.308

  Dundee

  15.645

  16.802

  15.084

  18.620

  24.315

  19.178

  19.397

  20.130

  27.768

  24.220

  28.244

  28.239

  21.102

  Perth and Kinross

  11.600

  9.163

  6.368

  7.053

  13.024

  12.650

  8.336

  8.755

  8.577

  11.289

  11.075

  6.807

  7.038

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  3.734

  3.229

  2.684

  3.130

  4.492

  3.880

  2.774

  1.868

  2.235

  2.538

  2.598

  2.124

  1.141

  Shetland

  7.660

  6.491

  4.604

  5.145

  5.568

  6.237

  5.107

  6.594

  5.396

  7.635

  6.012

  5.726

  4.697

  Western Isles

  6.720

  6.618

  8.331

  9.109

  10.024

  11.513

  9.050

  7.682

  9.727

  10.216

  9.464

  9.096

  7.027

  1 Provisional.

  Rents-to-Mortgages
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes have
  been bought under the rents-to-mortgages scheme in district councils and Scottish Homes; and if
  he will list them by district councils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  (holding answer 26 June 1992): Based on
  returns to 31 May 1992, a total of 46 local authority and 265 Scottish Homes properties have
  been sold under the rent-to-mortgage scheme. A breakdown by district council for local authority
  sales and by Scottish Homes district office for Scottish Homes sales is shown in the table. The
  boundaries of Scottish Homes district offices do not align exactly with those of district
  councils.

  Rent to mortgage sales

  District/Islands Councils

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1

  Tweeddale

  1

  Clackmannan

  1

  Stirling

  4

  Nithsdale

  1

  Kirkcaldy

  4

  East Lothian

  9

  Midlothian

  6

  Eastwood

  2

  Kyle and Carrick

  3

  Monklands

  1

  Renfrew

  7

  Angus

  4

  Dundee

  1

  Orkney

  1

  Total

  46

  Scottish Homes

  Edinburgh

  7

  Lothian and Borders

  64

  Central

  25

  Fife

  28

  Grampian

  34

  Tayside

  11

  Highlands and Islands

  9

  Lanarkshire

  15

  Renfrew and Inverclyde

  26

  Ayrshire

  24

  Glasgow North and East

  10

  Glasgow South

  2

  Glasgow West

  10

  Total

  265

  Placenta (Cosmetic Research)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria govern the sale by Scottish health authorities of unifected placenta for the purpose of cosmetic research; whether the knowledge or consent of the women involved is required; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Unless a patient has indicated otherwise, placentae will be treated by hospitals as clinical waste and it is for health boards to decide on the appropriate arrangements for disposal. In some cases placentae are collected by pharmaceutical companies who use these to produce immunoglobulin but I am not aware of placentae being used other than for medical purposes. I shall ask health boards to ensure that the disposal arrangements meet with the agreement of the patient.

  Training
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions her Department is having about the quality and quantity of youth training places in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish Office is in regular routine contact with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise about the overall performance of the whole range of their programmes, including youth training.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure per head in Scotland of(a) hospital and community health services, (b) general practitioner services, excluding the cost of prescriptions, (c) dental services, gross and net of charges and (d) general practitioner-prescribed prescriptions, in 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Final information in respect of expenditure in 1991–92 will not be available until later in the year.

  Assisted Areas
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make his statement concerning the revision of the assisted areas map of Scotland.
  627
  Mr. Lang
  A review of the map was announced on 9 June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry,Official Report, column 127. Copies of a consultation paper on the arrangements for the review and the criteria which will be taken into account in considering changes to the map have been placed in the Library. Copies of this paper have also been distributed to a range of interested bodies in Scotland. The closing date for responses to the consultation paper is 30 September 1992.

  Strathclyde Buses
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the reason for the delay in making a decision on the management/employee buy-out of Strathclyde Buses; when he expects to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Early in May my right hon. Friend received a request from Strathclyde regional council for consent to sell Strathclyde Buses Ltd to the company's management and employees. On 18 May there was a fire at Strathclyde Buses' Larkfield depot, Glasgow which destroyed the depot and a large number of buses. My right hon. Friend immediately sought clarification from the regional council about whether the vendors and prospective purchasers were content that the terms of the offer should remain unchanged. A response is awaited. A decision on the sale will he announced after the terms of the offer have been confirmed.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Lang
  At 1 April 1992 there were two registered disabled officers at grade 6 level in my Department, which represents 1 per cent. of officers in that grade. The overall number of registered disabled staff was 89, which represents 1.4 per cent. of the total staff in post.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants are employed by the Scottish Office in(a) London and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1992]: At 1 April 1992 the number of civil servants employed by the Scottish Office excluding the Scottish prison service was 6,389, of whom 36 were located in London.

  Ozone Depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone depleting chemicals.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: The Scottish Office encourages industry and local authorities to recover and recycle CFCs. Some 29 authorities, representing 61 per cent. of the population of Scotland, have schemes for CFC recovery. New schemes identified by authorities in their expenditure plans are taken into account when setting their capital expenditure allocations
  628
  each year. The public are also encouraged, in the recently published citizens' guide "Green Rights and Responsibilites in Scotland", to make use of council facilities for the safe removal of CFCs from old refrigerators. As a further measure it is intended to ban the supply of refrigerant in disposable containers.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: In January 1992 Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte was engaged to provide assistance in drawing up a list of potential market testing candidates. That consultancy project finished in March 1992 and there are currently no consultants appointed for market testing.

  Forestry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice given by his Department in relation to tree planting in Strath Cuileannach, Sutherland, and its impact on agricultural activity.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: It is not the normal practice of my Department to publish correspondence relating to individual cases in the manner requested. However, the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department was consulted by the Forestry Commission about the proposals to develop a new native pinewood at Strath Cuileannach and decided not to object to the proposals, subject to certain conditions regarding the boundaries of the scheme affecting the land retained for sheep farming. That decision was taken in accordance with the procedures and criteria for the release of agricultural land for forestry announced by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question from myself, on 24 October 1989.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available to him from planting applications on the ownership of Strath Cuileannach, Sutherland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The application for grant aid for planting at Strath Cuileannach shows the land owned by Forest Farm Partnership.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by geographical area, the planting grants approved by the Forest Authority in each of the past three years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The areas of planting for which grants were paid in England, Wales and Scotland are shown in the Forestry Commission's 1989–90 and 1990–91 annual reports in table 2 of appendix XI in each case. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House. Similar information for 1991–92 will be included in the Commission's annual report to be published in the autumn. I have arranged for provisional figures for that year to be provided to the hon. Member and to be placed in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Employers
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively and overall in her Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information cannot be provided in the form requested but overall numbers were 1,688 registered disabled people (3.2 per cent.) at June 1991, the latest date for which figures are available. The Department also employs other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Note

  1. Staff working less than 10 hours per week are not included.

  2. Staff working between 10 and 30 hours per week are counted as half staff units.

  Travel to Interview Scheme
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will abolish the upper salary limit for the travel to interview scheme.

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

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance she gives to employees about the entitlement of lay members of industrial tribunals to paid time off work for tribunal duties.

  Mr McLoughlin
  People who are invited to become industrial tribunal lay members are informed that they are entitled under legislation to reasonable time off work for tribunal duties. There is no entitlement under the law to paid time off for such duties.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to increase the number of women serving as lay members on industrial tribunals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, is anxious to increase the number of women serving on industrial tribunals as on other bodies, and we have taken steps to encourage suitable women to come forward for appointment from October 1992. Last year my predecessor, in asking bodies to nominate suitable candidates, stressed the desirability of increasing the number of women appointed. He also asked other bodies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Women's National Commission to take what steps they could to encourage suitable women to apply. Officials in the Department organised a seminar for these bodies at which the need to encourage suitable women was stressed, and the information provided to interested inquirers and the press publicity about the appointment arrangements also emphasised this point.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance she gives to lay members of industrial tribunals about the number of days they should expect to sit on tribunal duties.
  630
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Individuals who are offered appoint-ment to the panels of industrial tribunal lay members are told they may be asked to sit at least 15 days a year.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give a date when she will announce the areas of work in her Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As promised in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", departmental targets for market testing in 1992–93 will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in her Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am unable to provide full-cost information.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of savings in her Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such estimate has been made. The aim of market testing is to provide a better service to the customer as well as better value for money. We cannot predict in advance what the effect of the future market testing programme will be on the quality of service and costs, but we shall be looking for improvements in both.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Information
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the regulations or guidelines which enable pharmaceutical companies to acquaint doctors with their products but preclude them from doing so in respect of nurses; and what plans she has to change these arrangements with the extension of limited prescribing powers to certain categories of nurses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regulations made under the Medicines Act 1968 do not preclude pharmaceutical companies from acquainting nurses with their products, although the advertising of prescription medicines which may be administered by nurses is confined to nursing journals. Regulations also provide that prescription medicines may be advertised to those who may lawfully prescribe them.

  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those professions which are covered by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960; what plans she has to review the Act and to extend it to include further such professions; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Act currently covers chiropodists, dietitians, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and orthoptists. Under section 10 of the Act, it is for the Council for
  631
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine to propose any extension of its scope to other groups. There are no plans at present to review the Act.

  Immunology
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of consultant immunologists in each regional health authority, and the special health authorities, at the most recent available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department's September 1990 medical manpower census—the latest date for which figures are available centrally—records one consultant immunologist in each of the East Anglian and South West Thames regional health authorities and two consultant immunologists in the Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's special health authority. Other immunologists with general medical responsibilities are likely to have been recorded under general medicine rather than immunology.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head in each region and nationally of(a) hospital and community health services, (b) general practitioner services, excluding the cost of the prescriptions, (c) general dental services, gross and net dental charges and (d) general practitioner—prescribed prescriptions, for 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information derived from the 1991–92 annual accounts of health authorities and family health services authorities will he available in the autumn.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that her Department's guidelines and arrangements for counselling on abortion, have been followed in each district health authority;

  (2) if she will list the applications made by local authorities for the funding of pilot projects concerned with counselling on abortion as envisaged under health circular HC(77)26 together with the name of the health authority, the sum requested, the year of application, whether or not funding was granted and the sum granted.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health circular (77)26 was issued in 1977 following the report of the Lane committee on the working of the Abortion Act 1967. The arrangements introduced at that time for funding training from central funds were designed to enhance existing local training facilities through pilot projects, if needed. The arrangements were not intended to be permanent or long-running. Records of take-up are no longer available. It is now the responsibility of local management to ensure that staff are properly trained in counselling skills where this is relevant to their work.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of inspections of each of the places approved for the purposes of section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 since they were first approved under that section.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Once approval is given under 632
  section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967, those places using all of their beds for abortions are visited at least twice a year. Other approved places have at least one visit a year.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of the Medicines Act (Exemptions from Licences) (Importation) Order 1984—SI, 1984, No. 673—in relation to named patient arrangements for the supply of unlicensed factor 8 preparations and other unlicensed pharmaceutical products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Applications for the import of unlicensed factor 8 as with all unlicensed medicines are subject to the provisions of SI 1984 No. 673—the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Importation) Order. This makes provision to meet a need for a particular product where there is no equivalent licensed product available on the United Kingdom market or if such a licence has been granted, the medicinal product is not in practice available.

  Sale or supply of exempted products is restricted to the conditions specified in the order.

  Each import exemption is limited to a quantity not exceeding that sufficient for 25 single administrations or for 25 courses of treatment not exceeding three months.

  In deciding whether or not to allow importation the Medicines Control Agency considers: the facilities and conditions relating to manufacture, the quality of material being imported and whether the medicinal product can be regarded as a product which can be safely administered to human beings or whether the product is of satisfactory quality for such administration.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the efficacy of the current test for screening for cervical cancer; and what action she is taking to reduce the number of tests which prove negative when cancer is present.

  Mr. Sackville
  The effectiveness of the "pap" smear test for cervical cancer screening has been demonstrated by experience in Canada, the Grampian region and Nordic countries with noteworthy decreases in the incidence and mortality due to cervical cancer.

  The Department advised health authorities in health circular HC(88)1, a copy of which is available in the Library, of the recommendation for a comprehensive education programme to train doctors and nurses in how to take satisfactory smears. In order to ensure that there are continuing improvements in laboratory standards when processing smears, the Department issued guidance on a protocol for a proficiency testing scheme in gynaecological cytopathology for laboratory staff. This advised of the need for regional cytopathology external quality assurance groups and the Department set up a national co-ordinating committee to promote accuracy in reporting smear test results.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department's chief medical officer has given the public about sexual activity involving an
  633
  individual suffering with HIV or AIDS; what is the latest estimate of the risk of contracting the disease when a condom is(a) used and (b) not used; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data are available from the results of "The European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV", published in March 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library. Couples where one partner was already infected with HIV were followed up six-monthly. Among 44 couples using condoms intermittently, six women were infected with HIV. No partners were infected in 24 couples using condoms consistently.

  The AIDS public education campaign has encouraged the use of condoms as a means of protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

  Ultraviolet Radiation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice her Department has received from the expert advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment regarding ultraviolet radiation and health.

  Mr. Sackville
  In response to a recent request from the United Kingdom Health Departments, COMARE has now furnished advice on ultraviolet radiation (UV) and adverse health effects in the context of existing public health advice on minimising UV exposure, and the need for further research. In particular, COMARE was asked to consider its advice against a background of evidence of a raised incidence of skin cancer in the United Kingdom and recent concerns about changes in solar UV levels secondary to possible changes in the stratospheric ozone layer.

  COMARE concludes that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that skin cancer incidence is related to exposure to UV radiation, and that risk is determined largely by patterns of exposure to existing levels of solar UV radiation, which is influenced by people's lifestyle. The committee makes a number of recommendations relating to additional public health advice on minimising exposure to natural and artificial sources of UV, and on common standards for consumer information for sunglasses and sunscreen products. The Government accept the committee's recommendations and the Health Departments are considering urgently how best to implement them. The Government note COMARE's intention to consider research needs further in the light of relevant research currently under way or planned.

  The Government are grateful to COMARE for its work in this area and looks forward to receiving further advice on research needs. Following is the full text of the committee's advice:

  Statement of advice from COMARE to Health Departments Health effects of ultra violet radiation

  INTRODUCTION

  1. The United Kingdom Health Departments have asked COMARE to consider the adverse health effects of UV radiation (UVR) in relation to existing public health advice on minimising UV exposure, and the need for further research. This has been considered against a background of:

  (a) evidence of an increased incidence of all skin cancers, and in particular the increase in malignant melanoma (MM) over recent years, and

  (b) whether there is a need to issue additional advice in
  634
  the light of the recent concerns that solar UV levels might be altered secondary to possible changes in the stratospheric ozone layer.

  HEALTH EFFECTS

  2. The Committee have noted with concern that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the incidence of malignant melanoma in England and Wales (1,827 cases in 1980 rising to 2,635 cases in 1986). The much more common, although seldom fatal, forms of skin cancer which are grouped as non-melanotic skin cancers (NMSC) increased from 19,000 cases in 1980 to over 25,000 cases in 1986. We consider that this rising incidence of skin cancers constitutes a public health problem in the United Kingdom. Other health effects are known to be associated with excessive exposure to UVR, and additional research is needed in these areas.

  3. We consider that there is sufficient evidence to show that skin cancer incidence is related to exposure to UV radiation and that risk is determined largely by patterns of exposure to existing levels of solar UV radiation which is influenced by people's occupation and behaviour. The risk however, varies with the degree of skin pigmentation, being greatest in the skin type with red hair and fair skin which does not tan.

  CANCER REGISTRATION

  4. The Committee reiterates its view that skin cancer registration procedures should be improved so that the statistics can he updated more regularly. It was recognised by the working party chaired by Professor Eva Alberman which reported last year on the national cancer registration scheme (Series MB1 No. 17) that better and more timely figures were required. Many of the working party's 17 recommendations are currently being taken forward by the cancer registries in the regional health authorities and by the NHS information management group in the Department. COMARE has previously expressed its support for this review.

  SOLAR MONITORING

  5. The Committee note that the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) set up three experimental solar UV monitoring stations in the United Kingdom in 1988, and that the instrumentation of these units has subsequently been improved. We acknowledge the value of these measurements in providing baseline data for any changes which may occur in the future. We welcome the NRPB proposal to extend this scheme to latitudes further north and south to provide a more comprehensive picture of the terrestrial solar UV levels over United Kingdom latitudes.

  6. The Committee note the widespread concerns about long term stratospheric ozone depletion and support the initiatives already being taken by the signatories to the Montreal Protocol to reduce the release of ozone-depleting chemicals into the atmosphere.

  7. We note that seasonal variations in solar UV levels, and short term variations due to cloud cover and local weather, are far in excess of any long term UV changes currently anticipated as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion. For this reason it would not be helpful to publish daily information on solar UVR levels; such retrospective information would be of little practical value. It should be recognised that currently the most important factor in a person's exposure to solar UVR is lifestyle and we recommend that there is a need to inform the public of the risks of excessive exposure to sunlight.

  RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

  8. We consider that considerable additional scientific information on the health effects of UV is required to enable a more accurate assessment of the various aspects of health risk and to facilitate effective targeting of public health education (see 10 below). Whilst a clear association between non-melanotic skin cancer and cumulative UV exposure has been demonstrated, the relationship between UV exposure and malignant melanoma trends needs further consideration. We will consider further research needs in the light of ongoing work, in particular the work of the NRPB Advisory Group on non-ionising radiations.
  635
  PUBLIC HEALTH ADVICE

  9. We endorse the general content and basis of existing health advice as set out in the Health Education Authority leaflet ("Are you dying to get a suntan?"), and agree that there is a need to reinforce certain important aspects. In particular the Committee recommend that there is a need to advise about the potential longterm dangers of sunburn to children and babies, and to emphasise the need for individuals to develop a better awareness of their own skin's sensitivity to solar UVR, hearing in mind the very great variation in sensitivity which exists between different members of the population.

  10. We fully endorse the Health Department's proposal to reinforce existing public health advice on UV, and to consider the specific health advice given to users of sunbeds/sunlamps and tungsten halogen lamps and recommend that this he taken forward urgently. We also support proposals to consider the application of common standards to consumer information for sunglasses and suntan products. The Committee wish to he kept fully informed of progress in these areas.

  Herbicides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the possible effects of human consumption of the pesticides atrazine and simazine.

  Mr. Sackville
  No adverse health effects have been detected in humans from the approved United Kingdom agricultural and non-agricultural uses of these herbicides. In some experiments where doses hundreds of times the highest estimated human intake in the United Kingdom have been fed to laboratory rats, the incidence of mammary tumours was increased.

  The independent and statutory Advisory Committee on Pesticides has confirmed that the levels of atrazine and simazine found in some drinking water supplies in the United Kingdom do not endanger the health of consumers. Residues of these chemicals have not been found in food crops.

  The United Kingdom has a legal obligation to comply with the European Community's drinking water directive —80/778/EEC—which sets very stringent limits on non-toxicological grounds, and restrictions on the use of both these herbicides were announced in May 1992. Approvals for non-crop use, which is the main source of water contamination, will he revoked on 31 August 1993 and further restrictions will apply to all other uses from the same date.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which ambulance stations have been closed in Greater Manchester over the last three months; how many times; and for how long.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. E. S. Schofield, the chairman of Bury health authority, which is responsible for the management of the Greater Manchester ambulance service.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to answer questions on the running of the ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  NHS ambulance services are contracted to provide patient transport services by purchasing health authorities which are responsible for the delivery of those services. Ambulance service policy is a matter for Ministers.

  General Practitioner Beds
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it remains Government policy, as set out by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health in a letter to the hon. Member for Twickenham on 25 July 1990, that Teddington memorial hospital and the general practitioner beds within it have a secure future for as long as general practitioners and patients continue to want to use them; if the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton district health authority has been made aware that this is Government policy; if she will ask the authority to comply; and if she will inform the hon. Member for Twickenham of the result.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have recently visited Teddington memorial hospital.

  All health authorities are obliged to consider carefully the health needs of their population and should ensure that in contracting for health services, both acute and in the community, they have consulted local people including, for example, GPs.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the occupancy rate for the 27 general practitioner beds at the Teddington memorial hospital; and what representations she has received from general practitioners, and from the applicants for trust status concerning the demand for continuation of provision of general practitioner beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on bed occupancy rates is not collected centrally.

  Local GPs and staff at Teddington memorial have written to Ministers expressing their concern about the provision of general practitioner beds. I will reply shortly.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers she has to require a district health authority acting as a purchasing authority to provide for the purchase of general practitioner beds where there is clear evidence of demand from general practitioners and their patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are expected to purchase a wide range of health services for their local populations. The level and type of services purchased are for the authorities themselves to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in her Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated cost of the market-testing initiative in the Department since November 1991 is in the order of £150,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of savings in her Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  No such estimate has been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a date when she will announce the areas of work in her Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.
  637
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June, column 102.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is set out in the table, being non-industrial staff in post on 29 June 1992 in MAFF and its agencies. (Part-time staff are counted as 0.5).

  Female staff in post

  Grade/grade equivalent

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0.;0

  0.;0

  2

  1.;0

  12.;5

  3

  2.;0

  7.;7

  4

  0.;0

  0.;0

  5

  11.;0

  9.;2

  6

  11.;5

  7.;1

  7

  137.;5

  14.;7

  163.;0

  12.;9

  The total number of women in the Department and its agencies is 4,293.;5. This is 43.;5 per cent. of total staff.

  The female grade 2 is the chief executive of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the likely future incidence of BSE; when he expects the outbreak to peak and at what level; and when he now expects the disease to disappear in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  It is impossible to predict accurately the future incidence of BSE since it is not known how many cattle received sufficient inefective agent in feed to cause disease. Nevertheless, 1992 is expected to be the peak year in relation to the number of confirmed cases. And all the evidence continues to show that the ruminant feed ban, introduced in July 1988, is the key measure which will ultimately lead to the eradication of BSE. It is not expected that the effect of the ban will be reflected in a decline in the annual total number of cases until next year. Thereafter it is expected that there will be a clear downward trend until the ultimate disappearance of the disease, possibly by the end of the 1990s.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of bovine somatotropin in the United Kingdom after 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  Within the Community the use of BST except in authorised field trials is banned until the end of 1993. The Commission is obliged to present a report including appropriate proposals for subsequent arrangements before 30 June 1993.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to this answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 685, if he will list the number of cases, of which the Department are aware, of beef cattle fed with the drug clenbuterol entering the United Kingdom and their country of origin.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Herbicides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the uses of the pesticides atrazine and simazine.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 May,Official Report, col. 252.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be able to tell abattoir owners whether their applications for derogation from upgrading their plants to EC standards have been successful.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department's veterinary officers are currently in the process of visiting all fresh meat premises seeking derogations in order to upgrade to the new EC structural standards. Before a derogation can be granted, a detailed work plan must be agreed between the plant and the Department. This work is proceeding as quickly as possible and owners will be informed individually about the outcome of their derogation applications.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The full cost of the market testing initiative in the Department since November 1991 has been £44,000.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), on 22 June 1992,Official Report. col. 102.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Curry
  No such forward estimate has been made.

  Grass-growing Machines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has undertaken into the effectiveness of hydroponic grass-growing machines as a provider of food for stabled horses.
  639
  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has received in respect of the quality and effectiveness of hydroponic grass-growing machines.

  Mr. Curry
  I am not aware of any representations on this matter.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Curry
  The information set out as at 29 June 1992 relates to MAFF staff and its agencies. Part-time staff are counted as 0.5. Figures have been aggregated to preserve individuals' confidentiality.

  Registered disabled

  Grade/Grade equivalent

  Number

  Percentage

  1–7

  4

  0.;3

  The total number of known registered disabled staff in the Department and its agencies is 126.;5. This is 1.;3 per cent. of total staff.

  These figures do not include staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Agriculture Council
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 30 June.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council.

  The regulations implementing the Council's decisions of 21 May on common agricultural policy reform and on 1992–93 farm prices were formally adopted. Despite pressure from some delegations, no changes were made to the agreement. The Commission made a number of declarations on subjects of concern to particular delegations, but these do not commit the United Kingdom or the Council.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Subsidiarity
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definition of subsidiarity was used in the discussions between EC regional policy Ministers in Lisbon on 15–16 May.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting. No precise definition of subsidiarity was used. However, subsidiarity is generally defined in the Community context as the principle that the Community should take action only when objectives cannot be achieved at the level of individual member states acting alone, and that such action should not exceed the minimum necessary to achieve those objectives.

  Internal Market Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the matters to be discussed at the next meeting of the EC Internal Market Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I will chair the next Internal Market Council on 22 September.

  The agenda will not be finalised until early September.

  Telephone Faults
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Oftel on the priority telephone fault repair service for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of OFTEL from time to time to discuss a wide range of telecommunications issues. He fully shares the Government's view of the importance of a free priority fault repair service for those disabled customers whose lives depend on having constant telephone access to outside medical help.

  Accidents at Home
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the toy industry regarding delays in publication of statistics for accidents in the home.

  Mr. Leigh
  No representations have been received from the toy industry regarding delays in the publication of statistics on accidents in the home.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the hospitals surveyed by his Department for the production of statistics on accidents in the home.

  Mr. Leigh
  The hospitals currently collecting data for the home accident surveillance system (HASS) are as follows:

  North Tees general hospital, Stockton-on-Tees

  Luton and Dunstable hospital, Luton

  Skegness and District hospital, Skegness

  Selly Oak hospital, Birmingham

  Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr Tydfil

  Royal Berkshire hospital, Reading

  Mount Vernon hospital, Hillingdon

  Macclesfield district general, Macclesfield

  Manor hospital, Nuneaton

  William Harvey hospital, Ashford, Kent

  Blackburn royal infirmary, Blackburn

  Daisy Hill hospital, Newry, Co. Down

  Monklands district hospital, Airdrie

  Kings Collegee hospital, Denmark Hill

  Hereford general hospital, Hereford

  Queen Mary's university hospital, Roehampton

  Airedale general hospital, Keighley

  Bournemouth general hospital, Bournemouth

  NB The North Devon district hospital, Barnstaple will replace William Harvey hospital in November 1992.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish statistics for accidents in the home for the years 1990 and 1991.
  641
  Mr. Leigh
  The target dates for publication of the Department's home accident surveillance system statistics for the years specified are as follows:

  1990: October 31 1992

  1991: July 31 1993

  EC Regulations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many EC regulations have been introduced this year which apply to matters covered by his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  For the year, up to and including the 19 June 1992, some 36 EC regulations were introduced for which the Department of Trade and Industry has overall responsibility.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual output, United Kingdom market size and trade balance for activity headings 3301, 3302, 3441, 3443, 3453, and 3454 for each complete year from 1987.

  Balance of Trade

  SIC1

  3301

  3302

  3441

  3443

  3453

  3454

  £ millions

  1987

  -340

  -548

  -276

  146

  -584

  -731

  1988

  -25

  -891

  -351

  321

  -794

  -821

  1989

  23

  -1,365

  -238

  157

  -848

  -819

  1990

  103

  -1,322

  -162

  234

  -601

  -509

  1991

  170

  -1,045

  -123

  198

  -677

  -257

  1Standard Industrial Classification (1980):

  3301 Office machinery.

  3302 Electronic data processing equipment.

  3441 Telegraph and telephone equipment.

  3443 Radio and electronic capital goods.

  3453 Electronic sub-assemblies and active components.

  3454 Electronic consumer goods and miscellaneous equipment.

  2Sales of principal products of each industry.

  3Home demand = Sales + Imports - Exports.

  Data not available.

  Data source: CSO.

  Trans-European Networks
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications of the proposals for Trans-European networks contained in articles 129b, c and d of the treaty on European union for equalisation on harmonisation of the relevant system costs, or costs to the consumers or users of such designated networks.

  Mr. Needham
  Action by the Community on Trans-European Networks in energy telecommunications and transport, provided for in articles 129b to 129d of the treaty on European union, is to be aimed at promoting interconnection and inter-operability of national networks within a framework of open and competitive markets. If the Community succeeds in encouraging larger and more liberalised networks, this can be expected to lead to greater competition and thus to bring prices for consumers and users more closely into line with costs.

  Mersey Barrage
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance was given from public funds by Her Majesty's Government towards the Travers Morgan economic study for the Mersey Barrage Company; and what percentage that was of the total cost.
  642
  Mr. Sainbury
  The information is shown in the table.

  Sales2

  SIC1

  3301

  3302

  3441

  3443

  3453

  3454

  £millions

  1987

  268

  4,352

  1,669

  2,958

  1,168

  1,079

  1988

  270

  5,229

  1,970

  3,189

  1,335

  1,199

  1989

  295

  5,695

  2,137

  3,171

  1,487

  1,203

  1990

  251

  6,388

  1,883

  3,335

  1,619

  1,501

  1991

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Home demand3

  SIC1

  3301

  3302

  3441

  3443

  3453

  3454

  £millions

  1987

  607

  4,900

  1,945

  2,812

  1,752

  1,810

  1988

  295

  6,120

  2,321

  2,868

  2,129

  2,020

  1989

  272

  7,059

  2,374

  3,013

  2,334

  2,023

  1990

  147

  7,710

  2,045

  3,101

  2,220

  2,010

  1991

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's contribution to the Travers Morgan Economic study for the Mersey Barrage Company was £77,391.50. This was 50 per cent. of the total cost of that study.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has given to the Mersey Barrage Company on cost benefit analysis, including the likely environmental costs, in assessing the viability of any future barrage scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Mersey Barrage Company commissioned the consultants Travers Morgan Economics to undertake a cost benefit analysis of the Mersey barrage. The methodology adopted for assessing environmental costs reflected the consultant's views, at that time, of the most appropriate valuation mechanism. The analysis included an evaluation of the cost of creating lost habitat for wildfowl and some plants caused by the Barrage scheme. The Mersey Barrage Company has discussed these costs with its Environmental working party, which includes statutory organisations and environmental interest groups. Government officials have been in discussion with the Mersey Barrage Company on the methodology and results of the cost benefit analysis. The
  643
  Government consider a proper assessment of the environmental impact of the barrage a key issue in appraising the scheme.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the depleted uranium stockpiled at civil nuclear facilities has been re-enriched for use in United Kingdom or foreign nuclear programmes since 1955.

  Mr. Eggar
  Over 15,000 tonnes of depleted uranium from the reprocessing of magnox irradiated fuel have been enriched for use in civil nuclear fuel.

  Sub-Sahara Africa
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of exports to sub-Saharan Africa during 1990; if he will give a breakdown of the main items; and what was the total value of United Kingdom exports and imports from sub-Saharan Africa during 1990 and for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of trade with sub-Saharan Africa are published in the overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what expressions of interest he has received from potential purchasers of British Coal; and if he wil make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of unions and companies have expressed an interest in purchasing all or part of the coal industry. It is a matter for the organisations themselves whether they wish their interest to be made public.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of the United Kingdom's receipts from the European regional fund of the European Community in each year since 1985; and what is the total size of the ERF in the same period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]:European regional development fund receipts since 1985 are shown in the table.

