Sitting of 13 March 1992

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

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)
9.35 am
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill:—

Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Finance Bill
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Finance Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  (2) Any stage of the Finance Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.
  (3) On completion of Second Reading of the Finance Bill any Question necessary for the House immediately to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House shall be put forthwith.
  (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Finance Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Finance Bill are taken.
  (6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Lords Amendments: Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
  2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  3.—(1)This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Finance Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) —

  (a)any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c)the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3)Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 2.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put

  1093
  forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that the charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;

  (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii)put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on either of the Bills to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  6.—(1) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings at this day's sitting on both of the Bills to which this Order applies.
  (2) If the proceedings on the Motion for this Order were interrupted, or the proceedings on the Finance Bill are interrupted, under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Questions of an urgent character which relate to matters of public importance etc.), the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.
  (3) If the proceedings of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11, the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

  Supplemental orders
  7. (1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister
  1094
  of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
  (2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

  Recommittal
  9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
  11. The Proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  12. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  13.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  14. In this Order "the proceedings", in relation to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill includes proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  The timetable motion provides for debates on the Finance Bill to be concluded within four hours from now. We have already had three full days of debate. Indeed, we finished early on Tuesday night. Four hours should give sufficient further time for us to demolish the Opposition's criticisms of the Budget and to demonstrate, yet again, that Labour is a party with a fundamental belief in high

  1095
  taxation for everyone. It will also enable the House to get on the statute book some of the key points of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.
  The motion also provides for the consideration of Lords amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill within one hour immediately following the proceedings on the Finance Bill. Again, I believe that that arrangement is right for the country. Just as with the Bill relating to England and Wales, the Scottish Bill is already widely welcomed by further and higher education institutions. It will continue the Government's reforms in further and higher education, which have brought about a vigorous expansion in the places in higher education being taken up by our young people.
  We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) the predictable dirge about the use of the guillotine. I wholly reject his charge that we are ending this Session with our legislative programme in disorder. The truth is quite the opposite, as the facts show. The hon. Gentleman is never very good with facts, but I shall give them to him. We are, in fact, ending this Session as we began it, with our legislative programme under firm control and in excellent order. It is yet another example of good, effective and successful Government.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I was about to give the facts, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Beith: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the philosophy behind the facts. If, as he claims, the Government's legislative programme is in good order, is not that because he applied guillotines to so many Bills, as he is now doing again? Are there any circumstances in which he thinks it inappropriate to put a timetable on a Bill from the beginning and without consultation?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear—and it is a personal view—that I believe it right to timetable Bills. I have said that the way in which that is done is still a matter for discussion. The principle of timetabling is good because it enables us to have effective consideration of legislation. No one could argue that the way in which we conducted our practices on some Bills in the past, where there has been filibustering, has been effective in ensuring proper scrutiny. I am glad that the Select Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has followed that through.
  I shall explain how that has worked in this Session. The Gracious Speech mentioned 12 Bills. I hope that, by the conclusion of business on Monday, 21 Government Bills will have been enacted. Very few Bills will not reach the statute book. If the Asylum Bill is one of those, it will be because the opposition parties have opposed various parts of that important piece of legislation, which I believe the country wants on the statute book.
  Mr. John Greenway: I think that my right hon. Friend is interrupting what I was about to ask him. He is very perceptive. Does he agree that whatever the result of the general election—and we are buoyant by the prospect of another Conservative victory—and whichever Government come to the House, the Asylum Bill will have to be one of the first measures to be reintroduced?
  Mr. MacGregor: Mind reading is one of my hobbies, but my skill does not extend to interrupting something that my hon. Friend had not yet said. I agree with him about the importance of having the Asylum Bill on the statute book. If that cannot be by Monday, I trust that it will be done soon thereafter. I hope that at least 21 Government Bills and a number of private Members' Bills will be enacted by the close of business on Monday. The Government are full of new ideas, and our first programme in the new Parliament will include many measures to build on our achievements since 1979.
  There are two main reasons why we must proceed with speed, so that the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent before the House rises. First, the Bill contains a number of measures that it is essential to have in place on the statute book. The changes in excise duties contained in resolutions that the House approved last night must be enacted in a Finance Bill, otherwise the extra tax collected would have to be repaid.
  The Finance Bill provides also for the renewal of income tax and for the continuation of tax relief on mortgage interest, which are also essential. If the powers to collect income tax are not renewed by 5 May, no income tax could be collected for the financial year ahead. — [Laughter.] That might be attractive to some of my hon. Friends and to many in the country. We have been working to ensure throughout our period of government that taxpayers pay less income tax, but I do not imagine that any right hon. or hon. Member expects no income tax at all to be collected. Also, mortgage payers would not thank us if we could not continue interest relief.
  The Finance Bill makes provision for value added tax monthly payments on account, to put beyond doubt the legal position on VAT monthly returns that are currently subject to judicial review.
  The Finance Bill provides also for the introduction of the new lower rate of income tax of 20p for the first £2,000 of taxable income, and for the halving of car tax—both highly desirable measures that the country wants implemented and operating as soon as possible.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Four weeks today.
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the whole country notes that—as I understand last night's vote and that which we expect today—the Opposition oppose the 20p reduced income tax band. That will be an important issue during the forthcoming election.
  Mr. Grocott: The Leader of the House must be disappointed with the public's reception of the Budget, as shown by opinion polls and City reaction.
  Mr. MacGregor: Not at all. Like all good things, people will come to appreciate the Budget's provisions better the more that they study them.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I can give my hon. Friend some interesting information. In a by-election in my constituency yesterday, the Conservative candidate came top of the poll, 400 votes ahead of the runner up, and neither Labour nor the Liberals bothered to contest the seat.
  Mr. MacGregor: The longer that we debate the Finance Bill and our tax and expenditure policies, the more support we will gain during the general election campaign.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: If a 20p tax band is such a good idea, why did the right hon. and learrned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), as Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, get rid of it in 1980? Is it not the case that the Government are reintroducing it as a bribe? The electorate understand that a 20p tax band is being reintroduced just prior to a general election to give the impression that the Tories are helping them out. If that tax band had been any good, we would have had it for the past 11 years.
  Mr. MacGregor: At the beginning of this Government's first term, we faced a need to reduce a truly horrendous public sector borrowing requirement. I will make very clear later in my speech the relative position of the PSBR now. Today, the position is wholly different. The 20p band continues our policy of bringing down direct tax rates and of achieving the long-term target of a basic rate of income tax of 20p in the pound. The reference by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to a bribe is very revealing of Labour's philosophy. The suggestion that one can bribe people by enabling them to keep more of their earnings demonstrates Labour's thinking, which is, "We can spend your money better than you." That is why Labour is a party of high taxation, and why it will never understand that the electorate do not believe that they can be bribed by being allowed to keep more of their own money.
  The debate of the past three days has clearly shown how wide of the mark are Labour's criticisms of the Budget. The Opposition attempt to give the impression that because the Budget contains nothing specific about capital spending and training, nothing is being done about them, but they know very well that under the present system—which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has indicated will be changed anyway—decisions on capital expenditure and training for the year ahead were announced earlier. It is not the case that those decisions—and they are substantial—are announced in a Budget.
  We plan capital expenditure of about £30 billion next year, on top of steadily increasing capital programmes. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on capital expenditure. We have steadily increased it, whereas Labour cut that expenditure during its period in office.
  Since 1988, capital spending on roads and transport increased by more than one third. British Rail's capital expenditure has nearly doubled, and London Transport's has trebled. Expenditure on training is in real terms two and a half times more than when we took office, which is additional to the high levels of training expenditure undertaken by industry, totalling some £20 billion. Next year's public expenditure programmes include a substantial proportion devoted to capital spending.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lancastrians have not forgotten that the last Labour Government cut all hospital and school building in the county. It has been catching up steadily under a Conservative Government, but Lancastrians will not forget in a hurry the policies of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. We plan for the country as a whole a programme of more than 600 new hospital buildings. Schools capital expenditure has risen by 35 per cent. in the last two years. It is nonsense for Labour to claim that the PSBR is being devoted to income tax cuts. One can split the expenditure programme whichever way one likes.
  1098
  Labour claims also that we are doing nothing for business and investment—ignoring the fact that commerce and manufacturing industry are encouraged to invest by the right economic framework, confidence in Government policies and long-term strategy, low corporation tax and good profitability. Those are the policies which ensure a good level of business investment.
  We have provided all these and that is why we have seen an unparalleled investment boom. Investment in plant and machinery increased by almost 50 per cent. from 1979 to 1991 and business investment increased by almost 45 per cent. from 1986 to 1989, the fastest three-year growth since the war. Business investment in 1992 is forecast to be a third higher than in 1979. There is substantial business investment and it has been brought about by the policies that we have created.
  The Labour party has ignored the fact that about £6 billion in cash flow is coming into business as a result of interest rate reductions over the past 18 months. There is a further £1 billion as a result of last year's corporation tax reduction. There is also a significant improvement in business cash flow as a result of action already taken. That is why it is right to claim that the Budget, as a Budget for business, adds to what has already been done.
  The Labour party does not understand that business men's confidence to press the button to implement new investment plans depends in part on their sales forecasts. Labour behaves as if there is something deeply wrong in giving a modest boost to consumer expenditure through the tax cuts that we propose. There is no black-and-white choice between encouraging investment and encouraging sales. It is not either/or. We need a balance.
  I shall use the example of the motor industry, an industry in which there is no shortage of capital investment. Indeed, over recent years it has been massive. That is why there has been a greatly improved export record over the past few years. However, the industry needs a boost to its sales. The halving of the car tax will help business and business investment, not the reverse.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I shall illustrate the public's reaction to the Budget and in so doing take up some of my right hon. Friend's remarks. Yesterday, there was a by-election in my constituency, one ninth of which was involved. In the ward there is almost exactly a 50–50 split between what might be described as private property and the public sector property. We, the Conservative party, took 50 per cent. of the vote and won the seat comfortably. Councillor Tim Bowler will be a great addition to the city council. That was the public's verdict yesterday in my Nottingham constituency.
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's return to the House will be of great benefit to his constituents, as his presence has been in the past.
  The result of the by-election in Nottingham illustrates that the Labour party's approach—that a tax cut does nothing to help the economy or to help business confidence—reflects a complete misunderstanding of business investment. It is important to have increased sales and that was illustrated recently in the results of a survey that was undertaken by Goldman Sachs International Ltd. The likelihood is that between £2·5 billion and £3 billion of potential extra spending power will come into the economy between the end of December 1991 and April of this year as a result of the reduction in mortgage interest

  1099
  rates. The fact that about 40 per cent. of mortgages are based on annual interest rate adjustments will have a considerable impact and the adjustments are taking place now. As a result of the measures that we have taken, there has been a considerable boost to business confidence within the economy.
  Because of our policies, the results of many surveys, including that of the Anglo-German chamber of commerce, which is composed mainly of German companies that are investing in the United Kingdom and of those who have invested in the United Kingdom—inward investors—demonstrate that investors believe that the United Kingdom is an attractive place in which to do business. That is the result of the Government's policies. That is also the answer to the Labour party's charge that the Budget is not one for business and that we have not been pursuing policies that are attractive to business.
  The Confederation of British Industry and many other organisations have supported the approach that we have taken throughout. I noted the other day the result of a survey of the top 200 companies that was undertaken by James Capel and Co. When the companies were asked whether they thought that a Labour victory would be good or bad for the economy, 86 per cent. said that it would be bad. That is the reaction and judgment of business on the alternative policies that will be put to the country in the general election.
  Criticisms about the public sector borrowing requirement come ill from the Labour party when we recall both its record in government and its published spending commitments. It is worth reminding the country, as we shall be doing constantly, that when the last Labour Government were in office, the equivalent PSBR as a proportion of gross domestic product—this is an average —was £40 billion. In the Labour Government's worst year it was the equivalent of £55 billion. Our PSBR still remains, as a proportion of GDP, the lowest within the European Community, apart from that of Luxembourg. That is why we can rightly claim to be the party which has pursued sound finances.
  We have heard little from the Labour party about how well the Budget is targeted on other groups, such as the small business group in which I take a particular interest. I regret that it has not been possible to include some of the very welcome measures in the Finance Bill that were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. We shall certainly be including them in legislation as soon as we return after the election.
  The targeting on pensioners helps to increase spending and is important for pensioners on income support who, from October, will see an increase in their incomes of at least £5·70 a week. In some instances, it will be as much as £10·70.
  I come to the crucial element of the debate, which is the shrillness of the Opposition's reaction to the proposed 20p rate for the first £2,000 of taxable income. The reaction—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a disturbance coming from the Opposition Front Bench, but the debate has hardly been about the guillotine motion since it began; it has been wider than that. I have been rather tolerant this morning.
  Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. To judge from the interventions in my speech, the House wants to debate the motion.
  The Opposition's reaction to the 20p proposal reveals them in their true colours. The proposal is worth £100 a year to almost 21 million taxpayers. It is skilfully targeted to give the most assistance proportionately to the lower paid. Seventy five per cent. of the benefit will go to those on below average earnings. The marginal tax rate will be reduced for nearly 4 million taxpayers.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has made a rather important point. He said that 75 per cent. of the benefit will go to people on below average earnings. Is that now the Government's definition of the lower paid?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, because I was talking about skilful targeting to those on lower incomes. I was simply making a point about what the impact of the measure would be.
  Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend think that the casual disregard of £100 is because it would not even pay for the first course of the gala dinner in Park lane?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point.
  It was interesting that the Opposition got into a muddle in their reaction to the 20p proposal, as they do on every other tax matter. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) described it as a good idea. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that he would support it. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was quoted in the Liverpool Daily Post as saying:
  "There may be a way we can accept this tax band because we believe the lower paid pay too much tax already."
  As always, the Labour party got into a muddle and tried to retreat. In truth, it believes in and stands for higher taxes, not only for those on higher incomes, but for those on middle and lower incomes. That is demonstrated by its attitude to the 20p proposal and by everything that it says about taxes generally.
  The country will be able to judge from the way in which Opposition Members vote whether the Labour party is for or against lower taxes, for or against directing the benefit of tax cuts to the least well off and for or against an economy that is competitive with other countries. We Conservatives know that the role of government is to get economic fundamentals right, to keep them right, to create conditions for growth and opportunities for enterprise and to provide scope for freedom of choice. As the Finance Bill demonstrates, we know that the money that Governments spend comes from taxpayers. We believe it right to leave people with as much of their own money to spend as is possible.
  We believe in reducing taxes, increasing incentives and enhancing opportunities for all our people. The Labour party does not believe in any of those things. It will be demonstrating that again today by voting against our proposals. The country will soon judge. I have no doubt that its verdict will be the same as it has been for the last 13 years.
  9.59 am
  Dr. John Cunningham: I hope that I do not embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I say that we think we heard a note of irony in your voice when you reminded us what the debate is about. I shall return to that point in a moment, but I begin by saying genuinely to the

  1101
  Leader of the House that, in so far as he has been involved in work on House of Commons affairs, he has been a good Leader. I thank him for his courtesy to me personally in the way that we have tried to work together to improve matters in the House of Commons—but there, I am afraid, the felicitations must end.
  As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a note of irony in your voice, when you reminded us of the nature of the debate and why we are here, the reason why we are here this morning is that the Leader of the House is asking us to agree to the guillotining of three Bills. In round numbers, that means that in this Parliament the Government, with their large majority, will have guillotined about 40 measures—more than twice the number of guillotines used by the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, when we did not even have a majority in the House of Commons.
  The Government will finish as they began—unable to persuade people by argument and debate, but determined to railroad their ideas through Parliament regardless. At least two or three Conservative Members are in the Chamber today who, in the past, had the courage and conviction to stand up and oppose in principle the guillotining of Bills and also to vote against measures such as the poll tax when that, too, was guillotined. The Government have never learnt from their mistakes throughout this Parliament in the way that they have approached the business of the House.
  This morning's proceedings are unprecedented. The Budget debate has been curtailed and we face the savage guillotining of the Finance Bill through all its stages in a few hours today. No Government of any persuasion, however great their difficulties, ever conducted proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Budget in such a way. The right hon. Gentleman leaves this Parliament with an unenviable record in that regard, as well as in some others, to which I shall turn later.
  The Leader of the House says that we have to have a Finance Bill. He is absolutely right. Despite what he said yesterday, we recognised that need from the outset—but we did not have to have a Finance Bill in these circumstances and we did not have to have a Budget debate in these circumstances. We could have had the Budget a week earlier or we could have had the general election a week later. Either way, the Government simply messed it up.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer—he was here a few moments ago, but has vanished again, no doubt having put on his Vatman cape—and the Prime Minister were responsible for fixing these dates and this timetable. What we now see clearly is that they made a complete mess of fixing the dates. The result is the guillotining of the Finance Bill today.
  We see a flight from responsibility by the Government. They deny that the recession has anything to do with their policies. They deny that homelessness has anything to do with their policies—it is the fault of the homeless. Unemployment is the fault of people who do not have jobs. The recession is the fault of the Americans. The Government accept no responsibility for anything. Even after 13 years in office, with large parliamentary majorities and advantageous world circumstances, and with oil
  1102
  revenues in excess of £100 million, the Government leave the nation's affairs in a shambles. They leave Parliament in a shambles, too.
  The Finance Bill is the most important measure to be guillotined this morning, but the Education (Schools) Bill is also guillotined, as is the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, even though we have expressed our acceptance of the Bill in its present form. I assume that the Leader of the House is guillotining it because he is concerned about the Scottish Nationalists, but as they are not here I am not sure what he is worried about. He is guillotining that Bill without the Labour party opposing it.
  The Leader of the House said that the Government's conduct of the final aspects of their business was orderly, so whatever happened to the Asylum Bill? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not implying, or trying to convince the House, that the Asylum Bill is not here because we oppose it. The truth of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman was offered a compromise on that Bill by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) but the Government rejected it. The real reason why the Asylum Bill is not in the House now is because the Government have signally failed to convince the other place—a combination of Tory peers, Cross Benchers and others—that it should be allowed through. That is why the Asylum Bill has not come back from the other place—it has nothing to do with obstacles in the House of Commons and it is quite out of order to suggest anything to the contrary.
  The reality is that the Government are staggering through these last few days of Parliament, desperate to get out of here before even their last act of folly—their Budget —is rumbled. They have even missed the boat on that. Their timetable has gone wrong on that, too. As reactions from the City and from people around the country show, the Budget has had a big thumbs down. The great launch for the Tory campaign has stalled. The rocket motor has fizzled out like a damp squib. How can any Conservative Member or anyone else in the forthcoming campaign believe that the person on £70 a week, whom the Chancellor told us he had in mind when he made his tax changes, will be delighted by the proposals? The tax reduction offered to that taxpayer is just under 19p per week. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, that is equivalent to the price of a box of matches. Anyone who thinks either that that will motivate voters to support his discredited Government or that it will electrify the economy must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
  Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
  The truth is that even before my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor unveils his alternative budget next week, our own proposals on child benefit, a minimum wage and attendant policies will do far more for the low paid than anything in this Budget.
  Mr. Dover: If the Labour party is voting against the lower band of income tax, will it consider most carefully the fact that the main reason for it is to give every possible incentive to the unemployed to get into work? Due to the poverty trap, there has been no incentive for them to take low-paid jobs. Is this not the best way to bring about a fall in unemployment?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman must be absolutely confused about the position of people who are out of work. They are out of work as a result of the Government's policies. If he thinks that 19p per week is all that is stopping people who are out of work from getting jobs, he is fundamentally mistaken. I can tell him from my experience throughout the country, and in particular from my experience in my own constituency of Copeland, that what he says is incorrect. There are 3,000 people out of work in Copeland. If I include the unemployment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), there are between 6,000 and 7,000 people out of work in west Cumbria. An extra 19p a week will do nothing to create additional employment in west Cumbria. Indeed, a further unemployment calamity is coming to west Cumbria due to the running down of the nuclear industry's construction programme and a further 3,000 people will lose their jobs in my constituency. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) knows the building and construction industry. He knows that it is in a calamitous state across the country. Nothing in the Budget—certainly not the 19p reduction for an employed person earning £70 per week—will resolve the problems. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I have not given way, but as the hon. Gentleman has been so courteous, I will do so now.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the poor people of Cumbria that a future Labour Government would take a positive attitude to the nuclear industry and the construction thereof?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I did not want to be diverted to the subject of nuclear power, but, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it, I can say that it is important in my constituency, where it employs 14,000 people directly. The Government took office 13 years ago, full of bold, brave things to say about nuclear power, but what is their record? They started but did not finish even one nuclear power station in 13 years.
  Mr. Beith: Thank goodness.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says, "Thank goodness." He is entitled to his point of view, but for the Government to talk as though they are the saviours of the nuclear industry is one of the long-running myths of this and previous Parliaments. If we take into account the privatisation of the electricity industry—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying too far by talking about privatisation measures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to return to the motion on the allocation of time.
  Dr. Cunningham: That shows that I should not have been tempted to allow an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, to conclude the point, the privatisation of the electricity industry above all wrecked the prospects of the industry to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was another of the Government's terrible mistakes.
  I deal again with the reason for the guillotine as you rightly reminded me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion is intended to force through the Budget proposals with the claim that somehow at the 59th second of the 59th
  1104
  minute of the 23rd hour, as the Government stagger out of office, they have suddenly become concerned about lower-paid people. That is absolutely bogus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, in one of their first Acts the Government abolished the lower rate. Now, 12 years later—just before a general election—they are reintroducing it.
  What has happened in the intervening decade? What has happened since Conservative Members voted to freeze child benefit? Were they thinking about low-income families then? Of course they were not. What happened when they trooped through the Lobbies to impose the poll tax on low-income families? Where was their concern for the low paid then? What were they thinking when they agreed to legislation that, for the reasons that we advanced, no political party in any other democracy would support? When they agreed to introduce the poll tax, what did they think about sending poll tax bills to people who had no income? That is the Government's record on taxation—to say nothing of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT in the last year's Budget to buy off poll tax anger.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I thought that we had come to hear about the guillotine.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman did not come here for that purpose—he knows that and so do we.
  As I was saying, that is the Government's record, not to mention imposing the highest tax burden in history on all of us as they leave after 13 uninterrupted years in office. The Government have got the Budget wrong, and they have got it wrong for 13 years. If they have not got it right in 13 years, they never will.
  That is what people think. At the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will remind hon. Members of the comments of City analysts on the Budget. They said that it was a flop and gave it the thumbs down. One Thatcherite supporter in the City gave it one out of 10. It was remarkable to sit here while the Chancellor introduced the Budget and to observe the look and demeanour of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). She looked absolutely livid throughout the whole performance.
  I asked the Leader of the House yesterday about the Conservative campaign guide for the coming election. I do not know whether Conservative Members have seen it, but if they would like to come to my office afterwards, they can have a copy. The guide is already out of date because it contains figures that are nonsensical. It talks about a PSBR of £10·5 billion, which is already 50 per cent. too low. It says nothing about the PSBR of £28 billion for the coming financial year or one of £32 billion for the year after that.
  What happened to sound money? What happened to balanced Budgets? What about the chairman of the Conservative party who said that large borrowing was simply deferred taxation, a burden for future generations? All those arguments have gone out of the window—whoof!—because there is a general election on the way. That is what the Budget is all about, and that is why the Government have made such a reckless economic misjudgment. As my hon. Friends have said, and as the polls show today, the Budget was also a huge political misjudgment. People do not want it. It means nothing to them in the face of higher tax bills, higher poll tax bills,

