Sitting of 8 July 1992

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

    Exports
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to boost British exports.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The Government, through their overseas trade services organisation, provide a wide range of help, advice and financial support which is highly regarded by United Kingdom exporters. The plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Friday for reshaping the Department of Trade and Industry will enable us to build even closer ties with exporters.
    Mr. Etherington: As we have lost so much of our manufacturing base since 1979, is it not about time that the Department of Trade and Industry seriously considered the long-term outlook and sought to expand the export potential of manufacturers in Britain? When will the President of the Board of Trade use some of the imagination and verve that he is purported to have to take action on exports? Or shall we continue to see developments such as in Sunderland, North, where the possibility of expanding shipbuilding and marine services is sterilised by the building of yuppie housing and by other so-called prestigious projects, such as a business school which will not create one extra job but looks rather good?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman could assist in the promotion of jobs in exports in the north-east of England by welcoming and supporting companies that came to his area, such as Nissan, rather than, as a delegate of the National Union of Mineworkers, supporting the Trades Union Congress resolution that said that Japanese projects were alien organisations. Perhaps he should tell his constituents which are the alien organizations—Japanese projects or trade unions such as that which he supports.
    Mr. Madel: One way to boost exports would be for the Department of Trade and Industry to allow AWD (Bedford) Trucks to export civilian lorries to Libya. Given the unemployment difficulties in my constituency and the difficulty that that company is in, could my hon. Friend help me and the people of Dunstable and grant the company an export licence to export civilian lorries to Libya?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. As he knows, he is coming to see me tomorrow to discuss the issue. Obviously, I am as sympathetic as possible to any company that wishes to export. Nevertheless, Libya is a country to which United Nations sanctions apply and there are obvious complexities. I look forward, however, to discussing the matter tomorrow with my hon. Friend.
    Ms. Quin: Does the Minister recall that the President of the Board of Trade pleaded with the Conservative party conference three years ago not to dismiss the trade deficit as unimportant and fully to recognise its seriousness? As we have had a trade deficit for five years, when does the Minister expect the trade balance to be in surplus?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Lady knows that we never give that forecast. When her party left office in 1979, the visible trade deficit was 4 per cent; it is now 4·7 per cent. Her hon. Friends operated an industrial strategy, which cost the Government £6 billion a year, to pick and back losers. Compared with that figure, the deficit that we have now is insignificant.

    North Sea Oil
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy for encouraging the extraction of marginal oil from North sea fields.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): The Government are committed to maximising economic recovery of North sea oil and gas. The fiscal regime is designed to achieve this.
    Dr. Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that many companies currently operating in the North sea find little incentive to extract the marginal oil from their fields? Will he therefore undertake to examine the obstacles in their way, including present and planned superfluous legislation, so that investment continues to flow to projects in the North sea rather than to the former Soviet Union, where investment may go if there are no profit and incentives in the North sea?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a sympathetic legislative and fiscal framework for the North sea, and it is part of my job to ensure that. I am sure that he would agree that we must ensure that safety considerations are paramount, that the expenditure incurred in connection with the Cullen report is taken through and that the necessary measures are improved and implemented by the oil companies.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the level of investment in the North sea is reaching a plateau, albeit at a high level of £5 billion, and that this is an appropriate time to consider the fiscal regime to ensure that there are adequate incentives for developing marginal fields, not merely to benefit the oil companies but to maximise the market for British-based service and supply companies?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is right. Investment is at a high level and the chances are that it will level off. That is the nature of investment in the North sea—as the hon. Gentleman realises, even if other hon. Members do not. On his specific point, different oil companies have different

    319
    tax cases, depending on their problems and the nature of their fields. I have told a number of companies that we shall consider their cases if they put them to us.
    Mr. Duncan: In recognising the tremendous success story that has followed investment in the North sea, does my hon. Friend agree that the industry must bear down on its production costs if it is to maintain its competitive advantage? Will my hon. Friend work with the industry to achieve that aim?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. If North sea production is to remain competitive, we must get control of capital costs, where the industry has been successful, and current operating costs, which need more attention, especially in view of the cost of operating in Aberdeen.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not deeply unsatisfactory that, under the new set-up, this is the only reachable energy question on the Order Paper? Where precisely in the fiscal regime is there any item of legislation that encourages companies to get that last drop of marginal oil?
    Mr. Eggar: I am happy to answer as many of the questions on the Order Paper as we reach, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman and others to ask their questions. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about the fiscal regime, as he well knows, it is extremely complex. The way in which it operates depends on the fundamental tax regime of the oil company, the nature of the field, the length of time that the field has been operating and so on. The way forward is for each company to consider projects to establish whether they make sense in pre-tax terms, but not in post-tax terms. If that is the case, and if they have kept costs under control, they should make representations to us.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of abandoning the 155 structures in the North sea, in whole or in part, may well exceed the cost of building them? What talks has he had with companies or oil organisations such as BRINDEX, which represents the British independent oil exploration companies, and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association about the fiscal regime, to encourage them to set aside the capital required to meet the cost of abandonment when that moment comes?
    Mr. Eggar: I recognise that that is a concern. For that reason, changes were introduced in the Finance Acts in the past two years. If there are specific additional worries, I should be willing to hear about them. Additional complications, which relate to prospective suggestions about how field structures should be abandoned and the environmental implications, also concern the industry and I am considering them.

    Engineering
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation to discuss the effects of the recession on the engineering industry.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I met the Engineering Employers Federation last month. I have no plans for a further meeting.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the President appreciate that unemployment has increased for the 26th consecutive month—an increase of more than 1 million—and that a further 70,000 jobs, again in engineering, are expected to go soon? Overall, the prospects seem very grim, so why does the right hon. Gentleman not discuss with the engineering employers the Chancellor's so-called "green shoots", because many people believe that he has been using weedkiller instead of fertiliser?
    Mr. Heseltine: The most effective support that we can give to the engineering and all other industries is to maintain our current counter-inflationary stance, keep interest rates coming down and maintain the thrust to provide increased international competitiveness in this country. Nothing that we do will be influenced by the Opposition trying to get us to abandon the policies on which ultimate success depends.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many members of the Engineering Employers Federation believe that he must work hard on the Treasury to make it understand the needs of engineering and manufacturing? Does he further accept that many members of the federation would be prepared to accept a modest increase in corporation tax if the Treasury would introduce 100 per cent. capital allowances?
    Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are at one on those matters and all others. On the basis of that happy partnership, we shall look forward to the recovery of the British economy.
    Mr. Olner: When will the rhetoric finish and engineering employees get the same action from the Government as Germany and all other European countries get to assist their industries? The recession has gone on for far too long. It will never be over without investment in industry.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman takes a rather more pessimistic view of the Government's approach to the engineering industry than the employers themselves. I welcome the constructive response that they gave last Friday to the announcement that we would restore sectoral dialogue between the industry and my Department.
    Mr. Marlow: What rate of interest is appropriate at the current stage of the recessionary cycle? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Heseltine: The rate of interest is that which the markets will accept, and the markets will accept the rate that reflects the level of inflation in this country, which is still more than the levels in many competing economies. Nothing would be more counter-productive to the recovery, which all hon. Members want, than indicating that the Government were to abandon their counter-inflationary strategy.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the President's stark admission on Monday that this is the most difficult recession since the war and given the figures that came out today showing a 92 per cent. increase in bankruptcies in engineering and elsewhere, foreshadowing a summer and autumn of further closures, redundancies and job losses, why is he failing to implement his well-publicised ideas for

    321
    export, regional and industrial policy reform? Why. at the same time, is he presiding over cuts in support for industry and jobs in those very areas? Has he changed his mind or has the Cabinet changed it for him?
    Mr. Heseltine: The real dilemma from which the hon. Gentleman suffers is that he is incapable of understanding what I have been saying all these years. In no conceivable way will I abandon my support for the recovery of the British economy based on a highly competitive improvement in performance, on which our competitiveness must depend.

    Deregulation Unit
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the future of the deregulation unit in his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Deregulation is one of the Government's most important initiatives—at local, national and European level. We aim to abolish unnecessary regulations—
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not light up his tie?
    Mr. Hamilton: Why does the hon. Gentleman not switch off?
    We aim to abolish unnecessary regulations and licences, to make them as clear and effective as possible where they remain necessary, and to ensure proper compliance cost assessments in the case of new proposals.
    The deregulation unit helps to co-ordinate the work of units in all Departments and we intend to continue with a vigorous programme of cutting red tape.
    Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much more difficult to get rid of restrictions and regulations than to dream up new ones and that, therefore, a continuous effort is required by Government to redress the balance? In that context, will my hon. Friend give some thought to asking the deregulation unit to produce an annual report of its performance as a spur to and measurement of achievement?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the subject. We have an annual programme of reform in that sector. I report from time to time, usually by way of a parliamentary question, on the progress that has been made. I shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to my hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister's definition of deregulation taking on a new meaning? I ask that question as his Department decided to strip the Royal Mail prefix from the Post Office's parcel force business. It seems as though that move may be an initiative to privatise that section of the Post Office.
    Mr. Hamilton: I hope that you will agree, Madam Speaker, that that supplementary question was wholly irrelevant to the main question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the Minister is responsible for the deregulation unit, the question was probably appropriate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Order. If that is the Minister's answer, so be it. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will probably table a substantive question in future.

    Free Enterprise
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the initiatives taken by his Department to encourage free enterprise in Poland, Romania and the former Soviet republics.
    Mr. Needham: My Department can best encourage free enterprise by promoting trade with, and investment in those countries and ensuring that they have markets for their exports. My Department also provides advice and encouragement to potential British exporters and investors in many ways in those countries.
    Mr. Field: My hon. Friend will be aware that an application for some of the funds made available by the Government to promote free enterprise in eastern Europe was refused on the ground that the installation and assets to be acquired were to be used for a military purpose. I believe that British taxpayers expect that swords will be turned into ploughshares. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in future, the rules are more transparent so that business men do not waste time applying in such circumstances?
    Mr. Needham: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The four sectors for which the know-how fund is available are energy, financial services, food distribution and small business creation. As my hon. Friend says, defence conversion is not one of them, and that information has been published. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do all that they can to raise awareness of sectors covered by the know-how fund when that is possible.
    Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will know that, when it comes to creating a viable commercial market in eastern Europe, no commodity is in greater demand than a secure and safe supply of electricity. Many nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union play a vital role in producing electricity but are far from safe and far from reliable. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the huge accumulation of experience and expertise in this country is deployed in helping the operators of those nuclear power stations to make them safe so that we may avoid a catastrophic decline in electricity production and a disaster such as that which occurred at Chernobyl?
    Mr. Needham: I certainly accept what the hon. Gentleman says about our expertise and the need for something to be done. I assure him that the Government will do what they can to that effect.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who run the former communist countries today are the same people who ran the state-controlled, centralised, bureaucratic communist economies that they once were? Does he agree that those people should be encouraged now to encourage those in exile in the west, who already understand the free enterprise system, to return home to their countries to apply the principles of which they have already had experience?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, Madam Speaker.

    Engineering
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the trade balance for the engineering sector was in 1979; and what it is at the current time.
    Mr. Needham: In 1979, there was an engineering trade surplus of £2 billion. In 1991, the last full year for which figures are available, there was a surplus of £500 million. However, in the first five months of this year there was a deficit of £1·6 billion.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The President of the Board of Trade is a former Minister with responsibility for Merseyside and will be well awsare of the collapse of all forms of engineering on Merseyside—indeed, in the north-west— since 1979. That has resulted in large numbers of job losses and plant closures by companies such as Plessey, Lucas, Marconi and Cammell Laird. Does the Minister agree that the declared intention of Ford to transfer research and development engineering functions from the United Kingdom to Germany presages another downward twist for British engineering, and its future?
    Mr. Needham: Ford has plans to rationalise much of what it is doing in the United Kingdom. It increased its purchase of United Kingdom components to about £2·7 billion worth in the past year—that figure was £1·3 billion less five years earlier. A whole queue of companies is lining up to get involved in component production in the United Kingdom, with the arrival of the new Japanese inward investors and because of the improved quality and competitiveness of British component suppliers. I was near the hon. Gentleman's constituency on Monday opening a new Japanese factory which will produce a large number of automated components. What the hon. Gentleman says is just not true.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Honda, Nissan and Toyota, apart from providing direct employment in the United Kingdom, will become major exporters of British cars to the Community?
    Mr. Needham: As my hon. Friend says, the effect will be that by the mid-1990s this country will be a net exporter of cars. That could hardly have happened under the previous regime and it would not have happened if the Opposition had had anything to do with it because, as they have said, they regard Japanese investors as alien organisations.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister tell us what the reaction of the Department of Trade and Industry is to the fact that the privatised electricity industry has virtually abandoned its formerly substantial research and development commitment? What impact does he think that will have on our engineering imports? [Interruption.] In case Conservative Members are not aware of this fact, if we do not manufacture things here and we want to build power stations here, we will have to import the plant and equipment to do so.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman may not have been fully awake when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was at the Dispatch Box. He may be aware, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is, that we are organising the Department in a sectoral fashion, so perhaps he should pose his question to the Minister responsible.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it not a fact that our engineering sector would do much better abroad if a number of Governments, such as that of the empire of Japan, took our goods on the same terms as we take theirs?
    Mr. Needham: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have the same credit guarantee arrangements across the world. Through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the British Government are striving to achieve that objective. We hear Opposition Members knocking British engineering's achievements a great deal—although most of them have never run a business in their lives—whereas the record of the engineering industry in this country is second to none.

    Trading Standards Officers
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the shortfall in the number of trading standards officers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): There is a shortfall of about 300, 14 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Callaghan: I hear what the Minister says. Does he agree that there is an inadequate number of inspectors? Is he aware that car-clocking fraud is costing the general public £200 million a year? Why does not he implement the recommendations of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club and introduce a national car mileage registration scheme to stop fraud?
    Mr. Leigh: Trading standards officers already have adequate powers to deal with these matters. The hon. Gentleman should remember the old adage about glass houses. His borough of Rochdale has fewer trading standards officers than the complement allows for: it has nine but should have 13—despite the fact that we have given Rochdale a massive increase in its block grant, from £19 million to £28 million, to cover trading standards officers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to his borough council.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of trading standards officers in many different consumer sectors. Has he had any representations from them about the misleading advertising of Global Marketing Europe (UK) plc, a timeshare company?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend will know that we are concerned about timeshare practices. We approached the Commission before the last election. As a result, it is drawing up a directive now. We also fully supported the Timeshare Act 1992 introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), which instituted a cooling-off period for timeshare purchases. We are making progress, but we recognise that trading standards officers will have an important role to play.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that his failure to implement the Borrie report has cost car buyers more than £1,000 million in fraud and that his inaction has led to a car clocking epidemic, with one in five second-hand cars being clocked and 400,000 people being swindled this year?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman spent the 17 months before the general election grossly overstating his case, and

    325
    he is plainly continuing in the same vein. He knows perfectly well that we shall address these matters in a general review of consumer affairs in the new informed markets Bill. The directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts was agreed only last week. Despite the fact that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms is a former racing driver, she cannot move that quickly and introduce legislation within a week.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to strengthen the powers of trading standards officers so as to prevent companies from setting up businesses, starting to trade, running up debts, not paying those debts, declaring themselves insolvent and then starting up again in the same businesses with almost the same names?
    Mr. Leigh: That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who no doubt has heard what my hon. Friend has said.

    Trade Descriptions Acts
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with the Institute of Trading Standards Administration about updating the Trade Descriptions Acts.
    Mr. Leigh: There have been no recent discussions, but the institute was fully involved in the 1990 review of the Act.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister satisfied with the present range and scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or does he agree with me and with the trading standards officers that it needs to he extended to include false statements on services, particularly mis-descriptions, and bogus claims about professional qualifications?
    Mr. Leigh: I agree that the Act is old and needs updating. We want to make sure that it covers services as well as goods. There are a number of concerns about green claims, for example, so the hon. Gentleman is right. In our review of the Act, on which we have already consulted, we shall address those points. I hope that we shall be introducing the informed markets Bill fairly soon. That will deal with all these points and update the Trade Descriptions Act. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: While I welcome the action that the Government have taken on timeshare, there is still concern about the related practice of pyramid selling. Has my hon. Friend had any representations from trading standards officers or from members of the public who have entered into what amount to almost legalised pyramid selling organisations?
    Mr. Leigh: We have had representations on terms of selling and we keep these matters under review, but at present we have no plans to change the legislation on this.

    London
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to improve the attraction of London as an international centre for trade.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: London is already the location of many international businesses and remains one of the
    326
    world's leading financial centres. Our policies, including the recent establishment of a ministerial committee for London, will help to ensure that London maintains its position.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not ironic that that segment of our capital city and principal trading centre which is closest to our new home market of continental Europe is the least developed? What contribution is my hon. Friend making towards ensuring the success of London docklands and the survival of that strategically vital project, the extension of the Jubilee line?
    Mr. Hamilton: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade played an important part in getting the docklands project going— [Interruption.] It is a highly imaginative project, which in due course will lead to the regeneration of the whole of that east London corridor. Some 50,000 jobs have already been created in docklands this year, compared with a much smaller number 10 years ago. Although the recession has resulted in difficulties for docklands, the project will not collapse. In due course, other companies will come in to complete this huge project, which will be the best news for east London that it is possible to hear.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister clarify the Government's attitude to London's bid for the Eurobank? Is he aware that press reports from the Lisbon summit suggested that the Prime Minister was engaged in a futile rearguard attempt to protect London's claim, while the Secretary of State for Scotland, on a boat in the River Forth, was simultaneously hinting that the Government were reasonably sympathetic to Edinburgh's claim? Are the Government backing London, Edinburgh or nowhere for the site of the Eurobank?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of one thing: if Scotland were independent, nothing would go to Edinburgh.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that London is one of the pre-eminent financial services industry centres in the world? Is he aware that the Lloyd's insurance market contributed £8·5 billion to invisible exports in the past five years and supports some 80,000 jobs? Does she agree that the Walker and Morse reports published last week will lead to a strengthening of London's position as a major insurance centre?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that Lloyd's is an important flagship for the insurance sector of London as a great financial centre. It does not help when Members such as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) make irresponsible and unwarranted claims on the basis of half-truths. Last week the hon. Gentleman denounced the Walker report as whitewash before it was even published; he then had to retract after he had read it. It would be better for us all if Labour Members would make supportive noises about an industry which employs large numbers of people and is a major earner of foreign exchange for this country.

    Exporters
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to assist British exporters.
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to back British exporters.
    Mr. Heseltine: The Government, through their overseas trade services organisation, provide a wide range of help, advice and financial support which is highly regarded by United Kingdom exporters. I announced last Friday my plans for reshaping the DTI, which will further enhance our understanding of exporters' needs and our ability to communicate with them.
    Ms. Eagle: I am grateful for that response. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existence in Britain of Stone Manganese Marine—the last remaining maker of propellers with its own foundry—is being threatened by unfair foreign competition from Poland and Korea? Is he further aware that that company is the holder of three Queen's awards to industry and that 80 per cent. of its turnover is exported, which helps our export effort? What steps will he take to ensure that such high-quality, strategically important companies are not killed off by unfair foreign competition and Government negligence?
    Mr. Heseltine: I share the hon. Lady's concern that no British company should be threatened by unfair foreign competition. If she or the company concerned will let me have the details, she may be assured that they will be carefully examined.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the table in the publication "European Economy" showing that the United Kingdom has the lowest average annual export growth between 1979 and 1990 of any country in the European Community? Does he believe, as I do, that part of the reason for that abysmal record under successive Conservative Governments is the cuts that they have made in export support services?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that our exports of manufactured goods are at an all-time high and have grown by 4 per cent. in the past 12 months. I very much hope that when Labour Members set out across the world on their holidays in a fortnight's time they will stop peddling a message of gloom about this country.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the very good export record of British firms, some 70 per cent. of companies still do not export? Most of them are small and medium-sized concerns. Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to that sector, which needs help and encouragement to penetrate new export markets and thus give assistance to Britain?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend's view and I hope in the near future to set out our plans to improve the service that we give to small and medium-sized companies. I should add that we export a higher proportion of our gross domestic product than virtually any other comparable nation.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Proyecto Venezuela, which involves the imaginative packaging of opportunities for British firms to export a wide range of products and services to that country? Have we learnt lessons from that, and will there be many opportunities to operate similar products in other countries in the future?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the need to search world markets and explore every avenue to put together the most attractive package for companies exporting from Britain. I hope that we shall be able to build on our already formidable reputation.
    Mr. Morgan: The Government should be providing measures of substance, rather than the shadow that the President of the Board of Trade with his new title tends to provide. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he really wants to get rid of the doom and gloom being cast over British industry he should insist that the electricity companies charge less to key British industries? The chlor-alkali industry, for example, has approached the right hon. Gentleman. That industry, which is very important in the north-west, has been crippled by a 40 per cent. rise in electricity prices. Steel, aluminium smelting and many other heavy strategic industries are also being crippled by rising profits in the recently privatised electricity industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those profits are accompanied by big losses in the industries that electricity serves?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. We have established a regulatory system to keep the position under constant review. It is important for us to do that, but it is also important to realise that if we are to have a flourishing manufacturing economy companies must be allowed to make profits commensurate with the need to invest as a consequence of their success. Every time a company makes profits, Labour Members immediately attack it, because they fail to understand that profitability leads to investment and growth.
    Mr. Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed to help British industry is an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of our foreign competitors, and that feeding that information through to British industry will enable it to become more competitive? What will the Department do to help British industry in that regard?
    Mr. Heseltine: That question goes to the heart of the announcement that I made last Friday. I believe that it is essential for Britain, as a trading economy, to search the world constantly to assess its standards of competitiveness and—even more important—to establish what those standards will be in the decade ahead. I have set up a special division in my Department to advise us in that process.

    Coal Privatisation
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what means he proposes to implement his pledge to protect the pensions and concessionary coal of retired miners and widows after privatisation of British Coal.
    Mr. Eggar: I have already made it clear that the pension and concessionary coal entitlements of the current and former employees will be safeguarded. The detailed implementation of those assurances will be announced as soon as possible.
    Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Minister relises that such vague assurances will not reassure miners and miners' widows in my constituency and throughout the country. Miners have sacrificed their health and in some cases their lives to the

    329
    industry, and their widows are entitled to pensions and concessionary coal. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will set up a pension trust to protect miners' pensions from the predatory purchasers who will want to take over the pits?
    Mr. Eggar: I give the hon. Gentleman and the pensioners a clear, unequivocal commitment that there will be no rip-off of the British Coal pension funds.
    Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that it is highly likely that after the privatisation of British Coal the new company will entirely lose interest in such issues as the social clubs for retired miners and miners' welfare? There are some of these clubs in my constituency, in areas where there are now very few miners and no mines whatsoever. Will my hon. Friend take those issues into account and ensure that the facilities which exist can continue, preferably with some kind of support from what remains of British Coal, so that my constituents will not face a more difficult time in their leisure?
    Mr. Eggar: Certainly I will.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Can the Minister give a guarantee that if there are any changes arising from privatisation the Government will not give those people an ultimatum and that failure to reply will not be taken as agreement, as has happened before in the case of British Coal? That would be intolerable because many people, due to eyesight and other difficulties, cannot fill in forms. Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will consult pensioners associations and others in those villages and communities before any changes are implemented?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman made a very fair point in Committee, and I will certainly bear in mind what he has said, but it would help if some Opposition Members did not go around raising unnecessary scares.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of manufacturing output in 1974, 1979, 1985 and 1991 with 1974 as 100.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Ninety-seven in 1979, 92 in 1985, and 103 in 1991.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is a fairly appalling record. I wonder whether the Minister knows of any country that has had a lower increase in manufacturing output, particularly in the past 13 years. How are we to recover? We have lost more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs since we joined the exchange rate mechanism. With the Government crippling manufacturing by high interest rates to keep the pound up, is this not a case of running the country on the basis of Maxwell economics—raiding the pension fund to support the share price?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman seems to be joining his Opposition colleagues who spend their time running down the achievements of British manufacturing industry. It might help if he would read the CBI report, "Competing with the World's Best", which says:
    "UK based manufacturers are well placed in some of the key growth markets of the future".
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear that British manufacturing output benefits greatly as a consequence of Britain's
    330
    having the lion's share of inward investment into the European Community from the United States, Japan and all other countries? Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from Opposition Members who take every opportunity to discourage inward investment from Japan and other countries?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in dissociating myself from the remarks of Opposition Members, to which reference has already been made. The scale of inward investment in this country proves that we have created the sort of environment which encourages manufacturers and entrepreneurs. It is disheartening to industry that the Labour party would seek to reverse all the progress that we have made in trade union law, taxation and deregulation, and would do its best to discourage British manufacturing industry.

    Manufacturing Trade
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the size of the manufacturing trade deficit for the current financial year.
    Mr. Needham: In the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1992–93, the manufacturing trade deficit for 1992 was forecast to be £5 billion.
    Mr. Mullin: How is that possible after 12 years of Conservative government?
    Mr. Needham: As I said earlier, the percentage deficit on visible trade, at 4·7 per cent., is ·7 per cent. higher than it was in 1979.
    Mr. Dickens: Faced with a world recession, British companies have had to take a close look at their management and work forces, as well as their overheads, other costs and production techniques. As a result of this, am I right in saying that our businesses and manufacturing industries are streamlined and efficient, and well ready to take off now that the world recession is starting to ease?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past three years the volume of United Kingdom trade has increased, rather than decreased as it did year after year when Labour was in power.
    Mr. Skinner: As we have had a recession for about three years and as it is accepted that when consumer demand is much lower the balance of trade falls, is it not remarkable and dangerous to have to accept that our balance of trade deficit will probably be about £9 billion when we get the autumn statement? If that is correct and if there is an upturn in the economy, which I doubt, the danger is that the balance of payments deficit will soar well above £20 billion. Included in that deficit is £1 billion worth of coal coming into this country, when we ought to be exporting coal. We have 300 years of coal, so why is it not mined instead of the industry being run down?
    Mr. Needham: Industry is hardly being run down when our volume of exports is at an all-time high. As to the balance of payments deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product it is not very different from that of many other industrial countries which are also in recession.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report published this week by the Institute of Directors shows that business volume is up and optimism is good?

    331
    Does he agree that that survey of people who are involved in business paints a far more realistic picture than that which the gloom merchants opposite like to portray?
    Mr. Needham: I agree. We have heard speaker after speaker on the Opposition Benches continue to run British exporting down instead of promoting it.
    Mr. Henderson: If everything is so rosy in Britain, can the Minister explain why the trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product is the highest of all the G7 countries?
    Mr. Needham: I did not for one moment say that everything was rosy in Britain, because we are part of a worldwide recession. What I did say, and what I continue to say, is that British exporting performance ranks alongside that of any other country in the world. So long as we promote and advertise that fact, we shall restore confidence instead of knocking it, as Opposition Members try to do.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that the telecommunications industry has benefited greatly from the deregulation and denationalisation of our industries. Industries throughout the world have benefited from Britain's freeing up. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that European and other countries free up their telecommunications industries so that we can sell our excellent products to them?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend knows that one of the foremost objectives of our presidency is to ensure that in the Internal Market Council we obtain enforcement and compliance in opening up the markets of Europe, particularly the public sector markets, to the sort of competition which has benefited our consumers here and has benefited suppliers in the telecommunications industry in this country.

    Assisted Areas
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recognition he will give in conducting his recently announced review of assisted areas boundaries, to the cases made by black spot areas within or overlapping travel-to-work areas.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Government made it clear in the consultation document that the assisted area map will continue to be designated on the basis of travel-to-work areas. We will, however, take full account of the problems of any black spot areas within these travel-to-work areas or overlapping their boundaries.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister accept that travel-to-work areas are a useful guide, but should not be a straitjacket for this process? Does he also accept that travel-to-work area boundaries are long overdue for review, in that separate communities can be thrown together artificially and bear no relationship to true patterns of travel to work? Is he aware that the town of Ilfracombe in my constituency is a long-term unemployment blackspot, with unemployment higher than Liverpool and, indeed, higher than all but two of the existing development areas? Can the Minister confirm that those problems will be recognised, either by making entire
    332
    travel-to-work areas which include blackspots into development areas, or by fragmenting the travel-to-work area map?
    Finally, will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on suggestions in The Guardian that the Government intend to use the review to featherbed marginal Conservative parliamentary constituencies at the expense of those held by Opposition parties?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I caution hon. Members that this is Question Time and they should not make such long speeches.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's last remark was unworthy of him. I am, of course, aware that travel-to-work areas are not a perfect measure, but they are an indication of the areas within which people move around to seek employment opportunities. The areas will be reviewed when the data from the most recent census become available, but that will not be until 1994 and I do not think that we should delay the review of the assisted area map until then.

    Replacement Parts
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the replacement parts industry concerning the European Commission's green paper on industrial design.
    Mr. Leigh: I have met representatives of the Association of British Insurers and of the Consumers Association to discuss the possible effects of the European Commission's green paper.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Commission proposals, if implemented, would devastate many thousands of small businesses in this country involved in the manufacture of spare parts for motor cars and specialised body panels? Is that not a travesty of the principle of subsidiarity, and will it not lead to a monopoly for motor vehicle manufacturers, which can only increase prices and reduce choice? Will my hon. Friend totally oppose the proposals?
    Mr. Leigh: I confirm that I shall, indeed, totally oppose the measures, which are ill thought out, hasty and anti-competitive. Clearly it makes sense to have some sort of design harmonisation throughout the EC, but that should be done on a deregulatory basis. It makes no sense to insist on design harmonisation for spare parts, which could drive many small firms out of business. I confirm to my hon. Friend and to the House that we shall fight the proposals in the Council and before the Council.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that our influence on industrial design will decline as a result of his Department's inactivity and failure to defend the INMOS jobs about to be exported to France and Italy, and will he tell me now whether the Department has been in touch with Michel Carpentier, the director general of DGXIII? Mr. Carpentier says that the Government have not been in touch with him, and that if they had, the jobs could have been saved. He described the move of those British jobs to Europe as stupid. I know that the Government have been in touch with one department of the Commission, but has the Minister been in touch with DGXIII and DGXVI?
    Mr. Leigh: The simple answer to that question is yes.

    Price Marking
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the proposed new price marking order.
    Mr. Leigh: I have received representations from the British Retail Consortium and from trading standards officers.
    Mr. Alexander: Have those representations included the fact that people selling small high-priced items such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals could be severely disadvantaged by the proposed order? Is my hon. Friend aware that if people have to be able to see items and their prices without assistance, that would be impossible for sellers who keep goods being the counter, or under the counter? Will my hon. Friend take that concern on board?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right to be worried about that. As with so much that comes from the Commission on such subjects, it is sensible in principle to insist that shopkeepers should display prices in shop windows and on goods displayed behind the counter, but things go wrong when the Commission tries to be far too prescriptive— laying down, for example, as does the lengthy document which I have here, that hair care products, bath products, lacquer shampoos and rinsing products should all have their prices displayed as decreed in the memorandum. That is a regulation too far. It is too prescriptive. In our negotiations with the Commission we must seek to extend it, and we shall do precisely that.

    End User Certificates
    Mr. Alton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the arrangements made by his Department to check the authenticity of end user certificates.
    Mr. Needham: Export controls in the United Kingdom are strictly enforced. My Department and other Departments involved keep under constant review the measures necessary to ensure their continued enforcement.
    Mr. Alton: The Minister will have seen the disturbing allegations in The Independent concerning the illicit use of
    334
    equipment manufactured in the United Kingdom. Given the scale of the problems illustrated in the articles, will he assure the House that he will undertake an overhaul of the existing end user arrangements as they are clearly not working satisfactorily?
    Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, and his concern, but some 56,000 licence applications on military goods have been presented by the purchasers of those goods in the past five years. Those certificates form only a small part of the information on which the Department relies.
    I wrote in reply to the article in The Independent, asking about Mr. Kelsey's sources of information, but so far I have heard nothing.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent reports in the Sunday Times suggesting that a major British defence contractor falsified documents to export items which would help a third world country to achieve nuclear weapon status? Should that not be cracked down on most firmly, and should not such firms be put on notice that they cannot expect Government defence contracts if they circumvent our laws in that underhand way?
    Mr. Needham: If our laws are so circumvented and information is supplied which is knowingly incorrect, it is a criminal offence.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should not the principle of end user certification be extended to the export of food products for humanitarian purposes? Will the Minister confirm that under arrangements approved by the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry it is possible for British food producers to export food to Iraq —where the client is Saddam Hussein and his agencies —for consumption by the republican guard? Is that not the position now being implemented by the Department?
    Mr. Needham: The Department acts as the agency for issuing licences. Food which goes to Iraq must be accepted by the UN sanctions committee and must pass the humanitarian causes requirement before it is allowed. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of a particular case, I shall be only too happy to look into it.

"Health of the Nation"
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I should like to make a statement about better health.
I am publishing today a White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. Last June, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, published a Green Paper on the same subject, since when we have consulted extensively.
We made it clear before and during the election that a White Paper on health would be one of the first priorities of the new Conservative Government. Today, we honour that pledge.
The Government are committed to improving the health of the nation. The White Paper is the latest, but not the last, step in our strategy. The response to the Green Paper was impressive. More than 2,100 individuals and organisations responded directly. There has been a wide and productive debate at specially organised conferences and workshops, in newspapers and journals, and on television and radio.
That response reflects the growing interest in health matters as a whole. Hon. Members will know that people have become more conscious about what they eat, how much exercise they take and how they can generally improve the quality of their lives by becoming healthier.
We wish to build on that healthy trend. No responsible Government can be a disinterested observer of an unhealthy nation. There is an enormous cost to the national health service and to our economy of avoidable illness. It includes working days lost and expensive treatment given. We should prevent illness wherever we can. Prevention is better than cure. We shall be able to target health resources where they are really needed.
We are spending record amounts on the national health service. We must use resources to improve health as well as health care. We are seeking to improve the quality of life, and of individuals' lives, in the most cost-effective way.
One central message has emerged from the consultation exercise on the Green Paper—the wide backing for the overall strategic approach that it proposed. There is support from among policy makers, practitioners and politicians of all parties. The World Health Organisation welcomed our strategy, describing it as a model that other countries might follow. I am particularly pleased to launch the White Paper just one week into the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.
At the heart of the White Paper is the setting of targets in key areas. We have selected five areas—coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers, mental illness, HIV-AIDS and sexual health and accidents.
In each of these key areas we have set challenging but achievable targets. In some areas they are tougher than those proposed in the Green Paper. Those targets include a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths from coronary heart disease and stroke by the year 2000; a 30 per cent. reduction in deaths from lung cancer for men by 2010; reducing the number of people who smoke from one third of the population to one fifth by the year 2000; and cutting childhood accidents by a third by the year 2005.
Our task was to choose areas of greatest concern: where there is the most serious avoidable loss of life or handicap,
336
and where the work needs to be done and can be done. The Department's chief medical officers have been closely involved in the work. We have drawn on a wide range of medical and other expert opinion.
Other areas do not cease to be important. In some cases, well developed initiatives to improve health already exist. For example, I announced last week that we have now achieved our 90 per cent. national target for immunisation against childhood diseases. We are now working to a new target of 95 per cent. by 1995.
In other areas, more development and research will be needed before national targets can be set. What we are proposing are not short-term measures. The strategy will grow and develop. To provide the knowledge and methodology for this to happen, the research and development strategy launched by my Department in April 1991 will play a crucial role. The White Paper identifies other possible target areas for the future. This underlines the fact that it represents a beginning, not an end.
I hope that the House will recognise and welcome the strategy. Coronary heart disease and strokes are the biggest causes of premature death and disability in this country. We have made considerable progress, but there is scope for more. Cancers account for a quarter of all deaths. Many of them can be prevented. Mental illness affects millions of people, with a high cost to the nation. There is still too often a taboo associated with it. Accidents are the most common cause of death in people under 30. Often they can be avoided. AIDS is the most significant new threat to public health this century. In improving sexual health generally lies the greatest scope for preventing HIV infection and the spread of this terrible disease.
We need targets for three reasons: they give us something real at which to aim, they provide a common focus for action, and they allow us to measure progress. To be respected, however, targets have to be tough. To be credible, they have to be realistic. It would be folly to set a target so out of reach that we would never get there, or one which is simply an extrapolation of existing trends.
Our comprehensive approach is unique. We have identified the broad strategies and the practical machinery needed to achieve targets. Everyone is involved. The White Paper is more than just the work of the national health service, vital though that is. It takes in the activities of every Department in Whitehall. It is for private companies and voluntary bodies, for local authorities as much as health authorities, for employers and trade unions, for organisations of -every kind, and for individuals of every age.
Working together, forming healthy alliances, is one of the central messages of "The Health of the Nation". The White Paper demonstrates the Government's commit-ment, first, by addressing a range of health issues which go well beyond the responsibility of the Department of Health; secondly, by highlighting the central role of the Cabinet Committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to oversee the development and implementation of the strategy—no other country has set up a similar structure at such a high level to take forward a health strategy—and, thirdly, by setting out a range of actions to improve health, which only Government can take.
While recognising the role of others, the national health service must be at the centre of the strategy. The

337
publication of the White Paper today marks a major new landmark in the development of the NHS. It is the next logical step in the process of health reform. It provides new opportunities to raise our sights beyond the provision of health care—important though that is—to health itself.
The national health service was founded to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. That was enshrined in the National Health Service Act 1946. This strategy carries those principles forward in a programme of work which will take us well into the next century.
The health reforms have enabled health authorities to take a more strategic look at the health needs of their local populations. The priority areas that we have selected and the targets that we have set match local needs and concerns. The NHS management executive will require health authorities to build the target-setting approach into all levels of local activity. The strategy will be central to the work of the NHS.
The NHS must also lead by example; it must be a healthy employer. Its 1 million employees must themselves play a part, helping themselves, their families and friends, as well as the patients for whom they care, to improve their health. We shall engage all NHS staff in making their own workplace a healthy place both for themselves and for patients. The NHS chief executive is working with the Health Education Authority to launch a special initiative on this later in the summer.
By many reckonings, we are healthy. In 1991, for the fourth successive year, perinatal and infant mortality rates fell to their lowest ever recorded levels. Our immunisation rates are high. We were the first country in the European Community to establish national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer. In the past decade, life expectancy has risen by three years for men and by two years for women.
We have been adding years to life; the health strategy is about adding life to those years. Ultimately, it also means adding even more years to life. No one doubts that there are areas in which we can grow healthier as a people. The White Paper has identified those key areas and it has proposed real action for improvement.
The ideas in this White Paper will take root and grow. We have the potential to take this country to the top of the health league. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook: There will be a broad welcome for the stress that the Secretary of State has rightly placed on promoting better health rather than just curing ill health. I offer a personal welcome for the toughening up of a target for a reduction in coronary heart disease which has been increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. The Secretary of State will recall that when I pointed out to her predecessor that the original target meant that there would be no increase in the rate of reduction, he described that point as "facile" and "a misunderstanding". I express my pleasure that the right hon. Lady shares my misunderstanding and has acted on it.
It would be unfair not to recognise that the right hon. Lady has responded to the criticism that the Government's proposals on mental health were only about the closure of institutions. I congratulate her on coming up with a welcome range of targets for positive improvement in the
338
mental health of individuals. These are all the more welcome as mental health does not always achieve the attention that it deserves in our deliberations.
The White Paper provides a bold target for cutting teenage pregnancies. In view of the trailers in the Sunday newspapers, I express some surprise that the Secretary of State made no mention of the target in her statement. Is that because she knows that the White Paper contains no new initiative on sex education and not a new penny for family planning? Will the right hon. Lady accept that, in this and in other measures, the reaction of many people to the White Paper will be that it has got the right diagnosis, but has not come up with the right prescriptions?
The White Paper identifies smoking as the largest single cause of preventable disease—a point stressed by the Secretary of State. Why, then, do the Government still duck a commitment to banning tobacco advertising? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the offer in the White Paper of a review of tobacco advertising will be greeted with disbelief? Was she not listening during the year of consultation on the Green Paper? Can she name one submission from anyone in health promotion which did not support a ban on tobacco advertising? Does she not understand that it will be widely believed that the Government's failure to act now on the issue has nothing to do with the need to collect further information through another review and everything to do with the 2,000 poster sites supplied to the Conservatives by Imperial Tobacco in the general election campaign?
The White Paper stresses the need for a healthier diet. Will the Government therefore bring back the nutritional standards for school meals which they scrapped as soon as they came into office? The White Paper calls for a cut in road accidents. Will the Government accept the case for random breath testing to crack down on drink driving? The White Paper stresses people's responsibility to keep a check on their health. Will the Government scrap the charges for eye tests which dramatically cut the number of people coming forward for that check? What does the Secretary of State intend to do to ensure an NHS dental check for everyone who wants it when dentists are leaving the NHS in droves?
The Secretary of State claimed that her White Paper was comprehensive. I think that that was the word that she used in her statement. How can a White Paper on health promotion be comprehensive when it does not once mention poverty? Does the Secretary of State recognise that by doubling the number of children in poverty the Government have increased the number of children brought up on a poor diet? Does she recognise the link between increased homelessness and increased respiratory disease? Does she recognise the increase in suicides as a result of the increase in unemployment among young men?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that everyone knows that those links are missing from the White Paper because they would require the Government to admit that by increasing inequality they have increased ill health'? A White Paper which does not propose a single measure to combat poverty, homelessness or unemployment is not a White Paper which offers better health to all.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my position, but move on swiftly to say that I do not know whether this will be his swansong.

339
Having said that, I hope that by the time we finish today we shall have had a last opportunity to convince him on several matters and errors of debate in recent years.
The hon. Gentleman raised several points which were a vindication of the strategy. He raised issues which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Social Security. That shows why it is so important to have a Cabinet Committee specifically to address the improvement of the health of the nation. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman on matters for which I am responsible. He will understand that other matters are precisely those which need further debate.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the targets had been strengthened. Indeed, in his working group the chief medical officer identified the targets and sought targets which were not extrapolations—the point that the hon. Gentleman made on the last occasion—but were challenging yet achievable. We have strengthened the targets not only on coronary heart disease but on smoking among women and on mental illness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising that we have included mental illness. We share the view that mental illness is the source of a great deal of disability and unhappiness and does not always get the focus that it requires.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty. The Department of Social Security spends £1 billion a week —an extra £600 million—on arrangements for low-income families. When we have discussed aspects of deprivation in our health debates, the hon. Gentleman has sought time and again to make the point that GPs in inner-city areas should not be expected to deliver the high targets set for the rest of the country. We disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We believe that we should encourage all areas to do as well as the best. That is why this year we are driving forward improvements in perinatal mortality rates to ensure that the least advanced areas do as well as those which are striking ahead. Above all, when it came to the GP contract, our approach was not a lower target for inner-city areas. On the contrary, it was to provide for the first time deprivation payments for GPs in inner-city areas.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned eye tests. As he will be aware, the number of tests has now reached the level that it was at when the charges were introduced. It is reasonable when allocating resources to expect those who can afford it to pay an average of 12p per week for their eye tests. As for dental checks, we have never had so much NHS dentistry at any stage of the national health service. There were 7 million more courses of adult treatment last year than in 1979.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned school meals. It is not our view that school meals should be controlled by central diktat, but we welcome the activities of local education authorities, which are working with nutritionists to produce healthy meals in their areas. One of the initiatives of the health strategy is healthy schools.
Smoking is an important area, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have strengthened targets for smoking. We are unequivocal in our determination to achieve those targets. What the hon. Gentleman does not always say is that only one country in the European community has achieved a sharper reduction in tobacco
340
smoking than this country, and that is the Netherlands. It is a curious fact that the majority of countries which support a ban on advertising also have nationalised tobacco industries.
When considering what influences people to take up smoking, the key factor is price. The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on the fact that under recent Conservative Governments the price of cigarettes has risen by 43 per cent. When Labour was in power, the price rose by a mere 1 per cent. That is the contrast. We recognise that advertising has a part to play, and that is why we have a stringent voluntary code. What is more, we have introduced the fiercest health warning labels on cigarettes of any EC country. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the tobacco industry is busy taking the Government to court on the strength of that.
This strategy represents an important new landmark for the national health service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring himself to a deathbed repentance and will admit that he was wrong about the GP contract and wrong about NHS health reforms, but that at least he is right to welcome in principle the "Health of the Nation" strategy.
Mr. Roger Sims: I welcome the publication of the White Paper and on behalf of my hon. Friends I congratulate my right hon. Friend on demonstrating that she is a Secretary of State for health and is not solely responsible for illness.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this year the Government will be spending nearly £36 billion on the treatment of illness and disease, a high proportion of which is avoidable? Does it not make sense, and is it not incumbent on us all and not just on politicians and medical people, to ensure by following the White Paper's proposals that we avoid illnesses and diseases which can be avoided?
My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of targets. Can she say a little more about the mechanisms proposed at Cabinet level and locally to progress how they are met?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, who has for many years been a champion of the cause of health strategy. As he rightly says, the White Paper sets the agenda for the Department of Health to consider health as well as health care. The reforms enable us to take that strategic approach so that we can assess the health needs of local communities precisely and translate them into concrete actions. The White Paper sets the third leg of the health service—prevention—as well as treatment and rehabilitation.
The NHS will be setting, and seeking to secure, delivery of those targets—the chief executive through the priorities and planning guidance, the regions by setting targets with the districts, and the districts by implementing those targets in the contracts that they place. At the same time, the ministerial Committee will want to monitor the development of the strategy and to ensure that, if we need more stringent action in any area to meet the targets, that action is taken.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall meet those targets, and we shall beat those targets.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Does the Minister accept that there is more to health promotion than giving up chips and taking up jogging? Does she recognise that all Government Departments must be involved? Will she now demonstrate her commitment to health promotion by

341
persuading the Government to ban tobacco advertising? Otherwise, people will assume that the Government are willing to profit from a person's addiction rather than do all in their power to prevent it.
Mrs. Bottomley: Certainly, I hope that the Department will practise what it preaches and that the NHS will practise what we preach. That is the significance of our initiative in ensuring that the NHS is an example of a healthy employer. As the largest employer in the country, it should certainly be a healthy employer. Our Department has been affected by the ministrations of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) when she was at the Department and we have already taken a number of practical steps.
I must repeat our absolute commitment to meeting the targets to reduce smoking. Days lost, unnecessary costs to the health service and personal misery all result from needless smoking. We are determined that, by price, education, stopping the £1 billion subsidy to the growing of tobacco, preventing the example of tobacco smoking, and continuing to review the role of advertising, we shall ensure that this country is in the lead in the reduction of smoking. However, it is hard for us to take lessons from countries whose records in the reduction of smoking leave much to be desired.
Several Hon Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have reached the point at which I must remind hon. Members to ask only one question. I also appeal to the Minister to answer briefly so that we can make progress.
Mr. Stephen Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper, which is to be welcomed, would not have been possible without the health reforms which preceded it? Is it not about time the Labour party accepted the great benefits that those health reforms and the British Medical Association have brought to the health service?
Mrs. Bottomley: Following your instructions, Madam Speaker, I will simply answer yes.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State remember the time when she worked for the Child Poverty Action Group, when she lobbied the then Government to set health targets for all groups of the population but particularly for low-income groups? Does she recall that the official response to her then was that it would have been incautious of the Government to set such targets as they might be held to them? I congratulate the Minister on being less spineless than her predecessor. Does she also recall that when she worked for the group there were many data on the link between low income and ill health which current data still support? As the Government's figures show that since 1979 there has been an inexorable rise in the number of people and families on low incomes, what steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strategy from undermining her objective that poor as well as rich families will achieve those targets?
Mrs. Bottomley: The strategy is for the whole Government and the whole nation. I have made it clear that we already spend £1 billion per week on social security payments. The priorities of social security payments have been reordered so that additional money goes to
342
low-income families. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the challenge for us all is to generate wealth so that we can provide welfare. That is so whether the money goes into social security payments or the national health service. As for the resources available in the health service, we are determined to do all that we possibly can to encourage those sectors which have not acheived as well as those which are striving ahead. That is why, when it comes to immunisation, screening and every other health indicator, we are making it our business to ensure that the resources and skills of the health service are directed to the areas which need them most.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that in Lancaster we have an outstandingly good health service, but we have one worrying problem? May I draw her attention to pages 69 onward of her White Paper in relation to skin cancer? Lancaster appears to have a higher incidence of all forms of skin cancer than similar districts. Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries to see whether we can get to the bottom of that problem and cure it?
Mrs. Bottomley: One of our new targets is to halt the spread of skin cancer by the year 2005. I have no doubt that representatives of the regional health authority will talk to those of my hon. Friend's excellent district health authority—to which my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute —to consider whether there are special factors such as a special health promotion campaign or other means to ensure that my hon. Friend's part of the country achieves the same targets as other districts.
Mr. Terry Davis: If the Government are serious about improving the nation's health, why will they not tackle the problem of ill health caused by bad housing and low incomes?
Mrs. Bottomley: The document contains a great deal about the importance of housing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment played an important part in the document's preparation. I believe that he has welcomed the initiative as there are many sectors in which environment and health walk hand in hand. The document talks of establishing an institute to help set targets and study the links more effectively. Opposition Members are circling without knowing much about the detail, but those who have been involved in the development of estate action and urban programmes and channelling resources to the Housing Corporation all know that the Government do not shirk their responsiblities to improve the nation's housing stock and recognise the associations.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her kind remarks about me and reciprocate by saying that with this excellent White Paper she runs the risk of being the best Secretary of State for Health that we have had in a long time. If she is serious about reducing the number of adult smokers in this country, will she follow up the point that she rightly made about the price of cigarettes and encourage our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that the real price of cigarettes—the most important element—goes up in this country year by year? Will she also ensure that we push hard in the

343
Community, using our presidency, to ensure that the £900 million worth of subsidies towards tobacco production in Europe come to an end?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful—very grateful—to my hon. Friend, who once again gets straight to the heart of the matter. Nearly £1 billion is spent on subsidising tobacco growing. However, of equal importance is the fact that we want other nations in the European Community to increase the price of cigarettes in their countries—and will take the opportunity of our presidency to push for that. If we do not, cheaper cigarettes could come into this country and undermine the policy. The price of cigarettes has increased by 43 per cent. while the Government have been in power. The White Paper reinforces that commitment to maintain the real price of cigarettes, which contrasts only too clearly with the record of the Labour party when in office.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State will recognise that no one would oppose the broad principles which underpin her statement today, but does she realise that in conceding a clear link between poverty and ill health—whether that poverty manifests itself through bad housing, lack of employment opportunities or bad environmental conditions—she has said that she is prepared to argue the case for additional expenditure in those public sectors? In that context, in the interesting conversations which have taken place on public expenditure, has she argued that instead of commissioning a fourth Trident submarine the money should be used for housing, education and employment opportunities?
Mrs. Bottomley: While our party has been in power, life expectancy has risen by two years for women and by three years for men. Perinatal and infant mortality are the lowest ever. The Labour party should therefore keep its remarks in context. Our economic policies will improve prosperity at all income levels. The public have no confidence in the Labour party's economic policies or— dare I say it?—in its health policies.
This strategy is about improving the health of the nation. I shall discuss with all my colleagues how we can work together to improve the health of the nation.
Dr. Liam Fox: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the proposals and targets for the mentally ill. Far too many work days are lost through mental ill health, and there are far too many suicides which would not necessarily have taken place if we had looked after those people better. The targets will be warmly welcomed. Does my right hon. Friend believe that they are attainable, and does she see a chink of light in the fact that they have at least temporarily stopped the sneering of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen?
Mrs. Bottomley: The targets that we set for mental illness are primarily associated with suicides. Nine per cent. of the life years lost by people under the age of 65 are due to suicide. Our concern is that many who have taken their own lives have been in touch with health or welfare professionals during the time before taking the fatal step, so it is extremely important, with the development of our mental health services, that we have better safeguards and a more effective and comprehensive service.
344
We have introduced a specific grant for mental illness. We are also working with nurses, doctors and other health professionals to ensure an effective and seamless service. I believe that we can meet these important targets.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department could make a contribution to giving babies a healthy and happy start in life if she accepted the report on maternity services issued by the Select Committee on Health? It includes a plea to the Department of Social Security to stop discriminating against the youngest mothers in the benefit system as they and their babies are the most vulnerable. Will the right hon. Lady take action on that?
Mrs. Bottomley: We shall be replying to the Select Committee shortly. I congratulate the hon. Lady and the members of the Select Committee on that important report, which I believe has changed the focus of the debate on maternity services. Having a baby in this country is a safe process now, and infant and perinatal mortality rates are at their lowest ever.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative that she has announced today and particularly on the targets that she has set for mental illness and mental health? I also congratulate her on the praise that she indirectly gave to the Select Committee, whose recommendations I think brought about the reduction in perinatal and neonatal mortality.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us may have priorities additional to the five that she has identified? One of the greatest concerns in the health service and the social services is about whether community care will be effective and fully implemented in 1 April 1993. We are, after all, dealing here with the most vulnerable groups in society.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend; I can give him that commitment. A great programme of work is under way—my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will give more details of it soon—to ensure effective implementation and co-operation between the agencies. My hon. Friend has always sounded a note of caution about the exit of patients from institutions. As has been recognised already, the target involves the health and social functioning of mentally ill people, not just bricks and mortar.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State explain whether she accepts that there is a direct link between poverty and poor health? Yes or no will do.
Mrs. Bottomley: I believe that there is an association between a number of social factors and health. This health strategy is about how we can maximise the health of the nation; that, too, involves taking into account a great number of factors.
The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that an inverse correlation governs some diseases and these factors. Breast cancer, it so happens, is inversely related to income—so the hon. Gentleman's assertion is not universally applicable.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative that she is taking. Is it not a deplorable fact that hundreds and thousands of

345
illnesses and deaths are self-inflicted and are largely preventable? If the situation could be changed in the years ahead, her efforts will have gained her much credit.
Mrs. Bottomley: We wish to make cost-effective improvements to health and it is clear that, by altering the focus, we can achieve real improvements in health, above all, by engaging and involving individuals, groups and employers in taking practical steps to ensure that the people for whom they are responsible make informed choices.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the White Paper, but why are we targeting male smokers when younger women smoke more than younger men? Prevention is better than cure. Is there anything in the White Paper to encourage a shake-up in the royal colleges and prepare surgeons and others to deal with the new challenges of that age and to give women a proper role in medical and surgical care? In particular, will the Medical Research Council be doing anything to develop an understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis, which is causing a great deal of concern and problems to many?
Mrs. Bottomley: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The target for the reduction of smoking in women has been strengthened since the Green Paper. We want to ensure that men and women receive the maximum possible health gain. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment about the role of women in the delivery of heatlh care. The national health service was the first Government department to sign up to Opportunity 2000 and we are determined to maximise the role of women in delivering health care throughout the service. ME is one of the many issues about which we received representations for inclusion. More work has to be undertaken as to what is an achievable target and what is effective intervention to achieve that target.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Warren Hawksley. No, I am sorry, Mr. Roy Thomason.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Sometimes it is an advantage to be mistaken for others. My right hon. Friend has said that this excellent health strategy is from the Government as a whole and not just her Department. How will she extend it to the Government as a whole, operating through other Departments, and in particular to the Department of Education?
Mrs. Bottomley: The ministerial Committee which meets under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House will hold all Ministers to account to ensure that they achieve progress and meet targets. In many sectors, we have similar interests with the Department of Education, as my hon. Friend rightly said. We work frequently through the Health Education Authority on smoking, sexual education, drug addiction, healthy eating and the development of healthy schools.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: If the Minister is committed to prevention rather than cure, why does she not restore nutritional standards to the school meals service? Why does she not negotiate with her colleagues in other Departments to stop the persecution of local authorities? Why have her Government persistently brought in policies which have damaged the school meals service? Why does she not act on the Black report
346
recommendation that youngsters should have access to a free school meal? That is the best way to prevent bad health in low-income families.
Mrs. Bottomley: We certainly support the education authorities' work locally to ensure that meals are healthy and appropriate. It is not our view that the right way to do that is by central diktat.
Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many doctors thought that the immunisation and cancer screening targets were not achievable—as did the Opposition, who poured scorn on them when they were first introduced?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that I must remind the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) yet again of his words in earlier debates about the general practitioner targets. He said that they were "too heroic" and "not achievable". In fact, nine out of 10 general practitioners are meeting the targets for immunisation and cancer screening, and three out of four are meeting the higher levels. That is a real credit to the family doctors and a real success in the health and welfare of women and children.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not sure what this expensive, pretty and ultimately superficial document is meant to reflect, but may I ask the right hon. Lady how the patients in my constituency will be helped by the quite clear distortion in the provision of health care by general practitioner fund holders? Not only is the right hon. Lady aware of that, but so is the whole of the health authority, which now has to deal with the problem.
Mrs. Bottomley: I find that a sad statement. The fund holders have made remarkable progress in innovating, developing and taking forward improved health care for their patients. Professor Glennister's report, which I recommend to the hon. Lady, makes it clear that the progress being achieved by fund holders is progress for the benefit of all general practitioners. It raises primary health care standards for all patients.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the very welcome targets can be effective only if there is a system under which we can analyse both the quality and the nature of the health care which needs to be delivered? Does that not go to the very heart of the Government's proposals for reforming the NHS? Do not the proposals answer the Opposition, who do not believe that we care enough about those who most require health care? Have we not provided, through deprivation payments and through splitting the contractor from the provider, the best way to deliver health care to those most in need?
Mrs. Bottomley: That is precisely the success of the health reforms. Health authorities have been freed to take a strategic view in assessing health needs, and they can now commission health care to meet those needs. They will be held to account for the targets that they have been set by the regions. For the first time, we have the mechanisms to deliver a health service which will truly achieve health gains rather than automatically deliver a health service.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: To establish health targets, there must have been a great deal of departmental research and statistical estimating.

347
Would you be able to estimate how many people will die by the year 2000 because of your inaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little tolerance with new Members.
Mr. Wicks: How many people will die because of the right hon. Lady's inaction in banning tobacco advertising? Is it because the Tory party is now the tobacco party?
Mrs. Bottomley: A great deal of research has gone into smoking and the factors behind it, and I hope that there will be more. It is difficult to explain, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, why we have had a sharper reduction in the number of people smoking than any country except the Netherlands—which, like us, takes the view that the right way to control tobacco advertising is by a voluntary agreement. Price is a most important factor. When the Opposition were in office, the price of cigarettes increased by less than 1 per cent. We have increased it by 43 per cent.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I draw attention to the progress being made in beating by one third the targets set by another Secretary of State for reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads? I remind my right hon. Friend that the view echoed then was that the only way to reduce drink driving was to institute random breath testing; similar views are expressed now about tobacco advertising. The Labour party was wrong about that. Should not Labour Members look at the figures rather than the slogans?
Mrs. Bottomley: I believe that the Labour party was wrong and my close hon. Friend is right. Along with his ministerial colleagues, he did an enormous amount to change people's understanding of the effects of drinking and driving. Fifteen per cent. of life years lost by those under 65 are lost as a result of accidents; that applies not least to lives lost on the roads.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that the Secretary of State will know of the work done by Dr. Harvey Brenner and others on the correlation between unemployment and ill health, and the subsequent work done in this country by, in particular, Dr. Beale in the Wiltshire, North constituency—which, of course, is represented by the Minister for Trade. What provision is made in the White Paper to deal with the special category of people involved? I note that it is not included in the list of special categories towards the end of the document.
Mrs. Bottomley: I can only make it clear again that this is a Government strategy to achieve improvements in health. We have set challenging targets: we shall meet those targets, and we shall use all the means at our disposal for that purpose.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has just scorned my right hon. Friend's welcome targets for a reduction in the rate of pregnancies in those under 16. Does she agree that he should take an extended tour—a Cook's tour, indeed —to Holland, where the rate of pregnancies in under-16s is twice as low as ours?
Mrs. Bottomley: The subject referred to by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and by my hon. Friend is of great concern. I did not deal with it properly earlier.
In recent years, there has been a vast expansion in the provision of family planning services by general practitioners. Two out of three women now go to their GPs for family planning advice. However, that development has not been accompanied by a proper review of the appropriate role of family planning clinics. This year, one of the priorities of the NHS has been to review the provision of family planning clinics, and to ensure that they offer choice and a service for young people where that is appropriate. In supporting that work, we shall certainly take advice from Holland about how this worrying problem can be tackled.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that the death rate as a result of accidents is intolerably high? Will she bear in mind that certain industries—notably the construction industry—involve a large number of such deaths and that little or nothing is being done to arrest that? Will she ensure that the matter is addressed as part of her strategy?
Mrs. Bottomley: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The accident record in this country compares favourably with that in other countries. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, however. Along with the Health and Safety Executive, which has worked closely with us in implementing the strategy, we want to promote the initiate of healthy alliances, especially in the workplace.
Mr. Simon Coombes: If my right hon. Friend's targets are to be realised in future, millions of ordinary people will have to change their life styles dramatically. Does she recognise that the key to that is education, and that an increase in the resources available to the Health Education Authority and health education facilities throughout the country is a necessary prerequisite for the achievement of such targets?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a great champion of the cause for many years. We work extremely closely with the Health Education Authority, which has been very much involved in our strategy.
The HEA's contribution is important, but so, too, is the role of other health professionals. Following the introduction of the new GP contract, a number of health promotion clinics have been set up. Using the work of GPs in spreading the necessary messages has been extremely effective. We must involve nurses, other health professionals and those in the wider area to ensure that people know and understand the sensible choices that they can make to improve their health.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As usual, my question will be brief and pithy. If these stringent voluntary advertising agreements with the tobacco industry are so effective, why is that industry now targeting young women through women's magazines, with the result that the number of young women who smoke is rising? Would not the health and lives of thousands of young women be saved if these voluntary agreements were even more stringent?
Mrs. Bottomley: All these matters are subject to continual review. The targets that we have set will be met. There is a particular rise in the target for a reduction in smoking amongst women. We are especially concerned about smoking among pregnant women, and in that regard there will be further initiatives. With regard to relations with the tobacco industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that industry is currently taking legal action against the Government because the packet labels that we have introduced are the most severe.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: While we welcome the White Paper, the last thing we want is to frighten the nation to death. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is perfectly possible to enjoy a good lunch and a glass of wine and still live to a ripe old age? Does she agree that stress and tension, as demonstrated by the Opposition, are just as likely to cause heart disease as over-eating?
Mrs. Bottomley: With reservations, I confirm my hon. Friend's comments. On Saturday I went to a 100th birthday party. The person who had just become 100 years old ate moderately, drank little, had always taken a good deal of exercise and smoked not at all. I think that that indicates that the advice that we are spreading through our document should be followed.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister accept that her cosy, vapid comments will entirely lack credibility so long as she fails to tackle the real problem of advertising with regard to the cancer-producing substances of tobacco? Could she not start by banning secondary advertising at outside sporting events, mainly through BBC television? There is clear advertising of cigarettes through that medium. The right hon. Lady could then go on to tackle the advertising of booze—alcohol products which cause an enormous amount of ill health in the nation. Or are the Tory Government simply in the pocket of the tobacco manufacturers and the brewers?
Mrs. Bottomley: The Labour party seems to be fixated on one means which it alleges can deliver an end. We are determined to achieve that end. Our aim is that this country should not just be the European Community member with the second greatest fall in tobacco consumption but should build further on that record and do even better by the end of the century. We shall use whatever means can achieve that end. As I have said before, I believe that price is important, that subsidising the growing of tobacco is important, and that advertising is important. In the case of advertising, that is why we have the voluntary agreement, which is constantly subject to renegotiation. Further powers have been taken to tighten control of the sale of cigarettes to under-age children. I take the view that, with regard to smoking, the worst effect on young children is produced by the smoking of parents.
Mr. John Bowis: My right hon. Friend's strategy is very welcome. Can she confirm that built into it is flexibility which will allow for the changing needs in medical science, such as growing awareness of the problems of younger Alzheimer sufferers, and for use of the whole range of medical science, including homeopathic medicine?
Mrs. Bottomley: The strategy is a beginning, not an end. We shall build on the targets. I hope that we shall
350
develop them and broaden them and that new key areas will be introduced. We are working very closely with the director of research and development in the national health service so as to develop better mechanisms to set and achieve targets. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind as we carry the strategy forward.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: The Secretary of State has said today that she supports a voluntary code for the advertising of tobacco products. She also referred to the fact that the best way to curb tobacco smoking is an increase in price. Will she be kind enough to tell us what level of price increase she is prepared to support?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am not prepared to tolerate any increase in smoking. That is why we have introduced strict targets to reduce smoking even further. There has been a significant fall in this country which, as I have already explained, is greater than in any other country apart from the Netherlands, which happens to take our view on the banning of tobacco advertising. There is concern about particular groups. They are a source of concern to us, of course. We must make sure that we continue to take all possible steps that will effectively achieve that end.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome this further step in the development of the Government's preventive health policy, which I understand has already been described by the World Health Organisation as a model for other countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to increase the targets for reducing coronary heart disease, it is vital to inculcate, particularly in young people, habits of exercise to promote good health? To that extent, will my right hon. Friend liaise with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that physical education in schools is given much higher priority than it is at present, when all too often only one hour per week is allocated to this very important activity?
Mrs. Bottomley: I shall certainly speak not only to the Secretary of State for Education but also to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said about the World Health Organisation. Its director general, Dr. Nakajima, said:
"The health of the nation has international value. I. am sure other countries will benefit greatly from the approach England has adopted."
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continued price increases since 1979 for prescription charges, dental treatment and eye testing undermine and erode the whole concept of the national health service? Bearing in mind that fact and the Secretary of State's refusal to take any action over cigarette advertising, less hypocrisy from her on these issues would be welcome.
Mrs. Bottomley: I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the facts more closely. On prescriptions, when the Labour party was in power, one item in three carried a charge. Only one item in five now carries a charge. Furthermore, life expectancy has increased by three years for men and by two years for women. Perinatal and infant mortality have fallen dramatically. According to a great number of criteria, the nation is healthier now than ever before. Our health strategy is about carrying that forward further and faster.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a disturbing increase in asthma and related problems among children, particularly those living in inner-city environments? Is she prepared to undertake a serious study of the link between asthma in young children in inner-city environments, the increase in pollution caused by traffic, and inadequate housing? Until now, in response to parliamentary questions from me, she has said that there is no central recording and correlation of these data.
Mrs. Bottomley: The director of research and development has made it clear that better research in the case of asthma is something that we very much want to take forward. There has been a growth in asthma among children. All the factors are not properly appreciated. More work needs to be done. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a pretty clear undertaking that this will come forward as a key target area at a later date when we have more information.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: to what extent has the Department costed these plans? Is she aware that the Northern region costed the meeting of a coronary heart disease target in the Green Paper as between £1·6 million and £2·4 million each year until the year 2000? There are many other regions, including those in Scotland and Wales. What will be the total cost of the proposals? Will there be new money, or does the Secretary of State intend to raid existing NHS budgets and force cuts in other areas? Can she guarantee that there will be new money to fund all the targets?
Mrs. Bottomley: The purpose of the health service is to deliver high quality services and to achieve health gain. By concentrating on prevention in these areas, we can achieve health gain cost-effectively. That is our whole strategy for health—the result of our work in reforming the national health service. We spend £100 million a day on the NHS —we have never before put more money into it—and as more money goes in, so priority will be given to the key areas, chosen because through them we can most effectively improve the health of the nation.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Would not a more appropriate title for the White Paper be, "The Health of Two Nations"? Has not a section of our population been so impoverished by the Government that they cannot afford the high quality diet recommended? Their children are not getting high quality food at school —and often come back to damp and inadequate homes, which reflects the local government cuts enforced by the Government.
Mrs. Bottomley: I do not have sympathy with those remarks. I have made it clear that, for example, one of the most important developments in the general practitioner contract was the introduction of deprivation payments for GPs working in inner cities. Throughout all the key areas that we are considering it is important to ensure that those areas which have not made the same progress as others catch up. That is where health resources are concentrated —the skill, effort and determination necessary to meet the targets and to ensure that we tackle variations wherever possible.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: As you are aware, Madam Speaker, this morning the Bank of England published its response to the report of the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service on banking supervision and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, dated 4 March. When I sought to obtain a copy of the report from the Library, I was told that none was available. I realise that the Governor of the Bank of England is running around the City like a headless chicken, seeking to defuse the expected criticism in the Bingham report. However, when public bodies respond to a Select Committee report, is it right that they should tell the Press Association before telling hon. Members?
Have you, Madam Speaker, had any intimation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he is in a position to make a statement on when the Bingham inquiry report is to be published? There are only five days left before the recess, and hundreds of thousands of people all over the world are waiting for the results of the inquiry.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Please—Mr. Terence Higgins.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: It is always inconvenient for the House when an hon. Member receives a written answer that does not appear in Hansard until the following day. For the convenience of the House, perhaps I should therefore mention that an hour or so ago I received a written reply to a question asking when there would be a response from the Bank of England to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The answer said that the Treasury Minister understood that a response had now been made and a copy placed in the Library. I received a copy earlier today, and I believe that copies are now available in the Library. No doubt, when the Select Committee is reconstituted—I very much hope that it will be next week—it will wish to consider the Bank of England's response.
Although the response accepts some of the recommen-dations, it does not accept them all; nor, in my view, is it adequate. But—
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is getting rather carried away—points of order are for the Chair. His earlier remarks were extremely helpful.
Mr. Higgins: Then I shall say no more, Madam Speaker —other than that the response does not seem to cover the criticisms that have been made and that I therefore hope that there will he a further response at a later stage.
Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I confirm what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has said. The Library has provided me with a copy of the report.
My point of order concerns the actions of the Bank of England in relation to the procedures of the House. Today, the Bank of England has published its response to the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on banking supervision and BCCI. On page 12 of The Guardian today there is an article by Alex Brummer and John Willcock headed

353
"BCCI prompts Bank to seek law change".
I have checked the article against the report. It could have been written only by journalists who had the report. At the very least, it is discourteous and deceitful of the Bank of England to give copies of the report to journalists before it is available to hon. Members. I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, know what has happened: before hon. Members get the Bingham report, the Governor has attempted a pre-emptive strike because he knows that his job is on the line. I believe that that is an abuse of the procedures of the House. I hope that you will deprecate the actions of the Governor of the Bank of England.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I deal, first, with the points of order that have been made? In answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I have had no indication that the Chancellor or another Treasury Minister wants to make a statement today. I strongly deprecate the action of the Bank of England, because it shows great discourtesy to the House. As the House knows, I have no influence on the Bank of England. but, as a matter of courtesy, I would expect the House to be informed of a response to a Select Committee report before any other outside body.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported that the Government have appointed consultants to review the future of water services in a Scotland with a view to privatisation. That would affect everybody in Scotland, yet local authorities and workers in the industry have not been consulted and a statement has not been made on the Floor of the House. There is no Scottish Select Committee and there will be no Scottish Question Time between now and the recess. How can we make the Government answerable without them yet again resorting to the medium of a planted written question to deal with important Scottish matters?
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. It occurred to me that we have the debate on the summer Adjournment tomorrow and he might like to try his luck in that.
Mr. Terry Rooney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The European Court ruled this morning that the Shops Act 1950 does not breach European law. In the light of that, and to assist local authorities, is not it time that the Government introduced legislation—preferably along the lines of the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)—so that this nonsense of law-breaking up and down the country can be brought to an end?
Madam Speaker: That was a good try, but it is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter to put to the Government in business questions.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I raise a matter with you in your capacity as the defender of rights and privileges of Back Benchers? We have no greater privilege than the right to put questions to the Government.
For the past six months, I have been raising with the Government a matter of the greatest importance to my constituency. I received five answers last Thursday and a letter last night giving me ambiguous replies. Today, I was told that the Government had been in touch with Directorate-General XIII. I have since telephoned Brussels, which has no trace of any contact with the Government on this important matter. Unless that contact was made today, the answer that I was given was not entirely true. I realise that you, Madam Speaker, are not responsible for these matters, but I ask you to use your great influence to ensure that answers to hon. Members are intelligent and truthful.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that answers to Members are truthful. I do not have the influence that the hon. Member gives me credit for. I understand his frustration, because he has raised the subject on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House. I shall look into it.

Transactions with Tax Havens (Sanctions)
4.44 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide sanctions against persons or organisations who engage in financial dealings with tax havens; to amend the Companies Acts in respect of audits carried out by accountants who maintain offices in tax havens and in respect of the duties of directors of public companies; to amend the Banking Acts in respect of transactions with banks situated in tax havens; to regulate the activities of advocates, barristers and solicitors with regard to transactions with tax havens; and for connected purposes.
Although I am a chartered accountant and I shall mention the accounting profession in my speech, I have no financial interest in tax havens.
The House will he aware that one important aspect of the Maxwell affair is the fact that Mr. Maxwell based his business empire in the tax haven of Liechtenstein. Financial transactions with Liechtenstein are rarely, if ever, for honest purposes. The same is true of many financial transactions with other tax havens.
Recently, we have seen a number of large frauds involving loss to our citizens as a result of transactions involving tax havens. Consequently, I wish to introduce a Bill that would make it unlawful to carry out most types of financial transactions with tax havens. My Bill would provide for sanctions against professional persons—bankers, accountants or lawyers—who provide advice or assistance with financial transactions involving tax havens.
My Bill would further provide that directors of public companies and of companies managing collective investment schemes such as pension funds and unit trusts shall not enter into transactions with tax havens either personally or through their companies. If my Bill had been law in this country, there would not have been the scandal of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, in which many United Kingdom citizens lost hundreds of millions of pounds, the scandal of Polly Peck in which hundreds of millions of pounds are still unaccounted for, the scandal of Barlow Clowes or the scandal of Mr. Robert Maxwell stealing so many hundreds of millions of pounds from the pensioners who had worked for his companies.
One point that I should like to make clear to the House is that the problem that tax havens cause is not so much related to the low rates of tax that exist in them; if that were so, the United Kingdom might be regarded as a tax haven. The main problem caused by tax havens is that they allow transactions to take place in conditions of extreme secrecy. which can be used by fraudsters like Maxwell and the management of BCCI unlawfully to remove many hundreds of millions of pounds from our citizens.
The use of the words "tax havens" is less and less appropriate as they become more and more fraud havens. Indeed, in my draft Bill I have not sought to construct my definition of a tax haven in terms of it being a low-tax area, since that of itself is of little concern. Instead, I have constructed the definition on the fact that a tax haven or fraud haven is a place where money goes missing and where there are no legal arrangements in operation that enable United Kingdom citizens who have been defrauded to obtain information or help that would assist them in the recovery of the money that they have lost.
Many people will ask, "How serious is the problem of tax havens?" I should like to make it clear that the Government have certainly tried to tighten tax law to
356
reduce avoidance and evasion. However, the effectiveness in practice of some of the changes is open to doubt, and in any event the changes in tax law have not dealt with the problem of business and personal fraud.
Although there are no published figures, it is likely that as much as £2 billion a year may be lost in avoided or evaded tax and business or personal fraud through the use of tax havens or fraud havens. One has only to look at the large firms of United Kingdom accountants that maintain associate offices in the tax havens to see how big the business has become.
Although my Bill is mainly concerned with preventing fraud, a tax haven would not be a tax haven if it were not for the reduction in taxation that could be achieved by a person controlling a business from there or creating tax-efficient transactions re-routed through the tax haven. Often, that person gains the benefit of living in or carrying on a business in the United Kingdom but avoids or evades paying tax here by controlling his or her business assets through an offshore trust.
That is just what Robert Maxwell did. He never claimed to own the Daily Mirror; he claimed only to be its publisher, with ownership controlled by a Liechtenstein trust. That convenient arrangement enabled Maxwell to avoid—some would say evade—about £100 million of capital and other taxes that should have been payable on the profits made by his investment in the Mirror Group.
The loss of tax revenues through tax havens is clearly a serious matter. We could probably reduce income tax by a further 1p in the pound if the Government tightened this area still further. Losses caused by tax havens are by no means limited to the loss of tax revenues. Commercial and personal fraud through tax havens is running at record levels.
In the past 10 years, there have been nine Department of Trade and Industry company investigations which have found extensive details of fraud involving Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Those DTI investigations also detailed the part that other tax havens have played in assisting frauds through the provision of a cloak of secrecy behind which crooks can operate. Consequently, the main purpose of the Bill is to reduce economic loss to the United Kingdom and our people and to discourage white collar crime.
Which are the tax haven countries? According to my definition of a tax haven, the main criterion is that it is a country that assists fraudsters in the taking of other people's money. It is not my intention to penalise a tax haven because it may have a lower rate of tax than the United Kingdom; my concern is that income and capital gains should not be diverted to a tax haven from the United Kingdom to enable a person who benefits from an association with the United Kingdom to evade or even avoid tax in the United Kingdom.
The Bill is directed at the tax havens that assist frauds to take place as well as tax evasion, drug dealing, money laundering and insider dealing. They are crimes that the United Kingdom Government regularly enact legislation to prevent, but all United Kingdom Governments—Labour and Conservative—have failed to tackle the problem adequately in terms of hitting the white collar criminal where it hurts, which is in his or her bank account. The Government must face the issue because the size of frauds involving tax havens is growing and the number of frauds may also be increasing.
Some areas that are regarded as tax havens, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, could easily adapt

357
their systems to avoid being classed as tax havens. All they have to do is accept that where a monetary loss takes place in the United Kingdom, they will co-operate in righting the wrong. Indeed, I believe that some degree of co-operation from those countries has been available in the past.
My main concerns are with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands Antilles and a number of United Kingdom dependent territories in the Caribbean such as the Cayman islands, the British Virgin islands and Panama. The latter countries and United Kingdom-dependent territories are the countries where many of the fraudulent transactions take place. Too many tax havens have traditional relationships with the United Kingdom. That is no excuse for allowing their economies to develop around fraud. Their people will become lazy and their economies will not develop properly. The Foreign Office has a duty to our citizens to review its policies towards those territories and to suggest policies which benefit this nation and its people.
Too many tax avoiders and evaders have been using such tax havens. Too many creative accountants or company directors have been using them; for example, Mr. Maxwell arranged a number of transactions of such a nature to manipulate the accounts of the Maxwell Communication Corporation. Large international drug dealers are known to use places such as Panama. Share manipulators, a new breed. were found to use tax havens in the Guinness affair, and Goldman Sachs did a large number of share transactions in Maxwell Communication Corporation shares from Liechtenstein trusts in very dubious circumstances.
Tax havens have been found to be used by insider dealers in the United States, and a significant one was caught recently. Sadly, no big insider dealers have been caught here. Those caught have tended to be the smaller ones, and one wonders whether that is because the investigations have gone to the door of the tax havens but, because of secrecy laws, have been unable to go any further.
The case for the Bill, or for measures with a similar effect to be introduced by the Government. is overwhelming. How will the Bill operate? In practice, United Kingdom accountants and accounting firms, lawyers and other professionals who have privileges enshrined in law would have sanctions brought against
358
them if they continued to make transactions with tax havens. Accountants carrying out audits and law firms have significant privileges in law. If the privileges are to be sustained, such people and organisations must also have responsibilities to others. Tax havens and transactions with tax havens should be restricted, and sanctions should be used against those who carry out their work in tax havens.
United Kingdom public company directors also have many privileges. They should not own or carry out transactions in a tax haven—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I invite the hon. Gentleman to wind up?
Mr. Shaw: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude.
My Bill would work. I believe that the sanctions, which would be onerous, would be effective because they are necessary to restrict the fraud that has taken place in the companies that I mentioned. The Maxwell fraud and the misery that has been caused to many retired and elderly people make one realise that no measure can be too draconian if it prevents such an evil fraud. I believe that many banks in the City of London would welcome the Bill because it would assist them in preventing and tackling fraud within their own operations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Simon Hughes.