  European regional development fund receipts

  Total Ec mecu

  United Kingdom mecu

  Percentage share

  1985

  1,624

  484

  29.8

  1986

  2,484

  507

  20.4

  1987

  2,535

  527

  20.8

  1988

  3,093

  578

  18.7

  1989

  3,920

  612

  15.6

  1990

  4,554

  465

  10.2

  1991

  5,181

  483

  9.3

  Timeshare
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Director General of Fair Trading will examine the suitability of William Montgomery, director of International Resort Sales and Travel Ltd., to hold a credit licence.
  644
  Mr. Leigh
  Consumer credit licensing is the responsi-bility of the Director General of Fair Trading and I will draw the hon. Member's question to his attention.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to tighten restrictions governing the granting of permits to export components which can be used as instruments of torture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 May 1992,Official Report, column 22.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost so far of the market testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  An estimate of the total cost since November 1991 is not available.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market testing programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  No such estimate has been made.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Eggar
  As promised in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", departmental targets for market testing in 1992–93 will be announced later this year.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: No such appointment has been made.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, following the special arrangements for Britain arrived at on the EC working time directives, the Government intend to proceed with the repeal of the Coal Miners Regulations Act 1908.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: We do not envisage repealing the 1908 Act until the proposed EC directive has been implemented.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changed working practices British Coal have negotiated with representatives of its work force since the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he has given to promoting United Kingdom investment in the Colombian state-owned coal-mining industry.
  645
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: My Department held a seminar in London on 29 April to draw energy opportunities in Colombia, including investment opportunities, to the attention of United Kingdom industry.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to provide Government support for British Coal's anti-dumping claim against Colombian coal imported initially into the EC and then into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The Government raised no objection to the European Commission opening an investigation into British Coal's anti-dumping complaint because it is only by investigation that the full facts of the matter can be established. It is now for the Commission to decide whether the allegations in the complaint are such that an investigation is warranted.

  Inmos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the dates of all approaches he has made to M. Carpentier, head of D.G. XIII of the European Commission, concerning the threatened closure of Inmos;

  (2) if he will list the dates of contacts he has initiated with D.G. XVI of the European Commission, concerning the threatened closure of Inmos;

  (3) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on any proposal to relocate Inmos to another site in the United Kingdom;

  (4) if he will list the dates and outcome of all contacts and meetings he has had with each directorate of the European Commission on the future of Inmos.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: Discussions took place on 10 June with the Commission about Inmos's request for a £30 million grant to support its proposed £60 million investment in Newport.

  This request far exceeds the level of support we would normally consider for investment projects in the Newport area. The Commission has however made it clear that there can be no prospect of United Kingdom Government aid at the level sought, and the company has been told.

  Although I am not aware of any proposals by the company to locate elsewhere in the United Kingdom, we remain ready to discuss matters with it.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany were imported into the United Kingdom in 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: The only information which relates to mahogany imported from Brazil is that which has been sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of a thickness exceeding 6mm, defined as code 440723901 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3. Under this heading there were 45,762 cubic metres of mahogany imported into the United Kingdom from Brazil in 1991.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that a public inquiry will be held before Nuclear Electric is allowed to build the proposed Sizewell C.
  646
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: On 9 November 1989 the Secretary of State for Energy informed the House that no capital expenditure approval would be given to Nuclear Electric plc. for any new nuclear station beyond Sizewell B pending the outcome of a review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom, which will be undertaken in 1994. That remains the position.

  It also remains the case that, before reaching his decision on any application for his consent to construct and operate an electricity generating station my right hon. Friend is obliged to hold a public inquiry into the application of a relevant local planning authority has objected to it.

  If there is no objection from a relevant local planning authority, my right hon. Friend may still call for a public inquiry to be held at his own discretion.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of all correspondence since 1990 between himself or his predecessor, and the chairmen of(a) Nuclear Electric. (b) British Nuclear Fuels plc. and (c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on the matter of future development plans of each organisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: I meet the chairmen of these companies regularly to discuss a range of issues. Future development plans are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning his policy to encourage the export of steel products.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: My Department supports the export efforts of the steel industry—as of British industry as a whole—by providing, through the Overseas Trade Services, a comprehensive range of information, advice, services and practical assistance.

  The United Kingdom is keen to secure an effective multilateral steel agreement and supports the European Commission efforts to resume talks on the outstanding issues.

DEFENCE

  Air Force Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Euro-NATO training group consideration of alternative means of meeting NATO air force training requirements following the abandonment of plans for a NATO tactical fighter training centre;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his future plans for provision of training for RAF strike/attack units following the abandonment of plans for a NATO tactical fighter training centre.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although there are no plans at present to continue with the NATO tactical fighter training centre, the project has not been abandoned. The partner nations of the Euro-NATO training group, including the United Kingdom, continue to investigate
  647
  alternative means of meeting training requirements. Training for RAF strike/attack units will continue mainly in the United Kingdom, but with regular participation in NATO, North American and other overseas exercises.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational low-flying movements have been authorised in each of the tactical training areas in each month since June 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Northern Scotland

  Central Wales

  Borders

  1991

  June

  0

  0

  0

  July

  0

  0

  0

  August

  0

  7

  0

  September

  0

  9

  9

  October

  54

  0

  38

  November

  47

  18

  188

  December

  85

  3

  382

  1992

  January

  70

  2

  141

  February

  99

  21

  361

  March

  271

  7

  263

  April

  57

  8

  187

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying were received from addresses located within each of the numbered low-flying areas in the United Kingdom during 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Low flying areas

  Numbers of complaints or inquiries

  1

  62

  2

  735

  3

  21

  4

  320

  5

  430

  6

  292

  7

  791

  8

  230

  9

  16

  11

  424

  12

  160

  13

  15

  14

  352

  16

  291

  17

  466

  18

  204

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were carried out in each low-flying area in the United Kingdom in each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not kept of the number of low-flying sorties carried out in each low-flying area in the United Kingdom. The total number of sorties flown from January 1991 to April 1992, the most recent months for which figures are available, is 173,470.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were carried out by Royal Air 648
  Force aircraft from Canadian forces base Goose Bay in (a) 1990 and (b) 1991; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures by aircraft type.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Aircraft Type

  1990

  1991

  Tornado GRI

  819

  481

  Tornado F3

  82

  0

  Harrier

  14

  4

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties have been flown by(a) RAF Tornado strike/attack aircraft, and (b) RAF Tornado F3 aircraft, during each Distant Frontier exercise in Alaska since 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is:

  Number of Sorties

  1990

  Tornado G1

  41

  1992

  Tornado GR1

  160

  Tornado F3

  75

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what height and lateral distance military aircraft are instructed to avoid the village of Dalmellington.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to release detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements have been reached with the United States of America authorities concerning(a) the use of existing weapons and electronic warfare ranges and low-level training routes and (b) the provision of additional weapons, electronic warfare and low-level training facilities, for use by Royal Air Force aircraft deployed to Eielson air force base, Alaska.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Air Force deployments to Eielson air force base, Alaska have been at the invitation of the United States air force. The invitations granted specified use of weapons and electronic warfare ranges and designated low-level training routes and areas. Possible future deployments are being considered with the United States authorities.

  RAF Trainer
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's requirement for a basic flight trainer for the Royal Air Force, showing the scale and nature of the requirement, the timetable for procurement, the aircraft which it is designed to replace, and the approximate overall cost of the programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Basic flying training in the RAF is undertaken by all trainee pilots, prior to their undertaking more specialised training in other, fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters. At present, flying training is carried out in
  649
  either Jet Provost or Tucano aircraft, which are currently replacing the remaining Jet Provost. We expect this replacement to be completed before the end of next year, by which time we will have taken 130 Tucano aircraft into service at an overall cost of some £150 million. We expect the Tucano to meet the RAF's basic flying training requirement until well after the turn of the century.

  Stand-off Missile
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's requirement for a conventionally armed stand-off missile, showing the scale and nature of the requirement, the timetable for procurement, the weapon systems which it is designed to replace, and the approximate overall cost of the programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have sought the views of industry on the proposals for conventionally armed, air-launched, stand-off missile to complement the JP233. These responses are currently being assessed. No procurement decisions have been taken.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many service personnel received help from the armed forces psychiatric services, or were referred to the national health service psychiatric services, in each year for the last 10 years. other than in respect of the Gulf war;

  (2) how many service personnel received help from the armed forces psychiatric services, or were referred to the national health service psychiatric services, as a consequence of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The numbers of psychiatric treatment episodes in the armed forces, which covers all treatments involving a discharge from a medical unit, in the 10-year period to 1991, are as follows:

  Number

  1982

  1,109

  1983

  1,166

  1984

  1,031

  1985

  1,081

  1986

  1,041

  11987

  1,131

  1988

  1,151

  1989

  1,204

  1990

  1,182

  21991

  31,126

  1 Figures prior to 1987 do not include one day cases.

  2 1991 figures are provisional.

  3 Includes 68 episodes related to the Gulf War.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are engaged in the administration of the Al Yamamah and Anglo-Malaysian defence exports contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 230 staff are engaged in the administration of the Al Yamamah programme, and 24 in the Malaysian project. These offices arc separately 650
  established and operate on a self financing basis; the numbers are therefore in addition to those I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 June, Official Report, column 671.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are engaged on the administration of the International Military Services organisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are none.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many files relating to war crimes in the Channel Islands during world war two are retained in his Department and withheld from the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have been unable to identify any such files which are retained under the Public Records Act.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Aitken
  As at 1 May 1992, excluding staff in executive agencies, the information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Grade 1

  0

  —

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  Grade 3

  11

  2

  Grade 4

  0

  —

  Grade 5

  7

  3

  Grade 6

  8

  2

  Grade 7

  56

  3

  Total non-industrial staff

  80,574

  —

  Total female non-industrial staff

  32,623

  40

  Total industrial staff

  50,895

  —

  Total female industrial staff

  9,601

  19

  Total staff

  131,469

  —

  Total female staff

  42,224

  32

  1 On loan from HM Customs and Excise.

  New Navy Ship
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy for a forthcoming ship in the Royal Navy to be named after the city of Portsmouth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The ships names and badges committee has considered the name of Portsmouth, but it has not found favour on account of possible confusion, in communications, between the name of the ship and the naval base.

  Nuclear Arsenals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the future size of the United Kingdom nuclear arsenal of the recent agreement between the United States and Russian Presidents to implement reductions in their respective nuclear arsenals.
  651
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We will continue to retain only the minimum nuclear deterrent required for our security needs.

  Troops
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which Vote the cost of sending additional troops to Northern Ireland at the request of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is debited.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost is borne on class I, vote 1, personnel costs, support and other services; vote 2, defence procurement and vote 4, works services.

  Housing
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 2 June to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, (Mr. Howarth),Official Report, column 529, what is the nature and type of short-term steps that he is taking to provide assistance to those who find themselves in housing difficulty; and how many personnel have found themselves in housing difficulty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to a note entitled "Servicemen's Housing: The Work of the Housing Task Force", a copy of which is in the Library. As well as the measures detailed in this note, the joint service housing advice office was set up in May at Old Sarum to provide advice on a range of housing matters to service personnel. To date, 128 requests have been received for help or information.

  Expenditure
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the current information presented in the Statement on the Defence Estimates provides information on defence expenditures on the basis of the categories set out in the United Nations document "Instrument for Standardised International Reporting of Military Expenditures"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information provided to the United Nations on defence expenditures is on the basis of categories designed to meet the United Nations's reporting requirements, which differ from those used in the current "Statement on the Defence Estimates"—SDE. There are no plans to adopt the United Nations categorisation for future SDE's although we will continue to review the public presentation of data, as the new management strategy develops, with a view to providing the greatest possible visibility of the defence programme.

  Vienna Document 1992
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to implement the provisions of the Vienna document 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Vienna Document 1992 came into force on 1 May 1992. We will comply fully with its provisions, as we did for the Vienna Document 1990 which it has succeeded.

  Limited Strikes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart relating to the global protection against limited strikes programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government remain in close touch with the United States Administration on their proposal for limited ballistic missile defences.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he has taken of the recent agreements between Russia and the United States of America to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons in the formation of his policy towards United Kingdom participation in a global protection against limited strikes system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United State's concept for protection against limited ballistic missile strikes is concerned not with existing deterrent forces, except in the case of accidental or unauthorised launch, but with new risks from instability and proliferation. We support this objective.

  Ballistic Missile Attacks
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the requirement for protection against ballistic missile attack for(a) British territory and (b) British forces overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to keep the requirement for defence against ballistic missiles under review, in consultation with the US and other NATO allies.

  Air Defence
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative studies his Department is carryying out on the role of surface-to-air missiles and fighter aircraft in the air defence of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is currently studying the most cost-effective mix of fighters and surface-to-air missiles for United Kingdom air defence. This work is taking into account all relevant factors including the effect of possible counter-measures.

  Vehicle Electronics Research
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the vehicle electronics research defence initiative.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the Defence Research Agency—DRA—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of the DRA to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Special Operations Vehicle
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place an order for the special operations vehicle recently launched by Land-Rover.
  653
  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no plans to place an order for the Land-Rover special operations vehicle at this time.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  The market-testing initiative is being pursued as part of the Department's on-going work on efficiency. Its costs cannot be separately identified.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.
  654
  Mr. Aitken
  The MOD's market-testing programme has existed since 1979. Since then, market testing and private sector contracting have secured savings which are estimated to have reached a cumulative total of some £500 million at today's prices.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June,Official Report column 102.

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

Lord Healey
The Right Honourable Denis Winston Healey, CH, MBE, having been created Baron Healey, of Riddlesden in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.

Lord Howe of Aberavon
The Right Honourable Sir Richard Edward Geoffrey Howe, QC, having been created Baron Howe of Aberavon, of Tandridge in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crickhowell and the Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Noble Lords Noble Lords— Took the Oath.

London Minicabs: User Safety Report
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the recommendations of the working party on the safety of users of minicabs in London will be published.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government have recently received the report of the working party. It will be carefully studied and publication will be arranged shortly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As he knows, this House has waited patiently for this report. We are most anxious that the Government should press on with this matter. Will my noble friend assure me that the Government will do everything possible to ensure a higher standard of safety for passengers travelling in minicabs? Will they also ensure that standards are raised in all forms of passenger transport in London?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we take the question of safety extremely seriously. This very afternoon my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for transport in London is holding a meeting on the subject.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London Hackney cabs have made much progress in providing facilities for disabled people? Do the terms of reference of the inquiry on minicabs, and of the report, include the safety and welfare of disabled people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, the answer is yes. In
768
answer to his second question, I have said that the publication of the report will be announced shortly and the noble Lord will be able to read it for himself to see whether the matter of disabled people has been addressed. However, I can assure the noble Lord, and the House, that the question of disabled people is very much at the forefront of our minds.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that concern for safety has led to the establishment of a number of minicab firms operating with women only drivers, even though that is not necessarily an answer to the safety problem as women are not necessarily more reliable than men in that respect? Is the Minister further aware that it is not possible for minicab firms to advertise solely for women drivers without infringing the sex discrimination legislation? Does the Minister agree that if the Government were to proceed quickly with the recommendations of the report passengers would be reassured? There would also be the added benefit that a piece of legislation would not be brought into disrepute, as it is now.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the first two questions of the noble Baroness, the answer is yes. With regard to her third question, we hope to publish the report shortly.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the report will be published shortly. Will the report be made available for public discussion before the Government move on legislation? That is an important matter that we should consider, though I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us a definite statement today on the Government's decision. However, the working party was set up as a result of the efforts of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which is concerned with the safety of passengers, particularly in minicabs. Will the Government therefore bear in mind the fact that the public strongly desire legislation that will bring the minicab trade into line with the black cab trade? At the same time, does the Minister agree that nothing should be done to weaken the position of the black cabs, which give a grand service to the people of London?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answers to the noble Lord's questions will depend on the Government's decision. I have taken careful note of what he said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year the report was published the day after this House rose for the parliamentary Recess and that we all found that unsatisfactory? Can he assure us that this time it will be published and we shall have it before the Recess?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again, I take note of what my noble friend said. As I have just told the House, a meeting is taking place this afternoon on that subject.

The Falkland Islands and Argentina
3.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Argentine has now dropped its claim to the Falkland Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): No, my Lords. I regret that Argentina has not dropped her claim.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can she assure the House that in the circumstances Her Majesty's Government are making sufficient defence arrangements to make sure that if a second Galtieri-type putsch were attempted it would suffer the fate of the first?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government remain fully committed to the defence and security of the islands. We have adequate resources. We hope that we shall never have to use them again but we would obviously be prepared to do so if the circumstances arose.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether any arrangements have been made for Ministers to meet Ministers of the Argentine Government? Can she further say whether progress has been made on the issues of fishing rights and oil exploration?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's second question first, the issue of licences in the Falkland Islands control zone is decided by the Falkland Islands Government. The revenue from fisheries is doing well. It went up in 1991–92 to some £25 million. The fisheries income is being well used for secondary schools and other necessary needs of the Falkland Islands. Our agreement is certainly good. We also have an agreement with the Argentine to co-operate in order to preserve fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic.
I believe that the noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of Argentina met at the Rio summit, very briefly, and there is a chance that the President will visit this country if relationships continue to improve.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend said that we would be perfectly prepared to defend the Falkland Islands if they were threatened again. Bearing in mind the size of the British merchant fleet, are the Government satisfied that we would have the capability of moving sufficient troops to the Falklands as and when required?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge we are able to do so if necessary. But we sincerely hope that it will never again be necessary.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that before the unfortunate conflict
770
Argentina was a most important trading partner for Britain? Does she agree that, since the restoration of diplomatic relations, trade has started to pick up and there is now a spectacular opportunity for increasing trade, which is of great importance to the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is indeed right. There has been a significant recovery in trade. Several trade missions have taken place in both directions, including one to Argentina in March last year led by my right honourable friend the then Minister for Trade, Mr. Sainsbury. There was also a British Week in Buenos Aires arranged by the private sector. In addition, there is an investment promotion and protection agreement which was signed by the then Foreign Secretary of the Argentine, Dr. Cavallo, in December 1990. We certainly hope that the privatisation programme of the Argentine will offer many opportunities for UK industry and that UK industry will take them up.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness expand a little on her Answer as to whether it is possible for us to mount the kind of expedition to the Falklands that we mounted in the early 1980s? Do we have the naval resources? Do we have the merchant fleet? Do we have the right kind of army? Does she agree that from all the evidence that we have received so far it would be impossible today to mount an equivalent operation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is a little misinformed. The best advice available to me is that at the present time, if we had to, we certainly could mount such an exercise again. But I repeat that we should be working for the positive, constructive relationship which seems to be coming between ourselves and the Argentines so that it will never again be necessary.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is much more important that we should have the forces there to deter an attack in the first place? Can she confirm that the forces are there and are adequate to deter an attack?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, we have forces there adequate to deter. We remain fully committed to that. We have no plans to reduce the garrison, although, as everywhere, force levels are always kept under review.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear that not only do we have the forces available if necessary to defend the islands but that in the event of operations being necessary they will not necessarily be confined to the vicinity of the islands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it would be very dangerous for me, even in response to my noble friend, to speculate on that matter. I can assure him that both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have their eyes firmly on the situation.

Channel Tunnel: Safety
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with safety arrangements in respect of persons travelling through the Channel Tunnel.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government have from the outset considered that the safety of travellers in the Channel Tunnel should have the highest priority. An independent Channel Tunnel safety authority of United Kingdom and French experts was established under the Treaty of Canterbury and provides specialist advice on all safety aspects of the Channel Tunnel.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of allaying the common anxieties about terrorism and fire felt by passengers who may be going through the Channel Tunnel would be for the safety authority to issue a public report and in particular to emphasise the research and tests upon which it was based?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the safety authority prepares annual reports that are published.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether Eurotunnel, which has usually been responsive to criticisms and has sought to engage the attention of the public, particularly at its headquarters in Folkestone, has met the criticisms made by the Select Committee of this House on the question of safety? Secondly, the Minister said that the safety authority is independent and objective. Does he agree that it is in a precisely comparable position to other bodies of that kind, such as the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord's second question is no, because it is a joint authority between the French and ourselves. That puts it into a totally different category from those bodies mentioned by the noble Lord. With regard to his first question, I do not have an up-to-date analysis of exactly what Eurotunnel has done. However, its commercial responsibility is to implement safety to the highest standards.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the design of the trains at all stages has taken into account the specialist advice from the safety and human factor inquiry that I understand has already taken place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are a number of safety aspects that need to be taken into account with regard to the train. They are assessed by the safety authority. It will look at every representation put to it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied or will they insist on
772
being satisfied that the fire risk will be no greater than it would be if passengers were to be segregated from their cars?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point about fire. That is why we have on the safety authority a very good expert—one of the country's best experts—with regard to fire.

The Army: Combat Forces
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood Lord Wedgwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are reconsidering Options for Change and their plans for the future strength of the Army.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, last year's decisions on the restructuring of the armed forces took account of changes in the international security environment and the need to provide forces relevant to the challenge of the mid-1990s and beyond. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has recently made clear in another place the importance that the Government attach to ensuring that future force levels are appropriate to the demands placed on the armed forces and that he intends to keep that requirement firmly in mind.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. Does he agree that our combat forces are currently experiencing unacceptable levels of overstretch, especially the infantry, which bears the brunt of all our military activity? Does he further agree that, owing to the emergency operational requirements, our forces, including those in Germany, are considerably depleted to the point where we cannot reasonably deploy a well trained and co-ordinated task force at the request of either NATO or the WEU?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. The question of overstretch is constantly in our minds. I draw the attention of your Lordships and my noble friend in particular to the very high degree of capability and equipment that will be available to the first British division, which is the principle contribution that we expect to make to the Rapid Reaction Corps. I agree with my noble friend as far as his remarks about the infantry are concerned, and I also pay tribute to them.
One of the principal measures of overstretch is the tour interval that infantry battalions have to take during the course of emergency tour plots in Northern Ireland. There are a number of battalions which have not taken part in the less than 24 month interval which has been the benchmark of late in Northern Ireland, stretching back in some cases to January 1987.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, in the light of his answer, is the noble Viscount aware that there are as of now battalions continuing to serve in Northern Ireland which have done no fewer than four tours there in the past two and a half years with tour intervals of as little as six months to eight months? Does he agree that that

773
represents as severe an overstretch as can be remembered since the troubles started and that is a very long way indeed from the hoped for two-year intervals forecast by Ministers in various Statements?
Is the Minister also aware that individual battalions of the King's Division, retained in the order of battle presumably because they had very good recruiting figures, now have to be reinforced by up to 100 men each from regiments of other divisions, merely to make them fit for duty? Finally, does the Minister appreciate that capping recruiting, as is now being done, presumably in a desperate attempt to get down to the manifestly inadequate and unworkable ceiling of 116,000, will inevitably lead to fewer units which are even weaker and further below establishment? If all that is not sufficient for the Government to do something now, will he tell us what is?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, I am grateful for the advice of the noble and gallant Lord in these matters, in which he is a considerable expert. I hesitate to bandy examples with him. However, quite apart from the examples that he gives, battalions such as the 1st Grenadier Guards, the 2nd Battalion Grenadiers, the Royal Scots and the Royal Regiment of Wales have not been back in Northern Ireland since January 1987 and April 1988 respectively. There are examples on both sides. Once the drawdown has happened and we have got from here to there, the tour interval will once again increase. The element of overstretch is always in our minds.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when, as seems very likely, more infantry are needed for international peacekeeping and other tasks, will the Government take into account records of recruitment and, equally important, retention in both of which aspects the Scottish regiments have excelled?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. After drawdown has occurred, the proportion of the Army occupied by Scottish regiments will be at least as high, and in some cases higher, in terms of the armoured corps than it is in the present Army.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, although it is slightly wide of the Question, perhaps I may ask this. Since reference has been made to service in Northern Ireland, does the noble Viscount agree that this is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Ulster Defence Regiment, now to be abolished after 23 years' service, despite the fact that its reputation has been slightly tarnished by the actions of some few individuals in that regiment?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity that he gives me to pay an unreserved tribute to the performance of the Ulster Defence Regiment during the years of its history. I am delighted to hear that your Lordships fully subscribe to that view. The amalgamation that is taking place between the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers is proceeding well. We
774
look forward very much to the best traditions of both those magnificent regiments being continued in the amalgamated unit.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that Options for Change has drawn intense and sometimes ferocious criticism from all political parties, from the Select Committee on Defence in another place, and, as we have heard today from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, from distinguished former service chiefs? In the light of that, is it true that the MoD has a committee at present reviewing Options for Change? If that is true, when may we expect its report to be leaked—as it surely will be?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if it is true, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is rather better informed than I am. I hesitate to admit that such a possibility could even exist.
However, I refer the noble Lord to the Answer that I gave to my noble friend's original Question. We are conscious that we live in an extremely uncertain world and that the demands on our defences are likely to change at short notice. As my right honourable and learned friend said in another place, we intend to keep that requirement firmly in mind.
With regard to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that when it examined the results of the Options for Change, it commended the Ministry of Defence, stating that the resultant army, both Regular and Territorial, would be outstandingly well equipped.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, bearing in mind that problems often come from more than one direction at once, I ask this question. Were the troops committed to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps to be fully committed with that force, from where would a balanced fighting force be obtained which might be required to go, for instance, to the aid of the Falkland Islands?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with his experience in military matters, my noble friend will be well aware that it is impossible to guard against every possible eventuality. The Ministry of Defence has to make a judgment. It has made a judgment and believes that the judgment is at least adequate for our present purposes.
As I have to repeat to your Lordships in answer to every Question on the subject, the matter is permanently under review. If the circumstances change, we shall not hesitate to change our disposition.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is there not a strange contrast between the cuts in the Army and the proposed overall considerable increases in our nuclear capability? What is the explanation?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows at least as well as I do that our nuclear deterrent is the minimum necessary for credibility. That is consistent with our policy and will continue to be so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that up. Is the noble Viscount aware that successive governments have described our deterrent as the minimum deterrent? Why do we now need a greater minimum deterrent?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I go down a rather recent memory lane in these exchanges. In previous exchanges in this place over the past few weeks, I have reminded the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of the considerable number of cuts in our nuclear capability that we have announced in the tactical and substrategic sphere. We have also emphasised that the present deployment of warheads, so far as concerns Trident, is very much the maximum.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Options for Change was finalised during the euphoric period after the collapse of the Soviet military empire? Since then the world has realised that there are many dangers in other parts of the world. Are we sure that if the process of Options for Change continues, and indeed is not revised, we shall still have the forces necessary to meet those possible new needs?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord when he states that we live in a dangerous and uncertain world. It is for that reason that it is important, in particular in view of the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons, that we should maintain our nuclear deterrent. At the same time it is important that we realise that our conventional forces should be flexible and capable of reacting to any threat that emerges. As your Lordships well know, the threat that is emerging nowadays is all the more dangerous because of its very uncertainty. In the wake of the fall of great empires, the world does not necessarily become a safer place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House what consultations have taken place with the NATO countries on the implications of the new policy?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Consultations are constantly taking place with our allies. We still regard NATO as the cornerstone of our defence policy. On the whole, the cuts made by our NATO allies as a result of the events in the Soviet Union have been rather more severe than those that we contemplate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can we assume from what the noble Viscount said that our allies in NATO are in favour of Options for Change?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the decision regarding Options for Change clearly has to be taken in the light of the overall plans within the NATO Alliance. It would be unwise for us to take those decisions in isolation from our NATO allies. Certainly that has not happened.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons that my right honourable
776
friend the Prime Minister is reluctant to commit our combat forces to the Balkans is the current overstretch of those combat forces, especially the infantry?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me that opportunity. Emphatically, the answer to his question is no.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of both debates this means that all other speeches should he limited to a maximum of 12 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. Perhaps I may once again draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that when the digital timing device shows "12" it means that we have entered the 13th minute.