  1105
  higher charges for electricity, for gas and for water, and higher petrol prices. Those higher prices will override any benefits to low-income families which might have resulted from these policies.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
  The Budget will not wash. Even the people who are struggling, as I know from my constituency experience —who are faced with schools without sufficient text books or learning materials for their children, and with the appalling circumstances which led to the tragic death of Georgina Norris—would rather have borrowing for investment, to build for the future. They know that investment for the future is the best way to get a better deal for themselves and their families, rather than a tax bribe a few weeks before a general election.
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is attacking the Government for their imprudent level of borrowing. Will he let us into the secret of the shadow Budget to be published tomorrow? Will the level of borrowing under a Labour Government be lower or higher than that which we propose?
  Dr. Cunningham: I cannot let the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in on the secret of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget to be revealed tomorrow because it will be revealed next week. All will be revealed. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear in the Chamber that we shall have to work within the circumstances that we inherit. [Interruption] Hon. Members say that we shall have to stay with it. Of course, an incoming Labour Government—and that is what we shall have—will have to work within the circumstances that they inherit. I suspect that, as in the past, the mess of the nation's finances will be even worse when we open the books and take a thorough look, but we shall have to deal with that. The hon. Member for Chichester must contain himself for a few days more. He will discover that my right hon. and learned Friend's alternative proposals are better not only for individuals but for Britain as a whole.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has just talked about capital spending in the national health service, with the implication that somehow or other Labour would do better. During the forthcoming election campaign, will he keep reminding the electorate that the Government have increased capital spending on hospitals by 76 per cent., compared with the 30 per cent. cut made by the Labour Government in that same capital spending?
  Dr. Cunningham: Indeed, I am more than happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's challenge that we should debate the circumstances of the national health service during the election campaign. We know that people are deeply unhappy about the Government's policies and, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman says about expenditure, he and his right hon. Friends must explain why wards are continuing to close, why emergency beds are not available and why desperately ill children are turned away from hospitals. Why is that happening, if the Government's record on health is so wonderful? Why is the number of beds available for private patients who need urgent treatment increasing while the number of beds
  1106
  available to NHS patients is declining? Why is that happening if the Government have made such a good job of their health service reforms?
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have substantially increased spending on the health service in real terms, by about 55 per cent. overall. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] Labour Members, say that that is not enough. How, then, do they explain what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is clearly saying to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—that the Labour party would not be able to spend more on the health service and that, because of its policies on a national minimum wage, on pay beds and on prescription charges, it would substantially reduce the amount actually spent on patients within the health service?
  Dr. Cunningham: We are right at the nub of the dispute between us. This is the choice which people face. They must choose whether the money that is still available, even in these desperately difficult financial circumstances—the mess that the Tory Government are leaving—should be spent on tax cuts or on investments. That is the clear choice which we shall put to the people and we are happy to put it in those clear terms. I am quietly confident that people will see the difference and make the choice—and that choice will be for Labour. The evidence emerges again and again from the debate.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the Labour party, in a quite revolting fashion, has spent on advertising which exploits the death of a child?
  Dr. Cunningham: The tragedy of Georgina Norris, who was twice taken to hospital to have an operation and twice sent home, is appalling. It is a stain on a civilised society that that child should have died in those circumstances.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman does not know what the circumstances were.
  Dr. Cunningham: I know very well what the circumstances were, and we stand by what we have said —the child's parents wanted the nation's attention drawn to what happened to their little girl as a result of the Government's mismanagement of the national health service. For the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) to suggest otherwise is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House and the country. I have all the correspondence here and he is welcome to see it all if he wishes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not allow further discussion on an individual case. We are discussing principles.
  Dr. Cunningham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker —I might have known that that was the kind of intervention that the hon. Member for Thanet, North would make.
  On this penultimate day of our deliberations, the Government are desperate to get their fag-ends of legislation through—desperate to get their bribes on to the statute book—so they are guillotining our procedure. They have used the guillotine a record number of times. The Leader of the House smiles. I do not think that he should smile, because, as well as being fed up with the

  1107
  Government's economic and social policy failures the people are fed up with the abuse of Parliament which has been a recurring feature of the Government's term of office. The Government are concluding their term of office with another abuse of Parliament—and that, too, will count against them in the ballot box on 9 April.
  10.26 am
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The debate has ranged rather widely, but its subject is rather narrow— whether it is wiser for us to carry on discussing the Finance Bill in detail for a week or to rush on with the election now. The evidence so far suggests that it would have been better for us to go on for another week on the Finance Bill, because the signs for the election campaign appear rather depressing. There are a few exceptions—the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has just spoken, is an obvious exception. I asked him a straight question and he gave me a straight answer. I hope that that will be a sign of what will happen in the campaign.
  I asked the hon. Member for Copeland simply whether a Labour Government would be in favour of expanding a nuclear power programme and he said, "Yes." Presumably, that would be at the expense of coal-fired power stations. There are some such subjects on which it is good for politicians to give a straight answer. We know that some people feel that we should have more coal-fired power stations, while some favour gas-fired power stations and some want to cut the nuclear construction industry. At least we have had a straight answer from the hon. Member for Copeland. That is the sort of thing that we should have. There have been other signs that are not so good.
  I understand that the Leader of the Opposition will be in Scotland today. We always regarded him as one of our staunch friends in the battle against all the nonsense about devolution—but now he seems to be one of its greatest supporters. It is tragic that, during the election campaign, nonsense will be talked by people who used proudly to support strong policies.
  I shall ask the Leader of the House three questions. He will know that many Back Benchers have strong feelings on taxation issues and that they want to bring those feelings before the House when debating the Finance Bill. Yet it seems that, because of the guillotine, we shall be denied that opportunity. If, as we hope, the Conservative Government are re-elected, will there be an early opportunity to consider various tax anomalies?
  I want to talk about simple things—for instance, beach huts, which, as my right hon. Friend probably knows, are important to the tourist industry. Suddenly, in the course of last year, beach huts became liable to VAT. That was done not by primary legislation but by some funny order that went to a Committee and it is obviously grossly discriminatory against the leisure and tourism industry. It is unfair and people are fed up about it.
  We wondered how we could resolve the matter and we thought that we would be able to do so in the Finance Bill— but now we shall not be able to, which means that a great injustice to seaside areas, including Southend-on-Sea, will continue for another year unless we can have a detailed discussion on the subject.
  Another great anomaly concerns the sale of secondhand furniture. It is ridiculous that, although almost every other industry pays VAT only on added value, sadly, on
  1108
  second-hand furniture the gross amount must be paid. That is unfair to the industry, especially to the minority of people in it who are registered for VAT.
  Another anomaly concerns people with working wives. If someone who is unemployed has a working wife, it will be almost impossible to get the mortgage paid, whereas if the wife is not working the mortgage can be paid. That is the kind of anomaly which we would like to discuss on the Finance Bill, but we shall not be given the opportunity. I simply ask my right hon. Friend whether, if we approve the motion, there will be another opportunity for considering detailed points about unfairness and distortion in tax legislation.
  Secondly, I believe that it would be best if, in advance of the election, the Leader of the House introduced a simple motion outlining issues on which all the parties could agree. The motion could be discussed for about three hours and those issues could be left out of party politics. We could send them for local decision making.
  That is not a silly idea. Hon. Members from all parties are aware that whenever there is a general election many people face total uncertainty. I shall cite one little example, which concerns the 2,500 children in Southend-on-Sea who attend grammar schools. There are arguments for and against grammar schools. I believe that if grammar schools are abolished, the people who will suffer will be able children from working-class areas. That is a political argument which is not relevant to the motion.
  What is terrible is that, at this election, the next election and the election after that, the children, teachers and parents face uncertainty. They know that if one party wins, the grammar schools will be closed. If another party wins, the schools will stay open. Is it not possible to get some agreement between the parties before the election that there are some issues that we all agree should be left to the decision of local people? That is not an attack on the Labour party or on the Liberal Democrats: it is simply a suggestion that there must be some issues that we could agree to leave to local decision making.
  I hope that the House will consider that possibility instead of using the motion. I hope that the House will decide to have short discussions with all the parties to see which issues we could leave to local decision making. We should not then have this terrible position of total uncertainty.
  The Labour party used to believe in nationalisation and we had terrible problems. Industries did not know where they were, the employers did not know where they were and the workers—
  Mr. Tony Banks: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about local decision making. However, we have had 13 years of a Tory Government who have continually undermined local democracy, local accountability and local decision making. I should have liked to hear the hon. Gentleman's voice raised more sternly when local accountability was effectively being removed by the House.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am trying terribly hard not to be political. Even if the hon. Gentleman were absolutely accurate, even if the Conservative party were a crowd of rascals who wanted to interfere with everything—I do not think that they are, because some of them are very nice blokes—surely we should not go further.

  1109
  Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that a political party should say what kind of educational arrangements there should be in an area? Why not leave it to the local people? If they want to change, let them change.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will remember that when his party used to believe in nationalisation, which it does not believe in now, the same uncertainty applied to many jobs and many industries. Happily, the Labour party has moved away from that position and from many of its former policies. Would it not be sensible to have an arrangement whereby the parties could say, "Let the people decide locally and do not let the centre do so"?
  As we shall not have a lengthy discussion of the Finance Bill, people like me—I call us a growing minority—who feel that all the parties, unfortunately, are being prevented from going ahead with more flexible economic policies because of their commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, are unable to ask the Government whether there is anything in the Bill which will remove the freedom of a Conservative, a Labour or a Liberal Democrat Government to withdraw from the ERM if they wish.
  Only about 11 Conservative Members voted against the decision, but the Leader of the House will be aware that there has been a big change of opinion. The Times has changed greatly and now says that it is in favour of a free pound. That is wonderful. It is rather like getting the Church of England to say that it is opposed to fox hunting. It is a major change in opinion which has spread throughout the House and elsewhere. There is a growing belief that, if one tries to create an artificial price for anything, one simply creates distortions elsewhere.
  We see the same problems arising under the EC agricultural policy, which we cannot discuss under the motion. As artificial prices are created, one has distortions—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman oblige me by relating what he says far more to the motion? He is now straying quite far away from it.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to speak briefly.
  I am simply trying to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the motion, which cuts the time for discussion on the Finance Bill, that we should be allowed just a little more time to answer my simple, clear question, to which I want just a yes or no answer. Is there anything in the complicated Bill, which I have just seen, which removes the freedom of future Governments of any party to withdraw from the ERM if they wish to do so?
  The Government have made it abundantly clear that they do not want to withdraw. Their commitment is firm. We simply want an opportunity, which I hope we may get, to be given the answer yes or no. My right hon. Friend may find that increasing numbers of people are moving towards my position. It would be terrible if we lost our freedom.
  I hope that we shall be given positive answers to my three questions before we vote on the motion. I hope that, in the forthcoming election contest, all people from all parties will give clear, decisive and positive answers—as the hon. Member for Copeland did when I asked him a
  1110
  simple and clear question about nuclear power. Let us hope that all the answers and questions will be as clear and decisive during the election.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dennis Skinner.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has had his chance already, because he was on television last night. He is a bit upset because I have got in before the Liberal Democrats. It is a great day and I am all in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman talked a bit about the guillotine a bit last night on television and he made it plain that the 20p band was going down like a lead balloon.
  The atmosphere in the House today is different from the atmosphere on Tuesday. All the euphoria on the Conservative Benches has gone. I admit that when I heard the Chancellor say that he was introducing the 20p band for the first £2,000, I got out my little Labour party pocket book and I saw that the proposal was still there. Many things have been whittled away in Labour party policy reviews over the past few years, yet that policy still remains. I thought, "Here the Conservatives are, stealing our clothes. Ain't it smart?" I decided that it would not worry me, because I vote against Labour party policy from time to time.
  Outside this place, within seconds, people were not taking the view that the 20p rate that many Conservative Members and some Labour Members took. I have another answer. I would have added another 5 per cent. to the 50 per cent. tax band and got the money back that way. That is still a threat if I get the job of Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I do not think that I am in line for it. It is a pointer.
  The whole environment in which we debate today has changed completely. The Leader of the House talked about having to get the matter dealt with by 5 May. I must tell my hon. Friends who were not here before that if we do not get the Finance Bill on to the statute book by 5 May, all the taxes that should be collected will not be collected. If I can find a parliamentary procedural way in which to keep things going beyond 5 May, I shall be a bigger hero than Robin Hood. I am working on that one. Are any by-elections pending?
  Mr. Beith: About 650.
  Mr. Skinner: I am not so sure about mine. It is important that, after the initial bout of enthusiasm, the markets and the stock exchange took a completely different view. The problem that the Government must face in their dying days is not only the level of the public sector borrowing requirement at £28 billion, but the dramatic increase over 12 months.
  The Leader of the House referred to the large PSBR between 1974 and 1979. He forgot to mention that part of it was due to the quadrupling of oil prices just before the Labour Government were elected. He forgot to mention that we inherited a bigger PSBR, in percentage terms, in 1974 than we left. I hope that all my hon. Friends remember that. When the Conservatives talk about the PSBR, we must realise that, in the middle of Labour's

  1111
  period of office, the PSBR went up dramatically, but if we take into account the beginning and the end, the PSBR was less than the PSBR that we inherited.
  Over the past 12 months, the PSBR has increased from £14 billion to £26 billion. The Government have now added another £2 billion. The City is saying that that is a dangerous and dramatic increase. That is its verdict. Those in the City are also bearing in mind the fact that the Government have picked up £100 billion-worth of North sea oil tax receipts and another £42 billion-worth of privatisation receipts. It is almost incredible that a Government who have had £142 billion extra should have managed to end up with a public sector deficit of £28 billion after 13 years in which they have had all that money from North sea oil. That is the difference between the 1980s and the 1970s.
  We could have done a lot with that 2 billion quid. Only 4·75 million people are now engaged in the manufacturing industry—the lowest figure ever. This year, fewer people will be engaged in manufacturing than will be working in hotels and shops. I am not knocking people who work in hotels and shops, but we must remember that Britain imports about 50 per cent. of its food. We now have a net deficit on manufactured goods and there is no way in which we can allow the manufacturing capacity of Britain to continue as it is and pay for that imported food—let alone imported coal, imported oil and imported manufactured goods; it is impossible.
  My hon. Friends on the Front Bench who will inherit the positions of those on the Treasury Bench in a month's time can forget about the £28 billion, because when they open the books they will find that matters are dramatically worse than that. That is the position and there are people out there in the City who know it. They are closer to reading the books than we are and they have friends on the Conservative Benches who tell them things—some of the dries in the Tory party who may not even be voting Tory at the election. I shall not name names, but a few of them are not looking forward to the Government getting back into power. They know, and their friends in the City know, that the situation is dramatically worse than it appears.
  The £2 billion could have been used to boost manufacturing industry. It could have been used to boost housing. The state of housing in Britain after 13 years of Tory government is a crying shame. They called 1979 a bad year for Labour, yet in that year we built 80,000 public sector houses. My hon. Friends and I used to complain that that was not enough; we wanted 160,000 or 280,000, but we only got 80,000. Last year, only 8,000 public sector houses were built—8,000.
  There are elderly people waiting for bungalows and other forms of accommodation. I am talking not just about London, although in parts of London homelessness is worse than it is anywhere else. I am also talking about places such as Bolsover, where the housing waiting list is longer now than when I was first elected in 1970. Every one of us knows that there is a crying need for houses.
  The £2 billion could have been used to kick-start the housing economy and get rid of cardboard city, which is an utter scandal. We ought to have a party political broadcast showing people in door holes in the Strand, showing the piles of bricks at the London Brick Company and the 250,000 construction workers who do not have jobs. It does not take a Pythagoras to put those three things together and put roofs over people's heads.
  1112
  Yet the Tories have the cheek to talk about putting £100 per annum into the pockets of Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers—because that is where the money will go, despite all the talk about its going only to the lower-paid. Let us get the facts straight: if people are on family credit, the money will be taken away from them pound for pound. The 3 million people who are unemployed will not get a penny piece out of this bribe of a Budget. We have housing squalor all around us and that is one of the things that the next Labour Government will have to sort out.
  There is also the question of education. Some £4 billion needs to be spent on repairs to educational establishments, but nothing has been done in that regard either.
  What else could we international socialists have done with the money? We could have used some of it to help pay off some of the debts of the third-world countries. We could have used a little of it to double the amount of money that we pay in overseas aid to some of those impoverished nations. Instead, the Government have chosen to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends out there in the City.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right that the £2 billion could have been well used in ways that would have helped low-paid people more than the £100 tax cut, which many of them will not get. But he has spent it several times. If he is to tackle education, investment and overseas aid and kick-start the economy, he will either have to borrow more or raise more revenue—and on that, those on the Labour Front Bench seem a little hesitant.
  Mr. Skinner: I am merely giving examples of the way in the which the money could have been used. There are many options. I am not saying that we would need all the £2 billion to kick-start the housing economy. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. We could start to do that by using some of the capital receipts that are held by the local authorities. Then we would not even need to start on the £2 billion. But as the hon. Gentleman is an economist, he has probably missed that point. It is early in the morning and I understand his problem. He is probably having to prop up Paddy Backdown or Captain Mainwaring or whatever they call him now. I understand his difficulties.
  The public know—the voters know—that we could have done a lot with that money. We could have used it for child benefit or to help the old-age pensioners. We could use it to help implement the Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). All those issues need to be dealt with, but instead the Government said, "Let's introduce the 20p band. That'll embarrass the Labour party. It's in their little pocket book document." Somebody said to them, "Do you remember that we got rid of it in 1980?" The reply was, "Did we?" "Yes. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East." "Oh, we're not bothered about him. He's going; he's on his way. Nobody will remember anyway. They'll not think about it on the Labour Benches."
  The Government abolished the 20p tax band 1 I years ago. They introduced a poll tax to hammer the low paid. They cut social security benefits to hammer the low paid. They took away the death grant, the maternity grant, income support for 16 and 17-year-olds to hammer the low paid. Every time they walked into the House of Commons,

  1113
  they did something else to hit the low paid. Then, a few weeks before a general election, some tin-pot ideologue said, "Let's introduce a 20p band and trap the Labour party." They might have done that momentarily, but the people out there understand it for what it is: it is a dirty, stinking Tory bribe, and they will pay the penalty for it at the general election.
  10.47 am
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The House has just heard a vintage performance from one of its favourite performers. I remember the day when I had to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his maiden speech, and I did so with great sincerity. I forecast then that the House might hear from him occasionally in the future.[Laughter.] That prediction was absolutely right and I am sure that many Treasury forecasters would like to be able to emulate its accuracy.
  I want to say a few words about the guillotine motion, you will be glad to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has a nice line in affable invective, began his speech by paying a graceful tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As I have served on a number of House of Commons Committees, I should like to associate myself with those words. For a very long time, the House has not had a Leader of the House who has devoted more time to its affairs. My right hon. Friend has been a particularly effective Leader of the House and I should love to see him in the job again after the general election, although he deserves promotion because of what he has achieved. The hon. Member for Copeland has been an excellent shadow Leader of the House and I wish him many happy years in that position.
  We had the usual synthetic rhetoric about guillotine motions. I have never been an enthusiast for guillotine motions introduced by either party, as the hon. Member for Copeland knows, but this is one occasion on which I speak quite gladly in support of such a motion. I have one reservation: we have been given only four hours. In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House I have cancelled all my constituency engagements, so I could willingly have managed another two.
  That reservation notwithstanding, I support the guillotine motion. The hon. Member for Copeland and other hon. Members know that all we are concerned about now is to tidy our business, make sure that the Finance Bill is passed, and get to the hustings. We are anxious to put the respective cases of the various parties. I am glad that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is nodding his head. It is absolutely necessary. It is important that we get back to the country. Dissolution must take place on Monday. I, for one, am delighted to pursue a vigorous campaign in support of policies in which I have great faith.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Unfortunately, that belief will not be shared by the electorate.
  Mr. Cormack: It has not always been the case—the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right.—but I am delighted that it now is.
  The sooner we can conclude our business tidily and in good order, the better. My right hon. Friend the Leader of
  1114
  the House has my full support. In spite of all that the hon. Member for Bolsover said a few moments ago with great eloquence, fervour, passion and sincerity, as the House has heard from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), yesterday these were two tests of public opinion in by-elections. They are real tests of real voters' feelings. In both cases there was a resounding victory for the Conservative party.
  I have great faith in the policies that we will put forward in the general election. I want to get to the hustings as quickly as possible. The sooner we can finish our business today and wrap up the formalities on Monday, the better. The hon. Member for Copeland, for all his invective, knows that I am absolutely right and he, in his heart, agrees with every word.
  10.51 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We probably could have finished our business a couple of hours earlier if we had not had this timetable motion. We could have got on with dealing with the Finance Bill instead of spending several hours discussing whether we should discuss it and, if so, at what length. The fact that we have it illustrates the attitude which the otherwise genial and affable Leader of the House displays to the conduct of parliamentary business. One of his phrases should chill any support of democracy to the bone. He said to his hon. Friends, "If we do not have the Asylum Bill here today and do not have it on Monday, it is because Opposition parties are opposing some parts of the Bill." I thought that that was what we were here for—to find out what features of Bills will not work very well or were wrong in principle, and oppose them, make it difficult for the Government to get them through, and subject them to the most careful scrutiny. The fact that somebody has thought of engaging in that act—in some cases the people involved, horror of horrors, are actually Conservatives: in this case, Conservatives in another place—has caused the Government such apoplexy that they produce a reason not to proceed with the Bill.
  When Governments are brought under pressure as at the end of a Session, it is normal for them to try to seek accommodation, rather as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to see whether parties can agree on parts of the Bill that are important and should go ahead and it is in the general interest that they should go ahead. That process has gone on at the end of every Parliament I have served in. I have taken part in discussions with Ministers in previous Parliaments. It is funny that, all of a sudden, what the Liberal Democrats think becomes terribly important because the Government have realised that they cannot get their Bill through if we subject it to any scrutiny. Under previous Governments there were discussions designed to get maximum agreement between the parties on what could go ahead. That could have occurred in respect of these proceedings.
  The timetable motion is particularly vicious. It is a "Heads I win, tails you lose" motion. It contains the provision that the proceedings
  "shall he brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order."
  The object is quite simple. It is to escape the requirement that the House of Commons has traditionally had, that if a Government are to timetable a Bill there should be some