TRANSACTIONS WITH TAX HAVENS (SANCTIONS)
Mr. David Shaw accordingly presented a Bill to provide sanctions against persons or organisations who engage in financial dealings with tax havens; to amend the Companies Acts in respect of audits carried out by accountants who maintain offices in tax havens and in respect of the duties of directors of public companies; to amend the Banking Acts in respect of transactions with banks situated in tax havens; to regulate the activities of advocates, barristers and solicitors with regard to transactions with tax havens; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 November and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
Orders of the Day
  Finance Bill
  Not amended in the Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New Clause 12

  HOME INCOME PLANS (INVESTMENT BOND SCHEMES)
  '.—(1) Where a person has sold since 6th April 1986, more than ten investment bond related home income plans to individuals, the provisions of this section shall apply to them.
  (2) A person falling within the provisions of this section shall be entitled to a reduction in their tax liability for 1992–93 of the amount specified in subsection (3) below if the condition of subsection (4) below is met.
  (3) The reduction in tax liability referred to in subsection (2) above shall be £1.
  (4) The condition referred to in subsection (2) above is that no more than 10 per cent of the investment bond related home income plans they have sold since 6th April 1986 have subsequently been terminated.
  (5) The Board is empowered by this subsection to issue regulations defining the term "investment bond related home income plans".'.
  Brought up, and read the First time.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The last time the issue of home income plans was raised on the Floor of the House was in March, during the debate on the Friendly Societies Bill. At that time, I registered my concern, that of my party and, indeed, that of hon. Members of all parties about the thousands of pensioner households which had been inveigled into making investments in wholly unsuitable home income plans. I also said that I had doubts about the effectiveness of the Government's response, which consisted of setting up a committee of regulators to examine problem cases.
  We make no apology for bringing the House's attention to the subject again, because we see no evidence—and our postbags reflect this —that the problems have been dealt with adequately. Indeed, there are currently a number of early-day motions which have attracted widespread support from hon. Members of all parties.
  The subject, which is of particular concern, has been raised during points of order and in the presentation of the Bill. It is of particular concern because of the warnings that have repeatedly been given, not least by my colleagues, that the Government's deregulation of the financial system has left the unsophisticated saver dangerously unprotected.
  The issue should concern all hon. Members. It follows directly on something that the Prime Minister said at the previous Tory party conference. Some Conservative Members will remember that they were there, clapping like agitated penguins at the Prime Minister's words. He said:
  "I want to give … every family the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life: their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future."
  They are fine words but they are, of course, belied by the number of home repossessions.
  360
  Home repossessions are especially tragic when they involve the victims of the home income plan scandal, victims who are in the main aged, in retirement and in the autumn of their lives. They find themselves on the verge of being flung out of their homes, and some are being flung out. A number of them have been driven to suicide as a result of their anxiety about the plans and the indebtedness into which they have fallen. Literally hundreds of people have written to me in the past nine months about their plight arising from the home income plans scandal. I know that hon. Members of all parties have received a similar postbag.
  I will read to the House some letters that give a sample of the agony and concern that these elderly people face. Mrs. Vera Hawkins of Bromley in Kent writes on behalf of her husband:
  "We are another elderly couple who are involved in the Home Investment Plan Scheme which went so distressingly wrong. My husband is 72 and I am 69.
  We are desperate because so far nobody has been prepared to stand up and be counted on our behalf.
  We understood that we were safely covered by FIMBRA the regulatory body. Can the Government tell us to what use or purpose these bodies exist? They are called 'Watchdogs.' Who are they watching? Not those devious firms who are their members! Not the clients who obviously so needed this! Did the number of clients increase their cash flow?"
  Mrs. Hawkins describes writing to the regulatory body and the unsatisfactory answer. She tells of the crippling burden of debt that she and her husband face. She also tells of the plight of other elderly people who have gathered together in support groups for victims. They are doing all they can, even in old age, to fight back.
  Mrs. Timperley writes from Northamptonshire. It is often the case that elderly women write because their husbands are too ashamed of the debts into which they have fallen to put pen to paper. Their distress is added to by the fact that they are of a generation for whom any indebtedness is a shame and a disgrace. They are often afraid to go to the local citizens advice bureau or to face their Members of Parliament at their surgeries.
  Mrs. Timperley writes:
  "I am 73 and my husband is 77. Three years ago we saw an advertisement in a magazine for the over-65s"—
  the sharks knew how to target their victims and where to go to attack the vulnerable and ill informed—
  "regarding these schemes. We were put in touch with the Portman Building Society and applied for a loan on our bungalow of £ 10.000 or less. The minimum was £20,000 so we borrowed that amount. After about one and a half years, we repaid £8,000 thinking it would bring the basic mortgage down to £12,000. We received a statement earier this month and to our dismay find that we owe nearly £22,000 and are paying interest on interest. This means that in a few years time we will he homeless and they will have the property for £12,000."
  Mrs. Timperley describes how she trusted the good faith of the building society and how, as a result of what she describes as sharp practice—an understatement—she is in her present plight. She asks whether something can be done
  "for all the elderly people who have been duped in this way and prevent it happening to others?"
  Those are just two letters from a postbag that runs into hundreds.
  The new clause is exploratory. We recognise that the procedural conventions of Finance Bills proscribe any amendment designed to increase revenue. They constrain us from our preferred course, which would be to levy a

  361
  substantial charge on financial advisers engaged in selling the schemes. Instead, we are obliged to offer a reward to any adviser who can demonstrate a 90 per cent. success rate. We do so in the confident expectation that no one will come forward because no one will be able to exhibit such success in relation to the ill-fated schemes. If anyone did so, he would receive the princely sum of £1, which shows how high in the public esteem those who sell such instruments are held.
  More importantly, the new clause provides an opportunity for the whole House, once again, to express its concern about the issue and to reassure the victims that they are not forgotten. It is also important to hear the views of the Economic Secretary, and we look forward to them.
  I do not want or need to describe the details of the schemes again, or to explain why they were so unsuitable for pensioner households. Most hon. Members already know that the schemes involved remortgaging a home to invest the proceeds in broker bonds, and that they relied on a scenario of ever-rising house and stock market prices. That scenario in relation to house prices was actively fed by some Conservative Members and by the Government of the day. The schemes were always highly risky speculations and were suitable only for those with large amounts of capital to spare. Clearly the regulators agreed, albeit belatedly, with that assessment, because they banned the further sale of such schemes two years ago.
  The Government have not been short of expressions of sympathy for those who are already trapped. The former Economic Secretary, John Maples, wrote to me on 12 March. He said that he could
  "well understand the distress which has been caused by the inappropriate home income schemes."
  The relevant regulatory bodies
  "have produced a straightforward system for handling, on a case-by-case basis, complaints which have arisen as a result of schemes which have gone wrong."
  He saw no need for the Government to press building societies to make any further undertaking.
  That reply was not good enough, because a number of problems have arisen from the scheme established by the Government for complaints about home income plans. The procedure is complex; the system for handling complaints is far from straightforward. We accept that the victims' position was eased by the creation of a single port of call for the registration of complaints, but that is by no means the end of the story. To put their case, victims are obliged to fill in a mass of documentation. Elderly people, who are more vulnerable and more likely to be confused than others, often find writing a letter a strain. Simply to present the case is not enough, because they then have to get it resolved.
  The method by which claims are subsequently processed is unwieldy and time-consuming. To put it bluntly, those elderly people do not have all that much time left. They have only a limited number of years left to them and they are entitled to some quiet and calm in those years. The speculators and sharks who sold them the schemes have denied them that calm.
  The committee established is composed of seven different bodies, yet the previous Economic Secretary described it as straightforward. The bodies include the Securities and Investments Board, the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust
  362
  Regulatory Organisation, the investors compensation scheme, the Building Societies Commission, the building societies ombudsman and the Law Society. Each body has distinct responsibilities, but crucially no one body is in overall control. That is where, all too often, the problem lies.
  There is a suspicion that, if it were possible for a case to be solved by the regulators acting alone, the regulators would do so without the intervention of the Securities and Investments Board committee. For example, one accepts that LAUTRO has on occasion been able to deal speedily with its problems. Conversely, if responsiblity is not easily assigned, matters can be spun out indefinitely as the various regulators pore over the details of the case to determine who is responsible when none of them is empowered to insist that a decision is made. That is a time-consuming process. The victims do not have time, and the process is grossly unsatisfactory.
  Secondly, the restitution offered to victims is inadequate. The victim cannot be certain of full restitution. Let us take a typical case of a pensioner who has been sold a home income plan by an independent financial adviser. The victim is not entitled to any recompense from the investors compensation scheme unless the financial adviser has been suspended from FIMBRA membership. Instead, the victims have to rely on FIMBRA's arbitration system, which is under-resourced and obliges the victim to forgo any other recourse against the FIMBRA member. Fears have been expressed about that in the House before, and I have no doubt that they will be expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) in the speech to which we all look forward that he is to make in the Consolidated Fund debate early—at least I hope it will be early, for his sake—on Friday morning. So restitution is a problem.
  Another problem is that, once access to the ICS is obtained, the rules restrict the payout. Compensation is limited to investment losses. No account is taken of legal or other costs already incurred, let alone damages for stress and inconvenience. A ceiling of £48,000 is placed on total compensation. That is often below the loss that victims face. The victim's claim is assessed as of the date when the FIMBRA member was suspended. That is clearly not appropriate in the case of investment bond related home income plans, in which interest on the victim's mortgage will continue to build up. It is in the nature of such plans that the interest will roll up during the period of up to one year while the ICS is assessing the relevant claim.
  Furthermore, in order to claim funds from the ICS, the victim is required to assign to the ICS all rights to redress from third parties, even where he or she has received less than full restitution. In those circumstances, it is hardly any wonder that the victims and their solicitors have been wary of committing themselves to the procedures of the committee of regulators.
  5.15 pm
  Thirdly, the resources for tackling the issue are insufficient. The Government must acknowledge—we look for some sign of it this evening—that, even if victims are persuaded to come forward, the present system is simply not equipped to cope with the numbers involved. Age Concern has estimated that we are talking about more than 40,000 victims. The committee of regulators appears

  363
  to consist of ad hoc meetings of staff, whose principal responsibilities lie elsewhere. They are brought together from other duties for the purposes of the meetings.
  The problem is recognised by some of those involved. Almost all the problem cases involve building societies and to that extent are likely to require the attention of the building societies ombudsman. The ombudsman's annual report for 1991–92 published last month makes some reference to the matter. It says:
  "We might find ourselves with a large number of cases which are difficult for us, as well as the parties, to process."
  That issue needs to be addressed. Surely it would be possible for the Government to ensure that resources of staff and support are available to process the claims that are being made and are expected to be made.
  Another problem is non-co-operation from certain building societies. The committee of regulators relies on the co-operation of all the parties. That does not cause a problem where lines of responsibility are clear and established. As the SIB has other investment business, clearly there is not a problem where other parties are involved. Again, the principal problem lies with the building societies. As we have asked from the outset, who is to ensure that the building societies meet their obligation? The remit of the Building Societies Commission is "prudential supervision" of the societies.
  The Economic Secretary's predecessor, Mr. Maples, was at pains to emphasise that the commission had insisted on additional capital adequacy requirements to reflect the risky nature of home income plan business. I do not doubt for one moment that that decision was sensible, but that is of no comfort whatever to the victims. It is of no comfort to them to know that the building societies have survived the experience. It is not the building societies that face the loss of their homes or destitution in old age.
  The building societies ombudsman is responsible for complaints against societies, but even there a hitch has arisen. Leading counsel has told the ombudsman that the ombudsman has jurisdiction only where the complainant was a member of the society when the contract was signed. Typically, home income plan victims came to an arrangement with their financial advisers before the mortgage was formally arranged—that is the whole point —so the victims lie outside the ombudsman purview. Apparently, nothing can be done.
  So the absurd position has arisen whereby building societies can be held to account by the committee of regulators only if they volunteer to be held to account. That is absolute nonsense, because it gives those building societies which are not prepared to adopt an altruistic and moral approach a way out. If the building societies were concerned with morality and prudence, they should never have become entangled in home income schemes in the first place. It is a shame and disgrace to those who became entangled that they did so. That is a matter of real substance, and we must have a response from the Economic Secretary.
  Of the six societies initially identified for scrutiny by the SIB, three have not agreed to co-operate: the Bristol and West and the National Counties refused outright. That is disgraceful, and those responsible for their management have a great deal to answer for, not least when my postbag shows that there are a particularly large number of victims in the Avon area who have been lured into their schemes as a result of the reputation of a building society that seeks to trade on its probity. The West Bromwich building
  364
  society has still to make up its mind. There is no question about those three societies and the position that they take —that is the report of the building society ombudsman. It is time that the West Bromwich made up its mind, and agreed to take responsibility and to accept the jurisdiction of the committee of regulators.
  To their credit, the Cheltenham and Gloucester, Bradford and Bingley and Britannia building societies are co-operating. One would expect no less from societies of that reputation. The other three societies have some explaining to do. Let me make it clear that Opposition Members—doubtless many hon. Members on both sides of the House will take this view—will not hesitate to come to the House again and again to expose the failures of those building societies, as they have taken a grossly irresponsible course over the scandal, and have either refused to co-operate or have prevaricated in so doing.
  The question remains about the other societies involved in the disgraceful business. Apparently, the list contains well over 20 names. It is not clear whether they will withhold their co-operation and what will happen to the Government's committee of regulators if they do. We understand that the SIB has recently forwarded a few more names to the ombudsman. We should like the Minister to tell us what the response from those societies has been. It is absolutely vital that such issues are out in the open.
  It is vital that those building societies, which trade on their good name and reputation, should not be allowed to hide their response to Government action over the scandal behind a veil of official secrecy. If open government means anything, and if transparency in financial regulation is to have any meaning, we should know which societies are involved and what their response has been. Only when we know that can we judge the degree of responsibility, prudence and morality that guides their actions.
  We make no apology for focusing our attention, and that of the House, on the role of the building societies. We have all been the recipients of missives from building societies. Some have sent them with more regularity than others; nevertheless, they have all been actively lobbying on their own behalf and on that of their members. They were among the most active in lobbying for deregulation in the 1980s. They fought to lend ever higher multiples of earnings and proportions of market value. One only has to open the papers to see that they continue down that route, even with the housing market in its present state. They complied in the practice of equity release to extend their borrowing still further. Now that the experience has turned sour, they have been distinctly lukewarm about helping customers who have hit difficulties. It is not good enough. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot hold themselves up as responsible lenders, and organisations deserving of special treatment, by virtue of their reputation, history and tradition of mutuality, while turning their back on the aged and vulnerable. We are entitled to expect a better response from the building society movement.
  The Government also have some responsibility. Now is not the time to go into the inadequacies of the Government's mortgage rescue package. That has been discussed and I do not want, for one moment, to remove the focus of the debate from the plight of the elderly and the vulnerable who have been affected by the schemes, but it has to be said that the Government's rescue package simply has not bitten to assist those facing repossession.

  365
  However, it goes beyond that. Sir George Blunden, chairman of the Money Advice Trust and former deputy governor of the Bank of England, has criticised the building societies for failing to offer adequate help to the Government scheme. Home income plans, and the inadequacy of the building society's response to them, is simply an example—albeit the worst—of a generally lukewarm response to home repossessions. We intend to pursue the issue until we have had an adequate response from the Government and from the building society movement.
  Time and time again, we argued with the Minister's predecessor that it required the Government's active participation to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion. That remains the case—more than ever before. Only the Government, with the power and authority that lie at the disposal of the Treasury, are in a position to bring pressure to bear on all the parties. Nothing that the Government have said or done suggests that they appreciate the scale or the urgency of the problem.
  Tonight we want to hear from the Minister how many cases have been solved through the existing apparatus. Is he satisfied with that number? Is he satisfied with the way in which the arrangements are working, and, if not, what will he do? What assurance can he give the House, and, more importantly, to the vulnerable, who face ruin and penury in their old age, that the Government will act? The penury they face is not a matter that the House could take lightly or would wish to. It is a matter of the gravest concern, and we expect a sufficient response—one that recognises that concern in a way that, to date, has been all too sadly lacking.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, all of us have received letters from constituents on this issue. A letter from two of my constituents in North Cornwall says:
  "My wife and I are two of a large number of people throughout Britain who are now confronted with the dreadful possibility of losing our homes, and with it, the only asset of any substance to our name. Some poor wretches who have suffered were driven to suicide, and whereas I do not wish to appear over-melodramatic, it is important to convey to you the very seriousness of the matter. We are both pensioners, and as there was a need two or three years ago for us to increase our level of income, the scheme advertised in the national press seemed to be the ideal thing we were looking for, and we entered into it accordingly. As I hope you will appreciate, it does seem drastically wrong that people such as ourselves, who after a lifetime's hard work and having contributed to the 1939–45 war, should now be confronted with a threat of this kind through absolutely no fault of our own in the twilight of our lives."
  The letter concluded:
  "would you please do all in your power to keep this matter constantly in the minds of whoever in Government is responsible in such matters?"
  As the hon. Member for Brent, South said, someone in Government must be responsible for that situation and, therefore, responsible for finding the appropriate remedy.
  5.30 pm
  I do not wish, in a short speech, to refer in detail to the schemes. We all know them too well from experience passed on to us by elderly and vulnerable householders in our constituencies. However, three elements of each of the schemes have surely caused the difficulty, and Age Concern has accurately pinpointed them in the excellent briefing that it has given to many hon. Members: first, the independence evident in the advice given to customers;
  366
  secondly, the extent to which that information was biased about the merits of the schemes—bias that may have been caused by eligibility for commission; and thirdly, the extent to which people taking out such schemes were warned of the possible risks, either from a reduction in property values or from a reduction in the value of equity holding.
  It may be said that people should have known about all those three points, because, after all, similar schemes in the past have fallen foul in the same way. Age Concern's briefing makes it clear that nobody in Government or in the regulatory bodies at the time was adequately able to monitor what was being said or to add the "health warning" that should have been attached to those schemes.
  In the Adjournment debate on 11 March, the then Minister for Corporate Affairs said:
  "My hon. Friend said that he thought that some of these difficulties arise because we have a system of self-regulation. I cannot entirely agree. We do not have a system of self-regulation: we have a system of professional regulation under statute. There is practitioner involvement at board level, but the people doing the day-to-day regulation—those who have to go out and interrogate, investigate and bring suspicious circumstances to the public eye—are all full-time paid professionals who do this work and nothing else."
  If the system is not self-regulatory, some responsibility for what is described as "professional regulation under statute" must fall back on the Government. Later in that debate, the Minister said;
  "My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside asked why such schemes were permitted in the first place. With the benefit of hindsight, that is a good question."—[Official Report 11 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 953–954.]
  Although several paragraphs follow thereafter, on that occasion the Minister never answered the question which he described as good.
  Today, patience is wearing thin, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Brent, South described. Many of the people most hard-hit by those schemes are not— temperamentally, psychologically or because of their age —capable of putting up with the strains and stresses of what has occurred or of trying to find a way out of it. It is especially unfortunate that some of the building societies, with which many of those people had saved throughout their working lives, have now decided that they should try to sidestep their proper responsibility. Each month, week and day that passes, frustration and helplessness increase. Sadly, some of the victims must be disappearing from the list of complainants because they are simply no longer with us.
  There seems to be a real danger of legal nit-picking and prevarication that does no credit to the regulatory bodies or the Government who stand behind them. Moreover, the fact that we must constantly return to discussing those issues does no credit to the House. We welcome the opportunity offered by new clause 12 further to investigate the full implication of those schemes. It is time to examine again the responsibility that lies on the Government and their self-reglatory bodies to clear up the mess.
  Although the precise wording of the new clause may not be viable, we believe that Ministers must make a definitive statement this evening to show how they intend to help that vulnerable section of the community, strengthen the regulatory system and prevent a repetition of this matter in the future.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr.

  367
  Boateng) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have raised an important issue and have once again brought before the House the plight of many thousands of people who have suffered serious financial loss and face great uncertainty through the purchase of home investment bonds and home income plans.
  I am the first to appreciate, listening to the letters that they have read out from constituents and other correspondents, the real financial difficulties that have been visited on people and the issues that must be addressed, not just by the Government but by those in the financial services, banking, credit and marketing industries. I hope that the subject of our debate will go well beyond the Chamber.
  I shall not accept the new clause, which the hon. Member for Brent, South was the first to admit was exploratory rather than substantive. However, if it does not embarrass him too much, I wish to congratulate him on the way in which he has pursued the matter, not just today but with my predecessor. To his personal credit, he has championed the cause of many people. Since assuming my responsibilities, I have taken an interest in his previous correspondence and meetings and have sought to ask, in the Treasury and elsewhere, many of the searching questions that he has rightly posed this afternoon. Although I may not be able to give him all the satisfaction that he requires, nor that required by those who have suffered loss or are fearful for the future, I hope that my remarks will provide some reassurance.
  May I make it clear that by no means all schemes that allow people to release equity tied up in their homes are bad. For example, under home reversion schemes the owner of a property can sell all or part of it to the scheme provider for an immediate cash sum and can continue to live there until he dies. That is a much more assured scheme and carries much less risk than the sort of schemes under consideration today. It has been, and no doubt will remain, of benefit to many of those who enter into it.
  The purchase life annuity scheme is the most common method used by elderly people to release the equity in their homes and, crucially, is the only sort of scheme to receive encouragement through the tax system. That does not apply to roll-up mortgages or the sort of schemes covered by the new clause. Under a purchase life annuity scheme, the home owner takes out a mortgage loan on the property and uses the cash to buy an annuity, which services the loan interest and leaves an income.
  Under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, relief of up to £30,000 is available on the loan used to buy the annuity. As long as people keep below that limit, they should enjoy a positive, if modest, income after meeting the interest due on the loan. As the interest is always covered, there should be no risk of the debt getting out of hand. It is estimated that about 2,000 such plans are taken out each year and, on that basis, there may be about 15,000 to 20,000 plans in existence.
  Under investment bond-based schemes—the sort of scheme to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred—the owner takes out a mortgage on part of the value of his or her home and invests the proceeds in an investment bond. It appears that several thousand such schemes were sold. Although borrowers were advised that
  368
  the bonds would generate enough income to pay the interest and provide an income, the bonds were high risk and, in many cases, did not perform to their expectations.
  I understand and fully sympathise with the concern expressed by hon. Members at the plight of elderly home owners who have been sold unsuitable home income plans. As the hon. Members for Brent, South and North Cornwall are aware, action is being taken to deal with that problem. I shall expand on that matter, on which I was quite rightly subjected to incisive questioning by the hon. Member for Brent, South.
  The financial services regulators—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisations and the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisations—have amended their rules to prevent the further marketing of unsuitable and inappropriate schemes and have taken disciplinary action against the firms involved. In addition, action has been taken to help those in difficulty. Investors may be eligible for compensation from either the investment company or the investors compensation scheme, set up under the Financial Services Act 1986.
  Firms regulated by LAUTRO have already paid £5 million in compensation to more than 400 investors, who have been restored to the position that they were in before they became involved in the scheme. I understand that the great majority of investors who took out such schemes on the basis of advice from salesmen of LAUTRO members have been compensated, although 60 further cases are being considered by the insurance ombudsman, a recognised complaints authority for LAUTRO. As the hon. Member for Brent, South appreciates, and it is important for the House to understand, LAUTRO generally compensates in cases involving tied company agents. LAUTRO's member firms and LAUTRO itself return people to their former position so that they are fully recompensed.
  The position is different in relation to independent financial advisers under FIMBRA. They introduce, perhaps to an insurance company, not just the prospect of a buyer for an investment bond but a mortgage package that may be different from that which the company representative of a LAUTRO member would have offered. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily follow that people will be entitled to the same restitution and compensation as those covered by LAUTRO have received. Each case is subject to an examination of the package, the circumstances and the terms of the investment bond and mortgage proposed. The extent and admissibility of the application for compensation will depend on those factors.
  Four of the independent investment intermediaries involved in marketing schemes who were members of FIMBRA have been declared in default under the investors compensation scheme. More than 1,000 claims involving those firms have been received, and I understand that payments have begun. Many cases are complex and many involve the responsibility of a number of different parties such as the financial adviser, solicitor or lender.
  5.45 pm
  In March, the liaison group set up by the Securities and Investments Board announced a one-stop procedure for handling complaints. Under that procedure, investors who invested in such schemes on the recommendation of a FIMBRA member, are in difficulties as a result and have received no satisfaction may pursue all their complaints

  369
  through FIMBRA even if the complaint involves firms other than the FIMBRA member. That might include the insurance company whose investment bond was used or the solicitor who dealt with the mortgage documents.
  Some building societies have agreed to co-operate with the building societies ombudsman in using the one-stop procedure, and discussions are continuing with other building societies with a view to encouraging them to do likewise. I am sure that societies will have noted the strong words used today by the hon. Member for Brent, South. I hope that the societies involved will feel able to agree to co-operate with the building societies ombudsman.
  A number of building societies have been approached to join the one-stop procedure for complaints about the investment bond scheme, and three of the larger societies have agreed to participate. As the hon. Member for Brent, South knows, a number of other building societies have not. As I understand it, there is no legal sanction to force them to do so due to the limited remit of the ombudsman. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South and hope that those societies will feel able to co-operate.
  I understand that, in addition to those cases where there are claims under the investors compensation scheme, a further 60 complaints are being considered under the one-stop procedure. Meanwhile, the building societies involved have made it clear that they want to enable elderly borrowers to stay in their homes, resolve their worries and avoid hardship. During the debate, some building societies have come in for criticism. It is only fair to say that most building societies have made it clear that they want elderly borrowers to stay in their homes and there is no question of parting them from their homes, which is an important assurance.
  The consideration of complaints and compensation claims takes time. One of my concerns was to act as expeditiously as possible and encourage the responsible authorities to speed up their handling of applications for compensation and complaints, as uncertainty and worry are visited on people, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable. Therefore, I have raised the matter as often as I can.
  It is sometimes difficult and time-consuming to obtain all the necessary information about what has happened. The investors compensation scheme and the regulatory organisations are aware of the concern of all hon. Members, which I share, that the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible. I am assured that every effort is being made to help investors provide the necessary details as quickly as possible so that their cases can be dealt with without duplication or avoidable delay.
  The investors compensation scheme expects to make substantial progress in finalising claims in the next two months and hopes to have dealt by November with the bulk of claims so far received. I hope that cases being handled by the one-stop complaints procedure can be completed in a similar time scale.
  In response to the pertinent points raised by the hon. Members for Brent, South and for North Cornwall on new clause 12, I shall conclude with a short personal homily that will provide little comfort to those who have lost, or face the prospect of losing, under such schemes.
  The more I become aware of the marketing of schemes of this kind and the more I look at reports of what has gone wrong, the more I become aware of two aspects. One is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to devise a fail-safe system of investor and depositor protection. It does not
  370
  matter whether there is a statutory scheme or a self-regulatory scheme or a statutory-based system of practitioner self-regulation, which we have. It is extremely difficult—I dare say impossible—to provide against every possible loss and ensure that people will not be ripped off.
  We must do what we can, however, both in Parliament and in the City, to ensure that the risk for depositors and investors is limited as far as possible. At the same time, the investing and depositing public have a duty to remind themselves that they must not be encouraged by modern marketing schemes to abandon the basic common sense and prudential rules which have always been impressed on people.
  The five golden rules are: buyer beware, spread investments, seek good advice, read the small print, and do not confuse authorisation with a guarantee. Investors must always consider not just the attractions and benefits of an investment scheme but the down side of the scheme as well. It is right to be cautious and to use common sense. People should not be misled by the attractions and by the statistics advanced in favour of schemes and their attractions.
  There has been an increasing number of claims and of cases arising out of self-regulatory organisations standing behind firms, the Securities and Investments Board standing behind self-regulatory organisations and the Government standing behind the SIB. I do not think it practical, desirable or possible to have a guarantee or indemnity in all cases of misleading sales, faulty products or default on behalf of investment firms. Authorisation must not, therefore, be confused with a guarantee or an indemnity.
  I have said what I have said about spreading investment and reading the small print, but despite the problems that sometimes arise, people should still seek professional or independent or reputable advice, as the circumstances demand. Ignoring these basic rules of investment or of incurring liability involves risks.
  I have met constituents who lost large sums of money in Barlow Clowes. Like the hon. Member for Brent, South, I was impressed by how vulnerable many of them were. Not necessarily elderly, many of them were straightforward people who had, for instance, spent their lives in the armed forces and who, with a commutation retirement pension. had sunk all their money in one investment product offered by Barlow Clowes. It seems hardly credible that people who have held responsible jobs and saved securely throughout their lives should then abandon a basic tenet of safe investment: not putting all one's eggs in one basket. Yet people do that; and the elderly are even more vulnerable.
  This is why it is right that we have introduced financial services legislation and other measures designed to protect such people. It is why it is right continually to re-examine whether these mechanisms are working properly. It is why it is right—without indulging too much in homily—to remind people from time to time that neither the Government nor the taxpayer can safeguard or indemnify investors in all circumstances. People must use their own nous; the buyer must continue to beware.
  I hope that what I have said will encourage the hon. Member for Brent, South to believe that the Government take seriously the distress of those involved with home income bonds. We are encouraging expedition in dealing with claims for compensation and we will carefully watch

  371
  the responses of the building societies and regulatory organisations to these difficult problems. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Boateng: The care and thoughtfulness that have clearly gone into the Minister's response are welcome. We look forward to his continuing involvement as a Minister with responsibilities in this area. I am sure that I speak for all who have signed a variety of early-day motions on this matter when I express the hope that he will in due course agree to meet a group of us so that we can explore these issues further on behalf of those who have suffered from the marketing of these schemes.
  When we meet the Minister—it will be sooner rather than later—we will expect greater clarity about the number of cases that have been resolved under existing arrangements and a greater willingness, in the spirit of open government, to inform us which building societies are proving recalcitrant about arriving at voluntary arrangements. By the time of our meeting, we will also expect a marked degree of progress on both relevant fronts in respect of compensation.
  All hon. Members whose constituents have been affected by the tragedy that these schemes represent want to place on record our appreciation of the work of the victim support schemes set up as a result of the need to bring together the elderly and vulnerable people who have suffered as a result of the marketing of these plans. The schemes are designed to offer mutual support and to pool such resources as these people have to obtain proper advice and assistance. We should record our appreciation of those who organise and service these schemes. I think particularly of people like Mr. James Fielding of Essex, who has done so much to bring this matter to the attention of hon. Members. Many others have done the same.
  We wish these people well in their continuing work of supporting those who have suffered at the hands of the unscrupulous persons who have marketed the schemes—and of those who stand behind them and who seek, regrettably, to shirk their responsibilities.
  We will not tolerate it if building societies continue to avoid their responsibilities in this area. They will he exposed if they continue to be indifferent to the sufferings of the victims of the unscrupulous people who marketed the schemes, and they will be exposed to the full glare of publicity unless they are prepared to co-operate with the regulatory committee and arrive at a fair and reasonable settlement about outstanding claims.
  We shall return to this issue in the fullness of time, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

  TRAVEL BETWEEN WORK AND HOME
  '(1) In section 154 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (general charging provision) after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsections:
  "(4) The benefits to which this section applies shall exclude any benefit consisting of an employer paying for an employee's journey between work and home where:

  (a) the employee is required, by reason of his employment, to work to a time between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and

  (b) it would not be reasonable for the employer to expect the employee to use public transport at that time.

  (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, but without prejudice to the generality of that subsection, there is a presumption that it would not be reasonable for an employer to expect the employee to use public transport where:

  (a) public transport has ceased or being substantially curtailed; or

  (b) because of the low level of availability or reliability of public transport services at that time, a journey using public transport would be likely to take significantly longer than a journey between work and home at a time between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.; or

  (c) there would be an increased risk to the personal safety of the employee should they travel by public transport at that time.".

  (2) In section 153 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection:
  "(4) The payments to which this section applies shall exclude any payments made by an employer if, had they been incurred by the employer directly, they would not have been taxable benefits to the employee by virtue of section 154(4) and (5)".
  (3) This section shall apply for the year 1992–93 and all subsequent years.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause is aimed at addressing the circum-stances in which work-related travel expenses paid by the employer are deductible for income tax purposes, particularly where the employee has to work late. At the moment, journeys between work and home are tax-deductible in certain circumstances, which are set out in the Inland Revenue pamphlet IRI on extra-statutory concessions. The circumstances that the Inland Revenue says are satisfactory for the concessions are these:
  "Where … an employee is occasionally required to work late but those occasions are neither regular nor frequent; and by the time the employee can go home, either public transport between the employee's place of work and home has ceased or it would not be reasonable in the circumstances for the employer to expect the employee to use it".
  The definitions that are set alongside this are that
  "a requirement to work late means working until 9 pm or later" —
  that is reflected in our new clause—
  "late working would normally be regarded as frequent if it occurs on more than 60 occasions in a tax year; regular means a predictable pattern, for example if late night transport is provided every Friday."
  We are arguing that the extra-statutory concession should be made statutory, and our new clause would achieve that.
  Before going into the details of the topic, I should emphasise that we are not arguing that, in normal circumstances, travel to work should be allowable for a deduction from income tax. I know that the Financial Secretary will be tempted to attack a target as wide as he can make it, so it is important that we focus on the circumstances in which people have to go home late at night. We are not arguing for a wider concession. We are not discussing normal circumstances. We are discussing those who, because of the nature of their employment, have occasionally to take taxis home after 9 pm.
  This is an important matter to us, because it affects the safety of employees in this position who have to face the dangers of travelling home late at night and unaccom-panied, often when the running of whatever public transport is still working may not fit the whole of the work

  373
  to home travel pattern. I am sure that the House will readily accept that the people most likely to be affected by this are those who work in the licensed trade, such as bar staff, who have to work late into the night.
  This is an important matter, because of the number of people employed in this sector. The hotel and catering trade employs 1·1 million of our fellow citizens, many of whom would fall within the ambit of the new clause. Therefore, it is worthy of our consideration and attention, and I hope that it will command the full attention of the House and the Paymaster General, who I know is particularly responsible for some of these matters, at least when it comes to setting the duty on the products retailed to the public by the people whom we are discussing.
  I know that the Government hope to bring the wages councils to an end as soon as they can, but at the moment a wages council order sets a minimum wage for the licensed trade. In 1991, it stood at £2·74 an hour, but I understand that the Financial Secretary and his friends think that this is too much, and that the protection afforded to these low-paid workers should be removed.
  The full £2·74 an hour is less than half the average hourly pay of manual male workers, which is £5·76 an hour, and two thirds of the average for manual women workers, which is £4 an hour. In 1991, full-time male workers in the hotel and catering trade were paid on average £157·60 a week, and female workers were paid £119·90 a week. Of the 400 or so occupations covered in the new earnings survey, working in the hotel and catering trade was the lowest-paid occupation for men and the joint lowest-paid occupation for women, the other being hairdressing. That will come as a surprise to nobody who is familiar with these matters.
  We are discussing the tax treatment of a payment to a substantial number of people—1·1 million—who are among the lowest paid of our fellow citizens. A number of points logically follow from the fact that wages in the licensed trade sector are so abysmal. The first is that it is odd that the Inland Revenue is targeting them for special attention. There cannot he much money involved in the remuneration of the poorly paid. Secondly, it is far less likely, because of the rates of pay, that employees in the hotel and catering industry will have the personal transport that would allow them to travel to and from work. Therefore, it follows that the concession of getting a paid taxi home late at night for their safety is even more significant than might at first be thought.
  The third factor that follows from the deplorable rates of pay in this trade are that the earnings are so low that some employees will fall below the £8,500 threshold and therefore will not be eligible for taxation on benefits-in-kind. This is an important issue, and I know that if I do not refer to it, the Financial Secretary will do so. He is always reminding us that real take-home pay is important, and of the great Conservative achievement that it rose throughout the 1980s. However, the benefits-in-kind threshold has not risen with it, and the £8,500 limit was set in 1979–80. Had the limit been raised in line with prices, it would be two and a half times that level, or £21,500. The regulations ensure that liability to income tax on benefits in kind are biting at ever lower income levels, so it logically follows that, year after year, more and more people in the hotel and catering trade will be drawn into the Inland Revenue's net.
  When the benefits-in-kind threshold was first set, in an earlier age, I understand that the principle behind it was
  374
  that it would catch those who were well remunerated and were in a position to get a whole range of benefits in kind on top of a substantial income. It was rightly felt that it would be unfair if such benefits became an extended tax avoidance device. However, at the same time, it was clearly the view that it would be unfair to catch the much smaller scale benefits, if benefits they be, of those who were poorly remunerated. I am thinking in terms of the free coal to mineworkers, or the taxi home late at night for bar staff. However, such is the change in these matters that taxis home for bar staff are very much in danger of being caught.
  It might be argued that the threshold of £8,500 is still set sufficiently high to ensure that part-time bar staff are not caught. While I accept that there may be some force in that argument, it is only fair to point out that the threshold includes the value of the taxi home. If someone received £10 a night for a taxi, five times a week, the total cost could be well over 20 per cent. of his total remuneration. When the Inland Revenue examines the notional earnings of bar staff as opposed to their real earnings, it insists on the inclusion of a notional element for tips. Therefore, it is not simply a question of the wage rate; it includes what the Revenue believes the tips to be—and added to that will be the value of the taxi home at night, the benefit in kind. It is likely that many bar workers will cross the £8,500 threshold much more quickly than at first appears to be the case.
  Bar staff are not the only people liable to have their taxis home taxed as a benefit in kind, although they are the category most likely to suffer and to be treated unfairly in the way that the Revenue pursues these matters. Other people are driven home if they work late at night—for example, the Financial Secretary. We discussed these matters in the early hours of the morning, when we considered the Bill in Committee. I walked back to my flat, but I saw the hon. Gentleman being driven home in a Government car—[Interruption.] Perhaps I do the hon. Gentleman an injustice; it might have been an illusion due to the time of the morning. However, I am sure that he will concede that it is normal practice for Ministers to be driven home while their counterparts have to walk. I note that the Minister thinks that that is right, and no doubt if I were in his position I would take the same view. I am sure that Ministers are not taxed on their cars home as a benefit in kind, although there may be other considerations in the case of Ministers.
  If civil servants have to stay late at night to help us in our deliberations, they have taxis home. I have seen prominent civil servants leaving this place late at night in taxis, which I assume are paid for by their Departments. I do not want to discuss the tax arrangements of any individual, but it is highly unlikely that the Revenue taxes civil servants' taxis home as a benefit in kind.
  I understand that journalists who stay here late at night covering our debates could have their taxis home late at night or early in the morning taxed as a benefit in kind. Indeed, there are discussions between the Revenue and the journalists' unions about the tax treatment of the cost of their taxis home. It would be unfair to tax journalists in that way when they have to work here, or anywhere else, late at night, as though the taxi home was a benefit rather than something necessitated by the late hours they work.
  Although the group that is undoubtedly most affected, simply by the sheer number of people involved, is the workers in the hotel and catering industry, the issue goes

  375
  wider and embraces the journalists who cover our debates. It could embrace senior civil servants, but I suspect not. It might even embrace Ministers, although again I suspect not.
  6.15 pm
  I ask the House to consider whether that is a sensible use of the resources of the Inland Revenue. The effective policing of those arrangements, pub by pub, club by club, throughout the country would require vast resources. I suspect that, in practice, such arrangements cannot be effectively policed. If the Government insisted that they were, the benefit to the Exchequer would be dispropor-tionately small compared with the resources involved.
  Time and again, we have pressed the Government about tax avoidance, but we always keep a sense of perspective in our representations. I debated with the hon. Gentleman's predecessor the issues of dual residency and the use of offshore trusts as avoidance devices. Those are large issues that cost the taxpayer billions of pounds a year, but that is not what we are discussing today. Instead, we are discussing the cost of a taxi home and the tax take from that for people who are among the poorest of our fellow citizens.
  The avoidance issues are at the heart of the way that the Inland Revenue operates. The Government are absolutely obsessed with investigating what they believe to be the concealed earnings—the hidden perks—of the less well-off. Their priorities should be elsewhere. The Inland Revenue's 1990–91 annual report shows that £1·4 billion was raised from counter-evasion and counter-avoidance activities, so the Government's priorities should lie there. A further £2·5 billion was raised by the Revenue's technical review exercise—the reviewing of company accounts to check that the profits on which corporation tax is paid are as they should be. That sort of exercise should be the Government's priority, not picking on poorly paid bar staff.
  The relationship between the cost of compliance and the yield in increased tax is shown by the yield-cost ratio, which is the way that the Government and the Revenue measure these matters. The inquiry branch raised 24 times more than it cost. The ratio was 29:1 for the special office —which together with the inquiry branch form the main pillars of counter-evasion work. Should not the Government place emphasis on that sort of work rather than picking on the poor? The Revenue's activities included company investigations, with a yield of 9:1; accounts investigations, with a yield of 5·5:1; and non-accounts investigations, with an astonishing yield of 47:1.
  That sort of work should be the Government's priority if they are serious about clamping down on evasion and targeting resources efficiently. The Financial Secretary should be thinking about doing that rather than picking on the poorest people in society. Our new clause is a modest attempt to bring fairness back into the tax system— something that the Conservative party is reluctant to agree to in practice.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The new clause would exempt from income tax the provision of late-night transport by employers. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)
  376
  was at pains to stress that it was not his purpose to argue against the general principle that provision of home-to-work transport should be taxed as a benefit; he accepts that the tax system is built on such principles, and he regards that as correct. He said that he wanted to enshrine in legislation the extra-statutory concession A66, which sets out the circumstances in which an employee is not taxed if his or her employer provides late-night transport.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the terms of the extra-statutory concession are quite narrow. They require a journey during unsocial hours to be neither "regular" nor "frequent". The hon. Gentleman wants to remove that test of regularity and frequency from the concession before it is written into the statute book. It is therefore not quite accurate to describe new clause 13 simply as a measure to "legislate" the concession; the hon. Gentleman's ambition is slightly wider.
  The new clause would write an important new loophole into income tax law. It would remove the test of regularity and frequency from the concession, allowing employers to provide their employees with tax-free transport if those employees were returning home between 9 pm and 6 am. That would be the most important test: night workers would be entitled to a concession allowing their transport between home and work to be paid for regularly by their employers without paying tax on that benefit.
  Such a concession strikes me as too wide to write into the tax system. The hon. Gentleman, understandably, stressed the implications for the hotel and catering sector, emphasising that many workers in that sector are relatively low paid. That is true, of course—although plenty of workers in that and other sectors are not low paid, but work unsocial hours. I am not sure why they should benefit from such a concession ahead of workers in other sectors who may be paid significantly less, but who are not provided with tax-free transport between home and work. I do not feel that the simple test of working hours is a sufficient basis on whch to exempt transport between home and work from income tax.
  I understand the case made by the hon. Gentleman and others about the potential risk to personal safety posed by travel undertaken late at night. That is one of the motives behind the well-established extra-statutory concession. The risk to personal safety is greatest when employees are working late at night on an irregular basis; the chances are that an employee working late on a regular basis will make arrangements to avoid threats to personal safety.
  Mr. John Townend: I do not entirely understand that argument. If it is dangerous for a young girl to travel home late one night, it will be equally dangerous for her to do so on two or three nights. I know that from experience. I am involved in the hotel industry and my daughter, aged 18, once had a low-paid job in central London. Her employers operated the rule that if employees worked until later than about I am, they should be sent home in taxis. I was grateful for that rule; I did not like to think of my 18-year-old daughter travelling home through central London at that hour.
  My daughter did not work late every night, but she worked late regularly, several nights a week. I do not understand my hon. Friend's argument that regular late-night travel is not so dangerous as irregular late-night travel.
  Mr. Dorrell: If that had been my argument, I would understand my hon. Friend's mystification. I was arguing not that such travel was any less dangerous if undertaken regularly, but that if it was undertaken regularly as part of the normal course of employment, it was reasonable to expect employer and employee to make arrangements to avoid the hazards associated with it. Employees are at greatest risk when they have made no such arrangements and do not know how they will get home. I feel that the taxing of those who find themselves having to work late on an irregular basis, with no arrangements for getting home safely, is most objectionable.
  Mr. Townend: If such arrangements are made because the employee must undertake late-night travel regularly, why should they be taxed as a benefit in kind? I do not understand the logic.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am coming to that. When an employee plans to work late as part of his employment, he knows that he will have to travel at times when there is not much public transport. He will have to find a way of getting home at such times. Surely it is reasonable for that to be reflected in the agreements reached with the employer in regard to remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment.
  Mr. Clive Betts: If an employee must regularly make arrangements for getting home late at night, he will probably decide to take a taxi, as will employees who work late on an irregular basis. The cost will be exactly the same in both cases. Why does the Financial Secretary suggest that those benefits—as he sees them—should be taxed differently?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is the point. If late-night travel is undertaken regularly, it is reasonable to expect employer and employee to agree terms which cover the extra cost. If it is undertaken irregularly, there will be no need for the terms of employment to cover the cost. When employees have to go home late in exceptional circumstances, that will be an exceptional cost associated with the employment. People who have to work late regularly should agree wages which cover the cost of late-night travel before taking on such employment because it is not exceptional but an obligation that is expected from the outset.
  The person who is in the worst position is the employee whose late-night travel is unexpected, and whose conditions of employment do not cover the extra cost. That is the key proposition on which the extra-statutory concession is based. The cost of regular late-night travel should be included in the wages agreement; if an employee is not satisfied with the conditions—including the requirement for late-night travel—it is open to him to argue with his employer. The employee is in the worst position when he or she is required irregularly and at short notice to take on that cost. In those circumstances, it would not be reasonable to ask the employee to pay tax. That is why extra-statutory concession A66 exempts the employee from tax.
  Mr. Townend: Does my hon. Friend not agree that acceptance of his view could result in sex discrimination? He is saying that the employee has to negotiate with the employer to secure extra salary to pay for a taxi. It might well not be unreasonable for a strong boy 6 ft tall and 18 years old to walk a mile or a mile and a half at half past
  378
  one in the morning, but in the case of a girl of 17 it would be extremely dangerous. My hon. Friend has not convinced me at all. Clearly he does not have much knowledge or experience of the hotel industry, as I have.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: I realise that my hon. Friend has a lifetime's experience in the hotel and catering industry, whereas I do not for one moment pretend that I have. However, I am not sure that I can accept the proposition that we should design the tax system in such a detailed way as to take account of my hon. Friend's point. We should have to provide for tax-free late-night travel for women but not for men—maybe even for small women and not for big women. We cannot make the tax system as precise as that.
  The proposition on which I base my argument is simply that in normal circumstances the cost of travel between home and work is expected, in general, to be met by employees out of their after-tax earnings. It seems to me that that should apply as much to people who work late and unsocial hours as to the rest of us. Only in the special circumstances of the requirement to work late at night on an irregular basis is a tax concession justified. On that basis I recommend that the new clause be not accepted.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I do not suppose that the same arguments would be advanced if we were discussing this matter in the context of Ministers rather than bar staff. It could hardly be argued that lady members of the Cabinet should be provided with cars to take them home late at night while gentleman members should be required to walk—whatever the Financial Secretary says about his willingness to walk rather than be driven home in the early hours of the morning. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will accept that it is not the intention of the parliamentary Labour party to create a new tax loophole. On the contrary, to my certain knowledge, in the debates on Finance Bills over the last five years the parliamentary Labour party has tried to close tax loopholes, so it would be odd if, even inadvertently, we were to create a new one.
  There is some strength in the Financial Secretary's argument that those whose occupations require them to work late should have their hours taken into account when the terms and conditions of employment are being settled. Where things are equally balanced, that is probably what happens in practice, and the disadvantages of working late are probably reflected in salary. It is fair for the Financial Secretary to observe that late-night working can be taken into account in the employer-employee arrangement without further provision through the tax system, but that argument applies only where employer and employee have something like equal bargaining strength. The Financial Secretary's argument is less strong in respect of those working in the hotel and catering industry, who by any definition are low paid. The Financial Secretary referred to those people as being relatively low paid. I repeat that of the 400 occupations included in the new earnings survey, hotel and catering work attracted the lowest pay in the manual work sector, and among women workers those in the hotel and catering industry were joint lowest with those in the hairdressing industry. Those people are not relatively low paid; they are absolutely low-paid.
  One of the reasons for that is that their bargaining position is not so strong as that of people in the industrial sectors, where claims can be asserted with more vigour.

  379
  The industry is noted for its transiency, and the low wages probably have some bearing on that. I suspect—though I cannot offer any evidence for this—that the average age is lower than in the work force as a whole. The industry is noted for seasonal employment and for the fact that it offers jobs to casual workers, some of them students trying to earn some money during the summer.
  It should be pretty obvious to the whole House that such people are not in a strong bargaining position. They are not able to say, "I won't take the job unless the wages council rate is topped up by an amount to cover the cost of getting home late at night." That is not a practical proposition, and the purpose of the new clause is to deal with the circumstances arising from the fact that it would not be practical for this matter to be taken into account in the employer-employee relationship. I suppose that it follows logically that we should have put an earnings ceiling on the concession. The Financial Secretary did not make that suggestion, but it follows logically from his arguments, too. It would have been legitimate for him to make such a proposal. The idea has some attractions, and if its absence from the new clause makes the provision imperfect, that will explain why I do not intend to press it to a vote.
  The Opposition's main concern is not the generality of the way in which this benefit is treated but how it bears down specifically on poorly paid workers, who may be substantially disadvantaged by the way in which it operates in practice. We are worried about precisely the circumstances that the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) described when he brought to the House his experience of these matters. It is frightening for a young lady of 17 or 18 to be required to get herself home at half past eleven at night when public transport has ceased altogether or is very infrequent and in any event may not get her from her actual place of work to the safety of her home. Safety is at the heart of our concern.
  We are not seeking to establish some great loophole of which the very wealthy can take advantage; we are seeking to ensure that a girl of 17 or 18 can get home in safety. At the very least, the tax system should not create a disincentive in that regard. The whole House will agree that we should do all that we can to assure the safety of vulnerable people.
  I emphasise again the importance of keeping a sense of proportion in these matters. Really efficient use of the Revenue's time is not achieved by the pursuit of some student bar worker in respect of the very limited concession—if concession it is—of a taxi ride home. It is a waste of the Revenue's time. The Revenue can make effective use of its time elsewhere—by pursuing corporate evasion, not by pursuing innocent and very poorly paid students. I am sure that the Financial Secretary has taken that point on board. I do not intend, therefore, to divide the House on the new clause.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that the new clause should not be pressed to a vote. I apologise for not having been here for the whole debate—I was attending a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee—but I have been here long enough to get the flavour of it.
  380
  The Inland Revenue and the Treasury are frightened by anything that might lead to a loss of revenue. However, the way of earning a living, particularly during the last 10 years, has undergone fundamental changes. Large costs are involved nowadays in earning a living. People travel much further to work than they ever used to do. They have to wear far better clothes. They have meals in the canteen, or elsewhere. In the past, many people lived just along the road from their factory. They wore work clothes and they had butties for their meals. Many pounds are now spent each week on transport, clothes and food. None of that is allowable against income tax. Yet those items are an essential part of earning a living. That was not so in the past.
  I recognise the obvious problems involved here, but people can be discouraged from seeking employment because they know that they will be unable to claim some of those considerable expenses against tax. I was interested in the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that a ceiling could possibly be placed on any concession. Another ceiling which might be placed on any concession is that the place of employment should be no more than a certain distance from a person's home.
  We all recognise that we must try to prevent loss of revenue of the kind envisaged, but at some stage in the future the cost of earning a living must be related to the income tax that a person pays. My hon. Friend was right to give the subject an airing.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): We now turn to new clause 15.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: In the absence of the hon. Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), in whose name the new clause stands, it would be regrettable if this valuable opportunity to give a boost to the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am advised by the Clerk that only a Member whose name is attached to a new clause can move it, so I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not have been a courtesy to the House if those hon. Members who placed the new clause on the Amendment Paper had not left us in the position of being unable to debate the new clause? I know that a number of hon. Members would have liked to take part in that debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the hon. Members for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I have no doubt. however, that the right hon. Gentleman's words will have been noted.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to take part in the debate on the new clause. It has important implications for many people in maritime communities in Scotland. Were you informed at any stage that those two Members would not be present this evening?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I personally had not been informed, and I am not aware that the previous occupant of this Chair was informed.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is possible that we have made faster progress than was expected. That may be the reason why my hon. Friends are not here. It sometimes happens.

Clause 12

  VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY: DISABLED PERSONS
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 32, leave out clause 12.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 1, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect with respect to any individual who was entitled, at 30th June 1992, to exemption from vehicle excise duty by virtue of section 7 of the Finance Act 1971 or section 7(2C) and (2D) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.'.
  No. 2, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
  '(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect with respect to any individual aged under five or over sixty-five years of age if. apart from this section, they would be entitled to exemption from vehicle excise duty by virtue of section 7 of the Finance Act 1971 or section 7(2C) and (2D) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.'.
  6.45 pm
  Dr. Marek: The Opposition certainly had no prior knowledge of the fact that new clause 15 was not going to be moved. I believe that some of my hon. Friends came here for the express purpose of debating it. However, as it has not been moved, we have to turn to the next set of amendments.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for grouping amendments Nos. 1 and 2 with amendment No. 9. In our view, it makes sense, since they all relate to clause 12 and to the withdrawal of a concession to a group of disabled people.
  Hon. Members receive a lot of mail from charities and societies that represent disabled people— and rightly so. In the Opposition's view, the needs of disabled people are not properly recognised. It is right that hon. Members should be informed of lacunae in the legislation and also of Government proposals to take away rights and privileges that disabled people have hitherto enjoyed. Clause 12 will lead to the Government taking away one such right from disabled people.
  I have received many letters recently from people who drive ambulances for leagues of friends and other charities. They pay value added tax on their petrol. They are wondering whether there is any way in which they could be exempted from paying VAT on petrol that is used to drive disabled people around the country. Without that service, disabled people would not be mobile. If the Paymaster General could say something about that, I should be grateful. However, that is not the import of the amendments. They principally concern vehicle excise duty and the fact that the Government seek to withdraw an exemption from a particular group of disabled people.
  Three groups of disabled people are exempted from the payment of road tax for a vehicle registered in their name. About 2,500 people qualify as a result of belonging to the
  382
  pre-1976 invalid carriage scheme. The answer to a recent parliamentary question of mine showed that, at 31 March 1992, 2,125 people qualified for exemption. The invalid carriage scheme was phased out in 1976, so a diminishing band of people qualify under that scheme.
  In addition, approximately 400,000 people qualify because they receive the higher rate of mobility component in the disability living allowance. Clause 12 does not seek to change the status of people who receive the higher rate of mobility component in the disability living allowance. They will continue to be exempted from paying road tax for a vehicle that is registered in their name. However, about 20,000 people under the age of five or over the age of 65, who are virtually unable to walk and who receive the higher or middle disability living allowance care component, need to be driven by another person. The Government seek to remove exemption from payment of road tax from that group of people.
  People are disabled for all sorts of reasons—either from birth or through accident. If people are disabled, they ought to receive special help so that they can be mobile. In previous years, the Government have recognised that. Those three groups of people were in a scheme which by and large was considered satisfactory, and people who wanted help with mobility could get it in various ways —not least of which was the exemption from vehicle excise duty.
  According to the parliamentary answer on 30 June, among the approximately 20,000 people in the third category who receive the exemption, there were more than 4,183 first-time successful applications during the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992. The Government seek to stop that group of people gaining exemption from VED. It is likely that the figure of 4,183 represents a continuing level, so basically the Government are stopping an allowance for about 4,000 new disabled applicants every year.
  Although there are temporary provisions in the clause to ensure that everybody in the third category who receives the exemption will continue to do so, I believe that anyone not already exempted will he unable to obtain exemption once the Bill is enacted.
  There is an interesting political point here. The Government have slipped clause 12 quietly in, couched in parliamentary language so that it is difficult for anybody reading it to understand exactly what it is about. It has taken the House and the interested organisations representing disabled people largely by surprise. Nevertheless, I have had a reasonably heavy postbag on the subject, pointing out the problem, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends have too. It may be late in the day, but it is not too late, because now we can discuss the clause on Report.
  The Government want to exclude the third group of disabled passengers from road tax exemption, even though that may be the only form of assistance with mobility costs they receive. Children under five cannot get the mobility component of the disability living allowance, and people over 65 can receive it only if they qualified for it before their 66th birthday.
  Such severely disabled people are more likely to need a car because they experience difficulties in getting around, yet they are less likely to be able to afford to purchase and maintain one, because their incomes are generally low, and they are under pressure from other costs caused by their disabilities. I wonder whether the Government understand

  383
  the financial pressure that people suffer simply to make ends meet, as they get older and need extra heating and incur extra mobility costs—as I shall seek to demonstrate later.
  Children under five with cerebral palsy, for example, need great care and help if they are to be mobile at all, and substantial extra costs are incurred by parents, some of whom must purchase and maintain a car. It is perhaps easy for us in the House to say that, if parents with one or more children with cerebral palsy have a household income that is not high, they should use public transport, but in practice it is not that easy, and some parents have to purchase and maintain a car, which causes a lot of hardship.
  It is mean and niggling for the Government to withdraw the vehicle excise duty concession for parents who have to look after such children under the age of five. Those people are angry that the Government refuse to accept that they have extra mobility costs. Will the Paymaster General confirm that, or will he admit that those costs exist?
  Here is a clear example—a child under five with cerebral palsy. At the moment, his or her parents can obtain the exemption on the child's behalf so as to allow the child mobility. The Government propose to withdraw that exemption. I should imagine that, on hearing about that, everybody in this country would say that it was entirely wrong—and I hope that some Conservative Members will think so too, so that something can be done about it.
  The provision would affect not only children under five but people over 65 in that third category of about 20,000 disabled passengers. They have to be unable or virtually unable to walk, to receive the higher or middle DLA care component, and to he driven by another person. If such people do not apply, or do not demonstrate their eligibility, by their 66th birthday, they will not be able to get the exemption in future—or rather at present.
  However, some old people—including, I believe, people with cerebral palsy as they grow older—get arthritis, and that disease may not become evident, or may not become serious enough to satisfy the present regulations for securing exemption from VED, until people are well beyond their 66th birthday. People who develop arthritis in advanced years would not be able to gain exemption if the clause as it stands were enacted.
  I should be happy for exemptions under the disabled passengers scheme to be abolished, but only when the Government remove all discrimination on the grounds of age from the DLA mobility component. Amendment No. 2 seeks to do that, so that disabled people under five or over 65 would be able to claim exemption through receipt of the mobility component, like everybody else. While that age discrimination remains, the current method of exemption under the disabled passengers scheme will continue to be necessary.
  I feel strongly on this subject. The measure is a petty attack on what could be described as a small concession for disabled people—but a disabled person with limited means will look upon it not as a small attack but as something much bigger.
  The Government do not have to do as they propose. I should like them to accept our amendment No. 9, which
  384
  would remove clause 12 from the Bill—there would be no problem in doing that at this stage. They could ensure that the needs of the under-fives and over-65s are properly looked after and table a new clause to next year's Finance Bill. They should not object to leaving the situation as it is for another year. I am aware that a new DLA scheme will be introduced in September, but despite that there is no need for the Government to insist on clause 12 remaining in the Bill.
  If the Government cannot accept amendment No. 9, they should accept amendment No. 1 or 2, and I should prefer them to accept amendment No. 2. However, if they want to be obstinate and to drive the knife into this class of disabled people, I ask them to give the organisations that represent disabled people a chance to show the need for the exemption from vehicle excise duty. If they did so, I would withdraw some of my strictures.
  Clause 12 is a petty measure that sticks the knife into a group of people who desperately deserve our help. I hope that the Government will consider the clause with a social conscience and accept the amendments.
  7 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Hon. Members who served on the Committee or who have read our proceedings will know that clause 12 was the subject of long and occasionally sharp exchanges between myself and the Paymaster General, which were truncated only by the lateness of the hour. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that we now have a better opportunity to consider clause 12.
  In Committee, the Paymaster General was at great pains to assure Members that no one who is eligible for vehicle excise duty exemption would lose it. He said that the clause would increase, rather than decrease, the number of disabled people who are assisted and that, far from achieving savings—a term that he described as a legal term and not one to detain the Committee—the Government would offer disabled people more help.
  Closer examination shows that the Paymaster General was being less than forthcoming and complete in his description of clause 12. Its effect is to disqualify disabled people over 65 or under five from the exemption from vehicle excise duty which they have come to rely on. I should have thought that there would be cross-party agreement on that provision continuing, but, unfortunately, that is not the effect of clause 12, which the Paymaster General described as a tidying measure.
  It may be helpful to give the history of the exemption to understand better why it is becoming less than full and is being withdrawn from a small but severely disabled group of people. The original exemption scheme, to which clause 12 refers, was first introduced in section 7 of the Finance Act 1971, which exempted three categories of people from vehicle excise duty. The first category were disabled drivers of cars and invalid tricycles issued by the then Department of Health and Social Security. The second was disabled drivers eligible for a grant from the DHSS in respect of their own cars.
  The third—this is the crucial category—were
  "persons having a particular disability that so incapacitates them in the use of their limbs that they have to be driven and cared for by a full-time constant attendant."
  That last group was excluded from help under the DHSS vehicle service because they were too disabled to drive, but it was thought reasonable, appropriate and desirable for

  385
  them to receive exemption from vehicle excise duty on cars used for their use and benefit. The criterion for eligibility was deemed to be met if the person was in receipt of attendance allowance at the higher rate.
  Subsequently, the DHSS vehicle service began to be phased out, and mobility allowance was introduced. Disabled drivers in categories one and two and some disabled passengers in category three were exempted from vehicle excise duty by their receipt of the new mobility allowance.
  In many respects, the introduction of the mobility allowance represented a significant step forward in provision for and the extension of benefits to disabled people. Unlike the original DHSS vehicle service, the new mobility allowance equitably helped those who could drive in spite of their disability and those who were too disabled to drive. There was no discrimination—those who could drive and those who were too disabled to drive equitably received the same benefit.
  The equity was maintained when section 7 of the Finance Act 1971 was amended by the Finance Acts 1972 and 1974. Significantly, the amendments made in 1972 and 1974 meant that those in the original third category, who were too old to be eligible for the mobility allowance, were still entitled to receive the vehicle excise duty exemption.
  Even at that stage, when the 1971 Act was amended in the subsequent Acts of 1972 and 1974, there was no age bar or disqualification for those under the age of five or those who became disabled passengers after reaching the age of 65. However, it was in the transition from the simple mobility allowance to the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance that the Government effectively changed the rules and abolished the eligibility of that small but severely disabled group. The House will recall that the change was made in April this year, when the disability living allowance was introduced.
  Unlike the previous simple mobility allowance, the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance cannot be claimed by people over 65 or under five. The crucial change was made in the transition from the former simple mobility allowance to the new higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance, which was introduced in the Government's new provisions in April this year.
  As the Paymaster General said in Committee, clause 12 tidies the Finance Act and brings it into line with the changes introduced when the disability living allowance became operative in April this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, its savage effect is to stop very severely disabled people, who after reaching the age of 65 find that they cannot walk or drive, enjoying vehicle excise duty exemption. In effect, as a result of the tidying and consequent to the changes in the transition to the introduction of the disability living allowance, the Government are saving a not insignificant sum of money at the expense of some very severely disabled people.
  In passing, without any great elaboration or explanation and at a late hour, when our consideration of these issues was drawing to a close, it was perhaps understandable that the Paymaster General did not speak in as much detail or with as much specificity as the Committee might have expected in view of the consequences and implications of the changes being proposed. Nevertheless, he said:
  "there is no longer machinery for setting entitlement"
  386
  for those who become 65 and become disabled passengers and who previously have been eligible for exemption,
  "because the machinery for the new allowance … cannot he used."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 June 1992; c. 151.]
  7.15 pm
  I hope that the Paymaster General will now give a proper explanation as, if necessary, we have the whole evening ahead of us to discuss this issue. I suggest that there is machinery for awarding the highest rate care component of the disability living allowance, which used to be called the higher rate attendance allowance. The existence and availability of the new highest rate care component of the DLA could be used to provide suitable criteria, as the care allowance did, to make exemption available to all, whether they are under five or over 65 when they become severely disabled and too disabled to drive their own cars.
  Why cannot the new care component be used to deem that the criterion of having to be driven and cared for by a full-time constant attendant is being met, just as it was if the person was in receipt of the previous attendance allowance at the higher rate? I contend that the two are comparable and that it is possible to transfer that eligibility, definition or qualification using the new higher rate care component in exactly the same way that the previous care allowance was used under the previous arrangements.
  If the available machinery were utilised, it would mean that those who became severely disabled after the age of 65 and who would previously and easily have qualified for exemption could continue to do so, thus obviating the need for clause 12.
  The Opposition strongly believe that vehicle excise duty exemption should remain available to disabled passengers —the original third category—who become disabled too late to be eligible for the mobility allowance or for the new higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance. Eligibility for the higher rate care component would qualify for entitlement to the higher rate mobility component but for the fact that the people involved are over the age of 65.
  I strongly urge the Paymaster General to consider using that simple comparison and the transferred use of the care component—the former care allowance and the new higher rate care component. If he were to do so, it would obviate the need for clause 12. Acceptance of the amendment would enable the Government to withdraw clause 12.
  There is absolutely no reason for clause 12 to be included in the Bill. It tidies what does not need to be tidied, because there is machinery available to transfer and extend the exemption in the way that it has always operated. Clause 12 excludes those who are under five and have severe disabilities, and those who are not yet 65 may become disabled passengers after that age. They should not be excluded from such an important exception.
  I hope that, in understanding the full history of the measure and in accepting my argument for the comparability and transferability of the machinery that is available to the Government to use, the Paymaster General will accept the amendment so that clause 12 can be removed from the Bill. That will benefit a significant number of considerably disabled people in our community.
  Mr. John Hutton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who so ably moved the amendment, I and many of my hon. Friends have strong and deeply held views on the subject. It is reasonable to say that clause 12 can be described only as the most lamentable feature of the Bill as it provides for the repeal of the disabled passengers' scheme. Those affected by clause 12 include severely disabled elderly people aged 65 and over and severely disabled children under the age of five who are already denied help under the disability living allowance with extra mobility costs. Although the Government have made it clear that clause 12 will protect entitlement for existing claimants—that must be good news—no new claims under the disabled passengers' scheme will be possible if clause 12 remains in the Bill.
  Age Concern, the Disability Alliance and many other organisations have expressed the view that the clause is an attack on severely disabled people. I share their concern and that of many of my hon. Friends that that is precisely the import of the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made clear, we do not believe that we can regard the clause as a tidying-up device. It is no such thing. Clause 12 can best be described as a convenient fig leaf which conceals a wider and reprehensible attack on the rights of disabled people.
  We can legitimately regard clause 12 as discrimination against two of the most vulnerable and needy groups of disabled people. I and many of my hon. Friends share the concern of many organisations in the area that that will be the real effect of the clause. That is why I support the amendment and urge the Government to think again.
  Some 20,000 people currently qualify under the scheme that clause 12 seeks to abolish. In the past year, more than 4,000 people who come into those two groups of disabled people came under the cover of the scheme. Those are significant numbers. It is worth bearing in mind that the Government have never actively promoted or publicised the disabled passengers' scheme. I suspect that the figure of 4,000 can be regarded as the tip of the iceberg. There may be significantly more disabled people in the two crucial categories who may be entitled to vehicle excise duty exemption but who do not apply for that exemption. Clause 12 is likely to have severe long-term effects, especially as the overall population is ageing. The number of people reaching the age of 65 will increase, so the effect of clause 12 will be cumulative as the years pass.
  The Treasury stands to gain from clause 12, but it will do so at the expense of very disabled people. In the current climate, that says a lot about the Government's real objectives. It is fair to describe the clause as an act of indescribable meanness. Part of the Government's case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, is that the necessary machinery to assess who qualifies under the disabled passengers' scheme is no longer in place. That follows changes introduced by the disability living allowance and by the process of self-assessment.
  Surely it would be easy for the relevant Department to devise a few self-assessment questions for the purpose which would allow the identification of need to be established and assessed at an early point. It is ludicrous to argue that the only response is to abolish the scheme altogether. That is not a credible or coherent approach for the Government to adopt.
  I urge the Government to think again about clause 12 and to do the decent thing for those deserving categories
  388
  of disabled people. They need our help, and it is inconceivable and cruel for the Government to maintain the fictitious argument that they have deployed throughout proceedings on the Bill.
  The Government have frequently expressed their commitment to improving the quality of life for older people and to enabling them to live as full and independent lives as possible. In that context, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the proposal and to move towards ending discrimination against people who become disabled later in life. I urge the Government to think again, to go back to the drawing board and to come back to the House with more credible and reasonable policies which address fully the mobility needs of those with acute and severe disabilities.
  I have one comment about the interaction between the fiscal and tax system, and the social security system as a whole. I understand that part of the Government's case is that the benefits should be part of the social security system. I do not believe that the two groups of disabled people whom my hon. Friends have identified as losers from clause 12 will receive any equivalent extra benefit if the clause remains in the Bill.
  I seek an assurance from the Paymaster General that there will be no losers if clause 12 remains in the Bill. It would be contemptible for those two groups of disabled people to lose as a result of the clause. Concern about clause 12 is shared by hon. Members of all parties. I hope that the Paymaster General will confirm that there will be no losers and that he can categorically assure me and many of my constituents who are concerned about the proposals that none of them will lose a penny piece because of clause 12.
  Mr. Clive Betts: The proposals stem initially from the changes which brought in the disability living allowance. No Opposition Member has sought to undermine the main thrust or benefits of those proposals. What we have done is to highlight a problem whereby, under clause 12, only those who receive the higher rate mobility element within the DLA will get vehicle excise tax exemption.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rightly stressed, in Committee we did not have as thorough a discussion of the matter as we might have done. We tried to raise questions and to get some information about how many people would be affected by clause 12. We wanted to know how many people who had been in the category of being able to get vehicle tax exemption would not have that right in future. We have now been given information that about 20,000 people will be in that position. If the scheme were retained, with better publicity the number might grow, but currently it is about 20,000.
  We are dealing with the two categories of people who are the passenger element in the scheme—children under five and people over 65 whose lack of mobility came about after the age of 65. The number of people is not enormous compared with the total benefit arrangements that the Government make, but that does not mean that those people should be forgotten or treated any old how without any thought or care for their welfare.

  389
  7.30 pm
  As only 20,000 people are involved—although the number might be increased with proper publicity—the issue is relatively easy for the Government to deal with. No doubt the Paymaster General will tell us that transitional arrangements will be put in place to ensure that people who currently benefit from the exemption keep it. That is fine for the time being, but in the future people in exactly the same circumstances will no longer be exempt. Ultimately, the 20,000 people who were previously exempt from vehicle excise duty will have to pay it. As transitional arrangements will be made, the number of people who will lose next year and the year after is small. It must be possible for the Government to find a way to assist that small number of people.
  Responses from Treasury Ministers always cite costs as the reason why they cannot do things. As only 20,000 people are involved, the expenditure or income forgone by the Treasury must be about £2 million. As the transitional arrangements will deal with most of the 20,000 people immediately, the extra cost of continuing the exemption for people who would newly qualify must be minuscule in this and the next financial year. The cost may be minuscule, but the impact on many families will be considerable. For some families, £2 a week may not be much, but many families of disabled people are on low incomes and £2 a week is a lot to them.
  To take another comparison, under the parliamentary mileage allowance scheme, £2 might take one only three miles, but for some families £2 can be a lifeline. Hon. Members must see it in that context. I have spoken to Mencap about the proposal, and Mencap had a simple view, especially on how the proposal affects children under five. When someone has a child with learning difficulties under five, it is all very well to say, "You can put it under your arm and take it on the bus. There is no difficulty with that." Many such children have behavioural difficulties. They often create a disturbance and get upset by the experience of travelling on public transport. Private transport is crucial to the family of such a child. The spokesman for Mencap said:
  "Many of these families are under real pressure."
  The Government's proposal will simply add to the pressure on families who have real difficulties in any event.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, if the Government do not have the machinery available at present to continue the vehicle excise duty exemption, for heaven's sake let them create it. They should not take it out on the families. Eminently sensible proposals have been made and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, if the Government contend that the matter should be dealt with not through fiscal arrangements but through the benefit system, let the Government tell us what extra benefit will be paid to such families. Let them tell us that there will be no losers.
  I simply ask the Government to change their mind. The proposal in clause 12 is mean, miserly, despicable and hard hearted. It is the product of an uncaring and unfeeling Government. Our proposal will not destroy their plans for next year's public sector borrowing requirement. It will not undermine the Government's fiscal, economic or social policy in any respect. It is simply a relatively cheap, simple proposal to give a little help to a small number of families who need it. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I wish to deal first with some of the smaller points and go on to the main questions, which Opposition Members mostly addressed. The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to write into the law one way of delivering the undertaking which the Government have given, and which I am happy to repeat, that no one who currently benefits from the vehicle excise duty exemption will lose it as a result of clause 12.
  It is important for me to emphasise—several hon. Members asked me to do so—that there will be no losers at the point of change. However, as I explained in Committee, we seek to achieve that by means of the order which will introduce transitional provisions as well as fixing the date from which the clause takes effect. That is the best way of doing it. It is better than doing it by the means proposed in the amendment.
  There is a drafting problem with the amendment. Vehicle excise duty, and thus exemption from it, attaches to vehicles, not people. The position is not as described in the amendment. That is one reason why it would not be a good thing to accept the amendment. However, I accept the point behind the amendment. Indeed, we have said all along that there should be no losers at the point of change. Everyone who currently receives the exemption will continue to do so.
  There are other difficulties with the amendment. It fixes the date as 30 June and relates to eligibility rather than to whether or not someone receives the exemption. That could give rise to other complications, but I shall not dwell on them. I am anxious that people should appreciate that we take the point behind amendment No. 1. However, we intend to achieve the aim in a different way.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) raised in passing value added tax on fuel used by leagues of friends and other organisations which often provide transport for the disabled. There is always a problem with proposals to extend zero-rating. It is the problem of the sixth directive —indeed, it was signed by the Labour Government— under which we agreed with our European partners not to extend zero rates. So we could not do precisely what the hon. Gentleman requested. However, it is relevant that vehicle excise duty exemption for passenger vehicles involved in transporting mentally and physically disabled passengers is not affected by clause 12.
  Since 1979, no VAT has been charged on the purchase price of cars leased to certain disabled people. A little later, in 1984, we also removed VAT on leasing payments. Subsequently, in 1989, we lifted the car tax on such cars. Various other changes have been made, but we could not pursue the precise change proposed by the hon. Member for Wrexham.
  Most of the comments made this afternoon have dealt with the main point behind clause 12. Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 have the effect of removing clause 12, but achieve it in slightly different ways.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) complained of the lateness of the hour, although I see from the record that it was only 10.17 pm when we finished debating the clause in Committee. As I am sure the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), knows, we sat considerably later than that on several occasions, but I shall not make much of that.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool again used the phrase "tidying up", which is not one that I would have used to describe the proposal. However, I was anxious to ensure

  391
  that the Committee considered the clause in the context of the wider reforms of help for the disabled and the introduction of the disability living allowance. It is clear from the debate that hon. Members have understood that the clause must be considered in that context.
  Several hon. Members have described the amount as petty, which it is, as it covers only vehicle excise duty. One hon. Member said that amounted to only £2 per week, but it is slightly more than that. I do not seek to hide behind that. As I told the Committee and as has been reflected in the debate, the introduction of the new allowance makes it difficult to provide the machinery to continue the allowance for the two groups of people to whom attention has been drawn.
  Under DLA and attendance allowance for the over-65s, we shall no longer be able to rely on a doctor's examination to provide the information needed to decide about walking ability for the purposes of exemption. That is the central difficulty and, with respect, I do not think that hon. Members have tackled it as they might have done. It is not a question of costs. One hon. Member said that they were minuscule; in terms of Government expenditure and the help that we give to the disabled, they are. I do not seek to dismiss the proposal on that account, but that is a fact.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), among others, suggested that if the scheme had been publicised, the costs involved might have been larger. All mobility allowance recipients received a leaflet about vehicle excise duty exemption, and those awarded attendance allowance were told about it in the award notice. I have heard no suggestion, nor do I believe, that the scheme was not understood by those eligible for it. Therefore, the number of people in receipt does not understate the number that would have been in receipt if there had been more publicity.
  Even if hon. Members did not know it before they came to the House, once they have been here for a short while, they must realise that the interaction of the benefit system and the tax systems is extremely complex. It is difficult to ensure that people receive all the benefits for which they are eligible. That is a constant problem, which does not get easier when we extend allowances. On the contrary, it tends to become more complicated. We are all familiar with that, and would like to solve the problem, but it is inevitable.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the under-fives, one of the categories involved. We have extended entitlement to help with extra costs for children by making the new, lower rate of the care component and the higher rate available to all children, which in turn gives access to the disabled child premium in the income-related benefits. We more than doubled those in April 1990, and they are important for the under-fives, among others.
  As for the over-65s, the clause does not affect any people who benefit from the allowances. We are proud of our record on help for pensioners. It is not irrelevant to remark that expenditure on benefits for the elderly has risen by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. I hope that we can be acquitted of any general charge as regards the elderly, although it is true that the Government wish to do the best that we can for them, as would all right hon. and hon. Members.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Mandelson: No one questions the Government's desire that those who receive benefits should continue to do so. My remarks were aimed principally at those who have yet to become 65 and to qualify for the category three group which I defined. The right hon. Gentleman needs to explain clearly his argument about the machinery before he concludes his remarks. Why cannot the machinery for awarding the highest rate of care component of the disability living allowance, introduced in April, be used to provide the benefit and exemption to those people who meet the criteria, who would previously have fitted in that category and would have been eligible for the exemption after they reached 65? Will he explain that clearly?
  Sir John Cope: The criteria provided for that component of DLA are not relevant to this benefit. In any case, the care component does not apply to those who become disabled after the age of 65. That is the nub of the difference that we are introducing in clause 12.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham, who opened the debate and sought to remove clause 12 from the Bill, acknowledged that the effect was relatively small and asked whether we would consult organisations about the matter and about the genuine difficulty in which we find ourselves, which gives rise to the clause. My right hon. and hon. Friends—especially those in the Department of Social Security who are mainly responsible for benefits —are continually in touch with the organisations that have been mentioned. I am sure that they will remain in touch about that matter, as they will about other matters concerning disability and benefits.
  Dr. Marek: The debate has been useful, and the gist of what the Government are doing has been conveyed to the House by Opposition Back Benchers. I am in a charitable mood this evening, because the Paymaster General answered the debate honestly. I have been in the House for a few years now and in my time on the Finance Bill I have seen and heard Paymasters General who have been decidedly shifty in their replies on clauses. That is not the case this time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I must not succumb to my hon. Friends' entreaties on that matter. It would be unfair to refer to other Paymasters General, but I absolve the present Paymaster General of being shifty.
  Mr. Mandelson: I would be the last Member of this House to accuse the Paymaster General of being shifty or dishonest at any time. [Interruption.] He may have been when he was in the Whips Office, but that was long before I came to the House. Although he may have been honest, his answer to my question about machinery was less than complete. Originally, the criterion that a person had
  "to be driven and cared for by a full-time constant attendant"
  was deemed to be met if the person was in receipt of the attendance allowance at the higher rate. Why cannot the equivalent of that former attendance allowance at the higher rate—the higher component of the new disability living allowance—be used now? The Paymaster General has consistently refused to explain why that machinery cannot be used, and we should not let him off the hook.
  Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend. A gallery of rogue Conservative Whips is displayed in today's Evening Standard, and the Paymaster General's face does not appear among them. So I shall continue in my charitable

  393
  mood and appeal to the Paymaster General's sense of fair play. He said that his hon. Friends in the Department of Social Security were in continual touch, and that he was sure that they would continue to be in touch, with organisations representing disabled people about that matter.
  Sir John Cope: I had the impression that the hon. Gentleman might be bringing his remarks to a close, and I wished to respond to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I tried to explain—perhaps I was not clear enough—why we cannot use the machinery that he suggested. The care component is concerned with people's need for attention and supervision, not with whether people are incapacitated in the use of their limbs. That is why the criterion is not relevant in this matter.
  Mr. Mandelson rose—
  Dr. Marek: I shall give way in a moment but, in accordance with the rules of the House, I must make a comment first.
  I am grateful for the Paymaster General's explanation, and I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mandelson: I hope that the Paymaster General will understand the spirit in which I am pursuing this matter. If the criterion of being
  "driven and cared for by a full-time constant attendant"
  was a perfectly adequate definition and basis for qualification then, why is that not the case now? Why has the criterion changed? The severity of people's disability and their need for exemption from vehicle excise duty have not changed. Nothing has changed apart from the Paymaster General's redefinition of the criterion for reasons that I do not understand.
  Dr. Marek: That is a pertinent question. I shall not press the Paymaster General to reply, but I shall give way to him in due course if he can do so.
  I agree that there is a much greater reliance on self-assessment in the new scheme for the operation of DLA. An obvious question to ask is why a doctor's note could not be demanded before exemption from the VED was allowed. It would be simple to construct a form in such a way that people would be allowed certain benefits on a self-assessment basis, but if they wanted VED exemption and were under five or over 65—if they belonged to the third group that receives those benefits at present—they would need a doctor's note. If that is the only problem, a bit of ingenuity could get round it.
  The Paymaster General replied to the debate in an honest manner. I take it that the sum of money is not at issue—as one of my hon. Friends said, it is only about £2million—and the Treasury does not seek to recover £2 million to make inroads into the £28 billion of public sector borrowing requirement that it must fund. I do not believe that the Government are hard-hearted and want to hit the disabled where it hurts, so they must be taking this step because their advisers and civil servants have told them that the difficulties in continuing the allowance for the disabled are insuperable and the best way is to get rid of it. Such advice cannot be accepted without thorough and searching scrutiny.
  I therefore rely on the Paymaster General's words and shall read them carefully in the Official Report tomorrow. He said that his hon. Friends will talk to the groups
  394
  representing disabled people, such as the Spastics Society and Mencap. If the various societies can convince them that there are ways to get round the problems, I hope and expect that the Government will put the matter right in a future Finance Bill.
  The Paymaster General said that the Conservative party is proud of its record on pensioners. I cannot let that remark pass, because it is not true and the myth should not be given credence. Old-age pensioners have received increases based on the retail prices index. The increases are not based on a proportion of average earnings.
  While the rest of the country has been growing richer because the world has been growing richer and GDP has been growing faster than the RPI—although slower than in many other states of the European Community— pensioners have not partaken of that increase. Even worse, besides increasing the burden of taxation—as a percentage of GDP it is much higher now, under Conservative rule, than it ever was under Labour rule—the Government are shifting the balance from direct to indirect taxation. By and large, pensioners do not pay income tax, but they all pay value added tax.
  Therefore, I challenge the Paymaster General's statement that pensioners have done well or that the Conservative party has a proud record on pensioners. Disabled people, especially those over 65, who need all the help that we can give them, would value a continuing exemption from vehicle excise duty if it could be arranged.
  I hope that the Government will continue to talk to organisations representing disabled people, because £2 million is a small sum. If they can find a way round the drafting difficulties to ensure that the allowance goes to those who properly qualify, I hope that they will do so in next year's Finance Bill.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 15

  SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR PERSONS INVOLVED IN FARMING ETC.
  8 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 11, line 26, leave out clause 15. I wish to make a procedural point, and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me a couple of minutes to develop my argument.
  Clause 15 is the first example in the Bill of a regrettable practice that has grown up in recent years: adding to the Finance Bill in Committee clauses—often with schedules attached—that are frequently never discussed on the Floor of the House or mentioned in the Budget speech, and are neither urgent nor uncontroversial. In 1984, two clauses were added to the Finance Bill in Committee. In 1986, 11 clauses were added in Committee; in 1989, 16 clauses were added in Committee; in 1990, 30 clauses were added in Committee, and the numbers have remained in double figures ever since. Increasingly, as the Finance Bill emerges from the House, it bears less and less relation to the Budget speech that is supposed to introduce the fiscal measures or to the Finance Bill as it was first introduced to the House and made available to the public to study a matter of only two to three months previously.
  I accept that there are occasions when the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary in opening the debate on the Finance

  395
  Bill will tell the House that proposals are to be introduced, but the Bill's drafting is incomplete, so those proposals will be introduced into the Bill later. That is perfectly legitimate, because at least the public who follow our debates are aware that proposals such as those in the current Bill that relate to rents are to be introduced. Equally, as with new clause 1, which was introduced yesterday on Report, there are occasions when, in order to stop a gap in the Treasury's tax-gathering powers, it is necessary to introduce a clause urgently. However, it is worrying that much of the legislation introduced in such a way has not fallen into either of those categories.
  Over the years, a number of highly contentious matters have been introduced into the Bill in Committee. Section 49 of the Finance Act 1986 reversed the decision in the case of Collard's Mining and Industrial Holdings. Schedule 11 of the same Act introduced the controversial provisions on the taxation of foreign entertainers and sportsmen. Anti-avoidance provisions against charities were introduced in section 31 of the 1986 Act.
  Section 109 of the Finance Act 1988, introduced in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, contained provisions on gains from settled property that are still controversial. Section 105 of the Finance Act 1989 restricted the availability of small companies' corporation tax rate.
  Such clauses, often introduced only after discussion in Committee, involved matters of great public interest. Section 73 of the Finance Act 1991 deals with relief of company trading losses. Sections 23 and 87 and schedule 4 of the Finance Act 1990 introduced various provisions relating to company cars. Sections 25 and 27 of the Finance Act 1990 introduced provisions on tax relief on charitable donations.
  Often clauses were introduced that seemed to have no great urgency, and could have been delayed until the next Finance Bill—for example, clauses 110 to 112 and virtually the whole of part IV of the 1991 Act, relating to non-contentious stamp duty changes. The same is true of section 76 of the same Act, relating to the treatment of annuities.
  One assumes that, following today's debate, the current Bill will proceed to be given Royal Assent after only cursory discussion in another place. Protection against clauses introduced into a Bill in Committee or on Report is that they are subject to further discussion in another place, but that is not true of the Finance Bill.
  Matters introduced into the current Bill in that way include changes in the rules relating to qualifying maintenance payments, foreign earnings, equity notes, double taxation on interest, films, farmers—the subject of the present clause—and the promised provisions on tax-free rent of furnished accommodation. Anyone who is vaguely interested in taxation legislation but who does not personally receive a weekly tax intelligence report or who does not subscribe to all Inland Revenue press releases will be unaware that such legislation has ever been contemplated, let alone that it is just a couple of days from becoming law.
  The procedure is made even worse because new clauses introduced in that way are discussed in Committee only when the entire Bill has been studied and there is extreme time pressure on the Committee's business. Committee
  396
  members, having spent many evenings, nights and often mornings on the Bill's original provisions, are anxious to complete their business and get back to normal life. Not surprisingly, many of the new clauses added in that way receive only cursory discussion in Committee and are never discussed on the Floor of the House.
  The hand of the Treasury on such clauses is weighted even more heavily, as it can supply Committee members with information that is not now, was never and never will be available to anyone else. Whenever a new clause is tabled to a Finance Bill, a few days later—possibly only 48 hours before the clause is discussed—Committee members will receive notes on it explaining its intentions line by line. Those notes are never published: they are secret to members of the Committee, and it is expected that those Members will destroy them once the Committee has deliberated on the relevant clause.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the notes were secret. I have been a member of the Committee discussing the Finance Bill and I do not think that that is the case. It was perfectly possible for Committee members to discuss the matter with all interested parties. I have great sympathy with the case being made by the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not overplay it.
  Mr. Stern: I must assure the hon. Gentleman that those notes are provided only for Committee members. While it is expected that at least the sense of them may be discussed outside the Committee, they never appear in print in the form in which they are handed to Committee members.
  Whatever the reasons for the procedure, I believe that it now goes too far—particularly when one considers the growth in the number of such clauses. In the tax sphere above all others—because of the lack of discussion in another place—legislation that is rushed through, without an effective opportunity for public comment, cannot be part of our system. At the very least, there is surely now a case for the publication of the notes on clauses. That would at least enable those interested in the subject being discussed in Committee to receive full information on what is being added to the Bill.
  I should like the Government to go further. I hope that, when it becomes necessary to introduce a new clause to the Bill, they will not simply introduce it in Committee, but will consider proceeding in the same way as they do with every other minor Government announcement: by way of a reply to a written question.
  Dr. Marek: I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), although some clauses have to be brought in quickly. There is no such thing as a fixed rule which can never be varied.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the publication of notes on clauses. I do not find them very helpful; they tend to be rather perfunctory. If the hon. Gentleman reads them—I am sure he does—he will agree that they should be rather more informative and helpful, so that not only the experts affected but a reader with an average education and some knowledge of the subject can understand them. Some clauses are, after all, technically difficult. The Government should perhaps take action on this, whether or not they publish the notes on clauses.
  A great deal of financial legislation is not really a cause of party division. When the Government of the day introduce changes in tax rates, they are likely to be the