Press Complaints Commission: Report
3.29 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to call attention to the First Annual Report of the Press Complaints Commission for 1991, and subsequent events; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a very appropriate day on which to discuss the press and the media in general. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, to the fact that the impartiality of the BBC is at issue once more. Yesterday it announced on television, Radio 4 and the World Service that I was one of the sponsors of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. That was an inaccuracy which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may regret, as indeed may the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
In addition, this debate is taking place soon after the first annual report of the Press Complaints Commission. In June 1990 the Calcutt Committee recommended that the new Press Complaints Commission should be given 18 months in which to show that non-statutory regulation can be made to work effectively. That period ends in July and presumably the Government are now making up their mind about whether the press has passed that stiff test. It is, therefore, appropriate that today we should be able to debate what we believe should be done in this area before the Government reach their conclusion and while they are making up their mind. It is even possible that our discussion may influence them.
On 23rd June an interesting event took place. It was reported in the Guardian and in the Independent. At Aspen, Colorado, the News Corporation held a management conference on the threat to democratic capitalism posed by modern culture. Whether it discussed the Sun and the News of the World in that

777
context is unknown to me. The important conference was attended by Mr. Murdoch, by the US Secretary of Defence, Mr. Cheney and by Mrs. Cheney. During the course of a speech on censorship, Mr. Chao, the newly-appointed president of Fox Television Network, produced a male stripper to illustrate vividly and in all his glory some point that he was trying to make. It was reported that Mrs. Cheney was visibly shocked. The editor of the News of the World, Miss Patsy Chapman, asked for the stripper's telephone number. Mr. Murdoch was not amused and Mr. Chao was sacked on the spot. The incident was not reported in the Murdoch press. Later Mr. Murdoch said, "There are limits".
Those words might well be the theme of our debate. There are limits, there must be limits and we must decide where they are drawn. There must be limits on intrusions of privacy, on manifest political bias, on the concentration of ownership and, above all, on cross-media ownership.
There are few people who would deny that the right to privacy is important in principle. But all too often, when that is practised, some well-worn excuses are produced. The most frequently used is that the revelation is in the public interest. That, I take it, is the first excuse to be used in respect of the recently prominent revelations about the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Princess Diana. We are told, for example, that before the war the British public were, to their detriment, kept in the dark about the relationship between the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Simpson. But even if it is in the public interest to be informed that all is not well with the marriage of the heir to the throne —and the opposite could well be argued—we do not need to be told about it in such detail; and in such intimate, trivial and unsubstantiated detail at that—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, but when such reporting has upset a digestion which, in respect of such matters, is as strong as that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, there is genuine cause for anxiety.
A second excuse is that the trivia has already been published in a book. I respond simply by saying that there is a difference between the circulation of the Sunday Times and most books; that because it has been published in a book it is not necessary to publish it in a newspaper and, above all, as all free-marketeers know, that by paying £250,000 for such trash a market in garbage has been created. All too often the intrusion is not a matter of public interest but is concerned with invasions of the privacy of obscure and vulnerable people.
That having been said, there need to be limits to manifest and unbalanced political bias. That demands of proprietors an acknowledgment that ownership of a newspaper carries with it responsibilities which are different from the ownership of a fish and chip shop or membership of the Stock Exchange. Indeed, that was
778
acknowledged specifically in the Fair Trading Act 1973. In this case, however, the excuses that have been wheeled out are less plausible.
The excuse produced for the blatant political bias of the tabloids during the previous election, including the Daily Mirror, was that it was harmless and that readers aim off for bias. That excuse was produced in the Independent. It was also stated that to say that readers are influenced by the tabloids is to insult their intelligence and that the blitz, as it was described, against Mr. Kinnock during the last four days of the election campaign had no impact. Frankly, I must confess that I find it preposterous to argue that newspapers indulge in political bias and propaganda which has no effect whatever; that Conservative Prime Ministers distribute honours to proprietors and editors who have no influence whatever; that advertisers advertise, publishers send books, cinemas and theatres send free tickets and dictators censor newspapers all for nothing whatever. That is an incredible proposition which I cannot accept. If, indeed, the wholesale distortion of news had no effect would the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and Mr. Murdoch indulge in it?
It is argued that despite political bias there have been times since the war when the Labour Party has won elections. But because someone has overcome a handicap does not mean that the handicap is less unfair or undesirable. In addition, I would add that the situation has deteriorated. In 1966 Mr. Wilson, as he then was, had the support of 43 per cent. of the press in circulation terms. By 1980 at least three-quarters of the press was Conservative. If in addition to that one owner—in this case Mr. Murdoch —has 31 per cent. of the daily circulation, 37 per cent. of the Sunday circulation and also controls Sky TV, not only does one have a highly-concentrated ownership, which is undesirable, but also cross-media ownership, which is also undesirable.
When the Broadcasting Bill passed through Parliament some of us argued that cross-media restrictions were fixed to accommodate Mr. Murdoch and that that brought with it apparent dangers which we tried to set forth. Recently in an important speech to the Royal Television Society Mr. Gregg Dyke gave his account of the negotiations for the television rights to the Premier League. He said:
"There is no doubt, and I repeat no doubt, that the Murdoch organisation offered Rick Parry, the Chief Executive of the Premier League, the support of Rupert Murdoch's, and I quote, '40 million copies of his papers a week' for the Premier League if BSkyB got the Premier League deal. BSkyB have denied this, but they would wouldn't they? Unfortunately, Mr. Parry did not understand the significance of what had been offered and he told a meeting of 22 club chairmen that that is what was offered. In other words, if BSkyB got the contract the editorial policy of the Murdoch papers would be organised to support the Premier League and with it the commercial interests of BSkyB".
That is precisely what News International said it would never do, both to the Sadler Committee and when the Bill was going through Parliament.
That is an example of a situation which can only be regarded as undesirable and dangerous. I should add that although Mr. Dyke is a significant and senior

779
member of London Weekend Television and although he was speaking to the Royal Television Society, his speech was not reported in the Murdoch press.
But we need not despair; there is hope yet. During the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill, David Mellor, who was at that time in charge of the Bill and who is now responsible for broadcasting in a more elevated capacity, said:
"I do not think it right in principle to impose restrictions on the ownership of Sky Television or MTV, Mr. Maxwell's venture, straight away".
He conceded that, therefore, there was a time when legislation on cross-media ownership might be necessary and that it might be reasonable to require that Mr. Murdoch should keep either his newspapers or his television interests, but not both.
The criterion which he set forth was profitability. Today BSkyB is making a trading profit and, according to it, has a great financial future. Mr. Mellor went on to say in the same debate:
"Who knows what the future may hold? We are principled about this, in the sense that all the ownership restrictions are in a schedule to the Bill and any one of them can be changed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses".
He went on to say later:
"I am at some pains to say that I understand that there is a case on the other side of the argument,"—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/90; col. 256.]—
That is the other side of the argument to which he was speaking.
Mr. Mellor is now in charge of broadcasting. I look forward to hearing whether he will live up to his words. I look forward to hearing this evening the way in which the Government's thoughts are moving. Although I understand that there are pressures in many quarters for a privacy Bill, on balance I believe that the dangers to which it would give rise outweigh the benefits which it might deliver.
I understand also that unrestrained political bias is undesirable, unfair and gives rise to much indignation. It is difficult to see what the law can do to curb that bias without endangering other more important liberties. By drawing attention to that we can try to urge upon the proprietors, above all, a measure of self restraint which is in so many fields the best bulwark of British liberties.
On the other hand, cross-media ownership is a totally different matter. There the law can and should operate and, indeed, it does operate within the United Kingdom. Only Mr. Murdoch is exempt and that is a matter which can and should be rectified as soon as possible. The question is whether or not Mr. Major dare strike, given the debt which his Government owe to the Tory tabloids for their support in the last election.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, it gives me little pleasure, as your Lordships can imagine, to find myself rising once again in this House to discuss the issue of press behaviour. I am the chairman of United Newspapers which owns Express newspapers. Sadly, I am not a proprietor; I am a mere employee. It is sad that the press is once more under attack. And there are
780
those, as ever, who would like to exploit recent unease at some aspects of press behaviour to impose new restrictions.
In May 1989, when we held our last major debate on this topic, I said that legislation was not the answer. I believe that as strongly now as I did then. Since then we have had the review of the Calcutt Committee. We have seen, on its recommendation, the establishment of a new regulatory body—the Press Complaints Commission—successor to the old Press Council.
Eighteen months ago the then Home Office Minister responsible warned that the press:
"was drinking in the last chance saloon".
One more supposedly false move, he implied, and on would come the handcuffs. I believe the Calcutt review and the setting up of the new watchdog body, under the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, forced the press into a useful process of self-examination and improvement.
Yet, here we are going round the same course again. I wonder why. Two recent events, it seems to me, provide the impetus for renewed calls for legislative action: the general election and the recent publication, with accompanying excitement, of Mr. Andrew Morton's book on the Princess of Wales. I should like to deal with these points in order. In taking the first, I assure noble Lords that although my remarks are of necessity about politics I do not wish to be party political.
It is no secret that many members of the Labour Party, and not a few in the Conservative Party, believe the Government were re-elected largely because of the efforts of their traditional supporters in Fleet Street. That is not my analysis of why the Conservatives won. In the immediate aftermath of the election, Labour Party leaders indicated their belief that much of the blame for their loss rested on the way the press represented or misrepresented Labour's programmes and policies. I believe that the Private Members' Bill tabled in another place—Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill—is born of this exasperation; though, of course, its rationalisation affects to address wider and more disinterested concerns. Like similar Bills before it, this one assumes that the heavy hand of the law can be used to force newspapers to uphold some arbitrary standards of impartiality and balance, as though in a vigorous and diverse press those matters can be measured by the centimetre.
The Bill, like others which support its aims, overlooks the practical difficulties involved in enforcing so-called rights of reply and the printing of lengthy corrections. Labour leaders alleged that the party's central economic policies had been distorted by the Tory press. Now, with passions cooling, some are starting to admit that the message, not the press, was at fault.
The concept of freedom of the press has always been consistent with the acceptance of partisanship on the part of individual newspapers. I assume that the Labour Party was happy about the partisan role of its newspaper supporters during the election. If the Labour Party really wishes to pay more than mere lip

781
service to freedom of the press—a bulwark of our free society—it should be prepared to accept the partisanship of others in a cause other than its own.
Restrictions such as those favoured by this Bill and almost certainly by any other legislative process would be totally impractical to operate and would seriously impair the vigour, vivacity and diversity for which the press in this country is both famed and envied.
I turn now to the recent press coverage of the Princess of Wales and her marriage. I think it important to draw attention to one crucial point that seems to get brushed to one side in the rush to condemn the press. The whole controversy about reporting the state of that marriage was stirred by publication, and serialisation, of Andrew Morton's book. Yet hardly anyone, as far as I am aware, has ever thought it fit to suggest that the right to publish such a book be restricted by anything but the existing laws. Do would-be censors think that the press should not be free to report on the content of books that are legally published? As my noble friend Lord Glendevon said in his letter to The Times, this story was handed to the newspapers on a platter.
It seems odd to imply that information available to those willing to pay the price of a book should be withheld from the millions who pay over their 30p, or whatever, for their daily paper.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether he is justifying the serialisation of the book, as well as the publication.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords, I am justifying the fact that it is correct for newspapers to both serialise and publish the book. As a competitor I wish the circulation of the Sunday Times was the same as that of the book.
To suggest that the press should have ignored the book, with its strong and apparently substantiated claims to special authority, is unrealistic and insulting to the public. The claims made in Mr. Morton's book —and not denied by Buckingham Palace, let alone any of the principals—are clearly of intense and legitimate interest. How could a free press worthy of the name ignore them?
Freedom of expression, of which freedom of the press is a part, is a precious and indispensable part of our open and democratic society. And we really must get over the habit of crying "foul" whenever the exercise of that freedom causes embarrassment or offends against the sense of people's sense of propriety. Occasional abuse is the price we pay for all our freedoms, not only freedom of the press. Let us not forget that there are already restrictions on this particular freedom. There are laws of libel, which many think already too repressive; laws governing contempt of court, and rules to protect our over-generous definition of official secrets. Above all that hangs, like a sword of Damocles, the power to turn the Press Complaints Commission into a statutory body. Yet some of those urging restrictions often talk as though we started from a position of total licence.
Let us make no mistake, laws to gag newspapers
782
—albeit passed out of some well-meaning wish to protect privacy—would cripple newspapers' ability to unmask wrongdoing. Privacy laws, drafted to prevent intrusive and speculative reporting, might well protect the privacy of some blameless individuals, but they would undoubtedly succour wrongdoers as well.
I do not, or course, believe that press behaviour is at all times exemplary. It is a rough business, as it always has been. But the behaviour of most of this country's 2,000 or so newspapers gives, I believe, little cause for concern. If your Lordships think I speak from bias, allow me to quote a disinterested student of our scene, Mr. David Flint, chairman of the Australian Press Council, who concluded in a letter to The Times of 22nd June this year:
"Whatever their weaknesses, the British media need no new legislative shackles."
Finally, not only do I question the justification for these latest calls for action but I doubt their timing. In the present political circumstances, the last thing the Government should be doing is contemplating, even tentatively, misguided measures to weaken the press's capacity for frank and fearless reporting. For a government that has just won a fourth term to pass or allow legislation restricting press freedom would be a most worrying signal.
I believe that this latest upsurge of animosity towards the press is partial and exaggerated. Ministers should not be misled into thinking that it represents feelings widely or deeply held by the majority of the British people who, as always, will be best served by a press able to go about its task in a free and responsible manner. That does not mean that I do not believe that the press goes too far on occasions; and I also believe that in the case of Mr. Morton's book that it did so. We, the press, should, while maintaining our existing duties and obligations, try to avoid hysteria and the desire to follow the pack. We should be more pro-active and less reactive. The main criticism I have, and would accept, of recent events is that of tone rather than content. We for ourselves will seek to improve that.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am glad to see so many newspaper people engaging in this debate. There are quite a number of "old lags"; people who have, in Kipling's phrase, "given their heart to the old black art".
I agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. For most of his speech I thought he was saying that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds; though he admitted that occasionally things are not so good, when someone steps out of line and so forth. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is far too complacent.
I shall not engage on the political front. Many years ago the noble Lord, Lord Cudlipp, and I, and the late Lord Jacobson, got up to some pretty good tricks on the Daily Mirror in support of the Labour Party. The criticism of the press in its political conduct today is not so much what it does, but that so much of it is

783
Conservative and so little supports the opposition parties. It is those proportions about which people are concerned.
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating the debate, but not too heartily. I should have preferred to wait until the Government had fulfilled their promise to look at the way in which the commission was working and the response it was receiving from the press. Indeed, I hoped that the noble Lord would analyse the work of the commission and express a view about it. As far as I can recall, he said very little in that regard.
The Government's judgment is still to come. We shall probably discuss the commission again after October. By that time we should be able to see matters in perspective. The danger at this moment is that the anxieties aroused by the way the media have publicised the problems of the Royal family will swamp the discussion and we shall lose track of the progress made by the commission.
I regard the Royal story as an extraordinary event; something that may happen only once in a generation and perhaps not even once. It is clear that the marriage of the heir to the throne is under severe strain and neither the Prince nor his wife are concealing that fact. What is the press to do? Should it remain silent? Should it tell all? Or should it tell only some of the story? I shall return to that in a moment.
Problems concerning privacy, which is what the debate is all about, are not the only ones with which the commission is concerned. The voluntary code of practice which the Press Commission uses as its guide is also concerned with accuracy, fair opportunity to reply, the use of subterfuge to obtain information, harassment, payment for information, intrusion into grief or shock, interviewing children, the victims of crime, race and religious prejudice and financial journalism. That is plenty, is it not?
Anybody reading the commission's reports must be impressed by their clarity and concision, and the general reasonableness of the judgments. It is not afraid to turn down an MP or to condemn a practice of recent years when newspapers present collated information as though it were the result of an interview. The commission is not afraid to reject the complaint of a great bank. Some of the good work of the council is in resolving complaints directly without the need for adjudication by bringing the complainant and the newspaper together with a view to some form of satisfaction of the complaint being found.
Noble Lords may have heard on television or radio today the complaint of a Wimbledon star that a newspaper had published her address and members of the public had been exercising undue curiosity. In the current report of the commission the secretary of a football club made the same complaint—that his address was given in a newspaper. He was told by the commission that newspapers are generally entitled to publish names and addresses of people in the news and to do so is no breach of the code under which the commission operates. Harassment is often the price of fame.
All that is useful work. Perhaps it is asking too much for perfect consistency in the judgments, but to
784
say a good word for the commission does not mean that all newspapers are behaving like angels. Here I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. We have to remember that the democratic system is a pretty rough trade. Newspapers are an essential part of that system. They are also part of the roughness. Smooth them down and out goes democracy.
I return to the Royal problem. It is of course tragic that two such attractive young people with a young family and who carry out their public duties assiduously and with charm, should develop a serious incompatibility as apparently they have. We must all hope that it will be resolved in reconciliation. But, faced with this development and this story, I have to ask myself what I as an editor would have done with it. I should certainly have published the news. The fact that it was broken by the impending publication of a book was only incidental. The public conduct of the Prince and Princess was a sufficiently clear pointer to the marital situation and anything might have sparked off the news.
This may not be a constitutional matter, but it is one of considerable public interest and concern. However, if I had been presenting it I hope that I would have done so more gravely. It is not justifiable to report in detail every spat and every act of apparent coldness or rejection. It is even less justifiable to go into the details of the Princess's nervous symptoms and allegedly suicidal despair. When this is over newspapers should think about the ethics of Royal reporting. For the law of libel—the ordinary citizen's defence against untrue defamatory statements made against him—is virtually inoperable for the Royal Family.
A good deal of indignation is felt about some aspects of the behaviour of all the media, and not just the newspapers. I refer to the electronic media as well. Although no government are likely to legislate, some Private Member may find his privacy Bill speeding on its way through one of the Houses of Parliament. I have no faith in any such Bill. If it were effective it could only damage the serious newspapers making impossible the serious inquiries which have to be made in the public interest. I do not know of any acceptable sanction that the law can provide which will deter multi-millionaire companies from publishing the scandals that they know the public eagerly want to read.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, began his speech by the rather stale old repetition of attacks on Mr. Rupert Murdoch for being so successful. With that he coupled me, although I could not quite hear what he said. Therefore, I shall not bother to reply to that. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, addressed some of the real issues facing the discussion of the Press Complaints Commission. However, I do not for once agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, though I usually do.
Since the Press Complaints Commission was set up it has made a pretty good job of enforcing most of the 16 clauses of its code of practice. Where it has failed,

785
and will continue to fail, is with enforcing Clause 4 which deals with intrusions into privacy. Nine of its 16 members are closely associated with the press as editors or directors of press enterprises. A tenth member who, sadly, has recently died, was previously in charge of news and current affairs at the BBC, which did not give me much encouragement.
Circulations are falling. Intimate details of the private lives of the well-known or the unknown suddenly shot into prominence, are circulation boosters. It is against human nature to expect editors voluntarily to restrain themselves when they know that other editors will not. A slap on the wrist from the Press Complaints Commission is a small price for a quick circulation uplift of 200,000 to 300,000. When the Press Complaints Commission issued a statement condemning intrusions into the private lives of the Prince and Princess of Wales, editors laughed. They carried on as before. They knew that their rivals would do the same. They knew, too, that a Press Complaints Commission dominated by the media is, and must always be, a toothless dog in matters of privacy.
Editors will always vigorously pursue, with the aid of photographs, intrusions into privacy concerning intimate personal, family and sexual matters. Even the so-called quality newspapers like the Sunday Times do it all the time. Sir Ralph Halpern, when head of the Burton Group, was subjected to prolonged newspaper accounts of his sexual prowess with a bimbo. Apart from the severe distress it caused his family whatever he did with a bimbo, or she with him, had nothing whatever to do with his efficiency as head of an important company.
Present, or about-to-be, Members of your Lordships' House have suffered this kind of treatment —they know what I am talking about—and so have those in another place. The leader of the Liberal Party and his wife were monstrously tortured by the media over their private lives during the last election, though these could not in any sense have been a political issue. A lady in another place, the Member for Birmingham Ladywood, complained over a particularly virulent campaign about her sex life in the News of the World, for which I write weekly. Condemnation from the Press Complaints Commission was certainly printed but cheerfully shrugged off. Conduct of privacy issues appears not to have been altered by it.
Recently, a married football manager, while in and out of hospital, was hounded by sensational revelations that he had a mistress. When cricketers stay at hotels we get titillating gossip from female hotel workers about their after-play sexual play: bowling a maiden over and so forth. That has no connection with their cricketing or footballing skills. Footballers, cricketers, golfers, tennis players and every kind of sportsman or sportswoman are victims of lurid accounts of their sex lives. When chess becomes a mass sport we shall doubtless hear that in the evenings the chess players plot their next scandalous move in bed and not their next brilliant move on the chess board.
Sudden and spectacularly tragic and traumatic events in ordinary people's lives are instantly followed
786
by intrusions of privacy. Even hospitals are invaded. Reporters and photographers burst into the homes of people innocent of the ways of the press. They report with glee the immediate disjointed reactions of those under great strain. They are bounced into saying things they would never say if they had had 24 hours' reflection first.
The Calcutt Committee on privacy reported in June 1990. It recommended a Press Complaints Commission. It said that this would be one final chance to prove that voluntary self-regulation could be made to work. The 18 months which the Press Complaints Commission was allotted to show that the media can behave decently ended yesterday. I have been writing articles for the press since I was 16. I love newspapers and I like most editors I meet. By nature I am an optimist, not a cynic, but I am certain that it will never be possible to ensure the right to privacy without a law to back it.
In France, it is a criminal offence to breach anyone's privacy in intimate, personal, family or sexual matters. Criminality began to take shape in the law in 1858 after intrusions into the privacy of the famous singer, Elise Rachel, who died of consumption that year. The criminal law in France has been invoked in numerous cases. Some have involved notabilities, such as Brigitte Bardot, Marlene Dietrich and a President of the French republic, but the law applies to all from the humblest to the highest. In France it is criminal even to send to the printing press anything which is a breach of privacy.
The French are amazed that the notorious book by Mr. Morton, Diana: Her True Story, got as far as the printing press, let alone was published and serialised. In France it would have been aborted before birth. That book is not only doing a great disservice to the Princess of Wales, whom it claims to support, by portraying her as slightly barmy, but it is also most unjust to the Prince of Wales. Naturally the public like to read such stuff. Indeed, I am very interested in other people's quarrels and should very much like to hear all about family arguments among my neighbours, but I have no right to a report on them and nor do they have the right to a report on the rows in my family. There is no right whatsoever to eavesdrop pointlessly for titillation. Such activities have nothing whatsoever to do with the public interest, only with what interests the public. That is a completely different subject.
The law in France does not affect investigations into the activities of scoundrels and wrongdoers and nor does it prevent publication of a true story of, say, a Cabinet Minister who is having an affair with a beautiful foreign spy or of a story about a Defence Minister being an alcoholic and therefore unfit for his post.
I am not a lawyer but I am sure that there are many lawyers both in your Lordships' House and outside it who could draft a satisfactory law of privacy preventing invasions of privacy. One such person is Mr. Justice Hoffmann. Such a law should protect children from being pestered at school by photographers and reporters or from reading about true or false shocking details of their parents' marriage, which must have a fearful and lasting effect on them all their

787
lives. Such a law should include preventing the printing of transcripts of tape recordings of private conversations and of unauthorised photographs of people in private places. What possible excuse could there have been for printing a full-length photograph of the Princess of Wales in her swimsuit while bathing recently in the swimming pool of the British Embassy in Cairo? None.
The law that I envisage would not protect rogues like Mr. Robert Maxwell—the law in France does not provide protection for them—if his sex life came into significance because he was financing his bimbos with money stolen from the pension funds. That would be a perfectly legitimate subject to follow.
There is much feeling among the public that it is the Government's duty to bring in a Bill enshrining the right to personal privacy for everyone without affecting the essential freedoms of the press. As I have just said, the public enjoy reading such stuff, but they know perfectly well that they would hate to have it written about themselves. They think that it is utterly intolerable that such things should be written about people who are in no position to protect themselves and who cannot do anything about it, except bringing a libel action after the story has actually appeared.
If the Government do not bring in such a Bill, one should be promptly introduced into your Lordships' House. I believe that it would have all-party backing both here and in another place. I also believe that the public would greatly welcome this curb on the press. In saying that, I am unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate—once my noble friend—who thinks that that would be a way of censoring the press. The law that I am envisaging would have nothing to do with censoring the press when they are in pursuit of their legitimate interests—and nor would there be anything in it to stop the press following up reasonable and pertinent inquiries into people's lives, as happens in France. We are kidding ourselves if we believe that the poor little Press Complaints Commission will ever be able to satisfy the need for personal privacy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has just made about particular examples of press excesses. However, in the remedy that he proposes, he seems not to have considered the fact that these matters were closely examined by the Calcutt committee, which came out firmly against a law that would create a tort of breach of privacy, and against a statutory right of reply as being impractical. However, the committee proposed that there should be a law to deal with physical intrusion in relation to the media and I support the committee in that.
The speeches that we have heard from a noble Lord who is a press proprietor and from another noble Lord who is a former distinguished editor illuminate the fact that this debate (which is, in effect, about the future of the Press Complaints Commission) goes right to the heart of one of the dilemmas of democracy. There can be no free society without a free press, yet all experience shows that it is impossible to
788
have a free press without there being some abuses of that freedom from time to time. In extreme cases, these abuses can distort and undermine the very democracy that the free press is there to serve.
There is nothing particularly new about this situation. It is as old as parliamentary democracy. It was summed up a long time ago by the civil servant turned poet, Humbert Wolfe, who said:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God, the British journalist
But when you see what he will do
Unbribed—there's no occasion to".
The difficult question is how society can limit the inevitable excesses of a free press and keep them within acceptable levels.
It is necessary to bear in mind another dilemma. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who was a distinguished investigative journalist in his day, might ponder this dilemma—what one person regards as an outrageous invasion of privacy may be regarded by another person as a crusade in the public interest. It all depends on how one defines the public interest.
In our debate earlier this week on media intrusion in mental hospitals, I quoted the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the Master of the Rolls, which were reported in the Calcutt committee's report. The noble and learned Lord said:
"The media are an essential foundation of any democracy. However they are peculiarly vulnerable to the error of confusing the public interest with their own interest".
As has been made clear in some of the speeches that we have heard already today, the press interest is to make profits in a highly competitive commercial business. The tabloids justify their excesses by saying that they are merely catering for the interests of their readers. However, as Stanley Baldwin once remarked of the press lords of his day, that is the argument of the harlot down the ages. It has nothing to do with any serious definition of the public interest. It may well be argued that the marriage of the heir to the throne is a legitimate matter of public interest, but that definition of the public interest cannot conceivably be extended to encompass the way in which the once reputable Sunday Times has turned tabloid over the book about the marriage. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said about that aspect of this issue.
As a former chairman of the IBA, I was saddened to see ITN showing the peeping torn pictures of the Princess of Wales in the private swimming pool of the embassy, and then to see ITN publicly seeking to justify that as being a matter of public interest. Equally, how can obstructing the public highway by erecting scaffolding in order to allow cameras to peer over the walls of a school to see small children at their sports day be said to be in the public interest? It is such excesses by the press that have raised the issues we are debating today.
In tackling these issues the practical choice for Parliament and government lies, as the Calcutt Committee spelt out, between what it called a reformed non-statutory mechanism—the present Press Complaints Commission—and a statutory tribunal with statutory powers to implement a statutory code of conduct. It has to be said straight

789
away that one of the many paradoxes relating to the media is that, although for the Government and Parliament to seek to regulate the press is basically repugnant to our traditions, the best way to encourage effective self-regulation is to threaten statutory regulation. That is what worked with the present Advertising Standards Authority, in which I declare a modest past interest as a former chairman. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has modelled his new Press Complaints Commission on the tried structure of the Advertising Standards Authority. It is worth looking at it as an example of how self-regulation can work.
If self-regulation is to be more than simply a cosmetic exercise—it can be made more than a cosmetic exercise—three things are essential. First, there is a need for an automatic source of funding through some kind of annual levy. One weakness of the former Press Council was that it had to go with a begging bowl to the newspapers of the country which it was supposed to regulate seeking the funds to enable it to do its job. The new organization—Pressbof—deals with that.
Secondly, there must be means of applying effectively an agreed code of practice. I am glad to see that the code lays down that when a complaint is upheld, the publication concerned is duty bound to print the adjudication which follows in full and with due prominence. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who knows about these matters intimately as a regular columnist in the News of the World, said that the newspaper he decorates chose to shrug off the complaint that was upheld against the News of the World in the case of the Member of Parliament, Clare Short. The News of the World printed some 3,000 words of the very full adjudication that the Press Complaints Commission gave on that matter. Nevertheless, more severe sanctions, including financial sanctions, may need to be considered as part of the weaponry of the Press Complaints Commission.
That brings me to the third and perhaps most important essential—a will to make self-regulation work on the part of the professional members of the commission. I found at the Advertising Standards Authority that the advertising industry members of the authority were as jealous as the lay members—and perhaps even more jealous—of the observation of its code of practice. Being more experienced than the lay members, they knew the tricks of the trade and therefore they were more effective.
The present Press Complaints Commission is still in its early days. It is suffering a baptism of fire and should be given more time to prove itself, encouraged no doubt by the continuing threat of legislation if it fails. But its success or failure will depend—I address my words to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—on the editorial members and the press proprietors who are represented on the commission. It will depend on them being ready to back the code of practice in the spirit as well as in the letter.
If ever there is an area of democratic life that cries out for effective self-regulation, it is the media—not in the interests of the press; or even in the interests of the
790
victims or targets of the press, legitimate or not legitimate. The real public interest, as properly defined for this country, is the interest in the principle of free speech and a free society. It would be a sad day if Britain felt compelled to resort to some form of governmental regulation of the press. It was on the very principle that the present Government withdrew some years ago from UNESCO in the face of a proposal of some kind of new world information order that would have meant direct intrusion by government into the way the press behaved. All over East and Central Europe a revolution is now taking place. The old state-controlled and state-censored press has disappeared. East and Central Europe is full of people trying to establish a free press for the first time. They now come here in considerable numbers to seek advice about how we try to combine freedom of the press with positive efforts to maintain standards. They come to the Press Complaints Commission in considerable numbers to seek advice there. It would be a great retreat to resort to statutory intervention at such a time.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter in his opening speech. There is one area of the media where government intervention is legitimate and necessary—and that is to prevent excessive concentrations of media ownership, including cross-media ownership between the printed press and the broadcast media. In the recent Broadcasting Act the Government conceded an extraordinary degree of privilege to the Murdoch press in terms of its ownership of satellite broadcasting. Now the BBC is joining forces with the satellite broadcasters of the Murdoch press. Sporting events which previously the BBC and ITV in their different ways provided freely to viewers in this country will have to be paid for. Meanwhile, the new commercial television regime trembles on the edge of takeovers and mergers and the creation of mega regions.
These are issues of fundamental importance to the future freedom and diversity of our media. They are matters where the Government have a legitimate and necessary responsibility. I very much hope that the new Secretary of State for National Heritage will show a great deal more interest in accepting these responsibilities than his predecessor did at the Home Office.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Deedes: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, about the diversity of the media but I think I am right in saying that this afternoon we are addressing ourselves primarily to the sins of the newspapers.
I begin by adding my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating this debate. In the light of recent events there is indeed a need for a public discussion of some of the issues. I share many of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Wyatt of Weeford, not least because I am still a modest practitioner. I do not altogether share the contentment of my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate. I prefer the realism of my noble friend Lord Wyatt of Weeford.