  1115
  obstacle to their doing so. The obstacle is removed, because if we discuss the timetable motion all the time taken is lost from the discussion of the Bill.
  I favour the timetabling of Bills. It is a sensible way to proceed. I was a member of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), to which the Leader of the House gave evidence. I was also a member of the Procedure Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Both Committees recommended that there should be a timetable procedure for all Bills, but one based on a mechanism of consultation which ensures that the Government do not have total control over the amount of time available and the way in which it is divided, because if they have such control it is too easy for them.
  There is nothing in the proceedings of the House to prevent the Government from coming forward with a motion such as this, saying that proceedings on the Finance Bill shall end five minutes after they have begun —indeed, five minutes after the order to discuss the timetable has began. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from doing so, other than the possibility that there may be more than a handful of determined democrats on the Conservative side of the House.
  Whenever such issues arise, and whenever we criticise timetable motions, the Leader of the House says how valuable the Bill is and that everybody agrees what a good Bill it is. That is not the point. Parliament must ensure that legislation on the statute book has been properly discussed and considered and is in a fit state of law to be put on the statute book. That will not happen if parliamentary procedures can be manipulated by the Government to suit their own convenience. That is what they are able to do with such a motion. That is why I oppose the motion, both the way in which it is being used and its form.
  The Leader of the House has explained that the motion is necessary in order to consider the Finance Bill. It is the thinnest Finance Bill I have ever seen. I am accustomed to sitting on Finance Bill Committees and carrying around a half inch thick Finance Bill and endless notes on clauses. This is a slight document. We could have disposed of the Bill fairly quickly. Perhaps there could have been a case for the timetable motion which set aside reasonably short periods in which we could have dealt with Second Reading, the principal clauses of the Bill, enabled hon. Members to vote against one or two features of it, and end the proceedings in perfectly good time. The Leader of the House chose not to do that because he prefers the nice easy device of saying, "I decide how long it is. Nobody else has any say in the matter. If they dare to challenge the timetable, that will be taken off the time available to discuss the Bill."
  That is a disgraceful way to run a Parliament. The next Parliament will not accept that treatment. That is because there will be plenty of Liberal Democrats who will be determined that Parliament should not be run in that way. I hope that members of other parties will feel that that is not the way to run Parliament and will take on board the recommendations of the Committees which have examined the matter in detail, and ensure that we do not consider business in this way in future.
  What I say applies not only to the dying days of the Session, but to the way in which the Government handle business all the time. These proceedings are much like those that we have had on many other Bills. Far from being in a hurry to have an election, the Government were
  1116
  putting the election off for as long as possible. They had all the time in the world. The Prime Minister did not want an election date. It used to be said that one of the Prime Minister's great advantages is being able to choose the date for the general election, but I get the impression that lately it has been one of the Prime Minister's main handicaps. He has had to go to bed each night wondering, "How can I put off having a general election? I wish that I did not have that awful decision." That has ceased to be one of his principal advantages. The Government are organising a closing-down sale: "Everything must go. Buy now before the end of today's business."
  Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Get on with it.
  Mr. Beith: The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) says, "Get on with it." The Government Whip is responsible for the timetable motion which ensures that, if any hon. Member actually wants to debate the details of the Bill, there is no provision to enable him to do so. Coming from the cesspit of the Government Whips office—[Interruption.] I am almost quoting the Prime Minister's words from the Dispatch Box yesterday. He said that Mr. Speaker seemed remarkably untainted by the years he spent in that evil institution. That is only the slightest of paraphrases. When hon. Members get into the Whips Office and into the office of the Leader of the House, they spend their lives devising ways of making sure that matters are not discussed and that there is no trouble. It is like a fire brigade equipped with a foam that is blown over the proceedings of Parliament with the sole objective of ensuring that the Government get their business through with as little proper consideration as possible.
  We are considering a measure which has been introduced at the end of a Parliament and at the end of a term of office of a Government who chose to get rid of the same measure in the early years of their office. How can they come before the House today and say that we must hurry up and introduce a low tax rate band without any detailed discussion of its disadvantages because there are only a few minutes left in which to do it? They have had 12 years in which to explain why they were wrong in 1980. The Government have had 13 years during which, if a lower rate tax band would have been a great advantage, they could have allowed all the low-paid workers whom they believe will benefit from it to enjoy it—but no, it is simply part of the last minute closing down sale.
  During the debate there has been much discussion about the public sector borrowing requirement and the need to resolve matters today in the light of what the future PSBR might be. Here there is a problem for the Labour party. The Government are spending £2 billion on the lower rate band. The Labour party and my party agree that that is not a good way to behave in the present circumstances and that the measure is not an effective way of helping the low paid. The Labour party could spend that £2 billion on education, on investment to kick-start the economy or on the national health service, but it could not spend it on all three. If it did, the effect on any one of them would not be significant.
  It is our judgment that education needs an injection of about £2 billion to make up just some of the current deficiencies and shortcomings. It is our view that a great deal more than £2 billion needs to be injected in the way of investment in the economy to bring us quickly out of

  1117
  recession. We believe that such an injection could bring us out of recession if it got the construction industry moving, but it is not possible to spend the same £2 billion three times over, so the Labour party is faced with the prospect of borrowing more—not allowing the Conservative Government to choose the borrowing requirement for it —or raising more revenue by increasing taxes, or possibly both.
  The Labour party has an added problem. The Finance Bill and the Budget contain provisions for receipts from privatisation, which flow through every year and are part of the Government's assumptions about their borrowing requirement. I reckon that the Government will take about £1 billion per year from selling shares which they now hold in industries that they have already privatised. That is a significant sum of money.
  Presumably, the Labour party will not have that money from selling shares. Presumably it would not sell shares in the already privatised industries. In that case, it would have not £2 billion but £1 billion to spend. It would save only £1 billion by not introducing the tax reduction and could use only that sum for spending purposes.
  So the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has a great deal to think about between now and Tuesday if he is to find some way of making £1 billion stretch over all the problems that he has correctly identified, and on which I agree with him. The huge gap in the fabric of our society which we have to repair in the ways that I outlined last night, needs to be filled. It will not be filled by the Finance Bill. Those who would most benefit if we attended to creating jobs in the economy and getting out of recession would be the very low paid, who will benefit to only a limited extent from the key feature of the Finance Bill.
  If we had time to discuss the lower rate band in detail today, to obtain evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, or to consider the leader in today's Financial Times, we would see what an inadequately and ineffectively targeted measure it is. The Finance Bill is fairly pathetic. We could have disposed of it in a couple of hours, without the need for the guillotine motion.
  11.3 am
  Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. There is a procedural point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), on which we must have an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We must have an assurance that this guillotine motion does not set a precedent. Following the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, there is a strong body of opinion in the House that we should move towards allocation of time for all legislation.
  It is fairly unusual—although not an absolute precedent—for a Finance Bill to be guillotined. The Procedure Committee and the Select Committee on Sittings of the House have accepted that the allocation of time for legislation should ensure that all clauses are properly debated. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I stand absolutely by that premise. I hope that
  1118
  my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will endorse that when he replies. This allocation of time motion does not ensure that all clauses will be properly debated.
  The House understands—as, I believe even the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accepts—that there is a desire to finish up the business, ensure that taxes can be collected and get on the hustings. That is a fair excuse and a good reason for the allocation of time motion. However, we must ensure, and I must ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking, that this motion will not be taken as a precedent for allocation of time motions in normal circumstances. It may be claimed that any allocation of time motion is not normal. If we are to move towards some allocation of time for all or most legislation at the start, we must ensure that it does not follow the precedent set today.
  I congratulate the shadow Leader of the House, who has been almost revolutionary in moving towards reform of the procedures of the House. I am grateful for the support that he has given to the Procedure Committee. Of course, I have thanked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on more than one occasion for the excellent way in which he has attempted to ensure that our procedure is more reasonably and properly carried through.
  However, it cannot be accepted that an allocation of time motion should form part of the time scale that it allocates to legislation. That is the danger of this motion, if it were copied in any other circumstances. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made that clear. It is possible that at the end of four hours we would not be able to debate any clause of the Finance Bill. That has not happened because, under the terms of the motion, the opening speeches and most of the other speeches have been allowed to go much wider than the allocation of time and to deal with the whole of the Finance Bill. Procedurally, that is not what an allocation of time motion ought to be about. Therefore, in procedural terms, such motions should not be emulated.
  Mr. Beith: It could easily happen that a Government legitimately believe that an Opposition party intend to frustrate the proceedings on a Bill—say, the Finance Bill. The Government could therefore table a timetable motion such as this one. Government Back Benchers who did not want the Bill to be discussed could then deliberately occupy the whole of the time allocated by the timetable motion, thereby preventing discussion on the Bill.
  Sir Peter Emery: In theory, that is right; but the opposite case is that so long as the Chair does not call successive Members from one side, the opportunity is given, even with this allocation of time, for Opposition Members to raise any matter on the Finance Bill that they wish. Although in theory what the hon. Gentleman says is true reductio ad absurdum it is not correct in practice.
  As it is possible to debate the Finance Bill, I shall spend two minutes on an aspect of the 20 per cent. band which has not been discussed. It is important in my constituency and many parts of the south-west. The 20 per cent. band is normally talked about in relation to low-wage earners. Another section of the community willl benefit considerably from that band—pensioners who have saved all their lives and put by a little money. They paid taxes on that saved money and hope to have a little extra in addition to their pension from their savings after they retire. They often have a decreasing income as a result of the ever-increasing cost of living and they will welcome the 20

  1119
  per cent. band. It is a direct benefit to some extent to those pensioners who have saved and live on their pension and their savings. It will be of particular benefit to many people in the south-west.
  That argument has not been mentioned in the House and it ought to be understood and appreciated. In closing, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give us his assurance that this type of allocation of time motion will not he used as a precedent in any move forward associated with the recommendations in the reports of the Select Committees on Procedure and on Sittings of the House?
  11.9 am
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) need have no fears. The Government have had their time—13 years—and it is up. That is why they come to the House today as a Government on their uppers—buffetted, battered and bewildered. We can see that by the state that the Financial Secretary is in. They are bewildered by the reception that their Budget has received throughout the land, and especially within the square mile.
  I have here a little list which follows something that the hon. Member for Honiton said. The Leader of the House has a fair amount of responsibility for much that is on it, because it is a list of all the Bills that have been truncated by the Government since they took office in 1979 and back to 1945. When one examines the list, one realises that this is only the third time in the history of the House that a Finance Bill has been truncated in this way. We are to be allowed four hours, while in 1968—when the House first truncated a Finance Bill—three days were spent on recommittal, four days on Third Reading and there were 10 sittings in Committee.
  In 1975, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke in such a debate—about 17 years ago almost to the day—when four days were allowed for Third Reading. In all those other instances there was an opportunity for the House to consider the substance of the Bill, an opportunity to peruse it and to study it.
  I was amused, as were other Opposition Members—and, I fancy, some Conservative Members—at the opening words of the Leader of the House, because he told us that the Budget was a document which improved with the reading. That was the explanation of why it has taken so long to receive wider appreciation. We know that this morning the Government trail three points behind in the polls. We know that the Budget has been poorly received wherever it has been read. If it is a document that improves with study, why are we not being given more time to study it? Surely, if one uses that argument, the more we study it the better the Government will do in the opinion polls and the greater will be their opportunity to win the next general election, or so they believe. It does not make sense to truncate the Bill in this way.
  The Leader of the House went on to say that another reason why the Bill should be pushed through in this way is because we had an opportunity to consider it during the two-day debate on the Budget. Anyone who believes that any contribution that we heard from the Treasury benches and the Conservative side of the House assisted that debate in any way, has not heard the speeches that we heard.
  1120
  We only have to recall the lamentable performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night. His speech consisted of a number of readings from a variety of responses by Tory hacks, posing as industrialists, up and down the land. They were Tory to a man—there was not a woman among them, because no woman reading the Budget would see anything in it for her. His quotations from those Tory hacks were reminiscent of a fading impresario. That was the guise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night—a fading impresario, knowing that his production was dead in the water, seeking by selective quotes to talk it up, in the hope that more people would attend the show.
  I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read a little more widely. I wish that he had opened the Financial Times the morning after the Budget to read the little item that I have here. I am anxious that the Leader of the House should have the opportunity to see and to study it. Indeed, I intend to give it to him so that he can respond appropriately when summing up. It says simply: "Economists give their ratings". Six exconomists—a broad cross-section of the City, none of whom could be described as "youthful scribblers"—
  Mr. Greg Knight: Useless scribblers.
  Mr. Boateng: We shall let them know about that. Mr. Bill Martin, a well-known supporter of many of the Government's policies in the past, gives the score "1 out of 10". He said:
  "The budget will not act as a significant stimulus to the economy. The budget deficit is almost certainly out of control."
  Mr. Kevin Gardiner of S. G. Warburg Securities gave it "4 out of 10" and said:
  "The chancellor was neither bold nor coherent. It was rather a mismash."
  So it goes on, and it does not get any better.
  However, one has to be fair, so let us look at one higher mark. Mr. Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs gave the Government "6 out of 10", saying:
  "It falls between every conceivable stool. It does not put Labour on the spot and it does not transform the Conservatives' electoral position."
  The Budget's contribution to that has been to make them slip further in the polls. Those were the reviews in the City on the following day. Is it any wonder that the Government want to truncate the debate?
  I did not hear any response to the valid constitutional argument of the hon. Member for Honiton and the valid constitutional arguments of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. There has been no response from the Government Benches about the propriety of what they are seeking to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will remember—he was on the Government Benches at the time—the nature of the contribution made by Conservative Members during the debate in March 1975 on the truncation of the Finance Bill. I have read his contribution—
  Mr. Skinner: You are not going to read it, are you?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend by reading it, out, save to say that it is well worth reading. Conservative Members made a number of contributions —a number are voices from the past. Two former Chancellors spoke during that debate. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was among them, as was

  1121
  his predecessor. They spoke against the use of a guillotine on Finance Bills. They produced a variety of constitutional arguments why it was totally improper and absolutely wrong ever to use such a guillotine. They are figures of the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, to some extent they can be put to one side, because that is precisely what their party has done to them.
  One other person spoke with great force and vigour in that debate against the Government of the day for introducing a guillotine motion in relation to the Finance Bill. Who might that have been? Let me say this: he is a former chairman of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
  Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is another figure from the past. We can discount him. This person is still hanging around. That is surprising, bearing in mind the muddle and confusion that he has created in every Department of state that he has ever sought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] My hon. Friends recognise the person, and I suspect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will also recognise the person. In those days, that person was going under the guise of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. Since then, he has been translated into the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). Yes, I speak of no less a person than he.
  The right hon. Gentleman is very much around and will undoubtedly be very much in evidence on the hustings during the next few weeks. I hope that he is very much in evidence, because every time that man shows his face on the hustings or on television, it is another vote for us. The more the Tories put him forward, the better it will be. He should be a member of the A-plus team, because he can only benefit our campaign.
  What did the right hon. Gentleman have to say on 4 March 1975 during the allocation of time motion on the Finance Bill? He said:
  "I end very much as I started"—
  that is not something that he always does or says in a speech—
  "by regretting the need for guillotine motions in general: but the particular character of this guillotine motion makes it unique. Since the war only one Finance Bill, that in 1968, has been guillotined. I believe that that was a very regrettable precedent because the unique power that we have"—
  blah, blah, blah. He went on in the usual vein:
  "It is because we have the right to deny the executive of the day, whether Tory, Liberal or Conservative, Supply before there has been adequate debate or redress of grievance."
  Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman, by talking about "Tory, Liberal or Conservative" omitted altogether the Labour party. Indeed, he was subsequently taken to task by the House for that omission—a characteristic omission, because for him, we on this side of the House have no rights. Those who represent the interests of the people are not to be regarded. It was a Freudian slip.
  The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "If we surrender that right we are surrendering one of the very reasons that have brought us into being as a legislative House. For these reasons I very much oppose this guillotine measure."—[Official Report, 4 March 1975; Vol. 887, c. 1331.]
  That is the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. We look forward very much to seeing in which Division Lobby he will pass in a few moments' time. Will he adhere to his principles? Will he stand firm and fast? If he does, it will be
  1122
  the first time we see him do anything of the sort. I suspect that he will vote to impose a guillotine on this Bill. In doing so, he will deny the British people redress for their grievances.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
  The right hon. Gentleman will deny the homeless, the jobless, mothers of young children who want an increase in child benefit and pensioners the opportunity to have their grievances properly aired in this Chamber today. But we will go out and about on the hustings and do more, much more than truncate the timing of this debate: we will truncate for the foreseeable future the political future of that discredited and redundant Government opposite.
  11.23 am
  Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for their kind remarks about me in my role as Leader of the House. I am glad to have this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Copeland for the courteous and constructive way in which he has made it possible for us to work together on the affairs of the House. We have made considerable progress in several directions, and I pay tribute to him for the part that he has played in that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked whether there would be some opportunity to discuss other detailed points of taxation, including the taxation of beach huts. I cannot promise him that beach huts will feature immediately in the next Finance Bill, but when the House returns we shall have the opportunity to have a second Finance Bill which will implement the other areas of the Budget and no doubt my hon. Friend will wish to table his amendment on beach huts then.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton raised a procedural point on this allocation of time motion, and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made heavy weather of it. My hon. Friend made a fair point. It is fairly obvious to the whole House that this Finance Bill is being considered in rather unusual circumstances. That destroys the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument when he complained about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend's remarks were made in relation to a large Finance Bill well ahead of a general election, so the position is not comparable.
  It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman wanted to continue debating this Finance Bill. I suspect that that is because at the back of his mind he would rather postpone going to the country at this election. He has every reason to do so from his point of view. I hope that that is an appropriate answer to my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The point I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was that the debate in March 1975 was followed by an election. The Labour party lost its first by-election when it was in government, and virtually every other by-election until 1979. Labour Members should therefore be rather more careful about their approach to finance and taxation.
  Mr. MacGregor: As I must be brief, I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's point.

  1123
  In response to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the reactions to the Budget, I have a whole string of favourable responses from large sections of industry, including the CBI, which I do not have time to repeat but which put it in the right context. Just as the hon. Gentleman's response was a travesty of the general reactions to the Budget, so were the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland about the economy as a whole.
  During the overall period of Conservative government, the United Kingdom economy has grown faster than that of almost every other economy in Europe for most of the 1980s. GDP, investment in manufacturing and productivity have grown faster than in Germany or France in the 1980s. There has been an increase in real take-home pay for a married couple on average earnings with two children. It is up by £78 a week at today's prices. The majority of pensioners have seen an increase in their real living standards of over one third and there has been a heavy concentration of Government resources on less well-off pensioners, including £700 million to the over-80s on income support. We have seen 4 million families buying their home for the first time. There are a third more businesses than there were in 1979. We have seen an increase of more than 1·5 million in the self-employed. A higher proportion of the work force is in employment than in any other European country, except Denmark. Our manufacturing industry has taken a greater share of world trade in each of the past three years.
  I have already referred to the massive increase in business investment, capital investment and training. One aspect of that is inward investment. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in his speech on Wednesday fantasised about the thoughts of Japanese business men and what they say about the economic policies that we have been pursuing. He does not need to fantasise. We see what they think from their reactions in surveys when they have invested here and, above all, in their practical actions and the amount of inward investment that they have made here, accounting for more than half of all Japanese investment into the European Community in the latest year for which figures are available.
  Those are the actual reactions of business men to our economic policies. It is that solid record of economic achievement that has led the CBI to say that Britain is now incomparably better placed to met the competitive challenges of the 1990s than it was at the start of the 1980s. This Budget carries that process on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South refered to yesterday's local by-elections, in which we saw a good response. That also shows that the contortions that the Labour party has performed over its tax proposals and spending commitments in recent weeks mean that the people of this country do not trust Labour. They can be sure that the Labour party is the party of high spenders, high taxers, high borrowers and high inflation. That is why I have no doubt what the response will be when we go to the hustings. The Budget will help us in that process.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 149.

  Division No. 110]

  [11.30 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Allason, Rupert

  Alexander, Richard

  Amess, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Amos, Alan

  1124

  Arbuthnot, James

  Farr, Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkinson, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gregory, Conal

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Ground, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

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

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Janman, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Kilfedder, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knowles, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Knox, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  1125

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, Sir William

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Speed, Keith

  Maples, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wilshire, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Redwood, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  1126

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Anderson, Donald

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Leighton, Ron

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Litherland, Robert

  Barron, Kevin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Battle, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beckett, Margaret

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beith, A. J.