  397
  cause of political division. I suspect that our confronta-tional system will continue, but many clauses are not the subject of party political dispute. I always feel that it is a great pity that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition have to try to oppose everything. Equally, when Ministers introduce new clauses, they try to get them through without changing a single comma. Their briefs from civil servants instruct them to resist all attempts to amend such clauses, often listing 20 reasons why amendments should be rejected.
  Perhaps we could have a more collaborative Committee stage for some of these proposals—I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree. I suspect that this is all part of a much wider subject: the reform of the procedures of the House, which is proceeding slowly in certain areas. I await the day when we can turn our attention to reforming the ways in which we scrutinise legislation which is not controversial.
  Certainly many of the clauses and schedules to which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West referred were not controversial. Clause 15, for instance, is by and large uncontroversial—I could find nothing in it to oppose. On the other hand, the Opposition could certainly have commented on it constructively, and would have done so had we felt that the Government would be constructive in return. Our Committee system is not set up like that, unfortunately. It is a confrontational replica of the House of Commons Chamber. Committee Rooms are full of parallel Benches facing each other, making it difficult if not impossible to scrutinise these clauses in the way that I suggest.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in suggesting wherever and whenever he can that we need to look at this whole matter and to find a better way of scrutinising legislation.
  Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) will find a good deal of sympathy for his views. He has used this clause and this amendment as a vehicle to express his views on the management of legislation and on the insertion of new clauses in the Finance Bill.
  The clause was the subject of considerable consultation by my predecessor, now Secretary of State for Employment, when she was doing largely the same job as I do now before the general election. That consultation involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various outside interests connected with the matter.
  At the time of the Budget it was not thought helpful to proceed with the scheme outlined in the clause. Such was the view of many of the organisations consulted and it was a view accepted by my right hon. Friends in the Treasury. That is why the scheme did not appear in the Budget.
  8.15 pm
  When I arrived at the Treasury after the general election the scheme had moved down in the scale of priorities, so it was not included in the Bill as originally published. Consultations had nevertheless continued; we were still in discussion with outside interests, and it became apparent that it would be desirable to include the scheme, which is why we tabled the clause.
  As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, the clause is not a matter of terrific controversy between
  398
  the parties. Indeed, it has been generally welcomed—by the National Farmers Union and other involved interests —as a helpful move.
  I do not apologise for having inserted the clause. I should have preferred to insert it in a proper manner when the Bill was first published, but events did not turn out that way. It was desirable to introduce the scheme this year rather than to leave it until next year's Finance Bill partly because of the arrival of the single market on 1 January 1993. The clause is not essential for the creation of a single market, but it is helpful to have the scheme to which it refers up and running—if we can—by 1 January.
  When we decided to include the clause we issued a news release which I hope will have helped to draw the attention of those outside to what we are proposing. Besides tabling the clause, we also did our best to ensure that those in the House who had taken an interest in these matters, in Committee and elsewhere, knew what we were doing and why.
  In Standing Committee we had what I hope was a useful discussion. Today we are holding another debate in which we could, if hon. Members chose, discuss the detail of the clause. There will also be further opportunities for debate on the clause. It is, after all, an enabling clause permitting the flat-rate farmer scheme to be introduced. Treasury orders subject to the affirmative procedure—and, I anticipate, Customs regulations subject to the negative procedure—will have to come before the House.
  I assure the House that we shall be exposing for comment later this year details of the scheme that we have in mind to enable the views of those interested in the clause and the scheme to be taken into account before we place the necessary secondary legislation before the House. We have thus gone to some trouble with the outside interests concerned in this clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made, quite fairly, a more general point about the number of clauses being inserted into this and other Finance Bills, drawing attention to some of them in particular. He said that notes on clauses were secret to members of the Committee. I have never regarded them as secret to members of the Committee, who are certainly at liberty to share their copies or to copy notes on clauses at any time. They frequently share them with those who advise them or with whom they are in touch about the different matters involved in Finance Bills. It is true that they are not published in the form in which they are sent to hon. Members and receive a fairly wide distribution. We could consider doing that, but I do not think that it would add a great deal to the knowledge of those outside. Similar information is usually available, sometimes through the written parliamentary question and frequently through press releases.
  Mr. Stern: My right hon. Friend is being most generous in his reply. However, I have frequently heard criticisms, particularly within the accountancy profession—of which, as my right hon. Friend is aware, I am a member—that notes on clauses are not published. Those who study tax law consider them to be of some value in understanding the purposes of clauses. Would my right hon. Friend consider, in addition to what he has been describing, placing a copy of the notes on clauses in the Library?
  Sir John Cope: Copies are available in the Vote Office. These can be taken away and given to people. That is

  399
  sometimes easier than having papers in the Library. If hon. Members wish us to do so, we can consider other ways to disseminate this information more widely.
  Dr. Marek: I do not know whether this will assist the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), but if he thinks that people outside should see the notes on clauses, perhaps they should be put in the Sales Office where people can buy them. Does the Paymaster General know whether that happens?
  Sir John Cope: So far as I know, that is not the case, but I am speaking entirely off the cuff. If my hon. Friend would like to pursue that, he should take it up with the House authorities rather than with us. This goes much wider than the Finance Bill, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West made a special point about the Finance Bill in relation to the other place.
  Apart from the clause which is the subject of this amendment, other clauses have been inserted in the Bill, some of which I hope that my hon. Friend will agree are entirely helpful to the interests concerned, and many of which were introduced after considerable consultation with those interests.
  In Committee, I had a little to do with the four new clauses relevant to the taxation of companies producing films. Those are now clauses 41, 42, 43 and 68. Those clauses were the subject of considerable consultation with the industry concerned and were much discussed in advance. They were mentioned in principle in the Budget speech but, due to the complexity of the consultations which had to take place, they were not drafted in time to be included when the Bill was published initially. That is an example of the consultations preventing the system being followed in the conventional manner that my hon. Friend would wish.
  Clauses 57 and 58 and schedule 10, which set up the rent-a-room scheme, were introduced in Committee. They were the subject of considerable discussion outside and formed part of the manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I fought the election, as well as press releases, and so on.
  One could evolve a special case for all the new clauses which are inserted into the Bill but the fact that one can advance a special case for each and every new clause does not detract from the soundness of my hon. Friend's basic point—that there are too many in total even if each can be justified. My hon. Friend raises a good point about the difficulties, for those outside the House as well as for those inside, of dealing with Bills which change, through the introduction of new clauses, as they follow their stages through the House. I can only say that we shall try to avoid that where possible in the future.
  Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, and in particular for his comments about notes on clauses. I emphasise my assurance to him that anything that he can do to disseminate these wider will be welcomed, at least among those who study legislation in detail. We have had a useful debate and a mild warning shot has been fired across the bows of my right hon. Friend. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63

  REDUCED AND COMPOSITE RATE
  Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 46, line 48, at end add—
  '(3) the foregoing provisions of this section shall have no effect in relation to proceedings commenced before 16th June 1992.'.
  We are talking about court proceedings taken by building societies which believe strongly that they have been required to pay tax that they were not due to pay and have been so required by means of successive pieces of retrospective legislation. They and I appeal to the principle so clearly set out in 1991 by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury in Committee, when he said:
  "it would have been wrong to seek to change the law in the middle of a court case … the Committee would have been shocked, rightly, if the Government had sought to change the law in their favour between appeals. That would not have been right.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 June 1991; c. 212.]
  The amendment has been tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who took the initiative in bringing the matter back to the House after it had been discussed in Committee so that we could look at it on Report. What lies behind it is a determination that those building societies that have this grievance should not be prevented from taking their case to court by successive retrospective Acts.
  All this goes back to the removal of the composite rate of taxation and the introduction of a system under which people pay the tax for which they are liable on their building society account. That was a sensible change and one for which we had argued. However, one consequence was that, in the changeover, a number of building societies whose accounting year was different from others believed that they had been double counted for the assessment of tax. There resulted from this a series of regulations and other legislative measures. In October 1990, the House of Lords found that the Income Tax (Building Societies) Regulations 1986 were invalid in so far as they purported to re-tax interest paid by building societies to their depositors during the tax year 1985–86. That was the transitional composite rate tax that was part of the changeover process.
  Woolwich building society took the Revenue to court and was repaid the transitional tax. Other building societies followed suit and demanded repayment. The Revenue said, "No, nothing doing, no money, we're not paying", so others also took the Revenue to court. Two building societies, the Leeds and the National and Provincial, issued writs against the Revenue claiming payment. A few days later—it is amazing how quickly the Revenue authorities operate in these circumstances—the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement a measure that became section 53 of the Finance Act 1991, and retrospectively validated the invalid regulations, except in the case of the Woolwich, which was allowed to keep the money that it had got in the first appeal.
  Hon. Members will remember the intense debate that we had on that measure in Committee and the many criticisms made by the hon. Member for Eltham and others of its retrospective character. Although we went into considerable detail on the background to this in Committee this year, it would not necessarily be helpful to go into quite such detail again. The key element for today's debate is that, when last year's Finance Bill was being

  401
  discussed in Committee, the Leeds building society pointed out that if the 1986 regulations were validated retrospectively, that would throw out the composite rate tax for one or more years because of the way in which the rules calculated it.
  The Revenue's regulations, in measuring the tax by reference to the period of a year, mean that if the period is more than a year the calculation is bound to be incorrect. It said that that would happen, and it did. That is why we have had to return to the matter in the Bill, and why it contains a retrospective clause, adding to the trail of retrospection.
  8.30 pm
  The Leeds obtained leave to bring judicial review proceedings and it has been joined by four other building societies—the National and Provincial, the Bradford and Bingley, the Scarborough and the Yorkshire. It is because of those proceedings that the Government have sought to block that avenue and to prevent the court from hearing the grievance and resolving the matter.
  The Minister made much in Committee of the fact that the ground had shifted and that the building societies inevitably are now arguing a different part of the argument from where they started. That is because of the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter at every stage. Every time the societies have tried to have a real argument before the right court and have their grievance dealt with properly, the Government have taken from them the power to pursue the matter in that way. However, in doing so, the Government inevitably get it wrong and produce invalid legislation—so the societies can pursue their argument in subsequent proceedings.
  All that the societies want or ever wanted is the right to have their original grievance heard and the right to the repayment of any tax that the courts find that they were overcharged— no more and no less. The societies have made depositions limiting their claims under the litigation so that they cannot involve anything more than the original grievance.
  The amendment would not extend beyond the cases already entered upon and therefore could not open up the possibility of other building societies finding new grievances or claims that they could bring before the courts. The amendment is designed to enable the building societies with the original grievance to pursue it, but to gain no more. In Committee, we offered a perfectly satisfactory way by which the Government could contain the matter to the original grievance. However, they argued that if the matter could be pursued, theoretically £15 billion of revenue could be at stake. The amendment that I moved in Committee was designed to ensure that that could not happen and this amendment is similarly so designed. When combined with the clear declaration by the building societies, the matter would be confined to the original grievance.
  It appears to us, to many outside the House and to many of the Inland Revenue's clients who are observing what is happening that in circumstances such as this the Revenue looks rather like a heavily armed, overcoated, trilby-hatted gangster, saying, "Nobody goes to court and gets the better of us—and certainly nobody goes to court, gets the better of us and lives to tell the tale." That is no stance for a revenue collection Department to take, least of all in relation to building societies.
  402
  The societies ask for no more than that their grievance be properly heard in a court of law and that their opportunity to pursue the matter in the courts not be removed by retrospective legislation. The amendment would meet that need. I hope that the Minister. even at this hour and even though he did not accept the case in Committee, will feel able to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Tim Smith: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the Inland Revenue was not adopting an appropriate attitude in immediately moving to change the result of a court case that was not resolved to its satisfaction. I can understand why any revenue department would want to do that. The question is whether it is right for Parliament to endorse that decision—and that is what we must decide tonight.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, we considered the matter in considerable detail in Committee, so I do not want to rehearse its long history, even though I have been associated with it from the start. The position is now quite simple. Originally, there was considerable doubt about what Parliament intended. Whatever the Government may have said, in the debate on the Finance Bill in 1985, there was some doubt about what Parliament intended. However, whatever hon. Members may say, there can be no doubt about what Parliament intended when we debated the matter last year.
  Not one of the building societies could be in any possible doubt about that, because we had very long debates in Committee. John Maples, the then Economic Secretary, produced a great chart showing in graphic form how the income tax years matched the payment to be made of composite rate tax by the building societies. No one could be in any doubt about what was intended by Parliament and the Government last year. Whatever the building societies have said subsequently, they could quite clearly read what was intended in the Hansard of last year's debate.
  I did not agree with last year's decision, because I thought that there was sufficient doubt about what Parliament had intended in 1985 not to warrant the introduction of retrospective legislation. However, the position is now different. The Leeds has, as it is perfectly entitled to do, had another try. Three sets of regulations relating to the payment of composite rate tax could have been subject to doubt for a long time as the case wended its way through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
  The Government moved immediately to deal with that possibility, and I believe that they were justified in doing so, because there can be no doubt about what Parliament intended last year. There was originally some doubt about what was intended for the payment of composite rate tax in the transitional period. The Treasury's intention was to put the building societies on the same basis as the banks. They were paying interest quarterly, but the building societies were paying it annually. The dispute related to the transitional period. There was doubt about words that were uttered in this House and elsewhere about the Government's intentions, but no one who reads the Official Report of last year's proceedings can be in any doubt about what was intended.
  Although I appreciate that there is a case for giving special consideration to those who brought legal proceedings before the date in the amendment, I still do not think that the House would be wise to accept it.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) made a helpful speech, although I take a different view. I pay tribute to him, because he and Patrick Jenkin first raised the issue in 1985.
  I am prepared to accept that there was some ambiguity in the Government's intention in 1985. If they had clearly considered what their intention should have been, it would be that there should be no taxation for a period for which the tax liability had already been satisfied. Indeed, I do not think that the Government intended to impose taxation for a period for which the tax had already been collected —until part way through the year when, I suspect, the position changed from an excess of income to the Government saying, "It's getting a bit tight", and then to, "Where are the ambiguities, where are the opportunities?" I may be wrong, but it does not really matter. There was ambiguity: I concede that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
  I made a mistake last year. The affected building societies were willing, prepared and keen to write to every one of their members asking them to raise the matter with their Members of Parliament and with the Government. I advised them not to do so, because I thought that there were signs that the Government would recognise that it was politically impossible and unjust to try to draw a division between the Woolwich and the Leeds. I declare a non-interest, as my mortgage is with the Woolwich, not the Leeds. The Woolwich has got its money.
  I was wrong last year, and I am prepared to say so. I feel some guilt because I realise that I was wrong. If 1 million letters had been written to Members of Parliament, the Government would have reconsidered dropping the gate after the Woolwich had applied for a judicial review—not a tax appeal—and then the Leeds would have had its money. It is interesting that it took more than five months after the House of Lords announced its result for the Government to decide and declare that they would not let the Leeds have the money.
  I have since discovered that, even if there were a tax appeal, let alone a judicial review, the Inland Revenue does not have to pay back money that is unlawfully levied on, demanded or accepted from taxpayers. I look forward to receiving in the next few days a whole series—a first wave —of parliamentary answers to certain questions. However, I do not intend to bring that into the debate.
  I may have to apologise for the fact that, in an early-day motion, I described a certain calculation as a mathematical hoax which did not really demonstrate whether the composite rate was appropriate. If that accusation proves wrong, I will happily make a public apology to those concerned. I believe, however, that, given the exact calculation that is in the nature of composite rate tax, it is impossible to match the proceeds with the tax revenue that would have been there had taxpayers paid.
  Let me give the Government some encouraging news. I do not think that many European Court decisions have been made about United Kingdom taxation. The Leeds case is clearly unjust, because a division cannot be made between the Leeds and the Woolwich; that simply would not wash, no matter how many times retroactive primary legislation was sought. Once domestic remedies had been exhausted, any European action would abolish susidiarity and open the gates in a thoroughly undesirable way.
  If the amendment is not accepted and cannot be rephrased, it would be right for it to be replaced by primary legislation. The Government used such legislation
  404
  to try to clear up a possible ambiguity that could have operated in favour of the Revenue—or, at any rate, against the interests of the Leeds. I mention the Leeds again because it was that building society that first told the Government and the Revenue what the effect of the original regulations would be. There is some doubt about whether regulations 11 and 12 can be balanced; let me stick to regulation 3. Regulation 3 clearly imposes a massive extra disadvantage on the Leeds and other building societies.
  I may speak after the Minister if that is allowed; or I may wait, and try to introduce primary legislation. I suspect that the Government would be beaten if a million letters were written to Members of Parliament. It would be necessary to find only about 10 hon. Members who accepted the injustice of what had happened—I refer not to the interpretation of last year's law, but to what has happened over the past five or six years—to resolve the matter by means of primary legislation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield implied, what has happened in regard to the judicial review of composite rate tax is no surprise. Last year, I made an announcement on the Floor of the House. There was no need for the Government to act after the general election, and nine months or so after I had warned them that last year's legislation would not work.
  Let me make a suggestion to my hon. Friend. I am not trying to bring in all the hon. Members who advanced other ideas in Committee; but I suggest that, although it is acceptable for the Government to keep their £15,000 million minus £90 million, it is reasonable to allow the £90 million to be decided by the courts. The Government believe that they have an overwhelming case—so overwhelming that they are introducing primary legislation to ensure that they do not lose. If the matter is not put to the vote, we shall return to it again and again—not just in Europe, but here as well.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am acutely conscious that the whole story of the change in the basis of composite rate tax, as it affects banks and building societies, is not a particularly happy saga. I know that I am the latest in a run of Ministers who have had to deal with various aspects of that transition. I assure the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), that if I felt that there was a way of producing an agreed resolution of the problem—based either on the formal wording of the amendment or on what my hon. Friend and others have said in the weeks since I took responsibility for such matters—no one would be keener than I to find a compromise which was fair to all taxpayers and ensured that the will of Parliament was implemented as it concerns the transition from the old basis of collection to the basis which applied between 1985 and 1988. Indeed, no one has a stronger vested interest in that regard. I do not believe, however, that such a compromise is possible.
  8.45 pm
  The House must be clear about the issue that is addressed in clause 63—as it has now become, following the Committee stage. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) offered a brief history of the evolution of that issue, and I do not dissent from the bare bones of what he said. The building societies' sense of grievance arose because they thought, and still think, that the imposition of the transitional tax during the "gap"

  405
  period in 1985–86 was unfair; they felt that it constituted what my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham described, in shorthand, as double taxation.
  Although that was not the issue which was decided in the Woolwich case, it did underlie that case. As a consequence, the House and the Standing Committee considering last year's Finance Bill addressed the issue head-on, and concluded after detailed debate—this is the important point—that the transitional arrangements provided in last year's legislation should he implemented in law.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I clarify the issue for the sake of those who may occupy the Financial Secretary's seat if he is promoted before the next legislative stage? The courts did not decide the double or extra taxation for a period for which taxation liability had been satisfied because the first set of retroactive legislation had established that the matter was settled by Parliament and not by the courts' interpretation of the first part of the primary legislation and the regulations.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall not seek to interpret the rulings of judges. I am clear about the basis on which I am advised that the Woolwich case was decided; I am equally clear —and I do not consider it a subject of dispute—that the issue on which the case turned was not the issue of double taxation. Even if it was, however, that issue was addressed head-on in last year's Finance Act, which confirmed provisions for the collection of tax during the transitional period. Parliament considered the grievance felt by building societies during consideration of last year's legislation; it examined the arguments in detail and rejected them. Parliament confirmed that it wanted composite rate tax for 1985–86 to be collected on the basis provided in last year's Act.
  Because the building societies accept that last year's Act provides a clear and proper basis for the imposition of tax during the transitional period, a case has been brought which seeks to challenge not the tax levied during the transitional period, but the mainstream collection of composite rate tax during the four-year period between 1985 and 1988. As more than one hon. Member has pointed out, the composite rate tax yield in that period amounted to £15 billion. Because the practical effect of the case currently in the courts is to undermine the legal basis on which £15 billion was collected, the Government introduced clause 52, which has now become clause 63. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I make no apology for saying that we were right to introduce that clause to remove any doubt about whether that £15 billion was properly collected.
  As I said in the Standing Committee, I do not think that it is possible to consider the arguments put forward in Committee and on the Floor of the House last year about the imposition of tax during the transitional period and fail to conclude that it was understood in all parts of the House and by all parties outside that what was under discussion was the imposition of transitional tax in addition to the collection of composite rate tax during that four-year period. I put it to the House that it was understood last year that, once we had agreed the transitional tax, the only practical effect would be to net the transitional tax off the mainstream composite rate tax liability so that the taxpayer would pay no more than he
  406
  would have done if last year's provisions had never made it to the statute book. If it were otherwise, why on earth did the House spend hour after hour discussing last year's Act? It is patently absurd to suggest that we spent hours discussing tax legislation which would not make a penny piece of difference, either to the total amount of tax paid or to the conditions in which it is levied.
  Mr. Bottomley: Let me put my question in a different way. Why on earth should the Leeds have had a duplicate application for judicial review—it used the same firm of solicitors on exactly the same piece of law—when the Government came along and used a pair of scissors between the Woolwich and the Leeds? I do not blame the Government or the Inland Revenue; it is up to Parliament to decide what ought to be the law, and it is for the courts to interpret it. At Somerset house there is a taxpayers' charter which says that cases between taxpayers and the Revenue can be heard by an independent tribunal, but we are being told today that that cannot be done. The House understands the point about the £3,000 million. The amendment would allow the Government to keep the £15,000 million, minus up to £90 million which might be at risk if the Leeds and other building societies were to continue their cases. It seems to me that that is an unanswerable answer to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend invites me to look at the difference in treatment between the Woolwich and the Leeds. Both societies have a year end of 30 September and are, broadly speaking, in comparable positions with regard to the transitional arrangements. It is not in dispute that, from its own perspective, the Leeds has not been treated so generously as the Woolwich. Clearly that is true, but the issue was faced head-on in last year's debate. This has not been landed on the House as a surprise; it was consciously considered during the passage of last year's Bill. As hon. Members know very well, the disparity between the two building societies is the result of the fact that the Woolwich won its court case on a different point. The judgment went in its favour and the Government, in accordance with well-established precedent, took the view that they could not legitimately take away what are loosely termed the fruits of victory.
  The effect of the court ruling was that the Woolwich was treated more generously than the Leeds, but that did not arise as an unintended consequence of last year's legislation, which was designed to confirm Parliament's intention.
  Mr. Bottomley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend shakes his head. Surely the intention is that taxes should be collected in accordance with the legislation. Nobody argues that last year's legislation is ambiguous. I do not need to enter into the argument, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, about whether the earlier legislation was ambiguous. The House considered last year's legislation, knowing that it produced a disparity of treatment between the Leeds and the Woolwich and, weighing all the factors, concluded that it should be passed. Now we have a building society which, because it does not like the decision that Parliament reached last year, is bringing a legal action concentrating on a quite different point as a proxy for the argument that it lost.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is being very helpful, but I should like to offer a couple of thoughts. In the mid-1980s the Leeds did not want to pay the tax, and did its best to avoid paying. The Government came along and changed the law. Obviously Parliament is more important than the Leeds or the Woolwich and can try to get away with that sort of thing. What had clearly been accepted as being unlawful became lawful, and the Woolwich won the money in the House of Lords. Then the Government came back to divide the Woolwich from the Leeds. For the sake of this discussion, I shall leave the other societies aside.
  It was argued in Committee and on Report that it was open to the Leeds to come to an agreement with the Revenue so that the benefit of the Woolwich case would apply to it. Padmore was quoted. In my view, that was not a parallel. We all accept that in a tax appeal case one cannot necessarily expect to secure the benefit. However, I believe that in the case of judicial review there is not one precedent of the Revenue's asking for agreement that judicial review should apply to somebody else. In what circumstances and for what purpose does the benefit of a statement of the law in the House of Lords apply to the taxpayer? It is automatically assumed that it applies to the taxpayer. Therefore, the basis on which the House proceeded last year was pretty well flawed and certainly unjust.
  Mr. Dorrell: The House needs to understand the background to the decision that was reached last year. The courts did not rule that the transitional arrangements were unjust or that they constituted double taxation. I have deliberately skirted round the subject. To clarify the issue, to ensure that the House is clear about why we proceeded as we did last year, I remind hon. Members that the Woolwich ruling was handed down not on the ground that there had been double taxation and that, therefore, the transitional arrangements were ultra vires, but on the ground that the rate at which the transitional tax was collected had not been properly calculated. We were talking about a relatively small variant at the margin; we were not talking about an attack in the judge's ruling on the central provisions of the transitional arrangements. That is why it would have been wholly unjust to conclude that, because the Woolwich won its case on that technicality, it was right to throw away the whole basis of the transitional tax arrangements.
  That was the issue that Parliament had to address last year, and Parliament concluded that it would not be right to waive the transitional arrangements during that four-year gap. That is why the House concluded last year that, despite the undoubted disparity of treatment between the two building societies, it was right to confirm that the original intention was to levy transitional tax during the four-year period. This year, the Leeds and its co-litigants, having had that issue decided against them last year, are seeking to use the law courts to prolong what is essentially a political argument.
  The point that I feel most strongly about is that it is not a proper and legitimate use of the law courts to seek to pursue through the law courts a disagreement that the Leeds building society and its co-litigants have about a decision that Parliament reached last year. The judge has no status for providing a ruling.
  9 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Nonsense.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman says nonsense. The judge is perfectly entitled to rule that something is ultra vires, but if this House reaches a decision by proper and due process I do not believe that in a parliamentary democracy it is open to a judge to seek to reconsider a decision that has been properly reached by due process. The effect of the action that the litigants are now bringing has led to the Government tabling clause 63 in this year's Finance Bill in order to put the matter beyond doubt.
  Mr. Trimble: I apologise for intervening as I am not entirely familiar with the background, but surely the Leeds is entitled to go to law and to make an application for judicial review. At the very least, the proper course to take is to allow the Leeds to go to court for a decision.
  Mr. Dorrell: I do not dispute for one second the right of the Leeds building society to go to law. Everybody is entitled to access to the courts. I am seeking to ensure that the £15 billion of revenue—
  Mr. Trimble: What has that to do with it?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what it has to do with it. The effect of the clause is to remove from the judge the opportunity to rule that £15 billion of revenue was improperly collected. It is avowedly retrospective—something about which the House is properly sensitive; it flows inevitably, however, from the consequences of the decision that the House reached last year.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I was not a member of the Committee which considered this year's Finance Bill, but I was on the Committee which considered last year's Finance Bill, and I remember that these matters were debated at considerable length and in considerable detail. The Government's position with regard to the Leeds building society was made very clear at that time. The Leeds can be under no misapprehension: it knew that this legislation was going to be passed this year to establish the position. For the Leeds to complain now that this has come as a surprise and that it was not expecting retrospective legislation is unreasonable in the face of the very long debates that we had last year.
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is an expert witness. He will remember better than I the arguments in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the whole Opposition Front Bench team remember it in great detail. The effect of the decision that the House reached last year was to confirm the transitional tax arrangements during the transitional period.
  Both last year's legislation and this year's legislation are avowedly retrospective. The effect of the amendment would be to revisit the decision that the House made last year. I have not been convinced by the arguments that I have heard this evening, and have heard at length both in the Standing Committee and outside the House from those interested in the case, that we should revisit that decision. I believe that the House reached the right decision last year, and I invite it to confirm that decision today.
  Mr. Beith: Talk of revisiting last year's decision is a bit rich coming from the Government, who framed the

  409
  legislation in such a way that we were bound to revisit it. If they had got the arrangement right last year, there would be no debates this year, no basis for the judicial review and nothing for the Government to be frightened of.
  If the Minister is so confident of his case, why does he not let the court go ahead, and make arrangements to appear there on behalf of the Revenue, arguing with similar confidence that the litigants do not have a leg to stand on? That would be a more impressive way of handling the matter.
  The Minister is wrong to keep waving the figure of £15 billion at us. It is clear that the combined effect of our amendment and the depositions already made would restrict the sum involved to precisely that which was at issue in the first place.
  I am perplexed by the Minister's fundamental argument. He sought to persuade the House that we should not revisit last year's decision because the House had clearly decided last year, after a controversial debate, the basis on which the tax should be collected. The Minister said that the mechanism of allowing the judicial review to proceed was therefore not a satisfactory way to deal with what he acknowledged was a serious grievance. Without admitting the argument, he acknowledged that there was a reasonable matter for dispute here. At the beginning of his speech he said that if he could find a way to secure a compromise which would allow the grievance and the dispute to be considered and dealt with, he would have found one, but that he did not wish the House to revisit its decision on last year's Finance Bill.
  During his speech the Minister advanced no satisfactory reason why he could not find a compromise and devise a method of his own choosing to deal with the matter. He has not convinced those of us on both sides of the House who have shown concern about the issue that the societies should not be permitted to go to court. Even if we accepted his argument that it would be undesirable for the court proceedings to go ahead, and undesirable for the House this year to put into question the decision that it made last year, we should still ask why he did not seek methods of his own choosing to find out whether a voluntary arrangement could be made with the societies. He has dismissed all the proper legal routes and refused to make any compromise. In view of that, I cannot do other than ask the House to vote for the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 258.

  Division No. 58]

  [9.07 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cann, James

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Battle, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Burden, Richard

  Dafis, Cynog

  Byers, Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

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

  410

  Denham, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Donohoe, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Etherington, William

  Meale, Alan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michael, Alun

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Miller, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gapes, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  George, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mullin, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Olner, William

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pope, Greg

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gunnell, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hanson, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Harvey, Nick

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Heppell, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Rooney, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Salmond, Alex

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Simpson, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Illsley, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jamieson, David

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Janner, Greville

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Keen, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Leighton, Ron

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Lewis, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Audrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wray, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Macdonald, Calum

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McFall, John

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  McMaster, Gordon

  Mr. David Trimble.

  McNamara, Kevin

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Alexander, Richard

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Congdon, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  411

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Devlin, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dicks, Terry

  Legg, Barry

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evennett, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Faber, David

  Mans, Keith

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Merchant, Piers

  Forth, Eric

  Milligan, Stephen

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mills, Iain

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  French, Douglas

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fry, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Gallie, Phil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Garnier, Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gorst, John

  Norris, Steve

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Page, Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Paice, James

  Hague, William

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Pawsey, James

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hannam, Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Harris, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Redwood, John

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Richards, Rod

  Heald, Oliver

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Horam, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jack, Michael

  Smith. Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Smith. Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Soames. Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Spencer. Sir Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sproat, Iain

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Stephen, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stern, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stewart, Allan

  412

  Streeter, Gary

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 64

  LIFE ASSURANCE BUSINESS: I MINUS E BASIC
  Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 48, line 1, leave out 'income or gains' and insert 'income, gains or expenses'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 48, line 7, leave out 'income or gains' and insert 'income, gains or expenses'.
  Mr. Beith: We last considered this issue at 4.35 am on 30 June. My comments were brief then because of the lateness of the hour, and I do not intend to speak at much greater length now.
  The amendment is intended to make the law clearer so that the clause says what we think the Government want to say and—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would depart in peace.
  Mr. Beith: Nunc dimittis.
  The Government seem to want to say what we think that they want to say but the clause does not say it. The amendment aims to ensure that the income minus expenditure basis is the accepted taxation position—that the net investment return on which a company is taxed is calculated by adding together a company's investment income and its capital gains from sales and subtracting expenses incurred in the same period. There is no quarrel over that.
  The problem is that while the clause refers to the "I minus E basis" in subsections (3) (a), (4) (a) and (5) (a), it does not spell out what the "I minus E basis" is. In subsections (4) (b) and (5) (b), it refers to
  "the calculation of the income or gains"
  and does not mention expenses.
  That fact has led to real concern in the life assurance industry that the clause may be interpreted by some tax inspectors as not allowing expenses to be deductible in the calculation of net investment returns. The tax inspectors might argue that Parliament deliberately did not include expenses in the clause mentioning the "I minus E basis" because Parliament does not mean that basis to allow for

  413
  expenses to be deductible. That is especially of concern because the area can be a notoriously difficult one in which to agree on what are expenses.
  We seek to clarify the position and to clarify what the Minister described in Committee as
  "the widely held and long-standing interpretation of the law". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 June 1992; c. 463.]
  I hope that the amendment will prove helpful.
  Mr. Dorrell: I can be a little more helpful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this amendment than I was on the previous one. There is no division of purpose on the subject. The clause as drafted is intended to have precisely the purpose that the amendment seeks to clarify. For various technical reasons with which I will not bore the right hon. Gentleman, the amendment does not have the effect that he intends.
  I want simply to make the position clear to the House. The deductibility of management expenses is not in doubt. The application of the provisions relating to management expenses is secured by the definition of the "I minus E basis" contained in clause 64(3)(a). The "I minus E basis" is described there simply as
  "the basis commonly so called (under which a company carrying on life assurance business is charged to tax … otherwise than under Case I of Schedule D)".
  In those circumstances, the normal provisions of the Taxes Act 1988 relating to expenses of management automatically apply. Nothing further in the clause is required to secure the full deductibility of the expenses of management. I hope that that clarifies the issue beyond peradventure.
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful for that clarification. Although it may not hold in a court of law, it will certainly hold —I hope—in all the offices of the Inland Revenue, where it can be printed and set up on the wall. On that basis, I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  A Finance Bill is always a long march. In the early days of spring, the Chancellor rises in an atmosphere of enthusiasm and anticipation, and unveils to the House and to the world his proposals for the tax provision in the following year. About three weeks later, there is a dull thud as the impenetrable prose of the Finance Bill is made available to the world. There then follows a series of late nights and high temperatures as the summer wears on and as the detail of the Bill is torn apart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, there has been a regrettable tendency in recent years for Governments to add later thoughts to the Bill as it proceeds. Finally, in the dog days of summer, a rather depleted band of enthusiasts gathers to celebrate the Third Reading of the Bill which has been the subject of such enthusiasm and anticipation on Budget day. Whereas enthusiasm and anticipation are the characteristics of Budget day, relief and exhaustion are perhaps the characteristics of the atmosphere when we get to Third Reading.
  I suspect that such feelings are even more palpable than usual this year. Budget day on 10 March seems a long time
  414
  ago. It was on that day that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his prescriptions for taxes in the coming year. Six days later on 16 March, in the salubrious quarters of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the shadow Treasury team gathered in panelled splendour to tell us what it thought should be on offer instead.
  The shadow Treasury team offered us 59 per cent. tax rates. It defined the rich as those earning more than £22,000 a year, on whom a new impost would he placed to pay for the Labour party's social programme. Three weeks later the people had a choice and the people chose the prospectus of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Betts: Part of that prospectus was a £28 billion public sector borrowing requirement. Is that prediction still correct?
  Mr. Dorrell: We do not get into daily revisions of the expected PSBR. The current prediction is contained in the Red Book and, as the hon. Gentleman correctly remembers, it is £28 billion.
  In a rational world, the fact that the people chose the prospectus offered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than that offered by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) should have been fatal for the prospects of not only the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. It is an engaging idiosyncrasy of the Labour party that it is apparently on the point of crowning king the man chiefly responsible for engineering its electoral defeat.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: We have no intention whatever of electing the editor of The Sun leader of the Labour party.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is curious if one thinks about it that every opinion poll not only during the election campaign but before it showed that Labour's Achilles' heel was thought to be the economy. We all know how accurate opinion polls are, but the margins by which people reported that opinion mean that we must attach some credibility to them. Labour needed to keep off the economy as much as some of my hon. Friends thought that we needed to keep off the subject of my earlier ministerial responsibility. The economy was held to he Labour's Achilles' heel. Yet the same opinion polls regularly reported that the Labour leader strongest in public affections was the very same right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East who was responsible for the policy which was held to be the party's Achilles' heel. It is an interesting conundrum which the Labour party is still trying to work through.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: An opinion poll last week showed 80 per cent. support for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Does the Minister hold that in high regard?
  Mr. Dorrell: I was simply quoting the evidence. I am not a supporter of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. Still less do I believe that opinion polls are decisive on any issue. I am certainly not in favour of a referendum. I have never understood why it should be thought that a referendum is a necessary defence for a

  415
  parliamentary democracy. The place where national decisions should be made in the United Kingdom is in this Parliament.
  That point is somewhat outside the scope of a Third Reading debate, so I shall not pursue it. I sketched in a little of the political background to the Bill. It might have been thought that, against the background of the electorate's decision which was clearly in favour of the prospectus of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the passage of the Bill would he a trifle subdued.
  Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry that I was not present for the beginning of the Minister's speech. I was detained by a constituency matter. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the political context of the Bill, would he care to set out in some detail the terms in which he spoke at the weekend when he described my party as a potent force that should not be underestimated and was likely to come back and win the next general election?
  Mr. Dorrell: I certainly said that the hon. Gentleman's party should not be underestimated, but I did not predict that it would come back to power at the next general election. I said that it was important for us to ensure that we had a sound economic base so that the Labour party would be defeated by a larger margin at the next election than it was at the last.
  As the electorate decided the main issue of this year's budget debate, and some of the key planks of my right hon. Friend's prospectus were passed in the short Finance Act just before the election, one might have thought that the passage of the Bill would be relatively quiet and sedate. After all, the chief interest of Opposition Members in the past few weeks has certainly not been the goings-on in Committee Room 10. There have been more absorbing activities elsewhere. However, this year's Standing Committee on the Finance Bill was fascinating.
  It quickly became clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we were being treated to a sort of officer training school cadet force from the Opposition. A group of people had been selected by the regimental sergeant major of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)—a tightly knit group of politically motivated men, who were being honed for fast-stream promotion. Clearly, they were close to the seat of power, with great prospects ahead of them, if they passed the test and satisfied the hon. Member for Jarrow.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who is deceptively charming and informal, was in charge of the troop. I noticed that he was watching his cadets, and I should tell him that they were watching him carefully. Whenever a furrow crossed his brow, they were nervous. They knew that he was close to the seat of power and had the ear of the incoming centre of power in the Labour party, so it was interesting to watch.
  The all-powerful Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East charmingly referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) as, "Mr. Precis." We shall always remember him in that light.
  Just to prove that even in the new model Labour party all is not Calvinistic virtue, the hon. Member for Brent,
  416
  South (Mr. Boateng) was chiefly interested in his travel prospects to Bordeaux, and that detained the Committee on more than one occasion during our deliberations.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) thought heretical thoughts about private landlords and the contribution that they can make to a future resolution of our housing difficulties. That was an interesting speech and it was especially interesting to watch the reactions of some of his hon. Friends as he developed his argument. On my side of the Committee there was some enthusiasm for his ideas, but there was rather less on his.
  I began to wonder on one of our longer nights whether there was any subject on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) would not give us the benefit of his advice.
  Mr. Betts: No.
  Mr. Dorrell: I do not think that there was.
  Clearly, the Committee was made up of the stars of the future Labour party. I am not sure that that encourages me, but it was fascinating to have been a member of such a Committee.
  Forty hours later—a day and a half on Report—we laboured mightily to bring forth a Bill which contains some important substance and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading with a resounding majority.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General was responsible for some fundamental reforms on VAT and excise duty being written into the Bill, to provide the basis for the development of the single market within the European Community. He was responsible for some important provisions to improve the tax treatment of charities and of film production, and its encouragement in this country. The Bill will be remembered for those provisions.
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary took responsibility for the inheritance tax provisions, which were the subject of substantial debate in Committee. It was an interesting debate because it highlighted some of the differences between the two sides of the House. My hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of ensuring that those who build successful businesses are not presented with an enormous inheritance tax bill as a result of and as a reward for their efforts, but are given the prospect of seeing their business continue to develop and to provide economic activity, jobs and benefit for the community at large in the medium and longer term.
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary dealt also with stamp duty, which is a slightly less comfortable—but none the less important—provision to ensure that when the Government introduce a time-limited tax incentive, the time limit will be observed and honoured. It is important that that happens.
  I handled some important changes on the treatment of the married couples' allowance to ensure that it is more fairly available—
  Mr. Chris Smith: It is about time, too.
  Mr. Dorrell: There is more rejoicing in heaven over a sinner reformed than over 10 virtuous men.
  Mr. Beith: Ninety-nine virtuous men.
  Mr. Dorrell: I understated the extent of joy in heaven.

  417
  Another interesting debate highlighted the difference between the two sides of the Committee over the business expansion scheme and its success in developing a venture capital industry and a vibrant small and medium-sized business sector.
  Mr. Smith: That is why the Government are closing it down.
  Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, we are now bringing it to an end because the scheme—whose avowed purpose is the building of a vibrant venture capital and small business sector— is well on the way to success.
  We also had an interesting debate about enterprise zones in which, once again, the Opposition's preference for central planning and hostility to economic success by private sector entrepreneurs was demonstrated. Their prejudices were even demonstrated in the speeches made by the officer cadet corps of the modern Labour party.
  Mr. Salmond: The Financial Secretary is describing all the jewels in the crown of the Finance Bill. Can he point to a measure that will lift the economy out of recession?
  Mr. Dorrell: The most important change that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced in his Budget on 10 March, as the House and the electorate are well aware, was the lowest starting rate of income tax for a generation. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how to create the recovery that we all want, let me say that it is inescapably by ensuring that powerful incentives are available to provide the basis for the efficient operation of a free enterprise economy. When left to its own devices, the free enterprise economy is the most powerful wealth creation machine that anyone has yet devised. We are determined to provide the context to allow that free enterprise economy to do its work. It will then deliver improving living standards and an improving standard of public services for everyone who lives in this country.
  I was about to mention an important, although relatively modest, change: the introduction of rent-a-room. It is a relatively late arrival in the Bill but was an important pledge in our election manifesto.
  We also discussed the inevitable provisions on anti-avoidance, without which no Finance Bill would be complete. They seem to be planned to come up at four o'clock in the morning, which reflects not the Standing Committee's interests but merely the Opposition's careful planning to ensure that explanations on the most complex bits of tax law are left until all sane people are asleep.
  There are important measures in the Bill. We should not forget the important contribution to the British statute book made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East when I was able, early one morning, to accept his amendment to clause 56—demonstrating, as ever, that the Government are prepared to accept that not all wisdom occurs among Government Members in the House or in Committee.
  The Bill contains important provisions. It is the final confirmation of the prospectus that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set before the House and the country from the Dispatch Box on 10 March. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am surprised that Conservative Members regarded our debate on the Finance Bill in Committee as a long march, but if they did, they were cheerfully led—although I cannot say that they were cheerfully followed. Indeed, I suspect that their followers were becoming increasingly sullen as the debate and long march progressed. For the Opposition, discussing the Finance Bill in Committee was not a long march but an opportunity that we readily embraced.
  In moving Third Reading, the Financial Secretary wondered about the whereabouts of leading Opposition personalities. It might have been more instructive if he had wondered about the whereabouts of his predecessor, Francis Maude, or the former Economic Secretary, Mr. John Maples. For them, the general election did not have the happy outcome of which the Financial Secretary seemed so proud.
  The Financial Secretary spoke of opinion polling, and was good enough to refer to the popularity of the next leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He could have explored that subject a little further, and compared and contrasted the popularity of Labour's chief economic spokesman with what the opinion polls—I accept that they are not totally accurate—have to say about the popularity of his chief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That chief is so popular that the Conservative party hid him away as the general election campaign drew towards a conclusion.
  This is an opportunity for us to reflect on what we have done and to review the main functions of the Finance Bill. Its major purpose is to set the chief rates of tax. Unusually, this year that was done for us before the election, so we dealt with the rest of the Bill in Committee. However, the Finance Bill has functions other than setting taxation rates. It reverses the decisions of courts that have gone against the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise. We have done a fair bit of that in the past few days. The Bill provides Members of Parliament with an opportunity to demand special tax concessions for one interest group or another about which they feel strongly for one reason or another.
  The Finance Bill provides Treasury officials with an opportunity to place on the statute book detailed regulations that they have probably long treasured in their hearts. They succeed in getting the regulations past Ministers and then rely on the Government's majority to get them past the Committee—a Committee that vigilantly scrutinises such matters. The Finance Bill enables the Inland Revenue to catch up in the continuing game of close the loophole—mentioned by the Financial Secretary —that it plays with the tax avoidance industry.
  It is not a devious strategy of the Labour party to ensure that such incredibly tortuous and complex issues are discussed in the early hours of the morning. We are not trying to make the Financial Secretary give a personal explanation—heaven forfend. The reason is that, when all hon. Members are committed to closing the loopholes, matters tend to be less controversial and can be taken at a time when our affairs attract less prominence. Those in the Inland Revenue involved in the game of close the loophole play with a handicap—Conservative Back Benchers, who invariably protest, question or demur when loopholes are closed.

  419
  The Bill also provides a vehicle for bringing in changes that belong more properly to other Ministries or even to separate legislation. I think not so much of this year's Bill as of the legislation relating to privatised ports of a couple of years ago. The Finance Bill can still be used in that way.
  Increasingly, Finance Bills deal with harmonisation issues arising out of our membership of the European Community. Such Bills are also an opportunity for us to trail the great issues of the day. On Report yesterday, the Labour party had a chance to air its views on inheritance tax avoidance, the housing market and the recession, and the internationally important third world debt crisis. The Liberal Democrats also had the chance to raise matters that they feel are important. They focused on the position of employees who take their employers' vans for the night. It is of course for each party to determine its own priorities, but we were all very much taken with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who told us about his teenage days courting in what one Conservative Member unkindly described as a passion wagon.
  As all who have served on a Finance Bill Committee will know, it is also a social occasion. After all, when else do civil servants get a chance to sleep with Ministers?
  Most importantly of all, the Finance Bill Committee and Report stages provide the only opportunity for elected Members to scrutinise details of the Government's primary legislation on these matters, and it is this last function that has been at the heart of the parliamentary Labour party's approach over the last five years. Inevitably, the Government take the view that this is all rather inconvenient; that it takes too much time; that the Government should be able to get their way on a fixed timetable after listening to a few Opposition speeches and a larger number of pleas for special treatment from very interested Conservative Back Benchers.
  I know that it will come as a shock to my hon. Friends to learn that there are Conservative Members who do not appreciate the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on value added tax. I am toying with an idea that will beat the Conservative party at its own game. The Conservatives have released a record of their former leader reading the Gettysburg address with an orchestrated background. Our party can do better. I propose a singularly British reply: the stirring speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham on value added tax, with suitable musical accompaniment and an occasional—utterly authentic—moan of despair from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). This should be released on a record—a long-playing record. I am confident that sales of this entertainment will exceed those of the American Gettysburg address.
  I appreciate that there is a case for reviewing the way in which we handle the necessary and detailed provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that I or my successor will be discussing these matters with the Government in the context of the Chancellor's planned changes in how we handle tax and public spending debates. We hae always been advocates of reform, and we will take a constructive view of these matters, but we will not give up our right to detailed scrutiny at our own pace. We will not be bullied into an unrealistically short timetable. If the sittings are few, it is likely, as I am sure the Financial Secretary has
  420
  discovered by now, that they will last longer. It is possible to deal with these matters in a way that is satisfactory to all sides, and I look forward on my party's behalf to discussions about that before next year.
  Mr. Beith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the amount of time taken, particularly in all-night sittings of the Committee, is a direct consequence of the Government's failure to agree the number of sittings, the procedure that he would have preferred, or is it simply a return to the old style of conducting Committee procedure, which many of us thought that the Labour party had passed over?
  Mr. Brown: I was speaking generally, not specifically. The right hon. Gentleman is setting himself up as a "Newcastleologist", if such a thing exists, and putting forward the most peculiar interpretations of what are reasonably straightforward actions. I am making it clear to the House that we are happy to enter discussions on these matters, but we are not prepared to give up our right for a steady, thorough and forward-moving consideration of the Bill. If there is only a small number of sittings, it logically follows that we shall have to take more time within them. The hon. Gentleman should not read any more into that than what my words are intended to convey.
  I mentioned the role of the Finance Bill in reversing court cases that the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise have lost or are about to lose. It may seem to dispassionate observers that the Bill has been about little else. Clause 23, and schedule 6 allow the Government to reverse the Court of Appeal decision in the J. Sainsbury plc v. O'Connor case. Clause 63, as it is now, has been much discussed and I do not intend to discuss it again, but it is, as everyone will agree. a reversal of a court case and potential court cases.
  New clauses 7 and 8 reverse a special commissioners' decision in fiendishly complicated and rather unwieldy language, and the clause that we took on the Floor of the House yesterday on VAT reversed the High Court decision in the Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. L. Rowland and Co. (Retail) Ltd.
  The Labour party has tried to help the Government in these matters and offered pre-emptive strikes to prevent future Bills of this kind. We tried to amend schedule 13, which clearly does not do what the press release says it is supposed to do, and we tried to amend new clause 11 because there appear to be anomalies in legislation on life assurance and friendly societies. No doubt other Finance Committees will hear about these matters again. As our pre-emptive strikes have not been accepted, I can only assume that Ministers regard it as a treasured part of the Finance Bill that they are able to reverse the decisions of the courts.
  The Committee also discussed the relationship between the words of Ministers and the meaning of the Bill. The issue is at the core of the Pepper v. Hart court case, in which judgment has been made, although it has been reserved and is not expected until August. The issue before the courts was the status of comments made in Committee and on the Floor of the House relating to the underlying legislation. The case focused particularly on ministerial comments.
  It is suggested that these comments affect the way in which the law is interpreted by the judiciary. It is a point

  421
  of view that I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield holds dear. He suggested that we summon two journalists who hold the opposite view to the Bar of the Committee, convict and then hang them. I suspect that that is going a bit wide of the Committee's powers, but it shows how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about the issue. However, if he feels that strongly, perhaps he would care to discuss it with the Economic Secretary, particularly in the context of the debate on inheritance tax.
  The debate on clause 59, as it was then, was controversial. I said:
  "Clause 59, through tax incentives, encourages entrepreneurs to hold on to assets rather than cash them. It encourages older people to keep their wealth in the form of business assets. Given all the extremities of old age, there may be other more appropriate forms for older people to hold their wealth. Those forms would be more suitable but for the bizarre financial privilege that the clause confers on a specific form of wealth holding."
  Oddly enough, there was support for that view from the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Crosby (Mr. Powell). I remind the Minister that he said:
  "The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said … that the provisions … encouraged the holding and concentration of wealth. I do not believe that they do. If anything, the clause will make the decision between giving away during lifetime and holding until death more neutral."
  I pointed out to him:
  "What the Minister is saying is obviously wrong, as Iwo of his hon. Friends have pointed out."
  He said:
  "The clause and schedule will make the position more neutral between lifetime gifts and retaining assets until death."
  He later said:
  "My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was worried that the provisions might encourage the retention of business until death. The provisions will make that less likely."—[Officio! Report. Standing Committee B, 30 June 1992; c. 404–14.]
  What the Minister appeared to have in mind was the inheritance tax incentive to give away money pre-death, provided that the giver survived for another seven years. What he did not take on board was the difference between paying capital gains tax on an asset and the base cost of that asset. If a business asset is gifted, it is possible to hold over the gain under section 165 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. That would reduce the base cost by the amount of the gain—that is, the capital gain is not extinguished, just deferred. That compares with the position at death when assets bequeathed are received at their true value. That is reasonable, because inheritance tax is in principle due on that value.
  If the Minister's words are to be interpreted by the courts at some future stage, he will need to reconsider what he has said and at least provide a clarification. I ask him carefully to consider what he has said and to talk it over with his professional advisers. He may then decide whether, at some time in the not too distant future, he should at least put his words in a more acceptable context.
  In his opening remarks, the Financial Secretary referred to the speeches of Labour Members in Committee. He was right to do so, as even he, as an honourable opponent, spotted the quality of my hon. Friends whom the electorate so rightly sent here to serve their constituency interests. My hon. Friends went out of their way to try to help the Government through the pitfalls, such as the one that I have just described.
  As the Paymaster General was stumbling over clause 1(4)(b), which dealt with joint and several liability, my
  422
  hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) were there to help him out of his difficulties. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was there again to help the right hon. Gentleman as he stumbled over the issue of duty paid. I thought that my hon. Friend provided the right hon. Gentleman with far more help than he received from Conservative Members. I would not want it to be thought that they played no part in our proceedings, but when they contributed to the debate, for example, the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said:
  "A chap may hire a van and go to Bordeaux with his wife. As there are two of them"—
  that was astutely spotted—
  "they may buy 40 cases of wine, two cases of spirits and goodness knows how many cases of beer. They may bring a whole wagonload within the specified amount and then split it with their neighbour. That would be a private arrangement and I suggest that the provision will be impossible to police. Any law that cannot be enforced is bad law. That will filter through to the trade. I do not want the hon. Member for Brent, South to accuse me of being racist."
  I do not know why the hon. Member for Bridlington singled out my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) as the person who would accuse him of racism; by the end of that speech, that view of him was widely shared.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "but in the restaurant trade there are people from all parts of the world—Spaniards, Greeks, Italians, Pakistanis, Chinese and so on—many of whom do not have any respect for paying taxes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 June 1992; c. 44–5.]
  I have sat through five Finance Bills, and I know that, if ever there was a bunch of people who resent paying taxes, it is members of the Conservative party. I shall take some convincing that that is peculiar to foreign people and unknown among our fellow citizens when a Conservative Member tells me so, and I certainly shall not be convinced on the evidence of Conservative speeches on five Finance Bills.
  The Opposition speeches, however, were a joy to listen to. I am only disappointed, Madam Speaker, that you now occupy too elevated a position to preside over proceedings in Committee: I know that that will he a great disappointment to you as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) made a very well-informed speech about an important part of his constituency's industrial base, but before that he had already quizzed the Paymaster General on regulations and statutory instruments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made a good speech about the defence of good cause for those who fell foul of the VAT man, standing up for the rights and interests of the small business man—something that Opposition Members are often accused of never doing. Those points also worried my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made an effective speech about the powers of Customs and Excise. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) came in strongly, not on Trident submarines but on section 1 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which showed considerable attention to detail on the part of one so new to our proceedings and promised much for the future. Not to be outdone, my hon. Friend the

  423
  Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke about the Buchanan report and its effect on transport policy: that, too, showed a mastery of detail.
  When it came to dealing with bread-and-butter constituency issues, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East, for Hornsey and Wood Green and for Barrow and Furness spoke on the clause relating to bingo duty with the enthusiasm of parliamentary veterans. The subject is of course important in constituencies where the club movement flourishes. My hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool and for Attercliffe spoke of the importance of the vehicle excise duty clause and its impact on the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West made an effective speech about charities, supported later in the debate on pensioners and the poor by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington, for Leeds, West and for Hartlepool.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) contributed to our debate on the married couples allowance. My hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness, for Hornsey and Wood Green, for Hartlepool and for Darlington spoke about capital taxes, and we heard effective contributions from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and others on the business expansion scheme, the enterprise zones and inheritance tax.
  I have made reference to the important contributions of the new Labour members of the Committee, but not in any partisan spirit. The Financial Secretary too referred to the excellent contributions from Labour Members, so it is only right that I should make what little reference can be made to the contributions from the Conservative side. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) welcomed the clause that deals with club bingo, and declared his interest as an officer of the all-party clubs committee. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) also quite properly declared an interest as vice-chairman of the Association of Conservative Clubs and as president—I thought this a little more unlikely—of the East and West Molesey Conservative working men's club in Esher. I was slightly struck by the fact that there is a working men's club in Esher. As there is, it is wholly appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should be its president. In any case, he welcomed the clause on bingo.
  The hon. Member for Bridlington told us that he was a wine merchant, and he went on to express the fears of the industry, to which I have already referred. He told us that he was a small business man, and he expressed the fears of small business men when we were discussing the business expansion scheme and inheritance tax. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield told us that he was a distinguished contributor to Accountancy Age magazine, and he went on to demand that the Committee hang two other contributors. The hon. Member for Slough complained that the Unit Trust Association had not invited him to dinner.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) went one better and defended the lower-rate tax band as a work incentive for pensioners. That is probably the most feeble defence of that measure ever to have been advanced. However, the hon. Gentleman managed to go one better when he defended offshore unit trusts. He said that they were quite expensive to set up. There are many
  424
  things that could be said about offshore trusts, but use of the cost of setting one up must be the feeblest evidence ever offered in mitigation.
  The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who is a continuing delight to the Labour members of the Committee, spoke up for capitalism, as he always does. When we discussed inheritance tax and other capital tax points, he told us that he was a director of Dewe Rogerson and a consultant to Morgan Grenfell. We were dealing with matters affecting those firms in relation to schedule 10. He spoke up for the interests of landowners. As we know, he is himself a landowner and a notorious sheep farmer. The hon. Member for Slough spoke up for one of his clients when we were dealing with the clause relating to BCCI and with schedule 11. He even moved an amendment which he hoped would affect the interests of his clients.
  These are the forces that have shaped the Bill: altruism from the Labour side; interest—in some cases, vested interest, albeit declared—from the Conservative side. What sort of Act are we bringing into being, and what effect will it have on the great issues that affect the running of the British economy? My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe referred to the Government's economic forecasting. Their forecast outturn of gross domestic product is again 1 per cent., and the Financial Secretary told us today that he stood by that prediction. But the most likely outturn is nothing of the sort; it will probably be about one quarter of that.
  The Government predict that investment will fall by 0·5 per cent. The likely outturn is a fall of 1·8 per cent. The Government forecast that our exports will grow over the year by 3·5 per cent. The likely outturn is now generally agreed to be about 2·4 per cent. The Government expect imports to grow by 1 per cent. Most forecasters expect them to grow by 6·9 per cent. The balance of payments deficit is forecast by the Government to be £6·5 billion. Most observers feel that a figure of £12 billion is closer to the truth.
  According to the Government, retail prices are expected to grow by 3·75 per cent., but most forecasters believe that the Government cannot, even in the current economic climate, get that figure below 4 per cent. According to the Government's latest hypothesis, unemployment stands at 2·4 million. The likely outcome is 2·7 million. These are the issues that really matter to the British economy. It is absolutely clear that the Bill that we shall carry into law will have no measurable impact upon them.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Beith: The speech that we have just heard demonstrates the truth of the proposition that the speeches made in the Finance Bill Committee by the shadow Treasury team would, placed end to end, stretch to infinity and probably back again. It is alarming to realise that when they get themselves programmed for long speeches they sometimes lose the code whereby the programming can be taken out again.
  There was a classic occasion in Committee when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was not deprogrammed before he made an incidental speech on tobacco taxation, at a point when the strategy of long speeches had supposedly been abandoned. That most learned discourse, which I shall not fault for its

  425
  understanding of the law, seemed to incommode certain of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. It was not the occasion for one of the hon. Gentleman's regular swingeing denunciations of the idea of a ban on tobacco advertising, but we did get a touch of that during the proceedings, just to set the context for today's discussions across the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, it was a notable speech.
  This is a Finance Bill of significant missed oppor-tunities, although it contains some good things. There is the rent-a-room scheme—straight from my party's 1987 election manifesto. There is inheritance tax relief and the transferability of the married couple's allowance, for which we have argued for a long time in successive Budgets. Those are useful provisions. There is a particularly unwelcome measure—clause 63, originally clause 52—which we have debated again today. I do not propose to go over the arguments again, but that measure in itself would be a strong enough reason for me to vote against the Bill.
  Much of the rest of the Bill is innocuous. The vast majority of its provisions are totally uncontroversial and are not contested by any party. However, there are many missed opportunities. No provision is made for child care. Interestingly, that is the issue that the Opposition Front Bench abandoned in their shadow budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister referred to the shadow budget and the problems that it presented at the time of the election. The process of dismantling it has begun, but it has begun from the wrong end. It is odd that the Opposition should have removed one of the potentially more popular features of their shadow budget instead of the ones which proved extremely unpopular during the election campaign. However, they are not disposed to support any widening of tax relief for child care.
  There are no useful clauses in the Bill to deal with environmental issues, or to tackle poverty, or to help small businesses and the bureaucracy that they face, in the way in which small businesses could have been helped if significant changes had been made. If the clause on vans had been accepted, a lot of small business men would have had a lot less form filling to do and the tax position of a great many people who do not enjoy high incomes would have been eased by the scale charge that we proposed.
  This is about the most inconsequential set of Finance Bill proposals that I can remember among the many Finance Bills on which I have served. Yet they led to the lengthiest debates and the lengthiest sittings of any Finance Bill Committee on which I have served. That seems an extraordinary paradox. One has to go back to 1984 and 1985 to find sittings of that length, and then controversial measures were being introduced.
  There are various interpretations of the length of the Committee proceedings. One was hinted at by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, but he backed away quickly when a possible truth seemed to emerge—that there had been some sort of breakdown and the necessary number of sittings had not been provided to meet the Opposition's requirements, so the remaining sittings had to be extended.
  Then there is the training school scenario, which I suggested when we discussed the matter in Committee. and which the Financial Secretary mentioned earlier. The idea was that the Committee was to be a demonstration to newer Labour Members of what lengthy Committee proceedings were all about, and a test of their ability to
  426
  carry them through. Indeed, we heard a sort of marks session just now, in which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East went through his list. He did not disclose the marks, but they were there in the tone of his voice, in his inflections and in the length of his descriptions. Those Labour Members all know where they stand, and whether they have passed or failed. Their cards have been marked, on the basis of those comments.
  That is no way to examine legislation of this kind. There was a hint of contrition when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that the Opposition were ready to consider whether there were better ways to organise proceedings on the Finance Bill on which, subject to agreement and discussion, reforms could be based. There must be a better way than taking proceedings through from 4.30 in the afternoon to 8 o'clock the following morning, and being forced to add sudden Wednesday sittings because not enough clauses have been considered. There must be a better way than the uneven manner in which clauses are considered according to the state of relations between the parties rather than according to the intrinsic merits of the argument on the clause, its complexity or the difficulty of explaining it. It is time we reformed those procedures and carried them out more sensibly.
  Attention to those matters would not solve the disagreements of policy, such as whether the Bill can meet the needs of a country in recession—we believe that it cannot—or whether it addresses issues such as poverty, which I mentioned. However, the sheer quality of legislation, and of the way in which it is considered, could be greatly improved if we organised our affairs on a basis which the outside world might understand. If any outsider had been around to listen to or observe half of what went on in the late hours of the night, that person would have been bemused and not a little derisive at the manner in which our proceedings were conducted.
  10.17 pm
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: This is a good Bill, and I especially welcome it because of its measures to help businesses. Many businesses are in difficulties and many of the measures, together with those already passed as part of the Budget, will give substantial help, especially to small businesses.
  Small businesses have already gained by the freeze in the uniform business rate introduced earlier, whereby no business rate can increase by more than inflation. Many of the businesses in my constituency have been faced with large increases because of the revaluation, so they will welcome the freeze, as will firms throughout the country. That revaluation was based on what may turn out to be a peak year for property values, so the reduction is fair and may relate more closely to the average rate over the five years than to that peak rate.
  The Bill also helps small businesses through the changes in the VAT registration threshold, through the changes in the timing of payments and through the reductions in penalties, all of which are important for cash flows. I welcome them all.
  The most important measure in the Bill for businesses was the increase to 100 per cent. in the relief on business assets for the purposes of inheritance tax. Too often in this country tax arrangements are designed to deal with a few exceptional cases and no regard is paid to how they affect

  427
  the vast majority of taxpayers or their effect on the economy. Inheritance tax on business assets was just such a tax. Small companies were often destroyed or irreparably damaged because they did not have the liquid funds to pay the tax following the unexpected death of one of their major owners. I welcome the fact that that will stop, to the great benefit of small companies, which grow to form larger companies.
  I have already expressed my concern that the change could lead people to hold on to assets to avoid capital gains tax on the increase in their assets in the long term. It has been suggested that, therefore, changes in inheritance tax should not be made. I urge Ministers to consider capital gains tax—a complex and distorting tax that does tremendous damage to the economy—and I hope that in future that will be high on their list of priorities.
  Anything that reduces tax complexity is to be welcomed, as it allows the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to deal more effectively with those who, I am told, are now to be called "customers". That is a strange word to use because people have little choice in receiving this service.
  A better service for everyone is, however, to be welcomed. I was rather concerned, therefore, to read a report that the Inland Revenue decision to contract out some of its secretarial and support work was being criticised because it was said that it would lower the standards of confidentiality in taxpayers' affairs. I have been a temporary civil servant and rather resent the implication that temporary staff are less aware of confidentiality than permanent staff. I very much hope that Ministers will agree that contracting out will not make taxpayers' affairs less confidential. It will lead to an improvement in the service, which we should all welcome.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Betts: I did not want to disappoint the Financial Secretary by failing, in our final deliberations on the Bill, to persuade him of the path of truth.
  I judge the Finance Bill by reflecting on what it offers my constituents and how it meets their needs. What will it do for them? Indeed, what have Finance Bills in the past 13 years done for them? I shall not go as far back as that because I can draw some themes from the Bill. What will it do for the problems of unemployment and housing? Having listened attentively to everything that Ministers have said, I conclude that the Bill does not address the needs of my constituents.
  Themes have been apparent in much of the legislation which are consistent with the Government's simplistic view of the private sector and its workings and benefits. Often, the Government have seemed ashamed to admit public subsidies. Some of the examples of management incompetence have been breathtaking. They have generally been followed by a shambolic withdrawal of proposals with little apology or embarrassment for the mess that the Government have created, leaving the real problems facing so many constituents untouched and unaddressed.
  There is a real problem with the growth and development of small businesses—a problem of survival through the recession at a time of high interest rates. Everyone accepted that small businesses are important to
  428
  our future economic development. Despite the Government's overall commitment to a simplistic view of the free market and a philosophy of trying to get British industry lean and competitive—in too many cases, it has become skeletal and redundant for many firms in my constituency—when they introduced the business expansion scheme in the early 1980s there was probably some recognition of the positive role that they could play in helping firms start and grow in the early stages which would ultimately be of great benefit to the firms and to the people whom they could employ. A not inconsiderable amount of public expenditure was involved. I understand that in the past four years about £1 billion of investment was generated through that source, but in the past few years the implementation of what could have been a good scheme has been shambolic and a waste of taxpayers' money.
  My constituents want jobs, but not many will get employment in collecting rare wines, not many will get employment in accumulating agricultural holdings, and not many will get employment in owning race horses. Yet money from the business expansion scheme has been spent on all those follies and ventures. The Government have steadily had to legislate for a scheme which they got wrong in the first place. A few people may have been employed in wine bars and restaurants, but those are not the type of businesses that we expected to expand when the scheme was set up, and they are certainly not the sort of businesses that we should now seek to support with public money.
  What happened? There have been reforms to try to close some of the loopholes. Following that, there were measures to develop—and now measures in the Bill to develop further—the scheme to encourage housing provision. I do not deny that housing provision is important. Certainly, my constituents would benefit from an increase in the number of houses being built for them to rent. That would be important, but our argument is clear: the business expansion scheme was the wrong way to stimulate housing provision. The release of capital receipts for local authorities to spend would have been the right way.
  I shall not repeat the lecture that I gave the Minister at 5 o'clock one morning about the failure of the Government's housing policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I could be tempted, but it might be a waste of time. After all, the Government's failures are there for all to see. They can be seen in the homeless young people on the streets of our cities. These are the 1990s, but a supposedly civilised and wealthy country is unable to care for people and put a roof over their heads. That is a failure of the Government's housing policy with which the business expansion scheme failed to deal, even though 90 per cent. of the expenditure under the scheme in the past two years has gone into housing and providing easy money for people with up to £40,000 to spend instead of dealing with the real issues facing small businesses.
  What does the Bill do? Ultimately, it withdraws the scheme to help small businesses and leaves them in the position they were in before the Government introduced the scheme in the early 1980s. In the middle of a recession, with a lack of venture capital, with small companies searching for support and under pressure from their banks, what do the Government do? They walk away. That is the truth of the situation. Many Conservative Members who are concerned about and understand small

  429
  businesses should start to worry about the lack of attention shown by the Government—their Government —to the needs of small businesses.
  What other schemes have there been? There have been enterprise zones, and we have had some interesting discussions about provisions in the Bill for such zones. In this instance, the Government have made no concessions in terms of their absolute belief in the free market. They believe that if they remove tax obligations, blame the bureaucracy of local councils and remove that too, everything will be all right. There will be a free-for-all and a thousand flowers will bloom. We can take them around enterprise zones—it is not flowers that are blooming but weeds growing out of the rubble that remains.
  A free-for-all? Well, there is some freedom from taxation for the businesses involved, but it is not a free-for-all because the taxpayer has paid. As I said in Committee, I believe that Sheffield was right to refuse an enterprise zone because, although we cannot get proper information from the Government about precisely how the money is being spent and what the effect of enterprise zones has been, it is fairly clear that they have not been an enormous success.
  Let us consider the money involved. For instance, £2·5 billion has been spent on Canary wharf. That is a disgrace. The Government are now scrambling around to justify their folly and the monument that they have built to Thatcherism. That compares with only £50 million over five years for the development corporation in Sheffield, where there are real problems to address and real opportunities, if only the Government were prepared to work with the local authority and private business.
  I was doing some sums on that £2·5 billion of expenditure. It is more money than the Government have allocated in rate support grant and revenue support grant to Sheffield city council over 13 years to provide for education, social services, environmental health, leisure, highways, refuse collection and all the other services that local authorities provide. It is an obscenity that cities such as Sheffield should be starved of resources when the Government are prepared to waste £2·5 billion on that folly of their own making at Canary wharf in order to justify their policies on enterprise zones.
  We understand, although the House has not been told formally, that it may not: be a matter of moving civil servants down the road and of a leasing arrangement but that the Government may be considering buying Canary wharf. That may be the only way out of their problems. They will have to buy Canary wharf and spend a further £1·5 billion on the Jubilee line.
  Few jobs have been created by the Canary wharf project, but lots of cash has been spent. The jobs that have been created have often been moved from nearby. The move from Marsham street is a classic example. Some jobs would have been created anyway. Many jobs are short-term, low-paid jobs which will not exist once the Government end the enterprise zone concessions. It is another shambolic mess of administration. The Government are not continuing enterprise zones because even the Government recognise that they have been a failure.
  All the constituencies in which enterprise zones have been created—indeed, all constituencies in urban areas —have the same problems. They are the problems of dereliction, problems which need proper development plan and partnership arrangements between local councils and
  430
  the private sector. Certainly Labour councils are willing to enter into those arrangements, and the private sector is mostly willing, but meaningful Government support is needed to make such arrangements work.
  The rent-a-room scheme is based on the idea that somehow the private sector will solve our housing problems, just as it would solve our industrial problems. Incredibly, in the Standing Committee we heard comments from Conservative Members to the effect that the Labour party was somehow to blame for the failures of the private rented sector. Perhaps they failed to notice that their party had been in Government for the past 13 years.
  I accepted many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). He expressed reservations about the Government's housing policy. He spelled it out. Mortgage tax relief is a difficult issue, but the private rented sector in Britain will never prosper while the Government subsidise owner-occupation through mortgage tax relief. It is quite simple: the Government can fiddle around with schemes as much as they like, but they will not create a viable rented sector.
  Now the Government are introducing tax relief for the rent-a-room scheme. In Committee we pressed the Minister at some length about how much the scheme would cost. He was just about awake in that debate early in the morning. He said that it would cost £2 million to £3 million. I will not quibble about the amount of money because in a different debate today we argued that £2 million was not a lot of money. It amounts to a small attempt to tackle an enormous problem. The £2 million to £3 million tax relief will go not only on newly rented rooms but on rooms which are already rented out. The addition to the amount of housing space available for homeless people is minuscule.. Perhaps the Government will eventually admit that that scheme was a failure, too, but it is already a failure in that it is no solution to the real housing crisis affecting our major cities. It offers no hope to homeless young people, and does not provide better accommodation for people living in deplorable conditions in the private rented sector or for young people with children who are living in high-rise accommodation and want to move to low-rise properties.
  The Finance Bill follows the same track record—an over-reliance on the private sector and a failure to recognise the contribution that the public sector can make, balanced by hidden public subsidies, a lack of open government right the way through, and appalling managerial incompetence on behalf of the Government.
  The Finance Bill fails to tackle the real problems of urban areas—the problems of homelessness and the lack of sufficient housing. It fails to tackle the problems of the lack of industrial investment, and offers no coherent approach to small businesses struggling to grow or to survive in the middle of the longest recession since the war, which was also created by the Government's actions.
  In the midst of recession, the Finance Bill offers no solutions to unemployment, and no stimulus to economic activity, despite the fact that the Government should admit that their projections of gross domestic product as my hon. Friend said, ought to have changed since the Budget, because all the financial commentators have changed theirs.
  By all reasonable tests, the Finance Bill is a failure. The Government may have won the election, but they are not

  431
  winning the battle against the long-term economic decline of this country. They are not even fighting that battle and, ultimately, the electorate will find them out.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I shall detain the House for only a few brief moments, and shall resist the temptation to take issue with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
  First, on behalf of the House, I should express our gratitude to the members of the Committee for the time and wisdom that they brought to deliberations on the Finance Bill. I am sure that those of us who were not in Committee were well blessed to be in our beds when they were kept from them.
  On the Third Reading of Finance Bills in the past year or two it has been my habit to draw hon. Members' attention to some features of our tax regime. The six main taxes of the revenue—income tax, corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and stamp duty—raised £80·4 billion in 1991–92. Against those six main taxes are 87 reliefs and allowances, totalling £88·63 billion. The reliefs and allowances come to £8 billion more than the six taxes levied. I want to impart to Treasury Ministers that there is enormous scope for a radical Chancellor to simplify our tax regime dramatically, while decimating the rates of tax.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) rightly had some harsh things to say about capital gains tax. She might be interested to know that there are reliefs and allowances against capital gains tax worth £2·66 billion, even though the tax only raises £1·2 billion. The situation is even more interesting for inheritance tax, where the reliefs and allowances amount to more than £5 billion, whereas the tax raises only £1·3 billion.
  I am grateful to the House for bearing with me while I ride that hobby horse. I have said it before on the Third Reading of Finance Bills and I think that I am getting my message through. I think that I am correct in saying that there is one less relief and allowance this year than at the equivalent time last year. So my message is obviously getting through to the Treasury Bench.
  I welcome this well constructed and well targeted Bill, which I am sure the House will approve.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Mandelson: I am stimulated to intervene at this late stage in the debate by the fine quality of the contributions made by my hon. Friends in this Third Reading debate.
  The limitations of the Bill clearly illustrate that the central criticism of the Government is not that, in the full range of their economic and fiscal policies, they look to individual firms and companies to provide the main engine of enterprise in our economy. That view is shared on both sides of the House. The main criticism of the Government is that they expect firms to undertake that task in isolation and are prepared to give so little support to enable companies to be more successful engines of growth and enterprise in our economy. Firms do not look to the Government to do everything for them—far from it—but they do not expect a responsible Government like ours to
  432
  do so little, especially when Governments of all colours in every other European country are doing so much more for their companies.
  No debate during the lengthy course of the Bill's proceedings has better illustrated the paucity of the Government's strategy for dealing with the country's problems than that on the housing crisis and the collapse of the Government's measures to deal with it. The lesson of that crisis goes to the heart of the Government's failing and reveals the tragic contrast between the promises that they made before the election on 9 April and the collapse in hope and confidence in their policies that has taken place since the election. Time has shown the housing measures announced by the Government in December last year to be ill thought through gimmicks, packaged and hyped to people who need not empty gestures but real help to alleviate their housing and personal finance crises.
  To take the mounting mortgage arrears crisis off newspaper front pages, the Government struck a rather crude bargain with mortgage lenders: in return for building societies devising a range of mortgage rescue packages and negotiating a variety of arrangements with housing associations, the Government agreed to pay the mortgage interest element of income support direct to lenders and conceded to building society demands for a freeze on stamp duty to kick-start the slumbering property market. In return for a mortgage rescue lifeboat, building societies persuaded the Government to throw in a stick of dynamite to break the logjam in the housing market. Unfortunately, the lifeboat has turned out to be a threadbare raft and the dynamite a disappointingly damp firework.
  In February, a Shelter report speculated that some 40,000 families might be saved as a result of the Government's package. That prediction was dismissed at the time, notably by Government spokesmen, as "miserably pessimistic". Instead, the predictions made by Shelter earlier this year have proved, lamentably and tragically—no one derives enjoyment or satisfaction from the failure of the Government's policies to deal with the housing crisis—to be not miserably pessimistic but wildly optimistic. One report, if it is to be believed, calculates that the Government's measures have saved no more than 12 homes and a handful of families.
  Across the country, the package has been a sad failure. In my constituency of Hartlepool, there was a 24 per cent. increase in repossession orders last year. Already, in the first quarter of 1992, 102 mortgage possession actions have been entered in the county court of Cleveland. Some 66 suspended orders have been agreed, and a further 15 have been made by the courts.
  In rehearsing those figures, I do not need to point out that they represent considerable human misery and tragedy for the families involved. They have suffered considerably during the past two years in the course of the second recession that was manufactured in Downing street and brought about as a failure of the Government's economic policies. It has been a financial blight on their lives, and they have had to find any penny they could lay their hands on.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: In his speech so far, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word "crisis" about 13 times. Everything that he has said seems to have smacked of the late Prince of Wales saying nothing more than "something should be done." Will the hon.

  433
  Gentleman advise the Houe of specific measures that he believes should be included in the Finance Bill? Otherwise, his reputation as an exciting operator might take a sudden plunge.
  Mr. Mandelson: After their party has spent 13 years in government, we can expect Conservative Members to tell us a little more about what should be done to solve this country's crisis in housing and the economy.
  The pattern is now prevalent, not only in my constituency but many others like it, not only in the northern region, but across the country, not only in the west midlands and Yorkshire, but in London and the south-east. Many orders have been placed against families in my constituency, threatening the repossession of their homes, taking away their pride in that asset—the castle in which they have invested their savings and from which they have taken so much satisfaction.
  If those orders are enforced by county courts in my constituency and others like it, at least one family a week will face the repossession of their home. In many constituencies, more than one family will face the loss of their home. That is not only a tragedy: it is a scandal. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) accepts that it represents a serious crisis in the personal affairs and finances of those families who were so tragically affected.
  Those families are trapped in mortgage misery that is not of their making. Thousands of them are marooned in the housing market. Some of them have to watch the value of their houses fall below the size of their mortgage. Others are simply trapped in their homes, unable to find a prospective buyer who will pay a reasonable price for their home to enable them to move—in many cases, to follow their families or to take up the jobs that they have been lucky enough to obtain in other parts of the country.
  The main plank in the Government's policies, the chief weapon in their armoury, has miserably failed so far to prevent the continuing collapse of the housing market this year. I refer to the stamp duty holiday. Transactions were down 23 per cent. in the first five months of the year. Understandably, the fear is that the Government's refusal to extend the relief will kill off any struggling signs of life in the housing market, and there are precious few of those.
  Home owners, mortgage lenders and house builders, like everyone else in the economy, have been tragically misled by the Government, ever keen to answer with an empty promise any criticism made of them as their policies fail once more to deliver the goods.
  This country is crying out for relief from the recession. All hon. Members will know from their surgery experience how constituents come to them begging for relief, to be spared the continued misery that the recession is causing them and their families. It is tragic that this Finance Bill will do nothing to bring relief to the countless people across the country whom we represent here.
  We can only hope that the recent warning issued by the Financial Secretary will come true. Many of us were interested in his speech, delivered at the Conservative party's weekend school in a location not a million miles from Nottingham. That speech, never made during proceedings on the Bill, probably said more about the inner feelings and true fears of Conservative Members than any speech made on this Bill.
  The Financial Secretary issued a warning to his own party to the effect that the Labour party may have been
  434
  defeated and may be a slumbering giant but it still contains the strength, the potency and the skill to return and fight and win the next general election. The hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends would do well to heed his warnings.
  It is the failure of the Government's economic policies —this Bill has done nothing to ameliorate that failure— compounded by the missed opportunities represented by this Bill which will further boost the already considerable strength of the Labour party and enable it to come—I have every confidence in this—to the aid of the country before all hope is lost, at the next election.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary, that happy warrior, reaches his journey's end. Before we vote on Third Reading, I have two things to say to those of my hon. Friends who served with me on the Committee. The first and obvious thing is thank you. The second, and perhaps less obvious, is that there are worse things to be called, even in this place, than "officer cadets".
  For me, this is the end of five years of serving on Finance Bill Committees, so I also take this opportunity to say thank you to my Front-Bench colleagues, the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). A better bunch of colleagues and comrades a Member of Parliament could not wish for.
  As the Bill reaches its journey's end, the country will know that its contents are not the fault of the Opposition. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: Journey's end indeed! The Bill completes the legislation founded on the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced on 10 March. It was based on the lowest starting rate of income tax for a generation, and on the commitment to extend that low rate of income tax right through the payers of standard rate tax and to see that commitment carried out as soon as may be. It was based on the commitment to ensure that the top rate of income tax was not allowed to rise above 40 per cent.
  The House will remember that, six days after that Budget was presented, the Labour party presented an alternative Budget that promised a 59 per cent. top rate of tax and defined riches as beginning on an income of £22,000 a year. Three weeks later, the country made its choice. It is now for the House to give effect to that choice and to carry the Bill into law.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time—:
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 250.