791
There are a good many things that are wrong and it is not difficult to produce a washing list of what we have a right to hold against the press of today. But it is a great deal easier to recite what troubles us than to prescribe the right remedies. In the short time I intend to speak in this debate I prefer to dwell not upon the catalogue of our sins, not all of which I deny, but upon possible solutions.
As things stand, newspapers are under some sort of ultimatum. In the words of the Press Complaints Commission's annual report:
"By general parliamentary agreement, the Press, and the Commission with it, were both put on probation until the middle of 1992".
That takes us to where we are now. Failing the required level of conduct—we are to suppose—the Government will consider whether statutory under-pinning is required. That is generally accepted to mean —I accept the interpretation put on this by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford—restraints, by legislation, primarily on privacy. I accept the point. Privacy is the one area in which the Press Complaints Commission has a difficulty and has perhaps shown weakness. For at least two reasons I regard that position —the ultimatum—as unsatisfactory.
First, at the risk of causing hurt looks from my own Front Bench, I see no likelihood of this Government giving much encouragement to legislation which will antagonise the press. It is better to be blunt. The press did the Government pretty well in the previous election. I make no bones about that. No government in their senses bite the hand they feel has fed them. For that and other reasons, into which I shall not enter this afternoon, this talk of legislation (the ultimatum of the threat of immediate legislation) carries with it a great deal of bluff.
But let us suppose that it is not altogether bluff. Let us suppose that the Government are in earnest about this, and, if necessary, will support, or even initiate, a law on privacy. Then—speaking not as a lawyer, which I am not qualified to do, but as a practitioner —I advise your Lordships that the Government will be putting their foot into extremely slippery sand. I paid attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said. I accept his point. With ingenuity, it might be possible to draft legislation which would meet some of your Lordships' anxieties about privacy and the invasion of privacy by the press. It could be done. It has been done. Drafts exist. What I doubt is whether the legislation would be easy to enforce.
My earlier training in the Home Office taught me that a law which satisfies public requirements but which is unenforceable in some respects is a thumping bad law. Even if the Government were willing—which I doubt—and the law could be drafted—which is possible—and could be made enforceable—which I doubt—there would be another hurdle to carry. How does one devise and enforce a law which protects the privacy of the individual without, at the same time, affording some refuge for rogues?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, he is making an interesting speech
792
and I go along with a great deal of it. However, will he explain why it is that a law similar to the one I seek works in France?
Lord Deedes: My Lords, I am not being in the least didactic about this matter. I do not assert that a law that would defend privacy would necessarily pave the way for rogues. I am saying merely that there is a risk. If the existing law of defamation is buttressed by a law of privacy, there is an element of risk that more rogues will get away with what they are doing. I say bluntly that men such as the late Mr. Robert Maxwell would have reason to rejoice.
I do not say that we have played the role of watchdog with distinction in the past because, frankly, I do not believe that we have. That was a good example of where we failed in our duties. But it is a role that we should play and I should be sorry to see it handicapped by inadvertent legislation. So I come to this view: the Government would do themselves some good if they stopped pretending that they could, by legislation, control the ethics of the press. I am not defending the ethics of the press. There is a great deal about them which causes me, as a professional of some years standing, anxiety and unhappiness.
I should prefer to see the issue turned a little more towards the public's judgment. There is—shall I say? —a certain flaccidity today in public attitudes towards the press. The public deplores the cruel reporting of certain events which have been mentioned but reads about them avidly. I am for inculcating a degree more public responsibility into all this, which will not be exercised while the public supposes that the Government are willing to act on its behalf.
I should like to hear Ministers say a little more loudly to the newspaper-reading public, "This is a government who believe in choice. If you abhor certain journalistic practices, as you have every right to do, then abandon the newspaper which indulges in them. Vote at the newsagent! Do not look too much to government to determine what you or your children should or should not read. It is, in large degree, for you to decide. We will provide"—the Government have provided—"a Press Complaints Commission to deal with your grievances. After that, it is largely up to you".
I speak not on behalf of the press but in defence of the Government. A government who are induced to start putting ring fences around ethical behaviour can land themselves in the most tremendous pickle. I took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that there should be limits. It was a good story. I accept that there should be limits. The only question is how far the Government should involve themselves in setting those limits. I should be sorry to see the tremendous pickle that I forecast for a government who move too far towards the control of ethical behaviour happen to this Government. My earnest advice is—here I am not defending my profession, I am defending the Government—that the Government should keep out of it. We of the press do not offer much, but at least we offer choice. Let us tell the public bluntly that to a large degree it is up to them to choose.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I find myself in the awkward position of following a group of experts. Everyone who has spoken has known what he was talking about. I am not sure that your Lordships will wish to listen to someone who is not as certain of his position in the matter as previous speakers have been; so I come to the subject with a certain amount of humility.
I speak as a consumer rather than as a participant. Although I have done a little rather contemptible spare-time journalism, I am in no way attempting to associate myself with the level of expertise to which we have just been listening. What strikes me about the press, for some organs of which I have considerable admiration, is its immense flexibility. It is that immense flexibility which is personal to journalists as well as to the press itself which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the process of self-regulation to work.
As regards that matter I find myself in the surprising position of agreeing more with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and, to some extent, with the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, than with—I was about to call him my noble friend, because I believe he is—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. He believes that self-regulation can and should work, if I have not wrongly interpreted him. I fear that I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in this area it cannot work, it is not working and will not work. Therefore we must approach the question of regulation very carefully. If we do so and assume that it is not the Government but a body created by them which is responsible for regulation, if that body is careful, we could enter the field of regulation without censorship. That is extremely difficult to achieve, which is the precise problem. However, because it is difficult to achieve it does not mean that it ought not to be attempted.
In the present unsatisfactory situation with the previous examples of self-regulation, I am not as great an admirer of self-regulation as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I take leave to be less of an admirer of its successes and more conscious of its failures in advertising than perhaps he is. An example of the flexibility of the press is the different attitudes taken by editors when they are in the position of judge in an editorial and when they are in the position of wishing to increase the sales of the paper.
Noble Lords will forgive me for quoting an article but it is necessary for the argument. An editorial on 24th June 1990 in the Sunday Times states:
"There is no denying, of course, that the behaviour of some tabloids has made all newspapers fair game for regulation. Never have the few unwittingly done so much damage to the reputations and freedoms of the many. The worst offenders have trampled on the weak with impunity, made gross intrusions into the private lives and assassinated the characters of public figures with no excuse of public interest or anti-social behaviour, but solely the belief that it sells newspapers. Good tabloid newspapers need to be controversial … That does not mean that they have to publish sleaze, distort the truth (or, worse, print downright lies) and pander to the worst prejudices of the public. But that is exactly what some newspapers have done …
"It is unnecessarily intrusive, for example, for public figures, such as the royal family, to be subject to the never-ending scrutiny of the telephoto lens when they are
794
doing no more than sunning themselves on a beach. Even the highest in the land should have the right to be left alone when they are doing no harm; press freedom should not override the right to privacy for no good reason".
That is what the Sunday Times said a couple of years ago.
In practice, a newspaper changes its view when it wishes to increase its circulation by embarking on the sins which have been so clearly described. The press man and, I am afraid, the editor can easily turn from gamekeeper to poacher and from poacher back to gamekeeper. If the editor is put on a regulation committee, he can condemn what he himself will permit in his editorial position. That is precisely the problem with self-regulation of the press.
As for the report which is the basis of this debate which has been so properly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, it is remarkable for its absence of detail. There is not a great deal in it. The report gives us some little designs which show that the number of complaints is small compared with the circulation of newspapers. It tells us about the number of complaints by type of publication, with a design to illustrate it. However, it reaches no conclusion and gives little information about what, if anything, has been achieved.
The report includes the code of practice which the commission seeks to operate. From the code of practice at the back of the publication, one must reach the conclusion that the Press Complaints Commission has been ineffectual in implementing in any way the code of practice of which it is supposed to be in charge. The report reads more as though it is setting out aims for the future rather than what has been implemented by the Press Complaints Commission day by day.
Taking any of the items in the code of practice, one sees that they ought to be the case but unhappily they are not. For example, on the first point dealing with accuracy, the code of practice states:
"Newspapers … should take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material".
By and large, it is true, newspapers succeed in doing that. However, one has only to read the headlines of newspapers to notice that they distort their material. It is not at all infrequent to read the headline of a column in a newspaper and then to find that the text below is directly contradictory to that headline. I could go through the code of practice, but it would take too long. I merely note that every point is laid down as an aim to be achieved rather than something which has been achieved. If that is so, then the Press Complaints Commission's report tells us that something needs to be done to bring the code of practice into actuality rather than to leave it as an ambition.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, I must begin with a declaration of interest. I am the secretary of the Association of British Editors. I have been a journalist for most of my working life, both in the national newspapers and latterly in local and regional papers.
I wish to say a word on behalf of the approximately 2,000 newspapers to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, referred and which do not

795
normally figure in our debates. Perhaps I should also declare that I was hostile to the findings of the Calcutt Committee which subscribed to the idea that the press should be put on probation and given one last chance to avoid regulation. I took that view because it seemed to me that it put the entire press—the good and the responsible as well as the others—in hock to the maverick editor who might offer politicians the opportunity to say that self-regulation had failed.
Certain sections of the press succumbed too readily to the Calcutt formula. We should have had more debate on it before it was implemented. The code which the PCC now administers was written in secret by a small committee of editors and was only published a mere three weeks before the PCC came into existence. Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who is chairman of the PCC, has stressed the legitimacy of the code. He could not do otherwise, or he would have nothing to enforce.
I must concede now, after the passage of time, that the passive acceptance which the code has received from editors probably entitles it to a legitimacy which I did not think it deserved at birth. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said, I believe that there is evidence that the relatively few editors about whom there has been intense concern have modified their behaviour. I am not an apologist for the Press Complaints Commission but I believe that is the case. I do not particularly welcome this debate because I believe the present situation surrounding the Press Complaints Commission is unhealthily political already and that what is needed is a reduction in the political hysteria about a few newspapers who offend but whose popularity, paradoxically, does not suggest that there is a general and widespread public concern about all newspapers. I suppose I am saying rather less well what the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, said about keeping the politics out of these matters.
Newspapers will always be controversial, and so they should be. There will always, unfortunately, be some bad journalists. I do not wish to dwell on that because others are quite happy to do so. However, one must recognise that fact. Journalism will always be likely to rank low (although possibly not as low as politicians) in the popular ratings. As has often been said in these debates, the price of a free press is some bad newspapers. However, a press which operates under a complaints commission that has been described with relish in my hearing by senior politicians as a sword of Damocles—that phrase has been used already in this debate—is not as free as it should be in an advanced democracy, if indeed we can claim to be an advanced democracy at all. That is very dangerous territory.
I attended the Commonwealth Press Union conference in Edinburgh last week and I heard it said that the British press had exercised a high degree of self-censorship during the recent general election. Whether one thinks that is a good thing or not probably depends upon the extent of one's political involvement. However, I find it worrying.
The Government, no doubt, would like to avoid introducing legislation regulating the press. I am prepared to give them credit for realising that
796
statutory interference with the press is wrong in principle. However, the reality of political life, I fear, is that if the baying of Back-Benchers is considered to be dangerously loud, the Government might bow to that pressure. That is an unsatisfactory climate for the PCC and the press to work in.
There will, rightly, always be tension between politicians and the press. At present the politicians are too far in the ascendancy. I hope that this House, which can take a more measured view than those in another place—that has been demonstrated today—will contribute to trying to lower the temperature so that we avoid making bad laws on the basis of hard cases. After all, another reason for opposing a statutory Press Complaints Commission is that it would bring lawyers into the picture. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lords in this House, there is no evidence that lawyers would make a better job of editing newspapers than editors. Nor do I share the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has expressed about their ability to draft a privacy law which would not fall foul of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, about allowing rogues to escape.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing this subject at a time when many of the thinking British public are concerned about it. The noble Lord spoke with his usual clarity and sometimes he spoke with passion. As an ordinary reader of the press I agree with most of what he said.
I speak as a mere reader of the press and I am in no way connected with it. But having said that, I confess to a certain puzzlement when I read the report of the commission. I read the whole report although that was quite hard work. Certainly it was published before recent scandalous reports and publications had come to light. For that reason it seems to me to bear little relationship to what I believe is the public perception of what the press is up to now.
We have a limited time in which to speak in this debate and I do not have the knowledge of the press that is possessed by most noble Lords who are speaking today. Therefore I shall speak briefly. My main purpose in speaking in this debate is to ask Her Majesty's Government a question which has bothered me for a long time. I believe the question has been asked before but it has more weight at the present time than it ever has had, or possibly is ever likely to have. The question is: ought it to be possible for a foreign national to own a large portion of the British press and media? We have had some pretty unpleasant press barons in the past but at least until fairly recently there was not one who would have been unable to take the Oath or Affirmation which every Member of your Lordships' House and the other place have taken recently.
I do not think there are many countries that would allow the Murdoch press, or its equivalent, to own such a large segment of their media. A person who does not live here and who owes no allegiance to the

797
Queen or to the country ought in my view not to have the kind of influence which a press baron can, of necessity, exercise. As far as I can see, that influence and power far exceeds that of any Back-Bench Member of another place and of most Members of your Lordships' House—certainly in the latters' capacity as Members of this House.
A foreign press baron has no stake in this country other than the money he can make out of it and owes no obligations to its institutions. Neither he nor his sons can be called up if there is a war and he suffers no loss, other than possibly financial, if this country is conquered or overrun by a hostile power. The state of the nation has no effect upon his or his family's future because they hold another allegiance. If he wishes to undermine the regime he can do so with perfect freedom of conscience as far as he personally is concerned. He will not be affected one way or another by any repercussions caused by his trying to impose his views.
Does my noble friend agree that Her Majesty's Ministers have a duty to protect the sovereign and the succession? Does he consider that that duty is being performed while the Murdoch press is being allowed to make an unprecedented attack on our constitution and, I would go so far as to say, on the security of the realm?
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer firm support to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and to offer my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, on what he published on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission about the maltreatment of the royal family.
Things have moved on a little since I opened a debate on the tabloids in this House five years ago. At that time I said the tabloid press had deteriorated, was deteriorating and would continue to deteriorate. My noble friend Lord Mishcon was kind enough not necessarily to agree with every word I said but to say some generous words about me. Those words stick in my mind, as generous words always stick in my mind.
At any rate, I remember that debate well. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, whom I have just applauded for his fine announcement on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission, made an interesting speech in the debate five years ago. He said:
"I hope that the Government will feel able in relation to the Press Council … quietly to twist the arms of the proprietors".—[Official Report, 18/2/87; col. 1183.]
That was as far as the noble Lord went five years ago. I am glad to say that now, as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, he is a great deal more outspoken. He now says on behalf of the commission:
"The most recent intrusive and speculative treatment by sections of the Press (and, indeed, by broadcasters) of the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales is an odious exhibition of journalists dabbling their fingers in the stuff of other people's souls".
798
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, has advanced a good deal in those five years. I suppose that one must correlate that with a still further deterioration of the press in the five years in question.
I am glad to think that the Government have also progressed in their recognition of the dangers. Winding up that debate five years ago the much esteemed noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said:
"We have no intention to introduce statutory oversight of the press and we do not believe that present circumstances can justify our changing this policy".—[Official Report, 18/2/87; col. 1196.]
That may be for all time, perhaps. Now the Government are adopting a different tone towards the possible control of the press, I am glad to think. I am pleased that the Leader of the House of Commons recently came out very strongly in support of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission. He said that,
"there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/ 92; col. 144.]
Therefore, the Government have come out very firmly and denounced the recent treatment by the press.
I am sorry to have interrupted earlier. The trouble with these short debates is that one has only a few minutes and it is bad form to interrupt. However, it is a pity if that convention is absolute, and I could not help asking the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, whether he justified the serialisation of the Morton book. I gather that he did, but perhaps I took him unawares and tomorrow he may think of a better answer.
That is where we are now—the Press Complaints Commission denouncing the behaviour of the press recently and the Government supporting the commission. I hope that I can say that that is the general view of the leaders of other parties.
In relation to the Morton book, the noble Lord who spoke last was very severe on Mr. Murdoch. I should not have thought that it was possible to be too severe on Mr. Murdoch; however, I thought that the noble Lord was. I would not have gone as far, although I have criticised Mr. Murdoch. I did so in the previous debate five years ago, perhaps more gently than the noble Lord felt able to criticise him this afternoon.
Perhaps I may say one thing in favour of Mr. Murdoch. He owns many newspapers, including The Times. Recently The Times published a review of the Morton book by a lady who is, to say the least, not unknown to me. She referred to the book in the words of Bismarck, translated into English as "stinking more than somewhat". That seems to be an apposite comment. However, it was printed in a paper owned by Mr. Murdoch, and I must point out that in order to be fair to Mr. Murdoch, who has received bad treatment today, although defended resolutely by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
If one can stink more than somewhat then I believe that the Sunday Times qualifies. It is one thing to publish an awful book—and I have written a few in my time—and one would not blame everybody for what they write in books, but the Sunday Times is a so-called quality paper and my noble friend Lord

799
Jenkins very appositely described the attitude of the Sunday Times towards the tabloid press only two years ago. That paper has sunk to the depths. We can join in the condemnation.
What can we do about the problem? It is a difficult question. It has been suggested that there might be a privacy law. I cannot imagine voting against a privacy law but I do not believe that it would do much good because of the ambiguities involved, which were contained even in the support of such a law by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
I put forward one thought in that context which is not usually considered. When someone is dead we expect a biography to go into his or her private life. A biography which did not refer to Gladstone's interest in salvaging prostitutes or did not deal with Disraeli's sex life would be thought a very inadequate affair. Where does one draw the line? Does one say that while the man is alive everything has to be hushed up but as soon as he is dead any self-respecting author may blow the gaff? The issue raises very difficult questions. I do not believe that we shall ever see an effective law on privacy.
What is left? The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, made one point which interested me greatly. He pointed out that the majority of the members of the Press Complaints Commission are representatives of the press or the media. We have to think about that for a moment. Without going as far as statutory controls, which involves many difficulties, one could envisage a Press Complaints Commission which was an advisory body but on which there was not a majority of representatives of the press. I believe that that possibility is worth exploring. Presumably such a body would include considerable press representation, but it would he in a stronger position and more likely to offer candid criticism than the present body.
Until that happens we are left with the present situation. There has been horrifying misbehaviour by the newspapers in many cases. I have admired the Sunday Times for many years and I regarded it as a quality paper. However, in my view it has gone down the drain. If I thought that withdrawing my subscription would make any difference I would do so, but as the paper has increased its circulation by 250,000 copies as a result of those enormities I do not suppose that it would be noticed. I believe that the newspaper is a disgrace to journalism and to the quality press.
In the end it is up to all of us. In the last resort that means the Press Complaints Commission and, among politicians, first of all the Government. Perhaps I may for a change congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and draw his attention to the fact that I applaud wholeheartedly the attitude which the Leader of the House of Commons has taken in supporting the Press Complaints Commission in its condemnation of the disgusting behaviour by so many elements of the press.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, my reason for taking part in the debate is that I am a member of the Press Complaints Commission. I must declare that at once.
800
It is our report which your Lordships have been discussing this past hour or so. I thought that it might be helpful to refer to one or two matters which have come up in the course of our discussion because I have direct personal knowledge of how the Press Complaints Commission works under the expert and very agreeable guidance of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, whom I may now call my noble friend even though he sits on the opposite side of the House.
Everyone knows the origin of the commission, in the Calcutt Committee, and how the commission has been set up by the press itself. It has nothing whatever to do with the Government. It is initiated, appointed and financed by the press. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said a moment ago, I believe that the balance of the Press Complaints Commission is about right. There are seven editors and eight people who are not editors.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, they are all connected with the press.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, of course they are connected with the press; but should knowing something about the subject be a bar to serving on such a body? That does not seem to me to make sense at all. The people who have responsibility for what appears in the newspapers, which is what the Press Complaints Commission exists to consider, are the editors. Other people may have a financial interest in newspapers; they may have been editors or they may have been connected with other sections of the media. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, mentioned one member—Sir Richard Francis—who, until he unfortunately died last week, was connected with the BBC. I cannot see that that could conceivably be thought to be a bar to being a lay member of the Press Complaints Commission. Having seen the work of such members, I consider it an advantage. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I do not quite understand why the noble Lord was trying to make out that the Press Complaints Commission is not dominated by a majority of people connected with the press. The balance of the nine members is made up by people who, if they are not editors, are directors of newspapers and have some editorial say in them.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord knows more than I about the responsibilities of editors. I am open to correction, if I am wrong; but it was my understanding that the editor's decision is final. However, we shall leave that point aside. That is the situation, and I shall return to the issue of how we work in a moment, because it is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, quite rightly said that it was necessary for the code of practice to be agreed. It is. It was drawn up by the press and not by the commission. The commission had no hand in drawing it up. It was done by a group of editors of newspapers and has been publicly subscribed to by the editor of every newspaper in the country. They have agreed to abide by it. That is its strength. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned

801
that very point. It matters that it is the press's own code and all members of the press have subscribed to it.
That is not to say that the code cannot be altered. A moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said that he did not think that the code of practice was very good. I expect that it could be altered. The Press Complaints Commission cannot alter it but we can recommend alterations to those who drew it up. We have already done so on two occasions and it has been altered twice. If any Member of your Lordships' House has suggestions to make for altering it, we shall be only too glad to consider them and put them forward if they are right. The basis of the code of practice is that it is the press's own code and the press subscribe to it.
Noble Lords who have read the annual report will have seen that more than anything else when the commission receives a complaint it seeks to get it resolved amicably. Therefore we try to bring together the complainant and the editor to see whether they can resolve the problem in some way that is satisfactory to both parties. That seems to me to be far and away the best way of dealing with complaints, if it can be done.
Perhaps the extent of the commission's success or otherwise can be seen in the annual report. That indicates that four times as many complaints were resolved directly as had to be adjudicated on by the commission sitting as a whole. It cannot be bad that complaints should be amicably resolved. If they have to be adjudicated on, then that is done. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said that the annual report did not give enough information about the operations of the commission. From what he said it seems that he does not receive the monthly report. I am sorry and shall arrange for it to be sent to him. He will see that the report, which every month we send to as many people as we believe want it, goes into very considerable detail about what the commission does. I shall arrange that from now on the noble Lord will receive it. I hope that it will not be necessary for him to make that complaint again.
I return to the question of method and the press and the lay members. What has impressed and delighted me when we consider complaints upon which we have to adjudicate is the total lack of difference between the editors and the laymen. In my ignorance I had assumed that there would be occasions —perhaps a number of occasions—when the lay members would take one point of view and the editors would take another. I have sat on the commission for 18 months now and that situation has yet to arise. If a complaint is made against a newspaper whose editor sits on the commission, that editor withdraws and takes no part in the matter. In fact, I find it encouraging that there has been no difference between us at all in the whole of the 18 months that I have been there.
I shall not go into the report. Noble Lords have read it and may make what they like of it. Of interest to everybody is, as has been said already, what the
802
future holds. What happens now that the 18 months' probationary period is up, theoretically at any rate? I can see only three ways forward.
One way is that there should be legislation, as was envisaged by Calcutt. Certainly the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt of Weeford and Lord Jenkins of Putney, think that there ought to be legislation. My impression from listening to the debate was that nobody else thought so. On the whole, it was not thought to be a good idea.
My noble friend Lord Deedes advanced the very compelling argument that the remedy is the hands of the public themselves and if they do not like what they read they should not buy the publication. Perhaps the noble Lord will have a word with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has apparently still not withdrawn his subscription from the Sunday Times. Incidentally, I have done so. I do not know whether that ideal solution will make the press behave in the way that the public want it to behave. I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if I express a modicum of doubt about whether that will happen.
The third way is to continue as we are; in other words, to have a complaints commission which, admittedly, has no power. The only power that it possesses is to require the newspapers to print adverse reports about themselves. Somebody mentioned earlier that the News of the World, having criticised a Member of the other place and been adversely commented upon by the Press Complaints Commission, had shrugged the matter off. The News of the World devoted an entire page of their newspaper the following Sunday to printing the commission's adverse comment word for word. I do not think that that newspaper has done it again yet.
As I said, the commission has no major power. The success or otherwise of the system at present in operation depends entirely on the press. I like to think that the press is taking some notice of the commission and maybe what it is trying to do will work. However, I fully realise, as we all do, that that is not for the commission to judge but for the Government, your Lordships and Members of another place. Until they judge otherwise, the commission will go on doing the best it can.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships have been so economical with time that an interval is available. I hope that I shall be allowed to fill three minutes of it by addressing one narrow point rather than the many points that I should have liked to make had I thought that I would be here at the end of the debate. I want to address an assumption which has been made by most speakers and which I believe is not sound; namely, that it is not proper or possible to legislate for the protection of privacy because freedom of speech is generally good and it is generally good that it should not be curtailed.
My noble friend Lord Deedes provoked my return from the far door when I was behind the Woolsack and induced me to come into the Chamber. He most plainly made the assumption that it was right that justice—if that is what it is to be—should be achieved not by legislation but by the effect of market forces;

803
that is to say, the public behaving unlike the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I do not consider that that is a correct assumption. In fact our time is spent in legislating for the control of things which of themselves are good and which people can use harmfully. We legislate against what people want in the way of speed in built-up areas, which is harmful to other people. We legislate against the use of otherwise beneficial drugs because they are harmful to the user. There seems to be no argument in philosophy why one should not legislate for the protection of private individuals whose lives may be destroyed by the intrusion of the media.
I do not want to speak with undue heat at this time because there are particular cases before the public eye. However, I beg your Lordships to remember that one does not need to be a national figure in order to he devastated and have one's family devastated by publication of facts which are properly one's own property and nobody else's and which in many instances may not be true. We all know that truth lives at the bottom of a well and emerges only with her nakedness clothed with newsprint. But that is a generalisation which journalists would not like me to use.
I merely say that on my last recent visit abroad, I went to Singapore, which is not far from the Straits of Malacca. On the front page of the Sunday Times I read a story telling me that the British Government were about to make a proclamation against piracy on the high seas and send units of the Royal Navy to control piracy in the Straits of Malacca. I established with the Foreign Office that there was no truth in that story. However, a good deal of umbrage was being taken at the other end of my trip when I arrived. I refer to that in parenthesis. It is not relevant to privacy; it is relevant to the fact that what is printed may not be true and may therefore be doubly harmful and lead to people being judged on statements about them which are false.
If there can be regulation in France—and I was unaware that there was—we should consider such provision in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that this is not the last occasion on which we shall address the subject before it is put to bed by a decision by Her Majesty's Government. That is my reason for intervening. I hope that the Government will not be precipitate in coming to a conclusion on a subject about which many people feel more exercised than many of the speakers in this debate.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, over 25 years ago, the House of Commons debated a Motion calling for the appointment of a Royal Commission on the press. That Royal Commission recommended the creation of a press council, the forerunner of the present Press Complaints Commission whose report we debate today.
Anyone who reads the report of that debate in Hansard will be struck by two features. The first demonstrates that the anxieties then expressed were very similar to those which have been touched on in
804
the debate today; that is, the concentration of ownership of the media. The other feature is that hardly a word was spoken about the issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has touched; namely, the intrusion into people's privacy by newspapers.
In 1946 the debate primarily related to an issue which was seen by the then government Benches as the unacceptable conduct and power of a handful of newspaper proprietors, primarily the late Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Kemsley. Yet it was significant that many who supported the Motion that there should be a Royal Commission conceded that the political sympathies of the national press at that time did not represent an intolerably unfair weighting in favour of the Conservative Party. Indeed, some rather friendly things were said about the press. In the report in Hansard on 29th October 1946 at col. 549, Mr. Morrison, speaking as Leader of the House of Commons, said:
"I do not under-estimate the fact that the popular press of today is a press of, on the whole, a better standard, catering for a better degree of education, than the same popular press did 20 or 25 years ago".
I wonder whether anyone in this House would make such a statement today.
There has unfortunately been a substantial deterioration in the quality of the tabloid press in the past few years. We have seen in a number of tabloid newspapers gross intrusions into personal privacy, payment to criminals and the associates of criminals, and other serious malpractices. During the recent general election campaign—I do not refer exclusively to the Conservative tabloid press—even less of a serious effort was made to give an honest account of the activities of politicians whom they did not favour.
Like my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, I have found it richly comic to hear the protestations of some of the editors involved denying that in the last election their activities had any discernible effect on the result today. Indeed, we heard an echo of that from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate. Perhaps I may touch on what was said to the Royal Commission by a rather more candid witness, the late Lord Beaverbrook. When he was asked about his position on the matter he stated:
"I ran the paper for propaganda and with no other purpose".
Then, slightly less plausibly, he added:
"The policy is that there shall be no propaganda in the news. There is a strong stern rule and the most tremendous attempt is made to carry that rule into effect. But we do stumble. It is terrible how we stumble. It is heartbreaking sometimes".
I am sure that that was a deeply sincere statement.
He said that the Beaverbrook Newspapers were united in support of the Empire. The late Lord Beaverbrook said that if editors diverged from that, "I talked them out of it". I do not believe that Mr. Murdoch has to spend an immense amount of time explaining his views to his editors or talking them out of any position that they hold which is not his own. I do not believe that Mr. Murdoch—unlike the late Lord Beaverbrook—has any clear view of the world that he would like to see. He sees his newspapers, perfectly understandably, as a source of financial power.

805
He has been highly successful in commercial terms. The Sun —to take the most obvious example—was an abject failure under its previous ownership. Under Mr. Murdoch it has been a notable commercial success. But of course the price has been immensely high. He has created a vulgar and brutish newspaper and in so doing has driven the remainder of the tabloid press still further down market. At one level its loud-mouthed xenophobia is more a cause of amusement than irritation until one remembers those sad young men in Malmo and Stockholm wrapping themselves, sometimes almost literally, in the Union Jack, and winning for this country the reputation of possessing some of the nastiest soccer hooligans in Europe.
However, in a free society we have to put up with the Sun and its stablemates. But we have the right to demand that they observe the standards they set for themselves in the code of practice of the Press Complaints Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, reminded us that the editors were consulted about the matter and both editors and proprietors, including Mr. Murdoch, committed themselves to accepting the code.
In my view the publication by one of Mr. Murdoch's newspapers of the serial rights of a book concerning the Prince and Princess of Wales was entirely unacceptable. In my judgment it was a violation of the section of the code of practice relating to personal privacy. No doubt in commercial terms Mr. Murdoch is a happy man. One of his newspapers sold a further quarter of a million copies as a result and it cost it only £250,000 to buy the serial rights. Mr. Murdoch operates in a free society. He is entitled to behave in any way that he considers appropriate. But we have to bear in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, reminded us, that Mr. Murdoch, formerly an Australian citizen, is now a citizen of the United States. In that context, it seems a little odd that we as a country have given Mr. Murdoch—who in my view has debased journalistic standards—almost everything that he asked for. As my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter pointed out, that is what we did during our debates on the Broadcasting Bill. With the general election now out of the way, he clearly believes that there is even less likelihood that Ministers will do anything to obstruct him.
His newspapers have demonstrated an almost unique reputation for bullying any politician who gets in their way. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and my noble friend, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, referred to one case. Ms. Clare Short, a Labour Member of Parliament, introduced a Bill concerning the publication of photographs of page 3 girls—an indispensable feature of every edition of the Sun newspaper. The Sun and its stablemate the News of the World then ran a campaign directed against Ms. Short. For instance, the News of the World published a story about an advertisement in Tribune. It was headed "Anti-porn MP's ex-aide quizzed over porn". The Press Complaints Commission, in the first of its monthly judgments, stated that Ms. Short's name had
806
been dragged in irrelevantly and unwarrantedly largely on the basis that she was a reader of Tribune. It stated that that story—and a second story to which I shall refer in one moment—raised an inescapable suspicion that the newspapers were pursuing their private interests against Ms. Short to embarrass her in retaliation for her campaign against them.
The second News of the World story related to a man with whom Ms. Short had a friendship in the early 1970s. During the course of the newspaper's investigations it interviewed Ms. Short's former husband and attempted to obtain from him photographs of her in a nightdress. The Press Complaints Commission stated that the News of the World's dealings with Ms. Short's former husband were indefensible. I am sure that that judgment will be shared by everyone who has read the report.
That is only one example of the treatment accorded by Mr. Murdoch's newspapers to anyone who gets in their way. Yet this is the media organisation which, as regards those issues and others whose guidelines we are debating today, clearly believes that Ministers will at worst give it a light tap on the wrist. It does not believe that its immense power is under the slightest threat from the Government. The reasons for that are self-evident and were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes.
I find the prospect of a statutory Press Commission with members appointed by Ministers a deeply objectionable idea. In spite of its advocacy by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, I am also not attracted to a Bill dealing with a general right of privacy. That would be an immensely more complicated issue than he suggested in his speech. For reasons that I set out in considerable detail during our debate on the subject in April 1989 I do not like the idea. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that we should passively accept still further power being transferred to Mr. Murdoch's media empire. Its tentacles already extend far too wide. It is time that that power was diminished.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I speak as a former journalist on a national newspaper, as the originator of Nova magazine and as one who considers herself to be a friend of the press in the present and who is against legislation in the future. However, as has been made clear by all noble Lords who have spoken today, the press is trying the patience of its good friends.
I do not wish to dwell on the furore caused by the publication in the Sunday Times of "that" book, which has been exhaustively covered. Any further comment can only increase the sales of the book or the demand for the Sunday Times. However, I must say that it would have been less hypocritical if those responsible for publishing the excerpts had spent less time on arguing the case of the constitutional importance and that old, all-purpose standby "public interest", because publication was a godsend for drooping midsummer circulation. In that, I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in his foreword to the first annual report of the Press Complaints

807
Commission, points to the astonishingly small number of complaints made against newspapers in general—fewer than 1,400—and popular national dailies and Sundays in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, as a member of the commission was helpful in explaining some of its work. Is the smaller number of complaints than expected due to the fact that all are reformed characters or that people now accept what would have been unprintable even a decade ago? I believe that there has been a greater liberation—some may call it licence—in society and in the press. The two are interlinked. My noble friend Lord Ardwick will know, too, that under Sir Hugh Cudlipp the Daily Mirror was lively and entertaining but that it had a serious streak which made it practically compulsive reading for all Members of Parliament. That shows what can be done with genius such as his and a different ownership.
The Press Complaints Commission claims evidence of its own success. By means of an advertising campaign and the circulation of publicity material to organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux it intends to take steps to inform people how it works and can be used. Those are encouraging features. It will be interesting to see whether there is a great flow of complaints or whether when people can take a structured action they do nothing except perhaps tell friends. I believe that the latter may be the case unless the incident is gross and has a personal effect.
I accept that the commission had some success during its first year of operation. Unfortunately, that has been tempered by the excesses which have occurred since publication of its report. The tabloids alone must not take the blame for what are considered to be the faults of today's press. Self-described quality papers may not originate stories more shocking than those in the popular papers but they reproduce them, often with some pictures and with an air more of sorrow than delight. I am reminded of the famous Fleet Street editor of a Sunday newspaper who in the 1940s obtained pictures from an Italian agency. They showed a member of the Royal Family in a particularly revealing swimsuit. In those days the Royal Family was not the fair game that it is today. But at last he had an inspiration which enabled him to use the pictures. "Shocking Pictures", or similar words, was his headline. Underneath he wrote: "It is our duty to reveal these disgraceful pictures of our princess, which foreigners are gloating over". He then blamed the "evil cameramen". The upmarket papers feed from the tabloids, as sucker fish feed from a whale, and then publish readers' letters deploring what is happening at the other end of the market.
I do not like to put myself in the position of sounding priggish or prudish about the press, whether quality or tabloid. However, the change not only in the tabloids but in the self-described quality papers is a culture shock. That is not to excuse for one moment the harassment and intrusion into privacy, which in general is perpetrated by the tabloids, as the Press Complaints Commission's case histories illustrate. That point has been made by most, if not all, noble
808
Lords today. Some of those case histories are horrendous and there is no point in pretending otherwise.
We then come to the question of whether to legislate or not. Most of your Lordships' contributions—except that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt—put the case both for and against doing so.
My view is that taken by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, who has given us the opportunity to discuss these matters, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is a seductive idea to have legislation restricted to dealing only with invasion of privacy. That would deal with one of the worst features of the press today. However, as has been pointed out by various noble Lords, it is an almost impossible task. I do not believe that legislation is the answer because there is the grave possibility that it will not achieve the desired aim. To draft such legislation would be extremely difficult. Personally, I do not believe that it would work.
Also, it would have an adverse effect on the freedom of the press. It is extremely interesting to glance back 200 or 300 years to see some of the stirring articles that were written about the importance of press freedom at that time. In my view, the opinions expressed then still obtain today. If we hit the problem with a statutory hammer, we shall hit not only the freedom of the press but also the freedom of the individual. Curiously enough, it is much more essential in a democratic society to have a press which constantly scrutinises both the government and what they are doing and executive and governmental agencies. It should be free to do that without fear. I do not trust any government of whatever colour to play fair as regards this matter. A government will always give reasons to avoid playing fair, and we hear that and see that nowadays.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, and others have pointed out, legislation may catch important investigative journalism as well as the foot-in-the-door excessive behaviour. It is impossible to make an unarguable distinction between news and comment, although it would be very nice if that were possible. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave us an extreme but amusing example of that when he referred to Lord Beaverbrook.
While we are dealing with and hoping for a responsible press, we must accept that we pay a certain price for that in a democracy; that is, having to tolerate some irresponsible areas of the press. That does not mean that we should not try to do something about it but I do not believe that legislation is the answer.
The Press Complaints Commission has an important role to play. I hope that role will improve and increase with time because we should remember that the commission has not had long to prove itself. However, the role is a negative one, as I am sure the commission itself accepts. We need a changed climate in which the press can play a positive role. Incidentally, that was the implicit thrust of the letter from the editor of that vigorous, sparky, local paper the Hampstead and Highgate Express in The Times yesterday.