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Bell, Stuart

  McWilliam, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Benton, Joseph

  Marek, Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Meacher, Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Boyes, Roland

  Michael, Alun

  Bradley, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Caborn, Richard

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Callaghan, Jim

  Morley, Elliot

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Cartwright, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Murphy, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  O'Brien, William

  Cohen, Harry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cousins, Jim

  Patchett, Terry

  Cox, Tom

  Pendry, Tom

  Crowther, Stan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cummings, John

  Prescott, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Radice, Giles

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Randall, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Redmond, Martin

  Dobson, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Eastham, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Edwards, Huw

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Enright, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Faulds, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fearn, Ronald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Foster, Derek

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

  Fraser, John

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Straw, Jack

  Gould, Bryan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Turner, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Hardy, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Henderson, Doug

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winnick, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. Robert Wareing.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill:—

  Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Finance Bill
  1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Finance Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  (2) Any stage of the Finance Bill may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the preceding stage, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.
  (3) On completion of Second Reading of the Finance Bill any Question necessary for the House immediately to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House shall be put forthwith.
  (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Commit tee on the Finance Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  (5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Finance Bill are taken.
  (6) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Lords Amendments: Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
  2. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Finance Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at this clay's sitting in accordance with paragraph 2.
  (2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No.
  1128
  47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that the charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;

  (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on either of the Bills to which this Order applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  6.—(l) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings at this day's sitting on both of the Bills to which this Order applies.
  (2) If the proceedings on the Motion for this Order were interrupted, or the proceedings on the Finance Bill are interrupted, under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11 (Questions of an urgent character which relate to matters of public importance etc.), the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.
  (3) If the proceedings of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill are interrupted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 11, the time at which proceedings on that Bill would otherwise be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be extended by a period equal to the duration of the interruption.

  Supplemental orders
  7. (1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
  (2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

  Recommittal
  9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either of the Bills to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  10. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
  11. The Proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  12. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  13.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  14. In this Order "the proceedings", in relation to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill includes proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

Finance Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
11.41 am
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill contains those Budget measures that the Government consider it essential to pass into law before Parliament is dissolved and they put the Budget changes implemented on Budget day beyond legal doubt. I shall set out for the House what each of the clauses contain and then say something about the principal point of controversy, the reduction in the rate of income tax to 20p for the first £2,000 of income.
Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 confirm changes to excise duties implemented on Budget day. Clause I confirms the indexation of duties on alcohol—the rise of 4½ per cent. that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced. Clause 2 confirms the increase in duties on tobacco by about indexation on pipe tobacco and by 10 per cent. on cigarettes and other tobacco products. Clause 3 covers duty on petrol, diesel and other oils and confirms the indexation of duty on petrol and unleaded petrol and the rise in duty on leaded petrol by 7½ per cent. All those changes, as is normal with excise duties, came into force at 6 o'clock on Budget day. In addition, at midnight on Budget day, vehicle excise duties on cars went up to £110; clause 4 confirms that change. It also reduces the duty on small tricycles from £50 to £15—a small but welcome change to the users of those tricycles.
Clause 8, which reduces car tax from 10 to 5 per cent.—we know that that has already had a beneficial effect on the retail sales of motor cars—falls into the same category. So, too, does clause 7, which cuts the rate of VAT serious misdeclaration penalty and default surcharge. The lower rate of serious misdeclaration penalty has effect from Budget day. The lower maximum for default surcharge has effect from 1 April because this penalty is linked to monthly accounting periods.
The House gave provisional statutory effect to these changes on Budget day, but, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, they must be confirmed by a Finance Bill before Parliament is dissolved. If not, Customs and Excise would be obliged to repay the extra tax that it had collected.
Clause 5 concerns another excise duty, betting duty. The reduction from 8 to 7 per cent. will have effect from 1 April, which is a convenient date for bookmakers who pay tax monthly.
Clause 6 deals with monthly payments on account for the largest VAT traders. I should perhaps say a word or two of further detail about that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), having recovered from his exertions earlier this morning, is interested in this.
Mr. Paul Boateng: We are waiting for a joke.
Mr. Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a joke, I will show him a mirror. That is just to show that I am awake and not entirely reliant on my brief.
Last autumn, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, with the completion of the single market, some 90,000 businesses which bring goods and services into the United Kingdom from the rest of the EC would benefit from changes to VAT accounting procedures, but

1131
the reintroduction of the system known as postponed accounting carries a once-off cash-flow cost. So as not to increase the public sector borrowing requirement in 1992–93, my right hon. Friend announced that the largest VAT payers would be required both to account for and pay VAT monthly from the autumn of 1992.
A number of companies have suggested that the requirement to make monthly returns as well as monthly payments imposes a needless burden, so my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acknowledged in the Budget that there was something in this point and agreed to drop the requirement to make monthly returns. Therefore, companies will now be asked only to make monthly payments on account. In the meantime, some companies have raised questions, as they are fully entitled to do, about the Government's powers in this area and have instituted proceedings for judicial review. With some six months to go until monthly payments are to be introduced, it is important to end uncertainty. Businesses require a clear basis on which to plan and that is provided for in clause 6, which puts beyond doubt the Government's powers to require some traders to make monthly payments on account.
The two remaining substantive clauses deal with income tax. Income tax must be renewed each year and, if that is not done, no income tax can be collected. The tax has to be renewed by 5 May every year. There would not be time to be sure of doing this after the election, so clause 10 reimposes income tax for 1992–93. Nearly 25 million people pay income tax and most never see an income tax return. They pay all their tax through PAYE and each year the Budget requires the Inland Revenue and employers to undertake a major recoding exercise for everyone on PAYE.
If the Government had renewed income tax before the election and done nothing else, all the income tax allowances and the basic rate limit would have been raised under the statutory indexation provisions. The Revenue would have had to undertake one recoding exercise to implement those changes and a second after the election to implement any changes contained in the second post-election Finance Bill which would be necessary. That would have been wasteful for the Inland Revenue and employers and confusing for taxpayers. That is why the Government have concluded that it is right to ask Parliament to confirm all the major income tax changes in the Budget and that is why clause 9 provides for the introduction of a lower rate of income tax, chargeable on the first £2,000 of taxable income. It also gives us a chance to establish a serious difference of view on this matter between the Conservative party and Opposition parties.
Mr. A. J. Beith: In discussing the effect on the Inland Revenue, will the Chief Secretary confirm or qualify the report in the Financial Times this morning that the Inland Revenue will need 800 additional staff to deal with all the pensioners who, in order to obtain the lower rate band for their savings, will have to put in a claim for the difference between the standard rate and the new lower rate? Is the figure of 800 initial jobs in the Inland Revenue correct or will it be a lower figure? If so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what it will be?
Mr. Mellor: The figure is not correct. I do not have the exact figure, but it will be a great deal lower.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is astonishing that the Chief Secretary does not know that figure, as the additional staff required is one of the strongest arguments against the proposal for a lower rate band. I am in favour of lower rate bands, but I accept that that costs a considerable amount in payments for additional staff. The number of civil servants in the Inland Revenue has been reduced. I do not know how they will cope unless there is a large increase in numbers to deal with the large number of inquiries from those who have paid tax at 25 per cent. on dividends, interest or whatever. Even with quite small sums, they will want to reclaim the difference between the 25 per cent. and the new 20 per cent. band. Inland Revenue officials could be dealing with sums as small as £5, £10 or £20, which are out of line with the amount of time that such claims will take to process.
Mr. Mellor: I understand that the Inland Revenue anticipates a need for up to 300 additional staff in the first year and possibly more in subsequent years, depending on the take-up rate. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention makes clear the Labour party's extraordinary intellectual contortions. On the one hand, he says that he favours a reduction in the tax rate, but, on the other, he made a lengthy intervention putting the case against that. The fact that he is here shows that he is willing, ready and able to vote against the proposal. I find his position unconvincing. Indeed, my respect for him would be enhanced if I thought that he also found that unconvincing. I am sure that he does in his innermost thoughts, but I leave it to him.
Mr. Tim Smith: Was not the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Labour Government reduced the rate of income tax? He knows that the Inland Revenue can cope with that. Is not the real point the fact that, whereas under his Labour Government the standard rate was 30p and the reduced rate 25p, now the standard rate is 25p and the reduced rate 20p?
Mr. Mellor: As I have reminded the House before, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was a Treasury Minister throughout the chaos and confusion of Labour's last period in office.
As well as renewing tax, clause 10 sets the lower rate at 20 per cent. and overrides indexation for the basic rate limit and the married couple's allowance for those under 65. The other allowances—personal and age-related allowances—are indexed under the statutory provisions.
Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise a matter of some urgency as Easter is the traditional time for weddings. When double taxation relief was abolished on 31 August 1988, the consequence was that if a couple living together subsequently decided to marry, the tax cost to one or other of them on a £30,000 mortgage would be about £750. Does the Chief Secretary think that the Bill should include a minor change to enable such people to be married without being penalised? There is currently an adverse tax consequence in legitimising one's children.
Mr. Mellor: I am not aware that couples are penalised in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, he makes a perfectly fair point and I shall have it investigated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be able to deal with it when he replies to the debate.
Sir Michael Grylls: I note that the Bill includes no reference to the important and progressive changes in inheritance tax for independent family businesses, which were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. His proposal was well received throughout the small business community. It is important that businesses are passed down to the next generation so that they can grow under that and subsequent generations. The current levels of taxation, although better than previously, are still quite heavy. What is happening with that proposal? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of the Opposition's views? The small business community will want to know Labour's thinking. Will it support the Government's important proposals?
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend speaks with authority on these matters and I well understand his point. After the election, we will have to introduce another Finance Bill, with at least 75 pages dealing with a range of issues, including the important one mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of what the Opposition might think—or what their view is this morning, because it changes so often—I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will be only too happy to deal with that in her speech.
Clause 10 also sets the limit on mortgage interest relief at £30,000. The limit must be set each year, but it is no increase on what has prevailed for some time.
I want to say a few words about the principal matter of controversy, which is the 20p tax band. There has been an astonishing volte face by the Labour party on that matter. As recently as 25 February, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was reported as saying that we should have a lower starting rate because that would be fairer to people at the bottom. Within a matter of a few days, he and his party have been prepared to eat their words and vote against the proposal—as they have already done once. So that people are not mistaken, they are poised to do so again. They are ready to sacrifice the least well-off on the altar of a false and superficial commitment to fiscal probity.
During our debates on the Budget, the Opposition have failed to tell us why they are taking that view. No doubt, one reason is that they are probably too busy thinking up new taxes to levy. They have failed to give a proper account of why they are behaving in that way. Instead, an alleged commitment to and concern about the public sector borrowing requirement has emerged. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who served in the Treasury for all those years, can confirm that under the last Labour Government there was never a time when there was not a PSBR. If the Labour party believes that there should not be tax cuts while there is a PSBR, we can be absolutely sure that there will never be a tax reduction under a Labour Government. The only issue is by how much taxes will rise.
Mr. Boateng: We never said that.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman should be cautious, because that is certainly what the Opposition have said. Rather like some of the clients that the hon. Gentleman used to defend in his days in court, they want to change their story before they give evidence the next time. We shall be only too interested to hear today's story.
Mr. Boateng: I do not—
Mr. Mellor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me the courtesy of giving way to him before he speaks—
Mr. Boateng rose—
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. If he asks me nicely, I will give way.
Mr. Boateng: I need no lessons from that colossus of the petty sessions on how to defend an indefensible case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done that every single day of this Parliament's life.
Mr. Mellor: That was not much of a political intervention, but it was a fine bid for the Sir Donald Wolfit acting award.
In so far as the Labour party has a case on this issue, its entire basis is that the PSBR should not be increased to reduce taxation. If that is not Labour's argument, it is hard to see what shadow of an argument it has. Happily, we will hear the Opposition's view in due course, but it is already clear that under the last Labour Government the PSBR was higher on average than it has ever been under this Government, and it only temporarily fell to 3½ per cent. in 1977–78 following International Monetary Fund intervention.
In an astonishing move that destroyed whatever claim the Opposition make to being qualified to pass judgment on such matters, the PSBR was then permitted—notwithstanding that the economic cycle was moving upwards, at a time when a prudent Government would have put further pressure on the PSBR to bring it down into balance, as we succeeded in doing in the 1980s—to increase from 3½ to 5½ per cent. once the IMF's back was turned, so that the Labour Government could increase public expenditure and finance substantial tax cuts. There was a 2p cut in income tax and reductions in value added tax.
The shadow Chancellor was a member of that Labour Cabinet and was perfectly happy with that action, whereas the Leader of the Opposition—then a Back Bencher—was ranting, in opposition to his own Government, about the reckless nature of the proposals that they were carrying into effect. We should not hear too much more about fiscal probity from Labour Members.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if, by some strange development, Labour's concern about the PSBR were to be genuine and if the Liberal Democrats were also serious about it—I believe that their I p on income tax is hypothecated to education—does not that cast considerable doubt on Labour and Liberal Democrat pledges in respect of pensions, child benefit and various other benefits? Would both parties keep faith with the electorate?
Mr. Mellor: Labour needs to answer several questions, and the fact that it chose not to produce its shadow Budget until after Parliament has been dissolved—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is here again with that laugh of his, which he must practise in the bathroom every morning. It is about as fake as the canned laughter that one must endure on those awful television comedy shows. The funny thing is not that I have misspoken but that the Opposition think that it is funny that we appreciate that even when Labour did not

1135
know that Parliament was to be dissolved, it nevertheless timed the publication of its shadow Budget for the day after the end of the Budget debate. What is the point of Parliament? The Opposition are always complaining that Ministers make announcements before bringing them to the House.
The Opposition did that in the belief that their Budget would escape scrutiny. As always, they were overoptimistic. They are right only to be properly pessimistic about the ability of their proposals to withstand scrutiny. It is a reflection of the chaos and confusion into which Labour has sunk that it feels compelled to produce a shadow Budget at all. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said earlier—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate a report which I have just received of a burning smell that seems to be coming from one of the Government Benches. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary may continue.
Mr. Mellor: I will continue even as the flames lick around my ankles, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall direct a little cold air on them, in the hope that they will die down. I have been interrupted by many things in the House, but never before by an outbreak of fire. That is going a bit far. Obviously there are no lengths to which Opposition Members will not go to prevent democracy working properly.
Mr. Boateng: The burning started on the Government Benches.
Mr. Mellor: We shall find out whoever was responsible. My only fear is that you are about to be asphyxiated, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In September, the hon. Member for Copeland said that Labour would not produce a shadow Budget, but it has done so—not because Labour feels any need to be more candid with the electorate but because Labour has been driven to it by the number of holes punched in its proposals over the past eight weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) asked about the PSBR. Among the muddles that Labour needs to clear up—[Interruption.] I wish that I could have the attention of Labour Members for a moment. Are they worried that they will get burnt to death?
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I was just discussing my insurance policy.
Mr. Mellor: I shall keep a sepulchral silence on that.
Mr. Brown: For once.
Mr. Mellor: Indeed. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Derby, South will clarify Labour's view on the PSBR when she addresses the House. The PSBR has reached its present level because of a fall in receipts occasioned by the present economic downturn and by necessary public expenditure commitments which the Government feel it is their duty to sustain over the cycle but which the Opposition—erroneously—have always condemned as derisory.
The shadow Chancellor admitted in his article in The Mail on Sunday two weeks ago that the PSBR would rise under Labour—but it would be for virtuous spending. Labour would take a convenient chunk of expenditure,
1136
dub it virtuous and say that it would then be all right to borrow for that purpose. However, on "Newsnight" this week, the hon. Member for Derby, South said that Labour had no plans to increase the PSBR. A lot turns on that —all the commitments that Labour has made to interest groups throughout the country to spend more money on this, that and the other. They will be rendered nugatory if Labour stick with the PSBR as it now is, unless the party is prepared to increase taxes.
We know that Labour is prepared to increase taxes to a significant degree, but the question remains: how significant—or are Opposition spokesmen merely hoping to con the electorate into voting for Labour, knowing full well that Labour does not have the slightest intention of undertaking any of the expenditure that it has pledged? That is a real case for the Labour party to answer. The hon. Member for Brent, South should do what he did when he practised law—get a barrister to answer. We look forward to hearing the shadow Chancellor give his account.
Why has Labour decided to oppose the 20p tax band? It stems from an urgent and overwhelming desire to spend, which we know about, but also from Labour's desire to hide a number of its other spending pledges behind the notional availability of revenue—if Labour really is prepared to penalise those whose taxable incomes begin as low as £3,500 per year, by increasing their marginal rate of tax by 25 per cent.—so that it will then be able to peg on to that a large number of public spending commitments. They include, most ludicrous of all, the cost of implementing Labour's minimum wage proposals, which are meant to benefit the very people from whom Labour would raise taxes to pay for them.
I am sure that all the graduates on the Labour Benches of the Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting will be only too ready to ensure that money is spent not once, not twice, but many more times. I believe that Thames area water is consumed seven times before it reaches us here. Similarly, Labour's taxes will be spent time and time again in the election campaign, as promise is overlaid by promise.
Labour's original proposal was to soak the rich. Its definition of rich began with a person having an income of £20,400—which includes police sergeants, deputy head teachers and middle management, and that is pretty well the average wage for people working in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and others in the south.
The shadow Chancellor has been criticised over that policy and I suspect that one of the reasons for his shadow Budget is to give him the opportunity to respond to criticisms of Labour's proposed national insurance hike and 50 per cent. rate. I wonder whether the Labour party is proposing to move away from some of those policies. A climbdown would involve it in soaking the poor to save the rich. Is that why the Labour party requires money from those on £3,500, £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 a year? Does it want to have a few more resources to allow it to cover its tracks on national insurance contributions or the 50 per cent. taxation proposal? That demonstrates the ludicrous situation into which it has put itself.
The Labour party's attitude to what people might do with the extra money that they will have in their pockets as a result of the change in taxation is an interesting one. What is its attitude to our belief that people have a right

1137
to keep more of their money? The Leader of the Opposition talked about borrowing for a day at the races, as if putting more money into the pockets of those who are at the bottom of the income scale is giving them money for a day at the races. I was enchanted. The more that we see of the right hon. Gentleman during the election, the better.
When I returned home last night I wished quietly as a consenting adult to turn on BBC2 to get my nightly dose of Jeremy Paxman. It is something that I cannot go to bed without. I found that "Newsnight" had disinterred the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appears a great deal during the election, too. No one more typifies the abject failure of the Labour Government than he. He was asked about the 20p rate and he said, from the position of the quite comfortable old age that I dare say he is now enjoying, that he was against it because
"it would be spent on imports."
He then said that it might not be spent at all.
What do the Opposition think that they will gain by making these offensive and patronising remarks about ordinary people making normal spending decisions? Those people are entitled to have a little more money in their pockets. If they work hard, they are entitled to earn money and to spend it in ways that they choose to enhance their lives. They are not to be patronised by failed retired Labour politicians because they might choose to buy a radio made somewhere other than in the United Kingdom rather than, according to the Labour party, pursuing some allegedly socially more desirable objective. It reminds me of the old attitude, "Don't give them a bath because they will put coal in it." It seems that the Labour party is saying, "Don't let people keep money in their pocket because they might do something with it that we do not approve of." That is astonishing. It is the attitude of an aristocratic elite. The Labour party is the "people's party". Labour Members are the people whose sole purpose in this place is, allegedly, to represent the interests of the very people whose faces they propose to grind down by increasing the marginal rate of taxation by 25 per cent.
I support the tax changes because they represent a further step on a road that has brought about so many benefits to our country in the past decade or longer. That can be summed up with one statistic; the average family, even when we knock out the effect of the ravages of inflation, is £70 a week better off—it has £70 more spending power in its pockets—than it was in 1979. We know that that same family's living standards barely grew between 1974 and 1979. Money wages may have increased by 100 per cent., but the tide of rising prices meant that there was no real benefit at the end.
What has this meant in terms of the enlargement of the lives of those in all sections of our community? I am thinking about the way in which wealth has been created throughout society. There are now 10 million shareholders, 65 per cent. of whom are not in the professional and managerial classes. That is a real revolution in popular capitalism. Nearly 70 per cent. of the public are now home-owners. In this decade 4 million families have become home owners. This has come about because of the Conservative party's instinctive understanding of the basic beliefs of the British people. How many people go to the surgeries of my hon. Friends and say, "My great ambition
1138
for me and my children is to be a tenant"? If we had not rescued council tenants from perpetual tenanthood under the Labour party, that would have been their prospect.
We know that 76 per cent. of homes have central heating, that 90 per cent. have colour televisions and that two thirds, from a standing start in 1979, when the technology was barely known, have videos. The number of people taking foreign holidays has doubled since—
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mellor: I shall carry on for a while.
The number of people taking foreign holidays has doubled since 1981. That is the revolution in which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have so much confidence during the next three weeks. Whatever the ups and downs of the economic cycle, people realise that we have managed to improve the wealth and prosperity of the nation. We have done so by running a successful and dynamic economy. That has been achieved partly by—[Interruption.] I have now emptied the Strangers Gallery. It is one of those days when I should have stayed in bed. I was sorely tempted to do so. Perhaps it would have been the best decision. Usually it is necessary for the doors of the Strangers Gallery to be locked when I am speaking.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been told by the Serjeant at Arms that fumes in the area of the Strangers Gallery are causing discomfort and that the Gallery has been evacuated for the time being.
Mr. Mellor: Would that that opportunity had been offered to us on the Floor of the House. The least that I can do at this stage is to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
Mr. Winnick: A short time ago, the Minister said that no one tells his Member that he wishes to be a tenant. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman's surgeries are different from mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In most instances, people come to see us because they have housing problems. At my surgeries and in correspondence, 70 per cent. of the matters with which I am asked to deal are housing problems. The people who come to see me cannot afford to buy. They would be unable to do so even if interest rates were lower. They are desperate for somewhere to live. These are single people and families with one child or even two children. They have to wait years because since 1979 there has been a sharp decline in the number of council dwellings. If it is right to sell council dwellings—we are not in dispute about that—why should not those dwellings be replaced so that the people whom I have been describing are not punished and can be housed?
Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. He has allowed me to make it clear that no one comes to my advice centre—I suspect that this is true of his —saying that his ambition is to be a tenant. I accept entirely, however, that there are people who will be tenants. I accept also that there is a need for tenanted accommodation. There is an argument about how that should be produced.
The conversion of the hon. Gentleman to accepting the selling of council houses would not have occurred, I think, if it had not been for the success of the Government's policy. He would certainly not have thought of the idea.