  Division No. 59]

  [10.57 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Batiste, Spencer

  435

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fry, Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gamier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dicks, Terry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Legg, Barry

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  436

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sproat, Iain

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stern, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stewart, Allan

  Mills, Iain

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moate, Roger

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Needham, Richard

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tracey, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldegrave. Rt Hon William

  Pickles, Eric

  Walden, George

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Willetts, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Timothy Boswell.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith

  Battle, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bell, Stuart

  Burden, Richard

  437

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Graham, Thomas

  Cann, Jamie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hardy, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cummings, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'I'nd)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Denham, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hutton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Ingram, Adam

  Dobson, Frank

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'Id, H)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Janner, Greville

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D' side)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Enright, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Faulds, Andrew

  Keen, Alan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane (L'p'I Br'g'n)

  Flynn, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Fraser, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry

  Garrett, John

  Litherland, Robert

  George, Bruce

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  438

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Rooker, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Rowlands, Ted

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salmond, Alex

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mandelson, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Vaz, Keith

  Olner, William

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Worthington, Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Wray, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Radice, Giles

  Randall, Stuart

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. Eric Martlew and

  Reid, Dr John

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  House of Commons Members Fund
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
  That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section I of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st April 1992, as follows:

  (a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended there shall he substituted the following paragraph:

  '1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £3,370 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £6,197 per annum; whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £6,487 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £9,314 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  '2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,106 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £4,933 per annum, whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,055 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £6,882 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:

  'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £2,106 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £4,933 per annum, whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,055 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £6,882 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:

  'the annual rate of any payments made under section I shall be—

  (a) £1,962 if the payments are made to a past Member: and

  (b) £1,227 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

  Mr. Morris: These motions stand on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who share with me the responsibility, as managing trustees, of administering the House of Commons Members Fund. There are three motions to consider.
  The purpose of the first motion is to enable the managing trustees to make higher awards to the widows
  440
  and widowers of former Members now receiving help from the Members' Fund. Widows and widowers of former Members with entitlements under the parliamentary contributory pension fund receive a five eighths pension, and the managing trustees now propose the same provision for those helped by the Members' Fund. The effects of our proposal are set out in detail on today's Order Paper and can be briefly summarised.
  Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the first motion deal with the provision of grants to widows and widowers of ex-Members under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939. We propose to increase the basic annual grant for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 to £2,023, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £4,738. similarly, in the case of widows and widowers of ex-Members who had longer service and are assessed as being in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £3,894, subject to an income limit of £6,609 per annum.
  Para (c) refers to the "as of right" payments to widows and widowers provided for by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981. In these cases, benefit derives from 10 years' service by a former Member before October 1964. For the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, it is proposed to increase to £1,178 the "as of right" payment to the widow or widower of a former Member with that length of pre-1964 service in the House.
  The second motion provides for an increase in the present levels of all grants and payments which may be made under the Members' Fund legislation, taking into account the increase to five eighths in payments to widows and widowers. These were last revised by approval of the motions I brought to the House in April 1991, and we propose now to increase them with effect from April 1992 by approximately 4·1 per cent., in line with increases already approved for public service and state retirement pensions which took effect from the same date.
  Among those who will benefit from the second motion are mostly very elderly former Members who left the House no later than September 1964, or their surviving spouses, who, unlike present Members, do not qualify for a pension in respect of parliamentary service as of right.
  Many of this fast-dwindling number are now into their eighties and nineties, and their problems are compounded by advancing years. The modest extra financial help which the motion seeks to provide will, I know, be gratefully received by the beneficiaries, as evidenced by letters of fulsome appreciation received by the managing trustees and secretariat of the fund during the past year. I am very glad to be joined by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who is a long-serving trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund and who has given distinguished service to former Members and their dependants on boths sides of the House.
  I make no apology for asking right hon. and hon. Members once again to help us in tracing any former Members, or dependants of deceased former Members, who may be in need of help from the fund. I appeal to Members, when they return to their constituencies, to find out, if they can, the whereabouts of its former Members. Constituency party or association elders have long memories and the cause is well worth a word with them. Over the last two years, the managing trustees and secretariat of the fund have continued their own searches and have been able to assist former Members and

  441
  dependants in need of our assistance, but additional help from Members in identifying possible beneficiaries is always most welcome.
  Again, the provisions for which we seek approval in the second motion can be briefly summarised. Paragraph (a) deals with the provisions for grants to ex-Members. Here it is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £3,370, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £6,197. In the case of ex-Members with longer service, and in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £6,487, subject to an income limit of £9,314.
  Paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the provision of grants to widows and widowers of ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £2,106 subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £4,933. Similarly, in the case of widows and widowers of ex-Members who had longer service and are in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £4,055, subject to an income limit of £6,882 per annum.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how he reaches those curious figures? They are very precise, and result in strange numbers, especially the ends of the numbers. Why do we not work to the nearest hundred pounds, say, instead of having peculiar sums such as £97 here, £66 there and £55 there? That seems foolish to me. It may be all right to calculate a day, but it does not seem like sensible administration.
  Mr. Morris: Rounding up rather than rounding down, which is what I hope the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, is possible and, I believe, desirable. As managing trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund, however, we have to work on the public sector increase arising from inflation. We are acting on the figure of 4·1 per cent. and, as others do, we have to keep to the precise effects of that movement in benefits for widows and dependants in the public sector.
  I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's point is one of general importance rather than one of particular relevance to our problem. We have to follow decisions made by other people. In this case, the governing figure is 4·1 per cent.
  Paragraph (d) refers to the as-of-right payments from the Members' fund to ex-Members who had 10 years service before October 1964, and to widows and widowers of such Members, provided for by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981. We propose to increase the annual payments to £1,962 for ex-Members and £1,227 for widows and widowers.
  Mr. John Hutton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the present annual rate of payments from the fund, before the proposed increases take effect?
  Mr. Morris: The present annual rate of payments from the fund is rather more than £265,000 in advance of the application of the increases which I propose under the motions.
  The third motion relates to section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 7 of the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, which now authorises the trustees of the Members' Fund to make
  "such periodical or other payments as they think fit"
  442
  to ex-Members, or their widows or widowers, or to children of ex-Members,
  "having regard to the circumstances of the person or persons in respect of whom the payments are to be made."
  Section 4 of the 1948 Act, together with section 1 of the 1957 House of Commons Members' Fund Act, as amended, provides that, in any year, for the purpose of making such payments, the House of Commons may by resolution direct that the whole or any part of the amount contributed by Members from their salaries be appropriated, together with the whole or any part of the Treasury's contribution which is now increased to £215,000 a year.
  In my speech to the House in March last year, I recalled the then Lord President's agreement to set aside an extra £100,000 to meet the costs of additional discretionary awards under section 4. I am pleased to see his successor in his place tonight, and to say that what was promised is now reflected in the additional Treasury contribution.
  Mr. Ray Powell: We are concerned about the grant from the Government. Could not they increase the fund for the widows of ex-Members by far more than my right hon. Friend is suggesting? I am not criticising him or his attitude to the fund, which benefits Members on all sides, but the Government should give more, especially as they now contribute less than they did some years ago. How does the investment performance of the fund compare with funds outside the House? I am concerned about a fund that was managed by somebody who controlled the Mirror Group. We all know what happened to that, and when an investigation is carried out, perhaps a further investigation should be carried out by a Select Committee into the pension fund for Members.
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend made two important points. The grant in aid from the Treasury is now £215,000 —an increase on what we received previously. I have proposed, by the motions, an increase in widows' pensions from 50 per cent.—from half—to five eighths. That would not have been possible but for the increase in the grant in aid from the Treasury to £215,000.
  Hon. Members on both sides contribute to the Members' Fund. It is not widely enough appreciated outside the House that the fund is largely sustained by contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members. They help in giving money via the Fees Office. They help former Members of advancing years and the widows and dependants of deceased former Members. The Treasury contribution is, however, an important one and it would not have been possible to increase to five eighths the payments to widows of pre-1964 Members but for that increase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred to income from investments. Our gross income from investments in the last year has been more than £94,000. I cannot say off the cuff how that compares with the investment income of other funds. There are not many funds like the House of Commons Members' Fund. It is a highly unusual and, I suggest, an important fund.
  Sir Peter Hordern: By statute, the public trustee ensures that the House of Commons pension fund investments are properly held in safe custody. In addition, the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund have taken the opinion of independent experts on the investment performance of our fund. I believe that its performance has been somewhat above average in recent times.
  Mr. Morris: My fellow trustee is eminently right to say that we do monitor the results of our investments. We try to compare our performance. All the information we have indicates that we do very well in comparative terms.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore will be assured on the two points he has raised—first of all, about the grant in aid from the Treasury and secondly, the gross income from investments—that we are appreciative, as managing trustees, of the interest of hon. Members who follow in great detail our work, as my hon. Friend always does. I am grateful to him.
  The extra sum from the Treasury has enabled the trustees to finance some 140 new discretionary awards to widows and widowers of former Members. In addition, there are at present a further nine beneficiaries who receive payments under section 4 and the moneys to be appropriated are needed both to continue these payments and to fund further cases as they arise.
  Finally, and as before, I pay very warm tribute to those who help us with the detailed work of administering the fund from the Fees Office. In particular, I want to thank Jim Dobson, the former accountant, who retired last year after long and devoted service to Members, past and present, and their dependants. Tony Lewis, who has succeeded Jim Dobson, is from the same mould and I extend also to him our very warm appreciation. He and Michael Fletcher and all their colleagues in the Fees Office go far beyond the calls of duty in the service that they give and merit not only the gratitude of the managing trustees but that of this House as a whole.
  I commend the motions to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put the three motions together.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st April 1992, as follows:

  (a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall he substituted the following paragraph:

  '1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £3,370 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £6,197 per annum; whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £6,487 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £9,314 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  '2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,106 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £4,933 per annum, whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger

  444

  payment not exceeding £4,055 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £6,882 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:

  'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £2,106 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £4,933 per annum, whichever is the less:

  Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,055 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £6,882 per annum, whichever is the less':

  (d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words:

  'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—

  (a) £1,962 if the payments are made to a past Member; and

  (b) £1,227 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

  Resolved,
  That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Act 1984, and section 7 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.—[Mr. Alfred Morriss]
  Resolved,
  That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall he varied from 1st April 1991 to 31st March 1992 as follows:
  (a) for paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
  '2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,023 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £4,738 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,894 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £6,609 per annum, whichever is the less';
  (b) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:
  'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £2,023 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £4,738 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his need, the trustees

  445
  think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £3,894 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £6,609 per annum, whichever is the less';
  (c) in section 2(1)(b) of the said Act of 1981, there shall be substituted the words:
  (b) £1,178 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

  PETITION
  11.32 pm

  Dogs (Nailsea)
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to ask leave to present a petition to the House. The town of Nailsea in the west country has asked me to present this petition of more than 1,000 citizens. It is a very pretty town, but a minority of irresponsible dog owners are providing an environmental hazard to health and an eyesore. Action is needed to educate dog owners and provide adequate facilities for the disposal of dog excrement. The petition states:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will ensure that district councils, in this case, Woodspring district council, will fulfil its duty as laid out by statute, improving dog fouling facilities in Nailsea and that the House will give due consideration to further legislation to reduce the aforementioned hazards.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Asbestos Pollution (Armley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  11.33 pm
  Mr. John Battle: As the Minister will be aware, I raised the issue of lethal asbestos pollution in Armley in my constituency in the House on 25 November 1988. At that time, I urged the Government to set up a public inquiry into increasingly concentrated cases of people suffering and dying from the deadly asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma. These were people who had no known previous history of contact with asbestos, other than to have lived in the immediate neighbourhood of J. W. Roberts' asbestos factory in Canal road.
  I was advised by the then Minister of Employment that people who were suffering, or who had relatives who had died, had to use the usual legal procedure of claiming against the company. Since then, lawyers acting on behalf of mesothelioma victims have been trying to get Turner and Newall plc of Trafford Park, Manchester—the owners of J. W. Roberts, which closed in 1958—into court to challenge the company with asbestos pollution in the neighbourhood, causing injury and death. Basically, it is an attempt legally to prove negligence in the face of foreseeable likelihood that harm would occur as a result of causing or permitting asbestos dust to permeate the atmosphere in or around the factory premises in Canal road, Armley, between 1925 and 1958.
  In his reply, the then Minister—the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—said that the main requirement of the 1931 regulations
  "was that … dust should be controlled by the use of exhaust ventilation equipment".
  That means blowing dust out into the neighbouring streets on the assumption that it could be dispersed at what were then described as safe levels. Many local people witnessed that the company allowed dust to escape from the factory into the streets in the vicinity.
  The legal test is whether the company knew that the dust could cause serious or possibly fatal injury to those living in the 840 houses nearby who work in the local workplaces or who attend the Armley clock school.
  There are now well over 30 recorded neighbourhood mesothelioma cases on which lawyers are working, but it takes time to develop a test case. Already, some of my constituents with mesothelioma—one at least was claiming for a deceased wife—have died. They were waiting for the completion of the legal procedures recommended by the employment Minister to whom I have referred. In some cases legal aid has had to be transferred to other relatives. We have seen examples of the legal delays that are likely to occur. I am haunted daily by the fact that most victims and their relatives will die before their cases get to court.
  On 25 November 1988 the then employment Minister said:
  "We do not know exactly what was being done at the factory. Nor do we have any data about actual asbestos exposure for either employees or members of the public nearby. At the time no one would have thought it worth collecting … records from so long ago are not kept."
  The Minister was wrong. I have reason to believe that the company and other sources, medical and environmental,
  448
  did have that sort of data, and still do. The difficulty lies in seeking it out—discovering it—and, especially, forcing the company to disclose all that it knew and knows.
  There have already been national television, radio and press investigations into the Armley asbestos tragedy. So far as I know, however, Turner and Newall plc has undertaken no inquiries into what has happened or is still happening. A responsible company would surely be coming forward to assist and, in view of the worst fears of the community, even to offer to carry out testing in the area.
  In reality, there is emerging an intractable legal Catch 22 problem as a result of the document discovery provisions under the terms of section 34 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, rule 7a. Documents tend to be shifted around from one subsidiary to another within the parent group. Lawyers are expected to specify exactly what records they want without knowing what the company holds. Even if they manage to specify particular records, such as reports on the escape of dust from the factory and tested measurements of asbestos levels within the factory or in the surrounding area—even details of the factory's structure and its ventilation system—those documents are either outwith the rules of discovery or the reply comes back that the records no longer exist.
  It is surprising that American lawyers who are challenging the same company—Turner and Newall—can insist on visiting its document depository at St. Mary's Parsonage, Manchester. They emerge with photocopies of documents, which are seen in the public domain in the United States. Yet to obtain the same documents and to use them in the United Kingdom is ruled out of order.
  Airborne dust measurements that are reported to have been carried out at the factory could provide crucial evidence in this devastating story. I said on 25 November:
  "It appears from the evidence of such an intense mesothelioma cluster that the factory had, and is still having, a lethal impact on the people in its neighbourhood."—[Official Report, 25 November 1988; Vol 142, c. 408–13.]
  In the same month, Leeds city council began a survey of a small proportion of the 836 houses in the neighbourhood. It tested 36 homes for asbestos pollution over a period of six months. On the basis of the results, a warning letter was sent to all residents between March 1989 and April 1992 alerting them to the possibility of asbestos pollution in their homes.
  In November last the council decided to undertake a more thorough survey of 300 dwellings in the area. The detailed results of that survey are currently being processed and the full report on the findings is due to be published soon. Preliminary reports already suggest that asbestos dust is present in many of the houses, in roofing, cellars and window sashes. Already it seems reasonable to assume that all 836 houses need to be specially cleaned of asbestos pollution.
  There is a means of cleaning the houses of asbestos which is properly licensed under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983. But—here is the nub—it will cost £7,500 per property. That would make a total of £6 million. The properties are back-to-back, terraced homes, of which 556 are owner-occupied, 169 are council-owned, 22 belong to housing associations and 95 are privately rented.
  The local authority has to accept the cost of cleaning out its properties, but under the current arrangements it can offer only means-tested improvement grant aid to the private owners. Only 20 per cent. of the residents will

  449
  qualify for the full means-tested grant. The majority will have to make some contribution and some will receive no grant.
  Most of the families living in the Armley Lodge area simply cannot afford to pay for the decontamination work. Already their homes have lost their value. Their homes are unsellable and blighted. They live in personal fear of deadly asbestos pollution. The victims of the pollution should not even be asked to pay.
  When the city council publishes the results of its survey of the extent of the pollution, it should also be in a position to publish a full programme of work to tackle the problem, to ensure that homes are safe and free of asbestos dust in the future, reassure local residents and lift the blight which currently afflicts the whole area. That requires that full and detailed financial backing for such a programme be committed.
  The glimmer of good news is that there is a system which could get rid of the asbestos. To reassure residents, tests by electron microscope could be carried out after the clean-up work. But I hope that we all agree that none of the residents should have to bear the costs of decontamination. They are the innocent victims. They have already suffered, they are still suffering, and they have worried enough.
  Home owners should not be expected to take on Turner and Newall plc. Nor should the Armley Asbestos Campaign, which represents all the local residents, regardless of tenure, be expected to appeal to law. They do not have any resources to do that. If we are to adhere to the make-the-polluter-pay principle, the money should not be squeezed out of the falling public housing budget of the city of Leeds. Nor should the poll tax payers of Leeds be expected to pay a levy for clearing up pollution caused by a private company.
  Leeds city council is currently investigating the legal liability of Turner and Newall, pursuing the polluter-should-pay principle. Turner and Newall will be made aware of the results of the survey and the likely cost, and asked to contribute. But in the event of protracted legal action, people in the Armley Lodge area cannot he expected to hold on and wait for years of legal wrangling and court procedures, living in personal fear for themselves and their families, and trapped in houses which they cannot sell or leave.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of some 60 people in South Kirkby who worked at that factory, originally during the war as part of the war effort, and who have suffered from this terrible disease since? Will he acknowledge that for them to sue the company in the economic circumstances in which they find themselves is impossible? They are very grateful for the assistance given to them in their campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
  Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The campaign will continue until a satisfactory solution has been found for everyone who has been blighted by the tragedy.
  In the circumstances, I must suggest to the Minister the precedents that could assist positively. First, if land is contaminated, a 100 per cent. derelict land grant is available, across the board, from the Department of the
  450
  Environment. Is it not possible to classify contaminated homes in the same way and to give them the same treatment?
  Secondly, I urge the Minister to consider using the Bellwin scheme emergency funds, set up in 1983, to replace ad hoc arrangements for giving assistance to local authorities faced with serious disasters. Under that scheme, grants are paid to local authorities to help with additional expenditure caused by an emergency or disaster involving destruction of, or danger to, life or property. The grant covers immediate emergency works needed to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or serious inconvenience.
  What circumstances could people face which are more of an emergency than asbestos pollution? It is a danger to life, now and in the future. Their property has been totally blighted, and inconvenience and suffering has been endured by a community.
  The Bellwin scheme can be activated, at the Minister's discretion, in respect of storm and flood damage, as set out in the letter from the Department of the Environment to local authorities on 6 February 1990. The scheme was called on to deal with flooding in the Severn valley and in Maidenhead in 1990. If the River Aire in Leeds had flooded more than 800 houses in Armley, they would have been covered by that scheme. Yet we face a far more deadly threat than two feet of water and a filthy layer of mud. Residents of Armley have faced the dangers of asbestos pollution for a generation and are still facing them.
  When the risk of asbestos is so well known, and it is possible to decontaminate and to check homes to make them safe, it would be major negligence if remedial action were not supported immediately.
  11.47 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) for raising the important issue of asbestos pollution in Armley and securing the debate. I note that his concern about environmental and health matters is shared by his hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West spoke movingly about the human issues flowing from that tragedy, and I am full of sympathy for the matters that he has raised. I am familiar with the issues because I read the Adjournment debate that he initiated in November 1988 and he has pursued the matter assiduously ever since. I am aware that the dispute has been long and extremely complicated, and I hope to identify some possible options to deal with the problem. My interest, as a housing Minister, is in physical solutions to help to make the homes safe. The hon. Gentleman raised many other legal issues, on which I fear that I can shed no light.
  I want to be realistic about what we can do. Central Government have no powers to intervene directly, or to set up a short-term rescue fund, however attractive that might seem. From the evidence available, the problem appears to be local and it is therefore proper for the local authority to tackle it, using its powers. I fully recognise the lead taken

  451
  by Leeds city council in arranging surveys of properties in the area, and in advising householders on how they can best reduce possible risks to their health.
  It is important to emphasise that the conditions that applied at the time of the operation of the Roberts factory do not exist now. The Government have prohibited the two most hazardous types of asbestos—blue and brown —and the most hazardous uses. There are now strict controls over all work activities involving asbestos, including demolition, removal and disposal of materials containing asbestos.
  Emissions from scheduled asbestos works are currently subject to air pollution control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—and workplace controls are enforced by Health and Safety Executive inspectors. Controls have been extended by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Act requires operators of "prescribed processes"—including asbestos works—to obtain written authorisation containing conditions under which processes must operate, including controls on emissions to the air. Those authorisations must be placed on a public register.
  Under the new system of integrated pollution control, HMIP is concerned with not only air pollution but releases to land and water. The Government have led the field in raising and maintaining health and safety standards and over the years have introduced a comprehensive package of legislation with the overall aim of reducing risks to health from exposure to asbestos to an absolute minimum.
  In situations where asbestos remains a health hazard, local authorities may be able to give house renovation grants towards the cost of remedial works. The grant system thus offers a potential source of help for owner-occupiers, private tenants and landlords for asbestos removal.
  Under the grant system local authorities can give mandatory grants for works to make properties fit for human habitation. That may cover asbestos removal where the presence of asbestos causes a dwelling to fail the fitness standard as a result of serious disrepair, structural instability or poor ventilation. It is for the local authority to decide whether particular works qualify for grant aid, but it is conceivable that where presence of asbestos is a hazard to health it could make a property unfit.
  In addition, local authorities have, powers to give discretionary grants for asbestos removal where works are required to put a dwelling into reasonable repair, or in conjunction with other works. Again, an authority must decide whether a particular remedial scheme satisfies grant requirements.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, all renovation grants are subject to a means test. However, I do not agree with him that grants should not be means tested when dealing with health hazards. The means test ensures that available resources are targeted on those least able to afford to carry out works. Removing the means test for works dealing with health hazards would fundamentally undermine that principle. As the fitness standard is primarily about protecting occupiers against health hazards, it would mean paying non-means-tested grants for all or most works to make properties fit. The result would be that full grants would be given to many people who could well afford to carry out remedial works from their own resources. That
  452
  would not be a justifiable use of public funds. The present system allows grants of up to 100 per cent. to be paid to those applicants who are in greatest need.
  I recognise that means tests may need some adjustment to give more help to those who can least afford the cost of renovation work. I have been examining the operation of the test as part of the recent review of the house renovation grant system to see what changes may be desirable, but we have no plans to change the principle of means testing grants. I hope to be able to announce the outcome of the review very shortly.
  Local authorities are allocated resources for private sector renovation grant expenditure as part of their annual housing investment programme—HIP—allocation. Leeds received an allowance of £5 million for its grant expenditure in 1992–93, as part of a total HIP settlement of £27·4 million. As the authority knows, that allowance is not a limit and it is free to exceed it if it wishes to claim the 75 per cent. Exchequer subsidy expenditure. It also has power to borrow temporarily to pay for grants and claim subsidy in the following year. The funding arrangements for renovation grants thus give Leeds City council considerable flexibility to meet possible demand for grants for works relating to asbestos removal.
  In the last financial year, Leeds underspent its allowance for renovation grant expenditure by more than £2 million. It is, of course, for the local authority to determine its own priorities for expenditure within the resources available. However, I hope that the authority will give priority to using its grant resources to the full, including possible expenditure on asbestos work, in the current year.
  For 1992–93 we have also set aside £30 million as supplementary credit approvals for mandatory renovation grants. These will be issued to local authorities facing heavy pressure from mandatory renovation grants. Leeds will have an opportunity to bid for a share of those resources when bids are invited later this month, if demand for mandatory grants—including grants for asbestos removal works—causes the authority to exceed its grant allowance. Any application from Leeds would, of course, receive careful consideration.
  The local authority's HIP strategy and proposals for next year and future years offer the best means of providing extra resources to tackle the asbestos problem in Armley through the grant system. The problem could be highlighted in the authority's annual HIP strategy statement with a quantified assessment of the needs and resources required to alleviate it. That would allow works to be carried out according to a cost-effective and realistic programme over an appropriate time scale.
  Placing a bid for additional resources within the context of the authority's HIP strategy has other advantages. It would allow proper account to be taken of it in the assessment of needs and particularly in the exercise of Ministers' discretion over grant resources. Progress in tackling the problem could also be properly monitored and reviewed within a broader housing context.
  In addition to the grant system, it is possible that the statutory nuisance provisions, under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, may be of help to some individual householders whose homes are affected by asbestos dust. Under those powers, a householder affected by a statutory nuisance can bring proceedings against the owner to carry out works to abate the nuisance. That would allow a tenant to take action against a landlord to

  453
  carry out remedial works. Where an individual owner-occupier is unable to obtain a grant to carry out asbestos remedial works to his property, there are other possibilities for raising money to pay for it. The Department plans to issue a revised booklet on sources of finance for home repairs and maintenance in the next few months.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bellwin scheme —a good one to mention as it has Leeds connections. I have considered it and, sadly, I do not think that it offers any joy. An important component of the Bellwin scheme is that the assistance offered is for immediate action such as might follow a storm. Immediate action is taken to mean within two months of an incident. The money is to be used to refund local authorities that have to take immediate action within about two months of the incident. Under the terms set out in section 155 of the Housing Act 1988, it would be difficult to define as "immediate.' any action to be taken in the case under consideration.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the disclosure of information by companies to those preparing
  454
  legal battles about liability for deaths linked to asbestos. There is provision in British law for that, but it is a fairly detailed and complex area of law for which my Department does not have responsibility. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to put his concerns direct to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be happy to pursue them.
  I have focused my remarks on that aspect of the problem that my Department has some ability to address. I have tried to outline ways in which owner-occupiers and tenants can obtain access to resources that will enable them to carry out the necessary work for their homes and put the problem behind them. To the extent that Ministers have discretion to try to help Leeds, I can say that we shall give special attention to the case that Leeds makes in its annual HIP bid to see whether we can make fast progress in bringing this sad problem to a conclusion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the speed limits for each aircraft type while low-flying over the United Kingdom at(a) 100 ft and (b) 250 ft; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which these speeds may be exceeded during interceptions or the run-up of simulated targets.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For military aircraft flying at 250ft in the United Kingdom low-flying system the normal maximum cruising speed is 450 knots, except for F-111s which, for aircraft handling reasons, are allowed to fly at speeds up to 480 knots. At this height aircraft may increase their speed to maxima ranging from 480 knots to 550 knots, depending on aircraft type, in special circumstances such as the run-up to simulated targets or during mock interceptions. The maximum speeds for aircraft flying at 100 ft above ground level are as follows:

  Knots

  Jaguar

  520

  Tornado

  500

  Hawk

  480

  Harrier GR 5/7

  420

  Household Cavalry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Household Cavalry will receive from Anglia TV for the assistance it is giving to that company's forthcoming television production "Riders"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Costs are still being collated and formal charges will be raised by MoD in due course.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of maintaining British armed forces in the Falkland islands in each of the last 10 years; and what is the estimated cost for the current year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of maintaining British armed forces in the Falkland islands in each of the last 10 years (at outturn prices) was as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  780

  1983–84

  637

  1984–85

  644

  1985–86

  572

  1986–87

  402

  1987–88

  229

  1988–89

  102

  1989–90

  68

  182

  £ million

  1990–91

  66

  1991–92

  72

  The estimated costs for 1992–93 are £67 million at 1992–93 prices.

  USAF Bombing, Golspie
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received a report from the United States Air Force into an incident on 5 June, when a practice bomb was dropped 8 miles off target by a United States Air Force jet into a site of special scientific interest near Golspie, Sutherland, Scotland; what compensation is being negotiated for the damage by fire to the rare lichen moss destroyed in this incident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The incident referred to took place on 4 June. A written report detailing the cause was received from the United States Air Force by the Ministry of Defence on 12 June. Full details of claims for compensation have not yet been received.

  Defence Facilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make available to interested United Kingdom citizens and organisations, aerial photographs of such United Kingdom defence facilities as are permitted to the Russian military forces under the Helsinki "Open Skies" treaty of 24 March.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The purpose of the "Open Skies" treaty is to establish a reciprocal confidence-building regime which will help us build trust with other parties to the treaty. Under the treaty, information gathered during "Open Skies" flights may be used only for treaty-related purposes. We would not want to see this provision waived, not least because aerial photographs from "Open Skies" flights could be of use to terrorist organisations.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association to discuss compensation; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have discussed this matter with a number of hon. Members. I have not met and have not received any request to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. The position on compensation remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 655.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of personnel accommodation are vacant in each county in England and Wales, and in each region in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained by counties in England, but at 31 March 1992, the latest date
  183
  for which figures are available, there were 9,002 MoD-owned service married quarters and civilian residential dwellings vacant in England, Wales and Scotland out of a total stock of 69,841. This excludes barrack and mess accommodation.

  Region

  Vacant

  England

  Yorkshire

  596

  Northern

  88

  North West

  126

  South East

  3,715

  South West

  1,617

  East Anglia

  566

  East Midlands

  700

  West Midlands

  322

  Wales

  Clwyd

  45

  Dyfed

  19

  Gwent

  17

  Gwynedd

  31

  Powys

  17

  South Glamorgan

  105

  Scotland

  Borders

  19

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  Fife

  117

  Grampian

  277

  Highlands

  15

  Western Isles

  48

  Shetlands

  6

  Lothian

  174

  Strathclyde

  318

  Tayside

  63

  Total

  9,002

  Many of these properties were undergoing major works or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly, and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, some 1,850 properties were in the process of being sold.

  Army Redundancies
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about redundancies in the Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 3,338 Army personnel, comprising 838 officers and 2,500 soldiers, were selected in February 1992 for the first phase of redundancy. Of the total, all but 143 officers were volunteers.

  As foreshadowed in my answer to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neil) on 8 November 1991, Official Report, column 296, we shall shortly be promulgating details of the next phase of redundancy in the Army. This will follow the pattern of the first phase with the timetable and plans to be published at the end of July, and individuals informed during the first quarter of 1993. It is likely that the number of personnel to be made redundant in the second phase in 1993–94 will be in the region 6,500. Individuals will receive up to 12 months' notice and full resettlement assistance.

TRANSPORT

  Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent of his responsibilities in Scotland.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have general responsibility for transport policy throughout Great Britain, which I exercise in association with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. My specific responsibilities for Scotland cover matters other than those for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is directly responsible. These are Scottish roads policy and legislation, including the construction, maintenance and management of motorways and trunk roads; capital allocations and grants to local authorities for local roads and public transport; some aspects of bus policy; subsidies to some local ferry, airport and air services; Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd; transport piers and harbours other than ports, freight facilities grants; toll bridge regulation; and civil emergencies planning. There is very close consultation between my Department and the Scottish Office over all aspects of transport policy affecting Scotland.

  Traffic Flows
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the average daily vehicular flow on the A420 between Swindon and Oxford in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the average daily vehicular flow on the A417 between Cirencester and Gloucester in (a)(b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available;

  (3) what was the average daily vehicular flow on the A419 between Swindon and Cirencester in (a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The latest available estimates are for 1990 when the average daily traffic flow was 17,000 vehicles on the A417 between Gloucester and Cirencester, 25,000 on the A419 between Swindon and Cirencester and 14,000 on the A420 between Swindon and Oxford. The Department's national traffic surveys do not allow changes in traffic levels between years to be estimated for particular roads.

  Airport Directors
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those directors of airports, operated on behalf of municipal authorities by companies, who are also councillors on the authority or subject to appointment by them and give the percentage of the non-independent directors in each case.

  Mr. Norris
  The information relating to airports owned by public airport companies is as follows:

  Airport

  Local authority members

  1 Other non-executive directors

  Executive directors

  Total

  Birmingham

  9

  1

  4

  14

  Blackpool

  5

  1

  2

  8

  Bournemouth

  6

  —

  2

  8

  Bristol

  5

  —

  2

  7

  185

  Airport

  Local authority members

  1 Other non-executive directors

  Executive directors

  Total

  Cardiff-Wales

  9

  3

  3

  15

  East Midlands

  18

  —

  3

  21

  Exeter

  5

  1

  2

  8

  Humberside

  12

  1

  3

  16

  Leeds Bradford

  15

  —

  3

  18

  Luton

  6

  4

  3

  13

  Manchester

  18

  —

  3

  21

  Newcastle

  24

  —

  3

  27

  Norwich

  6

  2

  3

  11

  Southend

  8

  —

  1

  9

  Teesside

  11

  1

  3

  15

  1 Includes former local authority member, local authority officers, businessmen and worker directors.

  Under section 17(1) of the Airports Act 1986 it is the duty of the controlling authority of a public airport company to exercise its control over the company so as to ensure that at least three of the directors of the company, or at least one quarter of their number—whichever is the less—are full time employees of the company with experience in airport management. Southend airport, which is managed on behalf of its owners by a management company, is currently exempted from this duty (under section 17(2) of the 1986 Act).

  M4
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to provide lighting on any section of the M4 between junctions 7/8 and 15 which is not presently lit.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Work is currently taking place to light the M4 between junctions 10 and 11. We have no plans at present to light any other unlit sections of the motorway between junctions 7 and 15. The provision of lighting along these sections will be considered in conjunction with planning for widening the M4 presently in hand.

  Lighthouse Authorities
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid by the general lighthouse authorities to the Commissioners for Irish Lights in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Norris
  Nothing.

  Roads
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, following the publication of the British Rail annual report, he will prepare and publish an equivalent document for British roads, listing all the costs and benefits.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department of Transport report, published annually in February, includes details of the Government's expenditure on trunk roads and on transport supplementary grant for local authority roads in England. It also outlines expenditure plans for the next three years. Schemes in the road programme were last set out comprehensively in "Trunk Roads, England—into the 1990s" published in February 1990. Trunk roads in Wales and Scotland are the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.

  Aircraft Seating
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to bring civil air transport seating up to the most up-to-date safety and fire precaution standards.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the authority and asked it to write to him direct to inform him of the latest position on the safety of air transport seating.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to replace those directors of trust ports appointed by him whose port authority has refused to make its annual report and accounts available to the public.

  Mr. Norris
  So far as I am aware, this situation has not arisen at any of the small number of trust ports where the Secretary of State appoints some or all members of the authority.

  Working Group
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the remit and membership of the transport working group; and how it will contribute to the development of the Government's policies for transport in London.

  Mr. Norris
  I will be chairing the transport working group whose broad remit will be to advise me on issues affecting public transport in London and to help improve transport co-ordination. The membership, selected for its practical experience, will be the managing directors of London Underground Ltd., Network SouthEast and London Buses Ltd.; the chief executive of the LDDC; the South East and Metropolitan traffic commissioner; the chairman of the London Regional Passengers' Committee; and representatives of the private sector bus operators, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the London tourist board and the London planning advisory committee. Sir George Young from the Department of the Environment will also be joining the group. I will be calling a first meeting in early autumn.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his input into the conference on tourism in November.

  Mr. Mellor
  The English tourist board plans to publish the proceedings of the conference towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on tourism of the EC proposals for VAT on ferry fares, train tickets and air fares in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have made no assessment of any such impact. An agreement reached by Finance Ministers enables us to maintain our existing zero rates.
  187
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to visit those educational establishments offering courses in tourism-related subjects.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have no engagements of this kind planned at the moment, but I look forward to seeing tourism-related courses in action in the future.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairmen of the regional tourist boards.

  Mr. Mellor
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State frequently meets representatives of all sectors of the tourism industry on engagements around the country. My noble Friend Lord Astor attended the annual meeting of the regional tourist board chairmen held at the Belton Woods hotel near Grantham, on 1 July.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in setting up a trust fund for the transfer of assets from the Cardiff Bay development corporation for the purpose of accumulation of capital assets.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Cardiff Bay development corporation has considered a number of options for meeting the costs of operating the barrage and the inland bay after its dissolution. A trust fund was one of the options considered by the corporation but the Government have not yet taken a final decision on the preferred choice.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the cost of the mitigation works for the provision of alternative feeding grounds for wading birds on the south Wales foreshore on an out-turn cost on the comparable timing of construction basis to the £167·4 million cost of the barrage in his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 340.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The out-turn cost of the mitigation works will depend on the method and phasing of construction, which will not be known before the feasibility study is completed in the autumn.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the level of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds in Wales and by county; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many persons aged 16 and 17 years who are not in employment or education are not currently on youth training programmes in each county in Wales and in total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The 1988 Social Security Act changed the benefit entitlement of under 18-year-olds. It coincided with the guaranteed offer of a place on a youth training programme. Information is not centrally available on the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds who are neither employed nor in education and who have chosen not to take a place on a youth training programme. However, among these 188
  are some who, due to exceptional social or domestic circumstances, are entitled to claim income support and are therefore included in the unemployment count. The numbers of these are shown in the following table:

  Number as at April 1992

  Number

  Clwyd

  73

  Dyfed

  28

  Gwent

  47

  Gwynedd

  46

  Mid Glamorgan

  158

  Powys

  15

  South Glamorgan

  31

  West Glamorgan

  26

  Wales

  424

  Source: Department of Employment.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure on regional assistance in each assisted area in Wales for the most recent available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Regional assistance: Estimated payments 1991–92

  TTWA

  Forecast outturn1 (£ thousands)

  Aberdare

  515

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  681

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  5,014

  Bridgend

  10,795

  Cardiff

  3,133

  Cardigan

  352

  Haverfordwest

  78

  Holyhead

  311

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  66

  Llanelli

  730

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  4,619

  Neath and Port Talbot

  4,501

  Newport

  4,830

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  926

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  16,842

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  76

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  8,773

  South Pembrokeshire

  104

  Swansea

  1,736

  Wrexham

  6,454

  Old-style regional development grant2

  836

  Total

  71,372

  1 Comprises regional selective assistance, old-style and revised regional development grants and regional enterprise grants.

  2 Expenditure on the basis of individual TTWAs is not available.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes in the management of the fire services in Wales he envisages will follow the introduction of unitary authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Over the next 12 months I will continue to progress the commitments made in respect of Wales in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200) and in the follow-up report—"The Environment in Wales" published by the Welsh Office last September. I will also be publishing a further report in the autumn on our environmental programme in Wales and future plans. This will include an account of progress made by the Welsh Office in integrating environmental concerns into policies and programmes, including internal housekeeping practices, which will be developed further in the future.

  Home Care Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the home care service in Wales; what extra resources he plans to allocate concerning this service; if he will meet directors of social services from each of the counties in Wales to consider this service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government attach great importance to the development of all forms of care, including home care services, which will help enable people to be cared for in their own homes and communities, rather than in institutions.

  The management of the home care service is the responsibility of social services authorities. It is a matter for those authorities to decide on a level of provision within the resources available to them. The proper assessment of need to make sure that services are optimally targeted to meet the needs of individuals is clearly essential, and indeed is required by Government policy on commumity care provision. It is for each authority to determine how best to go about this, but the Welsh Office has issued clear guidance on assessment and the provision of social and community care to help them. The "Caring for People" White Paper sets out our commitment to provide adequate resources for local authorities in the exercise of their wider responsibilities from April 1993. I have no present plans to meet directors of social services to discuss their management of the home care service.

  Water-borne Viruses
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the spread of water-borne viruses in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are funding an ongoing epidemiological study to assess the minor risks to health of sea bathing. The first two interim reports of the study are available in the Library of the House and I look forward to receiving the final report and recommendations next year.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases there are of swimmers contracting water-borne viruses in Wales since April; what were the comparable figures for 1990 and 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  190
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available.

  Hydatidosis
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of hydatidosis were reported in Wales in 1991; how many related diseases in children were reported; what were the comparable figures for each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of deaths and discharges from NHS hospitals in Wales for which a diagnosis of hydatidosis—ICD9 code 122—was recorded, in each of the years 1987–90, is given in the following table:

  The figures show:

  a. deaths and discharges for patients of all ages; and

  b. deaths and discharges in which the patient was under 16 years of age.

  Year

  All ages

  Under 16

  1987

  25

  3

  1988

  11

  0

  1989

  15

  1

  1990

  18

  0

  The figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.

  Corresponding data for 1991 are not available centrally at present.

  Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of first-year teachers in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom in 1991; what were the comparable figures for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of full-time, qualified teachers in their first year of service is given in the following table:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Wales1

  516

  575

  861

  England1

  12,857

  13,790

  14,449

  Northern Ireland2

  407

  331

  343

  Total

  13,780

  14,696

  15,653

  Scotland3

  —

  719

  —

  1 Source: Form 618G.

  2 Source: Teachers Payroll and Personnel System, Department of Education.

  3 Source: Scottish School Census, this is a biannual return therefore figures for 1989 and 1991 are not available.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure on regional development grants in each assisted area in Wales, for the latest available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  191

  Regional development grants: Estimated payments 1991–92 Revised regional development grants

  TTWA

  Forecast outturn (£ thousands)

  Aberdare

  182

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  1,117

  Cardigan

  18

  Holyhead

  95

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  17

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  1,588

  Neath and Port Talbot

  753

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  2,642

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  6,404

  South Pembrokeshire

  18

  Wrexham

  1,171

  Total

  14,005

  Old-style regional development grants1

  836

  Total

  14,841

  1 Expenditure on the basis of individual TTWAs is not available.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the expenditure on regional enterprise grants and (b) the number of offers, in each assisted area in Wales for the latest available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  Regional selective assistance—1991–92

  TTWA

  Forecast outturn 1(£000's)

  Number of offers

  Forecast number of new jobs

  Forecast number of safeguarded jobs

  Aberdare

  296

  2

  10

  19

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  681

  7

  165

  267

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  3,792

  17

  553

  97

  Bridgend

  10,795

  18

  2,331

  712

  Cardiff

  3,133

  30

  712

  484

  Cardigan

  275

  1

  9

  0

  Haverfordwest

  78

  2

  12

  0

  Holyhead

  112

  5

  301

  25

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Llanelli

  730

  16

  316

  102

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  2,889

  20

  602

  717

  Neath and Port Talbot

  3,643

  12

  396

  248

  Newport

  4,830

  9

  372

  683

  Pontypool and Cwbran

  926

  13

  796

  735

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  14,099

  23

  637

  387

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  76

  2

  22

  0

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  1,897

  18

  701

  308

  South Pembrokeshire

  44

  3

  104

  0

  Swansea

  1,736

  14

  660

  443

  Wrexham

  5,053

  13

  619

  490

  Total

  55,100

  225

  9,318

  5,717

  1 Expenditure does not relate to offers of assistance made in 1991–92 but to offers made in previous years.

  Auditing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the accounts of each of the non-departmental public bodies under his responsibility are audited by(a) the National Audit Office, (b) private accountants or (c) another body; if he will name the private accountants or other bodies used: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Comptroller and Auditor General audits the accounts of all but two of the executive 192

  Regional enterprise grants estimated payments and offers made 1991–92

  TTWA

  Forecast Outturn (£ 000s)

  Number of offers

  Aberdare

  37

  6

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  105

  12

  Cardigan

  59

  9

  Holyhead

  104

  4

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  34

  4

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  142

  13

  Neath and Port Talbot

  105

  20

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  101

  23

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  472

  41

  South Pembrokeshire

  42

  7

  Wrexham

  230

  30

  Total

  1,431

  169

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the expenditure on regional selective assistance, (b) the number of offers and (c) the associated number of (i) new jobs (ii) safeguarded jobs, for each assisted area in Wales for the most recent available year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:

  non-departmental public bodies in Wales in existence at 31 March 1992, either certifying separate accounts or as part of the Welsh Office appropriation accounts.

  The Cardiff Bay development corporation's accounts are audited by Ernst and Young and those of Housing for Wales by KPMG Peat Marwick.

  The accounts of the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are audited and laid before Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but a primary audit is carried out by Touche Ross and Company.

  "Getting in on the Act"
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the recommendations of the Audit Commission report "Getting in on the Act" on provision for pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I welcome the publication of this report which will help to stimulate valuable discussion about educational provision for children with special educational needs. The Government have already promised legislation in this area later in the year.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he supports the initiative taken by the Assembly of Welsh Counties to bring together the Sports Council for Wales and the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales to seek agreement on the future organisation and funding of participation in the games in Canada and beyond.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Sports Council for Wales is responsible for ensuring that public funds made available to it are used effectively. I understand that the Sports Council for Wales has indicated its willingness to participate in the meeting proposed by the Assembly of Welsh Counties and I hope that this will be helpful in resolving the matter.

  Unitary Authority, Cardiff
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his intention that the new unitary authority based on Cardiff will have an eastern boundary based on the current boundary between the present Cardiff—south Glamorgan area and the present Newport—Gwent area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him 6 July 1992 at columns 7–8.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Famine Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by country what aid his Department is currently giving to countries suffering from famine; and what was the position 12 months ago.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Commitments of aid to relieve famine (in some cases compounded by civil strife) are:

  Bilateral Assistance

  £ million 1992 to date

  £ million 1991

  Horn of Africa (Regional)

  9·00

  4·l

  Ethiopia/Eritrea

  14·00

  24·5

  Somalia

  2·00

  5·4

  Sudan

  9·00

  23·4

  Kenya

  2·00

  0·2

  36·00

  57·6

  Southern Africa Drought (Regional)1

  2·72

  —

  Lesotho

  0·03

  —

  Malawi

  9·56

  —

  194

  Bilateral Assistance

  £ million 1992 to date

  £ million 1991

  Mozambique2

  11·40

  —

  Republic of South Africa

  0·10

  —

  Swaziland

  0·04

  —

  Zambia

  10·27

  —

  Zimbabwe

  10·28

  —

  UNICEF/WFP Operations (Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia)

  1·50

  —

  Reallocations from Country Programmes to Drought Relief (Uncommitted)

  2·30

  —

  48·20

  —

  TOTAL (Horn + southern Africa

  84·20

  57·6

  1 For technical assistance and NGO activities in the region—remains to be allocated.

  2 Includes food aid for Mozambique refugees in Malawi (£3·9 million) and food aid intended mainly for Mozambique (£5 million).

  Multilateral Assistance

  In addition, our share of the cost of food aid allocated to the southern Africa region in 1992 under the EC special food aid programme is estimated at £11·3 million. Our share of EC allocations to the Horn of Africa is £.12·4 million. Figures for other 1992 EC emergency aid programmes are not yet available.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Over the next 12 months my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will continue to follow up commitments made in the White Paper Cm 1200—"This Common Inheritance"—and its successor Cm 1655—"The First Year Report". She will also contribute to the second anniversary White Paper in the autumn. The ODA will continue to examine the environmental implications of all the activities it finances for developing countries, and to finance a wide range of measures which directly help tackle environmental problems in developing countries.

  A particular priority for the ODA for the next year and beyond will be helping developing countries implement the agreements reached at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Britain's contribution to the earth increment to the International Development Association will be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The question of an earth increment, which was proposed by the president of the World bank at UNCED, is one of the issues being discussed in the context of the 10th replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association (IDA). The negotiations on the replenishment are likely to be completed sometime this coming winter.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to improve world-wide access to family planning and education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are continuing to increase our support to population programmes in developing countries, focusing particularly on strengthening family planning services and support for the purchase of contraceptives. We are on course to achieve the goal which we announced in August 1991 of establishing at least 15 new bilateral population projects over the following two years. New contraceptive supply projects have been initiated in four African countries.

  We are also looking for opportunities to increase our support for adult education, particularly in women's literacy which has a close relationship with the demand for family planning advice.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran concerning the well-being of the 3,000 members of the People's Mujahedin who were arrested at a protest in Mashad on 30 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I told the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 3 July at column 758, we continue to make clear to the Iranian Government our serious concern at their human rights record, both bilaterally and together with our EC partners.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received from Amnesty International concerning mass executions carried out throughout Iran; and what response he has made;

  (2) what representations he has made to the Government of Iran concerning the practice of carrying out mass executions in the country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive reports from Amnesty International on the situation in Iran on a regular basis. We continue to make clear to the Iranian Government our serious concern at their human rights record, both bilaterally and with our EC partners.

  Tibet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the British diplomats who visited Lhasa and Shigatse in the Tibetan autonomous region from 16 to 25 May had about the proposed special economic zone in Lhasa; what discussion there was about British participation; and what results were achieved.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During their visit to Tibet in May the two British diplomats called on the local authorities, including the Economic Planning Commission. They were told of plans to establish a light industrial development zone and a high technology development zone in Lhasa, both intended to increase foreign trade and investment.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the United Nations Secretary-General to intervene personally to solve the current stalemate in holding a referendum in western Sahara by talking directly with the Moroccan and Saharawi leaders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Yaqub Khan, has been pursuing talks with all parties to the western Sahara dispute. The Secretary-General hopes that substantial progress will have been made by the end of August.

  Spanish Fishermen
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his office has made to the Spanish Government regarding the instances of Spanish nationals being charged and convicted of fishing illegally in Scottish waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My Department has made no representations to the Spanish Government on this matter.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he holds on which nation's delegations to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development were comprised only of Government representatives.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our information is incomplete. A copy of the final list of delegates to UNCED will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Knives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for a new knives campaign; how he proposes to publicise it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is for chief officers of police to consider whether publicising facilities for the disposal of knives would be a worthwhile crime prevention initiative in their force area. I understand that the Metropolitan police have recently launched a publicity campaign, which will run until 16 August, and that a similar campaign is planned for Greater Manchester in September.

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not yet available on the number of prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which did not come into force until August 1991.

  Telephone Interception
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations authorised to carry out telephone interception since 1986.
  197
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Warrants authorising the interception of communications may be issued following application by the police, HM Customs and Excise and the security and intelligence agencies.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims of unauthorised interception of telephones were investigated since 1985; and how many have been prosecuted.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information held centrally shows that there were four prosecutions under section 1 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 in England and Wales in 1988 and one in 1990. There are no centrally held records of the number of investigations.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendments to the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to make explicit that it is illegal to monitor or eavesdrop on domestic and industrial telecommunications unless a warrant is authorised, notwithstanding that a physical tap has not been put on the line.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 the intentional interception of communications in the course of transmission by means of a public telecommunications system is an offence unless carried out under the authority of a warrant issued by the Secretary of State or there are reasonable grounds for believing that one of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception. I have no proposals to amend the Act.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking over the disturbance at Wolds remand centre, Everthorpe on 27 to 28 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have received a report on the incident from the Home Office controller based in the prison. I am satisfied that it was handled in a calm and professional way by the contractor.

  Gambling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on the harmonisation of gambling policy within the EC; and what is the position of each member state on this subject in the context of the European single market.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This subject has not yet been discussed at ministerial level. As part of its consideration of gambling in the single market, officials of the European Commission met officials from all member states on 2 and 3 April to discuss the issues. We understand that there is wide support amongst other member states for our view that gambling policy should remain a matter for national authorities.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will continue to ensure that the policy and work of my Department take full account of environmental concerns, in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" Cm 1200 and the first year report, Cm 1655. Current initiatives include the reclamation and development as wildlife conservation areas of land adjoining new and existing prisons; a wide range of measures to reduce pollution arising from the activities of prison service industries and farms; the cessation of incineration in the disposal of waste at prison establishments; a review of departmental policy on the purchase and use of ozone-depleting chemicals; and a continuing programme of energy efficiency measures in Home Office buildings.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics his Department holds on the incidence of injury to animals from fireworks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  No information is collected on the incidence of injury to animals from fireworks.

  Recorded Offences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of offences recorded in each police authority area in 1991–92; what was the percentage change compared with the preceding year; how many offences were notified for each uniformed officer in each police authority area for 1991–92; and what was the percentage change compared with the preceding year.

  Mr. Jack
  The requested information on notifiable offences recorded by the police is published in table 2 of Home Office statistical bulletin 14/92, a copy of which is in the Library. The figures for the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police per police officer and the percentage change are contained in the following table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police per police officer

  Police force area

  Notifiable offences per officer in 12 months to March 1992

  Percentage change from previous 12 months

  Avon and Somerset

  49

  10

  Bedfordshire

  53

  -5

  Cambridgeshire

  49

  25

  Cheshire

  37

  22

  Cleveland

  55

  9

  Cumbria

  39

  25

  Derbyshire

  47

  30

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  10

  Dorset

  39

  1

  Durham

  48

  15

  Essex

  39

  13

  Gloucestershire

  50

  31

  Greater Manchester

  56

  12

  Hampshire

  47

  18

  Hertfordshire

  34

  16

  Humberside

  60

  12

  Kent

  49

  33

  Lancashire

  40

  17

  Leicestershire

  50

  17

  Lincolnshire

  38

  11

  London, City of

  9

  -1

  Merseyside

  33

  9

  199

  Police force area

  Notifiable offences per officer in 12 months to March 1992

  Percentage change from previous 12 months

  Metropolitan Police

  34

  11

  Norfolk

  47

  16

  Northamptonshire

  52

  15

  Northumbria

  65

  11

  North Yorkshire

  38

  12

  Nottinghamshire

  67

  13

  South Yorkshire

  43

  16

  Staffordshire

  40

  19

  Suffolk

  35

  10

  Surrey

  31

  13

  Sussex

  38

  13

  Thames Valley

  52

  24

  Warwickshire

  41

  20

  West Mercia

  37

  14

  West Midlands

  45

  15

  West Yorkshire

  59

  25

  Wiltshire

  33

  6

  Dyfed-Powys

  30

  26

  Gwent

  40

  20

  North Wales

  34

  15

  South Wales

  52

  12

  Prisoners' Home Leave
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released on home leave in 1992; and how many of these prisoners failed to return to custody.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information required is not held centrally at present but arrangements are being made for its future collection and publication.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long he normally expects to take to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The aim is to reply to letters from hon. Members as quickly as possible. The time required in each case is influenced by factors such as the need to search records or to make inquiries outside the Department. Work is presently in hand to further improve the service to hon. Members.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford of 18 May regarding Mr. R. H. (Reference R 303898/2).

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I replied to the hon. Member on 24 June.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited in 1991; what were the comparable figures for the previous two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1991, 5,338 police officers were recruited in England and Wales. The figures for 1989 and 1990 are 7,364 and 5,560 respectively. Recruitment figures for 1991 reflect the fact that establishment increases did not come into effect until October.

  Prisoners' Children
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to enable mothers of young children who are serving prison sentences to keep their children with them; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Facilities already exist in three prisons for mothers to keep their young children with them. At present there are a total of 37 places in mother and baby units; 15 places are at Askham Grange, 12 are at Holloway and 10 are at Styal. At Askham Grange and Styal children may remain until the age of 18 months, while at Holloway the age limit is nine months.

  Plans have already been drawn up to extend the number of places. Ten more places will be provided at Styal by the end of the year, and work will start on a purpose-built unit at New Hall during the winter months, to provide a further nine places.

  EC Border Controls
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will immediately make available the draft European Community regulation relating to European Community border controls.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on 7 July 1992 at column 132.

  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the future funding of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) announced on 29 January at column 566 that although the Government had a high regard for the service which UKIAS staff provided to its clients we were not satisfied with the manner in which the general council and executive committee oversaw the organisation.

  The Government and the London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have since transferred the funds available for refugee work from UKIAS to the new refugee unit. This unit was formerly part of UKIAS. It is, however, now a separate independent voluntary body supervised on an interim basis by a board chaired by Mrs. Usha Prashar which is devising proposals for a long-term constitution for the unit.

  My hon. Friend also gave UKIAS notice in January that continued payment of the grant for the service's general immigration work depended on its making changes to meet the standards expected of an organisation receiving grant-in-aid. The necessary changes have not been made and the Government have now decided to terminate the grant to UKIAS.

  The Government attach importance to the provision of satisfactory counselling services and representation for people with rights of appeal under immigration legislation. We wish to apply the funds which have hitherto been applied to UKIAS under section 23 of the Immigration

  201
  Act 1971 to a new voluntary body which will take over the general immigration work of UKIAS. My right hon. and learned Friend has invited Mr. Humfrey Malins to lead a small planning group, outside Government, whose task will be to draw up proposals for such an organisation. Others will be invited to be members of the group, which will be encouraged to complete its work as soon as possible.

  In drawing up its proposals, the planning group has been asked by my right hon. and learned Friend to have particular regard to the need for the trustees of the new body to be able to meet their responsibilities under charity law and to satisfy the Home Office that there will be proper accountability for the grant paid. Provided these criteria are met, I hope that the group will then take steps to implement its proposals and establish the new body.

  In the meantime, the Government hope that it will prove possible for advice and representation to continue to be available to appellants. We are, however, not prepared to provide any further funds for UKIAS while it is overseen by the present executive committee. We have today written to members of UKIAS's general council explaining that we would be prepared to fund UKIAS to provide legal advice and representation during this interim period only if the executive committee were replaced by a new, separate administration acceptable to the Home Office. We hope that the general council will respond positively, so that the service to UKIAS's clients can continue while plans for the new body are being made.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each police authority area in Yorkshire and Humberside and for England as a whole(a) how many bail hostel places were provided by the probation service at 31 December 1991, (b) what the average number of residents in these bail hostels was in 1991 and (c) how many convictions were recorded in 1991 of people who were resident in a bail hostel at the time of the offence for which they were convicted.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: As at 31 December 1991 there were 26 bail and 82 probation/bail hostels in England as a whole, providing 559 bail and 1,782 probation/bail places. Of these, 19 probation/bail places were provided by Humberside, 22 bail and 122 probation/bail places by south Yorkshire, and 45 bail and 95 probation/bail places by west Yorkshire. There are currently no hostels in north Yorkshire.

  Statistics on the average number of residents are collected in terms of percentage occupancy. The 1991 figures, against 74·6 per cent. for England as a whole, are Humberside 64·3 per cent.; south Yorkshire 76·5 per cent.: west Yorkshire 83·0 per cent.

  Information on the addresses of offenders at the time their offences were committed is not collected centrally.

  Prisons, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in Wales that are overcrowded, the maximum number of prisoners allowed at these institutions, and the current number of inmates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: Two Welsh prisons, Cardiff and Swansea, are overcrowded. In
  202
  common with most other local prisons the operational capacity of these establishments—that is, the normal working capacity—is higher than the certified normal accommodation (that is, the uncrowded capacity). The figures for 24 June were as follows:

  CNA

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Cardiff

  325

  447

  437

  Swansea

  213

  285

  283

EDUCATION

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether experiments on live animals are included in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Public School Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many public school teachers were trained at a cost to public funds; and what is the current cost of a three-year teacher training course.

  Mr. Forth
  Data on the number of teachers in public schools who were trained at a cost to public funds are not held centrally. The estimated average cost at 1991–92 prices of training a teacher in a higher education institution outside London through a three-year under-graduate course is about £19,000. The majority of undergraduate initial teacher training courses arc of four years' duration.

  White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what will be the title of his proposed White Paper on the organisation of education; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Forth
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we will publish the White Paper, complete with title, by the end of the summer.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will indicate the scope and purpose of his projected White Paper on education; and if he will list any consultative paper, speech or departmental circular of relevance to its contents, either at the present time, or after its publication.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced the Government's intention to publish a White Paper by the end of the summer. Its scope and purpose will be made public then. The speech given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Adam Smith Institute on 16 June made it clear that the White Paper will include proposals for new types of schools to develop, and proposals to tackle the worst inner city schools.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average length of time that children with special needs have to wait before being assessed; and if he will make a statement.
  203
  Mr. Forth
  Information for each local education authority is not available centrally. However, there is recent evidence that some authorities are failing to meet the Government's guidelines that the procedures for assessment and the issue of a statement should not exceed six months. The Government have now decided that there should be comprehensive provisions for regulating the time and way in which the assessment and statementing procedures are carried out. My right hon. Friend is about to consult widely on the form and content of the regulations which will be required.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission's report on the assessment of children with special needs.

  Mr. Forth
  A press statement welcoming the publication of the report was issued on 25 June, and was placed in the Library.

  University Students
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost per student per year of educating a university student in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Universities Funding Council provides the same level of funding for teaching for funded student places in each subject in all universities, irrespective of location. Allocations for research and other factors are made separately. Details of the UFC's allocations for all universities in 1992–93 are set out in UFC circular letter 4/92, a copy of which is in the Library.

  New Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many new schools opened in 1991; and what were the comparable figures for the previous two years.

  Mr. Forth
  Thirty-one new schools opened in 1991. This compares with 74 in 1990 and 47 in 1989.

  Retired Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers retired in 1991; what were the comparable figures for 1982 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of members of the teachers' superannuation scheme for England and Wales who were awarded retirement benefits during the periods in question is as follows:

  Financial year ended 31st March

  Total

  1982

  16,462

  1986

  17,336

  1991

  21,318

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Machine Tool Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet representatives of the Machine Tool Technologies Association to discuss the effects of the recession on the machine tool industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry met the Machine Tool Technologies Association on 8 June. I plan to meet the association later in the year.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the professional institutions associated with manufacturing he has met since taking up his appointment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  To date, I have had no formal meetings with the professional institutes. I have, however, had the pleasure of meeting many of the institutes' representatives during my business engagements.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about manufacturing output.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department receives considerable correspondence about the state of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the level of output of manufacturing industry(a) in the north-west and (b) in Lancashire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1989, the latest year for which data are available, manufacturing output in the north-west was £14 billion. The figure for Lancashire will be published in "Regional Trends 27" on 9 July, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department receives considerable correspondence about the state of manufacturing industry.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the operation of RECHAR.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  RECHAR programmes are now ready to proceed and I look forward to their making a useful contribution to the economies of coal field areas.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department will be introducing any changes to the criteria for assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Measures of unemployment will continue to be the main criteria in the assisted areas map
  205
  review now under way. The consultation paper recently issued makes clear, however, that other factors will also he considered, including future job demand, other perfor-mance measures, activity rates, urban problems, peripherality and the incidence of known major closures or rundowns.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of management and employees of the United Kingdom merchant shipyards on matters relating to the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have had a number of discussions with management and employee representatives of the shipbuilding industry during the last few weeks.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of European consumer protection legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the effective implementation of European consumer protection law.

  Mr. Leigh
  Implementation of European Community consumer protection legislation into the national legislation of a member state is the responsibility of that member state. My Department has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of such implementation by other member states. If the hon. Member has information that they are failing to implement Community legislation effectively, he should send it to me.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the visible trade deficit for the latest available month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom had a visible trade deficit of £0·8 billion in May 1992.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, columns 500–51, what assessment he has made of the effect of recent community directives on the profitability of small businesses.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's deregulation unit monitors proposals for legislation from the European Commission and identifies those which are likely to impose significant burdens on business. In conjunction with other Departments, we seek to ensure that the costs of those directives are properly assessed and taken into account by the Commission through its fiche d'impact system. Departments also take account of compliance costs when they consult business and interested parties on proposals both during negotiations and at implementation stage.
  206
  The views of small business organisations are sought and taken into account in this process. The directives listed in the reply referred to are under consideration, and have been or will be subject to appropriate assessment and consultation.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ban the import of all animals purchased for the purpose of experimentation.

  Mr. Needham
  No. Imposition of an import ban was rejected by Parliament during the passage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Industrial Policy
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the northern region CBI to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I shall be meeting representatives of the northern region CBI on 18 September.

  Industrial Investment
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the level of industrial investment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1989, the latest year for which data are available, manufacturing investment in the west midlands amounted to £1·6 billion.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of trading standards officers in post and the number required.

  Mr. Leigh
  According to returns submitted by local weights and measures authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, the number of qualified trading standards officers in post on 31 March 1991 was just over 1,500 against a complement of just under 1,800.

  Telephone Charges
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the ranking of the United Kingdom in terms of local telephone charges compared to other countries in the OECD.

  Mr. Leigh
  Comparisons of individual telephone call prices can be misleading. Factors such as duration of call, time of day, distance and charging structure all have to be taken into account. Oftel publishes annually a comparison of the prices in the United Kingdom for typical residential and business customers. The most recent produced the following comparisons.

  Country

  Residential Basket

  Business Basket

  United Kingdom (BT)

  100

  100

  France

  78

  92

  Germany (DB)

  99

  99

  Italy

  105

  133

  Notes:

  United Kingdom = 100; conversion of currencies by means of

  207
  purchasing power parities (PPPs).

  United Kingdom tariff for local calls have fallen by between 14 and 19 per cent. since privatisation.

  Industry Links
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to improve the links between industry and his Department in the northern region.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I announced on 3 July my plans for reorganising my Department so as to relate more closely to individual sectors of industry throughout the United Kingdom. These plans include the creation of a new industrial competitiveness division, a number of new divisions to cover key sectors not dealt with at present, and the assigning to all sectoral divisions of an explicit role to sponsor their industries. My Department's regional offices will continue to be the first point of contact for many firms. The offices based in Newcastle and Manchester will continue their work of building closer and more effective links with industry in the northern region.

  Exports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of United Kingdom exports in each of the past three years to(a) the United States of America and (b) the 11 countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom exports to the United States of America were £12·2 billion, £13·0 billion and £11·3 billion in 1989, 1990 and 1991 respectively. Exports to the EC countries were £47·4 billion, £54·9 billion and £59·3 billion in the same three years.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss Post Office reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 20 May and will continue to meet him on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues of mutual concern.

  National Grid
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the changes necessary to the national grid for electricity consequent on the current text of the treaty on European union, articles 129 b, c and d.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Recession
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the long-term effects of the recession in industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  British industry is well placed to grow as we recover from recession.

  Insolvencies
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many recent representations he has received about companies with debts which declare themselves insolvent 208
  and are replaced by new companies with similar names run by the same people; what plans he has to take action; what general advice he issues to the creditors of such companies: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A few representations have been made to my Department recently on directors of failed companies starting new companies with similar names. Provisions contained in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and, more specifically, section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 address these concerns where companies go into insolvent liquidation. Creditors are advised to report any breaches of the provisions to the liquidator, or my officials at the Insolvency Service.

  Beer Orders
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate has been made of the effect of the Beer orders in the United Kingdom upon(a) the number of public houses, (b) the number of brewery companies brewing beer and (c) the number of tenants leaving the brewery trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Beer orders do not come fully into force until 1 November 1992. The Director General of Fair Trading will he reviewing them next year when their effects on the beer market can be assessed.

  UN International Conventional Arms Transfer Register
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how Her Majesty's Government believe the United Nations international conventional arms transfer register will play an important role in safeguarding against diversion of significant military material.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Nations register will show each year member states' exports to and imports from individual countries in certain major categories of arms, for example missiles and missile systems. One of the register's main purposes is to provide transparency in the trading of such items. The availability of this information to all member states will make it possible to trace the movement of significant military material, and to compare declared exports against declared imports. It is hoped therefore that the need to report transfers will act as a deterrent to those who would otherwise divert supplies of such equipment.

  PERIFRA Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the rules and guidelines governing applications under the PERIFRA defence industry conversion programme; whether local authorities and training and enterprise councils may apply; and what is the number and regional distribution of applications so far received.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In a letter dated 25 March 1992, the European Commission set out the conditions for grants under the PERIFRA programme, and invited Governments to send applications. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.

  The closing date for applications was subsequently extended to 5 June 1992. Over 25 applications were

  209
  received from all parts of the United Kingdom, of which 12 have been forwarded to the Commission. We await its decision as to the projects to be awarded grant.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many papers concerning the development of civil nuclear energy his Department requested be withheld under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act in regard to the release of papers for(a) 1958, (b) 1959, (c) 1960 or (d)

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the numbers of my Department's files which are closed or retained under the Public Records Acts is shown in the class lists which are open for inspection at the Public Record Office, Kew. Where individual papers have been withheld, this can be ascertained from dummy documents which are inserted in the relevant files.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been allocated by his Department in each of the last five years to the International Atomic Energy Authority to undertake monitoring work in relation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  Monitoring work is carried out under safeguards agreements including those concluded pursuant to the non-proliferation treaty. The cost of safeguards forms part of the agency's regular budget. The United Kingdom has contributed the following amounts to the regular budget in the past five years:

  £ million

  1987–88

  3·5

  1988–89

  3·7

  1989–90

  4·0

  1990–91

  4·7

  1991–92

  4·9

  Computer Programs (Patents)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards proposals under the general agreement on tariffs and trade to allow patenting Of the general techniques underlying computer programs, and the patenting of software-related inventions.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: We welcome the proposals under the GATT agreement to protect computer programs as literary works under the Berne convention, 1971. Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such. Since computer programs are treated as literary works in the United Kingdom and they are protected by copy right there is no conflict between the GATT agreement and United Kingdom law and practice. The United Kingdom Patent Office will continue to be able to exclude computer software from patentability.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each recipient company and the level of grant provided through regional selective assistance since 1984–85 in the Darlington area.
  210
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Details of offers of regional selective assistance are normally made public only after the company has made a claim and has been paid. Since 1984–85 there are 72 companies in the Darlington travel-to-work-area who have benefited from regional selective assistance. The firms and the offers made and accepted (excluding details of three cases where the amounts offered and accepted was less than £5,000) are as follows:

  Name of company

  Offer value (£)

  Alan Tinley T. A. ATV Productions

  5,000

  Amdega Ltd.

  220,000

  Amech Eng. Ltd.

  22,000

  Areena Shoe Components Ltd.

  50,000

  Aycliffe Paper Winding Co.

  5,000

  A5 Hydraulics Ltd.

  5,000

  Baydale Architectural Metalwork Ltd.

  75,000

  Baydale Eng. (Peter Lanagan T. A.)

  8,000

  BSA Foundaries Ltd.

  175,000

  C. Harvey TA Shildon Manufacturing

  15,000

  C. P. Offset Ltd.

  50,000

  Cummins Engine Co. Ltd.

  215,000

  D. B. Harrison

  12,000

  D. Fenwick

  10,000

  Darchem Ltd.

  65,000

  Darlington Pattern Making Co.

  6,500

  Darlington Timber Supplies Ltd.

  15,000

  David A. C. Royle and Co. Ltd.

  14,000

  Direct Signs (Northern) Ltd.

  15,000

  Dunhouse Quarry Co. Ltd.

  25,000

  E. F. Shepherd

  25,000

  Edgeworth Electronics Ltd.

  75,000

  Epcot Leisure Ltd.

  15,000

  Ernest Bennett and Co (Darlington) Ltd.

  25,000

  F. W. Alderson (C. R. Lowe T. A.)

  5,000

  Faverdale Training and Adventure Ltd.

  25,000

  Forge Diesel Services Ltd.

  5,000

  Forge House Group

  20,000

  G. K. Tindal and Son

  5,000

  Glassfibre Flagpoles Ltd.

  20,000

  Granada Aluminium Co. Ltd.

  37,500

  Gregory and Blackburn

  7,500

  Harvey Plating Ltd.

  75,000

  Henry Williams Darlington Ltd.

  20,000

  Henry Williams Ltd.

  45,000

  Indescon Ltd.

  35,000

  J. Dyson & Co. Ltd.

  10,000

  J. J. Eng. (Durham) Ltd.

  100,000

  J. L. Moore & Sons

  75,000

  K. Stewart Eng. Ltd.

  10,000

  Kingsway Adventure Centre

  44,000

  Kohlangaz Fire Co. Ltd.

  45,000

  Malcolm Engineering Co. (Darlington)

  25,000

  Management Services (Northern) Ltd.

  9,000

  Mech-Tool Eng. Ltd.

  70,000

  Milicom Information Service Ltd.

  450,000

  Milicom Cellular (U.K.) Ltd.

  450,000

  Miniprints (North East) Ltd.

  15,000

  Mitre Plastics Ltd.

  75,000

  211

  Name of company

  Offer value (£)

  Mitre Tooling Co.

  35,000

  Pharmapac (Barnard Castle) Ltd.

  18,000

  Priestgate Services (No, 29) Ltd.

  30,000

  Prolog Timber Ltd.

  60,000

  Rallbar Ltd, (Bowhill Construction)

  10,000

  Rene Friedlin Ltd.

  25,000

  Renham & Wade

  31,500

  Rennyco Ltd,

  5,000

  S. & A. Fabrications

  35,000

  S. R. (Steel) Ltd.

  5,000

  212

  Name of company

  Offer value (£)

  Star Satellite Systems Ltd.

  5,000

  Stenga Ltd.

  90,000

  Teesdale Conservatories Ltd.

  25,000

  Teesside Training & Technology Centre

  45,000

  Thrivewell Ltd.

  7,500

  Turnbridgc Project Services Ltd.

  5,000

  Vector Electronics

  10,000

  Wm. Smith & Sons (Barnard Castle) Ltd.

  40,000

  Yeoman Furniture Ltd.

  25,000

  3D Fibres Ltd.

  20,000

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Commercial and Industrial Tenants
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the effect on tenants of commercial and industrial property as a result of delays in implementing the proposals in the Law Commission consultation paper of 1986 "Landlord and Tenant: Privity of Contract and Estate". Law Commission paper No. 95; and if he will now take steps to implement the proposals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has received a number of representations from those affected by the rules of privity of contract and estate. He is well aware of the difficulties faced by some tenants and has recently met representatives of both tenants and landlords. He is now considering their representations and hopes to make a statement about the Law Commission's proposals before long.

  Porthmadog County Court
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of Porthmadog county court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department is currently examining the court services provided in Gwynned, where Porthmadog county court is situated.

  No moves will be made to close Porthmadog county court or any other office without consulting users who have an interest in its future.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accesses were made to each index of the new police national computer over the last year; and if he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Mr. Mates
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7 July at columns 128–29 by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Health Promotion Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the first report of the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland was printed.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report was printed in Northern Ireland.

  1990

  1991

  Board

  Protestant

  Catholic

  Not known

  Protestant

  Catholic

  Not known

  Eastern

  71

  54

  12

  63

  52

  14

  Northern

  112

  33

  9

  53

  28

  5

  Southern

  23

  10

  2

  33

  11

  2

  Western

  23

  61

  8

  24

  37

  7

  It would not be appropriate to break these down by directorate or grade. Information for 1989 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over the next 12 months I shall continue to follow up commitments in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) and its successor "The First Year Report" (Cm 1655) and I shall also be providing a Northern Ireland contribution for a second year report in the autumn. Over the next year and beyond I shall continue to ensure that environmental concerns shape the policy and work of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, whenever appropriate.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1992–93.

  Mr. Atkins
  For 1992–93 the following performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  1. To reduce rating debt to 1.95 per cent. of the gross collectable rate (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 1993.

  2. To achieve a reduction of 2 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of collecting rates per hereditament.

  3. To generate refunds to 96 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  4. To process by 31 March 1993 94 per cent. of applications in respect of the incoming year received from existing housing benefit recipients before 15 March 1993.

  5. To achieve a reduction of 1·6 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of processing housing benefit cases.

  6. To achieve at least 96 per cent. of housing benefit assessments free of error.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the perceived religious affiliation of persons appointed to permanent posts in each of the health and social services board headquarters in Northern Ireland, by director, section and grade, over the past three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The perceived religious affiliation of persons appointed to permanent posts in each of the health and social services board headquarters in 1990 and 1991 is as follows:

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Privy Purse
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out for each year since 1987 the heads of expenditure of the privy purse of the Duchy of Lancaster, stating in each case whether the payments were made for a charitable purpose.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster are placed in the Library of the House each year. It can be seen from these accounts that there is no such item as "the Privy Purse of the Duchy of Lancaster".

  Greater Manchester Sheriff
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will be attending the ceremony of pricking the nomination of the sheriff for the county of Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster normally attends when Her Majesty the Queen picks the names of the three high sheriffs for the county of Greater Manchester.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer on 21 May,Official Report, column 203, to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), what progress has been made in talks with his European partners at the ECOFIN meetings on the EC excise tax issue as it affects Scotch whisky.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 3 July 1992 at columns 755–56.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I consider the environmental implications of Treasury policies as necessary.

  VAT
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual gain to the Exchequer of imposing VAT at the standard rate on(a) books, (b) magazines, (c) newspapers, or (d) all currently non-rated or zero-rated goods and services other than fresh food and children's clothes.

  Sir John Cope
  The extra revenue accruing, in a full year, from applying the standard rate of VAT to the zero-rated items listed is approximately estimated, for the last financial year, at:

  Revenue effect1 1991–92 (£ billion)

  (a) Books

  0·3

  (b) Magazines

  0·2

  (c) Newspapers

  0·5

  216

  Revenue effect1 1991–92 (£ billion)

  (d) Goods and Services other than Food and Children's Clothing

  Domestic Fuel and Power

  2·5

  Construction of New Dwellings

  23·4

  Passenger Transport

  2·3

  Water and Sewerage Services

  0·5

  Drugs and Medicines on Prescription

  0·4

  1 These estimates make no allowance for the fact that changes in taxation may cause people to change their behaviour. These estimates cannot be added together to give a meaningful total. Not all expenditure under these headings is zero-rated.

  2 Includes zero-rated expenditure on land purchased for construction of new dwellings.

  These figures are based on information provided in table 4B. 1 in the 1992–93 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Goods and services which are not standard-rated or zero-rated are either exempt from VAT or out of scope. No estimates are available for these.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his target for the rate of increase of public sector pay in real terms.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government set no such target.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals are outstanding against uniform business rate valuations on the Isle of Wight; and how many appeals have been heard.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For the Isle of Wight 202 appeals against uniform business rate valuations have been heard and 863 remain outstanding.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the appeals of the Isle of Wight against uniform business rate valuations resulted in(a) a reduction and (b) an increase.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the total annual revenue raised through corporation tax paid by companies also liable for petroleum revenues tax for each of the years since petroleum revenue tax was introduced;

  (2) what has been the total annual revenue raised through petroleum revenue tax in each year since its introduction; and what is his estimated yield for the current financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Revenues raised from United Kingdom oil and gas production by petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax are as follows:

  £ million

  Petroleum revenue tax1

  Corporation tax2

  1975–76

  0

  5

  1976–77

  0

  10

  1977–78

  0

  10

  217

  Petroleum revenue tax1

  Corporation tax2

  1978–79

  183

  93

  1979–80

  1,435

  250

  1980–81

  2,410

  341

  1981–82

  4,415

  681

  1982–83

  5,669

  521

  1983–84

  6,017

  877

  1984–85

  7,177

  2,432

  1985–86

  6,375

  2,916

  1986–87

  1,188

  2,676

  1987–88

  2,296

  1,318

  1988–89

  1,371

  1,230

  1989–90

  1,050

  743

  1990–91

  860

  971

  1991–92

  -214

  647

  31992–93

  100

  600

  1 Including Supplementary Petroleum Duty in and 1982–83.

  2 Before ACT set-off.

  3 1992–93 Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those EC member states who pay their national government employees index linked inflation proofed pensions.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bank of England will respond to the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1991–92, "Banking Supervision and BCCI: international and national supervision".

  Mr. Lamont
  I understand that the Bank of England has now responded to the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in Session 1991–92 "Banking Supervision and BCCI: international and national supervision". A copy of this response has been placed in the Library, together with a paper on minimum standards for the supervision of banking groups recently agreed by the Basle committee of G10 banking supervisors, to accompany and reinforce the 1983 Basle concordat.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to reply to the fourth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1991–92, "Banking Supervision and BCCI: international and national supervision".

  Mr. Lamont
  As the former Economic Secretary told the House on 12 March 1992 at column 603, the Government will await Lord Justice Bingham's report on BCCI before reaching any conclusions on the Committee's recommendations.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the work of the financial action task force on money laundering.

  Mr. Nelson
  The financial action task force on money laundering (FATF) published its third annual report on 25 218
  June. The FATF has focused on three key areas of work over the last year. It has reviewed the 40 recommendations that were drawn up in 1990 in the light of recent experience and developments in money laundering techniques. It has produced interpretative notes on matters such as unlawful use of shell companies and the use of lawyers as nominees for illegal entities. The FATF has also begun a study of ways to make it easier to track the movement of suspect funds through electronic payment systems.

  The external relations working group of the FATF, chaired by the United Kingdom, has continued to encourage world wide action against money laundering, and has drawn up a detailed action programme for future work. Over the past year FATF members, including the United Kingdom, have taken part in a number of regional meetings to discuss money laundering including the Caribbean financial action task force in Kingston, Jamaica and the South East Asia Central bank board of governors in Jakarta. Links with other international organisations, such as the United Nations international drugs control programme and the Council of Europe are being developed.

  Finally, the FATF has established an effective mutual evaluation programme to assess progress among its members in implementing the anti-money laundering measures that it has developed. Four of these in-depth country examinations have so far taken place. Australia, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been examined. The FATF report includes summaries of these assessments.

  The report on the United Kingdom is very complimentary. It notes the scale and international nature of the United Kingdom financial sector and the importance we attach to its remaining clean. The report commends the co-operative nature of the United Kingdom response to the threat of money laundering, and the good relations between the financial institutions, the regulators and the law enforcement community. The report concludes that the United Kingdom approach to combating money laundering could serve as a model for other countries.

  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Banknotes
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the banknotes issued in(a) England, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) Scotland, indicating which notes are legal tender in each jurisdiction.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: In England, the Bank of England is the sole note-issuing authority and notes are currently issued in the denominations of £5, £10, £20 and £50. In Northern Ireland, four commercial banks (Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish banks, Northern hank and Ulster bank) issue notes of £5, £10, £20, and £100, with Northern bank and Ulster bank also issuing £50 notes. In Scotland, three commercial banks (Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale bank) issue £5, £10, £20 and £100 notes, with Clydesdale bank also issuing a £50 note and Royal Bank of Scotland a £1 note.

  Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales only. Notes issued by banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not legal tender anywhere. Notes

  219
  that are not legal tender may be used—anywhere in the United Kingdom—so long as both parties to a transaction agree that they are acceptable.

  Financial Services (Regulation)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the full report of the review by the Securities and Investments Board of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation's regulatory responsibilities for Bishopsgate Investment Managers and London and Bishopsgate Investment.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: I am advised that publication of IMRO's review in full, whether by the Government or the Securities and Investments Board (SIB), might be severely prejudicial to criminal proceedings. SIB has announced it will be making a statement on SIB's assessment of IMRO's and its own performance together with the conclusions and decisions about resulting action from the IMRO review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claim Processing Times
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rights to compensation or redress claimants have whose claims or review applications have not been processed within the Government's target periods.

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

  Cold Weather Payments
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Rochdale 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. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Glasgow, Central 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. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates the cold weather payments system was triggered in Glasgow, Central during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payment on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Glasgow, Central in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and how long it took for these payments to be made.
  220
  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Attendance Allowance
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the date of the longest outstanding new claim for attendance allowance;

  (2) how many new claims for attendance allowance, made before April 1992, are outstanding; and when it is expected that they will be decided;

  (3) how many applications for review of attendance allowance, made before April 1992, are outstanding; and what is the date of the longest outstanding application for review.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contributions he has received into the fund set up for Maxwell pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 28 June further details about the Maxwell pensioners trust. Work on the trust deed is being taken forward quickly and Sir John Cuckney and his fellow trustees hope to launch their formal appeal shortly.

  Pending the formal establishment of the trust, the Department has opened a holding account to receive contributions in advance of Sir John's appeal and I am pleased to report that £120,000 has already been paid into this account.

  Pension Rights
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 307, if he will ask the Government Actuary to place in the Library the detailed calculation of his estimate of the cost of full retrospective equalisation of pension rights; and how much of this estimate derives from recalculations of existing benefits in payment and the enhancement of pension payments to existing male occupational pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A copy of a detailed calculation of the Government Actuary's estimate has been placed in the Library. This was given in response to an inquiry from the European Commission. A copy of the Commission's inquiry has also been placed in the Library.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability working allowance have been received; how this compares with the anticipated take-up; what is the success rate; and how long it is taking for new claims to be decided.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability working allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Income Entitlement
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the annual income entitlement (supplementary benefit or income support), excluding housing benefit, for(a) a single unemployed person aged 24 and (b) a man and a woman both aged 34 with two children aged 12 and 11 years respectively for each of the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive, at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table.

  Part of our policy in replacing supplementary benefit was to target benefit on those groups most in need, and we succeeded. Since 1988 we have given extra help, over and above normal upratings, to families with children. The income support rates for single people aged 18 to 24 take account of the fact that the vast majority live as members of someone else's household.

  A Financial year

  B Annual entitlement at April 1989 prices £

  C Annual entitlement at April 1989 prices £

  1979–80

  1,542·25

  3,802·38

  1980–81

  1,572·16

  4,002·40

  1981–82

  1,612·82

  4,270·16

  1982–83

  1,654·58

  4,379·18

  1983–84

  1,704·56

  4,509·83

  1984–85

  1,706·86

  4,516·65

  1985–86

  1,709·09

  4,523·13

  1986–87

  1,725·19

  4,571·23

  1987–88

  1,707·39

  4,524·02

  1988–89

  1,398·44

  4,820·73

  1989–90

  1,394·52

  4,885·92

  Notes:

  Col. B—shows for 1979–88 the annual Supplementary Benefit entitlement, at 1989 prices, for a single householder. From April 1988 the figures are the annual entitlement to Income Support, at 1989 prices, for a single unemployed person age 18–24. No additions which might have been payable within Supplementary Benefit or Income Support premiums for special needs have been included.

  Col. C—shows for 1979–88 the annual Supplementary Benefit entitlement, at 1989 prices, for a couple (aged 18 or over) with two children aged I I and 12. From April 1988 the figures are the annual Income Support entitlement, at 1989 prices, for the same family composition. No additions which might have been payable within Supplementary Benefit have been included. The Income Support figures include the family premium which is paid automatically.

  The Rossi Index (ie, the Retail Prices Index less housing costs) has been used to revalue at 1989 prices because there is no housing element in the entitlement amount.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in his Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The main priority for environmental issues over the next year will be to finalise an environmental strategy for the Department and to ensure that there is an action plan to implement it. In the longer term, the aim will be to ensure that, as far as possible, the Department's activities take environmental consideration fully into account. This will include cutting down our production of carbon dioxide by reducing our energy consumption by 15 per cent. by 1996.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his annual report on the social fund; and when he will publish the social fund commissioner's annual report.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary of State's annual report (Cm 1992) has been published today and I have laid it before Parliament. This report records that in 1991–92 more than 1·5 million discretionary payments amounting to £276 million were made from the fund; and that the total paid out from the fund, including the regulated maternity, funeral and cold weather payments was £361 million.

  The social fund commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  The findings of research on the social fund which we commissioned from the social policy research unit at the University of York have also been published today. This research—based on two years of fieldwork carried out in 1990 and 1991—provides a considerable amount of information and will require careful study.

  The research unit acknowledges that the social fund budget is a small, but important, part of social security spending. It represents around 0·5 per cent. of the total DSS budget, now approaching £70 billion a year. The fund's discretionary budget alone has been increased to £302 million for 1992–93, an increase of 32 per cent. from April 1991.

  I am pleased to note that the findings confirm the message of the Secretary of State's annual report that the fund has provided cash assistance for exceptional needs to millions of people; and also recognise the excellent job being performed by social fund officers.

  Stadex Industries Pension Fund
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement concerning the Stadex Industries Limited retirement savings plan;

  (2) when he expects that members' benefit entitlement can be determined consequent upon continuing investigations into Stadex Industries Limited retirement savings plan;

  (3) how many individuals are involved in the Stadex Industries retirement savings plan; and what is his estimate of the arrears under the insurance content concerning the Stadex retirement savings plan;

  (4) for how long employee contributions were continuing to be deducted from the salary of members of the Stadex retirement savings plan and placed on deposit in a trustee bank account before members were contracted back into the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not collected by the Department. The Stadex Industries Limited retirement savings plan is a contracted out, salary-related pension scheme first contracted out on 1 June 1988. The Occupational Pensions Board, an independent statutory body, is currently considering the position of the scheme and its ability to meet its guaranteed minimum pension commitment.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of households receiving income support have no record of being in arrears in their
  223
  morgage interest payments to banks or building societies; what consideration he has given to concerns that the introduction of automatic direct payments would remove from them a responsibility that they have hitherto discharged reliably and could be perceived as a slur on their willingness to pay; and if he will make it possible for people in such circumstances to continue to make their own mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on mortgagees receiving income support who are, or have ever been, in arrears with mortgage payments is not collected.

  The new direct payment scheme is part of a package of measures agreed with mortgage lenders, aimed at reducing the number of repossessions. The previous selective scheme did not readily identify all arrears cases and therefore did not provide an adequate reassurance against the risk of repossession for claimants and their families. The new scheme does not suffer from this defect and ensures that benefit provided specifically for mortgage interest payments reaches the lender. There is no question of any such slur on any benefit recipients, the majority of whom discharged their liability towards mortgage lenders faithfully.

  We have no plans to revise the new scheme.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated total additional administrative costs associated with introducing automatic direct payments to mortgage lenders of income support in respect of mortgage interest in 1992–93; and what contribution to these additional administrative costs have been made, or are likely to he made by mortgage lenders in 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  The scheme will result in extra administrative costs of about £15 million for each year beginning 1992–93. In addition there were start-up costs of about £2·5 million. Mortgage lenders are expected to contribute £10 million towards these costs.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are being made to meet the administrative costs of automatic direct payments to mortgage lenders of income support in respect of mortgage interest in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  A review of the fees payable by qualifying lenders will take place later this year in consultation with appropriate lender organisations.

  Young People
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of implementing each of the recommendations in the eighth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding young people's benefit entitlements.

  Mr. Burt
  On the recommendation regarding removing the general exclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds from benefit, information about the cost of restoring entitlement to income support is not available.

  On the recommendation that young people under 25 living away from home should be paid the full rate of income support, the information is in the table.
  224

  Benefit

  Cost (£ million)

  Income support

  80

  Community charge benefit

  5

  Housing benefit

  25

  Total

  110

  Source: Modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels using data drawn from the 1987–88–89 Family Expenditure Surveys. People living away from home have been defined as those who are classified in the Family Expenditure Survey as (a) heads of household or (b) not related to the head of household.