809
I believe that we badly need a freedom of information Act. We are an extremely secretive society, although we boast about our openness and freedom. However, that openness and freedom are not all they seem to be. Moreover, libel and contempt laws badly need changing. Gagging injunctions, which prevent publication without knowing whether or not material will be libellous when it is published, are a disgrace. It is time that something was done about them because that affects what is going on in the press and it affects readers' views and reactions.
Libel damages have become ludicrous. In criminal cases the jury decides on guilt but not penalty. In a libel case the jury should decide whether or not libel has been committed but the question of damages should be left to the judge.
It should be made easier and less expensive for people to take on the press. Something on the lines of a small claims court with an upper financial limit might be helpful. Often people who have quite a serious grudge against the press or have been badly treated feel that they cannot take action because they do not have the necessary funds. A small claims court, or something like it, would remedy that situation.
I shall not say much about cross-media ownership because a great deal has been said, most of which I agree with. It is unhealthy to have such enormous slices of the media in the hands of one person, as the concentration of views is associated with a concentration of interest. It is essential that there should be plurality in the media. So many noble Lords have dealt with that subject that I do not believe that I have anything more to say, other than to add my voice to warn against what is an extremely dangerous and unhealthy situation. We argued this out during the passage of the Broadcasting Act, when it was recognised that no regulations would control satellite TV, and unfortunately we were proved right.
In considering the Press Complaints Commission's first year's record, it would be wrong and dangerous if the Government allowed themselves to be pushed into legislative sanctions. I believe that financial sanctions should be considered for the commission if they are not too difficult to work out and do not involve the intervention of too many lawyers. I have toyed with that idea. However, the commission needs longer to prove itself and particularly to see whether the committee of editors under the chairmanship of the editor of the News of the World, against which a very bad case has been quoted many times, makes a real impact on standards. It is laughable in a way but it may be that we shall see that the poachers turn into the most admirable and strictest of gamekeepers.
5.48 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating this debate on a matter of great public and constitutional importance.
The debate that we have had this afternoon has been unusually stimulating and of the highest intellectual quality. I have listened with great interest to all the contributions which have been made. Today
810
we have heard from a chairman of a newspaper publishing company, my noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate, from three former editors of national newspapers, and from other noble Lords who have great experience in the world of journalism and broadcasting. I shall have more to say later on the particular points raised, and I shall try to respond to some of them.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that the debate has highlighted with particular vividness three points: first, the enormous importance of the subject as regards our basic rights and freedoms; secondly, the great difficulty of reaching a satisfactory accommodation in a free society between the rights of the press and those of the individual to be left in peace; and, thirdly, the very wide range of opinion which is held by your Lordships on what the Government might now do in that sensitive area.
Today is an apt day for the debate as today is the day which follows the 18-month probationary period which the Government set the press within which to prove that press self-regulation, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, was an effective means of preventing press misbehaviour. It may help your Lordships for me briefly to recapitulate some of the history which led to that probationary period being imposed.
I quote from 1782:
"How shall I speak of thee, or thy power address
Thou god of our adolatry, the Press?
By thee, religion, liberty and laws
Exert their influence, and advance their cause;
By thee, worse plagues than Pharaoh's land befell,
Diffused, make earth the vestibule of hell".
Anxiety about the power of the press is certainly not new. The report of the third Royal Commission on the Press, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, included that quotation from the poet Cowper.
But the modern period begins with the first Royal Commission on the Press of 1947–49, which recommended the establishment of a General Council of the Press. The second commission of 1961–62 recommended that the general council should be reconstituted, while the third Royal Commission, to which I have already referred, recommended further improvements to newspaper self-regulation. The third commission reported in July 1977, almost exactly five years after the report of the Younger Committee on Privacy which the commission followed in recommending against a statutory right to privacy.
Since the Younger Committee and the McGregor Commission reported, there have been numerous allegations of declining press standards and of growing intrusion into individual privacy. The immediate background to the appointment of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters, under the chairmanship of Sir David Calcutt, was the extent of parliamentary support during the 1988–89 Session for two Private Member's Bills in another place, one on protection of privacy and the other on the right of reply. The Government could not support those Bills for reasons of principle and because they were technically flawed; but on 21st April 1989 we

811
announced the setting up of the Calcutt Committee to look at possible means of redress for journalistic intrusions into privacy and related matters.
The committee reported in June 1990. It recommended, first, the establishment of a non-statutory Press Complaints Commission to replace the old Press Council; secondly, three related criminal offences of unwarranted journalistic intrusions; thirdly, extended court reporting restrictions in criminal cases; and, fourthly, that if non-statutory press self-regulation failed to work, a statutory system for handling complaints should be introduced.
The Government accepted the general approach proposed by the committee, making it clear that the proposed Press Complaints Commission would be reviewed after 18 months' operation to see whether it should be put on a statutory footing. The newspaper industry duly established the Press Complaints Commission on 1st January 1991. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, a member of the committee, said, a code of practice was drawn up by the industry itself, with which the press was expected and agreed to comply.
The three related criminal offences of unwarranted intrusion remain under consideration. The proposals for extending reporting restrictions were given effect in part in a handout Bill in another place which reached the statute book on the last day of the 1991–92 Parliament. The fourth recommendation, for a statutory system of handling complaints if self-regulation failed, depends on the outcome of the review.
The probationary period of 18 months to which I referred has just expired. The task now facing the Government is to review the experience of press self-regulation, and in particular the part played by the Press Complaints Commission in enforcing compliance with the industry code of practice, over the past 18 months. We must consider whether the press has kept to its own code.
I am not in a position today to tell your Lordships precisely how the review on the 18-month period will be carried out, nor by whom, nor over what timescale, but the Government hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon. Nor am I able today to anticipate or guess the outcome of the review; indeed, it would be quite wrong of me to do so. I can however give your Lordships an assurance that the views expressed here today will be taken fully into account in the review.
Reconciling the freedoms which the press ought quite properly to have with the rights and freedoms of others is an intractable issue. The architect of the European Convention on Human Rights must certainly have thought so, for a study of the relevant provisions of the convention does not get us very much further forward. Article 10 guarantees, among other things, freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference from a public authority. But Article 10 quite properly says that the exercise of those freedoms, since it carries duties and responsibilities, may be subject to restrictions or penalties in order to protect, among other things, the reputation and rights of others. One
812
such right is of course the right to respect for privacy in Article 8, which guarantees—again subject to qualifications—the right to respect for privacy and family life, home and correspondence.
Coming closer to home, I think we could agree with Junius that:
"The liberty of the press is the Palladium of all the civil, political and religious rights of an Englishman".
But I fear that we would also have to agree that newspapers have at times abused the power that press freedom confers, not to secure and defend rights, but to breach them. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, reminded your Lordships of the quote in regard to the proprietors of certain newspapers, which accused them of,
"power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages".
We should perhaps treat with caution if not suspicion, editors' claims that they are merely messengers, especially when publication of a message of doubtful service to the public interest gives a great boost to circulation. The question must he posed as to whether the committee of editors is satisfied with its own code.
The dilemma we all face is that we want a lively and reliable press and a well-informed public, but not at our own expense. As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, reminded us, we are readier to read about others' private affairs than to read about our own. We are often voyeurs of the troubles of others. But we should always distinguish between the public right to know and what the public delights to know.
Some of your Lordships have suggested that recent press intrusions into privacy have gone too far, and the time has come for the Government to introduce statutory controls. I do not wish to comment on specific cases, and it would be wrong of me to anticipate the outcome of the review of press self-regulation to which the Government are committed. But I should like to underline the great difficulty there will be when it comes to considering remedial action, in making decisions about precisely how far is too far. Somehow or other, those who believe that legislation is the right course will have to draw a line between what is acceptable, or at least tolerable, behaviour by the press and what is unacceptable and intolerable and adds nothing to the legitimate public interest. I thought the remarks of my noble friend Lord Deedes in that regard were most interesting.
Many of us would, I believe, accept that the private lives of public figures, especially if they have chosen or courted publicity, have somewhat different boundaries from those of people not in the public eye. We would also accept that intrusion into privacy, however undesirable in itself, can sometimes be justified, whether in the wider public interest or to protect a more pressing need of others.
Perhaps I may venture as a third proposition, the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, that public perceptions of what is private and what journalistic activities are acceptable change rapidly just as society's views and values change. Linked to that, the rapid circulation of news made possible by technological advances makes it even more difficult

813
than it used to be for the citizen to restrain damaging publicity. News is now flashed around the world in seconds.
I make these points to illustrate the difficulties of defining what we mean by the abuse of media power. The first difficulty is that, as the debate has clearly shown, we may not all see eye to eye on where the line between public and private should be drawn. The second is that even if we could reach such an agreement, defining that line in such a way that it covers all possible contingencies is a complex legal task. These difficulties of definition go to the heart of the reasons why the Government have been reluctant to see either an individual right to privacy or indeed any form of statutory control over the press. It is worth recalling that we have had no peacetime control of the press since Charles II. We have no press laws in this country. But proprietors, editors and journalists are subject to the general law—whether it be on defamation, prejudicing of legal proceedings, obscenity, trespass or copyright—in exactly the same way as any other citizen; they enjoy no privileges or exemptions. By and large, the freedom of the press has served us well, even if we do not always like the consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and my noble friend Lord Elton have suggested that a possible way forward is to enshrine in English law a general right to privacy together with a general public interest defence and leave the courts to develop suitable case law as in France. I understand it is the case that the law of privacy in France developed largely at the initiative of the courts in the 1950s and 1960s in response to the excesses of the press.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe that such an approach would be completely contrary to our traditions. In this country we have preferred to proscribe or remedy particular evils rather than confer general rights. The enactment of general rights would leave to the courts the precise definition of those rights and the determination of conflicts of interest arising in relation to them. No doubt in time courts could evolve a suitable jurisprudence; but in the meantime, I suggest there would be great uncertainty with no citizen quite sure what his rights and obligations under the law amounted to. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory approach. Surely, it is far better for Parliament to seek to define precisely in statute what is meant by rights to privacy, and such slippery concepts as the public interest.
Many of your Lordships have commented on cross-media ownership. The Broadcasting Act 1990 imposes a number of restrictions on controlling interests in both the newspapers and licensed television or radio services. The Government keep arrangements under careful review, but so far have seen nothing which would seem to justify changing them. However, I shall bring all of your Lordships' comments to the attention of the Secretary of State.
I realise that perhaps I have posed as many questions as I have answered; but I must emphasise that the Government remain extremely reluctant to intervene in the traditional freedoms enjoyed by the
814
press. Any change in this long-standing policy would be of great constitutional significance. But we have heard many voices this afternoon which claim that the present arrangements do not and sometimes cannot he made to work. We shall certainly take to heart all the anxieties raised.
I appreciate that press treatment of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales has caused anger and dismay among your Lordships and the public at large; and I am sure that the recent strong condemnation of it by the Press Complaints Commission will have been widely welcomed. I am also sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we hold and will continue to hold the Monarchy in the deepest affection and respect in this House. We will give very careful consideration to the views of the Press Complaints Commission and of your Lordships in the review of press self-regulation which now needs to be undertaken.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank the noble Viscount for answering so many questions. I suppose I should also thank him for giving so few answers. I should not be disappointed that he cannot tell us when and how the review will take place, when it will report or who is undertaking it. I should not be surprised that, having looked at cross-media ownership, he sees no reason to persuade the Government to change their view that nothing need be done. I suppose that is par for the course. However, I thank him for running so true to form and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Boundary Commissions Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Privatised Utilities
6.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to the operations of the privatised utilities, with particular reference to the role of the regulators; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, between 1984 and 1989 the previously publicly-owned utilities of telecommunications, gas, electricity and water were privatised. Hitherto the economy had been divided into two parts: the public and private sectors. Within the public sector were comprehended those activities which were either directly or indirectly controlled by government. Within the private sector were those enterprises which were subject to the rules of competition as interpreted by various Acts of Parliament and supervised by such bodies as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. Since the privatisation of the public utilities a third sector has emerged; namely, the regulated sector. That has arisen because of the regulatory systems incorporated in the privatisation Acts of those enterprises.
Thus, a major change has taken place in the structure of the British economy. The enterprises which form part of the regulated sector are of particular importance because they meet basic needs and each of them is very large by normal commercial standards. Last year they had a combined pre-tax profit of over £5 billion. They employ over 500,000 persons. Regulation on this scale is an entirely new phenomenon in British economic experience. It is therefore not surprising that many issues have arisen which are as yet unresolved. The purpose of the debate is to examine some of those issues.
Before doing so, I think it is only fair to consider where the privatised utilities have made positive achievements. They lie particularly in the areas of service and standards. A new impetus seems to have been developed in this direction. Complaints are generally dealt with more rapidly. As regards British Telecom, there has been a noticeable reduction in the time taken over new installations. Maintenance and repair arrangements have been tightened up. Major efforts are being made concerning gas and electricity to promote energy efficiency. The Energy Savings Trust has been set up. British Gas has worked closely with Neighbourhood Energy Action—an organisation with which I am personally involved—in stimulating insulation especially in low income homes. As regards electricity, East Midlands Electricity is pursuing a policy of least-cost planning. London Electricity has launched a campaign for low energy housing.
The water companies have made an important start in dealing with the backlog of investment which has built up over many years. Service and standards are rising in consequence. For example, Severn Trent is investing at double the rate of its profits. It has kept its charges competitive with other companies and raised the water quality. Thames Water has made good progress with its regional grid. These are examples chosen at random.
Despite these positive aspects of the operations of the privatised utilities, they remain highly regulated. Why is that? One would have assumed that if they had made such progress there would be no need for regulation; but it is because an inadequate competitive framework was provided for in the privatisation legislation even in those cases where that was technically feasible. For example, many of your Lordships will recall that during the course of the debate on the Telecommunications Bill there was much pressure on the Government to extend the process of liberalisation further before privatisation. There had been a degree of liberalisation, but there was pressure to extend it. That was resisted by the Government. In the case of the Gas Bill, much anxiety was expressed about the privatisation of the industry as a single monopolistic enterprise. As regards electricity, while a degree of restructuring was incorporated in the legislation, many felt that it did not go far enough in dividing up the electricity generating sector.
Water is more of a natural monopoly than the other three, but there were nevertheless ways in which,
816
during the course of debate, it was indicated that a degree of competition could have been introduced in the privatisation measures. The reason for the neglect of this competitive element seems to have been that the Government were keen to proceed with privatisation as soon as possible and major restructuring would have held up the process. Furthermore, they appeared to want to earn the maximum proceeds from flotation and these could have been diminished if the enterprises had been changed too much.
The result has been the elaborate and intensive system of regulation which now applies in all four industries. There can be no criticism of the regulators. In each case they have been faced with a difficult and uncertain task. At one and the same time they have had to ensure that the regulated enterprises have been able to operate in conditions which would enable them to run the business efficiently and to invest adequately in the future. They have had to ensure that the consumers' interests were adequately safeguarded and protected. On top of that, they have been committed to introduce competition wherever possible. Furthermore, as concerns the energy industries, they have had to promote the concept of energy efficiency. Any one of these objectives would be daunting in itself, but to have to undertake all of them has led to a complex web of regulatory decisions and injunctions.
The regulators have indeed already made progress in stimulating competition in the industries for which they are responsible. That is particularly so in the case of the gas industry where the legislation did not envisage competition within the sector itself, but only as between gas and other forms of energy. That is the response which I personally received to the speech that I made during Second Reading of the Bill. Subsequently, due to pressure from the regulator and to interventions by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading, a degree of competition has been introduced into the contract market for gas. That is the market supplying the industrial and commercial sectors. The upper limit of the tariff market, which is mainly the domestic market, has been substantially reduced. There have also been moves towards greater competition in the other three industries. However, it may be doubted whether regulatory pressure alone can introduce sufficient competition into these industries. I shall return to that point a little later on.
I now turn to pricing, on which recently there has been much concern. The prices charged by the privatised utilities are based on the price formulas incorporated in the licences at the time of the legislation. These are of extreme complexity. In a speech on 11th February Professor Littlechild, the Director General of Electricity Supply, stated that,
"price controls are not easy to understand, nor is it straightforward to check whether or not a licensee is complying with them".
Those of us in this House who, at the time the legislation was being debated, tried to understand the formula for electricity prices will certainly not be surprised at that view.
The steep increase in electricity prices in April 1991 was a matter of much anxiety to consumers. In the

817
event, it was unjustified because it assumed too high a level of inflation. Furthermore, there is concern about the automatic pass-through of electricity purchase costs in accordance with the pricing formula. Similar problems have arisen as regards the prices of the other utilities. In all instances the regulators have been constrained to intervene in more detail than was implied in the legislation.
Doubts have been expressed about whether the regulators can at the same time create the conditions for the efficient running of the industries for which they are responsible and safeguard consumer interests. During the debate in this House on the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill these doubts were clearly felt. It was proposed that greater powers should be given to consumer organisations. Among the relevant consumer bodies it was considered that the Gas Consumers Council was in the best position to operate as an independent guardian of consumer interests. As regards the other sectors, the relevant bodies were much weaker. The National Consumer Council has expressed the opinion that,
"the regulators need to be under-pinned by a strong system of consumer representation which is independent of (and yet complementary to) them".
The NCC is also concerned about the level of disconnections and the special problems of low income and elderly consumers and consumers with disability. The citizens advice bureaux have similar concerns. The Consumers' Association has drawn attention to the rising number of complaints.
Those are some of the issues which have arisen during the course of the first few years of the operation of the regulated sector. There are no doubt many others which will be referred to by noble Lords participating in this debate. The underlying issue is this. In all four cases the regulators have found that in order to carry out the functions entrusted to them in the legislation they have had to intervene more extensively and in greater depth than was at first envisaged. The question is whether detailed and continuous regulation is seen as a permanent feature in these industries. If so, that in turn raises the issue of the ultimate accountability of these powerful regulators and the role of Parliament therein. That was mentioned during the debate on the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act. It was proposed that there should be a standing parliamentary committee to which the regulators should render account, but that was not accepted by the Government.
If, on the other hand, it is intended that the present degree of regulation shall be a temporary phenomenon while competition is progressively introduced into those industries where it is feasible to do so, then the question is whether this further degree of competition can be introduced without major structural change in the industries concerned. If that is the preferred route, I believe that such structural change is inevitable. Indeed, there seems to be a strong case for doing so in the gas, electricity and telecommunications industries. In all three industries a dominant market power is exercised by a limited number of enterprises. Those enterprises have retained a degree of control over the networks through which
818
their products or services are supplied. There is thus, in my opinion, a case for hiving off the networks entirely and for diminishing the size of the dominant enterprises.
In view of the vital economic and social role that is played by the regulated sector, in my opinion this is a subject that merits serious and continuing discussion. I am obliged to those noble Lords who will be participating in this debate.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this matter. I welcome the chance to highlight the achievements of the privatisation programme over the past 13 years and the considerable benefits that this has brought for the customers of the privatised industries.
The transfer of two-thirds of the state-owned sector of industry into private hands has been a key expression of the Conservative belief that many areas of economic activity are carried out better by private individuals and companies than by the state. Forty-six major businesses have been released from state control, bringing new standards of service, quality and efficiency for the benefit of the customer, and realising proceeds of about £42 billion for the taxpayer. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the privatisation of those companies stopped the drain on the public purse, so enabling a massive increase in funding for such priorities as the National Health Service.
Privatisation has also played an important part in advancing the objective of the broader and deeper spread of wealth through the community: from around one in 20 adults holding shares in 1979, share ownership now extends to almost one in four. About two-thirds of shareholders come from outside the ranks of professionals and managers. More than 2 million employees now own shares in their own companies. I welcome the Government's commitment to make provision for the workforce to hold a stake in the soon to be privatised British Coal.
I should like to address a criticism that is often levelled at the privatised utilities. In recent days we have heard much comment about the level of profit that has been achieved by these utilities. Companies need to be profitable to achieve the improved standards that the customer and the environment rightly demand. It is true that BT makes a pre-tax profit of £97 per second, but BT is investing £77 per second—around £2·5 billion per year—in improving the network by installing fibre-optics and digital exchanges. In addition, it pays £38 per second to the Government in tax, and dividends to shareholders. Last year the 10 water companies had combined profits of about £1·5 billion, but they invested over £3 billion—part of the record 10-year £28 billion investment programme that is needed to make up for the years of inadequate funding when investment in water quality was controlled from the Treasury.
In the quest to improve services for the customer, I believe that there is no substitute for competition. One

819
area of which I have some slight experience is the electricity industry. For nine years I was a member of the Midland Electricity Consultative Council. Before privatisation the old Central Electricity Generating Board was an unaccountable state monopoly. Today Britain has perhaps the most competitive electricity market in the world, and that is good news for customers. Not only is there real competition between the three largest generators—National Power, PowerGen and Nuclear Electric—but there is also competition with the Scottish electricity companies. I welcome the rapid progress that has been achieved by the independent generating companies, many of which will soon be providing an additional competitive spur to the market.
This competition is placing a significant downward pressure on prices. Figures from the Director General of Electricity Supply show that some industrial customers have achieved savings of as much as 15 per cent. as a result of competition. This year every one of the 12 regional supply companies has announced price rises for domestic users that are below the rate of inflation.
Competition is advancing in other areas also. The Minister for Energy has announced plans to reduce to one-tenth of its present level British Gas's monopoly for the supply of gas to larger users under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992. Provisions under this Act to increase competition in water supply come into force this very day, and the development of competition in the telecommunications industry continues apace. Mercury and the personal communications companies have already claimed a substantial share of certain areas of BT's operation and eight new licences to run fixed-line networks have been issued since last year's duopoly review.
In those areas where the scope for direct competition is limited or where competition will take time to develop, there is a need for effective regulation. It is important to remember that when the utilities were under state control, there was no effective regulation, and that the regulators have helped to ensure a continuous improvement in the standard and good value of service for utility customers.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of Sir Bryan Carsberg who recently finished his term as Director General of Telecommunications. As the first of the utility regulators, he led the way in what was a new field when Oftel was set up in 1984. It is a mark of his achievement in encouraging greater efficiency that his proposal for a new BT price formula of RPI minus 7·5 per cent. will mean that the cost of a range of BT services will have fallen by 40 per cent. in the 10 years following privatisation. I wish him every success in his new role as Director General of Fair Trading.
Twelve months ago, the Citizen's Charter announced measures to improve the quality of public services; to increase the choice available to citizens; to improve the value for money offered by the public services; and to ensure that everyone knows what standards of service to expect and what to do if
820
something goes wrong. Under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, these principles are already at work in the utilities.
I shall take the example of the electricity industry once again. OFFER has introduced 10 guaranteed standards of performance which the electricity supply companies must meet. The supply companies have to make payments to customers of between £10 and £50 for failure to meet the standards, including restoration of supply within 24 hours of a fault and turning up for appointments. Acting on its own initiative, East Midlands Electricity has introduced appointment times rather than just morning or afternoon appointments. What is more, it will pay compensation if those appointments are not kept. London Electricity has announced that it will move to appointments guaranteed within a two-hour time band. I look forward to other companies following these excellent examples, thereby bringing to an end the need to he at home all day waiting for the engineer, which was so much a symbol of the low priority given to customer services by the utilities when they were nationalised.
I remind the House that we have come a long way from the days when more than a quarter of a million homes had to wait for more than two months for a telephone line; when more than one in four telephone boxes did not work; and when domestic electricity prices went up by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Therefore the huge advances that have been achieved would not have been possible without privatisation and effective regulation. The regulators now have extensive powers to make sure that the improvements continue. The often quite public disputes with the companies in their charge are proof that they are prepared to use their powers. They are not complacent about the need to keep up the pressure for improvements, and nor should we be but neither should we fall into the trap of over-regulation and thereby kill off the incentive to improve that continues to benefit customers every time they deal with a privatised utility.
I believe that the regulators are serving us well, with the whole community benefiting as quality of service improves with higher standards, more choice and better value for money.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ezra for putting down this Motion about the privatised utilities and the role of the regulators.
I was brought up firmly to believe in the advantages of competition and to distrust monopolies, which can bring excessive power—and power, as we are reminded, corrupts. But in certain cases monopoly may seem inevitable. I was advised that in that case a state monopoly was better than a private one. So I am somewhat ill at ease with the privatised utilities, and particularly with the water industry, because whereas there is often some choice as to whether one uses gas or electricity, no one can do without water. Its use is inevitable. Although this can be limited to some extent, it is impossible totally to do without it. However, I do not believe—and nor does my party

821
—in renationalisation with any swing of the political pendulum. We want, as my noble friend Lord Ezra mentioned, to encourage competition wherever possible.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I have a very modest investment in a personal equity plan or PEP. My stockbroker persuaded me to do this and then informed me that he would have full managerial powers. He immediately went off and bought, as I would never have suggested, shares in both gas and water. However, as those holdings are very small and as my speech will be in defence of the consumer rather than the shareholder, I speak with an easy conscience. So let me come quickly to the point on which I ask clarification. I shall be dealing mainly with the water companies, but I believe this to be relevant to the other utilities also.
On 11th March this year we discussed water pollution and shortages in a debate opened once again from these Benches, on that occasion by my noble friend Lady Robson. I ended my speech with this question:
"what incentive do the privatised water companies have, even with Ofwat on their backs, to encourage sensible economies in the use of water and to educate the public in possible methods of so doing?" [Official Report, 11/3/92; col. 1383.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, replying for the Government, said:
"In assessing the K factor, pass through costs are allowed for. We must link in the minds of people the cost of those improvements. That must be part of the downward pressure on bringing that message to bear".—[Official Report, 11/3/92, col. 1402.]
I wrote to the noble Baroness on 17th May, saying:
"I did not understand your answer then and I do not understand it now. I would be most grateful for clarification".
Unfortunately, she seems never to have received that letter so I am still in the dark. I do not in any way blame her. I believe that she was under almost intolerable pressure, dealing, as she was then, with both environmental and educational matters. But my submission is that, in saying what she did in her reply, she was not very well advised. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, notice that I would ask her the same question and I shall be most grateful to hear the reply.
Quite frankly, when K factors were mentioned during that previous debate I had no idea what was being talked about. I asked a number of friends later and was relieved that they did not know either. So I turned to the rather impressive modern dictionary I have. This did not give me the answer I wanted but told me that the letter K stands for many things; among those are a kilo, a king at chess and the symbol—heaven knows why—for the element potassium. But its most intriguing meaning is apparently:
"The llth in a series: 10th when J is omitted".
Bemused, I found myself wondering whether the noble Baroness had included J or not!
But, to be serious again, I now have to hand an information sheet from Ofwat entitled The K factor—What it is and how it can be changed. I am rather better informed. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I quote from the first two paragraphs of the information sheet. It states:
822
"The formula which limits the charges water companies can make for their services is laid down in the licence under which each company operates. The formula is the Retail Prices Index (RPI) plus K".
The information sheet goes on:
"K is a charging limit. It represents the amount by which average charges can rise in any one year".
Now I have to admit that I still do not see what control in the increase in charges really has to do with encouragement of the public to use less water and their education as to why it is desirable, and how to achieve this. I am also uncertain what powers, if any, the regulator has in this field and whether they are sufficient. Will the Citizen's Charter have any influence on the running of privatised utilities?
Some people still seem to refuse to face facts and believe that the present water supply is somewhat short only because in recent years there have been droughts and that with a return to usual rainfall the problem will go away. But the Council for the Protection of Rural England—CPRE—believes that we really are approaching a crisis and that it is time to stop abusing our amazing good fortune—I paraphrase those words from memory—in having what is by world standards a plentiful, but still not a limitless, supply of water.
Nearer home, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was not long ago arguing the need to build a number of large reservoirs. He is an expert on water matters, and I certainly am not, but I still wonder whether he is right. Unfortunately, he is not with us here these days.
Another suggestion to relieve a shortage of water in the South is a massive diversion of water from the North. But here again it could be a very costly process —and arguably damaging to the environment—and who is to pay? Obviously, it would be the consumer. The citizens advice bureaux are, as my noble friend Lord Ezra has already mentioned, pointing to a good deal of hardship caused through water supplies to houses being cut off where people cannot pay and then only reconnected at high cost.
I was also concerned by a letter in The Times of 27th June from Mr. Derek Braggins, which claimed it was wrong that South West Water should have been granted a renewal, by temporary licence,
"to enable them to continue abstracting water from the River Axe with a reduced flow, in effect enabling them to continue taking water from the river under summer drought conditions".
He concluded:
"Last week, despite strong public objections and another dry summer with extremely low water levels, the NRA Southwest region approved the licence".
I do not know the background to this controversy, but it further emphasises, if emphasis is needed, that we really do have a water shortage problem that must be tackled. As I understand it, there are no plans at present to introduce compulsory general water metering, but I was interested to see a television programme which said that water metering was widespread in West Germany, which has no problems with supply. It also showed a young, newly wed German couple—your Lordships may have seen the programme—asking advice in the shops as to which