1139
The atmosphere in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, is pretty awful. I am finding the fumes irritating. I know that I should be the last one to want to resume my seat, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. On that basis, I shall suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.
12.18 pm
Sitting suspended.
12.28 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Mellor: As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, the tremendous increase in prosperity throughout society during the past 13 years was due in part to the fruits of a successful, dynamic economy during the 1980s. It was also due to the Government's constant attention to reductions in the direct rate of tax: 3p off in the first Parliament, 3p off in the second Parliament and 2p off plus the 20 per cent. band in the third Parliament. If we go back to that typical family which is £70 a week better off, more than £20 a week of that is accounted for by the tax that it no longer has to pay but which it would have had to pay if the rates of taxation that prevailed under the Labour party had been continued.
The debate provides us with the chance to make clear a great difference between ourselves and the Opposition. They proceed under a fundamentally false assumption. Taxation is a takeaway, and a reluctance to tax is not a giveaway or a bribe. We cannot emphasise that point too much.
The Opposition say that public services are underfunded, but, in deference to the time problems, I shall not deal with that issue in detail. I merely point out, as I did during the Budget debate, that the health service and all other substantial public services have gained enormously from increased public expenditure, the better direction of that expenditure and the more effective management that has been possible under the Government.
On health, we know that the Labour party would have to spend £1 billion extra on the minimum wage and on getting rid of charges and competitive tendering before a penny could be spent on patient care. That, of course, explodes the myth that the Labour party would spend wisely the money that it would get back out of tax cuts.
I had a good illustration of that this morning as I was coming from my home in Putney through the borough of Lambeth to Westminster. Wandsworth has a nil community charge under Conservative-controlled council. Lambeth has a community charge of £449.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Pillock.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman, with charm, says, "Pillock" but the pillocks are the members of Lambeth council, not us. I wonder when he will be prepared to do something about it. Is he embarrassed by the fact that Lambeth has a community charge of £449? He is now tight lipped—not even the word "pillock" escapes his poetic lips. If he is not embarrassed, he should be, because I have the 1992–93 figures of Government assistance per head to those two London boroughs. Wandsworth, which has a nil community charge, gets £1,424 per head from the Government. Lambeth, with a community charge of £449, gets £1,628 per head from the Government.
1140
We know that far from spending wisely the money that it is not prepared to let the public keep, Labour will scatter it around as it is scattered in Lambeth, Haringey, Hackney and various other boroughs. People said that the pathetic fallacy was believing that animals think like human beings. The truly pathetic fallacy is that people could believe that the Labour party would spend more wisely than they could spend it themselves.
To sum up, we have established the real difference between the parties. The Labour party began by believing that the rich began at £20,400. No one below that, it said, was to be inconvenienced by its tax proposals. We now learn that a single wage earner is rich, starting at £3,500 a year. That is the point at which the Labour party proposes to increase the marginal rate of tax by 25 per cent. It is a rake's progress as the Labour party moves from Robin Hood to Robbin' Everybody.
Mr. Dobson: That is very original.
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has come alive again, like something out of the Hammer films that used to delight me as a child. Truth, not originality, is the name of the game. Originality is what the hon. Gentleman makes up. In any event—and certainly in political terms—it is not a compliment. The hon. Gentleman is a past master at it. He owes his facts to his imagination and his jokes to his memory.
If the Labour party is prepared to increase the marginal rate for the least well-off, what does that tell us about what it might be prepared to do about the 25 per cent. rate? After all, Labour opposed the reduction from 33p to 25p every step of the way. We must now ask ourselves, what other tax plans is Labour concealing up its sleeve to satisfy the restless desire of each and every member of the Labour Front Bench to spend.
Mr. Tim Smith rose—
Mr. Mellor: I am just about to finish.
I welcome the opportunity for the Labour party to confirm its complete addiction to the taxation of each and every person in the community. No one is safe, and we shall prove that this afternoon.
12.34 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: We can be under no illusion today that those of us who have been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are speaking for the benefit of anyone except those present in the Chamber, for Hansard and for posterity. None of us will nurture any illusions about what the media will report of today's debate.
Nevertheless, in the Finance Bill, the Conservative party is offering a "buy now, pay later" Budget for a "buy now, pay later" election. It shows that one cannot teach an old Government new tricks. It is, after all, the same stunt that they pulled in 1983, when they cut taxes a month before the election and spending a month after. It is the same stunt that they pulled in 1987, when they cut taxes before the election and the spending promised at election time never materialised.
As a Second Reading of a Finance Bill, this must be one of the oddest in history—odd even before we had the fire, and heaven only knows why that happened. Four hours for all the stages of a Finance Bill from start to finish—including a debate on the guillotine motion—is certainly a

1141
most extraordinary precedent, even for this Government. It is an extraordinary precedent and an extraordinary procedure, due not to accident or misfortune but to the sheer incompetence and mismanagement of the Government, who cannot get right even the timing of the election.
On Second Reading, the House weighs legislation, considers the circumstances with which it is designed to deal and its fitness for the purpose. One only has to consider this cursory Bill to realise that the circumstances with which it is designed to deal are the problems that the Government face in getting from here to 9 April. It is visibly designed to deal not with the country's circumstances but with the narrow purposes of the Conservative party.
In many ways, the Bill characterises the Government's approach. The Secretary of State for Employment said that this Budget would be a Budget for jobs. It is not. The Chancellor said that it was a Budget for recovery. It is not. The Bill contains some measures that will be of help to business, and we welcome them, but the problems with which they are designed to deal were created by the Government. Some of the measures, such as those for car tax, will alleviate the strains of the recession that the Government have caused. However, it is only under this Government that the overall burden of taxation on cars and on people has become so high that the measure is needed. The weight of the car tax plus the value added tax that they have more than doubled in their 13 years in office have made taxes on cars so high.
The Bill contains other measures, such as the easing of the business rate. The Government introduced the business rate, ignored the cries of small business and then, miraculously, on election eve they listen at last. Then they expect credit for easing problems that they, and they alone, created.
There are no other measures of any weight to promote recovery. Why? The answer can be found in the Red Book. Yet again, the Government tell us that recovery has already begun and will accelerate from the end of this month. We certainly hope that they are right, but, of course, that is what they told us last March, last April, last May, last June, last July, last August, last September, last October, last November, last December, last January and last February.
What is holding up the recovery? The Government are. It is held up by the uncertainty of waiting and waiting while they have tried and failed to find a favourable time to go to the country, by the damage caused by their prolonged use of high interest rates to squeeze out inflation which they fuelled for so long, and by the fear of the unemployment that they have fostered and to which they remain supremely indifferent.
In their private briefings, Conservative Members and Ministers still tell the press, "Unemployment didn't lose us the election in 1983 or 1987, and it won't lose us the election this time," as if that were all that mattered. Of course it is all that matters—to them. Never mind the costs to the country directly or indirectly—such as the £8,000 per person unemployed. Never mind the devastation to millions of individuals and millions of families. There is nothing in the Bill that begins to tackle the problems of unemployment, nothing to stimulate the construction
1142
industry and nothing to deal with skill shortages, which are damaging in themselves as well as damaging to the prospects for inflation. There is nothing to build for the longer term and nothing directly even for families with children—although there is what I can describe only as a sop for some pensioners.
Seventy-five per cent. of pensioners do not pay income tax—they do not have big enough pensions—so they cannot benefit from the lower band. The Government have given an increase in a means-tested benefit, but they must know that the poorest pensioners of all are the million or so who will not claim means-tested benefits because they were raised in a generation which regards such benefits as charity, so they live below the poverty line. The Budget does nothing for them.
The main measure in the Budget—as the Chief Secretary implied at the end of his speech, it is the only measure that the Government care about—is the tax cut, which, we are told, has been carefully targeted. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who sat smirking on the Front Bench as the Chancellor revealed the mechanism of the tax cut, are so thrilled with their own cleverness that they have given the game away. The tax cut is carefully targeted not on the poor, but, as Ministers told Lobby journalists, on trying to embarrass the Labour party. Well, it does not.
What a revealing glimpse those comments give us into the minds of the men who govern us. Here we are in the depths of recession, with, high unemployment, negative growth—with, at best, the prospect of a return to low growth—record bankruptcies and record home repossessions. What weighs on Ministers' minds? What keeps them awake at night? They ask themselves not, "What can we do to solve the problems of the country?" but, "How can we dish our opponents?" Where is the vision? Where is the foresight? Where, even, is the responsibility? Plainly, those qualities are not to be found in the Cabinet. And the Government have the gall to say that we are not fit to govern.
The Government have had 13 years of unbroken and secure rule. They have had more than £100 billion from the North sea, where we made the investment and they have reaped the returns. They have made billions of pounds from selling the family silver. Three times they have doubled inflation between elections. Three times they have raised interest rates between elections. This is the third time that they have cut taxes before an election, and three times they have broken their promises after elections.
Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Lady says that the Government have no vision, yet, for a long time now, the Government have been committed to achieving a 20 per cent. basic rate of income tax. What does the hon. Lady think would be the best way of doing that—to cut the standard rate or to introduce a lower band for low-paid workers?
Mrs. Beckett: I am so glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention speaks for itself. I mention vision, and what comes into his mind is money.
The Bill represents the way in which the Government will end—not with a bang but with a whimper of a Finance Bill. That whimper is not loud enough to drown the cries from outside the Chamber, such as the cries of youngsters with no job, no home, no security, no prospects and no hope. There are the cries of the pensioners who are slipping

1143
further and further behind the standard of living of people in work, and the cries of the sick, who cannot make themselves heard above the racket of Ministers boasting about their record on the health service. There are the cries of the victims of crime, which is at record levels—those are the people who have been exposed to the full consequences of the creed that the Conservatives have preached for 13 years—"Look after yourself, and the devil take the hindmost."
One of the few things that the Chief Secretary said with which I could agree is that the Bill throws into relief the nature of the choice before the British people. The Government say, "We shall take less from you in taxation, and that will leave you free to make your own choices." They mean choices such as what kind of health care to buy, and how much, and what kind of education to buy, and how much—choices such as how much pension to buy, and what kind of transport to use. "Make your own choices," the Government say to the people of this country, "because you are on your own."
For most people, even for those in work, those are choices which they cannot exercise on their own. In the days before we contributed to fund a national health service, a national education service and nationally guaranteed pensions—the good old days when income tax was only a few pence in the pound; the days to which Conservative Members tell us that it is their vision to return us—harsh experience taught our forebears—at least, the Opposition's forebears—the limits of the freedom that today's Conservative party extols.
Our forebears found that to survive, and certainly to prosper, they had to work together. They set up their own schemes to which each contributed a little when he or she could, so as to help one another when that was needed. That worked, so we, as a country, made it the basis of so much that people take for granted today, such as the health service, the education service and so on.
The tax system is the structure for that pooling of resources. We neither want nor propose a harsh tax system. We want a tax system that is fair and seeks, as nearly as possible, to treat people in the same circumstances in the same way. We shall make proposals and lay them before the country in the next few days, and we want everyone to see them. The structure of taxes that we propose will be designed not to fuel the politics of envy, but to fund the ethics of community.
This is not the right Finance Bill for this time. It is time for a different Finance Bill; it is time for a Labour Government.
12.47 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was both depressing and patronising. That might not be so exceptional in itself, were it not intended to perpetrate yet another fraud on the British taxpayer and on the electorate. The hon. Lady sought to criticise a wholly welcome measure which reduces taxes, but she did not spell out her alternative. She sold the pass by not delivering the secret Labour Budget which is apparently to be declared after Parliament has prorogued. What sort of choice has anyone listening to the debate here or outside the House if we are not to be privy to Labour's formula for success? What are the Labour party's credentials for criticising the Government?
1144
I believe that the Budget was a winning Budget for taxpayers and for business, and that the Finance Bill— the provisions of which are wholly welcome—should have been nodded through the House. I was dismayed and shocked that the Labour party and other Opposition parties could find fault with and question a Bill which will bring relief to businesses and individuals throughout the country. I certainly welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, as I welcome the whole strategy underlying my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget. I should tell my right hon. and hon. Friends the Treasury Ministers that I especially welcome the intention behind the Bill—to ensure that central to our economic policy is a determination to reduce the rate of inflation and keep it low.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested to know that this week, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the latest figures announced show that our rate of inflation is lower than that of Germany. Britain is now leading the way in the European Community with policies determined to pursue sound currency, low inflation and low interest rates. Those who seek to pursue policies of higher taxation, of redistribution towards the centre and of the devaluation of currency will find that the inevitable consequence will be higher interest rates borne by individuals, by mortgage payers and by businesses throughout the land. Only by making our centrepiece a determination to restore sound money and to keep down the rate of inflation can we regenerate sustainable growth, the prosperity that it brings and the jobs that will be derived from it.
Mr. Derek Enright: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not repeated the slur on Germany. Does he not find it remarkable that the German economy is as strong as ours despite having taken on a decrepit country and welded it into its own economy, while this Government have made our economy into a decrepit economy?
Mr. Nelson: The new Germany may be held back in its progress by the socialist domination of part of it in the past. I was not knocking Germany—my point was that we now have a lower inflation rate than Germany has, and people should know that because it is very good news. All that we heard from the hon. Member for Derby, South was the carping, the criticism, the self-effacement and the deprecation for which the Labour party has made its name and which is so injurious to public and international confidence.
I especially welcome the introduction of the 20 per cent. band. I hope that, even in the short time left, we shall have an opportunity to vote on the clause which implements it. The proposal will be the litmus test for the public to see where the Labour party really stands. The logic of Labour's position must be to vote against the proposal. Labour will then have to go to the public and argue that the return of a Labour Government would not result in a significant increase in taxation. That would perpetrate yet another fraud on the public and it is right that we should decry it.
The Bill follows a Budget which brought one measure of relief on which I especially congratulate the Government. Those of us who represent constituencies in the south of England, where the recession has been hard and deep, are conscious of the impact of the recession on the cash flow of many businesses, especially small

1145
businesses. Even with the transitional arrangements, the impact was especially marked when the uniform business rate was introduced.
With Conservative colleagues in Kent, Hampshire, East Sussex and West Sussex, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, went to see him and approached the Prime Minister and others. We urged the case for freezing the transitional element of the UBR so that an additional burden was not placed on such businesses in the forthcoming year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced such a measure, which is wholly welcome in my constituency and elsewhere and shows yet again that the Government listen to people. The Government respond to representations made to them. The Government are not unbending. The Conservative party heeds the voices of those who express concern and it adjusts its policies. That worked for my constituents and the representations were listened to. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I should appreciate an answer from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on one narrow point. The relief brought with the reduction in the car tax will be of immeasurable help to the car industry, to employment and to the national economy. However, one aspect has aroused concern among many dealers who have already bought cars in stock and among many finance houses that have bought cars for sale through dealerships. They have had to pay the full rate of car tax, although people who buy those cars after the Budget date will expect to pay only the 5 per cent. rather than the 10 per cent. rate of car tax. With the large stock of cars currently held by dealers and by leasing and finance houses, there will be some perverse results if there is not a change. Just as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was good enough to listen to the reasonable concerns expressed by business about the UBR, I hope that in the limited time that, rightly, we have to debate the matter, some further relief can be announced or some clarification given about the car tax on vehicles that have not yet been sold to buyers but are held in stock by finance houses and dealers. If the Government do that, it would help to get the economy moving even faster than the Budget and the Bill will.
The Bill is a winning Bill for my constituents, for businesses in my area and for the economy as a whole. It follows the Conservative policies that we have set from the beginning of this Parliament. It is wholly prudent, it reduces taxation and it draws out the fundamental differences and the choice for the electorate at the election. The Bill is worth supporting and it goes to the heart of what we in the Conservative party stand for.
12.55 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) advanced the astonishing proposition that the Bill should go through on the nod without any debate. He then proceeded to give two clear reasons why it should not. First, he made a perfectly legitimate inquiry about the detailed application of the car tax provisions, on which he hopes to get a useful answer which might be of some assistance to his constituents. Secondly, he talked about provisions for small business and about the uniform business rate. He was obviously
1146
ignorant of the fact that such provisions are not included in the Bill. One purpose of this debate is to discover what the Bill actually contains.
My first question to the Financial Secretary is: why are provisions on the uniform business rate not in the Bill? Does he doubt whether the Labour party, if in office, would implement the provisions? They are important provisions. If he entertained any doubt, that was all the more reason why such provisions should have been included in the Bill because there would then have been no doubt that they would be enacted.
The Financial Secretary may argue that the provisions are complicated. One of the ways in which he could have got round part of that difficulty would have been to accept our proposal—which is similar to his, but a little greater in cost—to freeze the 4·1 per cent. increase in the UBR. That could have been achieved with fewer legislative complications than the arrangements he described. I agree that the transitional provisions should be extended and we welcome that part of the Budget. However, it would have been far better for that provision to be included in the Bill and I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us why it is not.
It is important that business should get that relief. It will not be a massive stimulus to the economy, but it will save some small businesses from going to the wall and it will relieve the cash flow problems in others. I welcome the fact that something on an equivalent scale to what we asked for is being done.
Much has been said about the lower rate band at 20 per cent. The truth is that the lower rate band is abolished by Conservative Governments when they come into office and reintroduced on the eve of their departure. That has happened in this case. The lower rate band was abolished by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). Conservative Members should remember that he said:
"The case for the lower rate band was never at all clear. The 25 per cent. rate was not the effective marginal rate for more than a small number of full-time adult workers. For those on lower incomes an increase in the personal allowance would always have been more valuable than the lower rate band, and the existence of this lower rate band added significantly to the complexity of the tax system."
He mentioned another advantage of abolishing the lower rate band. He said:
"there will be a valuable staff saving of 1,300 persons."— [Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1475.]
When I challenged the Chief Secretary this morning on the point, he could not tell us how many extra staff would now be required simply to enable pensioners to reclaim their lower rate. Now that the composite rate has thankfully been abolished—it is right that it was—pensioners who want to take advantage of the lower rate band on their savings to get the £100 will have to apply to the Inland Revenue for it at the end of the tax year. Those applications will have to be processed, so to dispense the £100 or less, the Financial Times estimates that 800 additional jobs will be required. The Chief Secretary said that the increase would be 300 jobs in the first year and perhaps more in the second. No doubt, we shall get a precise figure later. It is probably the greatest job creation element in the Budget. That does not seem to me to be the most productive area in which to engender jobs. I would much rather we were engendering jobs in more productive sectors of the economy.
Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. A few weeks ago when we were debating the impact of the business rate, he and I made the same recommendation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done exactly what he and I recommended and that will help jobs.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the first paragraph of my speech. I welcomed what the Chancellor had said he would do and pointed out that it was not in the Bill and that it would have been very much better if it had been. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene in speeches that he has not heard or has not listened to.
The best demolition of the lower rate band appears in this morning's editorial in the Financial Times. The point is made clearly:
"If the Government wishes to offer the flattery of imitation, it should restrict itself to Labour's good ideas and not its bad ones."
In a Budget dictated mainly by the priorities of partisan politics, the Government have selected the least effective means of targeting help to the low paid because it happens to have been espoused by the Labour party. It would be hard to imagine a more ludicrous basis on which to make Finance Bill and Budget decisions.
We are talking about £100 for those whose income carries them right through the lower rate band. That is everyone in the Chamber you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our Clerks and our Serjeant at Arms. Many low-paid people earn less than that income band and therefore will not get tax relief on the full amount. They will not get £100 and some people who do get it will have some of it deducted from their family credit. For many of them, the benefit will be much less than £100.
Spent in investment measures, that money would have brought more help to those people. That money spent on measures that would give some of them better-paid jobs would have been a great help. That money would have been spent more effectively providing employment for their children and families in the construction industry and in the trades and professions that can gain from an advance in the construction industry.
The Government have revealed in their Budget a PSBR of £28 billion and have sought to criticise those of us who argue for an even higher figure. I have argued that, if we are to secure investment, we need a combination of revenue-raising measures and a PSBR of £30 billion. The Government had better not launch an attack on our £30 billion proposal, because their PSBR proposal for next year is £32 billion and our proposed £30 billion includes money for measures that would give us a return in future years.
The truth about the Budget is that it offers no hope of getting Britain out of recession, no hope of reversing the pattern of decline in manufacturing industry and no hope of providing what is needed to make industry prosperous and competitive in future. It is a political gamble. It is not a measure of economic commitment and progress at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Front-Bench spokesmen intend to restrict their winding-up speeches to five minutes each. If those hon. Members who have been rising would do likewise, it should be possible for me to call them all
1.3 pm
Mr. Peter Rost: Even though this will be my last speech in the House after 23 years here—not for the first time, to a Chamber that is nearly empty—I shall not detain the House by adding my praise for an excellent Budget which will help those most in need and boost our economic recovery.
I should like merely to express a reservation about clauses 3 and 4 which deal with fuel taxes and car tax. Although I warmly welcome the wider differential between lead-free and leaded petrol, I should have liked a similar differential in respect of diesel fuel. Such a measure is much needed and would have provided a stronger market signal to consumers to use an environmentally more acceptable and desirable fuel.
Other countries have provided such encouragement. In a number of reports on the threat of global greenhouse warming and energy efficiency, the Select Committee on Energy has made such recommendations. In making proposals for tackling the difficult question of energy and transport, the Government's own White Paper, "Our Common Inheritance", makes similar suggestions. Moreover, the European Community has been advocating from Brussels that member states promote diesel rather than petrol. A slightly wider differential in the tax regime would have triggered a stronger signal.
We are all aware that energy and the environment are increasingly matters of great international concern. We also know that energy use in the transport sector is the fastest growing, the most difficult to tackle and the most polluting. Had we introduced such a measure this year, we should have provided the right signal to consumers. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider introducing one after the election. I hope that he will seriously consider giving this important environmental boost through the Budget and the fiscal system and encouraging more use of diesel for the sake of reducing global greenhouse warming emissions and other emissions.
1.5 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: It is claimed that this is a Budget for recovery, but mocking that claim is the news from my constituency this morning that the INMOS company is definitely to close its operation there and move its production to Agreti in Sicily and Roullet in France. The Finance Bill contains many measures which will affect my constituents—on car tax and income tax, for example. The very cars that are the subject of that tax—intelligent cars—have at their heart a thing called a transputer, as will colour fax machines and the miraculous virtual reality high-definition computers that will be selling in vast numbers over the next decade. Where in the Finance Bill is the commitment to British industry to allow a product that is British invented, British designed and the result of investment by a Labour Government to continue to be manufactured here? The transputer is about to take off internationally, but it will be manufactured outside Britain. This is not a Budget for recovery but a Budget for the Conservative party.
Following this morning's announcement, redundancies will be announced immediately and will continue to be announced for a long time. Already, 400 jobs have been lost and 450 more are to go. Although that is a devastating blow for Newport, it is also a mortal blow for the sunrise