  Overpayment
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the amount of money which the Government have recovered from overpayments of social security benefits not involving fraud under section 20 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, and as amended by section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986, in each of the years since 1 April 1979, the maximum amount in any individual case claimed in each year, the average amount claimed, and the proportion that the total represents of all claims for overpayment.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number and percentage of total applications which were refused for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans for each of the years of the social fund's operation; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: Information for 1988–89 and 1989–90 in respect of local offices is not available. Regional summaries for those years and for 1990–91 are in the tables.

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

  Region

  Number of applications

  Number of refusals

  Percentage

  1988–89

  BUDGETING LOANS

  Wales and South West

  103,186

  38,938

  37

  Scotland

  182,328

  62,785

  34

  Midlands

  130,227

  43,188

  33

  North East

  188,241

  69,419

  36

  North West

  172,817

  62,632

  36

  London South

  69,447

  22,233

  32

  London North

  80,062

  27,187

  33

  CRISIS LOANS

  Wales and South West

  62,450

  4,705

  8

  Scotland

  83,198

  8,299

  10

  Midlands

  69,485

  6,967

  10

  North East

  79,745

  6,083

  8

  North West

  79,519

  5,077

  6

  London South

  57,342

  7,538

  13

  London North

  64,621

  5,981

  9

  COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS

  Wales and South West

  35,640

  14,511

  40

  Scotland

  54,959

  26,978

  49

  225

  Region

  Number of applications

  Number of refusals

  Percentage

  Midlands

  45,907

  21,559

  47

  North East

  35,640

  26,010

  46

  North West

  56,003

  23,906

  46

  London South

  29,176

  12,770

  44

  London North

  38,327

  18,557

  48

  Region

  Number of applications

  Number of refusals

  Percentage

  1989–90

  BUDGETING LOANS

  Wales and SW

  122,268

  51,581

  42

  Scotland

  205,029

  83,243

  41

  Midlands

  165,181

  63,119

  38

  North East

  237,620

  94,043

  40

  North West

  194,822

  80,518

  41

  London South

  98,238

  37,804

  38

  London North

  109,290

  44,491

  41

  CRISIS LOANS

  Wales and SW

  81,770

  5,835

  7

  Scotland

  106,320

  8,969

  8

  Midlands

  83,265

  6,146

  7

  North East

  103,977

  6,950

  7

  North West

  103,660

  5,943

  6

  London South

  81,446

  6,333

  8

  London North

  84,374

  5,677

  7

  COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS

  Wales and SW

  57,858

  29,294

  51

  Scotland

  98,652

  54,024

  55

  Midlands

  77,354

  41,351

  53

  North East

  94,711

  51,693

  55

  North West

  88,102

  47,798

  54

  London South

  47,123

  23,759

  50

  London North

  60,484

  32,409

  54

  Region

  Number of Applications

  Number of Refusals

  Percentage

  BUDGETING LOANS

  1990–91

  Wales and SW

  121,461

  55,360

  46

  Scotland

  207,146

  83,855

  40

  Midlands

  158,457

  62,090

  39

  North East

  210,160

  88,980

  42

  North West

  179,092

  71,740

  40

  London South

  99,660

  41,609

  42

  London North

  116,419

  48,872

  42

  CRISIS LOANS

  Wales and SW

  78,315

  8,328

  11

  Scotland

  101,473

  10,467

  10

  Midlands

  72,608

  6,317

  9

  North East

  93,662

  6,406

  7

  North West

  93,832

  6,372

  7

  London South

  78,290

  5,795

  7

  London North

  77,750

  6,155

  8

  COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS

  Wales and SW

  69,928

  39,941

  57

  Scotland

  122,831

  78,093

  64

  Midlands

  90,970

  56,058

  62

  North East

  111,314

  68,196

  61

  North West

  100,896

  62,614

  62

  London South

  58,947

  34,843

  59

  London North

  74,430

  47,428

  64

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, columns 311–13, whether he will give figures
  226
  calculated on the same basis as tables 2 and 7 of the departmental survey "An Analysis of Voluntarily Unemployed Claimants" published in 1989, showing the proportion of unemployment benefit claims disqualified in each quarter from 1989 to 1991 and the proportion of disqualified claimants receiving income support from May 1980 to November 1991, with an explanation of the difference between these figures and those given in his answer of 25 June.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. The figures in table 2 of "An Analysis of Voluntary Unemployed Claimants" were limited to disqualifications under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975, whereas the figure given in table 1 of the answer of 25 June included some disallowances on other grounds. Table 2 of the answer of 25 June differs from table 7 of "An Analysis of Voluntary Unemployed Claimants" in that table 2 contains numbers for all disqualifications and, as footnote 1 explains, some disallowances. Table 7 was based upon the "Half-yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants" which is limited to disqualifications on the grounds of misconduct and leaving voluntarily without just cause.

  Table 1

  Percentage of claims to Unemployment Benefit disqualified by Adjudication Officers under Section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, from 1989 to 1991.

  Quarter

  Percentage disqualified by Adjudication Officers

  1989

  Q1

  8·7

  Q2

  9·1

  Q3

  6·4

  Q4

  8·3

  1990

  Q1

  6·6

  Q2

  7·3

  Q3

  5·4

  Q4

  5·9

  1991

  Q1

  4·7

  Q2

  5·0

  Q3

  3·8

  Q4

  4·6

  1. Numbers of disqualifications are based on quarter years derived from three calendar months, while numbers of claims are derived from whole weeks.

  2. In any particular quarter, a number of disqualifications could relate to a claim made in a previous quarter.

  Source: Departmental Statistics.

  Sample: 100 per cent.

  Table 2

  Percentage of unemployed claims disqualified because of misconduct and leaving voluntarily and in receipt of Supplementary Allowance/Income Support 1980–91.

  Percentage in receipt of Supplementary Allowance/Income Support

  May 1980

  42·4

  November 1980

  44·2

  May 1981

  —

  November 1981

  —

  February 1982

  42·2

  227

  Percentage in receipt of Supplementary Allowance/Income Support

  May 1982

  47·1

  November 1982

  41·9

  May 1983

  44·8

  November 1983

  44·2

  May 1984

  —

  November 1984

  42·0

  May 1985

  38·4

  November 1985

  42·4

  May 1986

  46·9

  November 1986

  45·4

  May 1987

  58·9

  November 1987

  56·2

  May 1988

  51·5

  November 1988

  57·1

  May 1989

  65·7

  November 1989

  64·5

  May 1990

  68·8

  November 1990

  66·4

  May 1991

  72·0

  November 1991

  72·5

  Source: Half yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants, Sample Size 5 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for May 1981, November 1981 and May 1984 are not available due to industrial action.

  2. Income Support replaced Supplementary Allowance from April 1988.

HEALTH

  Leeds General Infirmary
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the need for the proposed redevelopment of Leeds general infirmary; and if she will make a statement on(a) the cost implications and (b) the effect on the various hospital trusts in surrounding districts.

  Mr. Sackville
  I announced on 7 July that the Government have given approval in principle to the proposed redevelopment of the general infirmary at Leeds. In reaching this decision, careful consideration was given to the affordability of the likely capital and revenue costs and consistency with purchasers' strategies for the future health services for Leeds.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how it is intended to fund the capital cost of the Leeds general infirmary redevelopment; what are the expected capital costs and if she will break these down by financial year; and if she will give the details and timings of capital receipts which will be allocated to fund this development.

  Mr. Sackville
  The scheme will be funded through the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust's external financing limit. The outturn capital cost is estimated around £88 million. Capital expenditure is likely to be of the order of £15 million per year for five years.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the waiting list for hip replacement operations in the North East Thames region and each of its component district health authority areas for(a) up to six months, (b) six months to one year, (c) one year to 18 months,
  228
  (d) 18 months to two years and (e) more than two years on 1 April 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and the latest figures available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information is collected centrally by specialty not by procedure. Waiting times for trauma and orthopaedics, which includes hip replacements, are published in the six-monthly publication "Hospital In-patient Waiting Lists", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Fostering
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases she is aware of where children from ethnic minorities in care have been removed from white foster parents during the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Metabolic Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding is currently allocated to each health region in England towards the provision of services for the detection of inherited metabolic disease; and if she will make it her policy to ensure adequate funding is granted to existing schemes for a two-year period to allow successor arrangements to be fully evaluated.

  Mr. Sackville
  Services for the detection of inherited metabolic disease are funded out of general allocations to regional health authorities. Such allocations are made on the basis of the size, age and relative health of their resident populations. In turn regional health authorities fund their districts broadly on the same basis. District health authorities are responsible for purchasing health services for their populations including national health service genetic services which are provided by regional genetic centres, the supraregional assay service and in certain NHS trusts and directly managed units.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans her Department has to monitor the incidence of solvent and volatile substance misuse;

  (2) what are the Government's targets for the reductions of mortalities and incidence of solvent and volatile substance misuse; and how her Department intends to achieve them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is currently looking at the whole area of solvent and volatile substance misuse. We will consider in the light of its recommendations, what further steps need to be taken with the aim of reducing the incidence of and mortalities from solvent misuse. We hope that increased parental awareness of the problem following the Government's recent publicity campaign will help to play a part in reducing incidence.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in her Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if she will make a statement.
  229
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Over the coming year, I shall continue to follow-up the commitments expressed in the White Paper Cm 1200 ('This Common Inheritance') and its successor Cm 1655 ('The First Year Report'); a second anniversary White Paper will be published in the autumn. My Department is developing an environmental house-keeping strategy for the management of its accommodation and purchasing and this will be in place by the end of the year. I shall continue to ensure that the policy and work of my Department reflect environmental concerns and their potential impact on the public health.

  Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when all the population information of the 1991 census in Wales will be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 18 June at column 672. County monitors for Powys, West Glamorgan and Gwent have been published. The timetable for publication for the remaining Welsh counties will be included in the next "Census Newsletter", issue 22, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the mortality rates for asthma for each of the last 20 years(a) among the whole population and (b) among under 16-year-olds; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Asthma Deaths. England and Wales, 1972–1991 ICD 493

  Persons

  0–14

  All ages

  1972

  Rate

  4·4

  25·3

  SMR

  100·0

  1973

  Rate

  4·7

  24·5

  SMR

  94·1

  1974

  Rate

  3·7

  22·0

  SMR

  84·1

  1975

  Rate

  3·3

  24·0

  SMR

  91·2

  1976

  Rate

  3·5

  21·2

  SMR

  80·3

  1977

  Rate

  4·8

  22·1

  SMR

  83·1

  1978

  Rate

  4·0

  23·3

  SMR

  87·5

  1979

  Rate

  3·5

  30·0

  SMR

  112·4

  1980

  Rate

  3·9

  30·0

  SMR

  111·9

  1981

  Rate

  4·8

  32·3

  SMR

  119·1

  1982

  Rate

  4·4

  31·8

  SMR

  121·8

  1983

  Rate

  4·3

  31·8

  SMR

  117·2

  1984

  Rate

  4·1

  35·4

  SMR

  130·0

  1985

  Rate

  3·4

  39·5

  SMR

  144·7

  1986

  Rate

  2·8

  39·7

  SMR

  145·6

  1987

  Rate

  4·2

  37·8

  SMR

  138·6

  1988

  Rate

  4·0

  39·8

  SMR

  145·9

  230

  Persons

  0–14

  All ages

  1989

  Rate

  2·6

  38·7

  SMR

  142·0

  1990

  Rate

  3·9

  36·7

  SMR

  134·5

  1991

  Rate

  3·3

  37·1

  SMR

  136·0

  Note. Population figures for 1991 not yet available, therefore rates for 1991 have been calculated using 1990 population. Deaths for 1986 onwards exclude neonatal deaths, (aged under 28 days). Populations are in thousands. Death rates are per million populations.

  The standard mortality rate shows the number of deaths registered each year as a percentage of those which would have occurred had the age/sex mortality conformed to the year (1972) being taken as the standard. Expected deaths are calculated by sex/age mortality rates for the standard to the sex/age population for the year for which the SMR is being worked.

  SMRs have only been calculated for all ages as SMRs require calculations based on the summation of age specific data. Please note that figures are not readily available for under 16 year olds.

  In 1979 there was a change in the rules of assignment and therefore data before and after this date are not necessarily comparable.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria by which a medical condition carries exemption from prescription charges for all sufferers, regardless of age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Exemption from prescription charges on medical grounds alone is granted for specified readily identifiable chronic illnesses calling for lifelong medication.

  Abortion
  Mr. Michael Allison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of abortions performed in the Yorkshire regional health authority under the Abortion Act 1967 since its implementation; and how many and what proportion of these abortions were performed in an emergency to save the mother's life.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yorkshire regional health authority (RHA) was constituted on 1 April 1974 and data on this basis are calculated from 1 January 1975 to 30 September 1991 (the latest date for which figures are available). During this period a total of 139,602 abortions have been performed under the Abortion Act 1967 in the Yorkshire RHA. Of these, two (0·001 per cent.) were performed in an emergency "to save the life of the pregnant woman" (ground 5).

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on producing and printing trust application forms in each health authority region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he holds on the provision of day nurseries and other child care facilities and assistance in the legislative assemblies of European Community member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CATERING COMMITTEE

  Animal Welfare
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee, if the Committee will make it its policy to recommend that the Refreshment Department take animal welfare into account in its food purchasing policy.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  It is understood that the Director of Catering Services, who has formal responsibility for these matters, already takes account of animal welfare in respect of their rearing, capture and slaughter when putting into practice the Department's food-purchasing policy. I shall, nevertheless, arrange for this issue to be considered by the Catering Committee in order that it may be discussed and, if necessary, further guidance given.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) of 2 June,Official Report, column 430, what position the Government have adopted on the Commission's consultation paper on dietary supplement as in respect of the suggestion that vitamin supplements should only be available on prescription; and when he expects the European Community scientific committee on food to complete its consideration.

  Mr. Soames
  The Commission consultation paper on dietary supplements contains no suggestion that vitamin supplements should be available only on prescription. The Government's general position is that consumers should be able to choose for themselves whether to buy dietary supplements that are safe. The Commission expects the EC scientific committee for food to reach conclusions about acceptable upper levels for vitamins and minerals in the autumn.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the commodities held by the European Commission in intervention, the quantity of each in store on the latest date for which information is available, and the percentage of each that is committed to use for emergency food aid.

  Mr. Curry
  Tables listing the commodities held by the European Community in intervention, and the most recent levels of each such commodity held in store, are deposited in the Library of the House each month.
  232
  Information on the percentage of each that is committed to use for emergency food aid cannot be provided within the time available, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information requested is available from the European Commission.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the written statement of the health and safety at work of those employed by Agricultural Development Advisory Service, as required by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Gummer
  The written statement of the health and safety at work of those employed by MAFF, including ADAS, as required by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, is contained in section F8 of the MAFF staff manual handbook. I am arranging for copies of the relevant sections to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Vitamins
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what figure he has for the value of(a) multi-vitamin preparations and (b) single vitamins sold over the counter in Britain each year.

  Mr. Soames
  The value of multi-vitamins and single vitamins sold in 1991, estimated, at retail selling price, was £60 million and £25 million respectively, according to the market research magazine. "Market Intelligence", June 1991.

  Long Mynd
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publicise the results of his Department's study into moorland grazing pressure on the Long Mynd, Shropshire, "An Assessment of Heather Utilisation by Sheep on the Long Mynd, 1990"; and if he will make a statement on its findings.

  Mr. Curry
  This report was produced to aid discussions between the Department, English Nature and the National Trust—as landlords—on the measures to be taken for the conservation of the Long Mynd. All three parties have now received copies of the report which will be of particular value in formulating the proposals for the Shropshire hills environmentally sensitive area on which I shall be seeking views in 1993.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for the last 12 months, the fact-finding visits the chief executive of the Employment Agency has made; what were his findings; if she will place a copy of his findings in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what criteria will be used to establish which agencies can provide rehabilitation of a suitable quality for people with disabilities after April 1993; and if she will make a statement;
  233
  (2) how funding will be allocated to placing, assessment and counselling teams to enable them to purchase such assessment and rehabilitation services as are needed by people with severe disabilities requiring specialist provision;

  (3) what steps she is taking to establish quality standards for providers of rehabilitation training to people with severe visual impairments; and what consultation she is having for this purpose;

  (4) what was the average total cost per week for each client attending an employment rehabilitation course at a Government-run employment rehabilitation centre in (a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred these questions for reply.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will outline the priorities for future action of the green Minister in her Department(a) over the next year and (b) over this Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Over the next 12 months we shall continue to follow up commitments in the White Paper Cm 12000 "This Common Inheritance" and its successor Cm 1655 "The First Year Report". We shall also be contributing to a second anniversary White Paper in the autumn.

  The Health and Safety Executive has already developed an environmental housekeeping strategy for the management of its accommodation and purchasing. The Employment Department and the Employment Service will have their strategies in place by the end of 1992.

  Over the next year and beyond, we shall continue to monitor the impact of the Department's policies and activities on the environment; and to ensure that environmental concerns shape our policies and work wherever possible.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the list of external organisations providing counselling and rehabilitation services under contract to her Department with an indication of the amount of work carried out by each organisation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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.

  Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will publish details, for the nine standard economic regions, of the total numbers of entrants, excluding community programme transfers, to employment training by sex, ethnic origin and disability, for each year since the start of the scheme;

  (2) if she will publish the 100 per cent. youth training scheme leavers survey for each training and enterprise
  234
  council in the north-west, showing the destinations of trainees by ethnic origin, sex and disability and by scheme type, for each year since the start of the scheme;

  (3) if she will publish details for each training and enterprise council in the north-west region of the destinations of employment training trainees, by ethnic origin, sex and disability, for each year since the start of the scheme;

  (4) if she will publish details of the numbers and percentages of youth training trainees in the north-west who have employed or trainee status, and the breakdown by sex, ethnic origin and disability, for each year in the period 1990–92 inclusive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the information requested is contained within a number of tables I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice is given to young people for whom suitable youth training places are not available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Careers Service gives vocational advice and guidance to young people. In addition to the training route, the service encourages young people to explore all the other options and their suitability for them; for example, further education and employment, to enable them to make informed careers decisions. For those young people they identify as having potential eligibility for benefits or allowances, general advice is given such as how and where to make a claim.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of whether there are enough suitable youth training places available in all parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's contracts with TECs call for regular monitoring and review at local level of the numbers of young people covered by the YT guarantee who are seeking a place. This local monitoring is carried out by our officials, training and enterprise councils and other interested parties such as the Careers Service. Following discussion with representatives of TECs and the Careers Service we are putting into place new measures to establish a national system of monitoring in England. We believe that these arrangements safeguard the interests of young people seeking training.

  Matters in the rest of the United Kingdom are for my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list those areas in which the youth training guarantee is being delivered in full.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the extent of demand for YT from young people covered by the YT guarantee is available only in the form of estimates which are not sufficiently reliable for publication. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the YT guarantee will be met everywhere.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the number of workers covered by the wages councils in(a) Wales, (b) south

  235
  Wales and the south-west and (c) north Wales and the north-west; and if she will sub-divide the figures for full-time, part-time and male and female workers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information as requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each existing wages council(a) what is the current minimum rate of pay, (b) how many employees are covered, (c) what is the administrative cost, (d) how many establishments are covered, (e) how many inspectors are employed, (f) how many inspections have taken place and in each of the last five years, (g) how many establishments have been contacted other than by visit, (h) how many establishments have been found to be paying less than the minimum and (i) how many prosecutions have taken place.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no record kept of the administrative cost for each individual wages council and wages inspectors are not employed for individual wages councils. Other information requested is set out in the following tables:

  Table 1

  Current wages council minimum hourly rates

  Wages councils

  Basic hourly rate £

  Aerated Waters

  2·9400

  Clothing Manufacturing

  2·6375

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  2·9100

  Button Manufacturing

  2·5850

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  3·0500

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  2·6800

  Flax and Hemp

  1—

  Fur

  2·7200

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  2·5000

  Hairdressing Undertaking

  2·7800

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  2·6667

  Lace Finishing

  1—

  Laundry

  2·9100

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  2·6000

  Made-up Textiles

  2·5700

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower

  2·6600

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  3·0400

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  3·1000

  Rope Twine and Net

  2·6700

  Sack and Bag

  2·6550

  Toy Manufacturing

  2·5200

  Retail Trades (Non-Food)

  3·0650

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  3·0800

  Licensed Non-Residential Establishment

  2·9100

  Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant

  2·8000

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  2·9200

  1 Council adjourned indefinitely—the two sides negotiate voluntary agreements.

  Table 4

  Number of inspections 1987 to 1991

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aerated waters

  26

  31

  22

  14

  7

  Clothing manufacturing

  967

  603

  486

  390

  402

  Boot and shoe repairing

  224

  245

  216

  59

  335

  Button manufacturing

  3

  7

  5

  3

  2

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  2

  3

  3

  4

  1

  Cotton waste reclamation

  5

  4

  3

  0

  3

  236

  Table 2

  Number of workers covered by wages councils

  Wages councils

  Workers covered

  Aerated Waters

  5,500

  Clothing Manufacturing

  14,700

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  5,000

  Button Manufacturing

  1,000

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  200

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  300

  Flax and Hemp

  500

  Fur

  1,500

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  13,000

  Hairdressing Undertaking

  64,000

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  4,000

  Lace Finishing

  900

  Laundry

  26,000

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  2,500

  Made-up Textiles

  3,000

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower

  500

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  2,000

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  4,000

  Rope Twine and Net

  2,500

  Sack and Bag

  1,000

  Toy Manufacturing

  11,000

  Retail Trades (Non-Food)

  745,000

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  465,000

  Licensed Non-Residential Establishment

  492,000

  Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant

  379,000

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  96,000

  Table 3

  Number of establishments covered by wages councils

  Wages councils

  Establishments covered

  Aerated Waters

  262

  Clothing Manufacturing

  6,399

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  2,993

  Button Manufacturing

  47

  Coffin Furniture and Cerement Making

  21

  Cotton Waste Reclamation

  23

  Flax and Hemp

  10

  Fur

  187

  General Waste Materials Reclamation

  1,419

  Hairdressing Undertaking

  33,772

  Hat, Cap and Millinery

  124

  Lace Finishing

  62

  Laundry

  1,195

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  133

  Made-up Textiles

  281

  Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower

  36

  Perambulator and Invalid Carriage

  30

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring

  479

  Rope Twine and Net

  91

  Sack and Bag

  63

  Toy Manufacturing

  216

  Retail Trades (Non-Food)

  116,498

  Retail Food and Allied Trades

  112,079

  Licensed Non-Residential Establishment

  68,223

  Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant

  34,589

  Unlicensed Place of Refreshment

  18,884

  237

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Flax and hemp

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fur

  21

  18

  12

  4

  6

  General waste materials reclamation

  116

  150

  100

  87

  70

  Hairdressing

  2,200

  2,392

  2,633

  2,281

  2,730

  Hat, cap and millinery

  8

  26

  11

  6

  3

  Lace finishing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laundry

  107

  125

  95

  45

  74

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  17

  12

  14

  7

  10

  Made-up textiles

  27

  32

  27

  28

  8

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  3

  3

  6

  3

  3

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  3

  2

  3

  0

  3

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  37

  43

  40

  21

  14

  Rope, twine and net

  7

  8

  11

  12

  4

  Sack and bag

  7

  12

  6

  4

  2

  Toy manufacturing

  20

  24

  18

  16

  15

  Retail trades (non-food)

  8,354

  9,649

  9,551

  8,081

  9,542

  Retail food and allied trades

  7,171

  9,860

  10,111

  9,331

  8,278

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  6,475

  5,063

  5,310

  5,005

  5,819

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  3,213

  2,613

  2,781

  2,910

  3,084

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  1,509

  1,530

  2,164

  2,369

  2,171

  Table 5

  Establishments checkd other than by visit 1987 to 1991

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aerated waters

  2

  10

  5

  4

  1

  Clothing manufacturing

  84

  44

  50

  31

  35

  Boot and shoe repairing

  121

  79

  125

  12

  270

  Button manufacturing

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Cotton waste reclamation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Flax and hemp

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fur

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  General waste materials reclamation

  20

  39

  41

  33

  29

  Hairdressing

  1,068

  738

  1,116

  928

  841

  Hat, cap and millinery

  0

  3

  5

  1

  0

  Lace finishing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laundry

  23

  28

  29

  2

  8

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Made-up textiles

  4

  7

  3

  4

  0

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  4

  6

  7

  4

  3

  Rope, twine and net

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Sack and bag

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Toy manufacturing

  3

  1

  2

  7

  0

  Retail trades (non-food)

  4,650

  5,430

  5,558

  4,116

  5,413

  Retail food and allied trades

  3,651

  4,147

  3,883

  3,953

  2,746

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  2,198

  1,560

  3,347

  2,230

  2,705

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  593

  488

  899

  1,087

  1,039

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  163

  312

  1,114

  1,290

  1,067

  Table 6

  Number of establishments found to be paying less than the minimum 1987 to 1991

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aerated waters

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Clothing manufacturing

  191

  128

  111

  90

  97

  Boot and shoe repairing

  7

  18

  11

  12

  9

  Button manufacturing

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Cotton waste reclamation

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Flax and hemp

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  238

  239

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Fur

  0

  2

  3

  0

  1

  General waste materials reclamation

  5

  11

  2

  3

  3

  Hairdressing

  290

  330

  319

  307

  368

  Hat, cap and millinery

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Lace finishing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laundry

  10

  20

  16

  12

  19

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  2

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Made-up textiles

  1

  2

  5

  6

  1

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  3

  6

  3

  3

  0

  Rope, twine and net

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Sack and bag

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Toy manufacturing

  1

  2

  3

  2

  6

  Retail trades (non-food)

  854

  1,130

  1,108

  1,101

  1,336

  Retail food and allied trades

  1,399

  2,143

  2,289

  2,078

  2,240

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  843

  1,016

  847

  723

  916

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  516

  405

  475

  458

  578

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  313

  378

  331

  404

  390

  Table 7

  Number of prosecutions 1987 to 1991 Paying less than the minimum

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aerated waters

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clothing manufacturing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Boot and shoe repairing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Button manufacturing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cotton waste reclamation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Flax and hemp

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fur

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General waste materials reclamation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hairdressing

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Hat, cap and millinery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lace finishing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laundry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Made-up textiles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rope, twine and net

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sack and bag

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Toy manufacturing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retail trades (non-food)

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Retail food and allied trades

  2

  8

  5

  5

  7

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Table 8

  Number of prosecutions 1987 to 1991 All

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aerated waters

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clothing manufacturing

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Boot and shoe repairing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Button manufacturing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coffin furniture and cerement making

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cotton waste reclamation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  240

  241

  Wages councils

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Flax and hemp

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fur

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General waste materials reclamation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hairdressing

  2

  2

  0

  1

  2

  Hat, cap and millinery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lace finishing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Laundry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Made-up textiles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Perambulator and invalid carriage

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retail bespoke tailoring

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rope, twine and net

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sack and bag

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Toy manufacturing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retail trades (non-food)

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  Retail food and allied trades

  2

  8

  6

  6

  7

  Licensed non-residential establishments

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Licensed residential establishments and licensed restaurants

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Unlicensed place of refreshment

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 June,Official Report, columns 418–26, when she expects to be in a position to give the corresponding information for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: For the present, the 1992–93 information remains subject to commercial confidentiality. The information will be made available in due course.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 June,Official Report, columns 418–26, if she will indicate for which training and enterprise councils in England the 1992–93 information is available; and if she will now publish it for each of the relevant training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: For the present, the 1992–93 information remains subject to commercial confidentiality. The information will be made available in due course.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 9 June,Official Report, column 146, he will set out the procedures by which the Government will judge whether developing countries are unable to deal safely with toxic wastes prior to giving permission for their import into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the current draft of the waste shipments regulation, developing countries would have to present a duly motivated request on the basis that they did not have and could not acquire the technical capacity and the necessary facilities in order to dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner.

  Countryside Employment Practice
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which areas the pilot scheme for the countryside employment programme will take place.

  Mr. Maclean
  The countryside employment programme is being piloted in three areas. These are: Lincolnshire (east and west Lindsey districts), the Marches (south Herefordshire, Leominster and south Shropshire districts) and the Cotswold (Cotswold and west Oxfordshire districts).

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of money paid out in management agreements relating to sites of special scientific interest in 1991; how many individual agreements are currently in force in England, Scotland and Wales; what is the average payment per agreement, and what are the top 10 highest individual payments.

  Mr. Maclean
  Management agreements within Wales and Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  I am advised by English Nature that the amount they paid for management agreements under section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 relating SSSIs in 1991–92 was £5,735,359; those still active at 31 March 1992 total 1,584 (including some awaiting renewal). The average payment is £875 lump sum plus an ongoing annual payment of £2,176.

  Details of management agreement payments are confidential to the parties concerned. The 10 highest individual payments are as follows:

  £322,983

  £109,600

  £108,000

  £ 79,000

  £ 69,134

  £ 49,500

  £ 48,194

  £ 42,004

  243

  £ 36,091

  £ 36,000

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has paid in grants in total to United Kingdom conservation bodies to assist them to buy land for nature reserves in each year between 1989 and the present time; how many applications for grant aid were(a) received in 1991 and (b) accepted; and if he will give details of each grant over £10,000.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following is the information:

  Land purchase grants over £10,000 given by English nature in 1991–92

  Site

  Applicant

  SSSI land purchased (hectares)

  Grant given £

  Hazelwood Marshes Suffolk

  Suffolk Wildlife Trust

  3·29

  21,000

  Hoe Hill and Clayford Pits South Humbersidc

  Lincolnshire and South Humberside Trusts for Nature Conservation

  24·5

  10,000

  West Sedgemoor Somerset

  RSPB

  26

  32,000

  Irlams Beach Saltings (Hamford Water)

  Little Oakley and District Wildflowers Assocation

  50

  10,000

  Bowling Green Marsh Exe Estuary Devon

  RSPB

  8·1

  10,000

  Roydon Common Norfolk

  Norfolk Naturalists' Trust

  81·28

  10,000

  Fortescue Estate Somerset

  Exmoor National Park (Somerset CC)

  485·22

  20,000

  Ham Brook Marshes Kent

  Kent Trust for Nature Conservation

  29·2

  19,000

  Lower Raypitts Farm Essex

  Essex Wildlife Trust

  69·29

  20,000

  Decon Hill Bedfordshire

  The Wildlife Trusts of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  25·1

  19,000

  Lower Wood, Ashwellthorpe Norfolk

  Norfolk Naturalists Trust

  36

  23,750

  Ouse Washes Cambridgeshire

  RSPB

  5·47

  10,132·50p

  Ouse Washes Cambridgeshire

  RSPB

  13·11

  20,250

  Nuclear Contamination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent decisions have been taken by the European Commission to support research into nuclear contamination in Russia. Belarus and the Ukraine.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am informed that the Commission of the European Communities entered on 23 June 1992 into an agreement at non-governmental level with institutions in the three republics of the Commonwealth of independent States most closely concerned with the accident six years ago at the Chernobyl nuclear plant: Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine. The agreement is for collaboration in studying the nature of the radioactive contamination arising from the Chernobyl accident, to broaden the technical skills needed to control such accidents, and to improve emergency management procedures. The collaboration will be between institutes in European Community member states and in Russia, Byelorussia and Ukraine.

  Desalination
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to investigate desalination in the United Kingdom on(a) a large scale or (b) a small scale.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The recent discussion paper by the National Rivers Authority, which has a statutory responsibility for water resources, suggests that desalination is unlikely to offer a cost-effective general means of increasing United Kingdom water supplies. In specific 244

  Land purchase grants

  £

  1989–90

  504,269

  1990–91

  502,958

  1991–921

  238,632·50

  1992-to date1

  6,420

  1 England only.

  English Nature received 42 land purchase grant applications in 1991–92, of these 19 were given grants towards the purchase of land.

  limited circumstances water suppliers may find it worth pursuing: I understand that the Council of the Isles of Scilly has recently commissioned a desalination plant.

  Landowners (Compensation)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much in total was paid out in compensation to landowners under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in 1991; how many individual payments were made; and if he will give details of individual payments over £10,000;

  (2) how much compensation to landowners under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been paid in the current year; what is the number of applications still waiting a decision and their location; and what is the amount being asked for in compensation by the landowners concerned.

  Mr. Maclean
  No payments were made in 1991 by English Nature under the provisions of section 30 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Emissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the EC nations, the targets they have adopted for stabilising or reducing(a) carbon dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide, (c) nitrogen oxide and (d) hydrocarbons/volatile organic compounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of EC countries have declared targets on different bases and at different times for carbon dioxide emissions. All EC member states have now signed
  245
  the United Nations framework convention on climate change. This will commit all developed country parties to take measures aimed at returning emissions of each greenhouse gas, including carbon dioxide, to their 1990 levels by 2000.

  The EC Large Combustion Plant Directive (88/609) requires member states to make specified reductions in their annual emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from existing plant. The targets vary country by country, but range from 29 per cent. to 70 per cent. reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions by 2003, and from 0 per cent. to 40 per cent. reductions in nitrogen oxides emissions by 1988—in all cases over 1980 emissions. The targets are listed in annex I to the directive, available in the Library of the House.

  All EC member states are parties to the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Seven of the12—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—are all parties to the sulphur protocol to the convention, which requires a reduction of at least 30 per cent. in national annual emissions of sulphur by 1993, from 1980 levels. All member states except Portugal have signed the nitrogen oxides protocol to the convention, which requires national annual emissions to be stabilised at 1987 levels by 1994. All member states except Ireland have also signed the latest protocol to the convention, requiring national emissions of volatile organic compounds, including hydrocarbons, to be reduced by at least 30 per cent. by 1999, in most cases from 1988 levels.

  In 1984 the United Kingdom Government adopted the aim of reducing annual sulphur dioxide emissions from all existing sources by 30 per cent. on 1980 levels by the year 2000. We are on target to meet this objective, and more. In 1984 we also set ourselves the ambitious aim of achieving a 30 per cent. reduction from 1980 levels of nitrogen oxides emissions by the end of the 1990s. This has been made even more difficult by the recent growth in road traffic, but it remains an aim for which we strive.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library details of the recipients of any management or compensation payment under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  No, this information is confidential to the parties concerned.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the proportion of the existing United Kingdom stock of dwellings that lack(a) draught stripping to doors and windows, (b) insulation to hot water cylinder, (c) roof insulation, (d) cavity wall or solid wall insulation, (e) floor insulation and (f) double glazing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Latest estimates for Great Britain are as follows:

  Proportion of households lacking

  Per cent.

  (a) Draught stripping to doors and windows (includes only those households without double glazing)

  35·0

  (b) Insulation to hot water cylinder

  6·0

  (c) Roof insulation

  11·0

  246

  Proportion of households lacking

  Per cent.

  (d) Cavity wall or solid wall insulation

  75·0

  (e) Floor insulation

  n/a

  (f) Double glazing

  54·0

  Recycled Materials
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the last available year, the amount of(a) paper and cardboard, (b) ferrous metals, (c) glass and (d) non-ferrous metals, including aluminium recovered as a percentage of consumption in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each of the other EC nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1990 the use of recycled materials as a percentage of consumption in the United Kingdom was as follows:

  Percentage

  Glass

  21

  Paper and board

  31

  Aluminium1

  12

  Copper

  47

  Lead2

  62

  Tin3

  57

  Zinc

  22

  Ferrous metal

  46

  1 Excludes aluminium scrap which moves directly from the aluminium metal industry to other industries.

  2 Relates to the actual quantity recovered, not the recycled scrap used in manufacture.

  3 Includes in-house recycling of waste but excludes exports.

  Comparable figures for other EC countries are not readily available.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy for the eco-labelling scheme to require a minimum requirement of recycled material content.

  Mr. Maclean
  Criteria for the award of a European eco-label will be decided by the EC Regulatory Committee, which comprises representatives of the Commission and member states, after consultation with interested groups. The proposal for criteria put to the committee will be based on a full cradle to grave analysis of all the environmental impacts of the product group and will, where appropriate, take account of the potential for requiring a proportion of recycled material.

  Eco-Labels
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on a system of bands of fees on the basis of the applicants revenues in order to encourage small companies to apply for the eco-label.

  Mr. Maclean
  The European Commission is drawing up proposals for indicative fee guidelines as they are required to do by the EC regulation. The draft proposals envisage an application fee, to meet the costs of processing the application, and an annual licence fee for the use of the label which would be related to the annual value of sales in the Community of the product awarded the eco-label.

  Consumer Services (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental evaluation is being undertaken of consumer services with high environmental impact, with particular reference to dry cleaning.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is not aware of any environmental evaluation which is being undertaken of consumer services.

  In the early stages of development the focus of the European eco-labelling scheme will be on consumer products. Consumer services, such as dry cleaning, may well be covered later once the scheme is established.

  Grants, London
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to assist projects whose grants from the London boroughs grants unit have been stopped; and whether he will consider extending Government financial support to the library at the Institute for Race Relations.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The award of grants under the London borough grant scheme is a matter for decision by the London boroughs, all of whom participate in the operation of the scheme. The Government have no plans to provide alternative funding where this has been refused under the London boroughs grant scheme.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what obligations he imposes on those to whom he has delegated responsibility for planning decisions to hear oral evidence.

  Mr. Baldry
  The procedures to be followed by inspectors holding inquiries are set out in the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988. The rules give certain parties, such as the local planning authority, the appellant and the owner of the appeal site, a statutory right to appear at the inquiry. Any other persons wishing to appear, for example local residents, may do so at the inspector's discretion.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against planning decisions by the Worthing borough council have been allowed by him or the planning inspectorate in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Planning appeals decided: Worthing borough council

  Year

  Appeals decided

  Appeals allowed

  Percentage allowed Worthing

  Percentage allowed England

  1987–88

  34

  14

  41·2

  37·6

  1988–89

  56

  20

  35·7

  36·7

  1989–90

  64

  19

  29·7

  33·4

  1990–91

  75

  22

  29·3

  33·6

  1991–92

  50

  13

  26·0

  33·7

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what criteria he delegates decisions on planning appeals to the planning inspectorate.
  248
  Mr. Baldry
  All planning appeals, except for a few exceptions, are transferred to planning inspectors for decision. However I do have the power to "recover" jurisdiction. Normally this power is only exercised in cases involving large scale development and where issues of more than local importance are likely to be raised. The criteria for recovery are published in the 1986 White Paper "Planning: Appeals, Call-In and Major Public Inquiries" (Cm 43).

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the planning inspector dealing with the appeal against the granting of planning permission for the Homebase store on land at Littlehampton and Yeomans road, Worthing, failed to take oral evidence from those opposed to the last-minute change of plans put forward by the applicants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The question of an alternative layout for the proposed development arose towards the end of the four-day public inquiry. As a result it was not possible for the inspector to hear further evidence from all those who had already appeared at the inquiry without an adjournment. This would have prolonged the time before the appeal was determined. However, to ensure that local objectors views about the alternative layout were taken into account, the inspector arranged for them to be given an opportunity to make written representations to him before he made his decision.

  Travellers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects that the consultation paper being compiled by his Department. concerning the problems caused by hippies and new age travellers, will be issued.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) on 19 June 1992 at column 693.

  Research Animals
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to use the United Kingdom presidency of the EC to press for an end to the import of wild-caught and captive-bred primates throughout the EC for research purposes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The import of primates into the EC is already controlled under existing regulations governing the wildlife trade. These are conservation measures, intended primarily to ensure that wild populations are not seriously depleted. They are not concerned with the purposes of import, except for endangered species. During our presidency, we shall be giving priority to the negotiation of a new European Community regulation to tighten these controls significantly, but we have no plans to see a general ban on the import of animals for use in research, which is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet representatives of the Governments of the Philippines and Indonesia to urge them to end their trade in primates for research.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so. The Government of Indonesia are already well aware of
  249
  concern in the European Community about the effects of wildlife exports. This has led to a suspension of imports of Indonesian specimens of many species, including primates, into the EC. We are prepared to take similar action on conservation grounds whenever trade is judged likely to pose a threat to species. The use of primates in research is, however, primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary.

  New Housing
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to determine the provision for new housing to be made in new regional planning guidance for London and the south-east.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a letter which I have sent to the chairman of SERPLAN—the London and south east regional planning conference. SERPLAN is invited to put forward proposals for the allocation of future provision for new housing between London and the counties of the south east. These proposals should be based on a regional total rate of 57,000 additional dwellings per year, over the period 1991 to 2011. I will take account of SERPLAN's proposals, together with any other views on these matters which are put to my Department, in deciding the regional housing provision to be included in draft new regional planning guidance for the south east. The draft will then be published for consultation in due course.

  Coastal Zones
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish their response to the Environment Select Committee's second report of Session 1991–92, on coastal zone protection and planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are today publishing their response to the Environment Select Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning. We welcome the Committee's report as a valuable contribution to the debate on the effective management of our coast.

  This country has a record of success in protecting the coast. Two thirds of the coastline of England and Wales is undeveloped arable land, woodland, scrub, pasture or natural habitat. The planning system provides a tried mechanism for the effective resolution of conflict on land which faces pressures from a variety of uses.

  It is important that we build on these achievements, to tackle the new issues that are emerging on our coast and to ensure an effective response to the challenges of the next century including pressures of economic growth and increased recreation, the impact of global warming, and demands to respond to our growing knowledge and awareness of the value of the coastal environment.

  We already have a substantial programme of work underway to achieve this including:
  —planning guidance for the coast and a recent policy statement on Heritage coasts;
  —guidance on responding to sea level rise, and a commitment to develop a national flood and coastal defence strategy;
  —requirements for environmental assessment of a wide range of coastal developments on land and at sea, and new procedures (under the Transport and Works Act 1992) to control many types of development in inshore waters;
  —action to reduce coastal pollutants and develop Statutory Water Quality objectives for estuarine and coastal waters;
  250
  —a commitment to implement the EC Habitats Directive for marine as well as land-based habitats.

  Our response to the Committee's report now proposes:
  —support for multi-agency management plans for estuaries and inshore waters, aimed particularly at coastal recreation activities, and at nature conservation, and a review of local authority powers to control water sports and pleasure boats in inshore waters.
  —a review of the effectiveness of present regulatory systems controlling construction and development below the low water mark;

  The Government will bring forward a discussion paper examining both these issues more fully.

  The Government response also includes commitments to maintaining national co-ordination arrangements for coastal policy; reviewing controls over marine aggregates dredging; promoting regional coastal defence strategies; furthering environmentally acceptable coastal defence solutions and developing policies for controlled retreat to create new habitats; and promoting clear agreement on responsibilities for pollution control.

  Copies of the Government response are being laid before the House and will be available in the Library.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing his Department's forecasts for all social housing completions, and the actual number of completions, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not prepare forecasts of housebuilding completions. Estimates of actual new housebuilding completions by housing associations and by local authorities are published in "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for 1979 are in table 6.1 of the annual publication "Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–1989: Great Britain"; figures for each year from 1980 to 1990 are in the 1980–1990 edition. Provisional estimates for 1991 are shown in table 1.2 of the December quarter 1991 edition (Number 48) of the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics; Part 1". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  County Council Elections
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention that the county council elections, in counties included in the first tranche of authorities for review by the Local Government Commission, will take place as scheduled in May 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State may not use his powers under the Local Government Act 1992 to postpone elections or order fresh ones until the Commission has finished reviewing an area and he has decided on the changes to local government structure that he will recommend to Parliament. We therefore expect all county council elections to go ahead in May 1993.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current value of land held by each urban development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The value at 31 March 1992 of land held by urban development corporations is set out in the table. Land held for roads and other public utilities has a nil disposal value.
  251

  Value of Land held by Urban Development Corporations

  £ million

  Black Country

  38·786

  Bristol

  11·492

  Central Manchester

  3·980

  Leeds

  12·284

  London Docklands

  54·392

  Merseyside

  26·846

  Sheffield

  15·340

  Teesside

  64·680

  Trafford Park

  22·293

  Tyne and Wear

  30·323

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates on which his Department has received representations from Worthing borough council and the right hon. Member for Worthing regarding providing seaside councils with further byelaw powers to control the use of jet skis in designated areas of the sea; for what reasons he has decided not to take any action; and if he will now give these powers to local authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We received representations about the provision of additional byelaw-making powers to control jet skis from my right hon. Friend on behalf of Worthing borough council in February 1992. A reply was sent on 2 March 1992. This matter has now been considered further and I refer my right hon. Friend to the Government's response to the second report from the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment on coastal zone protection and planning (CM 2011), which is published today. This states that the Government intend to issue a discussion paper which will include consideration of
  "the scope for improving local authority powers to control water sports and pleasure boats in inshore waters, making it easier to implement zoning in different activities which may be incompatible for safety, nature conservation or other reasons, and to control behaviour which causes a public or environmental nuisance" (paragraph 49).

  Forests
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC Council of Ministers to establish an international review process for the forest and desertification principles outlined at the Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  On forests I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 July at column 17. On desertification, we expect the UN General Assembly this autumn to establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee to elaborate an international convention on desertification. We will be co-ordinating the position of the EC during the General Assembly as part of our presidency responsibilities.

SCOTLAND

  Approved Training Organisations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the standards used to award the status of approved training organisations.
  252
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: There are seven functions for each of which aims must be met and a number of criteria satisfied for the award of approved training organisation status. These functions, which are common to both employment training and youth training, are set out:

  identification of training needs;

  training designed and delivered to national standards;

  effective quality management;

  recruitment, selection and competence of staff;

  equal opportunities policy;

  health, safety and suitability of premises and equipment;

  financial viability.

  The aims and criteria are detailed in a document entitled "Approved Training Organisation" published by the Training Agency, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approved training organisations there have been in Scotland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: As at 30 April 1990, 18 training agents and 157 training managers for employment training in Scotland had achieved approved training organisation stage 1. Corresponding information for youth training was not held centrally. In subsequent years, responsibility for monitoring the standards achieved by training providers has rested with local enterprise companies which maintain their own records on the training providers with which they contract.

  Salmon
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether salmon imported into Britain from Ireland and Norway is subject to routine testing for ivermectin residues; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if testing for ivermectin residues in Scottish produced farmed salmon has been introduced on a routine basis; and what information he has on the residues detected.

  Mr. Lang
  Samples of farmed salmon will be obtained from retail outlets throughout the United Kingdom in 1992 under the retail animal products survey, as part of the Government's food surveillance programme. Samples will be as representative of the national food supply as possible, and some 10 per cent. of the salmon samples analysed will have been imported from Norway and the Republic of Ireland. These samples will be analysed for residues of ivermectin.

  A 12-month programme of residue testing in farmed fish is also being conducted in the United Kingdom in response to a request for information from the EC Commission. This programme includes the analysis of 50 samples of farmed salmon, obtained either directly from fish farms or United Kingdom wholesalers, for ivermectin. These analyses have been completed and ivermectin was not detected in any samples.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what progress has been made in the case of the alleged use of ivermectin for the treatment of sea lice in farmed salmon by(a) Glencoe Salmon in June 1991 and (b) Wester Ross Salmon in January;

  (2) how many cases of the use of ivermectin for the treatment of sea lice in farmed salmonids in Scotland have been reported.
  253
  Mr. Lang
  A report on the alleged use of ivermectin at Glencoe Salmon Ltd. was made to the procurator fiscal at Fort William, who decided to take no criminal proceedings. A report concerning Wester Ross Salmon has been made to the procurator fiscal at Dornoch.

  There is no requirement to report allegations about the use of ivermectin to my Department. Such reports should be made to the appropriate river purification authority or to the veterinary medicines directorate.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the decision to support continuing the minimum import price for Norwegian salmon after 30 May; what measures he plans to introduce to safeguard the future of the Scottish salmon farming industry; and if he will estimate the decrease in production since that decision came into effect.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The minimum import price was introduced last November for a three-month period in response to a specific threat to the European Community market of a surge in supply arising from substantial quantities of frozen salmon stored in Norway. It was subsequently extended for a further three-month period until the end of May. In the light of Norwegian action to dispose of the frozen stocks, it was decided that yet a further extension of the minimum import price could not be justified.

  The Government are considering proposals to help stabilise the salmon market in the longer term through the establishment of producer organisations. The production and growth cycle for salmon is such that production will not have changed since the end of May. Rates of harvesting are for individual commercial decision and will be based on many considerations.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department in developing analytical techniques for testing for residues of ivermectin in the flesh of farmed salmon.

  Mr. Lang
  An analytical method for detection of ivermectin residues in salmon muscle has been developed and validated at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Torry research station in Aberdeen.

  Prisoners
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for the post-release supervision and support of discharged prisoners with mental illness; what further initiatives he plans to improve these services; what plans he has to ensure the proper co-ordination of service delivery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Psychiatric and social work supervision may, where appropriate, be the subject of conditions in the licences on which life sentence prisoners and some determinate sentence prisoners are released. In addition, community-based psychiatric and social work services are available to all former prisoners as to any other person who requires such services.

  "The National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System", issued by the Scottish Office in February 1991, identified in paragraphs 108 and 109 the special needs of offenders who
  254
  are mentally handicapped or disturbed and stressed that it is a vital part of the prison-based social work task to encourage and assist such prisoners to make contact with the relevant helping agencies prior to release. In such situations, the role of the community-based social worker is to facilitate the provision of necessary rehabilitation programmes or accommodation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals to promote the development of arts for disabled people in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend's responsibilities for the arts exclude the live and performing arts which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. In relation to museums and galleries, it is for the management of each organisation to consider how its buildings and its collections can be made accessible to disabled people. Such consideration is encouraged by the Scottish Museums Council whose grants to local museums are dependent to a large extent on the provision for disabled people made or planned by the applicants.

  The Scottish Film Council has already successfully encouraged the seven regional film theatres which it part-funds to improve access for people with disabilities and is considering how access can be further enhanced.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he proposes to enhance the right of disabled people to have free and adequate access to(a) health services, (b) life-long education, (c) suitably adapted housing, (d) transport, (e) training and employment, (f) arts, leisure, recreation and cultural services and (g) care in the community.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's policy is to enable people with disabilities to live as independently as possible, in their own homes and in the community, and to be as mobile as possible, so that they can enjoy to the fullest extent all opportunities in education, employment, leisure and recreation. The following initiatives are currently in prospect:

  (i) Amendments are being prepared to the Buildings Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 to extend the current requirement of access for disabled people to ground floors, to upper floors of all buildings except dwellings and warehouses.

  (ii) Electrically powered wheelchairs, which can be used both indoors and outdoors, will begin to be issued in the autumn to disabled people for whom they are appropriate.

  (iii) From 1 April 1993 the duty to secure adequate and efficient further education will transfer from education authorities to the Secretary of State. In exercising that duty he will have regard to the position of people over school age with learning difficulties. Boards of management of further education colleges will be given guidance on the exercise of their responsibilities for students with learning difficulties. Regard will also be had to this in funding the colleges.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which disability organisations he has met in the past 12 months to discuss the provision of services to disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not met any of the disability organisations formally in
  255
  the past year, but he did open the Margaret Blackwood housing association development at Uddingston which provides 33 houses and flats, mainly for disabled people. On 20 September, I had the pleasure of opening the Scottish mobility roadshow 1991, which was organised by Disability Scotland. It was the first of its kind in Scotland and the Government contributed £20,000 to its costs.

  Scottish Office officials are in regular contact with many of the organisations representing people with disabilities.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage the development of industrial and commercial co-operatives in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Renfrew district; what assistance he will make available for such initiatives; what criteria he will use to assess applications for assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  About £200,000 is paid currently from the urban programme to five workers' co-operative development projects in deprived urban areas in Scotland. Four of these are located in Strathclyde, including the Renfrew district co-operative development project with annual running costs of £42,300. Under the new urban programme guidelines issued in February, applications for funding other such projects can still be made.

  Index of Production and Construction in Scotland: 1990Q1 to 1991Q4

  1985 = 100

  Production and construction (less oil and gas)

  Production industries

  Manufacturing

  Construction

  1990

  Q1

  117·0

  118·0

  121·1

  109·8

  Q2

  115·5

  117·5

  119·3

  104·9

  Q3

  110·4

  111·3

  111·5

  105·2

  Q4

  109·7

  109·8

  110·1

  108·2

  1991

  Q1

  109·0

  109·7

  109·2

  105·5

  Q2

  109·4

  109·8

  109·4

  107·5

  Q3

  110·9

  111·2

  111·9

  109·2

  Q4

  110·6

  111·0

  110·7

  108·7

  Percentage change

  1991 on 1990

  -2·8

  -3·3

  -4·5

  0·7

  Source: Scottish Office Industry Department.

  The 1991Q4 figure is the latest available for Scotland; the 1992Q1 figure will be published on 12 August.

  The best sources of more up-to-date information on Scottish industry are the business surveys. The April 1992 CBI industrial trends survey reported that, in manufacturing, output had continued to fall in the first four months of 1992, but that the rate of decline had been slower than at any time since the end of 1990. Business confidence had improved marginally over the previous four months. The CBI survey also found that export order books had strengthened considerably since the previous survey in January and that investment in innovation and training was expected to increase over the coming year.
  256
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Co-operative Development Company to discuss the promotion and development of workers' co-operatives in industry, commerce and public services; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the Scottish Co-operatives Development Company, but I have agreed to meet them on a mutually convenient date. The company already has close contact with officials in my Department.

  Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact that the recession has had on industry in Scotland during the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The table shows the index of production and construction—less oil and gas—for Scotland, by quarter, from the first quarter of 1990 to the fourth quarter of 1991. The table also shows, separately, the indices for production industries—standard industrial classification divisions 1 to 4—manufacturing—standard industrial classification divisions 2 to 4—and construction—stan-dard industrial classification division 5.

  Electricity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Scottish Power will be required to submit a full environmental impact assessment statement in support of its plans to create an interconnection of the Scottish and Irish electricity grids.

  Mr. Stewart
  Yes. Scottish Power is required to submit an environmental assessment for any proposals it may have to erect high-voltage overhead lines.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from conservation and environmental groups in regard to the announcement by Scottish Power of its plans to build an interconnector cable between the Scottish grid in Ayrshire and the Northern Ireland electricity grid in County Antrim; and if he has had any recent discussions with Scottish Power over the need to construct additional overground pylons to service the interconnector.
  257
  Mr. Stewart
  No application has yet been made to the Secretary of State by Scottish Power in respect of an overhead power line as part of its plans for a link with Northern Ireland. Several representations expressing concern about these plans have been received from a number of groups and individuals. Some preliminary discussions have taken place between Scottish Power and Historic Scotland.

  Johnstone West Sports Pavilion
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total estimated capital cost of the development formerly known as the Johnstone west sports pavilion; what was the amount financed by(a) urban funding and (b) local authority funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total estimated capital cost is £396,117. The full cost will be met by the urban programme, involving contributions of 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. from the Scottish Office and Renfrew district council, respectively.

  Further Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the new arrangements for the management of further education colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Good progress is being made in preparing the colleges for incorporation on 1 April 1993. Colleges are responding positively and constructively to this process and we have allocated £2·3 million to assist them. An order was recently made listing the colleges to transfer and setting 1 September 1992 as the beginning of the transitional period. A recurrent funding discussion paper issued in June and a strategy for college management information systems is at an advanced stage. In addition, a wide range of activities, including a seminar programme and the preparation of training materials, is underway.

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the Paisley, South constituency to evaluate the need for investment in public sector housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Paisley, South. Renfrew district council's relative housing needs and its plans for tackling these needs were taken fully into account when making decisions about final housing capital allocations for 1992–93. Renfrew's gross final housing revenue account capital allocation for investment in its own housing stock in 1992–93 totals £18·439 million. It is for the council to decide how best to deploy these considerable resources to meet local housing needs. The council should include its plans for future housing investment in its housing capital programme when this is submitted to the Scottish Office Environment Department later this year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will extend the consultation period on compulsory competitive tendering for housing management in Scotland until the end of the year; and if he will make a statement.
  258
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: We have allowed over three months for the receipt of responses to the consultation paper on compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. I consider this to he a reasonable period in which interested parties can respond, although if particular bodies face difficulty in responding by the 18 September deadline they should contact the Scottish Office Environment Department at the address given in the consultation paper to discuss whether a short extension can be granted. Our proposals on CCT for housing management form an integral part of the programme of action set out in the tenants charter for Scotland, designed to improve the quality and efficiency of the housing service available to council tenants.

  Deer
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has in relation to his consultation paper on deer legislation ill Scotland dated December 1991; and what plans he has to deal with responses to this paper.

  Mr. Lang
  There were some 80 responses to the consultation on deer legislation in Scotland. These are now receiving careful consideration and follow-up meetings have been held, at official level, with a number of respondents. I shall reach a view on how best to take matters forward once I have completed a full assessment of the many wide-ranging views expressed.

  Paisley Pattern Goods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a feasibility study into the commercial viability of manufacturing paisley pattern goods in the town of Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to commission a feasibility study into the commercial viability of manufacturing paisley pattern goods in Paisley.

  Following earlier representations by the hon. Member on the same subject, I passed the suggestion of a feasibility study on to the local enterprise company. It is for the local enterprise company to decide how to pursue the issue.

  Local Authority Members
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to review the payments made to elected members of local authorities; what criteria he will use to evaluate the adequacy of payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The new system of councillors' allowances which was introduced in April 1991 is currently under review. The review will not include travel and subsistence or other allowances payable outside the scheme. My right hon. Friend will continue to review the levels and limits within the scheme on a regular basis.

  Town Twinning
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on town twinning between Scottish local authorities and their counterparts in Europe.
  259
  Mr. Stewart
  It is for individual local authorities to determine what twinning arrangements, if any, they have with their European neighbours.

  Ravenscraig
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what new assessments have been made of the social and economic impact of the closure of Ravenscraig on the economy of(a) Scotland, (b) Lanarkshire and (c) Motherwell district;

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) other interested parties on the likely social and economic impact of the closure of Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Stewart
  We would not expect to be aware of all assessments of these matters, some of which could be carried out by a wide range of individuals and organisations with no direct connection with the Government. The economic needs of Lanarkshire were investigated in depth by the Lanarkshire working group last year; and the Scottish Office Industry Department, Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency, in collaboration, continue to keep under review the social and economic impact of the contraction of the steel industry in Lanarkshire. This work has informed the putting in place of a substantial package of measures to promote the economic development of Lanarkshire and continues to inform the process of developing and adding to that package. This process involves discussions with the local authorities in Lanarkshire and a range of other bodies. I and my right hon. Friend have discussed various aspects of this subject with the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and a wide range of other interested parties on various occasions.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what practical assistance he is providing to existing businesses in Lanarkshire which are directly and indirectly dependent on Ravenscraig for employment to assist them in diversifying their activities; and what level of expenditure is involved.

  Mr. Stewart
  The full range of Government programmes to assist industry in various ways is available to companies in Lanarkshire, which benefits from assisted area status. In addition, businesses in Lanarkshire which need to diversify will benefit from the assistance available from Lanarkshire development agency, which has received substantial additional resources in the current and past years as a result of the Government's commitment to fund additional activity to add impetus to the economic and physical development of Lanarkshire. The precise level of expenditure on assisting the general class of companies which the hon. Member describes will depend substantially on the level of demand for assistance from these companies.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest estimates he has made of the potential costs of reclamation of former steel sites at Ravenscraig; and what proportion of the cost is likely to be met by(a) British Steel and (b) public expenditure.

  Mr. Stewart
  Estimates of the potential costs of reclamation are a matter for consideration in the first instance by Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency. I am aware that additional 260
  information necessary to the production of any reliable estimate is being obtained in collaboration with British Steel. It is for British Steel to consider the level of expenditure relevant to reclamation which will fall to it. The size of any input from public expenditure will depend partly on that consideration and partly on the form which action in relation to the future use of the sites takes.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) British Steel, (b) Scottish Enterprise and (e) other interested parties on the reclamation of former steel sites at Ravenscraig.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is a matter for consideration in the first instance by Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency, which are in discussion with British Steel. The Scottish Office is kept in touch with progress.

  Hunterston
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in discussions with British Steel in relation to industrial development at Hunterston.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government and Scottish Enterprise continue to investigate the possibility of industrial development at Hunterston in consultation with various interested parties.

  Forestry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of Forestry Commission land, in acres, held in 1980 and the amount sold off in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission managed 1,263,400 hectares on 31 March 1980. The amount of land, in hectares, disposed by the Forestry Commission in each year since 1980 is shown below.

  Year ending 31 March

  Area disposed (hectares)

  1981

  2,240

  1982

  10,423

  1983

  12,108

  1984

  44,570

  1985

  28,857

  1986

  16,573

  1987

  10,956

  1988

  8,929

  1989

  7,675

  1990

  7,851

  1991

  7,428

  11992

  6,684

  1 (provisional).

  One hectare = 2·471 acres).

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking against infestation by aphids attacking Scottish forests.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The only species of aphid which is causing significant damage to forests in Scotland is the green spruce aphid—Elatobium abietinum—populations of which increase following mild winters and springs of the kind experienced

  261
  in Scotland this year. This aphid feeds on the older needles of spruce trees causing discolouration and loss of needles. In severe infestations, the current year's foliage can also be affected. Although the aphid reduces the rate of growth of the trees it does not cause permanent damage or death.

  There is no practical means of controlling the aphid over large areas, although Christmas trees are regularly sprayed against it. The Forestry Commission's research division is seeking to develop strains of spruce which will he more resistant to attack by the aphid.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public consultation procedures were undertaken, prior to the granting of financial assistance in respect of afforestation in Strath Cuileannach, Sutherland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: Before the Forestry Commission approved the woodland grant scheme application in this case, it consulted the then Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Red Deer Commission, the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and Highland regional council. This involved consideration of an environmental statement provided by the applicants under the terms of the Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988, which was also advertised in local newspapers for public comment. Planting has only just started and no grants have been paid to date.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to respond to the report from Dr. Tim Hunter on the investment of £2 million of public money in the Forest Farm afforestation scheme in Sutherland; how many long-term jobs he expects to be created as a result of this investment; how many long-term jobs are expected to be lost as a result of this scheme; and whether he will urgently review the criteria governing public investment in private forestry as a result of Dr. Hunter's report.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: I am studying Dr. Hunter's report, which I received last week, and a response will he sent to him soon.

  The Forest Farm afforestation scheme is expected to create 10 jobs in the long term. The present owners acquired the land with vacant possession, so the scheme has not, in itself, resulted in any job losses; in the region of 1,500 hectares will continue to be used for sheep grazing which will provide continuing employment for at least one person.

  The planting proposals were subject to environmental assessment and involved widespread consultation as described in the answer I have given today to a question from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I am satisfied that the criteria governing the payment of forestry grant were properly followed in this case and I can see no need to review them.

  Fisheries Protection
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his office has made of the effectiveness of fisheries protection in Scottish waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency will shortly publish its first annual report. This will 262
  analyse performance and the effectiveness of fisheries enforcement in Scottish waters. A key indicator of the effectiveness of fisheries protection is the number of hoardings achieved. The number of hoardings of fishing vessels in Scottish waters has increased from 1,406 in 1985–86 to 2,513 in 1991–92.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  For the financial year 1992–93 I have set the following targets:

  Target

  Aerial surveillance—percentage of hours flown on task

  85

  Aerial surveillance—cost per aircraft sighting

  £95

  Marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea

  2,500

  Marine surveillance—cost per boarding

  £2,600

  Sea fisheries inspectorate— cost per log sheet check

  £40·71

  50 per cent. of cases for prosecution to be reported within six weeks of offence being detected and 90 per cent. within eight weeks.

  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities

  75

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash releasing efficiency gains of 6 per cent. over 1991–92.

  The chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's annual report.

  Ferry Statistics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of foot passengers and vehicles carried by each of the ferry routes to the Scottish islands for the last five years in full.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in table 10.9 of Scottish transport statistics, No. 12, 1990–91, published by the Government Statistical Service on 12 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the ferry fares charged for island and non-island resident passengers and vehicles for those routes which receive deficit funding from his Department.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Deficit subsidy is paid in the case of services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne to eliminate the overall deficit incurred by the company in operating a network of approved services. The subsidy is not related to deficits incurred on specific routes. Information on fares is available from the company. The company does not discriminate between island and non-island residents in its fares structure.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the provision of youth training places in 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (2) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (3) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the provision of employment training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference.

  Mr. Stewart
  The allocation of resources to local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each local enterprise company the number of training weeks contracted for under youth training(a) in 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93 and if he will give the percentage difference;

  (2) if he will list for each local enterprise company the number of training weeks contracted for under employment training (a) in 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93; and if he will give the percentage difference.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 3 July,Official Report, column 751, and have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Health
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to seek to improve the health of the people of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  We are today publishing "Scotland's Health —A Challenge To Us All". This new policy statement, which updates the policy statement "Health Education in Scotland" published a year ago, announces a range of measures which the Government propose to take in Scotland in relation to smoking and diet, to develop action on accidents, to promote health in schools and at the workplace and otherwise to seek to improve the health of the people of Scotland. I and all my ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office will be actively involved in pushing these initiatives forward.

  Last year, we set targets, and defined priority areas, for seeking to improve health in Scotland, and we also set up the Health Education Board for Scotland, with an increased budget, to lead the health education effort. This further statement builds on those developments.

  The Government and the NHS have important roles to play in improving Scotland's health record, and that
  264
  objective is high on our agenda. But others also have important parts to play, including the local authorities, the voluntary sector, employers, the food industry and the media. Above all, individual members of the public can help to safeguard their own health by adopting healthy lifestyles. This new policy statement, of which a copy is being placed in the Library, provides a framework within which we can all work to ensure that the Scottish people live longer and healthier lives.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the water and sewerage services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have not yet decided on the future structure of these services. The consultation paper on local government reform last year indicated that water and sewerage services might best be handled by bodies separate from the proposed new unitary authorities.

  The Government have set high standards for the quality of water supply and the reduction of water pollution. To achieve these, very substantial sums will have to be invested to improve the water and sewerage infrastructure.

  I have now decided to appoint consultants to advise me on alternative forms of organisation for water and sewerage services in Scotland, including ways in which the private sector might contribute enterprise and investment to this vital public service.

  The consultancy will help to assess these issues.

  I shall ask the consultants to report quickly. I then intend to consult on proposals for the future of these services in the autumn in parallel with consultations on the reform of local government.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for Historic Scotland for 1992–93.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The table shows the key performance targets for 1992–93 which I have set for Historic Scotland, with the 1991–92 outturn figures given for comparison.

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 target

  Protecting the built heritage

  i. Number of ancient monuments of national importance to be scheduled

  307

  300

  ii. Number of listed building resurvey units to be completed

  153

  160

  iii. Number of historic building repair grants accepted

  122

  120

  iv Conservation of monuments in care

  contain maintenance backlog

  Promoting and presenting the built heritage

  i Number of visitors to monuments in care

  2·37m

  2·49m

  ii Total income

  £6·1m

  £7·1m

  265

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 target

  Management

  i. Value for money savings on maintenance of monuments in care

  —

  1·5 per cent.

  ii. Exchequer contribution for net current expenditure

  below inflation

  at or below inflation

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets have been set for the Registers of Scotland executive agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  When the agency was launched in April 1990, my predecessor set its performance targets for its first three years. These were announced in a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 5 April 1990,Official Report, column 829.

  The targets are revised annually, and the annual targets for 1992–93, which I have recently approved, are to reduce average turnround times on the agency's four main categories of work as follows:

  (i) for recording writs on the sasine register, a reduction to 10 weeks;

  (ii) for registration of dealings in the land register, a reduction to 16 weeks;

  (iii) for first registrations in the land register, a reduction to 37 weeks; and

  (iv) for registration in the land register of transfers of parts of previously registered interests, a reduction to 68 weeks.

  The agency was also set a target of achieving a reduction in unit costs of at least 5 per cent. in real terms

  Table 1

  Gross expenditure on regional financial assistance to industry in Scotland at current prices1 2

  £ million

  1984–853

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Travel-to-work-areas

  Alloa

  0·5

  0·6

  0·3

  0·6

  0·4

  0·7

  0·4

  0·6

  Arbroath

  0·1

  0·4

  0·8

  0·6

  0·7

  1·3

  1·0

  1·2

  Ayr

  0·2

  1·6

  2·1

  3·1

  1·7

  1·2

  2·9

  3·0

  Bathgate

  1·6

  5·1

  5·9

  5·6

  9·7

  14·6

  18·0

  13·2

  Campbeltown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  0·1

  0·3

  0·5

  1·3

  1·1

  1·1

  0·4

  0·3

  Dumbarton

  0·1

  0·6

  1·3

  0·7

  1·3

  0·5

  0·6

  0·8

  Dundee

  1·4

  2·5

  5·4

  5·3

  5·5

  4·6

  8·6

  4·0

  Dunfermline

  0·1

  1·0

  1·3

  1·4

  0·7

  1·3

  1·7

  0·8

  Dunoon and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  0·3

  1·4

  0·3

  0·5

  1·0

  3·1

  2·1

  2·3

  Forres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Girvan

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·5

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  Glasgow

  5·7

  19·1

  27·9

  29·3

  32·4

  36·7

  31·8

  25·0

  Greenock

  0·3

  3·9

  1·6

  5·2

  5·1

  3·7

  13·1

  5·0

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Irvine

  1·6

  8·3

  8·1

  9·8

  11·6

  7·5

  7·5

  5·5

  Kilmarnock

  —

  0·6

  1·3

  2·2

  1·8

  1·8

  2·0

  0·6

  Kirkcaldy

  0·9

  3·8

  4·7

  4·6

  2·9

  2·9

  4·2

  2·3

  Lanarkshire

  1·6

  5·3

  8·0

  8·9

  9·9

  9·3

  7·4

  7·7

  Lochaber

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Excludes original regional development grant.

  2 Actual cash expenditure incurred.

  3 From 29 November 1984.

  266
  for each of its main categories of work during 1992–93. In addition, the agency will continue to ensure that its expenditure is covered by fees and other income.

  The agency's chief executive, the keeper of the registers, is accountable to me for the achievement of these targets. and the agency's record of performance against its targets is reported in the keeper's annual report.

  Scottish National Heritage
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and emoluments of the members of the north-western regional board of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: It is for Scottish Natural Heritage to appoint the members of its committees. I have asked SNH to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table of expenditure on regional financial assistance since the 1984 revision of the assisted areas at(a) current prices and (b) 1984 prices in the travel-to-work areas of Arbroath, Bathgate, Cumnock and Sanquhar, Dumbarton, Dundee, Glasgow, Greenock, Irvine, Kilmarnock, Lanarkshire, Alloa, Ayr, Campbeltown, Dunfermline, Dunoon and Bute, Falkirk, Forres, Girvan, Invergordon/Dingwall, Kirkcaldy, Lochaber and Newton Stewart.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: The available information, which relates to regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants and revised regional development grant, is given in the tables. Corresponding information on original regional development grant could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  267

  Table 2

  Gross expenditure on regional financial assistance to industry in Scotland at 1984–85 prices1 2

  £ million

  1984–853

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Travel-to-work areas

  Alloa

  0·5

  0·6

  0·2

  0·5

  0·3

  0·6

  0·3

  0·4

  Arbroath

  0·1

  0·4

  0·7

  0·5

  0·5

  1·0

  0·7

  0·8

  Ayr

  0·2

  1·5

  2·0

  2·7

  1·4

  0·9

  2·0

  2·0

  Bathgate

  1·6

  4·9

  5·4

  4·9

  7·8

  11·1

  12·7

  8·7

  Campbeltown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock and Sanquhar

  0·1

  0·3

  0·4

  1·1

  0·9

  0·8

  0·3

  0·2

  Dumbarton

  0·1

  0·6

  1·2

  0·6

  1·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·5

  Dundee

  1·4

  2·3

  5·0

  4·6

  4·5

  3·5

  6·1

  2·6

  Dunfermline

  0·1

  0·9

  1·2

  1·2

  0·5

  1·0

  1·2

  0·5

  Dunoon and Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  0·3

  1·3

  0·3

  0·4

  0·8

  2·3

  1·5

  1·5

  Forres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Girvan

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  —

  Glasgow

  5·7

  18·1

  25·6

  25·5

  26·3

  27·0

  22·4

  16·4

  Greenock

  0·3

  3·7

  1·5

  4·5

  4·2

  2·9

  9·2

  3·3

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Irvine

  1·6

  7·9

  7·4

  8·6

  9·4

  5·7

  5·3

  3·6

  Kilmarnock

  —

  0·6

  1·2

  1·9

  1·5

  1·3

  1·4

  0·4

  Kirkcaldy

  0·9

  3·6

  4·3

  4·0

  2·4

  2·2

  3·0

  1·5

  Lanarkshire

  1·6

  5·0

  7·3

  7·8

  8·0

  7·1

  5·2

  5·1

  Lochaber

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Excludes original regional development grant.

  2Adjusted by GDP deflator.

  3From 29 November 1984.

  European Community Bathing Standards
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assist financially the local authorities adjacent to the River Clyde to clean up the foreshore and meet EC bathing standards.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: The aggregate external finance settlement takes full account of district councils' responsibility for clearing litter, including that from areas of foreshore to which the public have access.

  Bathing water improvement depends on investment in effluent treatment by sewerage authorities and others. For 1992–93 Strathclyde regional council's capital allocation of £83 million for its water and sewerage programme fully meets its planned expenditure and is more than double the level for 1988–89. In addition, over £17 million has already been offered to the council under the Government's sewerage improvement grant scheme which provides assistance towards approved programmes of works to reduce pollution and improve environmental standards.

  Mortgage Defaults
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many former Scottish Special Housing Association tenants, now Scottish Homes tenants, have had their homes repossessed because of mortgage default.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: This information is not held by the Scottish Office.

  Free Tuition (Vocational Courses)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rights a 16 or 17-year-old school leaver has to free tuition on a vocational course in a college of further education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 July 1992]: The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  268
  recommends fee levels for courses in further education colleges. No fees are charged for under-18s on full-time non-advanced courses. After 1 April 1993, when the colleges are incorporated, it will be a condition of funding that this policy shall continue for courses falling within the Secretary of State's duty for further edcuation.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what publicity has been given to the community woodland supplement which he introduced in April; and what take-up there has been.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: "The Community Woodland Supplement" was launched by my right hon. Friend in September 1991 and a press release was issued at the same time. Baroness Trumpington, the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, also publicised the supplement in January at the launch of the Forestry Commission's "Community Woodland Design Guidelines". Further publicity was given at the forestry expansion conference organised by the Forestry Commission in March, and in speeches by Ministers and by Forestry Commissioners on several other occasions. The supplement has been promoted in the technical press and Forestry Commission staff have publicised it at seminars with local authorities, farmers and landowners. Information about the supplement is included in the applicant's pack for the woodland grant scheme.

  The Forestry Commission has received 63 applications for the supplement, of which 10 have so far been approved.

  Badgers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to discuss the problem of badger baiting with the law enforcement authorities;
  269
  (2) what plans he has to improve surveillance of cross-border activity in badger baiting;

  (3) what evidence he has of badger baiting being practised in the borders; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what powers are currently available in Scotland to prosecute and sentence those convicted of badger baiting; and what plans he has to review the sentences available;

  (5) what current resources are devoted to the prevention of badger baiting; and what plans he has to increase the amount of money available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Badgers receive a level of protection in law which is unique for an unendangered animal. The baiting of any animal, including badgers, is prohibited in Scotland under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. The maximum penalty for an offence is six months' imprisonment and/or a level 4 fine—currently £1,000, but to be increased to £2,500 on 1 October 1992. It is proposed to increase the maximum fine at the next suitable legislative opportunity to level 5 on the standard scale—currently £2,000, but set to rise to £5,000 on 1 October 1992.

  Badgers are also protected under the Badgers Act 1973, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to ill-treat, kill, injure, or take—or attempt to kill, injure or take—or to dig for any badger except in certain specified circumstances. The Badgers Act 1991, which amends the 1973 Act and came into force on 25 October 1991, also makes it an offence intentionally or recklessly to damage, destroy or obstruct access to or any entrance of a badger sett; to cause a dog to enter a sett; or to disturb a badger which is in a sett. Such offences apply in Scotland and attract a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine—£5,000 with effect from 1 October 1992. A maximum custodial sentence of six months' imprisonment was introduced for offences under section 1 or 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 on 9 December 1991.

  The Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991, which came into force on 25 September 1991, provides courts with new powers in dealing with the above offences. The courts may order the destruction of other disposal of a dog used in the commission of such offences and disqualify an offender from keeping a dog for such time as it considers fit. A Bill to consolidate badgers legislation is currently before the House of Commons.

  Detailed information on the incidence of offences involving cruelty to badgers in Scotland is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences, but I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that badger baiting is widespread in the borders or that cross-border activity has developed. The allocation of police resources for animal protection purposes is a matter for the chief constable to decide in the light of local priorities.

  Capital expenditure per pupil on local authority schools

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Borders

  31

  60

  54

  39

  44

  58

  69

  57

  64

  72

  109

  215

  Central

  61

  52

  48

  28

  22

  23

  31

  53

  64

  102

  118

  112

  Dumfries and Galloway

  56

  60

  65

  82

  99

  100

  105

  92

  29

  75

  82

  63

  Fife

  35

  39

  39

  38

  28

  49

  73

  80

  37

  86

  106

  156

  Grampian

  79

  102

  140

  103

  80

  72

  103

  101

  29

  44

  52

  76

  Tree Preservation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the statutes and regulations governing tree presevation orders in Scotland and when they took effect.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The principal provisions are contained in part IV of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972—C. 52— sections 57 to 60, and in part V, sections 98 and 99. These provisions have been amended in minor detail. This Act came into force on 27 August 1972, but sections 58(5) and 59(1) to (3) came into force on 17 July 1975. The powers of enforcement are extended and amended by section 54 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. which came into force on 26 March 1992.

  The relevant regulations are:

  The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 1975,

  SI 1975 No. 1,204 (S.183), which came into operation on 1 September 1975.

  The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1981,

  SI 1981 No. 1,385 (S.134), which came into operation on 27 October 1981.

  The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984,

  SI 1984 No. 329 (S.36), which came into operation on 11 April 1984.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the rights available to members of the public who seek to protect trees by means of a tree preservation order.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Under sections 57 to 60 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, it is the duty of planning authorities, in the interests of amenity, to make such provision as may to them appear expedient, for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their district.

  These powers have been used effectively by local authorities but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I should be happy for him to write to me.

  Pupils (Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the actual capital expenditure per pupil and per capita for every Scottish region since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: The tables provide information about capital expenditure (a) per pupil, and (b) per head of population on local authority schools. They have been derived from local authority capital expenditure returns, the annual school census of pupil numbers and annual estimates of population.
  271

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Highland

  60

  69

  86

  77

  46

  23

  38

  32

  73

  107

  116

  92

  Lothian

  60

  69

  58

  68

  52

  54

  58

  36

  80

  79

  117

  96

  Strathclyde

  36

  41

  53

  44

  48

  50

  52

  46

  54

  69

  74

  66

  Tayside

  31

  25

  27

  31

  23

  35

  46

  34

  57

  64

  70

  56

  Orkney

  44

  27

  175

  353

  263

  388

  370

  282

  310

  327

  314

  406

  Shetland

  663

  703

  800

  624

  579

  436

  252

  121

  131

  230

  183

  211

  Western Isles

  76

  98

  225

  263

  150

  165

  204

  579

  712

  421

  306

  447

  Capital expenditure per pupil on local authority schools

  (£ at out-turn prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Borders

  5

  11

  9

  6

  7

  9

  10

  9

  9

  10

  16

  31

  Central

  12

  10

  9

  5

  4

  4

  5

  9

  10

  16

  18

  17

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  11

  11

  14

  16

  16

  17

  14

  4

  11

  12

  9

  Fife

  7

  7

  7

  7

  5

  8

  12

  13

  6

  14

  17

  25

  Grampian

  15

  18

  24

  18

  13

  12

  16

  16

  4

  7

  8

  11

  Highland

  12

  14

  16

  14

  8

  4

  7

  6

  13

  18

  19

  15

  Lothian

  10

  12

  9

  11

  8

  8

  8

  5

  11

  11

  16

  13

  Strathclyde

  7

  8

  10

  8

  8

  8

  9

  7

  8

  11

  11

  10

  Tayside

  6

  4

  5

  5

  4

  5

  7

  5

  8

  9

  10

  8

  Orkney

  9

  5

  31

  63

  47

  65

  63

  47

  51

  53

  51

  66

  Shetland

  136

  139

  135

  112

  107

  78

  45

  21

  24

  42

  33

  37

  Western Isles

  16

  21

  45

  52

  29

  31

  38

  103

  125

  71

  52

  74

  The figures in both tables relate to expenditure on nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Schools (Noise)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what sums he has made available, to which regional councils and for which schools, for noise insulation in the last 10 years for which information is available;

  (2) if he will request Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools to make an assessment of the current effects on education in the primary schools at Balmullo, Guardbridge and Leuchars of noise nuisance from aircraft operating from RAF Leuchars;

  (3) what steps he intends to take to see that Fife regional council complies with the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 to 1979 in relation to accoustic conditions and insulation in the primary schools at Balmullo, Guardbridge and Leuchars respectively;

  (4) what sanctions are available to him in the event that a regional authority declines to comply with the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 to 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Substantial resources are available to local authorities for capital expenditure on their educational building stock. Authorities are free to determine their own spending priorities within the total resources available to them.

  As regards the schools in question, I understand that monitoring of the situation is taking place and I have asked my officials to keep in touch with developments.

  My right hon. Friend has powers, after consultation with the authority, to issue a direction under section 19(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requiring that premises be brought into conformity with the appropriate standards or requirements of the regulations.

  Community Enterprises
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the contracts of local enterprise companies require them to show that they have developed community enterprises.

  Mr. Stewart
  holding answer 6 July 1992]: Local enterprise companies' contracts are with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the detailed contents of these contracts, and their interpretation, are operational matters for these two bodies. I have asked the chairmen of the two bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has that Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies are fulfilling their responsibility to develop community enterprises.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: Scottish Enterprise has no specific statutory responsibility for developing community enterprise; and it is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise whether it chooses to impose any specific contractual responsibilities in relation to community enterprise on local enterprise companies. I do not seek information from Scottish Enterprise, which distinguishes its support for community enterprise from its activities to encourage enterprise in general.

  Quarrying
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are taken to assess the likely environmental impact of quarrying operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 July 1992]: For individual quarrying applications, planning authorities should take account of the likely environmental impact of a particular operation. To assist in this process, we will shortly be issuing for consultation additional guidance covering the assessment and control of quarrying's

  273
  environmental effects. Regulations already provide that, in coming to their decisions on planning applications, planning authorities should seek from the applicant a formal environmental assessment if there are likely to be significant environmental effects. The results of the environmental assessment will be an important consideration in the determination of an application. Where an application is granted permission, planning authorities have a statutory duty to review periodically the operation of mining sites, including quarrying. We are currently consulting on possible options for strengthening this review procedure.

  More generally, research into the environmental impact of quarrying operations has been commissioned by the Government. A research report entitled "Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings" was published earlier this year and will inform the guidance to be issued.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants in his Department are paid at a rate exceeding that of a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: The total annual salary—including reduced parliamentary salary —of most Cabinet Ministers is £63,047. The number of civil servants in the Scottish Office whose pay currently exceeds this figure is two.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has prepared a timetable for the introduction and establishment of a register of potentially contaminated land in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: It was originally proposed that the duty for local authorities to compile registers of land which is, or has been, subject to contaminative use would commence in April 1992. The registers would have been available to the public in April 1993. Regulations together with guidance on various aspects of the registers were to have been published in early 1992. In the light of representations received from local authorities, further consideration will be given to the detail of the proposals and further consultation to he undertaken. An announcement on the revised timetable will be made in due course.

  Employers and Careers Service Partnerships
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the response from each local education authority in Scotland to the invitation of his Department to them to consider how they might promote partnerships in their areas between employers and the local education authority careers service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: Seven bids have been received for financial assistance towards the establishment of careers service partnerships. These are currently being evaluated and decisions will be announced shortly. Disclosure of information about bids is a matter for those who submitted them and it would not be appropriate to place copies in the Library.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of water disconnections in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: Water supplies to domestic consumers in Scotland may be disconnected only for short-term operational reasons—for example, to undertake repairs, make connections or plumbing alterations. Supplies to non-domestic consumers may also be disconnected for other reasons, including those arising from non-payment of water charges. Information on the number of disconnections is not held centrally.

  Cockle Surveys
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish the 1991 Solway cockle survey by the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, referred to in the consultation paper on Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984, "Proposals for the Amendment of the Existing Prohibitions on Fishing in Scottish Inshore Waters"; and if he will indicate how a member of the public can obtain a copy of the cockle survey report.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 July 1992]: A copy of the conclusions of the 1991 Solway cockle survey has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Copies are also available on request from my Department.

  A fuller report of the survey will be published later in the year.