823
equipment used least water. That seemed a highly desirable result. I was also interested to read in a news release by Ofwat of 12th May this year:
"All customers have a right to ask for a meter. Many pensioners and those living alone would be amongst the large number of customers to gain from having a meter. Metered customers can control what they spend, rather than paying for high consumption by others".
Then came some rather sinister words:
"Too often they are deterred by unreasonable installation charges, by inflexible company procedures and by unfavourable tariffs".
If that is true, something is wrong.
The darkest, but still possible, scenario that I foresee is: first, no steps are taken to encourage economy in the use of water. A "remedy"—I put the word firmly in inverted commas—is sought in building some more enormous reservoirs as well as putting in hand an extremely expensive operation to divert water from the North to the South; next, it is found that further steps are necessary to check consumption, and water metering becomes widespread; next, the whole operation has turned out to be extremely expensive and charging now has to be much higher; and, finally, large and poor families are very hard hit by what they have to pay and have to practise painful economies. I hope that I am wrong, but I foresee difficulties ahead. We must keep a careful check on what is happening through the regulators and through Parliament.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while listening to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I remembered the great 18th century French philosopher Voltaire. The noble Lord is looking puzzled, and I am not surprised. He may well ask what on earth that has to do with his timely and important Motion. The answer is quite a lot. One of Voltaire's letters contains the thought that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. That leads me to wonder which senior civil servant in the early 1980s came up with the philosophy that since competition in the soon-to-be privatised utilities did not exist, it was necessary to have a surrogate. The questions we have to ask are whether that surrogate is working as it should, whether or not it is based on the original criteria of Professor Littlechild, or are the United Kingdom regulators increasingly trading certainty for flexibility, and, in the process, risking stop-go regulation; and, at the same time, is it evolving into a discretionary system where negotiations and personality are becoming its most important features? I suggest that the second concept is closer to the truth than the first.
In the water industry, for instance, the director general is now, after hectoring and badgering the 10 large and 29 original private sector operators—an operation which has led some, but not me incidentally, to question whether it is the regulator or the boards which run the water industry of the 1990s—in full possession of their cost data for water treatment, and, where appropriate, for sewage treatment, as well as the results of the pre-privatisation scrutiny into efficiency and capital investment targets. It was those that persuaded the Government to set strict limits on the amount by which they can be allowed—by differing amounts incidentally—to increase their
824
charges. We are talking about increases in this case—and this answers the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—because, as we know, there is a vast capital programme of £25 billion over 10 years with possibly a further £10 billion after that to be paid for out of profits, plus borrowings, required by the EC and national legislation, to say nothing of the need to provide more water for impoverished parts of the country and to reduce the 25 per cent. leakage rate.
In a speech that I made outside the Chamber some 18 months ago, I said that in my view the biggest barrier to planning in the 1990s would be the absence of new supplies of water to support the industries and houses that required it. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It could well be that market forces will force construction projects away from the comparative drought areas of the South and East to places such as Wales and the North of England where there is almost a superfluity. Even so, can Southern Water plc support the enormous expansion of business and housing which will result from the Channel Tunnel, for example? Will the regulators allow it even if the company wants to do so?
Yes, regulators in the plural. That is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made in part. The water industry has to contend not just with the economic regulator (Ofwat), with the possible intervention of the old economic regulators, the Office of Fair Trading, with ultimate recourse to the MMC, as he said, but also with the environmental regulators; namely, its sponsoring department, the NRA, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Her Majesty ;'s Inspectorate of Pollution, and, last but not least, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Over and above that, and most important of all in the context in which I am now speaking, there are the planning Acts, passed by Parliament over the years and administered by the DoE. That is a heavy load of regulation; and not all those bodies pull the same way. I find that a heavy irony.
For many years now we in the House have called for more reservoirs in the South East. They have been planned but never built due to the negative activities of the very people who now complain of low river levels, water rationing, hose-pipe bans, and the like. That reminds me of a story in the current issue of the magazine Police. At two o'clock on a Sunday morning, two constables were checking the driver and contents of a van. After some time they professed themselves satisfied and told the driver that he could proceed. As they settled themselves into their police car, the van driver ran back and said, "Can you give us a push? My battery has gone flat because I left the headlights on." The police driver replied, "You've got to be joking. It's your fault for leaving your lights on". Whereupon, he turned the key in his ignition only to find that, due to leaving the lights on … "Oh well" as Frankie Howerd used to say, "please yourselves!"
That said, despite undoubted strides in efficiency and environmental improvements, even by gazing deep into my crystal ball I cannot see any prospect of regulation in the water industry being removed, at least for water delivery, although one could argue differently for water supply and treatment. At the

825
moment though, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, it is a monopoly, but does it need so many regulators? If the excellent and increasingly effective activities of the NRA are to stay, and I hope that they will —having played a part in creating it, I have more than a soft spot for it despite its teething troubles, —do we need the activities of HMIP, or the environmental agency as it will become, as well as the Drinking Water Inspectorate? All those regulators could and should be rolled into one which, for my money, would be an expanded NRA which could, but need not necessarily, also comprise the regulation of land disposal of sewage sludge under the firm policy discretion of the DoE, which is not, as it is regularly accused by the water companies, creating policy itself and then operating it. What is certain is that Sir Ian Byatt must be right when he says in his annual report:
"Companies and the regulators"—
again, note the regulators—
"should concentrate on the service provided to customers and the recoverable costs of achieving specified levels of service, rather than on the achievement of particular levels of spending".
He is doubly right if that is a veiled way of saying that all the regulators should pull in the same direction, which is what I understand him to mean. Even with the current system however, it is noticeable that Switzerland and Britain are the only European countries that exceed a 99 per cent. compliance rate for sewage treatment works and drinking water.
The debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, goes much wider than the water industry. If competition in the water industry will never arise, the same cannot be said of telecommunications or the gas industry, or, slightly further down the track, the electricity generating industry. In all those industries fledgling competition exists. We all applaud the efforts of my noble friend Lord Young who, as chairman of Mercury Communications, has shown in his recently published annual report that even in the deepest recession since the war it is possible to take on a vast company, making vast profits, and dent them substantially. More power to his elbow. I should like to see the day come when Oftel will no longer be necessary. In order to achieve that it is essential to introduce more competition into the industry with more operators coming on stream and competing successfully. They will be helped, of course, in the early stages by the regulator who has, after a settling down period, seen the need dramatically to change the permitted pricing formula by increasing the X factor from 3 to 7½ per cent. At the same time, he has attempted to promote investment in infrastructure like optical cabling and underground lines. All this has to be paid for out of the very profits of which people complain. My noble friend Lady Seccombe made that point.
In this connection, I was particularly interested to note a comment in the brief of the director general of OFFER, circulated for this debate, that today's profits are the result of yesterday's prices. Both a threat to the utilities and their investors, and a promise to their customers are contained in those words. Those profits also have to cover dividends to the
826
shareholders, large and small—the Ernies and Sids of this world whom the Government successfully succeeded in persuading to invest in dynamic companies—and, of course, corporation tax.
The Government have a vested interest here. Despite the efforts of the past 13 years to restrain government borrowing, the need for an increasing total tax take is readily apparent. Therefore, the regulator at the moment has an enormous job in squaring the circle. Does this lend weight, I wonder, to Plato's comment, "God is a geometrician"?
To be serious, though, the economic regulators face many pressures at the moment, not least from customers who simply do not seem to understand that in order to invest in the very things about which they care, large profits have to be made. The press were until recently similarly confused. They delighted in knocking the utilities. I wonder whether the tide of opinion is now turning. In a leading article in the business section of the Evening Standard last Friday, I detected the sentences:
"No doubt the regulator will want to take due credit for his part in ensuring that British Gas serves its customers well. However, the law of diminishing returns suggests that at some point it becomes counter productive to try and improve that performance any further. That point is close to being reached".
Whether I am right or wrong about that, the debate on the activities of the regulators is increasingly swinging round to the complex and controversial problem of the cost of capital. This is central to the future well-being of all the utilities, with possible significant long-term consequences to investors. Regulators already have to form some view about the acceptable rate of return for companies and I have to ask my noble friend how real is the danger of a change in emphasis from price regulation to rate of return regulation. Certainly, the writing is on the wall as concerns Ofwat. I understand that Sir Ian Byatt is consulting on this point at the moment. That would be contrary both to the original policy intention and to the expectations of investors. Has the policy of the DTI changed since the election or does my noble friend's department still believe that regulation will be better focused on what the customer wants and expects?
That is all very well, but regulation is here to stay, at least for the moment. A level playing field and an open framework are essential. This, of course, means that there should be no sudden swings in direction by anyone—the regulator or the regulated. The utilities are under huge pressures from regulators, in turn resulting from just as great pressures from the media, politicians and customers—populist pressures, one might call them, which are in danger of forcing the pace of benefits in the environmental, competitive and consumer fields, faster than was originally intended. I believe that the utilities would accept that, so removing an unnecessary layer of tension between them and the regulators, if they saw economic regulations being removed at some time in the future.
Let us take, for example, gas. If my honourable friend Mr. Eggar, in his review of the monopoly threshold in gas in 1993, which has already reduced tenfold since 1991, were to say that he would wait to

827
see how his new and as yet unspecified reduction was working before he would consider removing the regulator, it would be a step in the right direction. The question is: can he ever afford to do it politically? What about the public interest? My answer is yes, he can and that the latter is already covered. Anti-competitive practices are already controlled by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading, as the gas industry knows well. Regular reviews are undertaken into all these industries. The brewery and the petroleum industries spring readily to mind. My noble friend may remember the cement industry some years ago. Consumer legislation remains, environmental legislation remains. Competition would be in place. If he were not satisfied, he would not do it, for gas, telecoms, electricity generation or whatever. If he is satisfied, there is a positive danger in not doing it, a danger already identified in depressed share prices.
My final question is: is it true that because competition already exists, there are no plans for the establishment of Offcor—the Office of Coal Regulation? If it is true, my case is made.
6.56 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before considering how the electrical generating and distribution industry is progressing since privatisation I think we should consider government policies in this respect. It seems to me that governments become extremists in some of their policies. We have moved from the socialist doctrine of nationalisation to that of Thatcherism, where anything which trades should be privatised, regardless. We still seem to be stuck with that dogma. Where there is adequate competition, privatisation does have advantages, but there is always the danger that a decision made for commercial interests will be short-sighted and not always in the national interest.
In the electrical generating and distribution industry very little competition is possible; and none at all in the 12 regional distribution boards. I remember during the passage of the privatising Bill the Government argued that comparison between different distribution boards could provide a measure of competition. Since local conditions vary enormously I think that argument is largely invalid.
As regards generation, it must be realised that with an alternating current grid it is technically impossible to move large quantities of power—say, one megawatt or more—further than about 120 miles without destabilising the grid. Thus, here again competition is limited.
Already, I think it is quite clear that without an independent director general or regulator the new privatised system would be in real trouble. The pool system of payment for electricity generated and for allied or independent contracts is thought to need complete overhaul. It is in any case very complicated.
The director general has considerable powers but, even so, whether these are adequate is another matter. If not, where is privatisation leading? If we read the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy, entitled Consequences of Electricity Privatisation, we
828
see the amount of action suggested for the director general. Although the move towards combined cycle gas generation stations has the advantage of reducing pollution, I think we should not allow this tendency to go too far. This is, first, because gas is a premium fuel —its reserves are limited and prices will undoubtedly rise—and, secondly, although at present we have spare generating capacity several large stations are nearing the end of their lives. I am concerned that the siting of new stations must take that into account.
Most unfortunately, I missed introducing my short debate on 10th June. Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning briefly two subjects which I then intended to raise. There is a need to encourage the market by introducing a system for assessing house insulation without waiting for an EC standard. I believe that at least two other countries have already done that. There is an environmental limit to the amount of power which we can provide from on-land wind turbines. In the end we may have to pay the extra cost of putting them out to sea; for example, in the Wash. If I am right, we need to try this out now and perhaps the extra cost in adverse sea conditions may not be as large as at first thought.
On another matter, I am concerned that, since privatisation, research and development in the industry have been greatly reduced. I should like to know what arrangements there are to ensure that these limited resources are targeted to what is in the best interest of the industry as a whole. I must say that in my view the Government's commitment to energy conservation is not well served. The power and importance granted to the Government's energy department are wholly inadequate, as its performance in the past seems to demonstrate.
Finally, the picture is gloomy as regards gas with hardly any of the objectives of privatisation within sight. The situation has only been saved from disaster by the regulator.
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for raising such an important subject. I must also declare an interest, even more modest than the personal equity plan of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in that I have 100 shares in Scottish Power. However, much of what I shall say is based on my experience of environmental issues.
When vital industries evolve from being state-owned monopolies to private sector concerns, some safeguard may be needed against those elements of monopoly or duopoly that remain. The role of the regulators in preventing abuses and inefficiencies on behalf of the customer is therefore clear.
However, in the case of energy and water it may well be that the regulators should be looking much further if they are properly to protect the best interests of the customer and the public. For both those industries the next two decades will present a significant challenge. New levels of demand in terms of both quantity and quality, and increasingly costly environmental requirements, will force considerable investment in capacity, supply and their associated technologies.

829
In electricity generation, for example, we currently derive 77 per cent. of our electricity from coal-fired power stations, but two-thirds of those stations will be at or beyond the end of their designed lifespans early in the next century. Investment in new power generation, whatever its fuel, takes not only considerable sums of money but also a considerable amount of time. Such long-term undertakings require both a strong financial base and substantial confidence in the future viability of the industry. Strategic undertakings of a similar magnitude will also he involved in obligatory environmental improvements. With progressively strict limits on emissions coming into force, the generators will face bills of some £1.6 billion to reduce the sulphur emissions by just 8,000 megawatts.
National Power is spending £700 million at Drax. Scottish Power estimates an investment of up to £400 million in flue gas desulphurisation despite 60 per cent. of Scottish Power's electricity coming from nuclear and hydro sources and also despite the fact that Scottish coal has one of the lowest sulphur contents of coal in Europe. It is imperative for us all that these environmental obligations are properly met but the financial commitment they entail is both sizeable and continuous.
Scottish Power's £400 million investment or the industry's £1.6 billion investment cover only the first of a progressive series of obligatory sulphur dioxide reductions. That investment does not cover the other constituent of acid rain, nitrous oxide—National Power will spend £100 million reducing nitrous oxide emissions—nor does it tackle the emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Nor, furthermore, does such expenditure cover the protracted parallel funding involved in the development of new processes. A further 18 years of investment are needed, for instance, before clean coal technologies will be suitable for a 1,000 megawatt power station.
I have used electricity generation as one example of the scale and complexity of the challenges that face energy and water companies. If one accepts that these challenges exist, one has to hope that the companies involved are in a position to respond effectively. If they are not, it is the customer and our environment that stand to suffer most. Therefore the customer and the environment should welcome the profitability of the water companies. Some 70 per cent. of their profits are being reinvested in a £28 billion programme over 10 years.
A similar welcome should be given to National Power's ability to fund a £1 billion investment in the more efficient and environmentally preferable combined cycle gas turbines and its £40 million investment in sophisticated dust removal equipment. It is therefore vital that the regulators incorporate a strategic view into their assessment. This is the context within which the pricing, profits and performance of private utility companies must be judged. The exercise of such judgment must in turn be the vehicle by which regulators actively encourage long-term planning by the companies.
830
One has to question the wisdom of those opposition commentators who indulge in snapshot swipes at retrospective balance sheets without any assessment of forthcoming obligations. The shadow Minister for Trade and Industry, for example, moans about last year's water profits amounting to £68 per household and ignores last year's investment programme which was worth £126 per household. An obsession with profits demonstrates a failure of vision. However, it may also suggest that one of the challenges facing the privatised companies is one of public relations.
As both a customer of private utility companies and, more importantly, as someone who has some experience of the environmental field, I strongly believe that if there is an obsession it should be that investment, technology and practice are the criteria for assessing performance and that the regulators should assume a responsibility for encouraging a commitment to these principles within their industries.
There are legitimate fears, for example, that the demise of the CEGB's technical research departments is one factor that will seriously exacerbate anticipated electricity supply problems towards the end of this decade and that the consequence will be an increased likelihood of widespread power cuts during periods of peak demand. However, I see no reason why the method by which the industry's prices and profits are regulated should not directly ensure both the necessary research and the necessary capacity.
It is certainly in the national interest that the profit motive is harnessed to the incentive to invest. If a regulator sanctions energy prices and profit levels on the basis of impending obligations and improvements, he is effectively guaranteeing funds to the future well-being of that industry, its customers and the environment.
There is, in addition, one more important dimension of water and energy which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already mentioned and which falls neatly to the regulator. In privatised industries it is difficult to motivate effective conservation and efficiency of use when those industries are driven primarily by the commercial incentives of increased consumption. Why strive for reduced consumption among one's consumers if that simply represents lost revenue at the end of the day.
In the United States of America conservation and efficiency measures have been successfully introduced through the regulators. That deserves careful study. The essential factor is that investment by energy companies in the promotion and installation of energy saving is taken into account by the American regulators in their assessment of acceptable profits. The larger and more successful a utility company's commitment to savings among its consumers, the larger the permissible return on capital for that company.
The California Energy Commission, which is the equivalent of our Office of Electricity Regulation, went further. After convening a group from all parts of its energy industry, it identified two additional motives. The first was that the power companies themselves should expand their services to include the sale or rental of the expertise and facilities needed for

831
conservation. A similar approach is evident in the Netherlands where the energy companies will install solar panels for their customers on a rental basis, the rent being charged on to their electricity bills. The means for conservation therefore are made commercially attractive in their own right quite apart from the bonus points they score with the regulator when he assesses acceptable profit levels.
The second initiative in California, although more intrusive and more ad hoc, is nevertheless revealing as a procedure. On being faced with a proposal for a new power station to meet an anticipated rise in demand, the California Energy Commission identified the potential for an equivalent amount of energy savings through conservation and efficiency measures. Given that demand could be stabilised, it queried the huge costs the power company was bringing on both itself, in terms of new plant and new infrastructure, and on the environment in terms of land take and emissions.
The commission acted prudently and everyone gained. Demand was stabilised through energy savings; those savings qualified the company for a greater return on capital and the power company avoided the costs of an additional power station, as did the environment. Although net total demand stablised, the number of customers rose and therefore so did the revenue earned from standing charges and connection charges.
It seems sensible that one of the criteria for judging the acceptability of profits should be a successful commitment to conservation and efficiency, whether it he water or energy. For both industries such an approach will be the most cost-effective method of tackling environmental problems. It is undoubtedly the case that in relation to carbon dioxide emissions the answer is reduced consumption.
I believe that the regulators have a crucial and demanding role to play. That will not be made any easier by external distractions. It is likely that they will attract vocal opposition from one quarter or another, however shrewd their policies. They will also have to contend with the repercussions within their own markets of government policy on, for instance, nuclear power and coal privatisation. What are the regulator's duties if the Government's views on how much of each fuel source should be used for generation are at odds with either the views of the generators or the regulator's own assessment of what is in the customer's best interests.
I welcome the privatisation of British Coal. However, are the short-term requirements of a successful privatisation distorting the regulation of an energy industry which has signalled a growing preference for gas-fired generation? Such questions arise given that the regulators have a duty to promote independent sources of generation. Some 6,000 megawatts have been approved, but applications for a further 14,000 megawatts appear to have been lost in the DTI's pending trays. I believe that that is a contradiction of the duties of the regulators. It may be that in the energy field the regulators as well as the companies at present have to contend with a government long-term energy strategy which is either
832
poorly formed or poorly explained. I should be delighted if my noble friend the Minister could show that assertion to be false.
The final intrusion upon the regulators comes, of course, from the European Community. EC pronouncements on water are already plentiful. Energy generation, energy use and associated issues such as the carbon tax are the type of macro-subjects that are likely to transcend any claims to subsidiarity and tempt the use of EC regulations rather than directives. I believe that those will cut into the regulators' duties in coming years.
In conclusion, the water and energy industries face challenges which they must be able to meet and must be made to meet. Much of the responsibility, however, will fall on the regulators. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, posed some interesting questions about the long-term status of regulators. I do not believe in the existence of regulators as an end in itself. I do, however, believe in achieving strategic objectives where regulators provide the necessary means. It is in that role that I see them being a permanent fixture.
It is the regulators who are in the best position to insist on and foster investment in better capacity, better technology, better usage, better service and better environmental practice. For the sake of the custonier and the environment, therefore, it is not only the water and energy companies which must be preparing for the next decade but the regulators as well.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not only for introducing the debate on this extremely important subject but also for the authoritative and comprehensive way in which he set out some of the issues. I hope that he is not too disappointed by the relative paucity of speakers who wish to contribute to the debate. If he is, I expect that he will be consoled by the quality of contributions made by noble Lords in the past hour.
I should like to speak in particular about the role of the regulators because it seems to me that what we are discussing here is one of the most important developments in our public life, which in a sense has crept up on us. Ten years ago although the word regulator was familiar in the United States it was barely known in this country. Yet now there are regulators on the interface between the economy, the Government and the consumer, playing a vital role and one which I suspect is now permanent. The reason I suspect it is permanent is that we have seen in this country, as in all advanced economies, the comprehensive defeat of state direction, of state intervention and of collectivism. Yet, when the state has been defeated, or, as the Government would put it, rolled-back, a case still has to be made for the public interest. Nowhere does the case for the public interest have to be made more strongly—and I am sure that this is what the Government had in mind with the Citizen's Charter—than in the case of privatised utilities, particularly of the genuinely natural monopoly.

833
Although I speak as a supporter of privatisation, in the case of every industry which the Government privatised, I am one of those who does not believe that the Government handled privatisation particularly well, for this reason. I believe that under the malign influence of the Treasury the Government were more concerned in each of those privatisations with the revenue which was immediately received by the Exchequer than with ensuring, for instance, access to services for the poorest and most distant or with enlarging competition.
Even in relation to the sale of the shares themselves I believe that the Government were not genuinely concerned with dispersing long-term ownership so much as with offering the prospect of short-term speculative gain. Paradoxically, most of the people who bought privatisation shares would have been better off taking the short-term speculative gain; but, nevertheless, I believe that the aim would have been better achieved if more people had been given the incentive to hold on to their shares for a long time so that the genuinely share-owning democracy which the Government said that they wished to create would have had a better chance.
That in a sense, is a digression. I am simply trying to say that the process of privatisation was confused by the Government's mixed motives.
Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Ezra said, the regulators have in some instances been handed for resolution fundamental issues of policy which the Government should have addressed at the time of privatisation. Perhaps I may just instance Part I of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The director of OFTEL has been left with extremely difficult policy questions to resolve in the course of day-to-day regulation relating to securing universal access, promoting competition, promoting the interests of the consumers and, for instance, of promoting the interests of BT abroad. That is a very mixed bag of responsibilities for one regulator, some of them matters of policy which the Government themselves should probably have resolved at the time of privatisation.
In that instance, we have been very fortunate in the first regulator, Sir Bryan Carsberg. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, on that point. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to say when she replies whether it is the Government's intention to ensure that Sir Bryan's successor is as committed to competition as the first holder of the OFTEL job.
We have seen a great change in governmental culture. I remember that when privatisation started, regulation was almost a dirty word. In those days the Government said that they wanted "light touch" regulation. It would be interesting to hear from the Government whether they now accept that the regulator has a vital and permanent role to play in the public interest, and that the touch should be as heavy as the situation demands.
Where there is not a natural monopoly, which is the case in some privatised industries, there should be more competition. That has been our position on
834
these Benches consistently, as my noble friend said at the beginning of the debate. Where there is a natural monopoly, I still believe that there is scope for more prompting of the best instincts of commercial practice on the part of those monopoly interests. There could be more regionalisation so that benchmarks are provided against which progress could be measured. There could be more franchising and more open networks to provide the benefits of discipline within natural monopoly industries.
On the whole, in the case of the genuine natural monopolies, I am inclined to believe that the price cap works best. However, I was struck by the point made by the noble Earl concerning the whole question of rate of return calculations as generally used by US regulators. Rate of return seems to offer an interesting prospect where heavy capital investment is required, as in the case of the water industry. I should be interested to know—sharing the Government's apparent prejudice, as I do, in favour of price caps as the best way —whether it is in their mind to look in certain industries where heavy investment is necessary (for instance because of environmental demands), more closely also at the rate of return calculation. This is a question to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred.
I should like to raise a specific point about the regional electricity companies and British Gas, where it seems to me that household consumers are particularly vulnerable. There are a large number of disconnections, and disconnections in the case of water have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Hampton. I have two questions to put to the Government.
First, would it not be better if all privatised industries had some kind of code on the basis of the guidelines that Ofwat have prepared, dealing with the very difficult question of disconnection? It often happens to the poorest customers and those who are least able to cope with the whole process of billing and invoicing, let alone paying the bills. Every attempt should be made to contact the delinquent consumers and talk to them directly to see what provision can be made for payment of one kind or another.
Competition in the utility sectors will not always happen of its own accord, even when regulatory rules preventing entry into the market are removed. The reason is that the dominant incumbents have enormous market power. My noble friend Lord Ezra referred to that point. Even when those dominant incumbents are theoretically open to challenge, they stand astride the market. Therefore it seems to us on these Benches that proactive policies are necessary to promote competition and to tilt the playing field in favour of new entrants. The promotion of competition and tough regulatory action go hand in hand, for example, to prevent discriminatory pricing by a dominant incumbent against new rivals. For instance, in telecommunications the crucial issue is BT's monopoly of interconnection. To give new competitors a fair chance, restructuring the privatised industries is likely to be necessary because a perfectly integrated utility has tremendous power to manipulate prices to its own advantage.