1149
high-tech industries in Britain generally, because the transputer—the miracle computer on a chip—is going. We shall become the customers—the buyers of the transputer and its applications throughout the world. That British invention will be manufactured in Texas, Malta, Singapore, Sicily and France. It is an utter disgrace.
This morning, the Chief Secretary did not tell jokes as he did last time. Last time, he told one parrot joke and one haggis joke. I can understand his not wanting to tell a parrot joke because of the sensitivities about Polly Peck. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also accused the Labour party of being anthropomorphic and said that we attributed to animals the feelings of human beings. It struck me forcefully this morning that, when he leaves Parliament in a month's time, the Chief Secretary can get an alternative job delivering gorillagrams without the aid of a monkey suit. It also struck me, when our sitting had to be suspended because of a fire elsewhere in the Palace that the event was reminiscent of what happened many years ago when a repressive Government burnt the Reichstag and made van der Lubbe the fall guy. When the Government collapse in burning ruins in a month's time, the fall guy will be the present Prime Minister.
1.8 pm
Mr. David Shaw: This is a sensible and prudent Budget. It is such a prudent Budget that it has upset Labour Members. The Budget is being implemented when we do not have the crisis that Labour had in 1976 and 1978. We have not had to cut the hospital building programme as Labour did in 1976. We do not have the situation which occurred in 1978, when taxes were so high under the Labour Government that they led to massive strikes and inflation. Surely, the point about the Budget is that income tax reductions and job creation go side by side.
The Budget will produce a further £2 million of disposable income in my constituency. That money will be welcome. Such money helps the Dover ferry industry. Every tax reduction under the present Government has resulted, two years later, in significant increases in passengers and freight carried by the Dover ferry industry. I have every confidence that this tax reduction will result in more freight and passengers using the Dover ferry industry.
I also commend to the House the reduction in the uniform business rate, which has been achieved by freezing the transitional element. That will be good for small businesses and the many shopkeepers in my constituency.
Of particular interest to me is what the Budget does for pensioners. Less well-off pensioners will receive benefits through the income support mechanism. Under Labour, not only was the inflation calculation fiddled in 1976 so that pensioners lost out, but inflation destroyed every pension increase that the Labour Government gave between 1974 and 1979. Pension increases and promises of pension increases in election campaigns arc not worth the paper they are not printed on unless they are real pension increases and inflation rates are low. That is the only way to give pension increases. That will be achieved by the Finance Bill because this is a prudent and sensible Budget. The measures are recognised by the City of London and the outside world community as prudent and sensible.
1.11 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know how Conservative Members were able so easily to convince themselves that the Budget is enormously popular. There were no street parties in Newham and no dancing on Stratford High road when the Budget was announced. The Budget means very little to the people I represent in the east end of London. What will the Budget do for jobs? What will it do for people who find that what little has been given to them will be reclaimed through the withdrawal of means-tested benefit? That is the whole point. The Budget means nothing for the real problems of people in my area.
Since 1979, unemployment in the London borough of Newham has gone up by about 326 per cent. We have seen an 84 per cent. decline in job vacancies. We have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. in the London borough of Newham. We have lost about 40 per cent. of manufacturing jobs. The Budget will do nothing whatever to address those real problems.
The day after the Budget, a cordial gentleman stopped me on the street, as they often do in my area, and said, "Give 'em a good kicking, Tone." Those were his precise words. Obviously, I cannot endorse the proposed action, but I sympathise with the sentiment. The people of the east end have been kicked around by the Government for 13 years. They want an opportunity to give the Tories a good kicking, and on 9 April that is exactly what they will do.
1.13 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says that the lower rate band means nothing. If it means nothing, why was it Labour policy until a few days ago? We knew that Labour wanted to tax the higher paid. We now know that Labour wants to tax the lower paid as well. That should come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the record of the last Labour Government, because that is the best indication of what a future Labour Government are likely to do.
In 1974, only a few days after the general election, the standard rate of income tax was increased from 30 to 33 per cent. In the Budget of 1975, it was increased again from 33 to 35 per cent. By 1976, public sector borrowing had reached 9 per cent. of GDP. It was so huge that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), had to go to the International Monetary Fund and Britain had to be bailed out. It was only when the IMF imposed some discipline on the Labour Government that things started to return to a more sensible arrangement.
It was in the following Budget, in 1977, that the standard rate of income tax was cut from 35 to 33 per cent. As a result, public sector borrowing went up once again. If it was right to do that in 1977, why was it wrong to do it in 1992? We have not been told. If it was right, at the end of the previous Labour Government, to have a lower rate band of 25 per cent., why is it wrong to have a lower rate band of 20 per cent. now? We have not been told.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) complained that I mentioned money during proceedings on the Finance Bill. I found that rather strange. The Government are committed to reducing the standard rate of income tax to 20p in the pound, and that is a very welcome target. Opposition Members do not seem to

1151
understand that it is not their money—it is taxpayers' money—and we need to keep to a minimum the amount that we tax people in order to pay for decent public services. That is the object of the Budget. The Budget is a step on that road, and I welcome the Finance Bill.
1.15 pm
Mr. David Winnick: It is not surprising that the country's reaction to the Budget has been negative. The country knows what every hon. Member knows—that the Budget was determined not by the country's needs but by the needs of the Conservative party and the Government's wish to be re-elected. It is a negative Budget, and that is why it has been rejected by the country.
Let us consider, for instance, the small increase that was given to pensioners on income support. Any help for pensioners is to be welcomed, but that increase, which has been given to a relatively small number of pensioners, is derisory compared with what pensioners have lost as a result of the decision in 1980 that pensions would no longer be increased in line with earnings.
What have pensioners lost? For a single pensioner, it is £17 a week—I emphasise "a week"—and for married pensioners it is £26 a week. That is how pensioners have been cheated by the Government. Of course, there were also the changes in housing benefit in 1988. That is the year, incidentally, when the top rate for income tax was reduced from 50 to 40 per cent. At the same time, many people on relatively low incomes found that, as a result of the changes in housing benefit, they had to pay far more in rent and poll tax.
Pensioners—admittedly single pensioners—in my constituency receive about £60 a week, but they must pay £10 in rent and poll tax. That is totally unfair. Even the increase announced in the Budget will be subject to means testing. Not all pensioners on income support will get that £2 or £3, because they will pay more in rent and poll tax.
My region, the west midlands, has been devastated as a result of Government policies. There have been two major recessions. We lost many jobs in the early 1980s. In the first recession, in the early 1980s, 280,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the west midlands. In the black country, 70,000 jobs were lost.
Far too many people in my part of the world find that they cannot get jobs. If they have reached a certain age group, their chances of getting work are remote. In the metropolitan part of the west midlands—Birmingham, Walsall, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Solihull, the very heart of the west midlands—more than 40 people chase each vacancy. There is no sign that there will be a significant change as a result of present policies.
Of course, there has been no help for the construction industry. Eighty-one per cent. of building firms in the west midlands expect less work in the next 12 months and 78 per cent. of such companies expect to employ fewer people. That is the dismal scene. That is why we are so concerned. That is why we wanted a Budget for the country's future and not the future of the Conservative party.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps even in Beaconsfield, the constituency which the hon. Member who spoke before my hon. Friend represents but will not represent for much longer, there are many people who hated or disliked the
1152
Budget? The hon. Gentleman has been disregarding them for years, but on 9 April he will get the message about the Budget loud and clear.
Mr. Winnick: One thing is absolutely clear: the Government will get the message on 9 April. We have been waiting for the election for some time. When the Prime Minister succeeded the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), he did not have the courage to go to the country. He did not have the courage to go to the country last June or in the autumn. Now, with only three months before he is forced to go to the country, he has screwed up enough courage to call the election. We welcome the election. I notice that, after the Budget, the latest opinion poll shows a 3 per cent. Labour lead.
The past 13 years have been a nightmare for Britain and its people and certainly for those who have suffered most such as the unemployed, the low-paid and pensioners. Time and again, in every Budget up to now, they have seen how a Tory Government have benefited the rich and penalised the poor. So we welcome the election. On 9 April, the people of Britain will decide.
When people ask me whether I am optimistic, I immediately go back to 1983 and 1987. Frankly, I do not deny, and my colleagues would not deny, that we knew that we stood no chance in those two elections. When we left the House of Commons, we knew only too well that the opinion polls were right and that, unfortunately, we would see the return of a Tory Government. But the people have now decided. That has been shown in by-elections and local elections. They want a change. They will vote Labour in millions more than they did in 1983 and 1987.
The Government are a dying Government. They will end their life on 9 April. We shall .have a Labour Government to determine the progressive policies to rebuild our country.
1·21 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: In proceedings on the previous four Finance Bills on which I and my hon. Friends have served, we were able to tackle clause by clause and issue by issue the case that the Government made. We were able to table amendments. Through reasoned argument rather than weight of numbers, we secured change in those measures.
This occasion deprives us of the opportunity to secure any change in the measures before us. Indeed, it deprives us of the opportunity even to table amendments so that we can discuss the changes that we would like to see. That is a fundamentally undemocratic way to proceed. It is made much worse by the intervention by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is not in his place. He said that we should not discuss these matters and that the Finance Bill should be put through on the nod. That shows a complete contempt for the democratic process.
It was not surprising to me that, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tried to justify these things, we could smell the flames of sulphur coming up around him. So confident is the Conservative party of the strength of its argument that it is bullying through a Bill of 11 clauses containing all the major tax changes, without allowing any opportunity to discuss amendments. It is putting the Bill through on a guillotine with only two hours of debate. That is not evidence that the Conservative party has great confidence in its arguments.

1153
I should like to deal with several issues which arise from various clauses, but I cannot, so I shall concentrate on the main question, which is, of course, the lower rate tax band. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) asked why, if the Labour party believed in a lower rate tax band in the past and had a policy proposal to introduce one for the future, it intended to vote against such a proposal now. In asking the question, as he probably most certainly knows, he answers it.
The reason why we oppose the lower rate tax band is not because we are against it in principle. We are not. It is because we are against it now. We are saying that resources should not be borrowed, thereby effectively increasing the public sector borrowing requirement, to fund a tax giveaway. That is effectively what the Government are doing.
Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: No, I shall not give way, because time is short.
The Government argue that somehow the lower rate tax band can be afforded and will be repaid over the cycle. I return to the argument that I put to the Chancellor yesterday. The argument is set out in the Government's Red Book. The Government clearly say that there will be a public sector borrowing requirement for the forecastable future. In other words, there will be a PSBR over the cycle. On the Government's own evidence, the Budget will not be balanced over the cycle. An on-going, and in my view unhealthy, deficit is forecast for the future.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury had the cheek to say that we had changed our minds. [HON. MEMBERS: "What minds?"] I am talking about the minds. The hon. Gentlemen must keep quiet. What about the minds of Conservative Members? They always opposed the lower rate tax band on the grounds of cost and efficiency. They said that it would be too expensive. They opposed it because they said that they would prefer a streamlined tax system and did not agree with extra bands. They admired the elegance of the two rates, which in time they said they hoped to see reduced to one.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield argued previously against an extra tax band. He said that the eventual objective of the Conservative party—although one would not think it from reading the Red Book—was a 20 per cent. basic rate. He used to use that as an argument against lower rate bands. He now stands that argument on its head and uses it—as, of course, he has to—as an argument for lower rate bands.
The Conservative party always advances the argument that the tax rate for everyone should come down to 20 per cent. It does not argue for a special lower rate band. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said when he abolished it that the case for the lower rate band was never clear. However, solely for reasons of expediency, it seems that the case is becoming clear to Conservative Members.
It is reasonable to ask why the Government are introducing the lower rate band. Are they doing it to help the poor? Does anyone really believe that the inventors of the poll tax are doing it to help the poor? There are much more tax-efficient ways of helping the poor. The Conservative party has not adopted those methods.
1154
The Chancellor has claimed that every average single-earner family will gain £2·64 per week as a result of the Budget, but 72p of that is as a result of the annual indexation of allowances in line with inflation. Again, the quarter of a million people in tax-paying families on family credit gain less. They lose 70p in benefit for every £1 that they gain in tax cuts. Moreover, the increases in excise duties which we are voting through without amendment or any real chance of discussion will cost such people an extra £1·56 per week on average. So the result is a net loss for the low-paid of 76p per week.
In those circumstances, it is the most grotesque hypocrisy for the Conservative party to say that the lower rate band is intended to advantage the poor. It is clearly nothing of the kind. It is not intended to be anything of the kind. It is being introduced for one reason only—to confuse the debate about taxation in the run-up to the general election. It is intended specifically to confuse the debate about the Labour party's tax policies.
The Chief Secretary said that he wanted to hear the Labour party's Budget proposals. Of course, after the general election, the House will have an opportunity to discuss the Labour party's Budget. It will be formally presented to the House, with a proper Finance Bill. The measures will be discussed in detail, not bullied through on a guillotine. My only regret—I have to say that it is not an overwhelming regret—is that the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary will not be present to hear our Budget.
1.28 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked why the important provisions on the unified business rate are not contained within the Bill. They relate to a tax introduced under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and not under an ordinary Finance Act. They would have to be amended by a separate Act, which we propose to introduce after we are re-elected.
On excise duties, and especially the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) in his valedictory remarks to the House, we have increased the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol. We have also increased, in cash terms, the differential between unleaded petrol and diesel. I hope that he finds that a welcome development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) mentioned car tax. He was right to do so, and I may be able to give some comfort. The reduction in car tax has been widely welcomed and I am happy to say that it has already given a substantial boost to the motor industry. In a few cases, as my hon. Friend pointed out, tax had already been paid by manufacturers and importers at the higher rate before the Budget. Some traders would therefore stand to lose.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Customs and Excise have introduced an extra-statutory class concession to enable refunds of car tax to be made in respect of chargeable vehicles held by dealers as 10 per cent. tax-paid stock and unsold to final consumers on 10 March 1992. Those refunds will ensure that such vehicles will bear an effective car tax rate of 5 per cent., and will bring consistency of treatment to manufacturers and importers, who opt to deal on a tax-paid rather than a

1155
tax-free, sale or return, basis. I hope that that announcement is welcome to the House, as I am sure it will be to the industry.
Much of the debate has focused on income tax. It is right that it should, and we have been treated to some remarkably dishonest speeches and some contempt by Opposition Members.
The Labour party asks us to believe that it now reckons that 25 per cent. is right for the basic rate of income tax. Labour Members tell us, hand on heart, that a Labour Government would not increase the basic rate of income tax. They say that 25 per cent. is just about right and that they will not put it up, adding, "There is no need to do so. We wouldn't want to do anything like that."
In that case, when we reduced the basic rate of income tax from 33p to 30p, why did Labour Members vote against it? Do they now admit that they were wrong to oppose that reduction? When we reduced the rate from 30p in the pound to 29p, why did they oppose it? Do they now admit that they were wrong? When we reduced the tax from 29p to 27p, they opposed it. Do they now admit that they were wrong and that we were right?
Mrs. Beckett rose—
Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady is prepared to stand up and admit that, every time that we reduced the basic rate of tax, they were wrong to oppose it, and to apologise to the House and to the country for what the Opposition have done, we will happily accept their apology.
Mrs. Beckett: Sadly, the Financial Secretary will not have the opportunity to repeat these remarks, but I recommend that he reads the book by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is now chairman of the Conservative party, in which he says that the case for further tax cuts has been much over-egged and that there should not be further tax cuts. At that stage, the top rate of income tax was 60p in the pound and the standard rate was 30p.
Mr. Maude: If that is the best that the hon. Lady can do by way of an apology to the nation, she has some further learning to do. Every time that the Government have properly reduced the basic rate of tax, Labour has opposed it. Now Labour Members say that they have changed and that they do not want to increase the basic rate. Why, then, did they oppose it? They owe the House and the country an apology, but the House and the country will not believe them. They know that a future Labour Government, like every other Labour Government in history, would increase the basic rate of income tax. We know that because they are giving a signal of it today. We are introducing a lower rate for the lower paid, as an important first step towards a 20 per cent. basic rate for everyone. What does the Labour party do? Labour Members say that they will increase the rate, despite the fact that it has been their stated policy to move towards it. They are saying that, although they believe that it is a good idea, they will oppose it because they want to increase the tax on the lower-paid.
As every Labour Government increased the basic rate of tax for everyone, a future Labour Government would do the same, because they do not know any other way. They would increase the basic rate of tax for the lower paid, the middle paid and the higher paid—for everyone
1156
—because they believe that the money that people work hard to earn does not belong to the people. They believe that it belongs to the Government.
Every time a tax is reduced, the Opposition think that it is a giveaway. I have news for them, and the British people who work hard for their money have news for the Labour party: they believe that it is their money, and they want to decide how to spend it and what to do with it. That is what they are telling the Labour party.
It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Finance Bill and Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill (allocation of time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER. put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Finance Bill
  Clause 10

    CHARGE ETC. FOR 1992–93
    Motion made and question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 325, Noes 143.

    Division No. 11]

    [1.36 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Allason, Rupert

    Carttiss, Michael

    Amess, David

    Cartwright, John

    Amos, Alan

    Cash, William

    Arbuthnot, James

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Ashby, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Churchill, Mr

    Atkins, Robert

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Atkinson, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Colvin, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Conway, Derek

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Couchman, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Body, Sir Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Curry, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dicks, Terry

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brazier, Julian

    Dover, Den

    Bright, Graham

    Dunn, Bob

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Durant, Sir Anthony

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Evennett, David

    Burns, Simon

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Burt, Alistair

    Fallon, Michael

    Butler, Chris

    Farr, Sir John

    Butterfill, John

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    1157

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lord, Michael

    Franks, Cecil

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    French, Douglas

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Gale, Roger

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gill, Christopher

    Maclean, David

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Madel, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorst, John

    Mans, Keith

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maples, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marland, Paul

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Marlow, Tony

    Gregory, Conal

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Ground, Patrick

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Hague, William

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hannam, Sir John

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mills, Iain

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Moate, Roger

    Hayes, Jerry

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayward, Robert

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hill, James

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Hind, Kenneth

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Norris, Steve

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Irvine, Michael

    Paice, James

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jack, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Janman, Tim

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jessel, Toby

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Portillo, Michael

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Price, Sir David

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Key, Robert

    Rathbone, Tim

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Redwood, John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Riddick, Graham

    Knowles, Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knox, David

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Latham, Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    1158

    Rost, Peter

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Thorne, Neil

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Thurnham, Peter

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Tracey, Richard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Trippier, David

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Trotter, Neville

    Shelton, Sir William

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shersby, Michael

    Walden, George

    Sims, Roger

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Ward, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Speed, Keith

    Warren, Kenneth

    Speller, Tony

    Watts, John

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wells, Bowen

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Squire, Robin

    Whitney, Ray

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilkinson, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wood, Timothy

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    Stokes, Sir John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Anderson, Donald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Edwards, Huw

    Barron, Kevin

    Enright, Derek

    Battle, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Faulds, Andrew

    Beith, A. J.

    Fisher, Mark

    Bell, Stuart

    Flannery, Martin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Flynn, Paul

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

    Foster, Derek

    Benton, Joseph

    Fraser, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Blair, Tony

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boyes, Roland

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bradley, Keith

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caborn, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Haynes, Frank

    Clelland, David

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Henderson, Doug

    Cohen, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Howells, Geraint

    Cox, Tom

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Illsley, Eric

    1159

    Janner, Greville

    Redmond, Martin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Richardson, Jo

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Rooker, Jeff

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Leighton, Ron

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lewis, Terry

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Litherland, Robert

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Loyden, Eddie

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Short, Clare

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

    Meale, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Michael, Alun

    Spearing, Nigel

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Straw, Jack

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Turner, Dennis

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Walley, Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    O'Brien, William

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    O'Hara, Edward

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Winnick, David

    Patchett, Terry

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Jack Thompson and

    Radice, Giles

    Mr. Ken Eastham.