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

Lord Owen
The Right Honourable David Anthony Llewellyn Owen, having been created Baron Owen, of the City of Plymouth, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Diamond and the Baroness Stedman.
Lord Amery of Lustleigh
The Right Honourable Julian Amery, having been created Baron Amery of Lustleigh, of Preston in the County of Lancashire and of Brighton in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mowbray and Stourton and the Lord Wyatt of Weeford.

Personal Statement by the Lord Jenkins of Putney
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to make a personal statement. First, I must apologise that on Monday 22nd June, in my initial Question at col. 338, I inadvertently but wrongly used the word "Congress" on the subject of the resolution which was carried by the House of Representatives of the United States approving a one-year moratorium on nuclear testing. The resolution was carried by 237 votes to 167, a majority of 70, as stated in the Congressional Record (H4173) and not by a smaller majority.
The Bill containing the measure still has to secure the approval of the Senate, as I made clear in a supplementary question. However, whether or not the description by the Herald Tribune of the majority as "overwhelming" is accepted, there is nothing hypothetical or subjective about the matter which now awaits consideration in the Senate. I thank noble Lords.

NHS: Essential Small Pharmacy Allowances
3.4 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase the essential small pharmacy allowances sufficiently to encourage pharmacists to open shops in all areas where there are dispensing doctors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government have no plans to increase the essential small pharmacy allowances.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. But how does she equate her reply with the one given to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on 3rd June? At col. 887 of the Official Report she stated:
"When the family health service authorities make a decision on an application they have to hear in mind the crucial policy of separating diagnosis and prescribing from dispensing because"—
and she stated this twice in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—
"that reduces the conflict of interest which potentially exists when one person both prescribes and dispenses".
In the noble Baroness's reply to me on the same day she stated:
"When we have both doctors and pharmacists prescribing it is important that we have an integrated service".
If pharmacists are to prescribe as well as dispense one will have a potential conflict of interest. Have Her Majesty's Government any plans to eliminate the present conflict of interest between pharmacists and dispensing doctors and the often bitter territorial disputes which there are at present under the Clothier regulations and which indeed existed prior to them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have no such plans.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the position in Scotland seems perfectly satisfactory? Prescribing doctors operate only in areas which could not possibly sustain pharmacies. That seems a perfectly sensible way to conduct affairs in those rural areas. Will my noble friend further assist me by explaining why doctors who live in areas where there could be pharmacies appear to wish to become pharmacists as well as doctors? At present many doctors say that they are so overworked as doctors that they do not wish to give their patients a 24-hour service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, I believe that in many areas, including this area, England has a lot to learn from Scotland. As regards my noble friend's second question, I agree with his sentiments. However, I believe that there are particular rural areas where it is essential to try to provide a pharmacy. I am surprised that some general practitioners feel that they should be in on this service where there is no necessity for that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the passage from the Answer that she gave me on 3rd June, quoted by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, namely,
"the conflict of interest which potentially exists when one person both prescribes and dispenses",
has been bitterly resented by the Dispensing Doctors' Association, which has written to me about the matter? Will the noble Baroness take this opportunity to withdraw what was, after all, at least a slur on the honesty of doctors? Furthermore, will she say whether

1137
the Government still believe in a maximum of choice for patients in dispensing? If so, should not dispensing by either pharmacists or doctors be carried out without any preference for one or the other?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the question of a conflict of interest arises because part of the income of dispensing doctors is related to the level of drugs that they prescribe and dispense. I am not saying that general practitioners are not providing a good service —in some areas they are absolutely essential —but I believe that in this case there is a potential conflict of interest.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is the relative income of the dispensing doctor and the non-dispensing doctor? She referred to their income so presumably she has the figures available. Secondly, will she say whether the freedom to provide services given to GP fundholders extends to providing dispensing services?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in some cases general practitioners can double their income from dispensing. With regard to GP fundholders, it would depend entirely on the area in which they were practising and on whether there was no possibility of a pharmacy in that rural area.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I quote to the Minister from the letter which I received from the Dispensing Doctors' Association—
Noble Lords: No. Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I received it following the Answer given to me on 3rd June. As I have told the noble Baroness, the Dispensing Doctors' Association bitterly resents the slur which her words cast upon its members. Cannot she now remove the slur, or does she maintain that certain doctors are dishonestly dispensing in order to line their own pockets?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have never claimed that there is dishonesty among dispensing doctors and in the practices under which they operate. I refute that suggestion. However, I hold to the tenet that where one person is diagnosing, prescribing and dispensing there is a potential conflict of interest.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify a previous answer that she gave? She told the House that some dispensing doctors could double their income as a result of dispensing. Does she mean their gross or net income? Does she mean that their profit on the dispensing is equal to their income from practising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the case.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness resolve the question by simply stating whether the amount spent on drugs where the doctor prescribes is larger or smaller than the amount spent when the pharmacist prescribes?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is an issue here as regards value for money. It certainly costs the state more when a GP prescribes and dispenses. The total cost per item is greater for dispensing doctors. More items per person are prescribed by dispensing doctors, and in terms of remuneration the total cost —and that includes allowances and fees per item—is greater for dispensing doctors.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say why dispensing doctors' salaries are often clawed back so that they may be equated with prescribing doctors if she says that dispensing doctors make so much more money than prescribing doctors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is an extremely technical point and I shall write to the noble Countess on it at a later date.

European Social Fund Payments
3.11 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any progress has been made in speeding up payment by them of European Social Fund payments to agencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the employment department continues to make significant improvements in the speed with which European Social Fund grants are paid to project sponsors once the money has been received from the European Commission. All outstanding 1992 first advance claims for national programmes have now been paid.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree with his right honourable friend the Chancellor who said during his Budget speech that businesses not paying their bills promptly was one of the great causes of distress? Is it not the case that there have been long delays in making the first advance payment while there was a dispute between the Government and the EC about such matters? Will he assure us that prompt payment will be made in the future?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I recognise fully the difficulties which late payment creates for any sponsor. Of course, that is particularly damaging to the voluntary sector groups which have no other sources of funding. However, my officials make every effort to give the payments priority once the money has arrived in the United Kingdom. It is an extremely bureaucratic system and it is up to the European Commission to make certain that the money arrives in this country as quickly as possible.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that delays in that area can put training programmes at risk and that for some organisations it puts them in real difficulty? One organisation in contact with me has said that,
"the interest charge on the £1 million we are owed for training programmes we established from 1 January, on the basis of government grant promises, is mounting daily".

1139
Can anything be done about the interest payments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness that the answer is no. The rules of the European Social Fund do not allow the European Commission to reimburse applicants or member states for interest charges. Sponsoring organisations understand the system before they enter into it.

Treaty of Maastricht: Article 3b
3.14 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What legal advice they have received on the interpretation of Article 3b, proposed by the Maastricht Treaty as an addition to the Treaty of Rome, and its enforcement.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, it would not be customary to publish detailed legal advice given to the Government. The interpretation placed by Her Majesty's Government on Article 3b, as with the interpretation of any other text, is to give the full effect to the words used in the article.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that completely unambiguous Answer. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that for the past six months Her Majesty's Government have been claiming Article 3b, as incorporated into the Treaty of Maastricht, as their greatest victory, justifying all the other clauses which have a rather adverse effect upon the United Kingdom?
Is he further aware that under Article 177a of the Treaty of Rome, the Government have the full right to ask the European Court for a ruling on the interpretation of the law? Will the noble and learned Lord indicate whether Her Majesty's Government, in circumstances of considerable controversy, have yet taken the precaution to seek a ruling from the European Court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be fair to say that, as is the case in courts of law in this country, it would be inadvisable to pose to the European Court hypothetical questions. Therefore, if necessary, it would be appropriate to seek a ruling on the matter if and when the subject became a live one in a particular case.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the real question about Article 3b is not primarily a legal one, although there may be difficulties of interpretation, but whether we are better off with it in than out of the treaty as it is to be amended? Does he agree with me that we are better off with it in?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend asks me an important question. I believe that, in order to answer it, one must have an
1140
appreciation of what Article 3b means. I believe that I have such an appreciation and, on that basis, I answer his question in the affirmative.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I shall have to reflect on that. However, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that on 1st July a French official said to the Independent newspaper that in his view subsidiarity is a federalist concept? Is he further aware that, during the progress of the Single European Act, we were told that it was merely a matter of freeing trade? Under that Act we have now found that it is possible for the Commission to decide and to legislate on a wide range of issues, including employment and taxation. Should we not beware as regards Article 3b that we are not caught out again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no particular responsibility for advice tendered by French officials. However, it is true that a wise federation would adopt the principle of subsidiarity in distinguishing between its legislative organs as, for example, on the one hand the organ of the federation and, on the other, the organ of the individual states. However, the principle is not confined to a federal situation and I believe that it is a principle which applies perfectly well in the community of nations which we have in Europe. I believe that the application of that principle will protect, so far as that is appropriate, against the kind of situation which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I fully accept what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in his supplementary question and the answer given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. However, is my noble and learned friend aware that doubts have been expressed as to the definition of subsidiarity and as to whether the courts, in applying that term, will find themselves unable to modify the Treaty of Rome, the 1972 Act and the Single European Act in the way that many people have been led to hope will happen? Therefore, will he take steps during the time of the UK presidency of the Council of Ministers to have that doubt resolved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is possible to express doubts about most legal texts but that specific text is one which can give rise to practical precautions. During the United Kingdom presidency we intend to take forward a programme for ensuring that in the legislative procedures of the Community due regard is had to that principle, and that either action will not be initiated or, if initiated, will not be carried on unless it accords with it. In the longer term we intend to look at existing legislation from that point of view to see whether or not it offends against that principle. I believe that it is a principle which is perfectly enforceable by the European Court of Justice, as it enforces other principles of general application.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the concept of subsidiarity is now to be reviewed by the Commission, together with all existing European Community legislation, in terms of the redefinition of that

1141
concept? If so, does he not agree that it is a huge task which will take a considerable time and can he give the likely timescale?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question is not so much one of reviewing the definition as one of seeking to put it into practice. The first step is to put it into practice in relation to proposals for legislation. I understand that that is what is being developed. Practical effect will therefore be given to the principle in relation to forthcoming proposals for legislation. The intention is that a report on that aspect will be prepared in time for the Edinburgh Summit towards the end of the year. It is an important place and therefore it will be a important summit.
With regard to existing legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, it is a much larger task and will take longer. We hope considerable progress will be made on that matter in the course of 1993.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that there are real fears that the admirable principle of subsidiarity will be misused by certain countries to introduce regulations which will erect new non-tarriff barriers, thereby vitiating the whole principle of the Community? Is my noble friend confident that during the United Kingdom presidency the definition will be defined in such a way that that does not happen?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again, it is possible to misuse even the best principles. I do not believe that it is possible to erect the kind of difficulties referred to by my noble friend on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. The principle allows action to be taken at Community level where that is necessary to attain the objectives of the Community, and therefore if necessary to overrule obstructions that individual member states may seek to erect to prevent the attainment of those objectives.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, in his letter to The Times? He said that the wording of Article 3b is "gobbledegook".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must sayzx that I understand the article better than the letter. To satisfy myself on that point I looked at one of the Oxford dictionaries—I felt that that was an authority which your Lordships may find acceptable. It defines "gobbledegook" as,
"Pompous or unintelligible…jargon (probably imitation of turkey cock)".
As I read the article over to myself I do not believe that I was emitting sounds that could possibly be regarded as an imitation of a turkey cock.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that, while I feel some doubt in regard to his proposition that important summits necessarily take place in important places, he has nevertheless given a series of answers of remarkable wisdom and clarity in relation to the obfuscating nature of the subject?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I believe that it is an extremely important subject. Obfuscation does not serve our national or Community interests.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Question on the Order Paper does not deal with the interpretation of the word "subsidiarity", to which a good deal of attention has been directed? It refers to the area within which subsidiarity should apply. Will the noble and learned Lord re-examine Article 3b in the light of my remarks? Will he accept from me also, with the greatest possible respect, that I cannot share the sentiments uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in regard to the answers of the noble and learned Lord?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there can be little doubt that the Question asks,
"what legal advice they [Her Majesty's Government] have received on the interpretation of Article 3b"—
to which my answers were directed—
"proposed by the Maastricht Treaty as an addition to the Treaty of Rome, and its enforcement".
It is the prerogative of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will understand on which side I stand.

Alcohol Sales to Under-18s
3.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the law forbidding the sale of alcohol to young people under 18 years of age is being rigorously enforced.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, chief officers of police, the courts and licensing justices have all been reminded of their wide powers to prevent disorder, breaches of licensing law and drunkenness. It is for chief officers to determine the operational priorities of their forces.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, is he aware that the all-party group on alcohol misuse received worrying reports from various quarters, including voluntary agencies and the brewing industry, that the law is being widely flouted, particularly in pubs? It appears that in certain areas the police are aware that young people—not only those of borderline age but also those clearly below the age of 18—are being served alcohol and the police are using their discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Has the noble Earl had any conversations with the Association of Chief Police Officers on that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the all-party group. It is always difficult to ensure that in all cases where the law is broken people are prosecuted. I have not had contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers on the matter. If the noble Viscount or the group with which he is

1143
connected wish to communicate their views to the police, they can do so directly. It is not for Ministers to tell the police how to carry out their operational functions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the police find the situation difficult? They seem to believe that most youngsters below the legal age purchase their alcohol from off-licences. All the off-licence people can do is try to guess and assume that the young person has the right to purchase what they are asking for. The same thing applies to the police when they arrest or threaten to arrest one of those youngsters. It is a great problem for the police. We should not be critical of them. They are doing their best. Will not the Government try to help them in asserting the law of the land?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always difficult to tell how old a person is. In 1988 the offence of knowingly selling to a person under the age of 18 had the word "knowingly" removed. It is therefore an offence to sell to a person under the age of 18. Various pubs operate a system where youngsters must carry a proof-of-age card, and that is to be encouraged. In the end it is difficult to determine exactly how old a person is but the offence was nevertheless created.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while recognising that it is a difficult problem, is it not obvious that the law is not being enforced, not only in pubs, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, but also in supermarkets? I hesitate to put the proposition forward but as everything else seems to have failed, will not the Government look at the possibility of increasing the penalties imposed on those people who sell alcohol to under-age youngsters?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not have any information to suggest that it was the supermarkets who were in difficulties as regards breaching the law. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, that the maximum penalty for these offences is £400. That is going to rise to £1,000 from 1st October of this year. If the offence is committed by a publican, he can have his licence revoked or it will not be renewed. If he is found on a second occasion to have committed the offence, his licence can be forfeited.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if the Home Office were to introduce a mandatory national identification card scheme starting at the age of 16 years, that would help to solve the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if we were to introduce a national identity card scheme, I believe that it would be for purposes rather wider than under-age drinking.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many young people use pubs as meeting places? Does he believe that there are enough alternatives for young people to get off the streets and to meet? If not, can he do something about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Baroness wants me to do in order to
1144
encourage young people to get off the streets and to go into other places of refreshment. Certainly there are places for young people to go. We are considering issuing a consultation paper on two possible changes in the law along the lines of the measures which are already in force in Scotland. One would be a system of children's certificates to allow children under 14 years of age to accompany adults into the bars of suitable licensed premises under certain conditions—say, for a family meal. The other would be a new category of licence for continental cafe-style premises, which I am sure would find favour with the noble Baroness, into which accompanied children under 14 years of age might also be admitted in certain circumstances.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in view of the likely decision of the European Court on Sunday trading and the status of our laws in that respect, perhaps I may ask this question. Does the Minister agree that in the case of the sale of alcohol to young people under 18 years of age, just as in the case of lawbreaking by the supermarkets, if there is a law on the statute book, then it should either be enforced or changed, but not just ignored?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law may be what it is; but it is impossible to enforce it in all circumstances in the same way as it is difficult to catch every person who exceeds the speed limit who happens to drive a motor car. The offence is created and it is then up to the prosecuting authorities and the police to take such action as is necessary. I sometimes believe that some noble Lords and others will not be satisfied until half the country is in the police force and the other half is in gaol.
Lord St.John of Bletso: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that most young people are totally ignorant about the different levels of alcohol in most beers? Can he say whether there are any remedies being undertaken for changing the situation, and to inform young people about the levels of alcohol in beer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that I am correct in saying that the alcohol content has to be put on the article which is being sold. Normal beer has an alcohol percentage of between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent.; strong lager has an alcohol content between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.; wine is about 11 per cent. and the alcohol content of spirits is between 25 per cent. and 40 per cent. The alcohol content of low-alcohol drinks is from 0.05 per cent. to 1.2 per cent. Your Lordships may think that that would taste very agreeable. Those who are in doubt as to what the alcohol levels are will doubtless read Hansard and inform themselves.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the short debate on job losses in manufacturing industries and before the short debate on the future of the professions, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the

1145
House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on The Health of the Nation White Paper.
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 Lords, Lord Dean of Beswick and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, 11 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.
In taking the opportunity to remind your Lordships that when 11 minutes is indicated on the digital device in the House the 12th minute has been entered into, it may be for your Lordships' interest if I give an explanation of the further inconvenience as regards the gothic timepiece that is of the analog variety in the House.
On further investigation it appears that a number of clocks in your Lordships' House of a traditional nature confirm the prejudice of the ghost of Tompion. The mechanical devices were ripped out of them in 1946 and a central battery system installed. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that these batteries are so rare that replacements have had to be acquired from the Home Office. Your Lordships may also be interested to know that for the period from 1946 until very recently these clocks were preserved and looked after by two directly employed clock keepers. Unfortunately, one has recently retired and the other is on indefinite sick leave. Thus in the period of the Summer Recess a replacement system is to be installed which should ensure that, rather than indicating midday or midnight, there will be for your Lordships' convenience an accurate representation of time as it exists.

Hereditary Peerages
3.36 p.m.
Lord Diamond Lord Diamond rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Although this is a formal matter perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word in explanation of the background. I hope to introduce in the autumn a short, one-clause Bill providing that a hereditary Peer may, if he so desires, petition Her Majesty to amend the Letters Patent creating that
1146
peerage so as to permit it to descend to the eldest child, whether male or female. Second Reading will provide the occasion for full debate on the substance of the Bill. That will be after the Recess. The Motion now before the House is, I am advised, a necessary preliminary. It seeks a consent which, I understand, is nowadays regarded as a formality. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages that may be introduced.—(Lord Diamond.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented by the Lords with White Staves.

Manufacturing Industry: Job Losses
3.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to increasing job losses in manufacturing industries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening the debate perhaps I may first express my pleasure and satisfaction at being successful in the draw in order to debate this subject which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is extremely important in terms of maintaining our standard as a leading industrial nation in the world and also in helping us to maintain our present standard of living and to improve it if possible.
In speaking today on this subject I have a feeling of déjà vu. The last time that I spoke in a debate on the subject was before the general election. Although we have had a general election, nothing has altered other than that things have become progressively worse. I remind noble Lords that on 5th February of this year I tabled a Starred Question in which I asked the present Minister about the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector over the past three years. He gave me two sets of figures because I do not think that those for the last year were quite complete. They showed that from November 1989 to November 1990 job losses in the manufacturing sector numbered 94,000. In the following year, November 1990 to November 1991, the figure had risen to 350,000, which in terms of accelerating the total was a 400 per cent. increase. I submit that that is startling and alarming by any standards.
At the same time the Confederation of British Industry issued a report showing that, unless things started to alter, in the first quarter of this year there would be a loss of 70,000 jobs. I do not have the figure for the first quarter but I understand that it is not very far short of that mark. I was therefore rather surprised when I received a brief from the CBI in my mail on Monday morning which tried to impress upon me the fact that things are getting better when every denominator from every other source indicates quite

1147
clearly that they are getting worse. I asked myself, "What is the CBI up to?" I believe that it has a national responsibility to mirror national concerns and to deal with them instead of simply acting as a nodding donkey for the Government.
There is no question at all about the fact that what the CBI said during the election and during the period when I was asking those questions conflicts with what it is saying now. I am almost reminded of the little boy in Holland who put his finger in the dike but the holes kept appearing until he ran out of fingers—and the CBI is running out of excuses. That is the situation with the CBI. Bearing in mind the fact that two or three months ago it was saying exactly the opposite, I do not think that the brief that it is now sending out has any credibility. As I have said, things have not changed, other than to get worse.
There was a debate on this matter in another place the other day. It began with an excellent speech by the Labour Party spokesman on industry who gave such a catalogue of figures showing the adverse situation that has developed that the new President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right honourable Mr. Heseltine, admitted twice in his opening remarks that we are in a recession. Before that people were talking about a "slump", not about a recession, but Mr. Heseltine has now admitted fully that we are in a recession.
If noble Lords want to know about the type of recession that we are now bumping along in, perhaps I may remind the House that when I asked my original question about job losses, the Minister said that the figures had been exacerbated by the transfer of jobs from the manufacturing sector into the service sector. That may have had a minimal effect, but it cannot in any way be a major cause for that alarming increase in the figures. It is not only Ministers but Government Back-Benchers also who say periodically, "Well, in a time of technological advancement, we are bound to shed jobs". Some figures have been sent to me by my union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (the AEEU) which has done a first-class job producing a national report on job losses in the manufacturing sector. I advise noble Lords—whatever their political persuasion—to get a copy of this report and to read it.
The House will understand if I refer only to the two areas of the United Kingdom with which I have had personal contact. I shall speak first about Yorkshire and Humberside. The report lists 32 firms which have shed a total of 2,665 jobs. I found it alarming that quite a high proportion of those firms are in industries which should be expanding. They are not the old smoke-stack industries that are disappearing. The companies include British Aerospace and BP to name but two in Yorkshire. I cannot go through the full list, but there are others. I should now like to consider the North West because I am basically a Mancunian and spent my years in industry working in factories there. That area has recently lost 4,378 jobs in 33 industries including plastics divisions, the Ford Motor Company, British Aerospace and Delco Electronics. Those are all industries that are not going out of
1148
existence because they are dated; they are industries which should be expanding and providing jobs for our young people.
What are we doing for our young people? According to all the figures that have been produced, training places are not being taken up and are not successful. The malaise affecting young people is extremely damaging and its effect is being shown in the disturbances in some of our cities. I should like to give your Lordships a little example from very close to home about the problems facing our young people. By virtue of the introduction of Short money under the last Labour Government, the group of Labour Peers in your Lordships' House is now able to employ three young researchers. Naturally, as they progress they move on into better jobs. Some go out into the television world or the world of journalism. We have just lost the services of a very able young woman.
As I understand it today from my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, we have had over 200 applications for that one job in this establishment. Although it is reasonably paid, it is not over-paid because even with Short money we do not have the money for that. An overwhelming number of those youngsters—in fact all of them—are products of higher education. In some cases they have struggled to get good degrees and a proper education. We can only appoint one person, so what happens to the others? A significant point that must be made is that we are facing a tragedy of enormous proportions when that type of thing is happening.
At the time of the general election there was a hiccup upwards and we were told that the motor car industry was lifting out of its recession. But no such thing has happened. One of the main motor companies has sent me some figures today which show that the industry is slipping back and that it will continue to do so—to the point, I understand, at which it is considering further decreasing the cost of its cars so that it can get rid of this year's lot before next year's are ready for registration. One might say that that is a good thing for somebody who wants to buy a motor car but it is not a good thing for the industry or for continuing employment, especially when one realises that the motor car industry is one of the biggest employers—if not the biggest—in the manufacturing sector.
It may well be that the Minister or a Member from the other side will quote certain figures to try to debunk what I am saying today. Tomorrow, however, the Labour Party will publish a very detailed factual document on what has really happened in the employment sector in a general sense. I should like to quote from an extract in The Times of 6th July, which stated:
"Britain is near the bottom of the international league table for job growth, Labour said yesterday. Releasing new figures, the Opposition said that during the first 18 months of the recession, only Finland out of 15 industrialised countries had suffered a bigger slump in its employed labour force. The number of Finns in work had fallen by 8 per cent while Britons fell by 5 per cent. Britain had also fared badly across the 12 years of Tory government. The number of people in work had increased by only 3 per cent, compared with 20 per cent in Portugal, 19 per cent in Canada and 18 per cent in the United States. Only France had done worse than Britain".
It also quoted the words of Mr. Henry McLeish, a Labour employment spokesman in another place. I submit that that state of affairs is simply not good enough and that what remedies the Government are trying today to try to put right this terrible situation are not working and will not work satisfactorily.
Since the Conservative Party's election victory of 1979 it has used the trade union movement as a whipping boy every time it is in trouble. Conservative Governments have introduced a succession of measures in Parliament that have literally sterilised the unions in terms of their ability to act on behalf of their members. There are now further proposals to deny the unions the present facility of collecting union fees at the place of employment. The Government are even going to try to monkey about with that. I say to the Minister—and I hope that he will convey this to his colleagues—that the trade unions have had to learn a bitter lesson, and it may be the case that part of it was necessary. But the fact is that over the past few years industry and government have had the complete co-operation of the trade unions, although, as I understand it, the Government have locked them out of the decision-making process.
My own union has had a history of balloting for almost everything. It has adopted a new feature in order to compete with our opponents. I refer to single union arrangements in places of employment. It has agreed to a number of such arrangements in order to destroy demarcation disputes. It has made various agreements with Japanese companies. They are working well. The leaders of my union deserve credit. Instead, they and other union leaders appear to be whipping boys for the Government.
The building industry, which may not be thought of as part of manufacturing industry, is also in decline. The number of repossessions of owner-occupied houses is increasing despite anything the Government have done. That is happening because of the number of people being made unemployed in the manufacturing and building sectors. It is absolute madness economically to let that continue.
I intended to say a few words about the retention or otherwise of the European fighter aircraft but my time is nearly up. Before doing anything drastic such as doing away with the aircraft I hope that the Government will consider carefully the ramifications that such a decision may have. Once a project team in that sector is dispersed it never gets back together. That would be a waste of some of our finest talent.
I am not alone in thinking that the exporters of this country often do not get a fair deal in competition with our opponents when they are vying for contracts. I ask the Minister whether it is not time to look at the Export Credit Guarantee Scheme to see whether we can speed it up and be more generous so that exporters in this country—certainly on contracts where large expenditure is required at the initial stage—are given a chance to compete on level terms with French, German and other foreign competitors. Unless we do that we shall continue to decline.
I have had my 15 minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity of opening such a debate and I look
1150
forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords so that we may come to some conclusions that may assist the situation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for having introduced the debate at such a timely moment. We must all be concerned about the extent of current and prospective job losses in manufacturing industries. On these Benches I propose to deal with the employment aspect of the Motion, in what I hope will not be thought too narrow a way, and my noble friend Lord Ezra will speak later on the economic and industrial issues that the Motion raises.
Within the employment field, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, at one point in his speech, I think I can best contribute to the debate by relating the Motion to the part of the country where I live—Cheshire. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will agree that the bodies best able to assess local labour markets are the training and enterprise councils set up by the Government with that purpose in view. I have it on the authority of the chief executive of the North and Mid-Cheshire TEC—NORMID TEC for short—that in that area major industrial companies, many of them household names, are continuing to reduce their workforces and that at least for the next few years there will be no respite from that process.
The most startling example of what I have in mind concerns the company for which I worked for nearly 30 years, ICI, where up to as many as 18,000 jobs are now at risk, largely at Runcorn on Merseyside. I want to use the opportunity provided by the debate unashamedly to draw the attention of the House to the gravity of this problem. In doing so I no longer have a financial interest to declare, but your Lordships will understand how deeply I feel about the potential loss of so many jobs. Threatened with closure are altogether four plants producing chlorine and caustic soda. Together they provide 7,000 jobs, the majority at Runcorn. A further 3,000 people are directly involved in the business as contractors, and 8,000 others work in associated downstream activities.
Chlor-alkali and derivative products in the United Kingdom have a sales value of about £750 million per annum in the domestic market and export sales of about the same amount. The total effect on the country's balance of payments is thus about £1,500 million per annum. Large quantities of electricity are used in production, equivalent to about I per cent. of total United Kingdom electricity demand and accounting for more than half the total cash costs of manufacture. The Merseyside operation alone uses as much electricity as the whole of the city of Liverpool.
Following privatisation of the electricity industry, ICI has since April 1991 been faced with increases in electricity prices of more than 30 per cent. That does not sound to me like a true market. It has suddenly put the company at a severe disadvantage in relation to its major competitors in continental Western Europe and the United States, where electricity price levels are between 45 per cent. and 85 per cent. of present UK

1151
prices to ICI. The company's cost base is internationally competitive in all respects except electricity costs. Substantial investment is now needed to underpin existing operations and for selective expansions. Those investments simply cannot be justified at today's electricity prices.
Those prices should be viewed alongside the massive increases in profits recently recorded by the electricity producers and regional distribution companies, not to mention the salary increases that their executives have seen fit to award themselves. So while overseas producers are reinvesting in their assets, ICI may be forced into the plant closures I have described. I believe that this threat is a real one and I fear that unless some remedial action can be promised, the company could begin to withdraw progressively from Chlor-alkali production within a few months.
ICI has been involved in lengthy discussions with the electricity generators and the Government, but has so far been unable to gain what it regards as realistic prices for the business. The problem has arisen from the radically different electricity pricing structure that was implemented at the time of privatisation. The overall costs incurred by the generators and distributors have scarcely changed since then. As with any complex new structure, the electricity pool price mechanism is understandably experiencing teething problems, but there has been a reluctance to implement the changes that are now clearly required.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I should perhaps outline in a little more detail the fact that the Runcorn site buys power from ICI's own power purchasing subsidiary, Impchemix —a member of the electricity pool. I understand that the company's move to set up Impchemix followed a suggestion from the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he was Secretary of State for Energy in the other place. The suggestion was that large electricity users unhappy about prices should go and compete in the market. But Impchemix must still buy from the pool where prices are so much higher than under the pre-privatisation tariff.
At this point I should say that I was interested to read an article in today's Financial Times which stated that OFFER, the electricity industry watchdog, yesterday proposed a new pricing formula which, if implemented, would result in a substantial reduction in the National Grid company's charges. As I understand it, under the formula National Grid would have to keep prices to three percentage points below inflation. That might permit very large industrial consumers to make savings, but they would be small in relation to ICI's needs. In any case, it remains to be seen whether National Grid will accept the new formula. If it does not, perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will confirm that the matter would then be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
In my view, there is now an urgent need for the Government to re-examine the pool price mechanism and to reconsider the way in which costs are allocated to uniquely large feedstock users of electricity. I feel sure that if such a re-examination could be offered, ICI, for its part, would be happy to collaborate and,
1152
within the flexibilities available to the company, tailor its demands so as to minimise the costs incurred by the generators, transmitters and distributors of electricity.
I am well aware that, in general, the Government are unwilling to intervene in the workings of the commercial market. But this case involves one of the country's greatest wealth creators and exporters, and an acknowledged leader in the fields of industrial relations and training. It will be a tragedy for the Merseyside area—and, indeed, for the whole country —if ICI is obliged to withdraw from chlorine and caustic soda production. That is why I have deliberately highlighted that case, though clearly other major energy users share the view that current electricity prices are having the effect of making British industry uncompetitive in Europe.
When the noble Viscount replies to the debate—and I have, of course, given him notice of the matter that I shall now raise—I hope that he will be able to tell me that there may be some way in which my anxieties, and those of many others, can be relieved. In the last resort, it seems to me to come down to the question of the value that we place not simply on employment protection but also on this country's long-term international competitiveness.
For the rest, I should like to suggest a few ways in which more jobs in manufacturing industry might be created in the region about which I have been speaking. In my view, when recovery comes, it must be investment led, not consumer led. That could be done as the CBI advocates—so it does not always agree with the Government—by taking steps to stimulate investment in the infrastructure, thus providing sorely needed work for the construction industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, advocated.
Further investment in transport, especially rail transport, is urgently needed, not least in preparatory work for the freight links from the North West to Europe which are essential if the region is to take full advantage of the single European market. Traditionally, many manufacturers in the area have used the Channel and Humber ports for exports and, more recently, the developing facilities at Felixstowe and Harwich. However, routes to those ports are becoming increasingly congested. If the North West is not to find itself isolated on the periphery of Europe, north-south and east-west access by road, rail and indeed air must be improved as a matter of urgency.
I referred earlier to NORMID TEC, the council responsible for training and enterprise in the part of Cheshire where I live. In the report just published by that TEC on its first nine months of operation until 31st March this year, the chairman has written:
"We need more funding flexibility from Government. If next year does not bring greater Government commitment to the strategic alliance, the TEC will be unable to carry out a business plan in line with its March statement. In addition, many of the board members leading the TEC movement will return to other priorities in life and the TEC movement could wither on the vine".
The noble Viscount would be surprised if, in a debate of this kind, I made no reference to training. I share the anxieties of noble Lords on this side of the House concerning the adequacy of the resources available to TECs to promote training, and

1153
particularly to fulfil the Government's youth training guarantee to 16 and 17 year-olds. Those anxieties were expressed most recently in the debate on an Unstarred Question only last week. Therefore, I shall not dwell further on the subject on this occasion, except to ask the noble Viscount the following question. Can he confirm the truth, or otherwise, of a report in the Financial Times of 1st July that the Secretary of State has launched an investigation into why TECs are failing to meet the training place guarantee? If the report is well founded, that is an encouraging sign and one which I hope the Minister will be glad to acknowledge.
But increased training, though of crucial importance for the long term, will do little or nothing to create more jobs in the immediate future. That objective could, however, be more readily achieved by placing strong emphasis on the enterprise aspect of the TECs, mainly by encouraging business start-ups and growth opportunities in small to medium-sized companies. I was therefore delighted to learn that during its first nine months of operation NORMID TEC has been instrumental in starting 210 new businesses and that it has set itself the target of at least 370 new starts in the next year. Further, the TEC considers that an important part of its remit is to liaise with other local organisations in providing funding for the counselling and informed advice which play such a vital role in ensuring the long-term survival of fledging enterprises.
But what I think the TEC of which I am speaking would most value—that is, apart from the provision of additional funding—would be the ability to exercise more flexibility than it has at present in using the resources with which it is provided to meet the needs identified not by the Government nor their agents but by the TEC itself. In his reply, I hope that the noble Viscount will indicate that both he and his department have sympathy with that aim and that they will do all they can to help achieve it.
I conclude by simply expressing the hope—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Dean—that the debate will help in some small way to alleviate the serious problem to which the Motion has called our attention.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am glad to take part—I hope constructively—in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and to recognise, as I start, that suggestions for economy in any of our services, such as were identified by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, are highly relevant to the competitive economy which we need to reduce unemployment.
Examination of the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, would be more usefully considered under several different headings. First, there is the loss of jobs due to what used to be the serious British problem of overmanning. That was the responsibility of management as well as the trades unions, and the blood letting of the early years of the
1154
1980s did at least, with great misery, squeeze out some of the overmanning that had, until then, crippled our competitive performance as a country.
In addition to the job losses due to overmanning, or —dare one put it—as a result of bad management. there are the constant, always to be expected, failures of firms, large and small, in manufacturing and services.
In that context I must acknowledge that it is a tragedy that the Conservative Governments of which I was, until 1986, a member, misjudged the strength of the boom in the second half of the 1980s and thus had to introduce high rates of interest to reduce inflation with the consequences that we all recognise and deplore today. It is true that most of our main markets went down the same path and now suffer from recession which limits the exports that we would otherwise make to them.
It is ironic that today there is announced an examination, at the behest of Her Majesty's Treasury, of the performance of the profession of economists in forecasting. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has this very day published a report which I am eager to read. It examines the lessons of that failure in economic forecasts. It is a lesson which. I am sure, will be taken on board by the Treasury which, after all, initiated the research. I had believed that only Professor Tim Congden had identified, early on in the mid-1980s the dangers that this country's economy faced, but perhaps there were others.
There is not much comfort for Her Majesty's Opposition from what I have just acknowledged: namely, the Tory Government's failure to recognise the strength of the boom in the mid-1980s, because —I make, I suppose, a partisan point, but only to protect my flank after my candour—Her Majesty's Opposition were at that time pressing the Government to lower interest rates further, when the real need, as we now see with hindsight, was to raise them.
I come now to a third category of the unemployment which the noble Lord. Lord Dean, rightly deplores. Even in a healthy economy there will always be job changes. Jobs will always be lost, but —this is the huge difference—at the same time jobs to which people can move will be being created. They will not always be in the same place or in the same skill; but there will be new jobs. What we all deplore now is that there is not the normally-to-be-expected birth of new jobs in anything like the numbers needed to balance the loss of existing jobs.
There are some encouraging signs. I do not want to exaggerate them. There is the revival of the car industry under the management of the Japanese. They are welcome here with their management skills. I recommend that noble Lords look at that remarkable book—I shall declare an interest in a moment—The machine that changed the world—which introduces the concept that after the craft production of the centuries leading up to the 19th century, and after the mass production of the late 19th century and the first three-quarters of this century, the Japanese have introduced lean production (lean manufacture) which puts all competitor countries and all managements in services as well as manufactures on their guard to look

1155
at the economy of labour at every stage from marketing through design, through manufacture and all the rest of the processes.
I have to declare an interest merely because my stepson wrote one of the chapters in The machine that changed the world. It is a graphic and vivid portrayal of the remarkable initiatives in their manufacturing skills that the Japanese have taken. The blessing of the Japanese coming here is not just that they revived the main factories involved, but they had benign repercussions in the sub-contracting world—subcontractors both British and from elsewhere. Of course there is not nearly as much as we should like, but there is new home-grown enterprise as well, although all new investment is now hindered by the squeeze of the banks which have their own problems caused by their past mistakes with which to deal.
There is a deeper problem preventing the creation of new jobs in the United Kingdom that all parties in this House and another place need to face. We have to ask ourselves where jobs come from. I believe that the answer is that whether they are jobs involved with machine tools or heavy equipment, and whether they are bought for investment or consumption, jobs come from customers. Jobs come from customers at home and abroad. Unless we satisfy customers with the value for money of our production of goods or services, we shall not hold the jobs. That is true of public sector jobs as well as private sector jobs, because public sector jobs are paid for out of taxation on private sector jobs. If private sector jobs do not yield enough employment and dividends to produce good taxation, there will not be the money to pay for many public sector jobs. The two are linked, and all depend upon customers.
Who creates the perceptions that this or that market of customers is ill-served at the moment and could do with new products, new variants of existing products or better products or services than are now on offer in terms of value for money? I believe that individual is underestimated in our society. He is of course the prime mover. The French have a word for it which we use (the entrepreneur). We can call the function that of barrow boys or barrow girls, but they are the prime movers.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, would have made an even more effective speech if he had identified the fact that in this country, perhaps more than in our rival countries, we have discouraged that character, that job creator—the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur is not deeply loved. We have to explain to people why he or she is so important. I shall argue today that one of the main obstructions to enterprise (to risk taking) is something that could be altered if we were to recognise the damage that it does. I am talking about capital gains taxation.
I do not believe that any noble Lord will disagree that people who create jobs take risks. They invest their time and energy. They often leave existing jobs. They say to their wives, "We must mortgage the house". They take great risks. They give up their company cars, their pensions, their monthly or weekly cheques, and they take risks. They do not all do it for money. They have other motives; but probably all of
1156
them, to some extent, do it for a money reward. With that money reward, in the rare cases where that risk comes off—noble Lords will be aware that most entrepreneurial efforts fail—the risk taker finds that there is a terrible penalty to be paid through capital gains tax.
I admit that recent Chancellors of the Exchequer, including Mr. Norman Lamont, have mitigated the tax, and that there is a new base of 1982 values which is indexed for inflation. But, on the other hand, my noble friend Lord Lawson raised the capital gains tax from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., I believe most unwisely. That capital gains tax produces a big figure. I believe that the figure is £2.5 billion for the most recently published year, but that is a trivial fraction of this country's total tax revenue. I believe that it is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. So I am not asking for something unimaginable when I say that it should be reduced sharply or abolished. There are many arguments for and against it. I shall not bother the House with them today. I believe that it is an important factor in discouraging risk taking.
Let us look for a moment at our competitor countries. The US, Australia and Spain have rates of capital gains tax either similar to ours or above ours. Japan, however, has a rate of 20 per cent. with an option for the payer to pay only 1 per cent. of the proceeds of sale of the asset. France has a 16 per cent. rate, ours is 40 per cent. Germany has a heavy rate for short-term gains, but nil for any gain realised after six months. In Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy there is no capital gains tax. Thus, I suggest that the Government could consider abolishing the tax, or reducing the rate or moving to a short-term rate with no capital gains tax when the asset is kept for more than a limited time.
I am not saying that this is the only factor that will bring about the harvest of new jobs to balance the loss of jobs. There are numbers of cultural factors that governments—no matter how much they wish to— cannot quickly or easily alter. For example, there is a tendency for the most talented people in our country —and I do not mean only those who are academically talented, but those who possess shrewdness in terms of the market—to be urged to take salaried jobs and not to take risks. I tremble to think what will happen to our entrepreneurial capacity when the Conservative Government carry out their project to double the proportion of our population going on to higher education. Whether it is snobbery or ignorance, there is a tendency in higher education to urge people into what are thought to be more "respectable" activities. I say nothing against those activities. People are urged into the professions such as the Civil Service, professional services, social services and academic life itself, neglecting the fact that all these careers depend on the prosperity that comes from manufacturing and services.
Of course, there are reasons against bright people going into industry. Until recently, there was Luddism. Thank God, there is less now. There are all kinds of mismanagement. Some of our companies are the best in the world in the terms of management, but some are less than ideal.

1157
Thus those who worry about unemployment—and I do not doubt that your Lordships do—should, when considering how to deal with it, contemplate the action I suggest. What I say would be true, I believe, whether or not we had joined Europe and the exchange rate mechanism. We need it if we are to prosper with relatively full employment as a country. I argue that all parties need to recognise the central importance of the entrepreneur. If we can, we need to convince the country that the cultural hostility to entrepreneurship is self-damaging. We also need to abolish the capital gains tax or to shift to a short-term tax only, as in Germany.
All I am saying is relevant to the services as well as to manufacturing. The subject of entrepreneurship and how to encourage it is important, recognising that few of the risks that entrepreneurs take succeed. We need many risk-takers so that there will be a good enough birth-rate of small firms to give us a yield over time of the medium sized firms which are so sadly lacking in this country. Some of them will grow into multinational giants employing scores of thousands of people.
Of course, training and investment are important; so are research and development, education and management. But the capital gains tax should be altered. It would not be a panacea, it would not work overnight, but it is an important part of the answer to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Dean.,
4.24 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, one of the strangest things about your Lordships' House is that the words "my noble friend" do not necessarily mean what they seem. I was asked by a friend, who has extended great friendship to me since I joined this House, to take part in the debate today. I hope that we shall still be friends when he hears what I wish to contribute to the debate—though I am unable to call him "my noble friend".
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, both for his instigation of the debate and for asking me to participate, because I believe that it is important that we refocus on the job losses that have occurred in manufacturing industry, not from the narrow view of this sector in isolation, but from the viewpoint of the economy as a whole.
When I first joined manufacturing industry in 1966, there were 9 million people employed in it. In the sector in which I worked, the motor industry, there were 858,000 people employed. The comparable figures in 1990 were 5.1 million in manufacturing industry and 248,000 in the motor industry. On the face of it, that is a huge reduction.
The numbers for 1966 masked low productivity, bad working conditions, and, most destructive of all to our international competitiveness, appallingly bad labour relations. I can truthfully say that although everyone employed in manufacturing industry was a "worker" (or pretended to be), there was precious little mutual respect. Fresh from university, new to
1158
this country, I found it pretty difficult to accept that no one on the shop floor had a good word to say for management and vice-versa.
We all know what happened. There was an even further deterioration in Britain's industrial position. To give one example, output per man in the car industry was five cars per annum compared with Japan's 23. No wonder that we were heading fast down the slippery slope to becoming an "erstwhile industrial country".
However, the rot stopped. New attitudes prevailed. People began to accept that management did not have the monopoly of all the good ideas. Unions accepted that they could not condemn their members to boring, repetitive jobs with antiquated work practices which had resulted in a low wage, non-competitive industrial sector.
In 1966, car output amounted to 1.6 million units, produced by a workforce of 858,000 people. In 1990 the comparable figures were 1.3 million units produced by a workforce of 248,000—a huge increase in productivity. New investment in technology in the intervening 24 years led to this increased productivity and resulted in an improvement in the working environment, but it was inevitably accompanied by job losses. However—and this is most important—that very investment led to a great increase in jobs in the service sector.
The old industrial classifications can no longer be examined in isolation. So many jobs previously classified as manufacturing are still being done, still exist, but are now called something different. I feel sure that the job losses which are causing anxiety to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, are nothing like as numerous as a bald examination of the figures suggests.
Let me just give an example from my current area of activity. The Barbican Centre has about 1,000 people employed on site, yet the Barbican Centre staff —that is those who are paid directly by the Corporation of London which owns, funds and manages the centre—number just over 200. The remaining approximately 800 include self-employed maintenance men, contract cleaners, contract caterers, security guards employed by a contract security firm, contract telephonists, self-employed stewards, and so on. All these people would previously have been classified as employees of the Barbican Centre. If one takes the narrow classification, it looks as though job losses of about 80 per cent. have occurred. The reality is that as many people as before—or almost as many —are employed at the centre, but not registered as such.
Of course, I am not saying the experience of the Barbican Centre is mirrored absolutely in manufacturing industry. I am sure that it is not. What I should like to suggest is that the same tendency occurs to give short or long term contracts to groups of individuals who in turn will operate in a position of service to the sector. Yet these people do not appear in the manufacturing industry statistics.
Perhaps we should press for a total overhaul of the statistical service. As soon as I say that, I fear that there will be groans all round. In principle, it might

1159
not be a bad thing; but in practice it would be an exercise with little benefit to anyone other than the economists employed to undertake the task, and of course it would be a very expensive undertaking.
It appears that the message of the fundamental change in the structure of the whole labour force in this country has still not got through to some people in the House. It would not matter too much if ignorance of the change stopped at the doors of the Palace of Westminster; but I fear that debates like this can cause several problems if the facts were misrepresented.
Problem one: a superficial examination of the figures could lead people to believe that British industry is in terminal decline. This is not so. But this in turn could discourage customers from buying our goods. Who wants to back an industry in terminal decline? British industry is internationally competitive to an extent that I wish it had been in the 1960s and 1970s.
Problem two: bad news stories about a so-called massive decline in British manufacturing industry could cause a marked reluctance for our young bright school-leavers and graduates to consider the sector as an employment opportunity. This would be a disaster, as the manufacturing sector needs all the brains it can get. This point has been made much more eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
Problem three: international investors could give Britain a wide berth when deciding where to locate their future manufacturing facilities, to the detriment of Britain's strong geographic and financial position vis-a-vis the European Community.
For these three considerations and many more, would it not be better if we all tried to see the job losses in manufacturing industry for what they in part are; namely, a transfer of work from the narrow manufacturing industry classification to the service sector? The figures support this. In 1966, of a total workforce of 26.2 million, manufacturing industry employees totalled 9.1 million and service industry employees 1.6 million. In 1978, of a total workforce of 26.3 million, manufacturing accounted for 7.3 million and services 1.5 million. By 1990 there had been a fundamental shift: the workforce totalled 28.5 million, manufacturing industry 5.1 million and services 15.9 million. These statistics are probably indigestible but the percentages are easier to digest.
In 1966 manufacturing accounted for 35 per cent. of the workforce and the services sector 6 per cent.; in 1978 the comparable percentages were 28 per cent. and again 6 per cent. In 1990 the percentages were 18 per cent. and 56 per cent. Added to this, the self-employed category had increased by 94 per cent. from 1.7 million in 1966 to 3.3 million in 1990. Of course, I am not claiming that all the increases in the service sector and self-employed categories are replacing the job losses in manufacturing, but I suggest that a large proportion are.
Finally, we must be realistic and admit that there was a major problem in keeping large numbers employed in huge manufacturing sites on low wages in low productivity and repetitive jobs, while our competitors were achieving great increases in
1160
manufacturing productivity. We are not, nor do we want to be, a low-wage, low-expectation, industrial economy—no other developed western economy is. We now have a manufacturing sector that is lean, efficient and meeting delivery schedules that would never have seemed possible when I first joined the sector in 1966. I hope that through this debate we become more supportive of the sector and do not talk ourselves into a downward depressive spiral.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for having initiated this debate. Already we have heard some excellent contributions and before I make my own I must say that I am an academic with no experience of either manufacturing or government but I hope to talk in fairly general, but I hope analytical, terms about the problem at hand.
There are clearly some short-term aspects of the problem which I shall mention quickly now and come back to later. We are in the middle of one of the most serious post-war recessions. It is going on much longer than we expected and it is costing a lot of jobs, not just in manufacturing but all around. One of the factors which motivates concern on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and many others is not just that there have been losses in manufacturing but that the jobs which have been created elsewhere are not sufficiently well paid to enable us to relax and say, "Well, there are jobs".
For a number of years we have slipped back from a full employment position. Whereas in the 1960s we would have thought of a 2 per cent. unemployment rate as full employment, now we would be lucky to get a 6 per cent. unemployment rate. That is a long-term structural shift in the context of which the short-term problems are somewhat severe. However, we have to admit that manufacturing sectors in all economies are shrinking. That is the nature of manufacturing. Productivity has grown all round the world, and to some extent we can produce the same manufactured goods with fewer workers. That has to be welcomed: we cannot say nay to it.
The concern is that somehow here the shrinkage of the manufacturing sector is greater than it has been in other countries. I do not want to give statistics but that is a problem I want to turn to because, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, there has been a growth of productivity and we have a leaner manufacturing industry. However, I think it is leaner and somewhat smaller than used to be the case. Productivity growth there has been, but the overall growth rate has not kept pace. Although we had a spurt of rapid growth between 1981 and 1988, overall in the past 15 or 20 years—I cannot be too exact about this—the growth of the economy has not been commensurate with the growth of productivity so we now have a manufacturing sector which is smaller than one would ideally wish.
In spite of the growth in other sectors such as services, we still have an economy where insufficient jobs are being created and we have to consider why that is. The reindustrialisation of Britain, as it was

1161
fashionable to call it, has been going on for about 20 years. First of all, after the oil price rise we had a shift of products from here to elsewhere. Many activities went over to the third world, to Eastern Europe or elsewhere. We have had big import penetration and a problem of a declining export share. That decline has been halted lately but we still see that the British economy has a perpetual balance-of-trade problem which we have to cope with again and again.
In the past we have coped with that problem by successive devaluations, and one has to admit that the problem persists and successive devaluations cannot be the answer. The solutions must be structural ones and one cannot just rely on perpetual devaluations. Given that we have faced such crises since 1973, as many of your Lordships will be aware, the whole nature of manufacturing has changed from what used to be called the old Fordist technology to a new and more flexible technology, and that technology increasingly requires a workforce which is much better skilled and educated than we used to have. Normally the ideal was that a school-leaver went into manufacturing at 15 or 16, and those who stayed on went into the so-called better jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has said.
We can no longer afford that. The people who left school at 16 will not get jobs in manufacturing: I do not know where they will get them, but they will not get them in manufacturing because manufacturing needs now a whole new range of highly skilled and education-intensive jobs. For that kind of manufacturing industry we have to prepare ourselves in advance, both with the good training of our school-leavers and the perpetual retraining and re-education of those who are already in manufacturing jobs. We must constantly retrain and give sabbaticals to manufacturing workers. I enjoy sabbatical leave in my own job and therefore I believe everybody should have a sabbatical year, even manufacturing workers, so that they can retrain and recharge their batteries. Unless we have such a flexible, highly educated workforce we shall not be able to maintain even such a manufacturing sector as we have.
There is a problem resulting from the shift away from the UK in the 1970s, followed by the second shock of the decline of the Fordist technology and the emergence of new technology. For a long time we were not so much a high wage economy as a low wage, low productivity economy. The combination of low wages and low productivity meant that our unit labour costs were much higher than elsewhere. Some of that was no doubt due to overmanning, bad management and the wrong choice of product, but it was also due to the fact that in the 15 to 20 years after the Second World War, while our current rivals were engaged in reconstructing their economies, we had an easy time in export markets. While we had an easy time in export markets, roughly between 1945 and 1965, we did not sufficiently renew our capital equipment and invest in new technology. Therefore, we suffered a severe shock when our rivals—Germany, Japan and other countries—recovered and started competing with us. I
1162
believe that we have to go that far back to trace the roots of our manufacturing decline, without in any sense minimising the short-term factors.
Because we were a low-wage, low-productivity economy, attempts were made in the 1980s to reduce overmanning, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned. There was an immediate rise in productivity. However, we did not change the educational and skill basis of our manufacturing. Therefore we are not now a high-wage, high-productivity economy; we are somewhere in between. We have not been able to produce the new generation of manufacturing products, which are research and development intensive. Although I admit to comparative ignorance in this respect, by and large what we are doing is producing the goods which we used to produce but with fewer workers. What we are not doing is producing new goods and new services, in which the market lies. The markets in advanced capitalist economies will lie in a variety of new products, as the Japanese have demonstrated with a number of electronic products. The goods which we used to produce, and which we still make with high productivity, are goods which newly industrialised countries in the third world are better able to produce. They have naturally lower wages than we do and we shall not be able to sustain our advantage in those activities.
In the manufacturing sector there will be further job losses as some activities face greater competition. Therefore, we have to continue to add new manufacturing activities where the new jobs will be created. In that respect we have to consider strategies in terms of encouragement through taxation and other policies to direct investment into manufacturing or policies regarding the supply side of the labour market.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have a much greater flow of direct investment from Japan, America and other countries. I believe that we have to say clearly that we welcome that. We live in a global economy. It is not possible to shield the UK from world market forces. Indeed, if we are interested in job creation rather than specifically jobs created by British employers we have to welcome job creation from wherever it may come. So long as they are good manufacturing jobs and high productivity jobs involving good labour relations—and many Japanese companies have demonstrated some tremendously innovative aspects of labour-management relations —we should welcome that.
There is direct investment from all over the world which is creating jobs. Of course there is anxiety that companies which come may leave quickly. Therefore, we have to devise a set of policies which will encourage job creation in manufacturing industry both by British employers and by other employers. However, a policy of merely inviting direct investment and perhaps keeping the lid on the growth of earnings will not be sufficient to halt the shrinkage in the manufacturing sector, despite the growth in productivity. There are some initiatives taking place, but in many respects we need a much greater presence in basic research and

1163
development which will identify where the next generation of products will come from. There is a great deal of such investment in Japan, we hear, in the new generation of computers and new materials. We must employ our scientists, who are very good—some of them in basic research and some in applied research —to look 10 or 15 years ahead and tell us what those products are likely to be.
Of course it is a risky business; no one either in the private or the public sector can predict the outcome. However, unless we look that far ahead and experiment with new lines and introduce pilot projects, either in the public or the private sector, and unless we train the labour force which will come on stream at that time in the appropriate skills for the task, I believe that we might be discussing this subject again in five years' time; and that would be a tragedy.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Indeed, he and I might be forgiven for thinking that every time we put our names down to speak in a debate the mysterious powers who draw up the list of speakers always put us one after the other. Usually they put the noble Lord first. The reason for that will immediately become obvious when I say that I should follow the confession with which the noble Lord began his speech by confessing that I was not involved in industry; nor, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, have I been an academic economist.
When I decided to take part in the debate for which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has kindly provided the opportunity, I read some papers and newspaper articles by economists. In such cases I find that if I have a 50 per cent. scoring rate in understanding them I am doing pretty well. I managed that scoring rate with one economist and thought that I might take part in the debate.
As I read some of the papers which I accumulated three questions came to my mind. What is manufacturing industry? Who is counted as working in manufacturing industry? Is the movement in the size of the labour force, either down or up, a true measure of the prosperity of manufacturing industry?
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, dealt with that point in some detail and I was very interested to listen to her. While the statisticians may define manufacturing industry rather more tightly than the public definition, there is a general view, at least in Scotland and I suspect in other parts of the United Kingdom with a similar industrial history, that manufacturing industry inevitably means a great deal of sweat, toil and tears on the part of those who work in it, is usually very dirty and usually involves knocking the blazes out of sheets of steel to create something else. For many decades that would have been a very good definition of manufacturing industry. No doubt noble Lords could, like myself, take people round their own areas and name some of the places which have disappeared from the map, places which employed very many people in just those kinds of manufacturing industries. From that we
1164
could easily conclude that manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom was in serious decline and even in some parts of Scotland in terminal decline.
But that is not the whole of manufacturing industry. It may be a small part of it but there is a lot more to manufacturing industry than just that. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, drew our attention to one narrow part of one of the important manufacturing industries; namely, the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. It is well worth saying that that is not in decline. In fact the United Kingdom chemical industry had a trade surplus in 1991 of £3 billion. Output over the past 10 years has increased by 45 per cent. Two of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in the world are British. In fact those two companies produce on a world scale some of the most important drugs which are widely sold around the world. Indeed, we are the third largest exporter of pharmaceutical products.
Another terrific growth area in manufacturing, especially in Scotland, is in electronics and computers. Fifty per cent. of all personal computers sold in Europe are manufactured in the United Kingdom. That is not a sign of terminal decline in a manufacturing sector. IBM personal computers alone are worth £2 billion in export value to this country.
Greenock is a town which in many ways epitomises the change from the old to the new industries. According to the last statistics that I saw, IBM employed something like 3,000 people in that town. National Semiconductors, which is also there, employs around 1,500 people and has just announced another 250 jobs. That is a considerable number of people. But I suspect that people who are driving past Greenock en route to their holiday may look at the rather sad sight of Scott Lithgow's yard which is all but empty and think that manufacturing industry had gone from that part of Clydeside. But it has not. It has changed. However, I suspect that for the people who are employed in the new industries in many ways that employment is a great deal better, more pleasant and probably much better paid. We have to be very careful when we define manufacturing industry.
The computer industry brings me to my second question: who is counted as working in manufacturing industry? With regard to the computing industry, it is easy to see that the people who manufacture the hardware indeed work in manufacturing industry. But are those who produce the software without which the hardware cannot be made to work working in manufacturing industry? I do not know the answer. Perhaps my noble friend will help me when he replies.
Perhaps we can go a step further. Are the people who sell and those who teach others to use the computers working in manufacturing industry? Without them the whole exercise would be pointless. There may be many more people working in manufacturing industry than we count. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the way in which contract cleaners are counted. For example, consider an industrial commercial manufacturing plant. If the cleaning or catering is contracted out, do those people suddenly drop off the manufacturing list count? I understand that they do and I suggest that in

1165
that case the manufacturing list count is not a very sensible figure. It certainly cannot be considered to be a good thermometer of the health of British manufacturing industry. Perhaps we should look at some other factors in the health of British manufacturing industry.
I have already mentioned the strength of the pharmaceutical industry and the electronics industry. In general, our share of world manufacturing trade has risen over the past three years. I understand that we export a larger percentage of our gross domestic product than do the Japanese. That is not the sight of a manufacturing sector in terminal decline.
With regard to cars, we are seeing the rebirth of the British car industry. I regret that it is not driven by British manufacturing itself and has to be driven by assistance from the other side of the world. But it is being driven and motor cars are being exported. Car exports from the United Kingdom were up something like 50 per cent. in 1991 from 1990. Production forecasts for cars made in the United Kingdom show an increase of 50 per cent. before the end of the century.
There is one interesting statistic which in a way has turned on its head over the past 10 years the whole way in which one looks at the production of television sets. We have a trade surplus in televisions. Our production of televisions doubled in the 1980s. Television exports are up something like 10 times. I hope that with those examples I have illustrated to your Lordships that all is not, as some people try to pretend, doom and gloom in the manufacturing industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, quoted my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine in the other place in the debate on Monday when he accepted that there was a recession in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord did not go on to point out that my right honourable friend also said that there was a similar recession in Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and certainly the United States. We all know that, and that the considerable recession in the United States endangers the re-election of President Bush. We have a problem of mild recession here but we must not ignore the fact that it is a problem shared by other countries around the world. One can only hope that the G7 leaders have perhaps taken some steps to bring a little life back to the world economy.
One certainly hopes—the hope has been expressed frequently in your Lordships' House of late—that the United Kingdom presidency of the Community can drive the Uruguay Round and the GATT negotiations to a successful conclusion. But what can governments do? There is some feeling, which is perhaps stronger on the Benches opposite, that if only governments intervened more all would be well. In my lifetime I have seen governments do a lot of intervening. They are very good at identifying sunset industries and pouring lots of money into them. I must say that it can be for the best of all possible reasons. Often those sunset industries employ vast numbers of people and
1166
to see those companies go down means that considerable numbers of people are thrown on to the unemployment heap.
I do not think it is nearly so easy for governments to pinpoint the sunrise industries. My noble friend Lord Joseph in his interesting speech told us clearly that the people who will identify the sunrise industries are the entrepreneurs. Last October, the CBI in a paper called Competing with the World's Best from the Manufacturing Advisory Group said:
"It has become quite clear in recent years that Central Government cannot and should not be in the business of picking winners".
That is not to say that central government should do nothing. Central government have roles to play and they should play them. I welcome the announcement last Friday by Michael Heseltine of what he intends to do with the Department of Trade and Industry. He does not intend to make it interventionist. He intends to try to make it a vehicle to help industry develop and expand and perhaps even to help the entrepreneurs mentioned by my noble friend Lord Joseph.
I especially believe that we need the new industrial competitiveness division which he intends to set up. I understand that that division will look at and guard against anti-competitive legislation and anticompetitive action both in the EC and outside it. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of a rather worrying piece of anti-competitive action which I should like to draw particularly to my noble friend's attention. I understand that the European Commission proposes that shipyards in the former East Germany should receive subsidies of something like 36 per cent. on the price of building a new ship. In the, remainder of the Community that subsidy varies from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. It looks as though shipbuilding demands are beginning to increase around the world. What chance of success does the United Kingdom have if the Japanese and Koreans subsidise their industries and within the Community there is some preferential subsidy? I am naturally interested because at Kvaerner and Govan in Scotland we have one of the few remaining major shipbuilding yards in the country. It has been doing well. I should like it to do much better. I should not like to believe that it was failing because of unfair competition.
The Department of Trade and Industry proposals go in the right direction. The taxation policies of the Government have certainly gone in the right direction. Low inflation is essential for business and commerce, as is some certainty about exchange rates. So long as we are not too pessimistic and do not paint a pessimistic view to the remainder of the world we can have every confidence in our manufacturing sector.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us an opportunity to discuss unemployment in industry. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I interpret the Motion in a somewhat wider sense. I have to confess that, unlike my noble friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I am not an economist. I am certainly not an industrialist. I am simply a retired politician.

1167
The loss of jobs in manufacturing industry can be properly assessed only if it is considered in relation to unemployment as a whole. The most surprising aspect of the last general election was the fact that unemployment was not made a central issue in the campaigns of any of the parties. Yet it is from unemployment and the fear of unemployment that most of the social and economic problems that we face are derived. I refer to the decline in consumer demand, increased Government expenditure, falling industrial output, house repossessions, mortgage arrears, crime, homelessness and the pervasive sense of insecurity and pessimism which characterise the mood of Britain today.
I shall not worry your Lordships with too many statistics. However, as has already been said, between March 1991 and March. 1992 employment in the manufacturing industries fell by 300,000. Between 1979 and 1987 unemployment rose from under 4 per cent. to 11 per cent. and, after a decline to about 5.5 per cent., is now nearly 10 per cent. Noble Lords know that the figure is now over 2.7 million on the present statistical basis; and on that basis it will reach 3 million in six months' time. That is the equivalent of about 4 million on the statistical basis used in 1979. The cost to the Exchequer is between £350 million and £400 million for every 100,000 out of work or about £12 billion a year. According to the press, the Government are considering ways in which to reduce that huge cost by cutting some unemployment benefits.
The means test, civil unrest and poverty are too depressingly familiar to those of us who have lived long enough. Those are factors that we promised ourselves would never occur again. Of course there is a difference between this slump and the great depression of the 1930s. The social security safety net is much more effective, and training schemes are designed to take many young people off the streets. But those are palliatives. They do nothing to solve the real problem.
There is no substitute for a job which enables men and women to earn an income from employment with which to meet their needs and those of others who may be dependent on them. It was assumed in the early 1980s that job losses in manufacturing industry could be absorbed by the expansion of employment in service industries. That always seemed to me to represent the belief that we could have a prosperous economy based on taking in our own washing. It is our ability to manufacture, export and sell, and the skill of our industrial management and workforce which makes economic progress possible.
There is no alibi in the belief that the British do not work as hard as the Japanese or are not as well trained technically as the Germans. Nor is it sufficient to argue that unemployment is also a problem of other industrialised countries, as my noble friend Lord Mackay suggested. What is missing today is public recognition by the Government that unemployment is the major issue which the country faces, and a commitment by them to use all the resources at their disposal to provide jobs.
1168
The attack on unemployment must be the Government's first priority with the manufacturing base as a starting point. I believe that the construction industry offers the most effective point of entry. Action on public works, transport, housebuilding, cleaning up the environment—"priming the pump", and "a new deal" are familiar slogans to my generation—represents a combined effort between the Government, industrial management and trade unions. All those factors may mean higher taxation. But I would rather see money spent on getting men and women into work than the borrowing of billions of pounds to support increasing thousands on the margin of poverty and desperation.
Such action will mean much courage on the part of government. It will need the abandonment of the laissez-faire policies of the past decade—that decade of debt—and the belief that such problems can be solved by some form of financial legerdemain.
Someone said to me today, "I'm glad that I lived my working life when I did because then there was hope". People feel instinctively that reliance on market forces is not, and never was, enough to cope with the present unemployment situation. The initiative lies with the Government and Parliament. I hope and believe that under the Prime Minister's leadership a new drive will be undertaken and that if we have to live through another winter of discontent the spring of revival and declining unemployment will not be far behind.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the time has now come for this very interesting debate to draw to a close. We are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for having introduced the Motion and for so clearly stating the problem. He reminded us that over the past year about 350,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing, far in excess of the previous year. Unfortunately this trend looks likely to continue. While no doubt some of that job loss may lead to leaner, more efficient operations, a large part of it undoubtedly is due to businesses having to go out of work into bankruptcy, unable to cope with the present recession. Therefore such job loss is a serious problem.
Noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have each made an important contribution. My noble friend Lord Rochester referred specifically to the problems in Cheshire with which he is familiar, in particular to ICI at Runcorn and to the problem which that major chemical manufacturer faces as a result of the substantial recent increase in electricity prices. This issue will no doubt be dealt with when the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, replies. He also drew attention to the problems of the TEC in that part of the world. It was set up with the objective of stimulating effective training by involving practising industrialists. However, the scheme seems to have run into serious difficulties as a result of lack of sufficient funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, speaking from his great experience in government, drew attention to the

1169
key role of the entrepreneurs and the need to stimulate them. He also spoke of the inhibiting impact of the present level of capital gains tax.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, from her business experience, told us that she considered that there was a leaner, more efficient manufacturing sector. She is absolutely right. There have been great achievements in British manufacturing and there are companies which are competing successfully on the world stage. However, the problem is that there are not enough such companies and that their totality does not represent what we need to re-establish our trading position. I shall deal with that matter later.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, with his academic experience, thought that, although manufacturing employment throughout the world had shrunk in recent years, the shrinkage had been taken too far. He drew particular attention to the need to put more resources into training and education.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, strenuously rebutted any thought that British industry was not performing effectively and efficiently. He identified the role of central government as being one of guidance in creating the right framework and not one of intervening directly. He supported the recent measures announced by the President of the Board of Trade for getting closer to the industrial sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, emphasised the key importance of the unemployment problem. He considered that we had not paid sufficient attention to that problem which is now having a wider social economic impact than we may have realised.
So all in all we have had a most considered and important debate on the subject. Perhaps I may add a few thoughts of my own. Undoubtedly there has been a considerable improvement in the efficiency, leanness and effectiveness of many sectors of British industry. By way of example, I refer to the coal industry with which I was associated for many years. As a result of world developments, it is going through great difficulties. However, during the past five years its productivity has improved enormously—indeed, at a faster rate than I thought possible when I was involved. That is a remarkable achievement, and there are other industries which have done the same.
I believe, however, that for one reason or another we have allowed our industrial capacity to diminish below desirable levels. That problem was alluded to in the report on overseas trade produced in 1985 under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. That was the first year in which we began to show a deficiency on our manufactured trade balance. The report made many recommendations on how the problem could be dealt with. Unfortunately those recommendations were not sufficiently pursued. In subsequent years we have seen a substantial increase in the deficiency of our visible trade balance. Even now during a recession, when one would have thought that the balance would have evened out and that there would have been less demand for imported goods, we still have an annual rate of deficiency on our trade balance of approximately £13 billion.
That suggests that, in spite of the undoubted
1170
achievements and in spite of undoubted successes in the export market, we need to stimulate our economy not only to overcome the present recession but in order to look to the long-term and the size of the industrial base that we should be creating.
I now wish to make a few suggestions. First, we need to look at the level of investment. If there is inadequate investment in the future of our manufacturing industries we shall not have the quantum of manufacturing capacity that we need. The latest CBI report on manufacturing investment shows that, compared with the previous year, the level of investment in manufacturing industry in 1991 fell by no less than 15.5 per cent. That is an enormous fall at a time when we should be building up. The prospect for 1992 is that there will be a further fall, which it puts at 3 per cent. but now admits that that is likely to be exceeded.
The question of what can and should be done about that is immediately raised. Is it an area in which government should intervene? There is a way in which government can do something about the problem; they can increase investment allowances. For many years that proposal has been put forward from all sides of the House. I believe that the time has come when it should be looked at again. We cannot allow our manufacturing industry to be starved of investment.
But the solution cannot be left only to government and I wish to refer next to the financial institutions. Their record of lending during the past decade shows that, while lending to manufacturing companies increased by a little less than half, personal lending increased by six and a half times and loans for property by more than eight times. Those ratios demonstrate clearly why we got into the difficulties of overheating during the late 1980s. I should like to believe that the financial institutions have learnt by that lesson, will be changing those ratios substantially, and will do everything that they can to increase their lending to manufacturing.
I wish to raise the well-worn topic of the infrastructure, which has been debated time and time again. The infrastructure must play a key role in enabling manufacturing and industry in general to operate successfully. The elements of the infrastructure which are crucial in this regard are education and training on the one hand and transport on the other. At present the Government are devoting a large part of public funds to those areas. However, they face a situation in which there is likely to be retrenchment because of the growing level of the public sector borrowing requirement. We are moving up to a figure of approximately 5 per cent. of GDP, which is a good deal higher than in recent years.
However, is that the right way to look at the matter? Although we have a public sector borrowing requirement which is the equivalent of 5 per cent. of GDP, private savings have escalated to 11.5 per cent. of GDP. I suggest that when we talk about the cash flow of the nation we must include both the private side and the public side. If private individuals are now saving to that extent, it is appropriate that the public sector should be expanded somewhat more than is the

1171
case at present. When the private sector starts spending substantially again, the situation could be changed. However, if both the private and the public sectors cut back, the result will be that we could get into a deflationary spiral and all the elements about which we are worried—continuing unemployment, a lack of industrial capacity and so on—will continue.
Therefore, I should like to believe that we shall have a reassessment of the relationship between public spending and private saving and that we should take it in its totality. We need a better infrastructure now to stimulate the recovery. We need it to help us to diminish the level of unemployment. That could be money well spent. Later on this evening I shall ask an Unstarred Question about investment in the Underground system and its extension. That is extremely relevant to the point that I am now making.
In conclusion, I believe that this has been a very important debate which has enabled noble Lords who participated to make extremely valuable contributions. I have tried to add my own. We now face a situation in which major decisions must be made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I am pleased that the President of the Board of Trade is now taking a more pro-active role as regards the DTI. I hope that the points which have been made in the debate will be very seriously taken into account in that role.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing the debate. Manufacturing is vital for everyone. Of course other sectors of the economy —for example, financial services, distribution and public services—are necessary too. We could not do without them. However, to a large extent they are dependent upon our capacity to produce. The wealth created by manufacturing industry helps to pay for essential public services, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has already pointed out.
Moreover, manufacturing industry can help to fill our trade gap. The balance of payments crisis is largely caused by the largest share of our domestic market being taken by imported goods. Often those are goods which years ago were manufactured in the UK; they no longer are. That is largely attributable to the policies followed by the Government, particularly from 1979 to 1982. At that time there was much talk of creating a fitter, leaner industry. It certainly is leaner. Many jobs were lost. Whether it is fitter is a different question. It is certainly much smaller.
At that time the Government seemed to think that we could get by on services alone. It was in that sphere that the new jobs would be created. Indeed, for a while it seemed that there was something in that, at least superficially. There was the City "big bang" in the late 1980s and suddenly the future seemed to be in the hands of young men and some women, although not so many, who sat surrounded by VDUs yelling incomprehensibly into several telephones at once. It was just like the film "Wall Street". Those days are over and the euphoria has gone. Some of our largest and most respected financial institutions are now facing difficulties.
1172
In the City in the 1970s and early 1980s, when I was a union negotiator in that area, there were no involuntary redundancies. When a large company wanted to update its technology, redundant staff were redeployed or in some cases took early retirement on good financial terms. However, mass redundancies have now been taking place in some major financial institutions. One of our great banks—the Midland —has been at the centre of a takeover struggle, with thousands of jobs at risk. Even a national institution like Lloyd's now has its problems.
Some of us feared that that was likely to happen; namely, that the boom was artificial and could not last. However, over the decade we listened to a succession of Ministers extolling the virtues of government policy, claiming that it had brought unprecedented prosperity to the British people.
We hear the same story nowadays when there are record levels of unemployment. I have sometimes whispered to my colleagues on the Front Bench when sitting through some of those orations, "Do they really believe it?" However, I suppose it depends where you are in the social spectrum. Those years have been all right for some. The gap between the weekly incomes of the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. has grown in Britain during the 1980s. In the two years 1967 and 1978 the gap was much the same —about 10 to one. However, by 1988 it had widened to nearly double what it had been in the 1960s and the late 1970s. Between 1979 and 19N8 the number of people with incomes of less than half the average had doubled to 10 million.
Unemployment was particularly severe in manufacturing in the early 1980s at a time when we were getting leaner and fitter. As a number of noble Lords have said this afternoon, matters have not improved. According to the latest figures I have, the number of employees in manufacturing industries in Great Britain stood at 4,532,000 in April 1992; that is a fall of 16,000 since the previous year.
Therefore, the decline continues and it is accelerating. There are particular problems in certain industries. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred this afternoon to ICI. It would certainly be a disaster for that area if anything were to happen to that major and important company.
The CBI, the TUC and the Engineering Employers' Federation all stress the need for increased investment. The Engineering Employers' Federation in its recent submission prior to the Budget said, quoting from an earlier report in 1986:
"The recent growth of demand in the UK economy…has been largely in increased consumption rather than investment. Given the existing low levels of investment in the UK compared with those of our main competitor economies, the weakness of UK investment is a warning of future problems. Any country which fails to invest adequately or fails to balance its foreign trade may be able to enjoy a temporarily high level of consumption which eventually must be reduced as capital is consumed and as foreign debts have to be met".
The Engineering Employers' Federation says that it is still concerned that UK industry's investment levels are not only lower than those of its major competitors but are falling further behind.
It goes on to say that in the wake of the North Sea oil boom the UK manufacturing sector has become

1173
efficient but too small, which is a point already made in this debate by a number of Lords. It says that UK manufacturing no longer has sufficient capacity to meet the demands of economic growth. From 1987 to 1989 demand grew strongly in the UK, but too much of that demand could be met only by imports instead of UK production. It says that the present recession is largely a consequence not of demand growing too fast but of the economy's inability to supply that demand.
That analysis is remarkably similar to that of the TUC. In its 1992 Budget submission the TUC says that the first step must be to restore investment levels, not only to make good the cut-backs of the past but also to begin to match the investment levels of our major competitors. Compared with 1979, investment in German and French manufacturing was over 50 per cent. higher in 1990 and investment in Italian manufacturing over 20 per cent. higher. In contrast, investment in British manufacturing barely reached its 1979 level by the late 1980s and is now in sharp decline.
Both the TUC and the Engineering Employees' Federation are in favour of tax allowances; and I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made that point this afternoon. The TUC believes that a new tax incentive should be introduced, initially as a counter-cyclical measure limited to two years. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has called for allowances of 150 per cent. in the first year for R&D spending and at least 100 per cent. for training.
We then have the problems which are likely to arise in the defence industries. We have already seen that 40,000 jobs are dependent upon the European fighter aircraft. Around 760,000 civilians earn their living from defence work, of which 140,000 are employed by the Ministry of Defence. The remainder work in the private sector for primary suppliers such as British Aerospace, GEC, Rolls-Royce and their subcontractors. Footwear and food and clothing manufacturers all have a direct interest in the defence business. It has been estimated that around 425,000 people are directly dependent on the spending power of defence industry employees.
In those circumstances it is vital that the Government should take the initiative in attempting diversification programmes. The workforce involved is highly skilled but the spin-off from R&D is less than in some other developed countries. The Government's Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) addressed the lack of spin-off in its report, Defence R&D—A national resource. It said that the UK is less successful than some other countries in bridging the military/civil divide largely because it has inadequate institutional arrangements to encourage cross-fertilisation. Diversification is essentially about how we deal with the so-called "peace dividend" without further harm to manufacturing industry and without further levels of unemployment. It is a separate and complex subject and is perhaps worthy of a full-scale debate on its own at some time in the future.
1174
It seems to me to be crazy for any government to close down the NEDC at this time. It is the only forum of its kind bringing together Ministers of the Crown, employers and trade unionists in an entirely co-operative and non-confrontational way. It is not accurate to say that it has accomplished nothing. I draw attention to an excellent article appearing in the Guardian on 29th June, when details of some of the initiatives for which NEDC was responsible were given. They include using its status to bring together universities, suppliers and big users to accelerate the pace of technology transfer in electronics. There is also its initiative in bringing together 80 medium-sized chemical companies in order to attack the difficult Japanese market. And there are many more.
Nor does it appear that the Secretary of State contemplates any successor body. I should have thought that this Government—indeed any government—would welcome that forum as a sounding board for ideas, if for nothing else. Its termination seems to be most inappropriate and is bound to send out the wrong signals to people working in that field, particularly in fairly small companies which can do with whatever help is available.
In the meantime I return to what I said in opening. I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. I hope that the Minister will not tell us again that everything is fine. We have heard one or two contributions to the debate which seem to indicate that a number of noble Lords believe that everything is the best it possibly can be. But I would point out that recently information was issued in regard to the position of the UK within G7—the world economic league. It appears that our recent performance was the poorest in G7. There was a fall of 2.4 per cent. in GDP last year and that may be followed by a further contraction in 1992. It is reported that since the summer of 1990 the recession is the longest since the 1930s. Over I million people have been added to the list of unemployed in two years.
We face an extremely serious situation. I await with interest to hear what the Minister says this afternoon.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, we have visited this subject before. The fall in manufacturing employment is not a new phenomenon. Employment peaked as far back as 1966 and has been on a downward trend ever since. I have spoken those words before. The decline is by no means unique to the United Kingdom. Employment in manufacturing has declined since the late 1960s in most major Western industrialised nations. In the United Kingdom most of the job losses in manufacturing occurred during the last recession. To some extent that was inevitable given the general inefficiency of the sector and the need for restructuring. My noble friend Lord Joseph drew attention to what he called the serious problems of overmanning in the 1970s. Jobs in manufacturing are still falling but the rate of decline is easing.
Unlike noble Lords opposite, I do not take the pessimistic view that current job losses are a reflection

1175
on the underlying strength of our manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry has had some remarkable successes over the past 10 years or so and still accounts for broadly the same proportion of GDP as it did at that time.
The 1970s left our economy, and manufacturing in particular, inefficient and burdened by restrictive practices. During that period UK manufacturing output declined in terms of its share of total output. After the shake-out of the early 1980s there was an impressive turnaround. Looking across the economic cycle from 1979 to 1989, there was a period of strong growth in manufacturing activity. Manufacturing output and exports grew by more than either France or Germany and manufacturing productivity grew faster than any other G7 country. Even during the recession manufacturing industry has had some substantial successes.
For example, in the automotive industry productivity increased dramatically between 1981 and 1991 by more than 80 per cent. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave us a number of statistics to support that fact. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that the sale of new cars in June of this year was 4.4 per cent. higher than in June of 1991, the third consecutive month showing a year-on-year rise. However, in the first half of 1992 as a whole new car sales were 4.1 per cent. lower than in the same period last year.
That indicates that the productivity of our car industry has considerably increased. During the same period output in the pharmaceutical industry increased by 90 per cent. The pharmaceutical industry has had a trade surplus every year in the past decade; the surplus is growing and in 1991 stood at £1.3 billion. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish drew our attention to that excellent state of affairs.
Electronic consumer goods were another successful sector. In real terms the value of television sets exported was almost nine times higher in 1991 than in 1981 and the United Kingdom had a trade surplus in television sets last year up to £440 million from £259 million in the previous year. That was another point made by my noble friend Lord Mackay.
That is what I mean when I say that manufacturing is in a healthy state. It does not assist the manufacturing sector for noble Lords opposite to insist that it is not. In my travels around the country I speak frequently to leading industrialists and manufacturers. I can assure the House that, far from being pessimistic, the people most closely involved are optimistic about the future. Manufacturing industry seems set to have a healthy future. In the year to April manufacturing productivity rose by 4.9 per cent.—the best annual growth rate since before the recession. Manufacturing output in the three months to April was 1 per cent. higher than in the previous three months.
Of course the speed at which the recovery will impact on manufacturing will depend partly on individuals realising that jobs will be created only if
1176
the goods we are making remain competitive. For that to occur it is essential that we do not pay ourselves more than we can afford.
Important though manufacturing is—I recognise that it is the subject of today's debate—we must not lose sight of the importance of the service sector. During the past 10 years more than 2 million jobs have been created in the service sector. Those jobs should not be undervalued. They were created in response to the needs and demands of our society. Some of the decline in manufacturing employment can be accounted for by the reclassification of certain jobs. I must agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lord Mackay, who drew our attention to that and explained some of the details.
Many jobs that were previously carried out by a manufacturer's own employees have been contracted out to organisations in the service sector and are therefore now classified as jobs in that sector. Even so, jobs in the service sector have been increasing steadily and they now account for over two-thirds of all employment. This changing distribution of employment away from manufacturing and towards the services is a trend shared by all Western industrial nations, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Desai, drew to our attention.
He also said that that was not satisfactory because the jobs did not pay as much in the service sector as they did in the manufacturing sector. He said that the jobs were not as rewarding by moving them into the service sector. I have to say to him that those people who work in the service sector consider that their jobs are just as rewarding as those in manufacturing industry.
Nor should we under-estimate the contribution of small firms, whether in manufacturing or the service sector. Although individually small firms make only a limited contribution to the economy, their collective contribution is substantial because there are so many of them. Between 1985 and 1989 firms employing fewer than 20 people created over 1 million new jobs— more than twice as many as larger firms. Small firms will have a crucial role in creating new jobs as we emerge from the current recession.
It is something of a cliché that signals are mixed when the economy is about to recover. None of the published data tells us what is happening now; rather it is backward-looking. It is only after some time that we can look back and realise that recovery has been underway. There are now encouraging signs that the worst is over. Manufacturing output is growing, confidence is high and inflation and interest rates are lower.
It is clear that the continuation of the recession in the UK has been due in part to the slow-down in the world economy. Last year the American, Canadian and German economies were all in recession, and other economies in continental Europe and Japan experienced a slow-down. Now some of those economies are growing again, adding to the prospects for a UK recovery.
According to a recent EC Gallup survey, consumer confidence in the economy is now beginning to rise