835
Another point is that in our opinion the regulators of privatised utilities need to be granted wider and tougher powers in order to do their job more effectively. We believe that they should be given the powers given to the European Commission under the Treaty of' Rome to obtain access to company records and to impose penal fines for anti-competitive behaviour. They should be properly staffed with professional economists, accountants and industry engineers.
Even if the regulators stay separate—I believe it is right that there should be a separate regulator for each of those great industries—I wonder whether more could be done to pool their professional support staff in some sort of office of utility regulation, so that each industry, continuing with its own regulator and clearly independent of government, nevertheless should have the ability to respond to special demands upon it.
I come to the question of environmental regulation to which the noble Earl referred. I do not believe that the separate roles of economic and environmental regulation of privatised utilities should be confused. Decisions about the environmental standards to apply should be made on a social cost/benefit basis by environmental regulators. For example, standards of drinking water quality should be set independently of the regulator responsible for determining increases in water charges.
If greater competition in energy leads to lower prices and higher levels of consumption than are environmentally sustainable, the issue should be tackled through the energy tax mix. Or, when there is a need to subsidise rail services, either on regional policy grounds or because in urban areas car users do not pay the full social and environmental costs they impose, that should not be a barrier to the operation of a franchising system if it is right on other grounds.
Perhaps I may offer a final and radical thought. I wonder whether regulators, who after all are the servants of the public interest and originally had their duties defined by Parliament, should not report regularly either to a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament or a standing committee and include in their annual reports recommendations for any change in the regimes that would make it easier for them to exercise their responsibilities.
I believe that there is not only a danger for regulators in being co-opted into the culture and assumptions of the dominant suppliers with whom they deal, but an equally great danger of them forming too close an incestuous relationship with Whitehall, as though they were quasi-civil servants. They are not quasi-civil servants; they are the servants of the public interest. I believe that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the exercise of their duties.
The experience of utility regulation has important lessons for the approach that the Government should adopt to the economy. It should focus on the need for an armoury of weapons to attack monopoly power. It demonstrates how important public interest objectives can be achieved by effective regulation, without the need for public ownership or day to day ministerial and Whitehall interference. Finally, it highlights the
836
centrality of the commitment to competition as ultimately being the best guarantee of efficiency and consumer choice.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I agree with a very large number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and that means that I do not have to rehearse some of them now. There is little doubt that there is growing concern about certain developments and trends in the operation of the privatised utilities and the role of the regulators, even though many of the points have gone unrecognised by noble Lords on the Government side of the House. The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having initiated this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned the importance of investing the regulator with additional powers. It is extremely important. I shall not say any more about it but I hope that the Minister will reply specifically to that point.
I want to take up the point made initially by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who argued forcefully for a strong system of consumer representation. I go along with that wholly. There is no independent national body to represent consumer interests in some of the privatised utilities. That needs to he addressed, particularly in regard to the energy industry.
There is another issue which was not mentioned in the debate other than in passing: namely, the conflict of interest that sometimes arises between the national interest and the public utility involved. Prior to this debate I received a considerable volume of material from consumer organisations and some public utilities. Over and over again we hear the Government say that they are committed to the Citizen's Charter for public utilities so far as concerns setting service standards and causing them to adopt and publicise complaints procedures which should be adequate. We shall wait to see how efficacious are those developments. I wish them well. They are important in terms of consumer protection.
If one reflects on the material that has been sent to noble Lords, for example by citizens advice bureaux and national consumer councils, it is clear that at the moment there are real concerns, which for the most part afflict the most vulnerable members of society: the poor, the aged and the disabled. I believe that the Minister will share that concern as I know her well enough and have a high regard for her. But the test lies in what she will be able to accomplish in addressing those concerns. At all events we wish her well in that endeavour.
The citizens advice bureaux have cited some telling and deplorable examples of hardship on the part of consumers. Noble Lords opposite have not mentioned that at all. They have not said one word about it. I find that extraordinary. I refer to people who have been denied access to a telephone service because of the imposition of deposits, installation or reconnection charges which are out of sight for them.
Let me give an example of the kind of thing that occurs in the water industry. A CAB in the West Midlands reports that South Staffordshire Water

837
Company disconnected a water supply of a client with a seriously disabled child. The company required a reconnection fee of £94 which the client could not afford. Mid Kent Water disconnected the supply of a client who was over 80 per cent. disabled. The company then refused to negotiate with the CAB, requesting instead that the social services should intercede on the client's behalf. A large number of cases have been cited but not addressed.
The setting of performance standards which affect the vulnerable people to whom I have referred needs further attention. However, disconnections constitute the major issue which we in this House need to consider. I hope that the Minister will do so. The deprivation of water supplies can be a devastating blow to someone's quality of life, health and even self-respect. I have seen much material from the privatised utilities. I fear that others have not bothered to forward it although I should have thought that they would have taken the opportunity of this debate to ensure that noble Lords know about their case. However, I have received little evidence that the essential anxieties that I have addressed have been noted, let alone dealt with adequately. I ask the question: why not? Did the Government not know? Did they not bother to find out? Did they care too little or are they prepared to ride over the hostile criticism which sometimes might emerge? It is simply not good enough. Those cases, after all, arise against a background of quite extraordinary rises in profits and increases in salaries of chairmen and senior executives almost across the board with regard to the monopoly suppliers.
I hear the arguments about investment. In part they are true, but not completely. Let us take, for example, the National Grid Company. It has had a 30 per cent. profit increase. No one can doubt that it is a monopoly on which consumers are totally dependent for supplies. Let us take the example of the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board (rejoicing under the highly appropriate acronym of Manweb). Profits increased by 16 per cent. to more than £94 million. That represents about £72 for each of the companies' customers. A privatised monopoly purveying services on which families and businesses have to rely comes within that category. Can it really justify to the satisfaction of the public that the huge increases across the board are reasonably appropriate in the circumstances against which this country battles at present? There is the deepest, most enduring recession; a massive number of insolvencies, and vast unemployment, with 70,000 families having their homes repossessed. That is the background. It is little wonder that there is considerable bitterness and worry by many consumers, in particular those whom I have identified.
The common denominator which worries the ordinary consumers is that they are at the mercy of the privatised monopolies. For most people there is simply no competition for telephone services. It is true that there is a kind of choice for people between whether they use gas or electricity in their homes. But once the choice is exercised as to which route one goes
838
down then to all intents and purposes a monopoly exists for the customer. Relatively few people in this day and age use gas rather than electricity to light their homes.
I say that the consumers are at their mercy because very few people can comprehend the pricing formulae used by the services. That is a real handicap to being able to challenge the pricing formulae. The cost of electricity is essentially geared to the generating process. There is therefore little control by OFFER over National Power and PowerGen. Useful ideas have been advanced by the National Consumer Council for dealing with a number of important issues. I refer to excess profits made during a recession and excess profits based on wrong inflationary predictions. The council argues that we ought to be exploring ways and means of ensuring that those excesses should result in compensation for the customer. I should like to hear the Minister on that.
I do not believe that in most instances the criteria for disconnections have been explained properly or at all. I ask the Minister a number of questions of which I have given her notice. Why should not the Government, in the light of the experience that we have had since the enactment of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act at least state in the debate tonight that they will consider the proposals that have been made by a number of consumer bodies? I repeat them. First, deposits charged should be reasonable. Secondly, there should be a definition of low income consumers in order further to clarify the position. Thirdly, there should be no disconnections—in particular with regard to water because that is the most important of all the services offered—unless a customer has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay the charge in question. I believe that those are perfectly reasonable propositions. I await with interest what the Minister has to say.
The fact remains that there are far too many disconnections at present. Water disconnection figures for 1991–92 show a rise of 177 per cent. over last year. Nearly 22,000 households have been disconnected. Surely that requires some urgent attention. It surely requires attention along the lines that I have been suggesting.
Up to 31st March 1992, gas disconnections were running at the rate of nearly 20,000 a year, up by 21 per cent. over the previous year. I again ask: why have we not heard anything from the other side of the House about that? Does it not worry them? If noble Lords on the other side were in another place they would have had a sheaf of letters from constituents complaining about such issues. The fact that we are in this Chamber should not insulate us from that situation.
While this state of affairs persists it is obvious that the regulators—whose job unquestionably is very difficult indeed—must be seen to be doing more to protect the vulnerable, and Government have a role in that respect too.
I end on this note. I suggest that a national conference should be convened by the Government at which there would be a full exchange of views by the

839
utilities—privatised companies or privateers—customer bodies and the regulators. I commend that idea to the Minister. Again, I have given her notice of it.
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to debate an important subject of wide public interest. As was said by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, it is appropriate that we should do so today when the first part of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act comes into effect. Furthermore, as requested by the Director General of Ofgas, the British Gas tariff reductions also come into effect today. I hope that that will go part of the way to convince the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that the picture is not as gloomy as he would have us believe. Perhaps in passing I may say how pleased I am that the noble Viscount is present today. We missed his input on the previous occasion on which the House debated the energy issue.
A large number of important points have been raised and I shall endeavour to answer as many as possible. Since having had the privilege of replying for the Government I have discovered that noble Lords have never been short of questions for me to answer.
The privatised utilities touch everyone and every company in the country. All of us take a keen interest in their prices and quality of service. The Government are well aware of that. Indeed, it was a desire to improve the performance and service of the utilities that led the Government to privatise them. The same concern about the quality of public services lies behind the Citizen's Charter. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who was kind enough to recognise my concern for the consumer, that we take the matter seriously. We are anxious to ensure that the regulators have close links with the consumer bodies. In the evidence which the noble Lord brought to his speech he showed that there are strong consumer representations. However, it was sad that the briefing from the Citizens Advice Bureaux was not also sent to the Government, although I accept that we are in constant communication.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made some interesting points about privatisation. It is, of course, easy to comment on some of those with hindsight. I can assure the noble Lord that decisions were taken by the Secretary of State in agreement with the Treasury and in the light of much expert advice.
We should not in this debate lose sight of the purpose of privatisation. It has resulted in major improvements in the services provided to domestic and commercial consumers and in the efficiency of the utility businesses, as was pointed out by some of my noble friends. The utilities are now subject to commercial disciplines and we are making them compete for the market wherever possible. It must be remembered that before privatisation standards of service were poor and there was frequent government interference with prices and the running of the htlinesses. That often occurred due to public
840
expenditure constraints and political decisions about priorities which could not be described as being customer-driven.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for recognising some of the substantial achievements and improvements that have been made. For example, under all governments before privatisation the public funding found for investment in water and sewerage services was very limited. Now investment is at record levels and more than twice the average level of the late 1970s. The water companies are investing nearly £1,000 per household in the five years to 1995. We should be most careful about arguments that government should again become closely involved in regulatory pricing decisions. That is not the way to secure efficient services.
The role of the regulators has been questioned by your Lordships. It was the Government's view that it was not sensible at the outset to try to establish full competition in all the utility markets. In our view the transition from state monopoly to competitive supply must be managed in steps. I am sure the Russians would agree with that. Therefore, we provided for the progressive development of competition and introduced independent regulators to foster, among other things, competition and the protection of consumers against the abuse of monopoly power while competition develops.
The Government believe that it is for the independent regulator to judge how to balance his —and perhaps some day her—various responsibilities when reaching a regulatory decision with the minimum political interference. The regulators have been given strong powers to match their responsibilities. They administer the licence regimes for the utilities and those can include fixed-period caps on price increases and controls on the terms of access to the wire and pipe networks through which services are delivered.
The regulator can propose changes in the licence conditions, including the price controls. If the company does not agree the regulator can refer those proposals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to take a view on the public interest. The regulator can also refer a company to the MMC to consider whether its monopoly position is itself working against the public interest. Those are considerable powers and, like the Director General of Fair Trading, the utility regulators have discretion over their use. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for pointing out the contribution made by the regulators and the enormous amount of work and effort they have put into taking their roles seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, drew attention, correctly and with great concern, to the water shortage issue. Perhaps that is a subject for another debate and not one on which I wish to dwell too long tonight. The Secretary of State for the Environment is preparing a consultation paper on water conservation, to be published soon. There is a great need to encourage people to take seriously water conservation. All water companies are required to adopt efficient and

841
economical practices in the use of water and to encourage economy on the part of users. However, there is a huge task to be undertaken.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also asked about K factors for the water industry price caps when the present regime was introduced. Those K factors were set during 1989/90. There was extensive consultation at that time and account was taken of all known commitments which could be quantified. Where an item could not be fully costed, provision existed for a cost pass through revision of K to reflect that individual cost. That was a matter that I had to investigate. The type of situation we are talking about is when compliance costs of sewerage treatment could change or when, in the period 1989/90, investment factors were based on original costs which could have increased and were not as had originally been supposed. The operating licences for the companies also provide for an interim review by the regulator should any relevant change in circumstances occur outside the control of the companies. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will agree that my noble friend Lady Blatch is one of the most courteous Members of this House and I am sure that she would not have wished to be unable to reply to his letter.
In a most interesting contribution my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked whether, when full competition has emerged, the regulators will still be required or will disappear. As competition strengthens the need for regulation should diminish. But careful regulation—or, as was said, the light or heavy touch of regulation—will still be necessary to protect competitors and consumers while companies have dominant market positions.
There are also the natural monopoly networks, to which many of your Lordships have referred, of the wires and pipes which carry utility services to the consumer. As far as we can see, those elements will always need regulation. However, the coal industry is already competitive and will become increasingly so. It will not necessarily have the same needs as other utilities.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale also drew attention to Mercury's recent report. My noble friend Lady Seccombe drew attention to the fact that although Mercury was the one licence issued originally, eight new licences have been issued. I am pleased to say that the DTI has received well over 30 applications for new telecommunications licences from companies wishing to take advantage of further liberalisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether it would not be better for regulators to be automatically answerable to Parliament rather than to departmental Ministers. The regulators are appointed by Ministers with the intention that they will carry out their duties independently of government Ministers. The intention at privatisation was to take the provision of utility services and their regulation as far out of the political arena as possible. The regulators report each year to Ministers on their activities and that report is laid
842
before Parliament. The regulators can, through the Public Accounts Committee, be subject to the scrutiny of the House.
We must not forget that the regulators' decisions are also subject to thorough public scrutiny and debate in the press and elsewhere. Such debate keeps the regulators on their toes. Perhaps sometimes they wonder whether there are not other subjects to be debated. The power of public opinion should not be under-estimated.
We attach great importance to transparency and I know that the regulators do too.. They have taken pains to consult and explain their decisions publicly and to encourage public debate. Indeed, Ofgas holds a series of public meetings around the country as part of its review of the British Gas price cap, and all the regulators issue public consultation papers on regulatory issues.
To foster competition, the regulators have insisted that British Telecom and British Gas offer fair terms to their competitors for the use of their networks. That must be a major contribution. Of course, British Gas has given the regulators an undertaking to reduce its share of the contract gas market to less than half its present level by 1995. The evidence shows that under the regulatory regimes the gas and telecoms utilities are delivering major benefits in terms of increased competition, improved quality of service, and price reductions.
Praise has rightly been given to the strongly pro-competitive policies of Sir Bryan Carsberg. I am sure that those will be maintained by his successor. I cannot speak for Sir Bryan's successor, and indeed no decision about the successor has been made, but Sir Bryan's approach was based on his statutory responsibilities to promote competition and to protect consumers. His successor will have the same responsibilities and we would fully expect him to maintain a similar pro-competitive approach.
Anxiety was expressed about increased profitability reported by the water and electricity companies, at a time when the economy as a whole is in recession. Several noble Lords pointed out the need for investment to improve services, to stimulate competition, and to be able to examine in greater detail some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to which I shall come later.
Regional electricity company profits and price rises were higher last year, but these were not simply the result of excessive price rises or lack of control by the regulator. The regulator has explained that he allowed price rises above the cap in 1991–92 to offset low increases in 1990–91, when inflation forecasts, which are used to set annual price increases, were well below outturn inflation levels and cost increases. Profits accordingly rose quickly last year compared to the year before. This year price increases will be much lower—around 2 per cent. on average—and I was pleased to see that South Wales Electricity was able to announce a price cut.
Perhaps I may quote from the report of the South Western Electricity Board which reported yesterday. The chairman was able to say that the excellent results came from a combination of cost-cutting, better

843
management of assets and higher sales. That is what we should like to see from companies. Nevertheless, as has been said, marked year to year fluctuations in prices are not desirable and I know that the regulators have technical aspects of the price cap formulae under review to see whether improvements can be made.
I believe it would be a mistake to introduce more frequent price reviews in response to the higher profit levels this year. It would be based on a misunderstanding of the reasons for those profits. It would take away the incentive for companies to invest for efficiency improvements if the potential profit was quickly passed on to customers in lower prices. We must make sure that those industries provide efficient services.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether there is a case for some privatised utilities to be looked at with regard to rate of return criteria. When the Government decided to adopt a cap on prices to final customers as the means of regulation, it was with the benefit of experience gained by other countries where rate of return regulation had been common, particularly in the United States.
While rate of return regulation may keep profits down, its drawback is that it provides no incentive to the utility to keep down costs and prices. It can also lead to expensive, intrusive and bureaucratic regulation of company investment: something which I am sure all noble Lords agree should be avoided.
Regulation by direct price controls can provide incentives for companies to invest to increase efficiency, by allowing them to share the benefits. There is also the opportunity to reduce prices in real terms for consumers when the price cap is reviewed every few years. Noble Lords will be interested to hear that regulators in other countries, including the USA, are now turning to price cap regulation as a result of our experience. That said, I am sure that the regulators do have regard for rates of return when setting new price caps; indeed, the Water Act requires the regulator to act to help secure reasonable rates of return on capital for water undertakers.
It was not unexpected that reference was made to the salaries of the chief executives of private utilities. They are private companies and the salaries are primarily a matter for the shareholders, and certainly not directly for government. The Government recognise that those salaries are not out of line with those of other big private sector companies. However, they expect top executives to exercise leadership and show restraint over pay, and lain Vallance's 3 per cent. rise this year is a very welcome lead which I hope will be followed. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a trend which we should all like to see.
As I say, many points were raised and I shall quickly try to mention a few of them. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale suggested that the three regulators for the water industry were not necessarily always pulling the same way. They have different responsibilities and objectives, which is why the Government believe that the interests of the environment, customers and the water industry would be best served by keeping the responsibilities separate. However, they are all conscious of the environmental
844
improvements that must be paid for by the industry and eventually by the customers. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale drew attention to the high standards we achieve in sewage management.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the accountability of regulators. The regulators operate within a statutory framework and their decisions can be subject to judicial review.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe drew attention to the investment necessary to achieve improvement and also to the fact that there are welcome examples of best practice which may be copied. I doubt that my noble friend realised, when propounding the advantages of wider share ownership which privatisation has brought, that she was directly speaking to Members of your Lordships' House.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that water meters, and the benefits they bring, should be easily accessible without the handicaps he mentioned. I am sure that is a matter which will be taken on board. Once again my noble friend Lord Lindsay shared his considerable experience of the energy industry, expressing recognition of the need for an investment programme and for energy conservation. Much work is being carried out in the Department of the Environment on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of deposits, disconnections and low income families. I should like to conclude by dealing with some of those issues. It is right that companies should be able to charge deposits where there is a significant threat of the customer defaulting on payment. But the regulators are concerned to ensure that that is done in a fair way. The Competition and Service (Utilities) Act brings all regulators' powers up to the level of the strongest on the matter of determining disputes over deposits and on the provision of supply. There is a recognition of the need for work in that area. British Telecom has already changed its deposits policy in agreement with the Director General of Telecommunications. I am pleased also that that organisation has special arrangements for the disabled.
We heard of the number of disconnections. It is something about which the regulators are concerned, but the numbers have substantially reduced in recent years. The Government believe that those who can pay should do so. That view is shared by the regulators. The water companies drew up codes of practice setting out the procedures to be followed where a customer falls into debt. That provides that customers will, in virtually every case, only be disconnected when they fail to comply.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. In fact, disconnections have increased. I cited figures from two specific industries. That is why it is giving rise to anxiety. Either the regulators have not done their job properly or do not possess the powers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I was quoting other industries. As I said earlier, there is now good practice for others to follow. There is also a constant communication between regulators and a

845
strong awareness on the part of the Government in regard to the issues. Some companies carry out extremely few disconnections; other companies seem to have a less concerned involvement with their customers. It is on the latter that we should focus and I can assure the noble Lord that we shall do so. Discussions are already under way.
I assure the noble Lord that the regulators are taking steps to reduce the level of disconnections in all industries. The general approach is that disconnections should be limited to those who will not pay. Were we to extend it to those people on low incomes who, as a matter of pride, do pay and abide by their commitments, they would be the ones to suffer in the long term.
The noble Lord asked about definitions of low income users and whether we should be looking at that. It would not be practicable or appropriate to levy different charges according to consumer incomes. The social security system exists to provide support for those who need it. Again, all regulators have a duty to ensure that services are provided to all who require them. To that end the regulators ensure that residential prices remain at a fair level. I am not being complacent about the issue. The suggestion of a conference will be drawn to the attention of the parties concerned and that possibility will be examined. What is extremely important at this stage is that the regulators are talking to each other.
Any points that I have not covered I will examine and write to noble Lords as I do not wish to leave insufficient time for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to sum up. I simply repeat that the Government are not complacent. I accept that the anxieties raised this evening are genuine and serious. We shall continue to watch carefully the operations of the utilities and their regulators and the progress towards a more competitive market.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for the comprehensive way in which she commented on the many points raised in the debate and I thank noble Lords for participating.
It has been a reflective debate. The purpose has not been to criticise either the enterprises or the regulators, both of whom have done a good job. However, we are in a new phase of economic development and a number of issues have arisen. There is the question of how far competition is to be further extended; the complexity of the pricing formulae; the representation of consumers; the treatment of consumers on low incomes and of the disabled. All those issues were raised.
It is accepted on all sides of the House that they are issues needing still further consideration. I hope therefore that we shall be able to return to the matter at regular intervals. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [H.L.]
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Lockwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Viscount of Oxfuird) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("justifiable").
The noble Baroness said: As with all the amendments before the Committee this evening, Amendment No. 1 is a tidying-up amendment. It brings the Bill into line with the race and sex discrimination legislation which already operates in this country.
A number of references to the need for the amendment have already been made both in your Lordships' House and going back to 31st January 1992, when the Minister in another place, Mr. Nicholas Scott, suggested that,
"the requirement on an alleged discriminator to show that a requirement is reasonable is a less stringent test than that which exists in the sex and race discrimination legislation, where it must be shown to be justifiable".—(0fficial Report, Commons, 31/1/92; col. 1253.)
Amendment No. 1 introduces that higher test of "justifiable". The alleged discriminator will have to show under the amended clause that a requirement is justifiable and not just reasonable. There is a considerable amount of case law which indicates that a reasonable interpretation of "justifiable" has been made by the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness has said, it certainly reflects the case law position and there is no reason for a lesser test than the accepted test of "justifiable".
Lord Auckland: As my name is down on the list, I rise to support the amendment. Another point to be made is that in so much legislation "reasonable" appears as a rather ineffective word. I believe "justifiable" puts the onus on the organisation concerned to make the thing work. The adjective "justifiable" strengthens the Bill in that it gives some incentive to make the proposal work and therefore is well worthy of support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): I rise to say that I do not intend to intervene tonight on any of the amendments. I did say at an earlier stage that we did not feel the Bill was necessary, but we made it clear that we were not unsympathetic to the ideas behind it. I also accept that on an earlier Bill my right honourable friend the Minister of State responsible

847
for the disabled pointed in another place to the need for some amendment. That was one of the suggestions he made at Second Reading. However, having made it clear that we cannot offer our support to the Bill and that this is not merely a question of drafting, I do not think it would serve any particular purpose if I spoke to each amendment. Doing so might imply that we felt that the Bill could be made acceptable to us by amendment. Nevertheless, I have no intention of opposing this or any other amendment moved tonight.
Lord Rochester: It may seem a little superfluous for me to speak in view of what the Minister has just said, but from these Benches I would nevertheless like to offer my support to the amendment. It seems to me that now the House has accepted the principle that there should be legislation to curb discrimination against disabled people it is important that loose ends should be tied up and that, where possible, as the noble Baroness has said, legislation on these lines should coincide as far as possible with similar Bills on race and sex discrimination. That is the purpose of the amendment and in passing it the Committee will ensure that if and when the Bill goes before another place it has a better chance of being accepted.
Lord Rix: I rise to support this and all the other amendments and indeed the passage of the Bill, which I hope will receive some support from the Government in due course.
Perhaps I may ask a question supplementary to a Written Question put to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. A short time ago I asked for an estimate of the costs of implementing the provisions of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I received a very courteous response but it was made clear that the department considered that there were considerable costs arising from the obligations imposed on providers of services and public buildings as well as on employers in addition to the costs of a disablement commission. I cannot help wondering whether it is those costs which ensure that the Government maintain a benevolent neutrality in this matter and cannot support the Bill.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the Minister for his intervention and I understand what he has said. I also thank other noble Lords for the support they have given to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Medical examinations]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("employee") and insert ("applicant").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The amendment is designed merely to correct a drafting error. The clause should read "applicant" and not "employee".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a little worried about the amendment. Although as proposed the insertion of the word "applicant" marries with
848
"applicant" in line 6 on page 4, does one wish to excise the employee totally from this? Ought not the amendment to read "applicant for employment" or "an employee"? I do not see why it should not be so. In its present form I would not be prepared to support the amendment without further explanation.
Baroness Lockwood: An applicant could be an employee applying for a different post. As the noble Lord understands, the whole tenor of the clause is to ensure that the imposition of a medical examination is concerned with job-related functions and not just medical examinations per se. I was happy that this particular amendment should relate to an applicant rather than employee but I will certainly have a look at it. Perhaps I may have a word with the noble Lord later. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of Part II
.—(1) A complaint by any person ("the complainant") that another person ("the respondent") has committed an act of discrimination against the complainant which is unlawful by virtue of Part II may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
(2) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (l) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following orders as it considers just and equitable—

(a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates;

(b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of an amount corresponding to any damages he could have been ordered by a county court or by a sheriff court to pay to the complainant if the complaint had fallen to be dealt with under section 10;

(c) an order that the respondent take within a specified period action appearing to the tribunal to be practicable and necessary for the purpose of obviating or reducing the adverse effect on the complainant of any act of discrimination to which the complaint relates.

(3) An order made by an industrial tribunal under subsection (2) (a), (b) or (c) shall, for the purposes of enforcement proceedings, be treated in all respects as a judgment of a county court and shall be enforceable as such in all respects.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This amendment is rather different from the others, in that it inserts a new clause. It is an amendment which was anticipated by a number of noble Lords during an earlier stage of the Bill. New subsections 10(1) and (2) would make industrial tribunals the forum in which unjustifiable discrimination in employment matters would be adjudicated upon. Again, the amendment would bring the Bill into line with race and sex discrimination legislation. Indeed, subsection 10(1) is derived from Section 63(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act.
Subsection (2) is also derived from Section 65(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act, but it strengthens the provision. There are two differences here. The first is that subsection (2) (c) gives the industrial tribunal the power to make an order rather than a recommendation which is the position under both the sex and the

849
race discrimination legislation at present. Under this legislation the stage of an order is reached only following non-compliance with the industrial tribunal's recommendation. This amendment would make it immediately applicable.
Secondly, the words "and necessary" have been added to clarify the role of the tribunal. Given that we are suggesting that the tribunal should have power to make an order rather than just a recommendation at the stage of adjudication, it seems right that such an order should be restricted to actions which are not only particular but also necessary. Therefore the amendment would have that effect. Subsection (3) is different in that it is new. Again, it is based on the experience of the Equal Opportunities Commission and was put forward by that body in its attempt to strengthen the Sex Discrimination Act. Where there is a refusal, failure or delay by a respondent to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the procedures for enforcement necessitate fresh proceedings to be brought in the county court. It is a cumbersome procedure and in my view it needs to be strengthened and simplified. That is what this amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There are serious objections to this amendment. It seeks to amend a series of statutes and in particular the statute which confers jurisdiction on the industrial tribunal. That is not the only serious objection. It affects the statute which confers jurisdiction on the county court and the equal opportunities and discrimination legislation. I suggest to the noble Baroness that it is wholly inappropriate to seek to bring these changes about in this way.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I said that I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, proposed to move an amendment of this kind. I took that view simply because the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater—whom I am glad to see in his place—well knows that in the employment field the normal practice is for appellants to go before an industrial tribunal in the first instance rather than a court. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has been as good as her word and I am glad to support her. I am far from being as expert in industrial law as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It may well be that in this complex field there are deficiencies in this amendment. Even if there are deficiencies I suggest that they should not influence our attitude unduly for it is the underlying principle that we are now debating at Committee stage. If the amendment is defective in any way that can be remedied at a later stage. It may be that the noble Baroness will again wish to talk with people like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if the need arises before the next stage. Meanwhile, I very much hope that the underlying principle will be accepted this evening by the Committee.
Baroness Lockwood: I am sorry that I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, planned to raise this point otherwise I would have been very happy to have discussed it with him. I
850
recognise that there are perhaps some doubts as to whether the amendment should go as far as it does as regards the county court. At Second Reading I raised the matter as did the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It had also been raised on an earlier occasion. I believe that it was pretty clear that we would seek to bring in the industrial tribunal to deal with the employment question. I hope that that is a principle that the Committee will accept. That being so, I hope that the amendment will be accepted this evening. However, I shall be happy to discuss with the noble Lord any possible consequential amendment that he might suggest.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Proceedings]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("Parts II or") and insert ("Part").
The noble Baroness said: In a way this amendment is consequential on the previous amendment which was to introduce the industrial tribunal for employment matters instead of the county court. That means that employment matters will be dealt with through one forum and goods, facilities and services will be dealt with through another; namely, the forum of the county court. The first amendment is therefore consequential. The second clarifies the existing subsection (2) as printed in the Bill at the present time. It makes clear that the county court can grant the same remedies as are available in the High Court, but with certain exceptions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert:
(" ; but all such remedies shall be obtainable in such proceedings as, apart from this subsection, would be obtainable in the High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be.").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee. In moving Amendment No. 4 I should have said that I was also speaking to Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Application to Crown etc
. This Act applies—

(a) to an act done by or for the purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department; or

(b) to an act done on behalf of the Crown by a statutory body, or a person holding a statutory office,

as it applies to an act done by a private person or body.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is a new clause. It will bring the Bill into line with similar anti-discrimination legislation on the part of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The amendment seeks to apply that legislation to acts that are done by or on behalf of the Crown. There is a slight addition to the provisions that exist in the sex discrimination legislation in that our amendment adds the words "or … a statutory body". The phrase

851
"statutory body" has been included to reflect the importance of discrimination by bodies other than private persons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Yugoslav Refugees
8.31 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are being made throughout Europe for refugees who have already left the former Yugoslavia and what relief and aid they and others are providing to displaced people within that area.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to ask this Question and to open our short debate. I say that because I personally have never visited the former Yugoslavia, whereas some of your Lordships are no doubt closely acquainted with that part of the world. We are faced, however, with urgent humanitarian issues and I am glad that the recent Starred Question that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, drew attention to them. The noble Lord has told me that he regrets that he is unable to be here tonight. I regret it also and perhaps I may add that I am just a little amazed that it appears that there has not been a full-scale debate in this House on the whole problematic situation in the former Yugoslavia since trouble began there last summer.
On 21st May this year the English press quoted Pope John Paul II speaking of:
"A terrifying drama, such as Europe has not seen since the end of the Second World War".
He urged
"People of goodwill to help those suffering because of the iniquitous fratricidal war that is bloodying Bosnia-Herzegovina".
We know that there have been heavy casualties, largely among the civilian population. They have included observers and aid workers of the United Nations, the European Community and the International Red Cross, some of whom have been killed and wounded. On 2nd June the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, acting jointly with UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, issued an emergency report. This followed the temporary forced withdrawal of the UNHCR and International Red Cross personnel from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The report stated that 1.5 million people have been obliged to flee their homes in former Yugoslavia since June 1991. Of these, nearly a quarter of a million found refuge in other European countries.
The Tablet magazine of 20th June described some very real difficulties. Because camps in Croatia and Slovenia are hopelessly overcrowded, Bosnian and other refugees were arriving in Austria. Some were even coming by train from Greece, which refused to accept fugitives, but gave them rail tickets to Vienna. In Vienna, the Minister of the Interior had made it clear that Austria could not go on admitting refugees. I should add that Austria has in fact been most
852
generous, contributing food and medicines to a value of £7.5 million. Germany is reported to be turning back applicants, including even the wives and children of Bosnians living and working in Germany. The situation is said to be similar in Switzerland. I am glad to say that in Britain the situation is a little more encouraging since the Home Office seems to be taking a sympathetic line towards Yugoslays who are unable or afraid to return to their country.
What information do Her Majesty's Government have about refugees from Yugoslavia in the rest of Europe? At what rate are they still arriving? Are they thought to have come mainly for family reunions, and on those grounds, are they expected to remain where they are permanently? Whose responsibility are they —apart, of course, from the host country and the UNHCR? Which European Community institutions have so far considered these problems, and with what result? Do Her Majesty's Government consider that the Council of Europe and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe have a part to play and, if so, how? What co-ordination is being attempted between voluntary bodies in Europe, concerned first with the reception of refugees and secondly with relief and development.
I come now to the much bigger question of those internally displaced within Yugoslavia. The report already quoted showed nearly 1.3 million displaced persons. Of these, over half a million came from Croatia, and the remainder from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Again, at that time over half a million were located in Croatia, while some 363,000 were displaced inside Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbia had taken in 315,000 and Slovenia, Montenegro and Macedonia accommodated smaller numbers. I think that it is likely that these huge figures have increased somewhat during the month of June. What information do Her Majesty's Government have on that.
It is a sad fact that we have to note the most appalling violations of human rights. Fighting has been conducted with complete disregard for the Geneva conventions. Agreed truces have been broken time and again. Civilians and non-combatants have been put to hard, unpaid labour, beaten, tortured and murdered, while their houses were looted and destroyed. Abuses extend outside the immediate zone of fighting to areas such as Kosovo and Vojvodina.
I am indebted to the report of the British Section of the International Society for Human Rights, dated 29th May 1992, following the return of its observers from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The document carefully details several dozen incidents between mid-March and late May, where the minority inhabitants of Serb-controlled towns and villages were forced out, sometimes to be replaced by displaced Serbs from elsewhere. The victims varied in number from two or three people, up to groups of several thousand. There appears to have been a deliberate policy of creating ethnically pure areas. All minorities have suffered—not just the Croats and the Moslems. Soldiers in the Yugoslav National Army and the Serbian militias have enforced that policy. During