    Randall, Stuart

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
Lords amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

Education (Schools) Bill (Allocation of Time)
1.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [30th January) be supplemented as follows:

Education (Schools) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Lords Amendments
  1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall he brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to he authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;

  (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question. That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  I hope that the Opposition will not claim that the Education (Schools) Bill has not been given full scrutiny by Parliament or that they require longer than the two hours that we are making available for the House to consider amendments made in another place. The Bill has had more than 40 hours of debate in the House and more than 30 hours of debate in the House of Lords.
  I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will remind us that the Bill was guillotined on Report, but he should also remember that that was done in curious circumstances. We had first agreed that it would be reported in one day, but the first day was taken up with delaying tactics and most of the second day was taken up with talking about the guillotine motion. The Bill was, ultimately, fully debated in Standing Committee without any need for timetabling. The final sitting agreed for Committee discussion was not used and the Bill had more than 36 hours of Committee debate.
  There was full debate on the Bill in another place. We responded to suggestions with flexibility and tabled amendments at the request of the Opposition, sometimes, in the other place. We have accepted the results of Divisions there that were carried against us. The Bill as it now stands should be reasonably non-controversial and widely welcomed, if the Opposition now support the fundamental aspects of the parents charter.
  The Government were defeated twice in the House of Lords and propose to accept those defeats. I have with me the parents charter. The changes made in the House of Lords do not alter one word of the document. It has been

  1163
  fought ferociously up and down the country by some elements of the Labour party, who have refused to distribute it to schools as they say that it is some sort of political document.
  In so far as I understand the Labour party to have an education policy at all, I think that it is now converted to the idea of league tables for schools so that the public are aware of the comparative performances of different schools. I hope that it is converted to the idea of independent inspection and the notion that inspectors' reports should be sent unsolicited to parents.
  Mr. Tony Banks: No.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: No.
  Mr. Clarke: In that case, some members of the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who speaks for one of the more reactionary sections of the Labour party, will continue to argue that education, at least in Newham, should remain a closed world without a great amount of information being given to parents or the public in that borough.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I believe that we shall find that the country is anxious to receive the benefits of the parents charter and that we can now proceed, in a fairly rapid debate, to take the Bill on to the statute book. I admit that there are many issues to be encompassed by our debates. The Bill secures regular inspection to high standards; reasonable, published reports to parents; follow-up action by governors; and comparative tables of key information to parents. The changes made at this stage are largely those of organisation, not substance. The parents charter Bill is now ready for enactment.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two of the most important aspects of the parents charter are that people will know the staying-on rates of children at school and, in districts such as London, they will also know the truancy rates?
  Mr. Clarke: They will know the staying-on rates, the truancy rates and the examination results of all the schools so that it will be possible to compare the performances of all the schools that are in similar circumstances.
  The hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) exploded with rage when I mentioned those provisions, and appeared reluctant to have such information given to the parents of Newham.
  Mr. Banks rose—
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment, but that is all of a piece with the attitude of both those Newham Members who have used the difficulties in Stratford school as an excuse to try to get rid of Mrs. Snelling, who has done a great deal to improve that school. They are still demanding her head on a salver because she defied the Newham Labour party and Newham council by giving the school grant-maintained status, which she successfully achieved. Having criticised the voice of Newham when it barracked me, I shall give way to it.
  Mr. Banks: I hope that I shall talk about Stratford school later in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I wanted to challenge the Secretary of State's reference to independent inspectors. Is he saying that, in that sense, Her Majesty's inspectorate is not independent? If so, that is a slur on HMI.
  Mr. Clarke: HMI will continue to carry out inspections, and always would under the Government's proposals. HMI has never gone in for systematic inspection of all schools and reporting to parents. Indeed, it would have taken it more than 100 years to produce individual reports on primary schools at the rate at which it was going. The Government proposed that the inspection of schools should be carried out by inspectors registered with HMI—some would be local government inspectors, some would be outside consultants and experts approved by HMI.
  We accepted amendments that proposed that HMI should have a veto over a school's choice of inspectors. Their lordships have taken the matter further and stated that HMI should not only register for the inspectors carrying out the systematic inspectors but should select the inspectors in the case of each school. The Government are prepared to accept that. I think that the principal practical difference will be that more schools will choose independent, non-local authority inspectors than would otherwise do so. HMI would be unlikely to choose local authority inspectors in every case, whereas the average body of school governors would be likely to choose the local authority inspectors in its district if the local authority had inspectors that come up to HMI standards, which quite a few local authority inspectors would do.
  Mr. Derek Enright: That is a slur on local authority inspectors.
  Mr. Clarke: Everyone considers local authority inspection to be patchy and of variable standards, and that has always been the opinion of HMI. I think that that view is widely accepted by those involved in the subject.
  In future, under the Bill, all inspection will be carried out by people who comply with the criteria laid down by HMI and meet HMI standards. We are prepared to start on the basis that HMI will select the inspectors for each school. As a result, the parents charter Bill is now ready for enactment. It is a great change in the culture of education in this country. It has not been rushed through but has received all the necessary scrutiny. I hope that, now, the Opposition will not try to make it fall victim to time-wasting and delaying tactics.
  Mr. Spearing: I confirm that my outburst and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was targeted not only at what the Secretary of State said but at the fact that he did not have the courtesy to give way. What he said about inspectors was clearly a reflection on the independence of the existing inspectorate. He may be quite right in saying that inspectors cannot go to all schools, but that is a different issue.
  On the subject of what the Secretary of State asks of the inspectors, is he aware that, despite his ministerial colleague stating that Stratford school was working well—or words to that effect—the Secretary of State's answer to us was that the last time that an inspector of his

  1165
  Department went into that school was 1991? If he has not received any reports on that school recently, how can he tell the House accurately how that school is progressing?
  Mr. Clarke: If the outburst of the two hon. Members was caused by taking my reference to independent inspectors as an attack on Her Majesty's inspectorate, that was simply a complete misunderstanding on their part. The hon. Member for Newham, South will know that the Bill makes Her Majesty's inspectorate more independent of the Government than hitherto. In future, Her Majesty's chief inspector will be a much more powerful and independent watchdog figure than he was before and than he would be under Labour's proposals. The Labour party would promptly make him subordinate to a new quango of the great and the good and the usual educational interests that it proposes to set up. We are setting up the post of HMCI, who will have an important role in monitoring inspection of schools and advising the Government—that has never been threatened by the Bill. He will play a key role in the selection of those inspectors who carry out the parents charter type inspections of 6,000 schools a year and report to parents.
  I have always believed that inspectors should be independent of schools. I do not think, as Labour appeared to believe until it voted otherwise in the House of Lords, that all the inspectors should be employed by a local authority to inspect only that local authority's schools and should then be expected to be critical of that local authority if there were failings when they reported to parents. The system that we envisage is much better and the whole education world will be opened up to much more independent, open scrutiny. That can only benefit the good schools and the many dedicated teachers we have, as it will identify weaknesses and correct them, and build on strengths school by school. That is why I hope that the Bill will proceed without any further delay of the rather absurd kind that we had on Report.
  2 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but we oppose this guillotine. If anybody wanted any convincing about our justification for opposing it, he need only look at the Amendment Paper and see that the Secretary of State is expecting the House to debate 38 groups of amendments and amendments to amendments in eight separate debates, and have votes, within a single hour. That shows an arrogance and a contempt of democratic procedures which have typified this Administration. The guillotine is doubly unacceptable, given that the Bill and the amendments were not delivered back to the House until this morning and hon. Members on both sides had only a few hours in which to table amendments to amendments and to consider the merits of amendments made in the other place.
  The Secretary of State said that it had been agreed that the Report stage in the House of Commons should last one day. I should put it on record that there was never any such agreement either between the Front Bench teams or through the usual channels. Such an agreement was neither entered into nor even sought by the Minister of State or by the Government Whip. We ran into two days solely because of the incompetence of the Government Whips Office.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Opposition filibustered.
  Mr. Straw: We had no need to do so, as 23 debates were to be squeezed into one day because of the incompetence of the Government Whips Office, who did not understand that there was no way in which those 23 debates could conceivably be contained within the six hours of debate allocated.
  Thirteen years ago, this Administration came to power promising that they would "promote higher standards" in basic educational skills. Today, the public learned more of the truth of the Government's failure to achieve that promise and their neglect of a whole generation of the nation's young. A major study, including work by the National Foundation for Educational Research, shows Britain bottom of the class in terms of shortages of primary school books, almost bottom on shortages of secondary school books and just one from bottom on overcrowding of classrooms. We are in a worse position in comparison not only with our major competitors, but with Hungary, Portugal, Jordan and even Slovenia.
  Four weeks ago, we learned in another NFER report that reading standards for seven-year-olds had shown an alarming decline of three months in the four years since 1987, when the latest and largest round of experiments on other people's children were introduced under the euphemism of "reforms". Last week, we saw the Secretary of State wriggling, squirming and blaming everyone but himself for yet another damning report by HMI, showing that 20 per cent. of children continue to be poorly taught in reading.
  In an unusually candid admission last year, the Secretary of State told the House that after 12 years
  "we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training, and their achievement of useful qualifications."—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
  To answer that dismal record, the Secretary of State introduced his so-called parents charter and the Bill on which he is now seeking to curtail discussion. It was Lord Beloff—a Conservative peer, and one who, as the Secretary of State would concede, is no wet—said that the Bill was:
  "the silliest Bill that any Parliament has ever had to consider." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1992; Vol. 535, c. 634.]
  He went on to say that the other place had never been given "the slightest indication—"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot quote a Member of the other place who is not a Minister. Therefore, will he please paraphrase?
  Mr. Straw: Certainly, I will paraphrase. He said—
  Mr. Simon Burns: Paraphrase.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I will paraphrase. I will do every justice to the noble lord. He considered that their lordships could see no sign of any thought having gone into the Bill. Should Conservative Members wish to ensure that my paraphrase is close to the words used, I refer them to the Official Report of the other place of 11 February 1992 at column 635.
  Lord Beloff, whom I believe that the Secretary of State just described as dotty—I am sure that Lord Beloff will be interested to have that on the record, as it shows what little honour there is among those in the Conservative party

  1167
  —was correct. As the elements of the Bill were examined in this House and in the other place, its core simply dissolved. The truly bizarre proposition was that schools should be allowed to pick, choose and pay their own inspectors from the ranks of private, money-making consultants, with the power of local education authorities to make inspections in schools when things went wrong removed altogether, and with HMI reduced in size and therefore in facility and ability from 475 members clown to 170.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Arthur Daley school of inspection.
  Mr. Straw: I dare say that my hon. Friend has a few Arthur Daleys in his constituency.
  Mr. Banks: That is all right so long as they vote for me.
  Mr. Straw: I would expect nothing else, as I was brought up in the same area and I have some knowledge of, and affection for, such car dealers. I would far rather be on a desert island or in a voting booth with an Arthur Daley than I would with that lot on the other side.
  Mr. Burns: Arthur Daley is on our side.
  Mr. Straw: I think that even Arthur Daley would be ashamed by the claims that we shall hear from the Conservative party over the next four weeks.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way on the Arthur Daley point.
  Mr. Clarke: Given that this extraordinary description of the provisions appeared to satisfy one or two of the more eccentric of their lordships and also the hon. Gentleman, will he explain how Arthur Daley was meant to get the approval of HMI to get on the register of HMI in the first place so that he could be selected by the schools? Will he explain why HMI would not have used the veto given by the Bill to overrule an unwise choice by the school? As he knows, the amendment that has been carried in the Lords does not change a great deal other than the mechanics for selecting the inspectors.
  While the hon. Gentleman quotes my noble Friend Lord Beloff in his general judgments of the Bill, is it not the case, when one moves off this provision, that the Labour party is now thinking of being in favour of league tables, outside inspections, reports to parents and all the other policies embodied in the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I shall deal with our policy in a moment. The Secretary of State shows an ignorance of the detail of his own Bill. The reason why Arthur Daley would have been able to slip through the original scheme was that only the registered inspectors—those in charge of each of the inspection teams—would have been subject to any scrutiny by HMI. That point was understood by both sides of this House and, more to the point, by both sides of the other place. Because there would be only 40 registered inspectors responsible for checking on up to 3,000 to 4,000 inspectors, all sorts of dodgy characters would be likely to get though the net.
  The Secretary of State could not be bothered to serve on the Standing Committee. He always likes to travel light, and he had not bothered to consider the detail of the Bill. There were some extraordinary admissions in Committee
  1168
  by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State about freelance inspectors who would be roaming the country—[Interruption.] I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) here for what will be his last debate on education in this place.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I would not miss it for the world.
  Mr. Straw: Of course not.
  The proposal was for roaming, specialist inspectors who would be inspecting provision for the deaf in Devon one day and, if they could find a train, going to Durham the next day. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State admitted in Committee that schools would be allowed to pick and choose their inspectors according, not least, to the particular dogma that a school was following. I guess that the Under-Secretary of State has fled to Darlington to try to garner a few votes before his defeat on 9 April. I am surprised that he is not here, as he seemed very attached to the Bill. I wonder whether he will have much to say about it during the next four weeks.
  The Under-Secretary of State made the stunning admission in Committee that if a school was following a kind of discredited dogma, which the Secretary of State certainly does not share, of having children sitting around tables not learning anything, with progressive education and all that, it could choose inspectors who shared that dogma. Quite what that would do to raise standards, I am not sure. No one could explain how such a Bill would raise standards. Virtually no Conservative Member with any knowledge of education, from left or right, volunteered anything in detailed support of the Bill.
  One reason why it is preposterous for the Secretary of State to railroad the Bill through the House in the dying days of this Administration is that it has come back to us in a markedly different form. The other place inflicted two major defeats on the Secretary of State. We need much more time to consider those changes and their impact on the rest of the Bill. Amendment No. 111 in the other place—amendment No. 11 here—removes the right of schools to pick and choose their own inspectors and relaces it with a power for the senior chief inspector to appoint the inspectors.
  As I said earlier, the Secretary of State travels light and does not pay attention to the detail. For a long time he misled himself, if nobody else, about the nature of Labour's policy on inspection. As became manifest in Committee, the officials had read the fine document, "Raising the standard", as had the two junior Ministers. The document sets out our proposals for an education standards commission which will take HMI under its wing, and for those inspectors on the commission to supervise and direct the work of local inspectors who would be at arm's length from the local authority. That proposal is fully consistent with amendment No. 111 in the other place. That is precisely why my noble Friends Baroness Blackstone and Lord Peston moved the amendment and those associated with it. Had the amendments been inconsistent with Labour policy, they would not have done that.
  I understand from your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that rather than paraphrase I can directly quote a Minister in the other place. I am glad to have that approbation.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is learning.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I always thought that the rule was the other way around, but now I know differently.
  Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree—I hope that the Secretary of State does—that it is difficult to find any member of the general public, throughout the country, who agrees with the Bill? Almost the entire teaching profession is opposed to the Bill. It would be charming of the Secretary of State if he could tell us who, other than the Tory party—driven to the wall as it is—agrees with the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is exactly right. To encourage individuals and organisations to come forward, we offered a generous prize of a week in Europe to any Government Member who could name a single organisation that supported the Bill.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) always accuses me of not studying Labour policy closely. I take out my microscope from time to time, to try to scrutinise it with considerable care, but it is difficult to see that speck of policy. The hon. Gentleman argues that the Bill, as amended in another place, is consistent with Labour policy. I assume that, despite the hon. Gentleman's wish to have more time to scrutinise the Bill, he supports the system of schools inspections as amended by Labour peers. I do not believe that is so, and that the amendment received Opposition support in another place because a collection of 1960s peers happened to be hidden away until half-past nine in the evening, when it was voted on. It does not bear the slightest relation to Labour's policy during the earlier stages of the Bill.
  If the hon. Member for Blackburn is trying to persuade me that the Bill as amended is now consistent with the amazing document that Labour published, presumably he is also saying that it has Labour's approval.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State should hold himself, if he can.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That would be more than he could bear, I should imagine.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, but I was about to tell the Secretary of State that the Lords amendment was fully consistent with Labour policy. Regrettably, not every one of our amendments was carried, so the Bill is not in quite the shape that would allow us to support it.
  I allowed the Secretary of State to intervene because I thought that he was going to pop up with the name of an organisation that supports the Bill—perhaps that which represents parents in his own constituency. The Bill is apparently meant as a parents charter, but the body that speaks more for parents than the Secretary of State is the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. Two days ago, it wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members pleading with them to oppose the Bill because of its serious effects on our children; the NCPTA rightly believes that the Bill will damage children's education.
  When the amendment was considered in another place the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, said—I presume with the approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and according to a brief provided by the Department:
  "The amendment seeks to tear the heart out of the Bill by substituting a centralised regime in place of a system based upon choices by governing bodies. The noble Baroness"—
  1170
  Baroness Blackstone—
  "said that I would be likely to proclaim this a wrecking amendment. It is just that. It would replace the Government's preferred scheme with another scheme … it totally invalidates the scheme which is set out in the Bill … I want Members of the Committee to realise that the amendment removes a key element of our proposals, namely that those choosing the inspectors should also be responsible and publicly answerable both for the current state of the school and for taking action on the recommendations which flow from the inspections."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1992; Vol. 536, c. 662.]
  The following morning, in a radio interview, the Secretary of State blamed the trade unions for the Government's defeat in another place—though how they managed that, no one quite knows. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is usually fluent even when he has a weak case—and a great deal more fluent at any time than the Prime Minister. However, on the "Today" programme, he was apoplectic to the point of incoherence. Asked whether he ought not to be grateful to the Lords for saving him from an act of folly, he said that
  "we are intending, as the Labour Party … to the object … in face of objections from the Labour Party, to open up inspection to the outside world."
  He spent the rest of the interview burbling, trying to explain away the depth of his defeat in the House of Lords. The BBC transcript is an accurate reflection of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and how he said it.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the Secretary of State in a moment. Even the Daily Express—which normally takes orders from Conservative central office like a lamb—deserted him. Its editorial on Wednesday told him to think again, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to ground on the Thursday. The House and the country having been told that the Lords amendments tore the heart out of the Bill and removed a key element of the Government's proposals, it was on the Friday that the right hon. and learned Gentleman issued an incredible and laughable statement in which he said that he would accept the amendments. He said that they were only minor matters in the context of the inspection of schools. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain what change took place between the Minister of State saying that the amendments would tear the heart out of the Bill and the Secretary of State, saying that they were only minor matters.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: First, I advise the hon. Gentleman to get a better audio typist. He keeps insisting that I was apoplectic with rage—that is always his description—but I was rather amused by the farcical performance in the other place, with so many Labour and Liberal peers rushing out of bars in the middle of the evening to vote for an amendment which I continue to insist bore not the slightest resemblance to Labour party policy before that day. The hon. Gentleman continues to claim a great triumph, but if he reads the parents charter from cover to cover he will understand that the two great victories in the other place do not change a word in the charter. I am still waiting to hear which bit of the charter the Labour party is still against, if it is continuing to oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State did not answer the question that I put to him. I asked him how an amendment which apparently tore the heart out of the Bill turned into

  1171
  a minor matter on Friday last week. The amendment did tear the heart out of the Bill, and I suspect that it tore a bit of the heart out of the Secretary of State.
  The other amendment that was agreed to in another place reflected an argument that was resisted almost to the bitter end in this place. It took up the sensible suggestion that in some circumstances local education authorities should be given power to inspect between cyclical inspections to fill the void in the orginal scheme presented in the Bill.
  Other parts of the Bill are as objectionable as they were when the measure was first introduced. It is now riven by an incoherence between those parts of it that would implement Labour policy and those that contain the undiluted dogma of the Conservative right. There is a need for more time so that we can try to bring together the two parts of the strange animal with which we are left.
  I will again paraphrase the words of Lord Beloff, who was damning of the idea of what could be described as commercial inspections of schools. However, commercial inspection, or the privatisation of the inspectorate, remains in the Bill, as does the emasculation of the inspectorate. For example, clause 15 provides that a local authority's inspection service must be entirely self-financing from the tenders, if any, that it wins under the four-year cycle of inspection. If an authority fails to win sufficient tenders, there can be no local inspection service in a given area. There is no power and no funding arrangement to run a local inspection service if the local authority does not win tenders.
  Amendment No. 21 would provide the local education authority with power to inspect between cyclical inspections, but that has to be inspection by an officer of the local authority. I ask the Secretary of State whether that officer can be one of the LEA inspectors, if there is a self-financing LEA inspection service. If there is not, where will the expertise come from? The amendment is explicit. It provides, as I have said, that inspections must be undertaken by officers of the authority. In areas where there is no local authority inspection service, we are likely to end up with inspectors without the necessary expertise having to try to inspect schools where there are problems. Those are crucial issues that we do not have time to debate.
  Mr. Spearing: Can my hon. Friend confirm that that leads to the conclusion that all these measures to diminish or even eliminate local authority inspection, whatever their merits, have been introduced by the Secretary of State to pave the way for the disappearance of local education authorities altogether? Has the Secretary of State ever denied that that is his real purpose?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a very good idea.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady, who is always ahead of the Secretary of State, says that it is a very good idea.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would be a good idea in Lancashire.
  Mr. Straw: On the front page of The Times this morning, there is an article stating that the Secretary of State has it in mind to replace local education authorities with a new, centralised bureaucracy to run those schools that have opted out. At a time when everybody else is devolving the administration of education and giving
  1172
  power to local communities, we find that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is introducing new systems of centralised control.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman used the word "bureaucracy". As he well knows, I have been visiting the schools in my constituency where, time after time, headmasters have said to me that they could not imagine what the county ever did with that money. They also said that they are using the money that they have been given to spend on administration to do all sorts of other things. They told me that they wonder what on earth the county did with that money when it had it. The trouble was that the bureaucracy was so overweening. We should be delighted to get rid of the Lancashire education authority.
  Mr. Straw: The only reason why the hon. Lady wants to get rid of Lancashire education authority is that her party failed to win control of Lancashire in successive county elections.
  The Secretary of State spoke at length about the parents charter leading to the provision of information to parents. Our position on that is clear. To answer a direct question that he put to me, we did not vote in Committee against clause 16 stand part. Had he wished to salvage the wreckage of the Bill by getting rid of the ludicrous arrangement that we have ended up with for inspection, by including a provision that would have allowed information to be given, he could have had the Bill. The Secretary of State must have been aware of that, because we did riot vote against clause 16. He could have had the Bill, despite the fact that clause 16, for all the propaganda that he has tried to make out of it, provides few additional information-giving powers on top of those provided for in the 1986 and 1988 Acts. He knows that the powers that he has already exercised in respect of the provision of information on the key stage 1 tests derive from the 1988 Act, not from the Bill.
  What makes an even greater mockery of this guillotine is the fact that, in my view, no sensible Government would begin to implement the dog's breakfast of an inspection system provided for in the Bill. When we form the next Government, we shall move quickly to establish, by means of our educational standards Bill, an education standards commission which will be powerful and independent of Ministers. It will report to Parliament and bring within its ambit Her Majesty's inspectorate. Moreover, it will supervise and direct the local inspectorate. It will also inspect local education authorities. That will provide parents and governors with new guarantees of education standards for their children and with real power to seek redress from the commission when standards fall.
  I hope that during the next four weeks the Secretary of State will not try to con people about the independence of the inspectorate under his proposals. He is the person who will be given the power in the Bill to appoint the senior chief inspector. I hope that he has taken time to find out about the headhunting that is going on for the new senior chief inspector. To my certain knowledge, all kinds of people with absolutely no knowledge or experience of education are being approached by these headhunters to put themselves forward as potential candidates for the job.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Under Labour's proposals, which the hon. Gentleman always accuses me of neglecting and failing to study, Her Majesty's inspectorate would be made subordinate to the new quango that would be set up. HMI