1177
and business confidence is also increasing. The CBI quarterly Industrial Trends survey shows that there has been a sharp rise in confidence: it is now at its highest level since 1988. Expectations of improving output have been backed up by better orders and deliveries. This survey is backed up by others; for example, those carried out by the Institute of Directors and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which show a similarly encouraging picture.
All recessions attract a great deal of attention, and they deserve to because of the great difficulties people face during any period of economic downturn. But the underlying state of the British economy is sound, and if we look back over the lifetime of the Government we can see the improvement in the supply performance of the British economy which has resulted from our coherent framework of economic policies.
As a part of this framework, we have tried to ensure that the tax burden does not stop firms employing people. In too many countries the level of taxes and the regulation involved in employment means that employers are wary of increasing employment and taking on new staff. In the United Kingdom the Government have done their best to reduce the tax on jobs. The result is that it costs less to employ someone in the United Kingdom than in almost any other major EC country. Our labour costs in manufacturing are less than two-thirds those of Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that we were a low-wage, low-productivity economy. I do not believe that that is now the case. I agree with him that, with these lower costs that I have identified and its excellent industrial relations record, it is hardly surprising that the United Kingdom is now the most favoured European location for internationally mobile investment. In 1988–90 the United Kingdom accounted for 46 per cent. of United States and 48 per cent. of Japanese inward investment to the European communities. I, and I believe my noble friend Lord Joseph, would welcome that investment.
According to a survey published this year by the German Chamber of Commerce, the United Kingdom is also the most favoured location for German investment in Europe and is second only to the United States for German investment worldwide. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I would agree that one of the surest ways in which we can maintain the competitiveness of our industries is to maintain a flexible, highly skilled and well-motivated workforce. We must ensure that people are able to adapt to new working environments and that they have the necessary skills and expertise to be able to meet the many diverse demands of the next century, enabling the United Kingdom to compete in the world economy.
The Government believe that this cannot be achieved unless all sectors of the community are involved in training. Government, employers and individuals form a partnership, with each party having an important role to play. The Government's role is to create the climate and framework to encourage
1178
training and direct funding support where it is most needed. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that although there is a recession, which we accept, the Government are still spending over £2 billion this year on training. The role of the employers is to upgrade the skills of the employees and to make the necessary investment in training. It is up to individuals to take greater responsibility for their own training and development.
But I am also very aware of the difficulties faced by all those who have lost their jobs. I can assure your Lordships that no one in government under-estimates the problems that unemployment can cause. That is why we are doing so much to help unemployed people get back to work. I am pleased to be able to say that just under half of those becoming unemployed leave unemployment within the first three months and just under two-thirds of all those becoming unemployed leave unemployment within six months. All in all, the Employment Service placed 1.332 million unemployed people into jobs in 1991–92. The target for 1992–93 is to place 1.425 million unemployed people. That would represent 5,632 unemployed people being placed into jobs every working day. Those who have still been unable to find jobs after six months are entitled to extra help from the Employment Service. They will be invited to attend Restart interviews to discuss job search methods, to assess any further future needs and to discuss the training or employment opportunities that are available to them.
Nearly 1 million places will be available on government employment and training programmes in 1992-93, an increase of 100,000 on last year. This substantial and comprehensive package means that more practical help and advice are now available than ever before to unemployed people to get a job. My department has issued an information pack entitled Local Action for Employment—Tackling Joh Losses, which sets out the way in which the Employment Service and the training and enterprise councils can assist companies declaring redundancies. The Employment Service regions and some TECs have developed tailor-made support to assist with planned, large-scale redundancies.
Before I close I should like to deal with some of the individual points which were brought up by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, apart from the matters which I have already mentioned, said that this Government always turn to the whipping boy and to the trade unions. I believe that he then said that the trade unions have learnt a lesson which perhaps they needed to learn. I say to the noble Lord that we must learn by experience from the past few years. In the 1970s an average of nearly 13 million working days were lost each year because of industrial action. During the past four years the days lost have averaged fewer than 3 million, which is less than a quarter of the 1970s figure. There were more days lost in 1979 alone than in the seven years 1985–1991. That indicates what kind of improved industrial relations we now have.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, also indicated where we needed to move from in the motor car industry. I think that I have demonstrated that that has improved quite considerably.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Can he tell us how many working days are now lost through unemployment as compared with industrial strife in the 1970s?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that those two things are sequiturs. What is important is that if we are losing jobs through strikes, that is costing not only the industry, but the country a great deal of money in terms of exports.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also quoted the Henry McLeish article on unemployment. I must advise the noble Lord that, however we measure it, during the economic cycle there has been an increase of 1.5 million jobs between the peaks of 1979 and June 1990 or, if we look at it the other way, there has been an increase of about 2 million jobs between the troughs of March 1983 and the situation as it is now. Between 1979 and 1989, UK employment grew faster than the European Community average.
I should like to deal with one particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He said that, in his opinion, the TECs were best placed to assess industry's local employment requirements. I agree with him. He quoted the experience of the NORMID TEC during the nine months in which it has been operating. We are satisfied that the Government's objectives and guarantees as they relate to the NORMID TEC area can be honoured within the terms of the agreed contract.
The noble Lord brought to the attention of the House the problems that are facing ICI at Runcorn. There is no doubt that it is a difficult problem. Average industrial electricity prices have fallen in real terms in each of the last five calendar years, but I recognise that prices for a small number of very large consumers, including ICI, have risen. These received preferential terms under the nationalised industry arrangements and, to some extent, these price rises are the inevitable result of moving to a market-based system. I understand that DTI Ministers have recently had talks with ICI and others about electricity prices and are considering this particular matter. We have established a competitive market in electricity. We expect large consumers, including ICI, to use their considerable buying power in the market to negotiate the best possible deals. If ICI believes that the market, including the pool arrangement, is not operating properly, it can take that up with the independent regulator who has all the necessary powers to take action.
The noble Lord also drew attention to an announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. She announced this week that she was putting in place new measures to establish an improved system for monitoring the number of young people covered by the YT guarantee and seeking a place on it. That is not an expression that the guarantee has failed; it is a continuing expression of the Government's commitment to that YT guarantee.
In a wise and thoughtful speech my noble friend Lord Joseph brought to our attention the question: Where do jobs come from? He drew our attention to
1180
the fact that, of course, they come from customers both at home and abroad. To get customers, we need entrepreneurs. I think that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish would call them the "sunrise industry makers". My noble friend indicated that many of these failed, but I very much agree with him that we need a culture in which entrepreneurs can thrive. He directed our attention to the discouragement that capital gains tax causes entrepreneurs when they come to pass on their businesses. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend has said and intend to pass on his comments to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked three questions: what is manufacturing industry; who is involved in the industry; and is a measure of it the employment that it provides? He also drew to our attention the role of the electronics industry and quoted examples from Scotland. I must comment on the success that Scotland has had in that industry. My noble friend demonstrated that manufacturing industry was changing and has changed from the old image of metal-bashing that he painted for us. He also drew our attention to the fact that the classification of jobs has somehow answered the third question that he posed.
My noble friend also made us aware of one of the difficulties that we face in Europe. We must make sure that we are not in an anti-competitive situation with, say, the East German shipyards. We must take care, through the Commission, that we maintain the level playing field that we hear so much about.
My noble friend Lord Alport raised the scare of unemployment benefit perhaps being cut. I can say to him that that is pure speculation. There is no intention to do so, but the Government have done a great deal to improve the infrastructure in this country and to commit a great deal of money to it. I believe that that was one of the ways in which my noble friend wanted the Government to make certain that we tackled unemployment. He suggested that we make that investment. The Government have announced some £30 billion of total capital expenditure, including £16 billion over three years on roads and public transport. That is the way in which the Government are playing their part in making certain that this country's infrastructure is not neglected.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew our attention to the problems with our trade balance. The total deficit for 1991 as a whole was £5.2 billion, down from the £16.1 billion in 1990. As a share of GDP, the deficit is now just over 1 per cent., compared to 5 per cent. at its peak in 1989. The United Kingdom's share of world trade is estimated to have risen in 1991 for the third year running after decades of decline.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said that we needed an investment-led recovery and called for a change in the rules on investment allowances. I must advise them that increased allowances would distort investment decisions and lead to lower quality investment. It is better for business—not government —to decide how much to invest and on what, based on commercial considerations rather than on the

1181
availability of tax breaks. The noble Baroness will understand that existing capital allowances are already on average more generous than the strict system of commercial depreciation. The 1984 business tax reforms led to a substantial reduction in the rates of corporation tax. Tax cuts mean that more profits are retained for investment. The reduction in the main corporation tax to 33 per cent. for 1991 will boost companies post-tax profits, help cash flow, encourage profitable investment and increase incentives for overseas firms to invest in Britain. That, I believe, is the way to set about it.
The noble Baroness also brought our attention to the problems facing the defence industry. Indeed, what she says is correct in many instances and, I believe, has already been taken up by a number of firms. I refer to the idea of diversification. Many companies have responded to the effects of the reduction in defence spending and the MoD's increasingly rigorous procurement practices. For instance, Redifon Limited has reduced its dependence on defence from 70 per cent. to less than 50 per cent. It determined to identify new markets for its electronic communications system, equipment and services. The Dowty Group set out to identify a product sector technology judged to provide an opportunity for growth and has reduced the military application of its business from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. Businesses should look to their commitment to the defence industry and should also look to how they can diversify for the future.
"Employment cannot be created by Act of Parliament or by government alone. Government policy will be directed to bringing the conditions favourable to the maintenance of a high level of employment … But the success of … [this] … policy … will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole and especially on the efforts of employers and workers in industry; for without a rising standard of industrial efficiency we cannot achieve a high level of employment combined with a rising standard of living".
Those words, which come from the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy (Cmd. 6527), are equally relevant today.
As I have mentioned in your Lordships' House before, the Government's role is to create the right economic and financial conditions in which enterprise can flourish and produce the goods and services that people want to buy at the price they are willing to pay. That is how jobs are created.
I referred earlier to the health of the manufacturing sector. It is healthy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, there are only a few minutes left and the Minister has spoken for nearly half an hour. Is he going to talk out the debate and not allow time for the usual courtesy of a very brief reply?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am finishing immediately.
Noble Lords have mentioned an export led recovery. I should like to finish by reminding the House that between 1988 and 1991 we attracted nine times more inward investment than Germany, five times more than Italy and three times more than
1182
France. Exported goods account for more than 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom's GDP, compared with 9.6 per cent. for Japan and 7.1 per cent. for the United States. These are impressive statistics and grounds to be optimistic about the future.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in what has been an important and impressive debate. I am sorry that the Minister appears not to have heeded some of the suggestions that were put forward. The Government could be accused of wallowing in complacency. In his reply the Minister said that we were going to turn the corner. I remind the House that in an economic sense the Government have turned more corners than there are in the Pentagon but we are still in trouble. The prophecy coming from independent sources—not political sources—that there will be a further 20,000 job losses every month this year in the manufacturing sector does not bode well for the country. The defence that there has been a transfer of jobs into the service sector has been overstated. I have a list which I can give to the Minister of 20 high-tech industries that are shedding jobs now and will continue to do so.
The Minister referred briefly to my point about the trade unions. I pointed out that the record of the trade unions had become immeasurably better and that they were working more than ever in a constructive way. I asked why the Government were considering further legislation to deal with the trade unions when it is completely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made great play of the fact that the computer industry is doing well. Two years ago the Government, by a deliberate act of philosophical brigandage, sold off an industry which is related to the computer industry. I refer to the selling off of Inmos to Thorn EMI, which then sold it to a French company. At that time the adverse balance of payments regarding the industry was more than £2 billion. I understand that the figure has grown larger since. We should ensure that jobs stay here and are not exported for profit.
We have had an excellent debate. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this matter. The Government have had two very good sailors on board today—the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. If the Government are not careful, they may in an economic and industrial sense be like John Paul Jones and start to fight when the industrial and economic ship has sunk. That is my worry and I think that the Government would do well to heed some of the advice that has been given today from this and from their own side. I hope that we are wrong and that jobs will be saved and manufacturing industry will continue to expand. But on the figures quoted today there is no way that the manufacturing base is expanding. It is contracting to a dangerous extent.
However, we have had a good debate. I once again thank all those who have participated in it. I have no doubt that we shall return to the subject in the not too distant future. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

"The Health of the Nation"
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on The Health of the Nation. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about better health.
"I am publishing today a White Paper The Health of the Nation. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office. Last June my right honourable friend, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, published a Green Paper on the same subject. Since then we have consulted extensively.
"We made it clear both before and during the general election that a White Paper on health would be one of the first priorities of the new Conservative Government. Today we honour that pledge.
"The Government are committed to improving the health of the nation. The White Paper is the latest—but not the last —step in our strategy.
"The response to the Green Paper was impressive. More than 2,100 individuals and organisations responded directly. There has been a wide and productive debate—at specially organised conferences and workshops, in newspapers and journals, and on television and radio.
"This response reflects the growing interest in health matters as a whole. Members of this House will know that people have become more conscious about what they eat, about how much exercise they take and about how they can generally improve the quality of their lives by becoming healthier.
"We wish to build on this healthy trend. No responsible government can be a disinterested observer of an unhealthy nation. There is an enormous cost to both the National Health Service and to our economy of avoidable illness. The cost includes working days lost and expensive treatment given. We should prevent illness wherever we can. Prevention is better than cure. We will be able to target health resources where they are really needed.
"We are spending record amounts on the National Health Service. We must use these resources to improve health as well as health care. We are seeking to improve the quality of life—and of individuals' lives—in the most cost-effective way.
"Our central message emerged from the consultation exercise on the Green Paper—the very wide backing for the overall strategic approach it proposed. There is support from among policy-makers, practitioners and politicians of all parties. The World Health Organisation welcomed our strategy, describing it as a model other countries might follow. I am particularly pleased to launch the White Paper just one week into the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.
"At the heart of the White Paper is the setting of targets in key areas. We have selected five areas.
1184
They are coronary heart disease and stroke, cancers, mental illness, HIV/AIDS and sexual health, and accidents.
"In each of these key areas we have set challenging but achievable targets. In some areas they are tougher than proposed in the Green Paper. Targets include: 40 per cent. reductions in death from coronary heart disease and stroke by the year 2000; a 30 per cent. reduction in death from lung cancer for men by 2010; reducing from one-third of the population to one-fifth the number of people who smoke by the year 2000; and cutting childhood accidents by a third by the year 2005.
"Our task was to choose areas of greatest concern: where there is the most serious avoidable loss of life or handicap and where most work needs to be done and can be done. The department's chief medical officer has been closely involved in the work. We have drawn on a wide range of medical and other expert opinion.
"Other areas do not cease to be important. In some cases well-developed initiatives to improve health already exist. For example, I announced last week that we have now achieved our 90 per cent. national target for immunisation against childhood diseases. We are now working to a new target of 95 per cent. by 1995.
"In other areas more development and research will be needed before national targets can be set. What we are proposing are not short-term measures. The strategy will grow and develop. To provide the knowledge and methodology for that to happen the research and development strategy launched by my department in April 1991 will play a crucial role.
"The White Paper identifies other possible target areas for the future. That underlines the fact that it represents a beginning, not an end.
"I hope that the House will recognise and welcome the strategy. Coronary heart disease and strokes are the biggest causes of premature death and disability in this country. We have made considerable progress. There is scope for more. Cancers account for a quarter of all deaths. Many of them can be prevented. Mental illness affects millions of people, with a high cost to the nation. There is still too often a taboo associated with it. Accidents are the most common cause of death in people under 30. Often they can be avoided. AIDS is the most significant new threat to public health this century. In improving sexual health generally lies the greatest scope for preventing HIV infection and the spread of that terrible disease.
"We need targets for three reasons. They give us something real at which to aim. They provide a common focus for action. They allow us to measure progress.
"To be respected, targets have to be tough. To be credible they have to be realistic. It would be folly to set a target so far out of reach that we will never get there, or one which is simply the extrapolation of existing trends.
"Our comprehensive approach is unique. We have identified the broad strategies and the

1185
practical machinery needed to achieve targets. Everyone is involved. The White Paper is more than just the work of the National Health Service, vital though that is. It takes in the activities of every department in Whitehall. It is for private companies and voluntary bodies; for local authorities as much as health authorities; for employers and trade unions; for organisations of every kind; and for individuals of every age.
"Working together, forming healthy alliances, is one of the central messages in The Health of the Nation. The White Paper demonstrates the Government's commitment by: first, addressing a range of health issues which go well beyond the responsibility of the Department of Health; secondly, highlighting the central role of the Cabinet Committee, set up by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to oversee the development and implementation of the strategy. No other country has set up a similar structure at such high level to take forward a health strategy; and thirdly, setting out a range of actions to improve health which only government can take.
"While recognising the role of others, the National Health Service must be at the centre of the strategy. The publication of the White Paper today marks a major new landmark in the development of the NHS. It is the next logical step in the process of health reform. It provides new opportunities to raise our sights beyond the provision of health care —important though that is—to health itself.
"The National Health Service was founded to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. That was enshrined in the 1946 National Health Service Act. This strategy carries those principles forward in a programme of work which will take us well into the next century.
"The health reforms have enabled health authorities to take a more strategic look at the health needs of their local population. The priority areas we have selected and the targets we have set match local needs and concerns. The NHS Management Executive will require health authorities to build the target-setting approach into all levels of local activity. The strategy will become central to the work of the NHS.
"The NHS must also lead by example. It must be a healthy employer. Its I million employees must themselves play a part, helping themselves, their families and friends, as well as the patients they care for to improve their health. We shall engage all NHS staff in making their own workplace a healthy place, both for themselves and patients. The NHS Chief Executive is working with the Health Education Authority to launch a special initiative on this later in the summer.
"By many reckonings we are healthy. In 1991, for the fourth successive year, perinatal and infant mortality rates fell to their lowest ever recorded levels. Our immunisation rates are high. We are the first country in the European Community to establish national screening programmes for breast
1186
and cervical cancer. Life expectancy has risen by three years for men and two years for women in the past decade.
"We have been adding years to life. The health strategy is about adding life to those years. Ultimately, it means too adding even more years to life. No one doubts that there are areas where we can grow healthier as a people. The White Paper has identified those key areas. It has proposed real action for improvement.
"The ideas in this White Paper will take root and grow. We have the potential to take this country to the top of the health league. I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made earlier in another place. Obviously we all welcome anything which improves the health of the nation. I should like to say at once that the setting of targets is an excellent idea and we welcome the clear focus in the White Paper on preventable diseases, reproductive health, mental health and accidents.
Perhaps I may first deal with the targets. Can the Minister say how the targets were arrived at? Was it on the basis of a clinical analysis, medical forecasts or estimates of acceptable cost? As for coronary heart disease, the aim of the "Look After Your Heart" programme strategy produced in 1990 by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority was a 25 per cent. reduction in premature deaths from coronary heart disease by the year 2000. The Green Paper published last June suggested a target of a 30 per cent. reduction and the White Paper now has a target of a 40 per cent. reduction.
We welcome that increase in the target which presumably resulted from the consultation process. The strategy document for "Look After Your Heart" estimated that cigarette smoking accounts for at least one-fifth of deaths from heart disease and that 80 per cent. of heart attacks in men under 45 years of age are thought to be due to smoking. The cigarette smoker faces two to three times the risk of having a heart attack than a non-smoker. The BMA points out that 450 of our children start to smoke each day. Despite all that—and this is the great disappointment of the White Paper—the Government still refuse to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising. The Minister said that 2,100 individuals and organisations were consulted. How many of them supported the Government's views on tobacco advertising? I am sure that it is no more than an unfortunate coincidence that a major tobacco company made 2,000 of its poster sites available to the Conservative Party in the general election. If further evidence is produced—if, indeed, any more is needed—to show that a ban on tobacco advertising would reduce smoking, will the Government introduce such a ban?
The biggest omission in the Statement and the White Paper is the reluctance to recognise and admit the crucial link between health and social conditions.

1187
We all know that poverty, bad housing and low incomes are major factors contributing to the poor health of large sections of the population. Do the Government accept that there is a link between those factors and the health of individuals? The Minister will find the statistical evidence for such a link in Appendix F paragraph 16 of the White Paper.
I turn now to AIDS and sexual health. We all of course welcome any initiative which will improve sexual health. The Minister mentioned in the Statement the importance of research. It is a truism that no one dies of AIDS but that death comes as the result of a variety of infections to which the AIDS sufferer succumbs. Vast sums of money have gone and are going into finding a cure for AIDS but there is little research into the treatment and the management of the conditions which may cause the death of those with AIDS. Will the Minister comment upon that disparity in the research?
There is a conflict throughout the White Paper between diagnosis and prescription. Paragraph 23 of the Statement states:
"The White Paper demonstrates the Government's commitment by … setting out a range of actions to improve health which only government can take".
That of course is correct. The White paper contains a proper emphasis on a healthier diet. Will the Government now reintroduce nutritional standards for school meals, which they scrapped? Paragraph 15 of the Statement states:
"Our task was to choose areas of greatest concern: where there is the most serious avoidable loss of life".
The White Paper refers also to targets for the reduction of alcohol consumption. Does that mean that the Government now accept the case for random breath testing? Paragraph 8 of the Statement states:
"We should prevent illness wherever we can. Prevention is better than cure".
We obviously all agree that people should be encouraged to keep a check on their health. Will the Government now scrap charges for eye tests? The rise in teenage pregnancies is obviously worrying. Will the Government now restore the cuts in funding which have led one health authority in four to cut their family planning sessions in the past six years, some by as much as half?
As I have said, the diagnosis contained in the White Paper is good. We can all welcome the setting of targets, the proposal for a powerful Cabinet Committee and the emphasis placed on healthier living throughout the White Paper; but, as I have said, I fear that in many areas the prescription is in direct conflict with many government decisions affecting health which have been taken in recent years. We all hope that the White Paper demonstrates a change of heart by the Government. It sets out some clear objectives. We all hope that those objectives will be achieved.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, I must hasten to join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in thanking the Minister for repeating the important and interesting Statement. Perhaps I may also thank her for giving us so much homework. Even the summary runs to 34 pages, and therefore we are provided with enough interesting
1188
reading material to keep us all busy until the long Recess is over. I look forward to studying it with the care that it clearly deserves.
Let me say at once that I agree with every word of the Statement. Having said that, I must also say that that is not saying much because most of what it says has been well known in the medical profession and outside it for many years. The White Paper inevitably consists of many platitudes and truisms, but what is helpful is that it collects in one place all the evidence which shows clearly how true the truisms are so that it is readily available to us all. That is of help to those of us involved in health education should we need to argue and discuss these matters with people who are not as ready to accept them as we are.
As I say, most of these things are known. Some years ago I had the honour to be invited by what was then the Health Education Council to edit a book on its behalf. Noble Lords will be aware that when one is invited to edit a book, that really means that one has been invited to write the book. One consults a great many people who help but one finishes up writing it. The book was called A Guide to Better Health. If I were to look back at it I should find that many of the things it said are now repeated in the White Paper. There is nothing wrong with that. The White Paper provides all sorts of evidence. The book was circulated widely but, frankly, I doubt whether it had much effect. Everyone agreed with it. Everyone already knew what was necessary. The problem then was—it still is—how to persuade people to heed the advice which everyone knows is wise.
What do we learn from experience? It was Bernard Shaw who said that the only thing we learnt from experience was that we never learnt anything from experience. During my lifetime there has been one period during which there has been a remarkable improvement in public health. That was during the latter years of the Second World War when everyone led a healthy life. No one could eat too much of the wrong food because they could not obtain it. They could eat enough of the right food because they could obtain it: we had rationing. We took plenty of exercise because we had no petrol. No one but a lunatic would recommend a third world war as a remedy for the present state of public health, but that underlines a real problem: how do we persuade people to heed the advice?
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in saying how right the Government are to set targets and to have specific aims —aims which are capable of fulfilment. In many ways your Lordships' House shows the way ahead. The fact that so many noble Lords appear to live for ever is not due to the fact that they have healthy lifestyles. I would say that the reverse is true. What is true is that noble Lords had healthy lifestyles when they were children. They had good diets; they lived in good housing; and they took plenty of exercise. One was made to take plenty of exercise. I am all for that, but the most important part of targeting is that the Government should as far as possible focus their efforts on youth. That is the time when people can develop sensible, healthy eating habits and take exercise.

1189
By the time people reach our age it is too late. The one way to get rid of smoking—I am all for banning advertisements—is to ensure that people never start. Once one is faced with nicotine addicts, which is what such people are, it is difficult to get rid of the habit. We get rid of them because they pass away in the fullness of time. But the fact remains that it would be infinitely better if people never started smoking. We are not having much success in preventing children from starting to smoke, which is what we must do. I hope that these commendable efforts will as far as possible be directed at youth, because that is where the hope lies. We must persuade young people to take plenty of exercise, to eat plenty of the right food and not too much of the wrong food, and so on. If they follow all those simple rules which are set out in the White Paper, the battle will be half won.
There are many aspects to this subject. I do not want to comment upon them in detail. AIDS was mentioned, and that issue was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The White Paper, which summarises much information, refers to the way in which we have conquered pulmonary tuberculosis. At the start of this century pulmonary tuberculosis was the main cause of death; it was known as the "captain of the army of death". Now it has virtually disappeared. What caused that? Two things: first, a vast improvement in housing, sanitation and such things; secondly, the development of chemotherapy. Once cases were under treatment, they ceased to be infective.
I have supported everything that the present Government have done so far on AIDS. They have taken the right steps. But the real hope lies in the discovery of a therapeutic agent which, once the patient is on it, renders that patient non-infective to other people. That is where results will come.
Epidemiology is not an exact science. We constantly hear of exceptions and I can remember an old man who reached the age of 100. He was asked, in an interview on television, to what he attributed his age and he replied, "I've no idea". Looking back, the only thing he could think of was that he could not remember ever having taken any exercise.
We cannot argue from the particular to the general. Noble Lords will remember Lord Shinwell who reached the age of 100. After his presentation, during Question Time in your Lordships' House which dealt with the sponsorship of tobacco, he said, "I have been a regular smoker since 1894". We cannot argue from the particular to the general; we must take the kind of evidence which is well summarised in the White Paper and learn the lessons which we have all known for a long time. Somehow we must get people to follow the advice which we all know is right.
I am glad that at long last the Government have recognised that it is not just a matter for the National Health Service or the Department of Health, but for every government department. Accepting that, and accepting the importance of housing and other matters, it seems to me that the Government have at last learnt all the lessons so carefully underlined in the Black Report on health and the disadvantaged. At
1190
long last, it is clearly accepted in the White Paper that, unless we do something to improve people's living standards in all kinds of ways, we shall not be able to answer all these questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned school meals. They are important. At the moment far too many children suffer from malnutrition of one kind or another. I regret the disappearance of universal school meals; I did not awfully enjoy them, but in many ways we received the nutrition we needed. I risk the wrath of some of my professional colleagues by saying that I regret that school milk disappeared. I know that many doctors are suspicious of milk; they think that every bottle should carry a government health warning. However, I believe that for young children milk is an important and useful source of nutrition, calcium, vitamins and other nutrients. The cost of restoring school milk to state primary schools is small. I put down a Question on this and the Answer showed that it was minuscule. I believe that the results would be helpful. One matter which we must tackle is youth.
I am so glad that the Government have finally agreed that the subject of health covers all government departments, including local government. The targets that the Government have set are wise. Some of us may last long enough to see whether they will be reached because they continue until the year 2010. Some of us will still be around then. The setting of these targets gives us all an opportunity to monitor progress and to see whether we are succeeding. We have succeeded in meeting many targets in the past, as the White Paper illustrates, and we can succeed in meeting these targets in the future if people will speak for themselves—not just doctors and health departments, but the public as a whole. We must get them to follow the excellent advice set out in the White Paper.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I warmly thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Winstanley, for the support which the strategy has received. It has received a welcome throughout the country, from within the National Health Service and, as I said in the Statement, from within the World Health Organisation which cites this strategy as an example for other countries to follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we should have these particular targets. Three criteria were set out in the Green Paper, The Health of the Nation. The first was that the area should be a major cause of premature death or avoidable ill health; where there was major concern, that area was included. The second was where we knew we could have effective interventions, offering significant scope for improvement in health. The third was where it was possible to set objectives and targets, and monitor progress towards them.
During the consultation period, we received a great deal of advice and help, and much research took place. As a result, not only were some of the targets stiffened, but also mental illness, which had previously not been included in the Green Paper, was included. I know

1191
that many people and organisations in the country and those involved in the mental health field will be pleased about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, cited how targets had been increased for coronary heart disease, starting with the target of 25 per cent. for the year 2000, progressing towards the 40 per cent. target in the White Paper. It is a challenging target. The 30 per cent. in the Green Paper did not prove to be challenging enough for those in the field. They felt that as a nation we could do better than that. That is why the target has been increased.
The noble Lord raised the issue of smoking and I know that a body of opinion in this country feels that the advertising of tobacco should be banned. Clearly that is something which the Government have considered, but they believe strongly that the decision to stop smoking is a matter for individual choice. The Government's role is to ensure that that choice is exercised on an informed basis, knowing the risks.
Many tools can be used in order to reduce the consumption of tobacco. The price of products is a powerful tool. We know that the real price of tobacco has risen by 43 per cent. over the past 12 years, whereas it increased by only 1 per cent. under the Labour Government. Today a packet of cigarettes costs more in the UK than in any other EC country except Denmark. We know that this policy is effective. We have markedly reduced the consumption of tobacco, which has fallen by one-third over the past 16 years. Our target is to reduce that further by one-third by the year 2000, again a challenging target which we shall set out not only to meet but to beat.
The noble Lord also went on to ask about the links between poverty, housing and health. There can be no doubt that these issues have an effect on health. But the Government have done much in recent years to ensure that the resources available to low income families are increased.
These targets are not aimed purely at areas of deprivation; they go across the board, and we believe that to be right. We know that in inner city areas general practitioners are meeting the targets which have been set for them and which were included in the GP contract. We believe that, with the new management systems we have introduced and that have come through the reforms, we are now much better able to target our resources to ensure that inner city areas become as healthy as other areas.
On the subject of school meals, the strategy ensures that in the future we work closely with other organisations. We do not see this purely as a National Health Service issue. We shall want to work with local authorities in their efforts to ensure that school meals are more nutritious, and that the children eat them. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made the pertinent remark that he did not awfully enjoy them. We know that in the past many school meals were not eaten. But today, with a different style of catering in schools, the cafeteria style where children can choose, the food is eaten.
The charges for eye tests and for some of the national health services that are provided produce a considerable income for the NHS. Free eye tests for
1192
the country would cost us another £100 million a year. It seems to me correct that those who can afford these charges should pay them, but of course we know that as many as 40 per cent. are exempt from the charges.
The sum of £206 million accrues to the National Health Service from charging for prescriptions. That equates to 9,000 community nurses for a year or 228,000 surgical operations. However, 80 per cent. of all NHS items are exempt from charges. Again, it seems appropriate to me that those who can afford to pay should contribute to the National Health Service.
Finally, I know that there has been concern about the number of family planning clinics that have been reorganised during the past few years. The figure of £100 million is spent on family planning services, and in 1991–92 the Government gave £750,000 to voluntary organisations such as the Family Planning Association. Regional health authorities are reviewing these services and we have made it a priority for the current year that the whole shape of family planning should change. We know now that two out of three women go to a GP for family planning advice. We would want to keep clinics, as they offer a comprehensive service. However, it is important to give choice to women either to use the GP services which we have built up over the years or to use family planning services.
I should like now to take up a few of the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I agree that this is not a revolutionary document but it is the first time that we have had a comprehensive strategy with defined targets. It is the first time that the Government have made a commitment across all departments. It is the first time that we have had a Cabinet sub-committee in order to ensure that these targets are monitored and met. It is the first time that we have had a structure and a system that we know can deliver these targets. Therefore from that point of view this is revolutionary.
The noble Lord referred to lifestyles and I certainly would not want to comment on the lifestyles of noble Peers, but I do take the point about the emphasis being laid on youth. Of course in the past, and again at the present time, we are putting more effort into vaccination and immunisation to ensure that we have healthy children who will grow into healthy adults.
We have also targeted specifically in this strategy teenage pregnancies and we have set a target to reduce smoking among the 11–15 year-olds by at least 33 per cent. by 1994. We have set very challenging targets —targets that we expect not only to meet but also to beat.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first may I thank my noble friend for repeating this very important and far-reaching Statement, to which I think the whole House has listened with the very greatest of interest. May I add that it seemed to do a very effective demolition job on the propaganda which, until recently, used to emerge from certain quarters to the effect that the Government were not interested in questions of health and were indeed damaging the National Health Service. The Statement makes very

1193
clear the importance that the Government attach to the National Health Service and to questions of national health. Therefore it was very valuable from that point of view.
The effectiveness of the policy seems to be borne out by the figures given by my noble friend for the improved expectation of life. I was very interested to see that the increase in expectation of life has been more for men than for women, but I take it that that is against the background that a woman's expectation of life has been, and still is, rather longer than a man's. Therefore all it amounted to was a reduction in the difference between the two rather than in any victory for the male. Perhaps she could confirm that.
On smoking, I personally very much agreed with the noble Lord opposite when he said that it would be right to ban the advertising of smoking. My noble friend said that people should be left to make up their own minds. Of course that is true, but the making up of one's mind is often very much affected by the advertisements that one reads. Therefore it seems a pity that a practice which does so much injury, and such increasing injury, to health should be able to be advertised, often in most seductive terms, all over the place. I hope that the Government will give some further thought to this, as the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite is very widely shared. At the same time I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion I made a little while ago, that one of the ways of checking the growth of smoking is by a very substantial increase in the tax. Higher taxation, which would make tobacco more expensive, must work in the right direction.
Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one further question. Can she add to what she said about the policy in the White Paper of dealing with AIDS?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is there not a Standing Order about the length of debates following a Statement? Who is going to protect the next Business? Some of us are waiting for the next debate to start.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that my noble friend should continue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter very much for those comments. He is correct in his assumption that the expectation of life is greater for women than for men, but this is not perhaps a victory for men but rather a victory for both genders, in that both are now living longer.
With regard to reviewing the advertising ban on cigarette smoking, I should like to say that we have proved to be successful in this. Without a ban, our success is the greatest in Europe, except for the Netherlands. We know that our present policy works and is achieving results. But, having said that, a review is going on in regard to the question of advertising, especially with regard to children and smoking.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was wondering whether the professionals wished to say something—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly be as quick as he can? We have spent some time on this already.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we do have 20 minutes for Back-Bench contributions under the Standing Orders, so that we have 16 minutes left. I appreciate that people want to get on with the next business, but at the moment we are on this business. I wish to make a contribution and I am going to make that contribution.
In regard to the Statement, of course everybody believes in prevention, and indeed I do myself. However, we must be extremely careful that obsession with health itself does not lead to a national neurosis. We are coming to a situation where we see in one newspaper that something is bad for you; yet a few days later we see that it has been agreed that the same thing is good for you. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that people have the right information and are not bombarded with statistics which are sometimes contradictory.
For example, I have read statistics about cholesterol. I am told in one article by a renowned medical person that cholesterol is good for you. On the other hand, another eminent physician tells me that cholesterol is bad for you. One day we are told that butter is good for you and the next we are told it is bad for you.
No, I shall not stand heckling from my noble friend, Lord Cocks. I shall make my points and ask my question. The sooner he behaves himself, the better I shall be able to get on with what I have to say.
I turn to the banning of tobacco advertising. The noble Baroness who read the Statement will be aware that there are several opinions on the subject. Some people, indeed some authorities, believe that banning tobacco advertising increases the rate of smoking. If we ban tobacco advertising in this country we also ban the health warnings which appear on the tobacco advertising. Tobacco advertising is so sophisticated these days that almost all one sees is the message that smoking kills, smoking causes heart disease or smoking causes cancer. There are two points of view and the Government are right to give proper consideration to the matter before introducing a ban on tobacco advertising.
Finally, I want to refer to HIV and AIDS. While I appreciate that the Government must inform the general public about the dangers of AIDS and HIV, believe that they are not doing their duty in that they do not target high risk groups. I sincerely hope that they will do just that and ensure that the public are properly informed about that dread disease.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, concerning conflicting advice. I agree that where there is conflicting advice it causes a great deal of unhappiness and distress and people do not know where they stand. We are placing more emphasis on research and development. We think it essential that we get more accurate and better information.

1195
Due to the efforts of noble Lords in this House a Director of Research and Development was appointed for the National Health Service. The National Health Service has agreed a commitment of 1.5 per cent. of revenue for research and development over the next five years. We need better information, accurate information and the means to put it across to the public.
I very much welcome the noble Lord's support for the Government on the subject of advertising and tobacco. We are reviewing the matter and I am sure that we shall have a debate on the subject in the future.
Perhaps I may say a word about HIV and AIDS. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for not mentioning this before. The Government recognise that it is the most serious public health risk that we face. We have a five-part strategy in relation to AIDS which includes prevention, public education, monitoring, surveillance, research, treatment, care and support, addressing social, legal and ethical issues and also working with our colleagues across the world in international co-operation. As I have said, regional health authorities are reviewing family planning services because we see HIV and AIDS in the context of sexual health. We have set targets in relation to gonorrhoea, which we know is an indicator of what is happening concerning HIV and AIDS. The issue is a crucial one. This is the greatest public health risk we face and we shall ensure that we continue to put substantial amounts of investment into combating this serious disease.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is it in order to make a short point?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we have 10 minutes!
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the importance of sexual health. Can she assure the House that moral aspects will not be lost sight of and that the value of self-discipline and self-control will be fully emphasised?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is crucial that AIDS and HIV are set in a moral, family and social context.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, there are some of us in the medical profession who would have welcomed an opportunity to say rather more on the Statement. Perhaps I may just say that I look forward with great interest to reading the White Paper. I am sure that the members of the medical profession will welcome the objectives and the targets that have been set and which have been so clearly enunciated.
Coronary artery disease and stroke are two of the greatest scourges of the modern world. The incidence of those diseases is far higher in the United Kingdom than in many other developed countries. Curiously, it is much higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales, for reasons which are not at all clear. The message that an aspirin a day helps to keep the stroke or coronary away has not been promulgated as effectively as it might in preventive medicine. Nevertheless, preventive medicine in screening for
1196
breast and cervical cancer has been a great success story. The transformation wrought in the treatment of mental disease by neuropharmacology and developments through our pharmaceutical industry—truly the jewel in Britain's industrial crown—have been remarkable. However, there are many points still to be looked at in relation to the community care of those who have been discharged from mental hospitals, despite the fact that their symptoms are well controlled.
We still succeed in providing under the National Health Service what I believe is the best emergency care of any in the world. However, there are anxieties over the role of the medical profession, and not only in preventive medicine and cure, because of the fact that we have the lowest incidence of consultants per unit of population in most specialties in any western country. Those are issues to which I very much hope the Government will turn their attention, bearing in mind their pledge to increase the consultant establishment and at the same time to reduce the intolerably long working hours of junior doctors.
Given those objectives, I believe that the White Paper is admirable. I hope that we can manage to achieve exactly what is set out. The evidence is very clear that in other countries the abolition of advertising of tobacco has reduced smoking by the young.
Finally, I commend to your Lordships' House the report published last week by the Royal College of Physicians on smoking and the young, which contains many important lessons.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those valuable remarks. I agree that community care is a huge agenda for the future. I take his point on medical manpower. The noble Lord will be aware that a review is taking place by the Medical Manpower Standing Advisory Committee, which will be reporting later in the year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one particular part of her Statement brings me particular pleasure—namely, her report that the immunisation rate has now reached its 90 per cent. target? There is no doubt that the improvement in the immunisation of children has come about because targets were set and, dare I say, because doctors were given financial inducements in their contracts to improve the rate of immunisation.
Therefore, targets are an excellent concept. However, I hope that my noble friend takes on board that one must also identify the target group. In the case of immunisation, for example, there was not much point in targeting your Lordships; it was important to target young mothers. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, it is important in some aspects to target young people. I hope that my noble friend will do that. I hope that she can assure me that in certain subjects, such as smoking and diet, the Government will target young people in particular. In the case of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, that is the target group, not the general

1197
population. I hope that my noble friend will ensure that all the advertising and propaganda will be aimed at the target groups who are most at risk.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend for that advice. He has my assurance that we shall target the correct groups.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I wish to intervene very briefly with two points. First, we must all welcome the White Paper and wish it well. Is there any chance that the very important development of a Cabinet committee concerned with health can be diffused down into other departments and indeed into industry generally? I believe that a wonderful fruit of the White Paper would be a general concern for health among administrators and those concerned with the management of people throughout the country. I hope that they might encourage their workpeople to take more exercise and to be more careful about their canteen food.
My other question is this: can the Minister give me an assurance that those of us who have been interested in independent health promotion research may look forward to a continued interest in the work we do? We would be very anxious to support Professor Peckham in any way we can but we should be most unhappy if there seemed to be a centralisation of attitudes which would prevent research into questions such as "Is cholesterol good or bad?" by people of independent turn of mind.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole essence of this strategy is that we shall be building healthy alliances with all sorts of people across the whole spectrum: healthy workplaces, schools, environment —right across the spectrum. The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is not a health service matter. It is beyond that. With regard to his question on research, I shall take up the matter he raises with the Director of Research and Development.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, given the appalling toll of alcohol-related diseases, does the Minister agree that there seems to be some discrepancy in the attitude of those who call for a ban on tobacco advertising but do not couple it with a call for a ban on alcohol advertising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I suspect that many of us subscribe to the premise: a little of what you fancy does you good.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, some very important points have been raised about the content of school meals. Can my noble friend assure me that there is no question of the Government returning to the old system whereby schools provided a compulsory menu which the children who most needed the food refused to eat? The children who did not need it were subsidised by those who did and very often the children who needed it most went unfed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's views on school meals. There is no suggestion that there should be compulsory menus dictated from the centre.

The Professions
7.2 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to call attention to the future of the professions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that my choice of subject this evening and my good fortune in the ballot have led to some uneasiness in the ranks of government. Perhaps I may say as a preliminary that that was certainly not my intention. The difficulty is that this evening I intend to discuss the matter before the House in what I might call generic terms. In view of the number of other noble Lords who intend to speak, I entirely appreciate that it will be difficult for the Minister to deal with all the detailed points that may arise, particularly because they could be outside the scope of her own department. I do not ask for a detailed reply to the points that I may make, though I hope that the noble Baroness will respond in a warm and supportive way to what I and others have to say.
My theme is a generic one. Having spent the greater part of the past five years as director-general of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I shall choose to illustrate my theme and the matters that I wish to raise from my experience during that time. My theme is simply that the self-regulating professions are an essential part of a pluralist society. Although they must change to meet changing needs, they ought not to be diminished, as sometimes they have been, by the actions of government.
The modern professions, as we know them today, are largely a 19th century phenomenon. Medicine and law, which are so well represented in this House, had been long established. But the civil engineers established themselves as a professional body in 1818 and the architects did so in 1834. They were followed by the pharmacists in 1841; and other professions thereafter. They were established—this is an important point to which I wish to return—on the basis of an unwritten social contract. By insisting that their members should be properly qualified and by enforcing discipline, the professions said that they would ensure a service to their clients and ultimately to the public which was marked by competence and quality. In return—this was the other half of the social contract—they would be free from day-to-day interference and not obliged to compete in the commercial rat race.
The rise of the professions has been described as part of the process of the gentrification of the Victorian middle classes. There is something in that. Typically the sons of builders, for example, became architects in the next generation. I do not doubt that there was an element of Victorian hypocrisy in all that. On the part of some practitioners there was not only a search for excellence but for status too, and status sometimes flowed over into unjustified privilege.
But for all that, for more than 100 years the professions have served the country well, maintaining high standards of performance and integrity. It is a good record. They have offered and offer today careers open to talent. They have provided a good service to clients and the public and redress of grievance to those with a complaint against them. If they had not been invented 150 years ago, we should be eager to invent them today. Perhaps I dare say to the noble Baroness that the self-regulating professions were models of what I understand the Citizen's Charter apparently seeks to achieve.
However, in the last quarter-century there has been a dramatic change in the climate in which the professions have been obliged to operate. In the first place there has been a disposition on the part of government to regard them as in restraint of trade and more recently there has been a wish to see them subject to unrestricted market forces. I remember the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes in 1967 and 1968 and the report of the Monopolies Commission in 1970. There has also been the growth of the consumer movement, challenging the professions to explain themselves and seeking to test their claims in terms of the quality and the cost of their services.
I do not complain that the professions should be scrutinised by government and their agencies from time to time. I shall return to that point. I welcome the growth of the consumer movement. I have felt myself part of it since I joined the Consumers' Association in its earliest days. I also accept the major changes of the late 1970s and early 1980s that are now part of history. I do not wish to turn back the clock.
The fact is that the social contract of a century ago has been broken, but not by the professions. The question now is how far the process should be allowed to go. Let me repeat and reinforce my argument that the self-regulating professions have clear obligations to satisfy if they are to claim respect and ask to be left alone. Those obligations were well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who will speak later in this debate, some three years ago in an article in the Financial Times. On that occasion he referred to nine principles. I shall abbreviate and quote from three of them.
The noble Lord said that the governing body of a profession must set the ethical rules and professional standards which are to be observed by the members. They should be higher than those that can be established by the general law. He also said that the rules and standards enforced by the governing body must he designed for the benefit of the public and not for the private advantage of members. He said further that the governing body must take disciplinary action, including if necessary expulsion from membership, if the rules and standards it lays down are not observed or a member is guilty of bad professional work. I refer in an abbreviated form to those three out of the nine principles which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, set down; and I endorse them all.
There is a need for the professions to continue to change and develop. I take for granted, for example, that professional education is not simply a period of
1200
initial training leading to proper qualifications but of continuing professional development. It is an inescapable obligation on the professions to require that of their members. I also take for granted that in respect of professional conduct and discipline the professions should have a speedy and transparent procedure. There is a strong case that in today's world that should include a lay element. Indeed, I would put new obligations on the professions, for example, positively to encourage women and ethnic minorities. Both are much under-represented in most professions, including architecture.
Professional institutions are not trade unions with obligations only to their members, and they should never behave as though they are. However, in turn governments should recognise that most professional institutions give significant parts of their time and resources to making a contribution to public policy which is not inspired by their members' own self-interest.
In The Times on 3rd February of this year there was a leading article about the professions under the heading, "Professional foul?". If I may say so, it was The Times at its most wilful and confused. The article stated that the professions still occupy what it called,
"an enviable niche in the British class structure".
and that little had changed in the past decade. Indeed, it claimed that Parliament protected the professions from reforms. The article stated that that counts,
"among the more damaging hypocrisies of British public life".
Half-way through the leading article changed tack. It said that great currents were flowing to change the professions. The decline of deference was a factor. So was the European Community's competition policy and, curiously—despite what the leader had earlier said—that the professions were making a major impact within the European Community. The European market was dominated by British accountants, and British architects were not far behind. As we all know, many other professions are actively earning for Britain abroad.
Finally, in the leading article The Times reverted. It said that political parties should not show undue tenderness towards the professions. Hard questions had to be asked and difficult dilemmas grappled with. I refer to the words of the article; they are not mine. A series of leading articles in The Times would now explain the separate professions.
However, the professions came out rather well. They had changed and were changing. For example, architects were closest to a free market profession. That was meant as a compliment by The Times. Restrictive practices had been abandoned. The old days were over. That is close to the truth of the matter. Most professions today are not bastions of privilege. They rarely pursue restrictive practices. They are open to talent and remain committed to providing a service of quality to the public.
Indeed, there is an irony in the fact that we are having this debate. The idea of professionalism is applauded today as never before. Men and women are proud to be called professional in sports, the arts and business. It is a mark of distinction and achievement. In our daily lives we ask for a good professional job

1201
from those who repair our car or replace our plumbing. Indeed, for much of the time we wish that they were a great deal more professional than they are and that we could turn to a professional body to safeguard our own interests.
The role of the professional institutions is also profoundly interesting to those emerging from centralised and bureaucratic state control in Eastern Europe. Many of the professions have been called upon for advice in establishing or re-establishing their opposite numbers in Eastern Europe. Informed opinion in those countries believes that professional bodies can be an important stabilising factor in society, being neither state controlled nor part of the commercial market.
In November 1990, the Lord Chancellor gave the Hamptons Lecture entitled "Professional Standards in the 1990s". He was mainly concerned with the legal profession and I have no wish to enter upon those controversies today. However, a number of his thoughts were of general application and I do not dissent from one of them. The Lord Chancellor said:
"We start from two broad principles. First, in general, the person requiring the goods and services is the single best arbiter of the goods and services he needs and can afford … Secondly, the person most able to indicate in what ways it is possible to respond to the needs of the customer or client is the person whose job it will be to provide the goods and services sought. This is even more true in the case of the professions, where professional independence has a special role".
He spoke about the importance of maintaining quality. He said:
"The role of Government, I would suggest, should be limited to action when it seems that this balance has shifted too far one way or the other, or where external factors prevent it being struck correctly".
The Lord Chancellor also said:
"It is a fundamental part of the Government's policy towards the professions that they should be self-regulating".
I do not believe that I have quoted the Lord Chancellor out of context. I draw attention to the points that he makes. First, the professional called upon to provide a service is the person best able to judge how to meet the client's need. Secondly, the maintenance of quality in the provision of the service is important. Thirdly, the Government should have a limited role; the professions should be self-regulating.
I refer briefly to the architectural profession. There are no problems of entry to it today. There are more students in schools of architecture than ever before. It is not a secure profession. As many as a third of all architects have been made redundant during the current recession and two out of five are less than fully employed. Many practices, like other small businesses, have become insolvent. It is a poorly paid profession. A salaried architect in private practice is likely to earn between £20,000 and £25,000 a year. In the past year the UK earnings index has risen by 8 per cent., but the average earnings of architects have fallen by 2 per cent., with falls as large as 16 per cent. for sole principals.
I refer to those figures because they are not evidence of cushioned privilege. What is true of the architects' profession is true to a lesser or greater extent of others. Yet at the same time, far from leaving the profession to get on with self-regulation, the Government
1202
propose to reduce funding for architectural education from five years to four and are considering an end to the protection of title so that anyone may call himself an architect irrespective of training and qualifications. They are opposed to recommended fee scales, although they give clients total discretion to choose, and in the recession fees are rock bottom. In the Local Government Act 1992, the Government are intent on introducing compulsory competitive tendering for architectural services which makes it increasingly difficult for architects to offer a quality service.
Those matters represent an interference in some way with the ability of the architectural profession to regulate itself and to maintain the quality of its service to clients and the public. Through many of those proposals the Government seek to equate value for money with price at the expense of quality on the assumption that cheapest is best and what the public want. It is a short-term policy and strikes at the idea of independent professional judgment in service of the client and public. I do not want to pursue those specific issues now—indeed, there is no time to do so. I merely wish to point out that they show how government action can erode the idea of professionalism despite what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I do not ask the Minister to answer those specific points tonight. But I ask her to confirm to your Lordships that the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, applied to the professions as a whole, represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I ask the Minister to confirm that the professions are indeed the best judges of how to respond to their clients on the basis of their competence and training; that the maintenance of quality in the services that they provide is at the heart of the role of the professions: and that, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it is a fundamental part of the Government's policy towards the professions that they should be self-regulating.
I repeat that the self-regulating professions have made an immense contribution to the quality of life in this country. They have changed radically in response to the spirit of our times but remain an important element in a plural society. An obligation lies on them to continue to fulfil their part of their contract with society. However, in turn government —I refer to all governments and not specifically to this Government —have an obligation to sustain the professions and to acknowledge the unique contribution that they make to the life of our nation. I beg to move for Papers.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for giving me the chance to make a maiden speech relating to the future of my own profession. It is said by many to be the second oldest profession in the world; I refer to insurance. I have had a 40-year career in that profession and have only recently retired.
Insurance is important to the UK if only for the consistent stream of invisible earnings which it has brought. Together with banking, foreign exchange and other commercial activities it has helped regularly

1203
to plug the gap between the visible exports and imports. We should not be surprised by that. When one considers that the UK is a tiny land mass as compared with our competitors, when one considers our lack of natural resources and our high standard of living, which leads to fairly high labour costs, one realises that we shall always need to survive by the skill of our people. The professions are very much about the skill of our people.
Recently one section of the insurance industry has come under severe difficulties. I refer to the losses which presently exist in the international commercial account. The result is that we are in danger of swinging from invisible exports to invisible imports as we pay out claims to third-party nations. We must decide how important to the nation is the reversal of that situation. I have attempted to analysis some of the problems and to look at possible solutions. I have found seven problems which I wish to discuss tonight.
First, there are problems which can and I am sure will be solved by the industry itself. I shall begin with catastrophes. Between 1987 and 1991 we have had a great deal more than our usual share of catastrophes and they have hurt. What do we intend to do about that? Catastrophes happen and quality insurers survive them. Today the quality insurers continue to survive them. Those who are not have probably let their standards slip.
The second problem that we have at present is poor underwriting, which leads directly from my previous observation. Happily, losses invariably lead to calls for better training and higher standards. That is exactly what is happening in the industry at the present time. For example, Lloyd's has recently had three excellent reports. The first was that of the task force led by David Rowland and recently reports have been published Sir Jeremy Morse and Sir David Walker. All state in excellent prose what we the professionals instinctively knew; that times have been too easy for too long and that a small minority of us have let our standards slip.
I shall now turn to the problems of the industry which the UK alone can never solve. The first may surprise your Lordships. It is sustained low insurance rates. They arise from too much capacity world-wide. There are several reasons for that. The first and perhaps most important is that far too many people become excited about what they can do with premium by way of investment before they must release it for claims. That became a cult at the beginning of the 1980s when investment rates were high and those in this country reached 20 per cent. In some countries that is still an important reason for capacity, particularly in the USA.
Another reason for capacity is the increasing sophistication of other countries in the world. Many countries used to depend on the UK for their insurance. However, they no longer need to do so because they have learnt how to handle their own business. There is a third reason, oddly enough. The loss cycle appears statistically not to hit all countries at the same time. For example, the existing loss cycle hit the UK before hitting other countries. There were two storms in three years each of which was supposed
1204
to happen only once in 100 years. That hurt us. That hurt has definitely spread to our colleagues on the mainland of the EC, although interestingly it is somewhat disguised. They have mechanisms for not showing the hurt as much. It has not yet spread to the USA despite the many well-publicised bankruptcies of insurance companies. However, the companies that really count in the USA are still making profits.
The next problem relates to comments that I made earlier; it is the growth in other markets. How are we to stay significant when people no longer need us as much. We have for some time recognised that we in the UK will not receive low-risk business from abroad. We are basically underwriters of high-risk business and we try to write a balanced book. We specialise in such things as catastrophe; the catastrophes to which I have referred are hurting some people at present. We like risks which are so big that they need the whole world's capacity. Only when the whole world is needed can we in the UK obtain the rates which we believe are correct.
We are innovative and are leaders in new products. Regularly we rate new products such as the hovercraft, those connected with space, and so forth, without any underwriting experience. In my view, we still have skills in abundance. Another aspect which we are heavily into and which needs considerable skill is retrocessions. "Retrocessions" is a funny word and effectively means re-insuring the re-insurers. The further one gets away from the original risk, the more complex it is, as certain excess of loss underwriters have recently found.
Finally, as regards the problems which the UK cannot resolve itself, there is the plethora of claims arising from past years which we thought were decently put away and buried. When I mention asbestos, pollution and lung disease noble Lords will understand what I am talking about. How is it that when we think that we have got rid of a year we have unreserved claims going back as far as the 1960s and 1970s? There are three steps to that chain. The first is political. It used to be the case that if someone sued you for negligence he had to prove that you were guilty. However, in many cases the burden of proof has reversed. For products, particularly those in the name of consumerism, now if there is a loss, it is up to the manufacturer or the distributor to prove that he was not negligent.
Secondly, there is a legal issue. It used to be that if you were sued for negligence, it was reasonable to state that you had done everything possible to act in the state of the art as it was known at the time. Now using 1992 state of the art we regularly attack people for things that they did in 1970. Thirdly, we have a social problem. It used to be that the exclusion that we put into our policy in 1970 would hold. Today it does not and lawyers explain why what was an exclusion is now a cover. That started with the USA, it spread to the EC, and the UK is edging closely behind them. The United States sees insurance today as a deep pocket which will pay for claims which its society requires and which is powerful enough to make

1205
recoveries in premiums later. Of course, that is totally different from insurance as it was originally founded in the UK, which was based on the law of fortuity.
I turn finally to two areas in which the UK could help the insurance industry if it believes that the need to continue that invisible export stream is sufficiently important. First, as regards taxing reserves, cases exist where the Inland Revenue has disallowed reinsurance to close on the ground that it represents a carry forward of undistributed profit. Sadly, there is now evidence to prove that those underwriters were not reserving too much but too little.
There is a real need for further liaison and discussion between the industry and the Government on this question. We need much more science as regards our reserves. I give one simple example. Let us suppose that an underwriter writes a catastrophe account where statistically he expects to pay only one claim in 20 years and that claim will be horrific. We regularly tax him for the first 19 years on 100 per cent. profit. If in the 20th year he receives a claim which takes away 19 years' gross premium—that is, before tax—he makes a loss overall, as opposed to a small profit over a 20-year period which he should have made.
That leads me neatly on to the last point which is another area in which we could help the insurance industry if we think it is sufficiently important. Despite everything that has happened, the industry still sees uneven playing fields in the EC. For example, I am told that German insurers regularly receive generous untaxed carry-forward against catastrophe. I am told that over the years that has allowed them to increase their capital base and to use that capital for regressive acquisitions. That certainly puts UK insurance companies at a disadvantage. Of course, it is now too late for us to look for good acquisitions; they have all been taken up within the EC.
When I move to France I find that the French Government have shareholdings in all the major insurance companies. When I think about the possibility of capturing French business from a leading commercial or industrial assurer, I remember that they are highly reliant on the French Government for their business. They are not likely to switch from existing insurance companies in which the government participate to support the British insurance industry. Therefore, we have freedom of establishment but we believe that the playing field remains tilted and worse; today the industry is weak just at the time when it should be strong.
I shall quickly recap. There is no doubt that the industry will turn itself round. It clearly expects to make a profit in 1992, which is a relief. It is tackling the problems of higher standards which it certainly needs to achieve to weed out poor underwriting. It will always have to compete with the rest of the world. It is not for me to say how important the industry is to the UK. I can only draw attention to the industry's track record on its earnings for the country and promote the idea that there should be closer liaison between it and the Government in an effort to continue such earnings for the country.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, I am a fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and, therefore, I am speaking as a member of a profession. I shall speak about civil engineering but I hope to avoid the error of special pleading.
Before I do that, I am extremely pleased to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, on his maiden speech. I believe I am right in saying that insurance, banking and possibly shipping are the main elements of our invisible earnings, but I must point out that consulting engineering follows very closely behind, and that is in a profession which consists of no more than 200 member firms. That is something of an achievement.
Before I turn to civil engineering, to which your Lordships know that I am devoted, I should like to make some general remarks about the professions. I remind the House, as I have in the past, of the book The Acquisitive Society which was published 70 years ago and written by Professor R.H. Tawney. Although it is 70 years old, it is still referred to in legal textbooks dealing with professional negligence when an attempt is being made to define "profession". Professor Tawney says:
"A Profession may be defined most simply as a trade which is organised, incompletely, no doubt, but genuinely, for the performance of function. It is not simply a collection of individuals who get a living for themselves by the same kind of work … It is a body of men who carry on their work in accordance with rules designed to enforce certain standards both for the better protection of its members and for the better service of the public".
Professor Tawney goes on to talk about those rules. He says:
"But their object is clear. It is to impose on the profession itself the obligation of maintaining the quality of the service, and to prevent its common purpose being frustrated through the undue influence of the motive of pecuniary gain upon the necessities or cupidity of the individual.
The difference between industry as it exists today and a profession is, then, simple and unmistakable. The former is organised for the protection of rights, mainly rights to pecuniary gain. The latter is organised, imperfectly indeed, but none the less genuinely, for the performance of duties".
Perhaps those sentiments have been rather eroded over the 70 years but they remain central to the idea of the profession.
The important words which are repeated throughout that definition are "service" and "quality". It is impossible to maintain the kind of quality in the profession of architecture, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned, or in civil engineering under the conditions of compulsory competitive tendering which the Government have imposed upon local authorities. I know that there are limitations to that but nevertheless, we were told not once but several times during the passing of that legislation that the ultimate determinant would be price. I know that the word "quality" was used by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite from time to time but we always came back to the ultimate determinant; namely, the cost of the service to be offered. That is not a professional way of doing business.
I shall illustrate that by a brief anecdote which is 150 years old. When the great engineer Brunel was

1207
asked to make proposals for what became the Great Western Railway, he was asked by the promoters what would be the cheapest route. He said, "No, I will not give the cheapest route. I will give you the best route". He did that and it is still there. It may be the long way round, as we all know, but it is the best, smoothest and flattest route in the country. That is what a profession is about: the provision of quality.
However, that needs self-confidence which, of course, Brunel had. It is fair to say that that kind of self-confidence is lacking in the engineering profession today. That is partly a matter of status, the position of the profession in society as a whole and the esteem in which it is held. I would not go on about that but for the fact that just before Christmas the Prime Minister met a delegation from the Engineering Council which was led by Sir John Fairclough, the chairman of the council. The Prime Minister said quite rightly to that delegation that British engineers are not held in the same esteem in this country as are their contemporaries in Germany. That is true. However, the Prime Minister did not stop there. He went on to say that something had to be done about it. I wrote to him asking what that "something" was likely to be so that I could support him and help him if at all possible. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I received the kind of letter one usually receives from the Civil Service—it left the matter more or less where it started. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, can revive the subject, find out what the strategy is and see whether it can be implemented.
Peter Lilley, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, appeared several weeks ago before the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He said that the Government's assistance to the status of the engineer would be through certain initiatives in the field of innovation in engineering which he had put in train. He felt that if engineers were innovative, status would follow. I wonder how true that is.
One can think of the great suspension bridges of recent years. The designers will scarcely be known to many Members of this House. One thinks of Bernard Wex and Bill Brown of Freeman Fox; as innovators they revolutionised the design of suspension bridges by rethinking the aerodynamics of the suspended deck of the bridge. Their work changed the face of bridge-building in that until the 1960s Americans had led the field world-wide; since then British engineers have led the world.
One thinks of the Forth road bridge, the Severn, the Humber, the Rio Nitero and the Bosporus. They are all British-built bridges, all innovative and none of them has brought much in the way of improved or increased status. One thinks of the explosions in high-tech architecture, which are admirable. We know the names of the architects and greatly admire and praise them. But their work would be less interesting were it not for the work of Peter Rice—I am glad to say that the RIBA recently honoured him with a gold medal; that is a marvellous gesture—Ted Happold, Tony Hunt, Jack Zunz, Frank Newby, Mark Whitby and many more. They are all innovators in structural
1208
engineering but no increase in status has occurred. The claim by Lilley therefore falls somewhat short of what is likely to happen.
Finally, I mention the Engineering Council. It was set up in the early 1980s, almost exactly 10 years ago, after the report of the Finniston Committee—of which I was a member —on the engineering profession. The Finniston proposals were not fully implemented—members of a committee do not really expect that—but it is fair to say that the Engineering Council failed to deliver what it could be expected to do. The council recognises that and Sir John Fairclough, its chairman, is setting in train an initiative in which the Engineering Council will be "re-hab'd"—rehabilitated—or reorganised, along the lines of self-regulation as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned earlier.
I hope that that reorganisation is successful. However, the Engineering Council needs encouragement from the Government. The best possible encouragement would be an element of funding. I ask only one question. The Design Council, although its work is slightly different from that of the Engineering Council, is funded to the tune of around £6 million a year. That is considerably more than the Engineering Council has received in the whole of its nine or 10 years of existence. Why?
7.45 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a member of the accountancy profession and have been practising that profession for the past 66 years. Around eight years ago my profession set down what it believed were its obligations to the public. It is worth recounting them because they are the foundation on which all professions must be built and on which their futures depend. Moreover, any profession which follows those obligations will have no need to fear the future. The Government can always be satisfied that it is healthy.
The nine obligations to the public are these. First, the profession must be controlled by a governing body which in professional matters directs the behaviour of its members. For their part the members have a responsibility to subordinate their selfish private interests in favour of support for the governing body.
Secondly, the governing body must set adequate standards of education as a condition of entry and thereafter ensure that students obtain an acceptable standard of professional competence. Training and education do not stop at qualification. They must continue throughout the member's professional life.
Thirdly, the governing body must set the ethical rules and professional standards which are to be observed by the members. They should be higher than those established by the general law. Fourthly, the rules and standards enforced by the governing body should be designed for the benefit of the public and not for the private advantage of the members.
Fifthly, the governing body must take disciplinary action, including, if necessary, expulsion from

1209
membership should the rules and standards it lays down not be observed or should a member be guilty of bad professional work.
Sixthly, work is often reserved to a profession by statute —not because it was for the advantage of the members but because, for the protection of the public, it should be carried out only by persons with the requisite training, standards and disciplines. Seventh, the governing body must satisfy itself that there is fair and open competition in the practice of the profession so that the public are not at risk of being exploited. It follows that members in practice must give information to the public about their experience, competence, capacity to do the work and the fees payable.
Eighth, the members of the profession, whether in practice or in employment, must be independent in thought and outlook. They must be willing to speak their minds without fear or favour. They must not allow themselves to be put under the control or dominance of any person or organisation which could impair that independence. Ninth, in its specific field of learning a profession must give leadership to the public it serves.
It is one thing to define the obligations, it is another to see that they are observed. It is an unending battle for the members of my profession and its governing body to see that its 100,000 members observe those obligations at all times. There will never be perfection but the striving is there.
For my part I believe that on the whole the professions in this country have served the public well. I have only one reservation on that point. But as far as I know all of them seek to improve their standards year by year; to tighten their disciplines and to give better service to the public. The one reservation that I have is that in recent years I believe that some professions have paid too much attention to marketing themselves and selling themselves to the public.
That has been exacerbated—in fact it has been to some extent caused—by the doctrine of government which, as far as I can detect, regards the professions as an undesirable monopoly which must be broken open. These two factors together are unfortunate. I believe that they have damaged the image of the professions. Some of the members have fallen below the standard of professionalism which is necessary for the conduct of their profession. In short, some of the nine obligations are at risk.
If there is time I should like to mention five other subjects. The first is that I do not share the rosy views of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who in an earlier debate expressed great satisfaction with manufacturing industry in this country. For those who move in the inner circles of industry it is common ground that our manufacturing base is too small and has been diminishing for a long time. The average productivity in manufacturing is below that of our competitors. In that respect all the relevant professions, particularly my own and the numerous branches of the engineering profession, have something vital to contribute. All of them ought to
1210
concentrate on introducing a much higher standard of professionalism into the management of manufacturing industry than has been the case in the past.
The second point is one which I believe other noble Lords have mentioned tonight. I believe that a professional body, provided it observes the obligations which I have mentioned, should be self-regulating. In my experience the members who are engaged in the cut and thrust of professional practice every day of their lives and in open competition are the persons best fitted to set the standards for the profession and to see that they are observed by all of them.
The third point is that in my view all the professions should be guided by written standards. Several professions have not gone far enough in that respect. I believe that they should close the gaps in their armament. My own has been fairly active in that and has done a good deal. But it is an unending road—we shall never reach the end of it. We have been fortunate in that we have been able to establish an international code of accounting standards. That is a good step forward. It has been a help in assisting international finance and trade.
The fourth point is that everybody makes mistakes and the professions are not free of that. Errors of judgment arise, as does negligence in varying degrees of severity. Negligence must be punished. Of that I have no doubt. But the country is now developing into a litigious society and whenever there is a breath of an error of judgment or negligence actions for damages are immediately launched. Usually they are launched against the professions if they possibly can be because it is known that we are covered by insurance for the most part. These claims have become so extravagant and the legal cost involved in dealing with them so enormous that I believe that in due time they will have to be restricted by statute. If that does not happen we shall not be able to recruit into the professions the quality of person whom we want. Already America has found that it is unable to recruit in some professions for the reasons which I have just given.
The last point is this: I believe that in every profession the citizens should be allowed to join irrespective of colour, creed, class or money. Several of the professions have not been able to achieve that. I believe that they should direct their attention to it very carefully. We have only one bar in my profession and that is this: the standards we set require a certain quality of intellect before a member can join. He must also be subjected to a proper educational and training standard which we have defined. We can do nothing about intellectual capacity because that is a matter for nature. But the training and education which are needed, not for our benefit but for that of the public before we can admit anybody to a profession, must be dealt with in the schools and universities. We have found grave defects in some of those fields which prevent members of the public from joining our profession. We have had a wearying afternoon and my time is up. I shall leave the matter there.
7.56 p.m
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may first offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford for his thoughtful maiden speech on insurance, which, as has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, impinges on all of us in the professions. Many years ago we thought in terms of hundreds of pounds and now we think in terms of millions of pounds.
I also express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for initiating this debate on the future of the professions, since, as stated in the book written by Lewis and Maud on Professional People:
"To be a professional man or woman today is to live with uncertainty".
There is uncertainty about the role and funding of professional education in the higher institutions. There is uncertainty about the acceptance of longstanding and established ethical standards and guides or codes for professional conduct. There is also uncertainty on the part of women and minority groups in the professions. Recently there has been some uncertainty about the impact of the European Community on the role and work practices and whether they are compatible with the generally accepted duties of a professional person.
I wish to address three issues briefly this evening. The first is women in the professions; the second has been touched on by a number of speakers—namely, codes of ethics and conduct, and the third is education. I am indebted to the United Kingdom Inter-Professional Group—Women's Issues Working Party, for very helpful data on the role of women in the professions. As we know, there is an increasing number of women in the professions. In 1990, of the 10 professions surveyed by the inter-professional group, 17.5 per cent. were women, although their numbers varied very considerably. For example, in engineering only 0.5 per cent. were women, whereas in pharmacy the figure was 40 per cent. In my own veterinary profession, in which I declare an interest, the figure is 26 per cent. These figures have been reached over a period of years. The start was the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, which allowed women to join the professions. In the past 20 years the numbers have increased considerably.
The corollary of that is that women are somewhat under-represented on the ruling bodies of their professions. Their representation on the ruling bodies is certainly disproportionate to their numbers. However, the outlook is good. In the undergraduate population of our universities, the numbers of men and women students reading for professional subjects are about equal and, in due course, the proportions will change considerably.
One of the pleasing things about the survey that was undertaken is that sexual—or should I say "gender"?—discrimination is not reported to be a problem in the professions, although isolated incidents do occur and receive the attention of the press. Yet women holding senior posts are few in number both in the universities and in the professions. In my own profession, for example, there is no woman professor. There is only one female Reader in the
1212
country and only five out of the 54 senior lecturers are women. In the government service only one out of 41 holders of divisional status is a woman. There are no women in the higher ranks.
The conclusion is that, despite good progress and the complete rejection of the concepts which were accepted at one time—that it was a waste of time to train women and that they can contribute only about 50 per cent. of their efforts on their profession—we have still to come to terms with policies that will suit the career needs of women. The major issue now is not recruitment, as was the case at one time, but the retention of women in the professions. Things that must be attended to include maternity leave schemes. In this country we do not do as well as elsewhere in the European Community. The European Commission has proposed 14 weeks' maternity leave on full pay. In this country, the provision is six weeks on 90 per cent. of full pay with a flat rate thereafter. In Denmark, however, it is 28 weeks on 90 per cent. of full pay. We also need more child care facilities so that women can participate more fully in their professions when they have had their children. We must have retraining programmes for women who are returning to their professions following the rearing of children.
I now wish to turn briefly to topics that have been discussed previously—namely, codes of conduct and ethical guides to conduct. Such guides have been claimed to be a form of restrictive practice and self-serving but, as we have heard, such guides and codes must not be assessed against economic criteria, but more properly by the public interest test, which is: do they serve the public interest as well as they should? I believe that they safeguard the public against the unqualified, the incompetent and the unscrupulous and in doing so they are without beneficial economic effect to the professional.
I believe that it would be disastrous to remove from the professions their codes of ethics or written guides to professional conduct. They uphold both the standards of knowledge to be acquired before one can be admitted to a profession and the standards of' conduct and behaviour to be adhered to hereafter. Wickenden, a former president of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, has described them as maintaining,
"Professional status as an implied contract to serve society over and beyond all specific duty to client and employer in consideration of the privileges and protection society extends to the profession".
Retention and recognition of professional codes of practice will ensure that that definition is upheld.
This leads me to a consideration of professional education. A minority in some professions—including my own—has criticised education in the higher institutions of learning by saying that such education is irrelevant to the needs of the practising professional. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will reject such a notion. In my opinion, an advanced level of education is a distinguishing feature of the professional adviser. If that is not accepted, we may all become do-it-yourself experts in due course.
As well as the professional aspect of education, there is also the need for familiarity with liberal education. To my mind, the professional person

1213
should be as broadly based in the sciences as in the humanities. Unfortunately, the education of professionals has been placed in jeopardy by the inadequate provision of educational grants and services. There is no such lack of support on the part of vice-chancellors of universities, but there is a fear that cost and value have become confused. Individuals may well know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Perhaps in this context the professions themselves need to pay attention to their continuing education or continuing professional development. This has already been mentioned. In some professions, it is a mandatory requirement for its members. In others, that is not the case. I believe that in all professions it should be a part of the implied contract to the service of society, and that the individual should keep himself or herself up to date with the developments and advances within his or her specific field. It is the responsibility of the profession to attend to this aspect of education.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, on his lucid maiden speech and in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this topic and for dealing in such an outstanding way with so many of the issues which are relevant to the work of all of the professions. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that within the past 20 years or more the professions in this country have been under continuing attack from the media, from the public and, at times and to some extent, even from the Government.
Since I qualified in medicine some 47 years ago, the transformation wrought by research and development in medical practice has been enormous. At the same time we have become increasingly aware that public scrutiny of the practice, procedures and regulation of the work of the medical profession is an important aspect of modern-day society of which we in the profession have to take careful note. The days of paternalism and of "doctor's orders" are certainly long past. The practice of medicine is now a partnership in which the doctor recommends a form of treatment or management and in which it is up to the patient to decide whether to accept that advice.
I believe that the education of undergraduate medical students in this country is still the best in the world, despite reductions in the unit of resource in our universities. It is carefully and continually monitored by an inspection process under the auspices of the education committee of the General Medical Council. Nowadays, half of our medical students are women. The intellect and motivation of both sexes is outstanding. They enter the profession as people of exceptional quality and exceptional dedication. The fact that they continue to practise and to develop so effectively after graduation is a great tribute to the teachers who educate them in our universities and hospitals. We have much more concentration now on
1214
principles, on the continuing importance of clinical apprenticeship, on problem-based teaching and on the communications skills which are so crucial to the doctor-patient relationship.
But there are clouds on the horizon. The declining recruitment to academic medicine in clinical specialties is a matter of grave concern and one must hope that the annual charade whereby the remuneration of clinical academics lags far behind that of their NHS counterparts is something that will soon become a thing of the past.
We also have in postgraduate education in medicine, in general practitioner vocational training lasting some three years after the statutory internship, a total of 10 years in all before a GP can practice independently in the health service, a programme of training which is the envy of many other countries in the world and which is now being copied in many states of the United States of America, where in certain places the family doctor is almost a thing of the past. Our specialists too are highly trained and the General Medical Council monitors programmes of postgraduate training and of continuing education from the day of graduation up to retirement. But of course the profession is aware of public criticisms and expressions of concern. We hear about poor communication skills. We hear of doctors having little time to talk. We hear of doctors being uncaring, unsympathetic, unkind or unwilling to admit their mistakes; and we even hear the criticisms that a minority of consultants are alleged to neglect their NHS duties for private practice.
Certainly, from my experience in the profession, these are a very small minority. Most NHS consultants are greatly overworked, as I said in the debate on the Statement earlier today, and have intolerable hours. Our consultant establishment in the National Health Service in this country in every specialty falls far below that in other parts of the Western world. Within my own specialty of neurology there are 10,200 neurologists in the United States, 5,000 in Japan, 3,000 in Germany, 350 in Holland, 400 in Finland and 194 in the entire United Kingdom. Only Ireland, with six, fares worse in the developed world. Despite the efforts of successive Secretaries of State, the hours of junior doctors are still far too long. In my day housemen certainly worked impossible hours, but the complexity of modern medicine means that an error in a drug dosage, a misinterpretation of a laboratory result due to fatigue and impaired concentration, can have serious consequences.
It is important that these matters be given considerable attention. There is in the public mind often some confusion between the responsibilities, on the one hand, of the British Medical Association and, on the other, of the General Medical Council. The BMA is a professional association—the doctors' trade union. I, among others, deeply regretted the confrontation which arose between that association and the Government over the NHS reforms. But I believe that the profession and the association have come to terms with the situation and are now determined to build upon what is good and what is beneficial to patient care but to monitor carefully

1215
those parts of the reforms which they believe may be shown by experience to be detrimental. This new attitude of constructive collaboration is much to be commended and I believe that continuing debate and negotiation will follow.
The BMA does many other things, such as giving advice to the profession on ethics and standards of practice. It also has a Board of Education and Science. Its openness of attitude can be judged from the fact that it has recently commended the proposal that there should be introduced statutory regulation for the osteopathic profession, a topic upon which I had the privilege of introducing a Bill into your Lordships' House a few months ago. I believe that it has now been taken up in another place. This kind of open attitude towards those practising alternative or complementary medicine is one which will continue.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, the responsibility of self-regulation imposes immense demands on any profession. As Ralf Dahrendorf, now Sir Ralf, said in his Jeffcoat Lecture, the self-regulation of the professions is one of the glories of a learned society. He spoke with authority, then being a German citizen, pointing out that regulation by the state as an alternative was fearful and in his view quite unacceptable. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in his article in the Spectator in 1988, self-regulation must never be allowed in any profession to be a cover for incompetence or unsatisfactory or less than adequate professional behaviour and practice.
I had the privilege of serving for 16 years on the General Medical Council, first, under Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and subsequently under the most distinguished and elegant presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. During his day an increasing degree of openness was introduced into its procedures. I was happy during my own presidency of seven years to be able to introduce many more such innovations. These included the establishment of a health committee, under the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, in his day, to deal with doctors who were patently not wicked but who had often in the past come before the disciplinary committee; doctors who were sick and who needed medical help and support.
The noble Lord introduced an increased number of lay members and during my presidency the lay members representing the public interest on that council were increased progressively from seven to nine and then to 11. No decision relating to the registration of a doctor could be taken without the committee in question including in its membership at least one lay member. Increasingly, we introduced new recommendations on standards of medical care which we expected the medical profession to recognise and to follow. More and more of the doctors coming before our professional standards committee—more particularly the preliminary screening committee and ultimately the professional conduct committee—were being accused not of the kind of sexual misdemeanours which are so rare but which commonly hit the public press but were being accused and disciplined because of neglect or disregard of their responsibility to patients.
1216
Under my distinguished successor, Sir Robert Kilpatrick, a number of things which I hoped to see introduced into the self-regulation of the profession are now becoming a reality. My proposal that a lay screener should be included with the doctors to examine complaints has become a reality; a specialist registration so that the public can determine which doctors have been adequately trained in a specialty has become a reality; and now performance review in order to be able to deal sympathetically but firmly with doctors whose clinical and professional performance falls below an acceptable level is under consultation and it is hoped that it will become the subject of legislation.
Professional self-regulation is, as Ralf Dahrendorf, said, one of the glories of a free society. We must fight to preserve it. But that professional self-regulation must always be achieved with the aid of lay opinion and advice. It is important that all of our professions should, in preserving that self-regulation, be cognisant of the demands and the wishes of society.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for initiating this debate. It has been fascinating to listen to leaders from a whole range of professions defining what a profession is and saying where the professions should go. In particular, I think we were all most interested in the discourse of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, on the difficulties of an occupation—that is the word he used—becoming a profession. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, gave a simple definition; that there should be competence—competence means proper education—and a sense of service.
I do not wish to take up much of your Lordships' time because, in following the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I have little or nothing to say about the General Medical Council of which he gave a characteristically clear and complete account. I should like to make a few simple remarks about the building up of a professional attitude in the only profession about which I know anything—medicine.
I believe that the answer lies in the past, the past's effect on the present and the present's effect on the future. It depends to a very large degree upon selection and initial motivation. Someone who is just put into medicine who does not passionately wish to enter that profession will have a certain difficulty in accepting the very tough compelling requirement to meet the ethos of the profession, and clearly that of other professions.
Selection and inspiration at an early stage and throughout education—for example, undergraduate education—is of paramount importance. It must lead the medical student, and the students of other professions, to accept what has been enunciated over and again this evening; namely, the service. The service that is given to those who require it must take absolute preference over the interests of those giving the service. That is asking a very great deal. But if it is inculcated in the young and becomes part of their everyday assumption as they learn their clinical work, it will be such that they do not say to themselves with

1217
smug piety, "We must put the patients first"; it will just be there in their being, in their bones and in their breeding. But, nevertheless, it needs much support.
Fortunately, support for the medical profession is very considerable. There is, of course, the support of the subject itself, which is such a fascinating one. There is also the support of the patients because, after all, they are giving their confidence, hopes, anxieties and the care of their most precious possession—their bodies. If that does not have an effect in supporting the ethos of "patients first", there must be something very wrong with the selection and with the unhappy person who is entering the profession and who is wrong to do so.
In addition, there are all sorts of helpful things to support those who, as the years go by, become tired and have to give what is an effort whereas earlier it was so easy. I refer to the great medical institutions like the Royal Colleges which provide a wonderful focal point for communication and for a feeling that it matters very much to have the privilege of being a fellow or a member of such a college. Perhaps most clearly in my mind is the Royal College of General Practitioners. It is a young and extremely successful college and one which is doing an enormous amount to help the general practitioner—sometimes a lonely figure—to follow the basic ethos of "those served must come first".
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, talked about the GMC. In his report on the regulation of the medical profession, Sir Alec Merrison stated that he felt that the GMC should have the contract—"contract" was his word—with the general public and that the contract should be such that, on the one side, the profession was held up by the obligations of the contract and, on the other side, that the general public should feel a confidence that their affairs were properly protected, and that the behaviour and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, recently said, the competence—and, indeed, the manners of the profession—should be of a truly professional quality.
I should like to suggest to any group that is considering—and there are several in the pipeline, one of which, the osteopaths, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton—becoming a profession that it will be registered and thus controlled by the fear of the sanction of exclusion. It is possible that the GMC, far from infallible of course but relatively ancient (about 150 years and it is still there) could, at any rate, be used not as a model but as something about which to think.
I shall cut short my time and thus ensure some goodwill to all men by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I feel very confident about the future of the professions, even if governments do want to dip their toes into our affairs. I believe that they are based on real foundations; namely, the foundations of years and years of thought and experience by people who have been proud to practise.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I should wholeheartedly like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. At the same
1218
time, I should like to apologise both to him and to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench that, owing to a miscalculation of timing over the Introductions and the Statement this afternoon, I am already late for a previous engagement. However, I promise to speak for only three or four minutes this evening.
Any debate on the professions should highlight the fact that they have a unique and vital role to play within society as a whole. That is derived from the fact that—in itself—membership of a profession does not confer any particular status or standing. However, duty and responsibility are inalienable facets. They transcend market forces. They are owed to every citizen irrespective of age, gender, origin, social or financial standing.
The professions are mindful of those duties and responsibilities. Systems have been nurtured based on self-regulation and independence to ensure that quality of service and successful delivery are of paramount importance. However, the professions have observed with concern the extent to which in recent years economic, social and political factors have undermined that framework. That has applied particularly to those professions whose members derive their income via public funds. Failure to agree the basis of funding for such services threatens to undermine the ability of such professions to honour the duty and responsibility to society. In recent weeks, the actuality of that dilemma has been heightened in the context of my own profession of dentistry.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, negotiating procedures to determine dental remuneration have become deadlocked. A majority of members of the British Dental Association has voted in favour of ceasing to accept new patients under the National Health Service. The view has been expressed that that decision could mark a watershed in the history of the NHS, indeed, possibly even the point when Beveridge's noble concept of free health care at the point of delivery was irretrievably lost. This is a matter on which history will judge. However, irrespective of the course which the current dispute takes, one cannot fail to be alarmed when considering that such action has been deemed necessary by a profession whose hallmarks are quality of delivery, concern for patient care and cost effectiveness.
It is right and proper that the Government of the day should be mindful of public expenditure. However, it is equally indisputable that the professions who run those services have the expertise to decide how they should be run. Therefore it is the professions that have a central and crucial role to play in determining the financial regimes which are ultimately put in place. The principles of the free market economy, such as performance-related pay, may not always be appropriate in this forum. In particular, if the concepts of the Citizen's and Patient's Charters put forward by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister are to find resonance, the professions and Government must co-operate in a spirit of partnership, drawing on mutual respect and expertise.