853
April and May of this year, there also appear to have been consistent attacks by Serb military units on relief workers and aid convoys.
Does the information available to Her Majesty's Government confirm what I have just been saying, and have there been similar abuses on the Croatian side? In this context, can the noble Baroness comment on the significance of "pink areas"? I understand these to be parts of Croatia with Serbian populations, adjoining but immediately outside the United Nations protected areas. Will the Government and their allies make common cause to ensure that the resources and instructions of the UN peace-keeping forces are such that ethnic purging ceases immediately, at least within the UN protected areas, but if possible everywhere? Will the Government go further and seek the sending of UN observers to Kosovo and Vojvodina, where the human and civil rights of the majority, in the one case, and of the minority in the other, are in doubt.
It is certain that the immediate situation of the displaced people is most difficult. Croatia and Slovenia are at saturation point and the same may be true of Serbia. Tented camps may well be needed. Those, of course, will require special public health measures to prevent epidemics, and will offer no real solution for the coming winter. What can be done to provide prefabricated houses.
The UNHCR reports that the vast majority of those fleeing from Bosnia were women and children. UNICEF reckoned that 200,000 children under the age of six needed special foods and medical help. Co-ordination and team work between the UN agencies has been good. The UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO made a joint appeal for funds for 1992 totalling more than 174 million dollars. By the end of May contributions had been made or pledged in excess of 32 million dollars, with further help in kind. Can the Government say whether there has been progress since then.
Some imaginative work is already in hand. In March, UNICEF launched a programme to make children aware of the dangers they face from mines and other explosives. A framework for psycho-social rehabilitation for war-scarred children is under way. Traumatic stress also affects adults. Their needs and training requirements are being assessed. WHO is organising medical help through a network of European and Yugoslav cities.
I hope that I have indicated something of the urgent difficulties facing both refugees from the former Yugoslavia and those internally displaced inside that country. Well-organised and well-funded help is needed now. Many areas and groups can be reached, even if fully adequate relief is not yet possible for the battered inhabitants of Sarajevo and Dubrovnik. As regards Sarajevo, I should emphasise the importance of supply by road. It has been estimated that the city needs 190 tonnes of food per day, and it is difficult to supply that much by air transport.
There is a real challenge, first to Europe, and then to the rest of the world and perhaps especially to Serbs and Croats living in other parts of the world. Because of the size of the challenge, I particularly welcome the
854
visit which Mrs. Ogata of the UNHCR, will be making to the whole area between 6th and 9th July. I invite later speakers and the noble Baroness the Minister to give us their thoughts on the longer-term needs for resettlement, reconstruction and the rebuilding of shattered systems of education. The aim must surely be to enable the maximum number of displaced people to return to their ancestral homes. Such an aim will, no doubt, have to be tempered with realism. In some cases, there may be scope for voluntary and agreed exchanges of population, as happened between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s.
Both in the short term and looking further ahead, I believe that there is great scope for the expertise and compassion that is available in these islands. The surgical and other skills of Northern Ireland could be most useful. British knowledge of the rehabilitation of refugees and torture victims has a part to play. British military forces, acting in conjunction with the Western European Union and NATO, may play a constructive part in coming to the aid of the civil authorities. In this context, I welcome the presence in Croatia of our Army medical unit.
Our administrative abilities and wide range of specialised voluntary bodies have seldom been more needed. I trust that we shall all rise to the occasion. Above all, the international community has a duty to ensure that the conflicts that have raged since the summer of 1991 are the last to afflict the Balkans in the present era.
I mentioned earlier the possibility of sending UN observers to areas as yet unmarred by fighting. I should like to see that idea expanded by the creation of a multi-disciplinary listening and conciliation service. Such a body would listen to ethnic, religious and minority problems, before they erupt into physical violence. I trust that it would help to defuse some explosions before they occurred.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and take this opportunity to thank all those contributing to our debate.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, the situation in the Balkans remains extremely serious, despite the hopeful signals received from Sarajevo this week. Based on the actual figures of displaced persons and refugees in what was formerly Yugoslavia, it is possible that some 1.5 million will not be able to return to their native ancestral homes. With this and further ethnic cleansing, the former republic's neighbours are faced with the colossal task of receiving enormous numbers of distressed victims of the warring factions.
It is inevitable that the spill-over will take place into countries beyond those neighbours, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, affecting all of us in Europe. As Britain is assuming the European presidency, is it not time for this country to show the type of leadership for which we have an outstanding reputation in the international arena, or will we reduce the proud and majestic British lion, who stands tall among the stars of Europe, to some clawless tame

855
animal? Are we a nation that has finally succumbed to symbolism, or can we still act on the realities of leadership, with all the choices and risks involved.
With this ever enlarging situation in the Balkans, one can only hope that with the assumption of the European presidency, the Government will react to all of this by first creating reasonable foreign policy objectives to avert the suffering and to bring stability. One reasonable foreign policy objective must be to force the warring parties to let all the refugees return to their natural and rightful homes. An attempt to achieve this objective presents considerable dangers. History and experience will show that those dangers could go beyond the internal boundaries of the former Yugoslavia. The stability of its neighbours and those beyond must certainly come into question. The duration of any involvement must also be a primary concern. We certainly do not need to recreate the problems of Northern Ireland and the extent of the emergency within the Province.
Taking into consideration these two vital elements, there are a number of choices available for intervention at this time. These choices vary considerably, but I believe lead us to an inevitable conclusion. The first would be to send a preventive force into Macedonia. This would come in conjunction with the international recognition of Macedonia as a separate state.
The objective would be as a deterrent to any foreign or Serbian intervention. That of course deals with only a fraction of the overall problem. It may save the Macedonians but could further ignite problems elsewhere. A second option would be to increase United Nations forces in the four protective areas within Croatia. It is my understanding that the capabilities of the mixed assortment of troops deployed for that task have been the subject of much criticism. It seems that we are courting disaster in deploying a peacekeeping force without the ability to retaliate and with insufficient professionalism.
Those forces need the support of professional infantry. Although other countries in Europe have elements of well-trained infantry, it is the British infantry that is the best trained and most experienced for such an operation, with the right equipment. An infusion of a professional fighting force would set an example to other United Nations participants and provide the necessary deterrent to the warring parties, thus preventing further ethnic clearance.
Another option relates to the United Nations sanctions policy. For those who favour that policy, it must be apparent that the United Nations resolution that all member states should police the policy is somewhat naive. A member state in Africa, for example, could commit itself to that policy and ban all shipments from its ports. However, what happens between those ports and the port of Bar is another matter. The United States is prepared to deploy a naval force in that area, but I question who is policing the port of Bar which is the sole port for the Serbs and Montenegrans. A naval presence is essential to establish the credibility of that policy. There has been speculation about international inspection teams at entry points into Serbia and from Serbia or Croatia
856
into Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps those teams could be backed by the threat of an air interdiction. Today we also understand that the United States is prepared to provide air support. There are a couple of relevant issues here. It was comparatively easy to use air power in that manner during the Gulf War. The open nature of the desert lands lends itself to that, but destruction of entry routes and bridges in the mountains of Bosnia is a different matter.
A history of inter-racial struggles has created a nation of hoarders who will use the terrain and their own ingenuity to make the task impossible for inspection teams. Article 42 of the United Nations charter provides the opportunity for the use of force in a demonstration role, using air, sea or land forces. If we selected a target, such as the air base outside Belgrade (Batinica), we could mount a strike to ground part of the air force without excessive, or any, casualties, bringing home to the Serb peoples the international community's determination to arrest disorder in the Balkans before it spreads further.
The debate addresses a serious humanitarian problem for which the only solution appears to be one of intervention. The international community has identified Sarajevo as the prime example of where a safe haven can be created. Expert military strategists who have studied that area will explain the complexities of the terrain. It is possible that with some extra support the Canadian forces now being deployed in Sarajevo could secure the immediate area of the airport.
With modern weaponry, using automatic weapons with a range of up to 1,800 metres, and positioning troops with given fields of fire, that force, which would represent roughly an infantry battalion, could cover a radius of 3,000 metres, the approximate area of the airport.
Two problems present themselves immediately as we might discover in respect of the Hercules now on its way to Sarajevo. An airlift of supplies can arrive at the airport, but who will ensure their satisfactory transport on into Sarajevo? Several infantry battalions should be involved in that task, especially when one considers the two areas adjacent to the airport (Dobrinja and Ilidza) which are held by warring factions and pose a threat to any safe passage.
Secondly, as Sarajevo is surrounded by high ground of a radius of approximately 30,000 metres it would be necessary to deploy a further 10 infantry battalions onto that ground, using the equation of one battalion for every 3,000 metre radius. Finally, to remove the threat of indirect weapons, (mortars and artillery) it would be necessary to dominate that high ground with forward observation officers and a combination of sound-ranging equipment, mortar-locating radar and other devices, together with forward air controllers to direct ground attack aircraft accurately, should that become necessary. To include the active patrolling of a demilitarised zone of some 20 kilometres, a total task force of about 30,000 troops would be required.
Experts from the Royal Institute of International Affairs agree that it would take from at least six months to one year for sanctions to bite. We can

857
expect the violence to continue and the suffering to increase. Is it not a reasonable foreign policy objective to support a stand-off in the Balkans? The Government should be commended for their continued support of NATO. Recent events have shown how vital is the Euro-American partnership. It must be maintained. But when will the new British lion of Europe provide the voice of reasoned leadership once more, rather than the timidity of what passes for near appeasement.
The Cold War has disappeared, thanks to the resolve of our NATO allies, and displays of courage like that of the former Prime Minister my noble friend Lady Thatcher who, in the face of a tinpot dictator, deployed our professional troops to maintain international order in the South Atlantic, thereby sending an indirect signal to the Warsaw Pact that we would not stand for aggression in the future. This is not a time for timidity and appeasement, but for courage, resolution and right decisions.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that, not for the first time, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising such an important humanitarian issue in the thoughtful, reflective way in which he did tonight. I am sure that the noble Lord will also agree that if we are paying tributes during such a debate then we want to put on record in this House our appreciation of the valiant work done by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the midst of all the difficulties and, indeed, that of all the personnel of the United Nations and the United Nations Commission for Refugees, and others, who have been working in impossibly difficult circumstances.
The noble Lord called for a wider debate on the issues. This obviously is not the time to have the widest debate but I agree that it is impossible to look at how we should respond to the symptoms without looking at the causes. I hope therefore that the House will forgive me if this evening I dwell a little upon the wider issues at stake.
The international community has been shocked by the speed at which Yugoslavia has disintegrated into a series of warring republics and by the anarchic cycle of violence that appears endless despite numerous United Nations and European Community-sponsored ceasefires and peace initiatives. That has all been a severe test of the political will and cohesion of our increasingly integrated European Community in dealing with political and humanitarian issues on our own doorstep. It is as yet, I believe, far from clear how well we have together passed that test or, indeed, whether we have passed it at all. It has taken the courage and vision of President Mitterrand's brave visit to Sarajevo to achieve a breakthrough, with, I understand, the arrival today of French commandos to help secure the airport. The French have done much to redeem the credibility of the values of effectiveness and compassion we like to proclaim as basic to our European way of life. The task is now to build on the lead which they have given.
858
The fighting between Croatia and Serbia which so extensively spilled over into the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has put that republic into the grips of a bloody civil war between the Serbs, on the one side, and the Moslems and their Croat allies on the other. The escalating conflict has claimed thousands of lives and contributed markedly to the rising tide of refugees forced to flee the fighting.
For Yugoslavia, the writing was on the wall some years ago with the fighting in Kosovo. There was no shortage of concerned voices predicting trouble. Sadly, this advance warning seems to have been lost on the governments of Europe. It is only since serious conflict began that the European Community has belatedly made numerous efforts to try to prevent the outbreak of total civil war in the former republics of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, as we have seen, these attempts at mediation, culminating in the general peace conference chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on 3rd September 1991 and the deployment of peace monitors came too late and failed to halt the violence. It was the impotence of Europe which led to the increased United Nations activity.
By Resolution 713 on 25th September 1991 the UN Security Council first became involved with the imposition of the general arms embargo and support for the general peace conference under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the European Community's special representative. Whatever the disappointments and difficulties encountered by the noble Lord in his dedicated efforts, it is to a great extent thanks to his characteristic and indefatigable commitment that the peace conference may yet play a useful role in promoting a negotiated settlement when the different sides eventually decide to negotiate.
The inability of the European Community to secure a ceasefire, first in Croatia and now in Bosnia, was to a large degree because of the determination of the protagonists to continue fighting until such time as their objectives had been achieved. In relation to Serbia, this entails taking control of Serb-dominated areas of Bosnia and Croatia, while the Croats are fighting to assert their influence in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the event of that republic being carved up between the warring factions.
Under the terms of Security Council Resolution 757 on 30th May this year the United Nations has now imposed sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro, which it has blamed for much of the violence. The UN had attributed the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the aggressive policies of Serbia's president and to his support for the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, a controversial report issued by the UN Secretary General on 1st June this year blamed both the Serbs and the Croats for the violence.
The package of sanctions now includes an extension of the embargo on arms sales, a ban on all sporting links, oil and trade, the freezing of all international assets and the suspension of air links. Medical and humanitarian food supplies have been exempted. The sanctions imposed by UN Resolution 757 were described by the Foreign Secretary on 2nd June as:

859
"One of the most comprehensive series of measures ever adopted by the UN".
The immediate goals of UN sanctions are to end the fighting, creating conditions on the ground which will allow the UN to implement its relief programme and to demobilise the Serbian irregulars and other nationalist militias. That will allow the return to their homes of all those displaced about whom we have heard tonight.
It is to be hoped that sanctions and the emergence of such conditions will help to bring an end to the current conflict and allow a negotiated settlement of all outstanding disputes between the former Yugoslavian republics. However, it has to be recognised that there are those who fear that sanctions will simply inflame Serb nationalism and precipitate military action on the part of the United Nations.
It is powerfully argued that UN Resolution 757 has left the door open for United Nations military action to end the fighting. It seems that the United Nations, in the face of recent conflicts such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the current fighting in Yugoslavia, is moving towards a more interventionist humanitarian phase in its history.
With reference to the crises in the former republics of Yugoslavia, the United Nations Secretary General has indicated that United Nations military intervention could be undertaken if the Security Council members vote for such action. Similarly, the United States Government appear to be in the process of preparing for a US humanitarian relief operation which could well involve the US military. However, I understand that the President of the United States made a strong statement today playing down eagerness to use force. The use of force is also being discussed by the Western European Union.
Against that background, the Prime Minister has reacted cautiously to these developments. In a recent interview for the newspaper, Le Monde, he highlighted the inherent dangers of military intervention and the fear that the intervening force would get sucked into a full-scale war. Nevertheless, the Lisbon summit, even before the surprise Mitterrand initiative, agreed that it was unable to exclude the possibility that a United Nations military operation might be necessary to support a humanitarian relief operation in the event of the conflict continuing unabated and the United Nations agreeing to that course of action.
On 8th June, the Security Council adopted Resolution 758 which empowered the United Nations Secretary General to deploy military observers to Sarajevo to try to organise the withdrawal of heavy military equipment from the city. This resolution also allows the United Nations protection force in Yugoslavia to deliver humanitarian relief supplies to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to secure Sarajevo airport to achieve this end. That is a prospect which we hope has become more realisable in recent days since the Mitterrand mission and the arrival of the French commandos with, I understand, also pilot food distribution now beginning and with further planes on the way.
860
According to Resolution 758, the deployment of UN troops to achieve these aims will be contingent upon,
"an effective and durable ceasefire"
in Sarajevo. It would be helpful to hear tonight from the Minister how UN arrangements are progressing in the wake of the French initiatives.
The refugee crisis in Yugoslavia, as we have powerfully heard this evening, is deepening by the day, according to the emergency report issued jointly by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation. More than 75 per cent. of those fleeing the fighting in the former Yugoslavian republics are women and children.
The report states that while negotiators are attempting to affect a ceasefire long enough for humanitarian relief operations to be channelled through Sarajevo airport, food shortages and fear of the violence escalating are precipitating the flight of families from areas as yet not directly affected by the fighting. As we have heard, the report indicates that 1.5 million people in the former republics of Yugoslavia have been displaced with nearly 250,000 seeking temporary refuge in neighbouring countries.
UNHCR, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation have emphasised that while the number of victims is growing daily the ability of host communities to help them is declining. The House is, of course, aware that in answer to a Starred Question on relief aid to the former Yugoslavian republics on 10th June 1992 the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, stated that since November the UK has given £9.7 million to the Red Cross and the UN humanitarian agencies to help those displaced by the fighting. But a joint appeal by UNHCR, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation issued on 22nd May for 174 million dollars by 30th May drew pledges totalling only 32 million US dollars. It would be helpful to be told tonight the level of funds that that appeal has now reached.
As I have indicated, Resolution 757 arguably leaves the way open for the use of force at a later date. The willingness of those of us on these Benches to support such inevitably hazardous action, with all its dangers and uncertainties, not least for civilians, would depend upon the degree to which the action had been fully discussed, weighed and approved by the UN Security Council. Such action, if deemed necessary, would be fraught with grave potential. It would therefore have to have clear objectives and the full support of the UN as a whole. There must be no question of the United Nations being subcontracted by an unrepresentative few member states, however powerful those states.
The Serbs—not all, for there are many Serbs who are as appalled by events as any of us in this House tonight—must take responsibility for much of the current fighting. However, they are not the only culprits, as the Secretary General's report has emphasised, and any future settlement will depend upon mutual respect and the safeguarding of all minorities. In the meantime we on these Benches

861
welcome the implementation of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro and hope that they will help to bring a speedy end to the current human tragedy.
Arising from the points that have been made tonight, it would be extremely helpful if, when she replies, the Minister would deal with the following questions. What is the Government's assessment of the effectiveness of UN sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro? Can the noble Baroness give an indication of whether the United Nations has set a timetable for sanctions to work? Do the Government agree that UN Resolution 757 leaves the door open for the use of force at some future date? Can the noble Baroness confirm that such action would require the full agreement of the Security Council.
Will the Minister advise the House whether the UN has held recent negotiations with representatives from the different sides in this conflict in an attempt to bring about an end to the fighting? Can the noble Baroness advise the House of the latest position as regards the relief effort in Bosnia-Herzegovina and can she indicate what steps the UN is now taking to ensure that humanitarian and medical supplies reach the civilians who are in desperate need of such supplies? Can the noble Baroness confirm the level of funds which has actually been received to date in response to the joint appeal by UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO on 22nd May to raise money for the relief effort.
Can the Minister advise the House of the Government's latest assessment of the refugee crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Can she also say what funds the Government, the European Community and the UN are providing to assist with the relief of those displaced by the civil war? What is the latest news of the ceasefire? Can the noble Baroness confirm when the current situation in the former republics of Yugoslavia will next be discussed by the United Nations, and specifically by the European Community? I should assure the House that I have given the Minister notice of these questions.
This debate has been timely and important. There are many lessons to be learnt but I believe that, apart from the test of the effectiveness of the European Community, one of the lessons that none of us can ignore is that we are moving into a state of volatility in world affairs in which we can no longer postpone the priority of establishing effective United Nations methods for dealing with crises in time and not waiting until they have overwhelmed us before the world responds.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising the issue of the arrangements being made for displaced persons from the former Yugoslav republics. It is a question of deep importance and concern to the Government. I am grateful not only to the noble Lord but also to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Wedgwood for their contributions to this important debate.
862
The debate has ranged wide. I shall try to answer at least most of the questions that have been put to me tonight. If I err and leave one out I shall write to the noble Lord thereafter.
The tragedy being played out in the former Yugoslav republics is perhaps the greatest instance of human suffering in Europe since the Second World War. Nearly 2 million people have been forced to leave their homes and take refuge either in safe areas in their own countries or in neighbouring states. Thousands more remain trapped in the conflict zones of Bosnia and Croatia, unable to move out of fear for their own safety. They face critical shortages of food, water and other basic supplies. Those civilians who are caught up in the fighting and those who have been displaced are pawns in a very brutal game. We cannot but deplore the blatant disregard for basic humanitarian principles shown by some of the parties to the conflicts—some more than others but nevertheless blatant disregard from time to time on all sides. Certain of the violations of those principles, such as the murder of the senior Red Cross official or the shelling by Serbian irregulars of civilians in the streets of Sarajevo, simply beggar belief.
The United Nations humanitarian agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross have done an outstanding job in seeking to provide assistance to the displaced wherever they can. They have worked against the odds to deliver relief in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. They deserve our fullest support. I can assure your Lordships that the British Government will continue to give it. But to be fully effective the agencies must be able to operate in safety. Otherwise they cannot deliver relief to those displaced persons and refugees about whom the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke so sagely at the beginning of the debate. That is why it is crucial that all the parties in the various areas of the conflict heed the calls in the United Nations resolutions, in the Lisbon summit conclusions and in every gathering, for the creation of security conditions which will allow the safe delivery of desperately needed humanitarian relief.
In this debate there has been some criticism of our not having been able to move forward effectively to relieve the terrible conditions in which the people of the former Yugoslav republics are living. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Judd, having condemned the lack of action, made it quite clear why it had been so difficult to move forward. I can assure your Lordships that we have been ready at every turn to give aid and to put in the support that was needed. However, we should never do so without regard for the people who have to deliver it. We know from the death of six EC monitors as well as the death of the Red Cross worker, and indeed some of the very painful injuries that others have suffered in carrying out their humanitarian work, that we are putting people at very great risk in order to help save the lives of so many innocent people who are caught up in the civil war.
We have been waiting for a ceasefire for a long while. When the European Council adopted its declaration last weekend it was quite clear from all parties that unless there was a continuation of the ceasefire which had been so much hoped for and which

863
seems partially to be holding at present, we would not be able to carry out all those aspects of humanitarian support that we wished.
My noble friend Lord Wedgwood suggested that we needed major military might to bring about a successful end to the fighting. At the weekend there was the courageous visit of the President of France, President Mitterrand. That was a risky thing to do. We all praised him for doing it. We believe that it may—and I can only say may—have helped, together with all the other measures that have been taken in the interim, to break down the objections to a ceasefire for the time being.
I must say to my noble friend that we have no evidence of breaches of sanctions. We know that the sanctions regime is working and having an effect. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me about our assessment of those sanctions. I can say to him that they are having a disruptive effect on the Serbian economy. They must now be given time to work. I believe that it is the combination of that and world opinion which is causing the ceasefire to hold, at least in the main, at the present time. There are long petrol queues; in Serbia workers are being sent off early for their summer holidays. There are signs that the sanctions are beginning to work.
Your Lordships will know that in Security Council Resolution 757, paragraph 16, it was decided that the Security Council will:
"keep under continuous review the measures imposed by paras 4 to 9"—
that is, those paragraphs of the resolution detailing the sanctions regime—
"with a view to considering whether such measures might be suspended or terminated following compliance with the requirements of Security Council Resolution 752";
that is to say, stop fighting and co-operate with the efforts of the European Community to bring about a negotiated political solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked me about UN negotiations with representatives of the different sides. There is daily contact between the UNPROFOR representatives and the parties to the conflict at all levels. But there are two roles being played out: the role being carried out very bravely by our noble friend Lord Carrington to try to make the peace; and the role of the United Nations to keep the peace. That is a very difficult thing to do.
We have always realised that sadly there might be need for the use of force. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was absolutely right to ask about Security Council Resolution 757. Such a resolution leaves the door open for the use of force but any departure to use force, any departure from the current humanitarian work and the work that UNPROFOR is doing, would require a Security Council resolution. It is important always to remember that we can only act within the resolutions so far passed. But we are prepared, if there is no other way to bring peace to those benighted people, to go back to the Security Council.
I do not wish to detain the House too long tonight but it is right that I report that my noble friend Lord Carrington sees the crisis in Bosnia as the most pressing problem of all those facing his conference. He has therefore decided to try to visit Sarajevo on Friday
864
next, 3rd July, in an attempt to restart the talks with the parties concerned on future constitutional arrangements for Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, there are a number of other important areas which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his conference are actively addressing. I refer to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the human rights issues affecting Serbs in Croatia, Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia, and Hungarians and others in Vojvodina.
The conference is also tackling the more practical issues of succession, such as the question of the division of assets and liabilities of the former Yugoslav republics. There is a great deal of work to do. I know that this House wishes my noble friend Lord Carrington every success in the enormous task that he has undertaken.
The latest position in Bosnia-Herzegovina is that the ICRC has been re-established in the Bosnian towns; and in Sarajevo so far there have been five French relief flights. Sadly most of them have had to sit on the runway not unloaded because there is a need for the very equipment which the UK is airlifting into Sarajevo—the kind of trucks and vehicles which will take the goods, generously given, from Sarajevo airport into Sarajevo and out beyond. But even they cannot move unless they can be protected by the UN forces. I shall return to that point in just one moment because the Canadian troops who are going in will be part of that whole operation.
Perhaps I may now turn to the whole question of helping people in that situation. We are sending logisticians to help UNHCR to take forward the deliveries of the goods when it is safe to do so. But the whole plan has to be carried through in a military, but a peaceful military way. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Wedgwood would want to use whatever staff is needed to carry that through. Of course, there has already been superb work done by our own people who serve there with UN forces from the Ambulance Corps.
Perhaps I may turn to the question of refugees and displaced persons. The international relief effort is obviously led by the ICRC, UNHCR, supported by UNICEF and WHO. ICRC provides relief in the conflict zones. It is working to promote compliance with the Geneva Conventions. It has gone on supplying in Bosnia and Herzegovina food and hygienic supplies to displaced and vulnerable groups —for example, hospitals, orphanages and old people's homes. UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO are providing the relief supplies to the refugees and those displaced throughout the former Yugoslav republics. Regrettably there have been the appalling security risks of which I spoke earlier.
I have been asked several times about the international appeals that have been launched to support the activities. For ICRC the appeal was for the equivalent of £15.6 million sterling and for UNHCR £92 million sterling. So far some 53 per cent. of the former and 29 per cent. of the latter has been pledged by the international community. That is not enough. We are doing our bit. We are encouraging others to do theirs. I understand that by using local non-governmental organisations, which always do so

865
well in these situations, UNHCR is able to deliver help in a number of areas which have previously been very difficult to reach. Certainly a number of European NGOs have been used by the Commission for delivery of EC-donated supplies—agencies such as CARITAS, Pharmaciens Sans Frontières, Equilibre, the Children's Embassy and a number of others. But there are many people willing to help if only a ceasefire will permit them to do so.
The great majority of the people displaced by the conflicts are indeed in neighbouring republics. We have already heard much about what is going on from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We know now that nearly 1.5 million refugees have been registered by the UNHCR from the former Yugoslav republics including displaced persons. But there are at least another 325,000 people seeking sanctuary in countries outside the former Yugoslavia. The UNHCR continues to monitor the situation closely. It has registered some 200,000 in Germany, a further 60,000 in Hungary and some 20,000 in Austria. Those figures represent only those who have registered. The true scale of the problem is far greater and almost impossible to quantify exactly although efforts are being made. Many thousands have sought shelter with friends and relatives. They have not registered. We know that the Austrian authorities estimate that they have more than 40,000 Yugoslav refugees within their borders—more than double the figure that I quoted for those registered with UNHCR.
Those seeking sanctuary are the joint responsibility of both the country of refuge and the UNHCR under the terms of the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. The UNHCR is doing its best. Everyone else is prepared to back it. But we shall only see an end to the refugee and displaced persons' problem when the fighting stops altogether.
Having told your Lordships of the latest assessment of what is going on, I can only say that the latest news on the ceasefire is better than it has been. We believe that the re-opening of the airport will pave the way for agreements to allow the safe passage of relief goods by road. That is the most cost-effective way of transporting the huge quantities of goods that are required.
The Canadian battalion which is going in to help will arrive in two stages. It will be taking goods with it. I understand that there is an advance party of 250 going in tonight, and a further body of about 550 tomorrow night. Those troops are the ones who will secure the airport for the humanitarian flights until a durable ceasefire has been achieved. It is crucial that all the parties to the conflict agree to abide by the ceasefire. We can then really get to work to help the refugees, the displaced persons and those people who are barely surviving in their own homes. They must not be forgotten.
The work that we are doing—whether it be with the help of the 60 UN military observers who arrived on 17th June at Sarajevo Airport, whether it be through French, Canadian and other troops or our own ambulance personnel and engineers who are serving —is to one end; namely, to bring relief to the people
866
of the former Yugoslav republics. The conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina are quite terrible. We know about all the shortages; they need not be repeated now.
I believe that we need to carry on with our work to find a durable political solution and to undertake preventive work where that is sensible. I know how much my noble friend Lord Wedgwood is concerned about that. We cannot undertake that work on the scale that he outlined. It is important that in carrying out preventive work we do not interfere with groups which can manage for themselves, perhaps with some technical assistance from outside. However, those who are involved closely—whether it be in Kosovo, Vojvodina or anywhere else—tell us that it is important that on the ground we have the monitoring of the observance of the CSCE commitments. That is why the senior officials from the CSCE went to Vojvodina, Sandjak and Kosovo. Sadly, we have not been able to secure the co-operation of the Serbian authorities in those visits. However, we shall continue to try until those tasks can be made to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about asylum applications from the former Yugoslav citizens. We have received some 1,000 applications in this country. All applications are considered under the terms of the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees. We are taking our obligations extremely seriously. I fear that eventually many may not qualify as refugees under the terms of the convention but that is because they are not fleeing individual persecution. The best work that we can do is to bring about the ceasefire and help it to hold and to allow those people to return to their own homes.
We have thoughts on longer-term repatriation and rehabilitation. I should like to leave those for another time when I have had a further discussion with Mrs. Ogata. I have already spoken twice with her about these issues. I believe that all the work we need to do must be done in close conjunction with UNHCR, the ICRC, the UN Security Council, the political reporters to the United Nations Secretary General and with the commission led by my noble friend Lord Carrington.
We have some knowledge of the pink zones about which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked. Yesterday the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution No. 762. It provides for the establishment under UN auspices of a joint commission to oversee the restoration of Croatian authority in those zones. But difficulties may follow. The UN observers would monitor the withdrawal of all armed units from those pink zones and retain a presence along the line of confrontation. In addition, the UN civilian police would monitor the maintenance of law and order in those zones, with particular regard to minority groups as has been the case in the UN protected areas.
The situation in the former Yugoslavia will be discussed day by day in the UN. The European Community will discuss the matter formally at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 20th July. But the working group is in session each week and the political committee continues to discuss matters daily. As issues arise, we shall deal with them.

867
Your Lordships will see from what has been said in this debate that, while the situation is grave, it is one in which we are determined to help and to bring relief. Looking to the future, I know that resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons back in their own homes is what they desire most. That will take time and resources but we must be truly grateful to LINHCR, ICRC and the many other organisations for the work that they are doing. We must do all we can to help the different elements of the international
868
community rise to the challenge and meet the humanitarian needs of the people of the former Yugoslavia.

Leeds Supertram Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before ten o'clock.

  YOUTH TRAINING COURSES: DURATION
  YOUTH TRAINING COURSES: DURATION