1219
For that reason, I applaud the endeavours of the United Kingdom Inter-Professional Group, currently under the secretariat of the British Dental Association. The group, whose prime objective is to promote an awareness and understanding of the professions, is keen to maintain a dialogue with Government, and in particular those government departments whose activities are likely to have an influence on those of its member professions. I endorse those goals unreservedly and wish the group every success in achieving them.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I attend this debate essentially at the direction of a Lord Chancellor. I must emphasise the indefinite article. The Lord Chancellor, if he were ever able to conceive an uncharitable thought, might well wish me further. I of course refer to Lord Chancellor Bacon who some 350 years ago said:
"I hold every man a debtor to his profession".
Those, like myself, who for nearly 50 years have enjoyed the fellowship, the kindness, the advice, the stimulus and the satisfaction of a busy career—in my case at the Bar and on the Bench—are very much "in the red". There is however a temptation that having once attained the utmost rung that some may:
"then unto the ladder, turn his hack, look in the clouds, scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend".
I propose to pay off a little of my professional overdraft by voicing my deep anxiety at the deprofessionalisation of the legal profession which is gathering pace. As it accelerates, it involves an ever-increasing shift of power from the judiciary and the legal profession to the Executive. That is a most unhealthy situation.
It is always a great pleasure and an education to hear the noble Lord, Lord Benson, speak, in particular on a matter which is so dear to his heart —the professions. In 1976 he presided over a Royal Commission which in 1979 produced a report with a total of 139 recommendations. It took four years—that is, from 1979 to 1983—for the Government to produce a White Paper (Cmnd. 9077) giving their views on the Royal Commission's recommendations. Under the heading in the first annex "Recommendations which are the responsibility of the Government", the Government's first response to the White Paper related to Chapter 3 of the report entitled "Legal Profession".
The three recommendations to which the Government directed their first response were, first, that the demand for the services of lawyers will grow; the profession should plan accordingly. Secondly, when the decisions arising out of the report have been taken and implemented the profession should have a period of orderly development free, so far as possible, from external interventions. That is because those interventions (Royal Commissions and the like) involve a profession in great costs and are very disruptive. The third recommendation related to a matter essentially concerning the solicitors' branch of the profession.
The government response was in these terms:
1220
"The existence, strength and vitality of an independent legal profession and public confidence in it are fundamental to our freedom under the law. Responsibility for qualification and admission and for conduct and for discipline, properly rests with the profession and the Government looks to the profession in exercising that responsibility to take steps as occasion demands to secure that its practices and rules properly satisfy public expectation and requirement".
In a second annex to the White Paper entitled "Recommendations which are the responsibility of the Profession" there was included the Royal Commission's own recommendations, inter alia, that the profession bears the responsibilities for ensuring that the quality of its members' work is of a satisfactory standard and that an independent authority, such as a legal training board, should not take over the control of all legal education, the responsibility in that area resting upon the governing bodies of the profession.
Some six years later there was, on this and other matters, a complete volte face by the Government. A Green Paper was published which made no mention of the Government's 1983 White Paper. In due course the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 became law. As a result, the profession in future is to come under the control of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee, a lay-dominated committee whose members are all appointed at the whim of the Lord Chancellor of the day. That body will effectively dictate, not just the framework and detail of the education, training, standards and discipline of all those who provide legal services in our courts, but the very way in which the services are to operate. In the debate on 25th January 1990 my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham made the incisive comment:
"The idea that an independent profession should effectively be governed by such a ludicrous body, of which we have seen only too many examples in the past 25 years of my experience of Parliament, is too terrifying to imagine".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1251.]
It was stressed again and again during the debates that the insistence on the domination of that committee by laymen is but a process by which the Civil Service will exercise control over what has hitherto been an independent and separate part of our national life. Such laymen, it was observed, may simply be the political appointees of the day. In the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton in the same debate, such a committee is:
"an instrument by which the executive can, in a very large measure, control a legal profession which until now has been self-regulatory, and by which it can, by the creation of new classes of practitioners in the courts, secure an even greater control than it enjoys at the moment over the composition and of course, ultimately, the conduct of the judiciary at all levels".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1247.]
In one of the debates a very modest amendment was sought which required the Lord Chancellor to appoint the chairman of the committee only after obtaining the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice; further, that there should be three additional judges appointed to the committee—a presiding judge (a High Court judge who is currently involved in judicial administration); a circuit judge (a judge of the Crown Court and the county court); and a stipendiary magistrate. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, observed:

1221
"The people who make the advisory committee work are those who have experience in the legal system. They know what needs to be done and how to go about doing it. No one knows better the needs of lay people than the judges before whom such people appear … I do not see that there is a particular case for a lay majority".—[Official Report, 25/1/90; col. 1243.]
All that was achieved was the appointment of an additional judge, a circuit judge.
In Scotland the ultimate control of matters confided to this advisory committee resides with the Lord President, Scotland's Lord Chief Justice. Your Lordships may not be aware or have by now forgotten, as a result of so much media attention in relation to this legislation being devoted to the issue as to whether solicitors should have extended rights of audience, that the Government have laid down in the Act that laymen, provided they meet certain requirements, shall have the rights of audience—the right to appear in all courts from the lowest to the highest. When I say "laymen" I refer to those who are not lawyers; in other words, those who are neither barristers nor solicitors. The Government in support of this radical proposal produced no evidence that there was any shortage of lawyers properly qualified to serve the public in the courts. Indeed, the proposal in the Bill as subsequently enacted to extend the rights of audience to solicitors was in itself designed to provide a yet further supply of advocates.
A similar proposal was included in the analogous Scottish legislation. In the Second Reading debate on the Scottish Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey referred to a lecture given by the distinguished American scholar, Dean Griswoold, who had considered the history of the introduction of laymen into the courts of the United States and the harm done by it. He quoted another distinguished academician, Dean Pound, who said:
"The harm which this de-professionalisation of the practice of the law did to the law, to legal procedure, to the ethics of practice and to forensic conduct, has outlived the era in which it took place and still presents problems to the promoters of more effective administration of justice".
This process of de-professionalisation was carried even a step further. In a clause and a schedule frequently described during the debates as "grotesque" which are now Section 71 and Schedule 10 power has been taken to appoint laymen—I use the term in the same sense as previously—to all judicial positions from the House of Lords downwards provided they have achieved the appropriate rights of audience. At no stage during the debates did we hear any evidence that there was a shortage of properly qualified lawyers to act as judges. Indeed, by extending to solicitors appointments to the judiciary in the higher courts a new supply of judges has been made available by the Act, making this potential dilution of the quality of the judiciary totally uncalled for. Significantly, as with the case of the advisory committee, no such provision appears in the Scots legislation.
I am at heart an optimist. I have a profound belief in the vitality of the legal profession—that is, the Bar, the solicitors and the Bench. I believe that they have sufficient strength to withstand the increasing de-professionalisation which is taking place.
1222
However, this optimism will not be justified unless there are enough of those who are prepared to stand up and be counted. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for providing me with one such opportunity.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks in the gap before the main speakers. I apologise for not putting my name down. I had thought that I would not be able to be present at the beginning of the debate but as it was delayed I was able to hear most of what was said.
As another professional I should like to make a few comments. I feel somewhat inadequate, following the impassioned and extremely well-articulated speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; my words will be fumbling in comparison.
I noted with surprise that there is an important omission from the list of professions represented here this evening; that is education, at all levels from school to university, although my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant alluded to the teaching of doctors. I feel that a brief word is due on behalf of the teaching profession.
Today there is very low morale in the profession and we may ask why. I suggest it is not only because of the relatively low financial rewards that teachers receive but also because the profession is not being allowed by the Government to be self-regulatory. That is the criterion cited by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in quoting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and it is a fundamental characteristic of any profession.
Occupational stress is not caused by hard work alone but by hard work without autonomy, when the worker works to someone else's rules and end points. I suggest that many aspects of the Government's intervention in education over the past decade can be regarded as interference in areas which should properly have been left in the hands of the profession. I speak here of aspects of the national curriculum, and particularly the laid down requirements for assessment and testing at certain ages. Particularly under criticism here is the testing of seven year-olds which is held up to ridicule by most teachers. They feel that the extra large workload interferes with teaching.
Perhaps I may make a brief remark about my own profession. I do not need to say much because my two noble medical friends who are much more eminent than I have defended the profession's interests remarkably well. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Richardson for his kind remarks about my own college, the Royal College of General Practitioners.
One reason why complementary medicine, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has become increasingly popular is that practitioners in this form of healing can spend more time listening to their patients' anxieties. Many doctors are felt to be too mechanistic in their approach so that they are not aware of the whole person and the interaction between the life circumstances of patients and their symptoms.

1223
Relevant here is a tip from a wise old physician and I have just been reminded of his advice. He said, "Never examine a patient in your overcoat". That suggests that if a professional gives people his full attention and really listens to them he will gain their confidence and make a much better assessment of the clients' needs. Therefore, litigation will be much less common, thus avoiding one of the saddest spectacles that we see, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic, where one profession is pitted against another. At the same time, the clients' satisfaction will he greater and the job will be better tailored to their particular needs. I shall finish at this point and allow the closing speakers to wind up.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for introducing this debate and for setting it in the context of the pluralist society. The varied contributions which have been made this evening fully justify his setting the debate in that context.
I should like to mention, if I may, three topics: training, the place of women in the professions and the accessibility of the professions. I am a solicitor and must declare an interest to that extent but my points about training will also apply to other professions. This subject has been touched on by other noble Lords. I believe it is essential that each profession itself should reflect society. The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls recently spoke about the problems of training of solicitors. He said that we must not have a legal profession which is recruited and trained on the basis of a pre-qualification means-test. I believe those words deserve repetition and taking to heart. I do not believe that what I am saying is special pleading on behalf of my own profession because the issues that are raised are of interest and concern to the whole of society.
In regard to the training of solicitors, when they have taken a degree they then go on to take a year—this may vary according to their background—of postgraduate professional education. For that year they are excluded from the mandatory grants system operated by local education authorities, from the student loans system and from receiving tax relief on the cost of training. The discretionary grants which are operated by the local education authorities have reduced very dramatically over the last few years as a result of constraints on local authority expenditure, and therefore on local education authority expenditure. The local education authorities are not required to make grants for postgraduate training.
This means that the trainees have to rely on their parents to fund them. They have to take up what a trainee in my firm referred to as "bar work"—in other words, part-time evening work. I am sure we all understand how that must interfere with the energy that otherwise would be devoted to studies. If they do not do that they have to look for loans. They cannot go to the government student loans service. They need, for this, to go to a high street bank and pay the interest levels that are charged.
1224
I have talked to trainees in my firm and they have referred to their contemporaries as having taken out loans of £3,000, £5,000, £8,000 and even £10,000. It seems to me that to start one's professional career with that sort of burden round one's neck is no way to begin. There is a new source of funding and, though in a sense it is to be welcomed, it carries within it the seeds of very considerable concern: that is, that solicitors' firms like ourselves are providing funding for our future trainees. In other words, the firm to which a trainee is to be articled will provide funding for the cost of the course and for living expenses.
I say that that system contains the seeds of concern because the firms which can afford to provide that sort of funding are by definition the successful firms: they tend to be large firms in the City. Certainly they are the firms which are profitable; not the smaller firms, nor the firms which operate a large legal aid practice. I think it is a matter of considerable public interest that our profession, like other professions, is not polarised. I believe the funding of our profession by a small number of firms representing a small area of society carries with it a potential problem. I think it most undesirable that we should create a greater polarisation in our society. There is a lack of equality of opportunity as a result of the lack of funding for training. As a result, society suffers.
There is also a danger to firms within the profession which cannot afford to recruit and pay these costs. An alarming number of solicitors' firms, in the current recession, are going to the wall. I think we may be in danger of regressing to a position of 50 years ago, or perhaps more. My father, who is also a solicitor, paid a premium to be trained, and we are in danger of going back in part at least to that sort of situation.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the position of women in the profession. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, particularly referred to this. I am sure I do not need to commend to the Minister the work of the Women's National Commission and a report which was published, I think, late last year by the Working Group on Women Returners. It quoted another report, which has itself been referred to earlier, on women in the professions. This came from the United Kingdom Interprofessional Group, whose conclusion was that the professions have not yet come to terms with developing policies which will suit the career needs of women. Very few have specific measures in place which will suit the position of women, particularly those with children, although the position is changing fast.
Comments about women in the professions are not really very different from comments about women outside the professions. It may sometimes be thought that professional women are in a better position and that they are more able to look after themselves. I do not think that is so. In the solicitor's profession, where we are not allowed to incorporate ourselves but have to work in partnership—which has many benefits—the sex discrimination legislation and other legislation does not bite. More importantly, women in a partnership or hoping to go into a partnership do not have the language even to discuss the issue with their

1225
potential partners. I prepared for my firm our own partnership deed. Because it was not an issue for me, I did not include the topic—I am ashamed of it—and I did not write into the deed a clause about maternity leave.
I should like to take just a moment or two, because it deserves to go on to the record, to mention the conclusions of the Women Returners Working Group in connection with professional bodies. The working group recommended that consideration should be given to whether formal full-time work is essential to fulfil the requirements for work experience in order to achieve full professional status and also as to whether professional career breaks can be allowed while acquiring qualifications. They recommended that professional bodies should find ways of keeping in touch with women members on career breaks and whether they should allow them a reduced membership fee. They also recommended that the bodies should encourage employers to enable women returners to work part time and also encourage them to be flexible on age requirements for posts.
I should like to mention the issue of accessibility of the professions. By that I mean that we should consider whether we as professionals make ourselves accessible to those we should be aiming to serve. The concepts of professionalism are valuable but I believe we risk losing them because we make ourselves exclusive. We use language and jargon which is not always understandable to our clients. Perhaps I may be allowed to use the word "client" to encompass patients and all others who are clients of professionals. The Polytechnic of Central London undertook a recent study of law centres and it compared the work of law centres with that of private practice. Many of the respondents mentioned the negative characteristics of solicitors in private practice, such as excessive formality, a lack of interest and a distant attitude.
As I say, that does not apply so much to law centres and I ought to insert here a reference to the legal aid work carried out by the legal profession and refer to the need for quality in that part of our work as well as in private practice. This echoes what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. There is concern, which is shared by the Law Society, that the emphasis by the Legal Aid Board on quality is becoming an emphasis on speed and high volume, and that there is a risk of creating a second-class service. Knowing the difficulty that many private practices have in sustaining a legal aid practice—indeed it is almost becoming a separate and discrete area of the profession—I subscribe to the concern that many solicitors who entered the profession are finding that they cannot now serve all their clients.
I have spoken about our language and our inaccessibility. We are sometimes our own worst enemies because we are too conscious of our own status. We should trumpet the benefits of our professionalism and the schemes which our professions run to protect the public if one member of the profession falls short. We should trumpet our sense of duty and service to the community. I understand that over 50 per cent. of all partners in solicitors' firms
1226
undertake public service work—what those of us who watch "LA Law" would now know as pro bond. That takes the form of work for Citizens' Advice Bureaux, law centres and so on, and the considerable work that is undertaken for local charities and local bodies. We should trumpet what we do in a way which does not alienate the public and does not make some members of our society feel that professionals are only for the middle classes.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for introducing the debate and for raising this important question. We have heard a very distinguished maiden speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, to which I shall return in a minute.
When I received—as I am sure did other noble Lords—several briefings on the debate, I was advised by the Royal College of Nursing that it hoped that its briefing might be of use in the context of what might be a wide-ranging debate. That is only too true; it has been a wide-ranging debate. We have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, give a spirited performance on the subject of the legal profession. We have heard the noble Viscount in his maiden speech deal with the subjects of insurance, the problems of the insurance industry and insurance brokers, and whether insurance is indeed a profession. I shall return to that point. My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon talked about civil engineers, and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, talked about the accounting profession. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, talked about vets, and our resident dentist (who, like the British Dental Association, has alas voted with his feet) talked about dentists. Therefore, we have covered a wide range of professions in the debate. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find it difficult to wind up the debate in a manner which covers the subject—the future of the professions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, posed the question: what is the difference between professional associations and trade unions? He answered that trade unions exist to protect the interests of their members, whereas professional associations have a quite different function. I am not entirely convinced by that particular distinction. I think back to the old craft unions, which insisted on severe standards for their members. For example, the plumbers' union established clear criteria by which one could become a member of that union. When I think of the BMA or the BDA, if I may use all those initials, or indeed of the Royal College of Nursing, I wonder where the difference between a professional association and a craft union in the old sense of the word lies.
If I were to try to define what a professional association is meant to do—and I shall return to the very important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Benson—I would say that the object of a professional association is to enforce what in the old days we used to call the pre-entry closed shop—an ugly term. In other words, unless one had certain qualifications

1227
which were established and monitored, one could not practise in the job for which one was recruited. That is known as a pre-entry closed shop.
The pre-entry closed shop poses problems which various noble Lords have described. It also has several advantages, which noble Lords have also described. In favour of the professional association and the pre-entry closed shop is self-regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, it is much better for people who are in the profession itself, or in the craft, to decide whether their colleagues are able and properly qualified to exercise that profession or craft. Secondly, it is voluntary. Nobody has to join the association or the craft union if they do not want to do so. Thirdly, if it is properly run—which is again one of the criteria which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, produced—it will enforce discipline on its members to continue to adhere to the standards on which the professional association has decided.
The argument against the pre-entry closed shop professional association is that it could become a self-regarding coterie of people acting against the interest of the consumer and in their own interests; in other words, preserving a small element of interests which act against the populace at large.
Between the arguments in favour and those against, there is of course a knife-edge balance. Here we come to all the problems which have been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and other noble Lords. Where the balance tips over in one direction, one is in the business of politics. There may be public discontent. For example, for one reason or another, there is public discontent with a variety of professions at the moment. Conveyancing is one example. In this House we have had many debates about whether solicitors should be allowed to have a monopoly of conveyancing or whether building societies should also be able to do so. That is an example of public discontent which raises political problems, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if I offend her.
We can also have Euro-directives where the European Community in its great wisdom decides that—for instance, in the case of the accountancy profession—self-regulation along the lines described by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, is not right for Europe and there may have to be in the future (we should have to see whether that happens) a kind of General Medical Council arrangement for the accountancy profession.
There is also the problem of restrictive practices—in advancing the standards of professional associations, associations encourage their members to adopt procedures which disadvantage the consumer, because the consumer cannot go elsewhere. That is a restrictive practice.
Fourthly, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, rightly pointed out, there is a general problem of a government perhaps deciding that market forces will rule and price is the only thing that matters. That was the point made by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. Quality goes out of the window and it is all a question of price.
1228
The results are that if there is overmuch intervention from government and overmuch litigation in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and then the possibility of litigation and statutory intervention, the professions will be diminished. On the other hand, if there is too much encouragement of the professions as a pre-entry closed shop, the interests of the consumer will be disregarded.
I have no particular objection to a pre-entry closed shop. That is the way the political world works. We must recognise that the professions in the future, like the trade unions in the past, will always be on the edge of politics. But if there is a perceived objection to something that surveyors, engineers, solicitors, barristers, judges, accountants, insurance brokers or somebody else are doing, it will become a matter of political discussion. Indeed, it is right that it should do so because we live in a democratic society.
Given that basic fact, it seems to me that there are two principles which should govern our view of the professions. They were put very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. No professional association is worth anything unless it is rigorous in the maintenance of its own standards and the standards of its members. As the noble Lord said, that rigour should increase from year to year, not diminish.
Secondly—I come back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said—professionals cannot at the same time be professionals and competitive entrepreneurs. The two occupations do not go together. Quality, as used by my noble friend Lord Howie, in the sense that this is the best way of doing things, is not necessarily compatible with the entrepreneurial spirit about which we hear so much from the present administration. So I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, got the matter just about right in his introduction.
When I was an active banker in the City of London, an expression used was, "My word is my bond". I do not believe that anybody in the City of London now would say that. Telephone conversations are recorded now in the City of London. I believe there has been a diminution of that attitude. That is my worry.
The Financial Services Act was designed to make sure, that if there were rules it should be the investor who was protected. I refer again to what the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, said about insurance. In fact, the Financial Services Act has simply imposed a series of almost intolerable burdens on those who have to operate it—the professionals—without protecting the investor. I believe that it has broadly failed. I hate to think that a similar fate could befall all the other professions that we have been discussing this evening.
9.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. As the noble Lord suggested, I had some concern about speaking this evening because I feared that the debate would be so wide-ranging (as indeed it was) that I

1229
might not be able to answer all the points raised. I ask for the forbearance of noble Lords if that is the case. I should like to say what a privilege it was to be in the House for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Chelmsford. The professionalism and skill of his delivery certainly disguised the fact that it was a maiden speech.
The professions in the United Kingdom have a long history. They make an important and valued contribution to many aspects of British life, as has been illustrated today by the diversity of the professions to which noble Lords have referred in their remarks.
The professions play an important role in the process of wealth creation upon which this country depends. Professions account for a major source of invisible earnings. Figures for 1991 show that the net overseas earnings from consultants, including the legal profession but excluding the medical profession, were £1,544 million. That is a most significant achievement.
The professional institutions also play a part in representing their professions, co-ordinating views across their membership and in pioneering the development of new standards. Noble Lords may be aware, for example, of the Engineering Council's report on risk and its proposals for a new code of practice. The report follows concern over disasters such as the Clapham rail crash, the Zeebrugge ferry sinking, the King's Cross fire and other incidents. The council is trying to take action to avoid similar disasters in future by issuing the code which should ensure better risk assessment and risk management. That work is a welcome contribution towards putting provisions in place. It tends to indicate that the professionals of engineering and others in technology are the people who will be able to deal with environmental issues.
The future offers challenges and opportunities for the professions. But it is not a time to be resting on laurels. As an example of the challenges, I quote a recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of England at the official launch of the Securities Institute, the new professional body for stockbrokers, asset managers and corporate financiers. Mr. Leigh-Pemberton said that whatever the regulatory regime, the competence and ethics of practitioners are bound to remain the essential underpinning to a sound and honest market. That is a heavy responsibility and one to which attention has been drawn frequently tonight.
I wish to take the opportunity to draw particular attention to the role that the professions can play in assisting the establishment and growth of small firms which provide the seed corn for new employment and for innovation. There needs to be much more effort by the professions to tailor services to the needs of small business customers. Some of the larger accountancy firms have specialist divisions dealing with small business. Solicitors can also offer valuable services which can be particularly useful during the formation of a small company. Many solicitors belong to the Lawyers for Enterprise scheme which offers a free initial consultation for those running young or
1230
growing businesses together with a clear indication of what further advice might cost. That is extremely important. Not everyone meets on the golf course these days or even knows how to write a brief for a professional. The professionals should listen to their small firm customers and identify their needs.
In particular I ask the banking profession to do that. Last year the Treasury and the Bank of England conducted an inquiry into the relationship between banks and small businesses. As a result, banks were asked to ensure that their managers looked carefully at the needs of small business and to produce voluntary codes of practice. They have since been issued. However, many small firms are still anxious about their relationship with the banking profession. It is important that that situation is monitored and that the banks are fully aware of the ongoing anxiety. Bankers train to high standards and their skills would benefit small firms if shared easily.
The ability of businesses to compete in the marketplace depends on businessmen and women and their advisers having rapid and easy access to the help that they need. My department has announced the intention to pilot between 10 and 15 first-stop shops. First-stop shops will be useful to small businesses and their professional advisers, providing a gateway to the more specialised services offered by TECs, the Department of Trade and Industry, other government departments, venture capitalists and others. That approach will help small business and professional arrangements. In marketing their services, I hope that the professions will be encouraged to look at that principle and to consider whether there might be ways of streamlining delivery of their services. It is important that those shops represent private sectors and professions as well as the public sector work. I am delighted to say that the design profession will be represented in that area. That profession can contribute greatly to wealth creation.
Demographic changes, and changes in working patterns and practices, will affect the future development of all the professions. The professions need to come to terms with developing policies which will suit the career needs of women, provide greater flexibility and cater for late entrants. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, a report by the UK Inter-professional Group, published in 1990, indicated that very few professions yet have specific measures in place which will help women, in particular those with children, although the position is changing fast. That is not so at the Garrick, I might add, although I am delighted that the proposer of the debate was seen to be supportive of change.
Much remains to be done in the professions, as was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The substantial resources invested in training professionals will be wasted if women professionals who wish to take time off work to care for their children or other dependants are deterred from returning. Professional women are sometimes assumed to be in a better position than most. However, the Women Returners' Network identified that they lose confidence and that

1231
they need flexible working hours and opportunities to keep up to date with their profession. Many men as well as women need dual career support.
Professional bodies must scrutinise their practices to ensure that they do not prevent women from qualifying or continuing to practice after a career break. They should do all that they can to persuade employers to adopt measures to assist women returners and late entrants.
Your Lordships have spoken about the challenges facing the professions in the future and of the tensions which exist between the various forces shaping the future of the professions. It is one of the UK's marks of freedom from the continental system that the UK professions have been able to develop associations of professional members without being subject to an ordre of the continental type. Over time self-regulation has come to be backed with registration Acts and Acts setting up bodies such as the General Medical Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, knows well. However, the underlying theme has remained that of self-regulation. That underlying theme has been widely praised and sets a worldwide standard. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that is the ideal.
Yet it also carries with it dangers which occasionally emerge. They are the dangers of restrictive practices, put in hand by oligarchic leaders of the profession. Sometimes such leaders do not recognise the restrictive practices as such; they appear to be part and parcel of the process of professionalism and justified on that account. The opticians' rules against the advertising of prices were a case in point. The opticians believed that it would be unethical for an optician's practice to show prices for spectacles. The result, in a profession widely seen as a retail trade, was a restriction on the effect of competition with the inevitable prevalence of high prices.
There is, therefore, a certain dualism in the UK system of professional self-regulation. The Government believe that the system works best when there are checks and balances, allowing professional self-regulation on the one hand while preventing the development of unnecessarily restrictive practices on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, identified the need to be aware of the dangers of the two sides and the political nature into which they could stray. I stress that the Government are not against professionalism.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the Hamptons Lecture given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on professional standards in the 1990s. In that lecture the noble and learned Lord stressed the value of professional self-regulation and the need for the professions to combine the maintenance of high standards with responsiveness to changing client needs. He was of course particularly concerned with the legal profession. The noble and learned Lord has not so much intervened directly in that profession as enabled it better to reform itself and provide an incentive for it to do so. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was a vehicle for those reforms. It is framed in such a way as to bring together
1232
developmental and public interest elements in the provision of legal services. Therefore, the need for strong professional standards and the necessity for innovation are recognised. The Act established the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct as the mainspring of that approach. It has a lay majority and as such views the subjects that it considers—which are at the heart of legal services—primarily from the client's perspective. That is very much in tune with the Citizen's Charter approach. We all wait with interest to see the impact of the committee, which will set a powerful example of the way to encourage the development of professional services without foregoing the protection of the public.
The legal services ombudsman recently published his first annual report. It makes interesting and constructive suggestions to the legal profession's complaints handling bodies.
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford for sharing his knowledge. He emphasised that true professionalism weathers the toughest times. We should not dismiss a whole profession because of the behaviour of a small minority of its members, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, said. I am sure that my colleagues will know about the issues he raised on the question of European comparability and transparency.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, raised the question of price. The belief is that the professional will provide work at a price which represents value for money. The Brunel conversation could still be held today. As a past member of the Engineering Council and chairman of its finance and general purposes committee, I have spent long hours concerned with the status of engineers. I suggest that industry must concern itself more with the status of engineers and let its young people through and reward them accordingly.
The noble Lord raised the question of the £6 million that he believes is given to the Design Council compared to what is given to engineering. I should point out that in 1991–92 £104 million was given in support of innovation, much of which goes towards engineering. The work of Sir John Fairclough tackles the issue at the core.
Of course, we were delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, was able to take part in the debate and all professional organisations owe a debt to him. We support his plea for more professional management in manufacturing. It would be really good to believe that industrialists could be classified as a profession. The noble Lord also drew attention to the challenge that the global nature of business brings to the professions the problem of the increasingly litigious nature of society, where there is much work to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, drew attention to how much doctors have adapted to change and the partnership of the doctor and the patient. He also drew attention to the profession's responsibility to look after its young—junior doctors in this case—and those less fortunate in current times. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we should recognise how that can help in the pro bono area. I

1233
know that the support which the professions give to CABs is much appreciated. The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, so elegantly pointed out that being a professional is not an easy task. It brings responsibilities as well as privileges.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Colwyn had to leave. Patients currently have high expectations and respect for their dentists. The profession has well earned that respect and I hope that patients will have no cause to change that view over the coming weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that teaching should be a profession and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, pointed out that professions are not trade unions. It is important that teaching is looked upon as a profession because that means that both education and teachers are more highly valued. One of the problems which we have seen is that teachers have stopped people from entering the profession by saying that they could do something better. I believe that we have now overcome that hurdle and we should see change.
Completion of the single market brings both new opportunities for UK professions and benefits UK employers and customers of professional services. Noble Lords are aware that last year the UK implemented a Community directive which recognised professional qualifications in the European Community. The effect of that directive is to allow a professional qualified in one member state to be recognised as a fully qualified professional in the analogous profession in other member states. It is thus a great step forward in allowing real freedom of movement to professionals throughout the Community.
We welcome such opportunities. They give qualified professionals the right to practise and use their skills in 19 countries, opening doors to them which in some cases have been closed for centuries. We welcome the competition which those opportunities will bring and which should improve services to the consumer.
I had the privilege of entering your Lordships' House just over a year ago. I continue to be amazed at the combined knowledge represented in the House. Tonight we have yet again seen evidence of that great depth of wisdom. It has become clear that a profession or a code of practice is as good as its members make it or, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, as long as it is properly run. I believe it has been a worthwhile debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for making it possible.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I too may say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. I was particularly glad that he referred to the invisible earnings of his profession, which closely matched what was said later by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in regard to the profession's wealth-creating record. He said that what the professions had in abundance were skills. In saying that, he hit the nail on the head.
1234
This evening we have been discussing the extent to which the professions, being self-regulating, may remain free to make their own contributions from their own skills to the quality of our life in this country as well as to the wealth of the nation. The great variety of contributions emphasised how far that will be the case.
Time and the procedures of the House do not allow me to pursue the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the professions are no more than pre-entry closed shop trade unions. I doubt whether that is true of many; it is certainly not true of all. However, that argument must be left to a later occasion.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that the professions should trumpet their skills. That is absolutely right. The professions should make clear what they contribute to society, how far they have changed, the extent to which they are accessible and the degree to which they recognise that they must continue to make a contribution to their claims to be self-regulating.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, for her remarks. In the course of her comments and in particular her reference to the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, I understand that she endorsed what he said. If so, I am well content. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill [H.L.]
9.33 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must first declare an interest. I am chairman of a small private company which is authorised to supply gas within the meaning of Section 8 of the Gas Act 1986. Gas supply is less than 2 per cent. of our main business, which is that of a caravan holiday park. It is perhaps momentarily interesting, despite the lateness of the hour, to mention that the first production of gas that was proved to work was carried out by my direct ancestor, the ninth Earl of Dundonald, by means which would certainly have been disapproved of by the Health and Safety Executive, had it then existed. I shall not weary the House with the details of that now.
When a Bill is introduced, the first question asked is what it is for. The Bill's Long Title refers mainly to Sections 5 and 36 of the Gas Act 1986. I shall attempt to explain briefly why and how. Should I miss any point in the interests of brevity and the lateness of the hour, I hope that noble Lords will raise the matters in their speech and I shall do my best to explain when I reply.
The general effect of the Bill is to allow gas to be supplied through pipes more readily but just as safely as is allowed at present by simplifying the elaborate and long-winded procedures currently required by the provisions of the Gas Act 1986.
Perhaps I may explain. Section 4 of the Gas Act lays a duty on,

1235
"The Secretary of State and the director [of gas supply] to secure that persons authorised … to supply gas through pipes satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain".
Supply is not as easy a term to explain as one might imagine because there is a second variety, which is self-supply. Supply is in practice the sale of a vapour defined as gas to a third party, and so is a concern of the Gas Act. Self-supply—that is, supplying yourself—is not a concern of the Gas Act and so is not within its scope.
In order to supply gas legally—it is a criminal offence to do it without authorisation—you may obtain authorisation under Section 5, to which I shall return shortly. Section 5 is now very limited in extent. Section 6 of the Act dealt originally with authorisation of very large supplies. The quantity was first defined as 2 million therms, which is a very large quantity, but now that has been reduced to 25,000 therms per annum. The DTI plan further phased reductions in this figure.
Section 7 allows supply by a public gas supplier to any premises in its area. The 1986 Act provides that there is only one such supplier—that is, British Gas plc, whose supply area is defined as the whole United Kingdom. Now, the important part is Section 8, which allows other persons to become authorised suppliers to premises specified in the authorisation, subject to not causing danger to the public, to being financially sound and to having a proper 24-hour emergency service available, together with a right of access to every place supplied.
In practice Section 8 has failed due to the vast bureaucratic effort involved in becoming authorised. There is available an alternative method of supplying gas from cylinders which is, with a technical exception, exempt from the provisions of the Gas Act. So total is the failure of Section 8 that last year at a meeting at the Department of Energy I complained that the authorisation procedures under Section 8 were so complex that breach of Section 4, to which I referred earlier, was occurring. That complaint was upheld by the department's legal advisers. That caused a certain creaking of the floorboards in the corridors of power.
Also Section 8 had entirely unforeseen results. It may be necessary to touch on that later. It caught a lot more than anticipated. To quote from the Ofgas report for 1991, during which year a very modest simplification of Section 8 procedures was made:
"there are a number of statutory requirements governing authorisations which are not within the discretion of OFGAS to change and which continue to give rise to concerns about the bureaucratic burden imposed on independent gas suppliers".
The report goes on to refer to having to get numerous government departments (it states five) to agree to what you are doing and to the existence of overlapping codes of practice for the safe supply of gas.
The overall statutory framework which imposes these burdens is now the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. Ofgas has made direct representations to the department to simplify the statutory requirements for authorisation and the department has considered them. Indeed, that was
1236
further referred to in a later report. Ofgas said that it must have primary legislation in order to achieve any worthwhile change to the system.
Clearly Section 8 is the cause of major legal administrative problems. The effect has been to slow down and almost to stop the development of the independent gas supply market, which falls into Section 8. Ofgas tells me that it has issued about 313 authorisations, although the operative total, due to its method of counting, which is odd, is somewhat lower. Of these, over half concern LPG.
That has summarised the position. There have been continuing discussions between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Health and Safety Executive and the trade associations. Most importantly in this context, Ofgas itself, which has been closely involved in these discussions, recognises that this Bill is a realistic and sensible way forward from the present confusion.
Now I shall deal very briefly with the provisions of the Bill. It repeals Section 5 of the Gas Act 1986 and then re-enacts it with some additions. These include Section 5(1)(b), which is a purely drafting amendment because it refers to subsections (3) and (4). Section 5(2)(b) is of a similar nature. Section 5(3) is important. It allows propane and butane (commonly LPG) to be exempted from unauthorised supply or, in plain words, it can be supplied legally—so long as it is done safely—without much further ado.
Section 5(4) allows the Secretary of State to exempt others as he and Ofgas together see fit. This will by degrees allow greater competition in gas supply without prejudicing safety. The Health and Safety Executive is confident that it has adequate existing powers for this purpose. I raise this point because it has been drawn to my attention that Section (8) defines safety as one of the pre-eminent requirements, whereas subsection 5(4) does not mention safety. I have taken particular pains to establish the current position with the Health and Safety Executive.
Section 5(5) states that subsection (4) can encompass particular or more general classes of person and that decisions under this subsection are to be suitably published. The rest of new Section 5 repeats the old subsections, with Subsection (3) and (4) becoming Subsections (6) and (7), but it is otherwise unchanged.
Clause 2 of my Bill orders the Director of Gas Supply to keep a register of those authorised under Section 5(4) and under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1986 Act, and generally reflects the later position of the Electricity Act 1989.
In conclusion, this short Bill has the full support of the various trade associations involved in the independent gas supply market. It is welcomed by Ofgas as a sensible way out of the legislative morass of Section 8. Last week, the Director of Gas Supply, Sir James McKinnon, assured me directly of his support for the Bill. I believe that that support may also extend to the Department of Trade and Industry. By releasing the independent gas supply market from unnecessary and complex regulations, much will be done over a period, starting gradually, to widen the availability of piped gas, with its beneficial effects on living

1237
standards, particularly among isolated and small communities or in the caravan and holiday park industry, which are major users. By virtue of subsection 5(4), it can also open up other parts of the gas market to necessary competition—always, I add, within the control of the Secretary of State. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Cochrane of Cults.)
9.42 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I should begin my speech by saying that I am speaking only because my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults wrote to me asking for my support for his Bill. When he has heard what I am about to say, I am afraid that he may regret having whetted my interest. However, the House will be grateful to him for explaining the need for his Bill so clearly.
There is no doubt in my mind that the procedure by which gas suppliers, especially small ones, have to get consents under Section 8 of the Gas Act is a nightmare. Not only do forms have to be submitted to Ofgas but they have to be sent to and approved by the Pipelines Inspectorate and the Gas and Oil Measurement Branch—and my noble friend has told us that yet more organisations are involved. As I understand the matter, they all have different forms for their own unique purposes. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that I have heard from outside the Chamber that it has taken a very long time for my noble friend to get authorisation for a gas supply to his caravan park and that he wishes to simplify the system for future applicants so as to encourage competition in the supply of liquid petroleum gas.
As one of the Ministers responsible for the Oil and Gas Enterprise Bill in your Lordships' House, I most certainly approve of the increase in competition for which the Government are aiming and which this Bill makes easier. That said, however, we must be extremely careful before we approve the method that my noble friend has chosen. His complaint is that Section 8 is too cumbersome and needs to be changed. The first question, therefore, that I must ask him is, why not change Section 8? The supplementary question is, what will happen to Section 8 if the new Section 5 reaches the statute book? Will it wither on the vine, as I suspect?
We also have to be extremely careful when considering the new Section 5(3) from the point of view of safety. As we all know, gas is dangerous stuff whether it is propane, butane or methane. When propane or butane leaks, being heavier than air, they sink and can be trapped under floors, in cellars, in sewers, in telephone ducts and so on, with all the likelihood of an explosion causing damage to other property well after the leak has actually occurred. Unlike North Sea gas or methane from a landfill site, they cannot disperse in the air, so I would argue that they are even more dangerous than North Sea gas. LPG, which is what we are really talking about, also
1238
has a higher calorific value which means that it provides a greater explosive energy release if escaped gas is accidentally ignited.
In my view, therefore, it remains essential that the prerequisite of getting a licence under Section 8 should remain; namely, that the supplier should be a fit and proper person with the necessary resources, as specified under Section 4(6) of the Act, so that he can re-lay pipes if necessary, provide an emergency service and at the very least cut off the supply when things go wrong. If my reading of subsection (3) is correct, however, all this is swept away. There is an automatic exemption for anyone to supply propane or butane through pipes to any premises. That is a very sweeping power indeed. I believe that there remains a need for what I call prospective assurances.
I assume that once the supply is up and running the situation is quite different, because the installation will, I presume, come under the powers of the Health and Safety Executive. I say "presume" because I cannot imagine my noble friend or indeed the Government deleting the requirement under Section 8(6) (a) to this effect, although the Bill is a little obscure in this respect. Safety then will presumably be ensured retrospectively as it were. I fail to understand though why, over and above my three requirements, Ofgas needs to be satisfied on all the points it expects to be answered before it grants an authorisation.
I have before me Ofgas's form C1/AA headed "Application for Authorisation". As well as asking the obvious questions such as the name and address of the applicant, the site to be supplied and details of the certified engineer, it also asks some curious questions. Question No. 5 states:
"Specify the price you intend to charge users of gas".
Question No. 6:
"Specify any other charge for the provision of a gas supply which you intend to make".
What on earth business are those of Ofgas, especially as far as concerns LPG? They are surely matters of contract between supplier and purchaser. If the purchaser does not like the terms of the contract, he can buy bottled gas in the usual way, or use electricity or, in certain circumstances, coal.
I am similarly confused by Questions Nos. 8 and 9, or rather the absence of a Question No. 9(a) in the same form. Under Section 8(5) of the Act an authorisation shall not be given to anyone intending to supply gas to any premises situated within 25 yards of a relevant main unless the granter of the authorisation has notified the public gas supplier, which is usually, though in future may not necessarily be, as my noble friend nearly said, British Gas, that the new supply will be in excess of 25,000 therms a year, or the public gas supplier has consented in writing to the giving of a supply. Questions Nos. 8 and 9 cover this, but only in part, by asking:
"Do you know if the supply is within 25 yards of a British Gas main? Yes/No
If no, do you wish OFGAS to contact British Gas? Yes/No".
Question No. 9 asks:
"Have you informed British Gas of your intent to supply gas? Yes/No
If no, do you wish OFGAS to do so?".

1239
For some unknown reason, there is no "Yes/No" against that question.
There seems to be no question of asking whether it is intended supply more than 25,000 therms a year, so I assume that Ofgas does not have a means of getting that information and will contact British Gas whatever is said. I rather wonder how that encourages competition in the gas industry —that is, competition which is in the interests of gas suppliers—because, as my noble friend Lady Denton told us last week, the more competition there is the less regulation there will be. I refer to economic regulation. Safety regulation is a different matter, as I have sought to explain in my worries over the new subsection (3) proposed in the Bill. Can my noble friend the Minister satisfy me that the automatic exemption proposed will be in the public interest so far as concerns safety?
As I said, I sympathise with my noble friend, but I am quite sure in my own mind that the Gas Act as it stands can be operated in a better manner—though possibly with amendment. For example, under the Act it would seem to me to be quite essential that there is only one application form; namely, the right one, as I have explained, which can be copied to all the other relevant regulatory bodies.
I have already mentioned Section 4 of the Gas Act. That, together with Section 16 (which is about standards of quality of gas), constrains the Secretary of State in certain ways that Parliament has required. There are all sorts of other constraints on the Secretary of State in the Act, and it is right and proper that there should be. This House in particular looks very critically at proposals that allow the Secretary of State to do things off his own hat.
Knowing that, I now turn to my noble friend's new subsection (4) which deals with exemptions to suppliers of any form of gas. So far as I can see, those provisions are quite inimical to both the Gas Act and the Competition and Services (Utilities) Act which specifies, as I recall it, fair competition. Moreover, if we enact subsection (4), slightly amended if necessary, to cover suitable persons and safety matters, do we need Section 8 at all? The new subsections (4) and (5) would seem to be a replacement for it.
Instead of an authorisation under Section 8, my noble friend proposes that the Secretary of State should lay an order. But, as I read it, it means that that order—a negative instrument—need only state the name of the company concerned to which he wishes to grant an exemption. It is quite clear that he may make any conditions that he likes, or none. I hope that Ministers in the DTI will think long and hard before agreeing to such a proposal. Although it will certainly increase competition in the gas industry substantially, there is a danger that a future Secretary of State, or a future government, could open up a very tilted playing field indeed. Surely, at the very least, the same conditions should apply to every firm granted an exemption.
I have no complaint about the Bill's new Section 36 which deals with the keeping of a register. As my noble friend said, he has based it on the provisions of Section 49 of the Electricity Act. It seems eminently sensible. There is a saying on the West Coast of Scotland which
1240
I have quoted before in this Chamber. It goes, "We think better later". The Electricity Act gained Royal Assent some three years after the Gas Act and it is of no surprise that better and clearer thoughts on keeping a register occurred in the meantime, even among those that I gather are now called "the Energy Command" in the Department of Trade and Industry.
I know from experience that it is the most difficult thing in the world to bring Bills before your Lordships' House and have them exposed to the glare of noble Lords. I can assure my noble friend that it is equally difficult to comment on a Private Member's Bill from the Back Benches. My initial reaction to much of his Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill has certainly been negative, but I recognise that I could just as easily be totally misguided. I shall, therefore, await the other speeches with interest, especially my noble friend's wind-up speech.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Bill, I should like to declare an interest as I am chairman of a firm which is involved in the distribution of gas. I found the explanation of the purposes of the Bill given by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, to be very convincing. There is no doubting the fact that there is a procedure which has to he followed by suppliers of liquefied petroleum gas which is excessively complex. The details of that procedure, which were read out by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, confirm that fact. It is obvious that it needs to be simplified. Of course, there could have been many ways of doing so. The proposal before us is one of them. It seems to me to be quite reasonable.
However, I thought that the question of safety raised quite properly by the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, had been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, when he said that there had been discussions not only with the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgas but also with the Health and Safety Executive. If those three bodies are satisfied that the safety aspect is taken care of, I should have thought that that would satisfy the rest of us. However, I have been approached by outside bodies which have expressed anxiety about that aspect of the matter. We should take the opportunity, in Committee perhaps, to propose amendments on that point which could reassure us.
The continued existence of Section 8 of the 1986 Act, alongside possible exemptions, will need a little explanation. No doubt the Minister will be able to give her views on that subject. Bearing in mind the complexities of the existing regulations, and the objective of increasing competition within the gas sector, I believe that the Bill is desirable, and I wish it every success.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, for introducing the Bill and for speaking to it so clearly. I tend to align myself with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The procedures at present in place are cumbersome and need reform. But—I am speaking in a private

1241
capacity, because this is a Private Member's Bill and I do not speak for my party—I wonder whether we need legislation of this sort to rectify what seems to be a rather minor deficiency in the Gas Act 1986.
There are some disadvantages with the Bill. As it currently stands, the wording of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, pointed out, confers wide powers on the Secretary of State to exempt whole categories of supplier from the current regulatory requirements. The implications are wide-ranging for the consumer, too. Those persons who are exempted under Clause 5(3) will be completely outside the current regulatory structure. I put this question to the Minister: if the Government are going to support the Bill and give it a fair wind, do they consider that this is the right way to go about solving what all your Lordships recognise to be a problem? Is there not a simpler way? If there is, should not the Government try to devise one and bring it before your Lordships' House as a government Bill?
9.58 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults on bringing forward this Bill which I know relates to a subject dear to his heart. He has made his views known to my department, as well as to the Office of Gas Supply, over a period of some months and I commend him on his tenacity.
The thrust of his Bill very much conforms with the Government's own thinking. As your Lordships will know, we are fully committed to the progressive liberalisation and deregulation of the gas industry. We have made clear our intention to reduce the British Gas monopoly threshold this summer from 25,000 therms to 2,500 therms.
We are very much aware of anxieties within the industry about the burden of complying with the authorisation procedure under Section 8 of the Gas Act 1986. We acknowledge that that is an area which requires reform. As my noble friend has explained, Section 8 of the Gas Act 1986 provides for the Director General of Gas Supply to authorise supplies of gas through pipes to particular premises—that is, a single consumer, or premises of specified description specified in an authorisation. Such authorisations are required by any supplier of gas other than British Gas or a person supplying over 2 million therms a year to particular premises (Section 6 of the Act refers). Prior to the Act, the Health and Safety Executive issued consents, under an agency agreement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy, under Section 29 of the 1972 Gas Act, as amended by Section 12 of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.
The main purpose of Section 8, and the provisions in earlier legislation on which it was based, was to control entry into the piped gas supply market. Caravan sites and holiday parks have been caught by the legislation because the owners have tried to improve the facilities on offer to their customers. As a result, the supply of gas to caravan sites and the like is now generally piped from a central LPG storage unit rather than bottled in order to give customers a
1242
continuous supply. As a result, caravan sites have the same characteristics as supply systems on a much larger scale and thus now attract the same degree of control.
Both we and Ofgas are aware of the burden that the Section 8 authorisation procedure imposes on these small businesses. They are not after all attempting to set themselves up as gas suppliers, rather the supply of gas is incidental to their main business.
In its 1990 annual report, Ofgas noted that anxiety had been expressed by the British Holiday and Homes Parks Association Ltd. and the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Industry Technical Association about the increasing delays, costs and paperwork involved in the authorisation procedure. Ofgas therefore undertook an internal review of the Section 8 procedures which identified a number of shortcomings which could be resolved by a mixture of administrative and legislative changes. Ofgas has now implemented the various administrative changes, such as a fixed system of charges, which have done much to streamline present procedures.
I am satisfied that Ofgas has done all it possibly can to rationalise the authorisation procedure within the existing statutory framework and I commend it for its efforts. However, I recognise that while its efforts have gone a considerable way towards satisfying a number of the worries voiced, it has not completely resolved all the problems identified with the current procedures. Last summer Ofgas therefore drew our attention to the legislative changes needed to rationalise further the authorisation procedure. In particular, it drew attention to the overlap of safety responsibilities between Ofgas and the HSE under the Gas Act and to other unsatisfactory aspects which would require legislative change.
We have studied Ofgas's recommendations and have concluded that they are eminently sensible. Officials have been engaged in discussions with Ofgas and HSE with a view to making the appropriate changes. Our problem has been in finding a suitable legislative opportunity in which to carry this forward.
The noble Lord's Bill is therefore timely. Clause 1 would give the Secretary of State power to exempt suppliers of butane and propane gas—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, she seems to be speaking very much in favour of her noble friend's Bill. Will the Government adopt it as a government Bill?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord has correctly identified that I am speaking in favour of my noble friend's Bill, I support it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are the Government adopting the Bill? Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Will the Government adopt the Bill as a government Bill and give it the Government's legislative time?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill. As I said, it is timely and in line with our thinking and that of both Ofgas and the Health and Safety Executive. However, it is important

1243
to emphasise that in deregulating this aspect, there will be no diminution in safety standards. Safety will remain of paramount importance.
With that in mind, I am pleased to see that the provisions for exemption are modelled closely on the Electricity Act 1989 and that they would be brought into effect by a commencement order. That means that I can give a firm assurance that the Bill will not come into force until the Health and Safety Executive has had sufficient time to put alternative arrangements in place.
Clause 1 also gives the Secretary of State power to exempt further classes of suppliers from the need for Section 8 authorisation. While we have no immediate plans to utilise such powers at present, it is conceivable that we might wish to exempt other types of gas, such as landfill gas or coke oven gas, at some point in the future, again provided that this can be achieved safely and can be accommodated within the existing system of economic regulation operated by Ofgas.
Clause 2 requires the Director General of Gas Supply to keep a register of those to whom exemptions have been given. This seems eminently sensible.
I am grateful for the opportunity to outline our reaction to my noble friend's Bill. If I may sum up, we welcome the possibility of further deregulation in the gas industry, and particularly the alleviation of a burden upon small businesses, provided that safety can be assured.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, are we to understand from what she says that the Government see no reason to amend this Bill in any way?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have just supported—I am sorry if I did not make myself clear—my noble friend's Bill as it stands.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate on the Bill which I have introduced. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the remarks that have been made in order of speaking. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—and the point was raised by others—asked what would happen to Section 8. The answer I was given when I asked this question was in rather oblique "Mandarin", but I think the effect is clear, if not the reasoning. I was told that if Section 8 were repealed it would destroy the architecture of the Bill. I have to confess that, after close study of the subject, I have not yet identified a gas supplier who would certainly be caught by Section 8 if the new Section 5 is to be enacted, as proposed in this Bill.
I am positively assured, as I will repeat again and as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, that while anyone can supply gas, at any rate in LPG form, they are encompassed at this very moment by the provisions of the Health and Safety Act in relation to gas systems. If I have failed to answer my noble
1244
friend's questions, I will read Hansard extremely carefully and will write to him before the House sits again on the Bill. I hope he feels happy with that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his unstinted support for this Bill. He has enormous experience in the gas industry, and therefore his support is of uncommon value. I am grateful to him. I think I have already covered his points about safety in my reply to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, but if on further reflection it is discovered that some amendment to the Bill is required to tidy things up, I will of course be most willing to consider this extremely carefully. At the moment I am content to rest on the assurance of my noble friend Lady Denton that the Bill is as brightly polished as it can be for the time of night.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it has been repeatedly stated by the Office of Gas Supply that they could not escape from the duties laid on them by Section 8 of the Gas Act without legislation. It is on that basis that I have proceeded with this Bill. I am glad to say that that view is shared by my noble friend Lady Denton. It is not a new decision or a new idea; it has been in common parlance among those discussing Section 8 for some time.
Lord Williams of Elvel My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What is the origin of the Bill? We have a Bill which is apparently a Private Member's Bill, on which no noble Lord other than the Minister can speak in an official capacity fLord Williams of Elvel My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What is the origin of the Bill? We have a Bill which is apparently a Private Member's Bill, on which no noble Lord other than the Minister can speak in an official capacity for a party, because that is the convention of the House. We have a Bill which the Government apparently endorse lock, stock and barrel without any amendment whatever, cleanly polished, and which will receive full support. What is the status of the Bill? Is it really a Private Member's Bill, or is it a Government Bill which has been handed to the noble Lord to move?
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I shall say the following. I hope that I am doing so in the correct form and with due regard to the procedures of this House.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the status of the Bill is that of a Private Member's Bill. It is the product of long discussion with the bodies to which I referred in my earlier speech. The drafting has been done by an eminent firm of commercial lawyers in Edinburgh in the firm's capacity as solicitors to the company to which I referred earlier and of which I am chairman. The costs of so doing have been met in equal share by the two principal trade associations in the holiday parks industry. I hope, therefore, that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it is indeed a Private Member's Bill.

1245
Perhaps I may now refer to the remarks of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. She has a much better
1246
script writer than I shall ever have and I thank her very much for her support. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Underground System
10.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether sufficient is being done to maintain and improve the underground railway system of London.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, tonight I raise a topic which has been debated and been the subject of questions many times previously in your Lordships' House—namely, the present condition and future development of London's Underground. I do so not only because it is the object of keen personal interest to many of your Lordships, who no doubt use it daily to reach this place and on other business, but also because the future of London as a world city, and hence the prosperity of a substantial sector of the nation's economy, depends upon the capital having an attractive and efficient transport system.
The London Underground, which carries more than half of all commuters who come into central London, and whose passengers make over 750 million journeys each year, is a vital part of that transport network. Those of us who have used and observed the Underground over the years have unfortunately seen a steady and discouraging decline in the quality of the system.
I believe that there is agreement on all sides of the House that the Underground has not been particularly well served by successive administrations. For certainly two and possibly three decades post-war, and since the 'sixties in particular, the Underground has been starved of funds for capital expenditure. Fares have in the past been subsidised from time to time, but I am talking here about expenditure on track, trains, signals and civil engineering. The Underground has suffered as much as any industry from the stop-go syndrome which has bedevilled our economy. I seek tonight to gain the Government's commitment to put matters right by backing the present management's endeavours and plans with adequate resources on a continuing basis.
During the 1960s and 1970s passenger numbers on the Underground were in decline and that was used as justification to restrict investment in the maintenance and renewal of the system's most basic assets. But failing to invest in a railway infrastructure is something of a time-bomb: nothing visible happens for a long time and then there is a catastrophic effect. There is a tendency to glorify the quality of Victorian and Edwardian engineering, but sadly, at least on the London Underground, all is not what it appears. The Underground was built for commercial considerations on a basic specification and the assets, which consist of 250 miles of track, 100 miles of which is in tunnel, 1,500 bridges and 250 stations, are in many cases passing or approaching their centenary.
The cost of making good the effects of years of neglect and of achieving an acceptable standard in these areas, deferred for so long, is now both unavoidable and very expensive. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission issued a year ago identified that historic shortfall in investment. Some of the figures are staggering. For example, the
1248
track requires a minimum of £500 million to be spent over 10 years to bring it up to a standard even as good as that of British Rail, which itself requires a good deal of improvement. A quarter of all escalators are more than 40 years old and require replacement or extensive refurbishment at a cost of upward of £30 million annually. The drainage system, which has remained fundamentally unchanged since its installation and is faced with a rapid rise in the water table, requires expenditure of more than £50 million over the next five years to prevent flooding.
At the same time that the price has to be paid for the years of neglect, passenger numbers on the Underground have increased by 50 per cent. in less than a decade. Today's passengers rightly expect more than an ageing and deteriorating environment which is only gradually being made good. They expect in return for the real increases in fares which they pay, a clean, bright and modern environment with good, clear information and frequent, rapid trains. Most especially they expect to be safe: safe from accident, attack and intimidation.
What has the record been, faced with that history of chronic underinvestment, a heritage of antique and collapsing assets, an unprecedented rise in the number of passengers and faced too with those passengers' expectations of the system on which they travel? Although the prodigious rise in passenger numbers began as far back as 1982, with the Government assuming responsibility for London Transport in 1985, investment during their early years of stewardship extended to only a few projects, such as the Central Line modernisation, which for physical reasons could not be deferred any longer. There was no apparent willingness to increase investment beyond that level until 1988; and then it was not to invest in new capacity and the decaying assets but principally for the measures necessary following the King's Cross fire of 1987.
While those works have certainly yielded a safety benefit, they have not yielded any other tangible benefits. Rather they have inconvenienced passengers by the closure of passages, escalators and ticket halls for their duration. They absorbed much management time, and the lion's share of government investment not already committed to those one or two major projects such as the Central Line renewal were committed to that safety improvement. It is only in very recent times, and particularly in last autumn's public expenditure round, that the Government have seemed willing to give London Underground the volume of extra funds that it needs to attack the problems of shoring up its existing assets and developing the kind of up-to-date innovations that its long-suffering passengers want. There is a great deal to be done, including the increased provision of information, facilities and safety for passengers.
I recently visited London Underground to view some of the new programmes that they are now able to bring forward. Although I went with a critical eye, I was impressed by what I saw. I travelled on a Circle Line train which has been refurbished to meet fire safety standards; and it looks like an entirely new train. Edgware Road Station has had new lifts fitted

1249
and has been sensitively restored from top to bottom. I heard that the number of escalators not working has now fallen by a factor of three over three years. But, most importantly, I detected a will and an enthusiasm among the managers and staff whom I met to get on with the job and to serve the passengers' needs. I do not believe that always has been a feature of London Transport.
I believe that the Underground is currently running a more reliable service than for many years, despite the plague of security alerts which bedevil it and the fact that only recently has the funding been adequate. I put that new attitude down in part to a change in management but also to the decision of government to begin such adequate funding. Will the Minister assure us tonight that those higher levels of funding announced for London Transport last year were more than just a pre-election boost and that they will be sustained at the level necessary to allow the essential work to be properly planned and executed over the years? That means in round terms £750 million annually being spent on the existing network at least until the end of the decade. Such a level of funding would allow projects that are still currently on the back burner—such as the modernisation of the Northern Line, for which we still do not have a start date—to be activated. That is what is needed if London Underground is to become what so many other cities vying for international trade and finance already have: a modern, efficient and reliable transport system.
I have spent much of my speech talking about the existing Underground system. I believe that that is right because London Underground's first duty is to serve its existing passengers well. However, I also press the Minister on the expansion of the network. In central London, the vast majority of the lines predates World War Two. Only the Victoria and the small appendix of the Jubilee Line have since been built. The Edwardian system is groaning at the seams and while some work can be done to increase the cramped size of stations such as Tottenham Court Road—your Lordships may be interested to know that it now handles more passengers a year than do all the terminals at Heathrow Airport—new lines are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the issue of the Jubilee Line extension in a Question in the House on 11th June. To date nothing has happened in connection with that extension, as noble Lords well know, although the Bill has had Royal Assent and work could begin at once. The scheme has many transport benefits, apart from simply serving the Isle of Dogs. As the Minister pointed out to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, at least £100 million already spent stands to be wasted if the scheme does not proceed.
The Government run the risk of sacrificing the transport-starved areas of south-east and east London to what appears to be an outdated belief in the private sector as an adequate provider of socially necessary infrastructure. We were told that that line was not being built solely for the private sector's benefit; yet we find that the private sector can hold the whole
1250
process up. I hope that the Government will feel able to take a wider view, as other projects simply cannot be brought forward quickly to absorb the money set aside for that project. Can we assume that the imminent start of works relating to the extension outside the Palace of Westminster means that the Government's position has changed? Indeed there have been reports in the press of other indications of a possible change in the Government's attitude. We look forward to being enlightened on that matter tonight.
CrossRail, a scheme to relieve pressure on Underground lines by bringing longer-distance commuters directly into central London, is at an advanced stage of planning. I hope that the same delays experienced by the Jubilee Line extension will not affect it.
In east London a scheme to extend the East London line both north and south in very deprived areas could be carried out at extremely modest cost. Will the Minister explain the Government's position on that scheme?
Lastly, the projected Chelsea to Hackney line will certainly be needed if the King's Cross area develops with the Channel Tunnel rail terminal and in other ways. In the 1960s the Victoria Line was almost not built because planners believed that inadequate numbers of people would travel on it. How wrong they turned out to be! The Chelsea-to-Hackney line is needed to relieve not only the Victoria Line but many others too.
We must invest now for the future, both in the Underground's existing system, so that today's and tomorrow's travellers can enjoy the high-quality system that they deserve, but also in future capacity, so that our European colleagues and other overseas investors can have confidence in London and in the rest of Britain as a place to do business. Failure to do so will be a false economy. I look forward to the Minister's reassurance on both aspects of this important subject.
10.27 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having raised this important matter. As he said, the London Underground system was built largely during the previous century. It is a 19th century concept and in 1992 a great deal of maintenance, improvement and modernisation need to be done. I shudder when I think of the expense and the enormous disruption that will take place all over London should the extension to the Jubilee Line be built.
I wish to suggest as an alternative a concept which might be more appropriate to the coming 21st century. I emphasise that I am being totally serious in suggesting that we should build a monorail at first floor level straight down the middle of Oxford Street. We should allow it to wend its way through the City and to go on to Docklands and Canary Wharf. After that it should cross the River Thames and come back westwards along the south bank. There would be a frequent and fast service of monorail trains and in due course the line would become known as the "Outer

1251
Circle". Furthermore, it would pay for itself almost straight away because, apart from taking people to and from Docklands and Canary Wharf, it would become an ideal way of seeing the sights of the City of London.
I apologise for having strayed rather far from the Unstarred Question which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has placed on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I commend my proposal to your Lordships.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, in thanking my noble friend Lord Ezra for raising this subject this evening. As a humble consumer of the services of the Underground, I could not resist taking this opportunity to express some of the many reservations that I have about the service which I receive at present.
My noble friend Lord Ezra spoke about the massive investment which is now necessary for the Underground to provide a decent standard of service to its customers. He seems to me to have made a case which is extremely difficult to refute. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to give the assurances for which my noble friend asked both as regards the Jubilee Line and, above all, as regards the amount of investment required to the end of this century.
However, it seems to me that investment of that size should be well spent. Much of the investment in the past, even though there has not been enough of it, has not been well spent. A number of simple improvements could be made to the Underground which would make travel on it more pleasant and easier than it is at present.
I speak as a regular user. My station is on the so-called renovated Central Line, which needs a great deal more renovation than it has received so far. My station is Holland Park. A few years ago two new lifts were installed at that station. It took them no fewer than two years to instal them in an existing shaft and, presumably, the lifts were largely pre-fabricated. Those lifts have been notoriously unreliable. They were installed all over London. One was out of order this morning and it was also out of order last week. There are 88 steps down to the Underground at Holland Park. A woman with a child who arrives there when the lifts are out of order, unless there is someone to help her, is absolutely stymied. I see no reason why the lifts should be so unreliable. I hope that the new lifts which are being installed at Edgware Road, to which my noble friend referred, are of a different type and more reliable.
There are other silly matters which could be rectified with a little thought, which the management appears not to give to them. I give an example. The stairwell at Holland Park station, to which I have referred, was repainted two years ago. I pointed out to the authorities that they should mend the leaks which destroyed the paint before they repainted it. They told me that they could not locate the source of the leaks. They repainted the stairwell and it is now as squalid as it was two years ago before it was repainted.
1252
A second point which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention is that throughout the Underground there is a tannoy system. Either it is a very bad system or the people who use it are not trained to do so. It is almost always unintelligible. Either it is used when the train is coming into the station or the person using it speaks with his mouth too close to the machine so that one cannot hear what he has to say. It would be far better if there were in all stations the annunciators that there are in some stations which tell one when a train is coming. I cannot believe that that is very expensive. However, those annunciators have not been installed regularly or quickly, and I should have thought that that would be one of the first changes which could be made to improve service to the passengers.
The second point is that in all stations there are inevitably a large number of signs pointing to exits and advising passengers as to the whereabouts of platforms for other lines. Those signs are often hung so that one conceals the other. If one alights at Bond Street on the Central Line and wishes to transfer to the Jubilee Line, unless one knows where it is, one cannot see the sign which shows how to get there. That is simply bad and incompetent planning. It does not cost any money to position signs in the right places.
One of the most tiresome aspects of the Underground system is its unreliability. Six years ago I could travel from Holland Park to Westminster in half-an-hour. Today, to be sure of arriving on time, I have to allow three-quarters of an hour for travel. All too often the signalling equipment is out of date or not working. I would far prefer money to be spent on improving the reliability of the signalling equipment than installing pretty tiles in the Underground.
Those are but a few of the small changes which could be made in the way in which the Underground is planned and administered which would make a substantial difference to the comfort of its passengers. I hope that the management of London Underground will pay some attention to those minor and inexpensive suggestions.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not apologise for not including my name on the list of speakers. However, the House is entitled to an explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, many Members of the House are keenly interested in this subject—that may he the reason the attendance is so large tonight. However, I do not blame them. I too did not intend to be present.
The Unstarred Question is,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether sufficient is being done to maintain and improve the Underground railway system of London".
I understood that to mean the present London Underground system. I never dreamt that under that heading we would be discussing the Jubilee Line. But we are. Perhaps I can explain. When I picked up the Evening Standard this evening it told me exactly what the noble Lord intended to say. I felt I should come along and hear what he had to say about the Jubilee Line. As I suspected, we heard a plea for the extension of that line.

1253
I understand that the cost involved would be around £1,700 million as a starting figure. I understand also that the Treasury is in some doubt as to whether or not the public expenditure figure should de-escalate. I do not believe there is the slightest chance of the Treasury spending £1,700 million in addition to carrying out all the improvements that we have heard should be carried out to the present system.
Anyone in this city who travels on the Northern Line knows full well the problems that exist on the Underground. If they have only a minimum knowledge of public transport they will realise the cost of putting right that one line. It is not likely to done in the foreseeable future. We therefore come to the question of whether at this stage in our life—contrary to the planned improvements to London Underground that have been referred to and contrary to the Government's desires in regard to the priorities for the transport system—we should engage in the extension to the Jubilee Line.
Let me make one point perfectly clear. I sat through the Committee debates for a long time, and one thing was quite clearly established. London Underground did not consider the Jubilee Line to be a priority. The only reason that the Jubilee Line came into existence was the absurd and chaotic planning situation in London Docklands. If Canary Wharf had never been dreamt up in the mysteries of Olympia & York, we should never have heard of the Jubilee Line extension.
I am clearly satisfied that the actions of the Government, London Underground and the Ministry are of a sufficiently poor standard to warrant some kind of inquiry. When the Jubilee Line extension suggestion was first placed before the Committee in this House we were advised of several courses of action that the Committee could and could not take. One Member of the other place was so misled that she lost an opportunity to debate a certain point in the House of Commons. When it came to this House we were told that the Committee could do X, Y and Z, but when the Committee sat it found that it could not.
We then began a discussion on the actual construction of the line. Two reasons were given by the Minister as to why the Government supported the Bill—and we recently debated the difference between a Private Member's Bill and a Government Bill. But the Government gave two explanations.
The first was that there would be £400 million donated by the private sector. I was told quite clearly and unambiguously that an agreement had been made between London Underground and Olympia & York for it to pay that sum. I questioned that and raised the matter in this Chamber. I suggested to the Minister that there was a possibility that Olympia & York would not pay that £400 million. I was told to withdraw because it was considered a terrible thing to say. Now we know that there was no agreement made and there is no agreement. The Minister is nodding his head. Perhaps he will tell me when the agreement was signed. I shall give way.
There must be some explanation why the Minister was nodding his head. He cannot tell me that there
1254
was an agreement because there was no such agreement in existence with Olympia & York. Yet I and the Chamber were told that it existed and that the project manager of the scheme had seen the agreement. He knew that there was a time factor involved.
No proper, sensible consideration was given to what would happen to the rest of London when Canary Wharf was built. Nobody examined the planning considerations in order to see what it would do to the City of London or the West End. Now the estate surveyors are having worries about what will be done if Canary Wharf continues. So it leads on and on and we take one foolish step after another to get ourselves into another hole. There is an old saying by someone who is more famous than I am to the effect that if you are in a hole the first thing you do is to stop digging.
Now where are we? Marsham Street civil servants are going to Canary Wharf or somewhere thereabouts, if rumour is to be believed. Marsham Street is to be pulled down. No explanation has been given. The Government have said quite clearly that they have no intention of publishing the report which makes it essential to demolish Marsham Street. The whole rigmarole of the Jubilee Line is confused to such an extent that nobody knows where its influence finishes. It is Marsham Street and civil servants.
The latest we hear may not be true and no doubt the Minister will give noble Lords a true statement of the facts. But I now understand this from a reputable source, I suppose I can call it, because that source could tell me what was being debated tonight when I did not know. The Evening Standard suggests that some of the London developers are going to sell a block of property to the Government for a certain sum. The Government will then accept the money back as part payment of the £400 million unless the Jubilee Line scheme is continued.
I have been seven minutes and I do not want to be as long as anybody else. Do the Government know what is going on? When I came to the House this morning I understood that the Government intended to make a statement about when the Jubilee Line would start. It may be of information to them to know that London Underground has decided that it is going to start on 17th July. That is a very significant date. It is going to start work in Parliament Square and it is already apologising for the delay. I suppose that when all the MPs and Peers have gone home it will start ripping London apart. I wonder whether the Government know that or whether London Underground is a law unto itself.
I am beginning to wonder just how many organisations there are connected with this Government. London Underground goes along in its own sweet way and never even bothers to tell Ministers what is happening. It never tells Parliament what is happening. There is a wonderful exhibition of something on the other side of Vauxhall Bridge which somebody bought for £150 million. That is for a new building which looks like a Christmas cake. I

1255
understand that MI6 is to be located there. It is amazing that a secret body can be based in a building that attracts attention. It is almost farcical.
But that is not the worst of it. Having bought a brand new building for a government department, the Government are now saying that they will spend £90 million to adapt it to suit that department, which I understand is listed as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To me that smells of downright inefficiency, if not of something worse. I think that it is about time that the Public Accounts Committee began to look at these things.
I have a whole list of reasons why I think that the Jubilee Line should not go ahead, but I shall finish on just one and refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to sustain it. Of course all the things that the noble Lord said about London Underground are true and we all know the difficulties facing London Underground. If we are sensible people, we know how much money improving it will cost, and we know the kind of economic state that the country is in. I am not blaming anybody for that, but we know the economic state that the country is in and we know full well that we cannot afford to do both things. We cannot afford to bail out the developers at London Docklands and to do all the things that are necessary for the rest of the Underground.
One alternative is to extend the Jubilee Line and to start paying £1,700 million in order to bail out the terrible, stupid decision to plan Canary Wharf when everybody knew that the bottom was dropping out of the property market, but if one does that one cannot do anything else for the Underground. The Northern Line and all the other lines that are complaining will continue to complain, and nothing will be done.
It is time that the Government decided to take stock. They should look at the whole situation and then decide what will be done. We are being led by the nose by organisations that have a self-interest, and we are being led into a situation that will get worse by the day. I think that the Jubilee Line should be stopped.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour we should express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for raising the issue of London's Underground. I shall not say "Despite the lack of interest", but despite the small attendance in your Lordship's House this debate will be on the record and we shall have the Government's reply to the noble Lord's speech and to the speeches of other noble Lords.
I shall not stress the importance of the London Underground because that had been done by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, but I know that we all appreciate its vital importance to the city and its commerce. I could say that I agree with everything that the noble Lord said and then sit down, but I intend to use some of the many statements that have been made to reinforce what he has said.
The considerable criticism of the deficiencies of the system were first brought out in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the London Underground in June 1991. In this connection it might
1256
be useful to look at London Underground's annual business plan for 1992–93 so that we can see exactly what it considers to be its duty. Paragraph 6 of the introduction to that plan states:
"LU is committed to providing a Metro System of which London can be proud. The improvements necessary to achieve this require both a high level of investment over a long period and radical changes in pursuit of higher performance standards while maintaining high standards of safety".
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the change in outlook in London Underground's management and to the commitment of the staff to the words that I have just quoted. Improvements can be seen in the performance statistics which are issued for each four-weekly period. The noble Lord gave a balanced criticism of the progress being made by London Underground.
As some noble Lords may know, MORI, which is a responsible polling organisation, carried out a passenger survey of London Underground and published a report last October. Although some 54 per cent. of 1,335 users of the Underground at some 31 stations expressed satisfaction with the standard of service, no less than 36 per cent. were dissatisfied. One point which should concern us all is that no less than 47 per cent. of those users expressed their dissatisfaction with London Underground's understanding of what passengers want and only 27 per cent. were satisfied on that matter. MORI asked those users a further question. It asked about their priority option. Seven per cent. thought that the Jubilee extension was a priority. Another 7 per cent. thought that CrossRail was the first priority. But no less than 81 per cent. of users considered that investment of capital to modernise existing Underground services was the priority at which London Underground should aim.
I have referred to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was published in June 1991. In paragraph 1.3 the commission concludes:
"The public's perception of an erratic, overcrowded and poorly maintained service in many areas is broadly correct, although the picture for the Underground as a whole is more favourable. For the most part the deficiencies in the levels of service are the result of chronic underinvestment in both new capacity and the replacement and renewal of existing assets, an unforeseen dramatic growth in traffic and the disruption arising from radically improved safety provisions".
I have related that conclusion to London Underground's view on the matter. In paragraph 3.5 of London Underground's company plan published in 1991 I find the following:
"As the MMC concluded, funding issues dominate the debate about the pace of change, and this is ultimately a matter of Government policy. Fares increases have the potential to realise additional funding for investment, and to assist in the management of demand, but they are rightly a factor in wider transport policy, and therefore outside the control of the Company. The same is true of grant funding, in the context of overall Government spending priorities, and the constraints here are reinforced by the strict annual Government spending cycle, and the restrictions imposed by the LRT Act on borrowing".
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stressed the point that a good deal of the Underground infrastructure is old. Many parts of it are 100 years old. London Underground has stated that one of its key concerns is the chronic backlog in maintenance and the renewal of basic infrastructure—the rolling stock, signalling,

1257
the 245 miles of Underground track and the 275 stations. As the noble Lord reminded us, we are told that we need to spend £500 million over the next 10 years merely to bring the track up to standard.
I travel on the London Underground Central Line—not on the western section but on the eastern section—from Mile End out to Essex.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Loughton!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I hear my noble friend say, Loughton; but I live in Buckhurst Hill which is part of Loughton.
The sum of £750 million is to be expended on modernising the Central Line. That means new trains and improved signalling and, I hope, new track replacements. I know what that will do: it will make travelling much easier and more comfortable. At present, it is impossible to read a newspaper while travelling between many of the stations because one is buffeted about so much. Moreover, it will also mean an increase in the number of passengers to that line. It will take many people like me, who travel occasionally by car, off the roads and on to London Transport.
In paragraph 3.4 of the Company Plan to which I referred (published in November last), London Underground recognised that future plans will have to take into account a number of transport decisions that have been taken. Reference is also made, first, to the threatened deregulation of London's buses and the effect that that will have, especially as regards integrated ticketing; and secondly, to the impact on wider transport planning should the Government proceed with their intention to set up, on deregulation of the buses, a bus executive, independent of London Transport.
That seems to indicate the hopelessness of a policy which has no single unit controlling London's traffic. The appointment of the Minister of Transport for London (who happens to be the MP for my parliamentary constituency) is not the answer; no one is responsible for working out London passenger transport details. To decide to have a separate bus executive—that is, if there is to be deregulation of buses—with no relationship whatever to London Transport, seems to me to be a major disaster.
There is another point that I should like to add to the questions regarding future policy which will affect London Underground's proposals. It is estimated that, soon after the start of the year 2001, there will be an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of cars on London's roads. We have to ask: will London Underground be ready with proposals which will help to take many of those cars off the road? I believe that that will only be done by making the Underground system one to which people will readily wish to turn.
The MMC's report which I mentioned refers in paragraph 1.6 to discussions with London Transport and London Underground which revealed a conflict between London Underground's commercial object of generating enough finance to cover operating costs and the funding of renewals and replacements, and the legal obligations to have regard to London's public transport needs. The report comments that to follow
1258
the market could lead to fares increases which would be politically unacceptable. Those are statements from the MMC's report.
There must be full and comprehensive planning of what is needed for London. In my view, there must be both long-term and short-term planning. In the long term, there must be new lines, bearing in mind the fact—as London Transport has stated quite clearly in the documents to which I referred—that 15 years is needed from conception of a project to its actual completion. There must also be an assurance that, if such plans are to be made and the projects considered, funding will be available for the schemes.
I should like the Minister to report on the position of certain projects. For example, where does the CrossRail now stand? Where does the Chelsea to Hackney line stand? Where does the East London development stand? Moreover, in the light of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Sefton, we want to know where the Jubilee Line stands. I have a Starred Question down for Oral Answer next Tuesday. That asks about the financing of the Jubilee Line. I shall be interested in what the Minister says in answer to the points raised tonight so that I can follow them up next Tuesday.
Long-term planning must be accompanied by short-term plans for improving the existing system. The suggestion of having long-term and short-term plans accords with London Transport's thinking. The Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Norris, has set out 12 new objectives for London Underground. That requires money; and in setting out his objectives, the Minister gave no indication that the money will be available. It is no use talking about long-term and short-term planning unless money is made available. We need to have the comprehensive planning considered quickly. I hope that the noble Viscount will give the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, careful consideration.
11 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of responding on behalf of the Government to the Question on this important issue asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, set out clearly the problems facing the Underground. I am pleased that he has also acknowledged the Government's recognition of those problems through increased investment.
London has one of the oldest underground railway systems in the world, as well as one of the largest and most complex. I agree with the noble Lord that such antiquity is a mixed blessing. Many of the Underground's essential assets, some dating from Victorian times, are now badly in need of repair and renewal. As a result, passengers are sometimes less than happy with the quality of service which they receive. The Government, I am afraid, are familiar with the kind of tales told by noble Lords this afternoon, an example was the one told by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Today's Underground is not in perfect health. But I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords today that the prognosis is extremely

1259
positive. The Government and London Underground are already working together to bring about radical improvements to the state of the Underground system. We are committed to continuing that process of improvement, and to developing the Underground into a network capable of transporting London into the 21st century.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the London Underground mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was published on 5th June 1991. That wide-ranging report identified significant room for improvement in the way the Underground was funded, operated and managed. London Underground took notice. The Government took notice. Following the MMC's report, three key and ongoing initiatives have been set in motion to produce the required improvements: more money from the Government for investment, better efficiency and management through London Underground's company plan, and higher standards of performance through the Government's new quality of service objectives.
Taking increased investment first, last year's Autumn Statement announced a record £3.7 billion of grant to London Transport over this and the next two years—double the amount for the previous three years. The hulk of that will be directed towards investment in the Underground. As a result of those increased resources, passengers can look forward to improvements in the areas described by noble Lords. On stations, London Underground will be embarking upon a comprehensive programme of station modernisation and refurbishment. Some of the first stations to benefit will be 10 stations on the southern branch of the Northern Line. Slightly less obvious, but essential, are the plans which are already under way for the renewal and repair of basic infrastructure such as track and tunnels.
More striking will he the refurbished trains, which noble Lords may already have seen on a number of Underground Lines. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra has been on one. Most passengers have reacted in similar fashion to the noble Lord when travelling on one. They are, indeed, like new. As well as all the trains on the Victoria, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Bakerloo Lines, one-quarter of the Northern Line's trains will be refurbished, along with all the stock on the Metropolitan Line—the latest contract to be let by London Underground. These trains will be safer, brighter, easier to clean and will improve the travelling environment tremendously.
I know that I have not mentioned the Central Line on which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, travels, but he has an advantage over us. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is his Member of Parliament, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I hope that they will gain advantages from that in the future.
Following on from this theme of the travelling environment, the noble Lord mentioned that passengers expect to be safe on the Underground. I thoroughly agree and it is a credit to efforts made by London Underground and the British Transport
1260
Police that crime on the Underground has fallen for three consecutive years, with violent crime dropping by 40 per cent. over this period.
Returning to investment, current major schemes such as the £750 million modernisation of the Central Line and the £72 million reconstruction of Angel station on the Northern Line are progressing well. The first new Central Line train was delivered in May, and part of the revamped Angel will be opening next month, with final completion in the spring. Station capacity schemes planned include Waterloo, King's Cross and Victoria, and passenger information systems, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, are to be upgraded, with the new dot matrix indicators on the Bakerloo, District and Northern Lines. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Underhill, asked for a commitment from the Government that the level of funding announced last year will be sustained. With this year's public expenditure round under way, noble Lords will be aware that there is little I can say on the matter. However, the Government are working with the Underground to produce a strategy for the next 10 years that will bring the decent modern metro that we all want to see.
I now turn from investment in the existing network to say something about the planned investment in new lines, of which the Jubilee Line extension is an excellent example. The Government stand ready to commit £1.5 billion towards the cost of this scheme once the contribution pledged by the private sector is assured. They are prepared to make a significant commitment in recognition of the substantial benefits of the extension which, although many noble Lords will be familiar with them, I think bear repeating.
The 15.5 kilometre extension, with a planned capacity to carry 15,000 passengers in each direction in the peak hour, will provide a fast, direct link from central London to Docklands, thereby facilitating the regeneration of the area. It will, however, as the noble Lord said, do more than that. The extension will provide direct connections to the West End and west and north-west London and improve access to Waterloo and London Bridge. Moreover, it will greatly improve accessibility for those areas south of the Thames which are poorly served by public transport at present. Finally, it will relieve congestion on the roads and existing rail networks.
The Government have repeatedly made clear their commitment to the Jubilee Line extension. They have been ready to provide the sum of £1.5 billion towards the cost of the Jubilee Line extension. Olympia & York had undertaken to contribute £400 million. The Government's commitment is contingent upon this private sector contribution being honoured.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, twice this matter has arisen in the Chamber. Can the noble Viscount give us the details of the agreement by which Olympia & York gave this undertaking? I asked the question before and did not receive a satisfactory answer. The noble Viscount made the point clearly that Olympia & York undertook to pay £400 million. Can he tell us how it was done?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was about to come to that, if the noble Lord will allow me. The Secretary of State for Transport has made clear that he sees no prospect of authorising the start of construction on the Jubilee Line extension unless and until the contributions pledged by Olympia & York are assured. Olympia & York recognises the financial advantages in its development being served by the extension. That remains the case for any subsequent owners of the property.
A schedule of terms was agreed and signed between the Government and Olympia & York in 1989. It was then for London Underground Limited and Olympia & York to work out, settle and put into a formal agreement the details of the railway which would be provided, the precise terms on which Olympia & York's contribution will be made and the rights and obligations of the respective parties. Negotiations on that formal agreement reached an advanced stage but the agreement was not concluded.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, thank you.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as we have seen this evening, there are many different views on the Jubilee Line extension. I was most interested in the proposal of a monorail made by my noble friend Lord Cross. It is a concept that is of course overground rather than underground, but I am sure it offers us food for thought.
Of course the Jubilee Line extension is not the only new line in the pipeline. There is also currently before Parliament a Bill to allow construction of Cross Rail. This new rail line, to be operated jointly by British Rail and London Transport, will provide much needed relief of congestion in central London and improve access from both the east and west. When CrossRail opens around the turn of the century it will improve the Underground railway system in and around London significantly. The proposed alignment of the Chelsea-Hackney line which would provide a link between the Wimbledon branch of the District Line and the Epping branch of the Central Line was protected in safeguarding directions issued in February 1991. The Government's position on the East London Line is quite simple: we await an appraisal from London Underground as and when it feels able to include the scheme in its investment programme.
1262
So far I have concentrated on various aspects of London Underground's investment programme for the coming years. But I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, while it is critically important, investment alone cannot be guaranteed to deliver high quality services. London Underground itself recognised this fact in producing its company plan, alluded to by the noble Lord, which was published in November 1991. The purpose of this plan is to bring about a step change in standards of safety, quality and efficiency on the Underground network, through more flexible working practices and better service management. The plan is due to be implemented by 1995. The Government support London Underground in its efforts as a positive step towards ensuring that the resources which the taxpayer puts into the Underground system are used to best effect. For our own part, we have recently set the Underground 12 testing new quality of service objectives. These are designed to bring about improvements in areas such as peak train, escalator and lift reliability, quality of information on trains and at stations, and staff helpfulness and availability. We have pinpointed aspects of the service most important to passengers, and their views on performance in key areas will tell us how London Underground is performing—the best yardstick there could be. Over the next two years we shall be looking carefully at the Underground's progress in meeting these targets.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the Chelsea-Hackney line. I cannot give any commitment as to when that line will be built: it will depend essentially on when it can be afforded, although there are also issues of public disruption and the construction industry's capacity to be taken into account when we consider the timing of mega-projects. In the meantime, though, safeguarding will ensure that the route is protected.
In the light of these three strands—increased investment, the Company Plan and performance targets—I am confident that more is being done than perhaps ever before to bring London Underground up to the standard that people expect and deserve. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said this evening, noble Lords will feel more able to share my confidence.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ASYLUM-SEEKERS: 1991 ESTIMATE
  ASYLUM-SEEKERS: 1991 ESTIMATE
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UK
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UK
  CHARITY COMMISSION 1988 REPORT: LETTER OF 23rd MARCH
  CHARITY COMMISSION 1988 REPORT: LETTER OF 23rd MARCH
  UKIAS:FUNDING
  UKIAS:FUNDING
  SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING OFF WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND
  SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING OFF WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND
  SOCIAL FUND: ANNUAL REPORTS
  SOCIAL FUND: ANNUAL REPORTS
  DoT PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  DoT PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  ROADWORKS AND THE CITIZEN'S CHARTER
  ROADWORKS AND THE CITIZEN'S CHARTER
  TRANSPORT WORKING GROUP
  TRANSPORT WORKING GROUP
  COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION AND PLANNING
  COASTAL ZONE PROTECTION AND PLANNING