  1173
  would be made less independent than it has ever been in its history. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to defend the independence of a body that he proposes to destroy, if he is ever able to implement his manifesto.
  Mr. Straw: I suggest that the Secretary of State talk to the First Division Association which represents Her Majesty's inspectors and has said on the record—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a union.
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State says that it is a union, but it represents virtually every one of Her Majesty's inspectors. Of course, they are placed in a difficult position because they are officials and it is difficult for them to speak out. I shall not quote the comments of any individuals because they are officials and answerable to the Secretary of State. That is the constitutional position, but I am entitled to quote the First Division Association which represents them and has excoriated the proposals on behalf of the inspectors, 95 per cent. of whom are members of the FDA. It believes that our proposals would greatly strengthen the independence of the inspectorate, and I shall tell the Secretary of State why.
  When the Secretary of State sits on the Opposition Benches dealing with the education standards Bill, it will become clear to him that under our proposals the constitutional position of the senior chief inspector and Her Majesty's inspectors will be similar to the relationship between, for example, the controller of the Audit Commission and the Audit Commission, or that between the Comptroller and Auditor General in the House and the Public Accounts Committee.
  Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have said that the appointment of a senior chief inspector under the Bill should first be subject to approval by the Civil Service Commission, a proposal which was resisted, and to submission to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which was also resisted. If the Secretary of State had been interested in ensuring that the senior chief inspector was independent, he would have accepted at least one of those modest safeguards. Every inspector knows that it was the Secretary of State's intention to emasculate and undermine the inspectorate because it has told the truth year after year about the failure of the Government's policies in the past 13 years.
  The Times this morning carries an interview with the Secretary of State. It begins:
  "Ministers have failed to convince the public that their education reforms are necessary to raise standards in state schools, Kenneth Clarke, the education secretary, has admitted."
  The Secretary of State need look no further than himself and his Government if he wants to know the reasons for his failure to convince. No Secretary of State for Education and Science has been less popular with teachers, parents or the public than this one. No education policies have received less popular support than those of this Government, and there has rarely been a bigger gap between the levels of public support for the Conservatives' education policies and support for ours. No other Bill to privatise the inspectorate of local schools and to emasculate Her Majesty's inspectorate could do more damage to standards in schools.
  1174
  The guillotine motion is a fitting epitaph for a dying Administration, whose educational failure is now admitted even by Ministers who perpetuated their wretched policies and allowed our education record to become a national humiliation. For that, they will be driven from office on 9 April.
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose the guillotine motion—I usually do oppose them—but I shall be happy for the guillotine to be working overtime on Tory heads on 9 April. I shall be happily knitting new Labour party policies as their heads fall into the buckets of sawdust.
  On 10 March, I presented a Bill that provided for fixed-term elections, for compulsory attendance at polling stations and for a public holiday on general election day. I gave 9 April as the Second Reading date. I can only assume that that announcement caused the Prime Minister to panic and to announce the general election for 9 April. However, it raises one significant point.
  What we have seen this morning is no way to run a country. During the business statement on Thursday last week, the Leader of the House announced the business knowing full well that the business being announced would not be played out in the House. I am not suggesting that that was dishonesty on his part. I suppose that he had no choice but to announce it, although we all knew that we would end up with this unholy, miserable shambles as a way of trying to get legislation through the House. This is not the way to do it.
  Guillotines are never satisfactory, although one can understand that .they might be necessary in certain circumstances. When guillotines are brought in simply because the Government have now decided that there is no alternative but to go for an election on 9 April, we see clearly that party interest is being put before the national interest. It is about time to raise the wider issue of fixed-term Parliaments, which would certainly mean that no Parliament would end in this way, in this—
  Mr. Straw: Shambles.
  Mr. Banks: —in this undignified shambles, as my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Straw: Does my hon. Friend also accept that, if we had fixed-term Parliaments, discussions on such a Bill might not end without anyone present to represent the Liberal Democratic party? In view of what the Liberal Democrats said about the Bill, is it not extraordinary that not one of them is here now?
  Mr. Banks: That is a good point, although I assume that the Liberal Democrats have a much larger mountain to climb than most other hon. Members, and have rushed off in a panic to try to garner a few votes.
  This is not the way to run a Parliament, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—soon to be Prime Minister—made it clear at the Labour party conference that the Labour Government will introduce fixed-term Parliaments. That was a significant constitutional announcement, although it did not get the sort of coverage that it should have had. A Prime Minister in waiting is saying that when he is in office, he will give up a power that Prime Ministers have hitherto

  1175
  clutched jealously to themselves, and treated as precious—the ability to decide when to hold an election, in order to maximise party advantage.
  One cannot blame a Prime Minister for maximising party advantage, but it is unseemly and undignified. It undermines democracy and gives rise to much cynicism among the electorate when they see what is going on. The Prime Minister loitered so long that, had he been the former Director of Public Prosecutions, he would have been arrested for loitering with intent. However, he was the Prime Minister and he could choose his time to the best of his ability—although even then he managed to box himself into a corner.
  I oppose the guillotine and hope that, in the next Parliament, with a Labour Government, fixed-term Parliaments will be introduced. Then no Parliament will end in this sort of shambles.
  I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be a player in the next Parliament—as the new Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that he would make a good Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that in the new Parliament he—or whoever else becomes the Leader of the Conservative Opposition—will make a lot of noise about the curtailment of discussion on radical measures of great significance.
  I believe that one of the reasons why the Bill has encountered such problems in the House of Lords has something to do with Stratford school in my constituency. The problems arose when their lordships started considering the idea of so-called independent inspectors being appointed by schools. Can the Secretary of State imagine what sort of inspector would have been appointed by the existing governors of Stratford school if the original provisions of his Bill had become law?
  The Secretary of State should think carefully about the matter, because the Education Reform Act 1988 was also guillotined, and it was clear then that the Government had not thought through what might happen if a situation arose such as that involving Stratford school. There were no provisions to deal with that possibility, and now the Secretary of State finds himself in a corner over Stratford school. We have asked the following question many times, but I shall ask it again. Why was Stratford school allowed to opt out, and grant-maintained status given, whereas Walsingham school, in Wandsworth, was refused?
  I remind the Secretary of State that about 96 per cent. of parents at Walsingham school in Tory Wandsworth voted to opt out. The proposal was overwhelmingly supported by parents and governors at the time, yet it was turned down. Why? Walsingham school, like Stratford school, was facing closure. Will the Secretary of State tell me why Walsingham school was turned down, yet Stratford school was allowed to opt out?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when parents vote in favour of opting out, the matter comes to Ministers for decision. Ministers allow some applications and disapprove others according to the best judgment we can make in the light of consultations about the likely success of the school. In the case of Stratford school, the judgment was plainly correct. Mrs. Snelling and her staff have built up a rundown school from 150 to 600 pupils. They plainly have the support of the overwhelming majority of parents, and they are raising educational standards in the area.
  1176
  Does it remain the position of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that Mrs. Snelling should be sacked? I understand that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—I accept that they come from a rather different direction from some of the governors—are as anxious as some of the governors that Mrs. Snelling should be removed from the school. They believe that the school should be returned to Newham and closed because they are so furious that Mrs. Snelling divided Newham Labour party and was one of those who took the school successfully to grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Banks: I will answer that point, but I must come back to the original question I posed, which the Secretary of State did not answer. Of course I know that the Secretary of State had discretion to refuse or accept an opt-out proposal. The fact is that the two schools did not face closure because of vindictive local authorities. The two local authorities are completely different. Both schools faced closure under reorganisation proposals set out by Lord Joseph, the then Secretary of State, so that both authorities should reduce surplus places.
  Stratford school did not face closure because anyone wanted to close it. Closing a school, like a hospital, is not popular. The Secretary of State knows that. We did not want to close the school. To get two new schools in the south of the borough in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), where the population is growing, it was necessary to close the school. We were doing what the Government wanted us to do.
  We visited the then Minister of State and put it to her that the parents thought—we do not blame the parents—that they could prevent the closure by going for opt-out. Surely even the Secretary of State at the time of the 1988 legislation did not think that opt-out would be used as a way in which to avoid a reorganisation accepted by his Departmenmt. That is the point. When we saw the Minister of State, she was very reasonable, and we came away expecting that the school would close because it was required to close.
  We then saw the completely different approaches which the Department adopted to Walsingham school and to Stratford school. We came to the obvious conclusion that political dogma was at play. That is what it was all about. I have no dobut that the then Prime Minister threw a bit of a trantrum, and started handbagging the Secretary of State and saying that there were insufficient closures in Labour areas.
  We had a change of junior Ministers, and the present Minister of State was brought in to deliver an opt-out. He delivered the opt-out in Stratford in my constituency, which is a solid Labour area where the Tories have nothing to lose. We have a lot to lose. Community relations in our area are suffering. That has nothing to do with the local authority. It has to do with the arguments between the governors, the head teacher and the staff.
  The Secretary of State talked about the school being built up again from 160 pupils. It was being run down because we were taking pupils out and putting them in other schools in preparation for the closure. That is what it is all about.
  I will address the question put to me by the Secretary of State. I said—this is my opinion as the constituency Member, not the opinion of the Labour party—that,

  1177
  because of the bitterness created by the decision, which now floods through the area, it would be in the best interests of the children and of the community if the governors and the senior staff concerned stood down so that we could start again. There will be no vindictiveness by the local authority. Why should we want to be vindictive?
  When we have a Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Staw) is Secretary of State, we shall expect to see a number of things. The first is a full HMI inspection of the school to see exactly what is going on. We do not even know what is going on in the school at the moment, because, as the Secretary of State admitted, there has not been an inpection since 4 December 1991. There must be a full inspection. Stratford school must then be returned to the control of the local community.
  The Secretary of State and other Ministers portray local authorities as alien forces imposed upon us by a totalitarian regime. In fact, they are bodies of people elected by the local community. If Conservative Members do not like the fact that some local authorities are Labour controlled, it is up to them to do something about it within the democratic system. People in Newham do not vote Tory, because they do not like Tories. They can hardly be blamed for that. My constituency is a Tory-free zone and will remain so for the foreseeable future, for no other reason than that the people of my area cannot see anything that the Tories can usefully do for them.
  Another question that I want to ask the Secretary of State is this: was he advised by his own civil servants at the time of the application for the Stratford opt-out that it was non-viable and should not he allowed? I should like him to answer that question yes or no, because I have asked it in the House a dozen times, and no one has answered it.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Ministers do not give answers about advice that they receive from their civil servants. That is a convention which Ministers in any Government will always defend. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the judgment that the application was viable, which was the judgment made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and me, I can only say that events have vindicated that judgment. The number of children in the school has grown from 150 to 600, and the parents are backing Mrs. Snelling and the staff, who are presiding over a steady improvement in standards.
  The difficulty is that, when the opt-out decision was taken, Newham council launched personal attacks on Mrs. Snelling, took property from the school and barred the then governors when they wanted to go in to prepare for the take-over. The hon. Gentleman and his allies in the council still demand the removal of Mrs. Snelling, but the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is so doubtful about the bona fides of some of his supporters in the council that he yesterday made it clear that, in the unlikely event of our having a Labour Government, he would feel it necessary to pass legislation to protect some of the people involved in grant-maintained schools against the kind of personal come-back that they would otherwise get from some Labour councils.
  Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State is misleading the House, and he is certainly misleading himself, if he believes
  1178
  the rubbish that he has just come out with. What is the point of stirring up trouble in one's own constituency? Why would we deliberately cause trouble in our own area? It is nonsense to suggest that. Neither the local authority nor my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said that Mrs. Snelling should be removed as the head teacher of Stratford school. What I have said is that, in the interests of everyone and in an attempt to return to some sort of equitable basis, we should ask all the main players—which I say means the head teacher, senior staff and governors—to stand down in the interests of the kids and of my school.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the position clear. Is it not true, however, that the Secretary of State has not been using the independent inspectorate that is available to him in the past two months? The Minister of State claimed last week that the school was now running well. How can Ministers make such statements when the Secretary of State has not used the offices of the independent inspectorate—which he agrees is independent—to find out the facts? Does not that show added irresponsibility on the part of the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State has just parroted a load of allegations about Newham council and the school, but he cannot possibly know anything about it, as neither he nor his Ministers have been anywhere near the school, and as the inspectors have not been anywhere near the school. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be getting the information from the newspapers or from a few Tory parents in the area. He is certainly not getting the facts, and he will not send the inspectors in to find out exactly what is going on in the school.
  What is happening at Stratford school is disastrous. I used regularly to visit that school and brought pupils from it to the House. The pupils are now going home in tears, seeing their school crawled over not by Ministers but by the media. They see the police there daily because of the threats of violence. There is an atmosphere of intimidation. That is not the way to run education in Stratford or anywhere else, and the Secretary of State stands condemned for having created that situation in Stratford.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that Her Majesty's inspectors went to the school in December. He will also know that one of the two governors whom I have appointed is the recently retired senior chief inspector from HMI. He is a very respected public servant, with whom I have an excellent working relationship and in whose judgment I trust.
  Mr. Banks: The point has still not been addressed that the inspectors went in on 4 December and it is now 13 March. The Secretary of State is being negligent of his duties by not having ordered them to go in.
  I realise that the time is now drawing to a close. However, in the circumstances of this guillotine motion, remembering the mistakes that the Secretary of State made in 1988, he should withdraw the motion and allow us to proceed properly and discuss the various amendments.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 72.

  Division No. 112]

  [2.49 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amess, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Amos, Alan

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forth, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkinson, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ground, Patrick

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Buck, Sir Antony

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Churchill, Mr

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jackson, Robert

  Curry, David

  Janman, Tim

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Farr, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  1180

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shelton, Sir William

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  Madel, David

  Speller, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maples, John

  Squire, Robin

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tredinnick, David

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Trippier, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wilshire, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  1181

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Barron, Kevin

  Michael, Alun

  Beckett, Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Beith, A. J.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Blair, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Boateng, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Callaghan, Jim

  Patchett, Terry

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Pendry, Tom

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Prescott, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Cox, Tom

  Ruddock, Joan

  Crowther, Stan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Short, Clare

  Eastham, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Enright, Derek

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Flynn, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foster, Derek

  Straw, Jack

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Hain, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hoyle, Doug

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livingstone, Ken

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House [30th January] be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment made by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;

  (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  1182

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown. That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment move by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposal.

  Supplemental
  6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
  (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Education (Schools) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Education (Schools) Bill
  Clause 2

    FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out ("and")
    3.1 pm
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 13 and 14.
    Mr. Clarke: I shall speak with comparative brevity on the amendments, which 1 recommend to the House, because we are restricted on time. The Opposition have spent the first hour of the two hours available to us this afternoon protesting about the lack of time to consider the Bill. Had they not protested at such length, they could have spent two hours on the Bill's terms. The progress of discussions on the Bill has been bedevilled in that way before. The fact is that they have little to say about it. They prefer to occupy the time available by arguing about procedure because an hour would be difficult to fill if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sought to express his full thoughts on the matter before us.
    I trust that the amendments will not be especially controversial. They were tabled by the Government, in response to concerns in another place that, under the Bill as drafted, it might have been possible for chief inspectors and registered inspectors to neglect to report on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. The amendments were suggested from the Cross Benches and were accepted with support from both sides.
    Although those matters were mentioned in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, as essential purposes of the school curriculum, and although inspectors are already required to report on educational quality and standards, the Bill did not expressly draw attention to them. The amendments place clearly on the face of the Bill a duty for inspectors to report on those important matters.
    Parents will receive an objective assessment of what their children's schools do to ensure that a pupil's development is encouraged and of how effectively they meet their aims. I stress that we are not asking inspectors to judge what values a school espouses, but only to report on how such matters are tackled.
    I believe that the amendments are acceptable and recommend that the House agree with them.
    Mr. Jack Straw: It does not lie in the mouth of the Secretary of State to complain about shortage of time, although no doubt he will do so, because the guillotine is his. He determined that we should have such little time.
    We, too, support the amendments, which are sensible. As the Secretary of State said, they clarify a matter which was of some concern to their lordships.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, leave out "on matters of good practice"
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 8.
    Mr. Clarke: Let me make it clear that I am not complaining about the lack of time; I am merely pointing out that these guillotines come to the Opposition's rescue. They could not fill the time if we allowed an open-ended debate.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will in just a second.
    On the Further and Higher Education Bill, for example, we passed a guillotine with the most generous provision of time, but I understand that the Committee adjourned for lengthy dinners and early nights and did not occupy the time provided. There is a paucity of policy from the Opposition. As far as I can see, they do not seriously disagree with the Bill, although the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) goes rambling off on his standards commission and the rest. We need a guillotine to save the Opposition from the embarrassment of lengthy debates on these matters.
    Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised at the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking in that fashion. He appears to be in a hurry. He was not in a hurry to go upstairs and sit in on the Committee stage of the Bill. Now he has the opportunity to talk about the Bill and to put us in the picture about what it is all about, so that we understand. There is no need for him to rush. He can take his time.
    Mr. Clarke: I am taking my time because I do not think that the Opposition have anything to occupy the hour which they are determined to occupy and which is left to them under the guillotine procedure. The Bill went through the Committee smoothly. I think that the hon. Gentleman was a member of it.
    Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State was not on the Committee.
    Mr. Clarke: I was not on it. It is interesting that the official Opposition Members on the Standing Committee did not press the policy that was eventually carried by their noble Friends. When Labour and Liberal peers in another place carried an amendment in an ambush in the course of an evening, the Labour party appeared gratefully to grasp it as a policy. The Government have agreed to it, with the result that the Bill will reach the statute book in a short time.
    The amendments should give rise to little controversy. They remove from the Bill the specific suggestion that chief inspectors must give guidance to registered inspectors on matters of good practice in relation to the carrying out of school inspections and the writing of inspection reports. The Opposition in another place suggested the amendments, which commanded general support.
    The qualification that stood previously in the Bill was superfluous and the amendments are in keeping with the independent role that we have given to Her Majesty's chief inspector through the Bill's provisions. Both the hon. Member for Blackburn and I place weight on the independence of HMCI. My contention is that the Bill

    1185
    with the amendments gives HMCI greater independence than previous holders of such an office have ever enjoyed. The hon. Gentleman's policy, explained a few moments ago, would make the inspector subject to a new quango. The inspector would lose the right to report directly to the Secretary of State; he would do so indirectly through the quango. Under Labour's proposals, HMI would lose its independence in a way that cannot be compared with what has happened at any time in its long, distinguished history.
    It is wrong to suggest that the Bill was introduced by me or any of my right hon. or hon. Friends out of hostility to HMI. The Bill places HMI in a new key role and gives greater independence to that office than it has ever had before. The amendments are consistent with the Government's policy.
    Mr. Haynes: I do not know whether the Secretary of State will get away with that. He argues in the same way every time. He knows as well as we do—[Interruption.] I am referring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not to you Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. David Lightbown): Order.
    Mr. Haynes: It is the hon. Gentleman who is out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on my feet, not one of the Government Whips.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always complained about inspectors' reports on schools because to his mind they have gone in the wrong direction. The inspectors have often been critical of the Government's policy on schools. After the inspectors visit the schools and submit their report, the Government hide it for I do not know how long before we can see the damned thing.
    Mr. Clarke rose—
    Mr. Haynes: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He cannot be allowed to get away with what he just said. He has a lot to learn, as he will be in opposition when he gets back in, if he gets back in.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I will behave with our usual courtesy towards each other in what are, I regret to say, his last days in the House. I shall miss him when he ceases to represent Ashfield, which is so near my constituency.
    The hon. Gentleman made a wild allegation, which is untypical of him, that in the past I had criticised HMI reports. During my entire time in office I have never disagreed with any of HMI's reports. I have published them and I have agreed with them, although I may not always have agreed with the interpretations placed on some of them by my political opponents. I have never objected to the advice that I have received from HMI or to its reports, and it is a complete myth to claim that I have. The Bill strengthens HMI; it does not weaken it.
    Mr. Haynes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not travel down that road. I thought that I had made my swan-song last night, but he pulled me into the debate—he always pulls me in with the comments that he makes. He cannot kid me about the inspectorate and its reports. He might not have said what I claimed at the Dispatch Box, as that would have embarrassed him, but it has been said elsewhere. The right hon. and learned Gentleman
    1186
    must not shake his head. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I know what has been going on in relation to the inspectorate and we know that that is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to transfer it to the private sector—he wanted to have control over them.
    Mr. Straw: I am even sorrier that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is leaving this place. He may have just made his last speech, although there are proceedings in the House on Monday and perhaps he will be here to intervene—
    Mr. Haynes: I shall be here on Monday.
    Mr. Straw: Good, we shall look forward to even more speeches from my hon. Friend before Parliament finally dissolves.
    The Secretary of State protested again that he had not come up with the extraordinary, bizarre Bill to privatise the inspectorate as part of a scheme to undermine HMI's independence. He has never explained satisfactorily to anyone how on earth a Bill designed to emasculate HMI and reduce its numbers from more than 470 to 175 would do anything but severely weaken HMI's position. Large numbers of Her Majesty's inspectors were to be made redundant or moved away, their powers were to be withdrawn and, more importantly, 150 years of experience were to be destroyed by the Secretary of State. He knows that.
    The only reservation that I have about pursuing the allegation that the Secretary of State made the proposal in order to undermine the inspectorate is that it suggests that there is some coherence behind the reasons for the Bill. I and most others suspect that the Secretary of State never thought that he would have to present the measure to the House. He was asked to write the parents charter as part of the Prime Minister's wheeze at about this time last year—an allegedly winning agenda for the autumn election. The Secretary of State found himself having to say something about the so-called parents charter at the end of July.
    Very late in the day—even after advertisements had been placed for a replacement for Eric Bolton—a review of the inspectorate was set up. Before the review was over, the Secretary of State announced the decision on it.
    There is a curious resemblance between the madcap scheme in the Bill and a seven-page pamphlet written by the right-wing ideologues in Wandsworth, including the chief inspector, Mr. John Burchall. He wrote a pamphlet for the Centre for Policy Studies proposing the privatisation of the inspectorate and the emasculation of HMI. The original Bill and the pamphlet are remarkably similar.
    My reservation about accusing the Secretary of State of deciding deliberately to undermine the independence of HMI is that I am conceding too much to the coherence of his policy. I think that it happened accidentally, when the Secretary of State saw the inspector's policy proposal and decided that he could go along with it in the hope that there would never be legislation on it.
    As I said, and will continue to say throughout the election, our proposals, as every inspector knows, strengthen Her Majesty's inspectorate. They place the senior chief inspector in the same constitutional position to the education standards commission as the Comptroller and Auditor General is in relation to the Public Accounts Committee or the controller of the Audit Commission is in

    1187
    relation to the Audit Commission. I have never heard it suggested that the controller of the Audit Commission is the creature of the commission, because he has clear constitutional duties that are separate from the commission.
    3.15 pm
    Moreover, for the first time, the inspectorate, directing and supervising the work of local inspectors in a single national service, will have a clear point of report, not directly to Ministers but to the House. Standards have become such a highly charged political issue—in many ways that is good, because it reflects the increasing importance of education and the increasing sense that we have to attack the problem of standards—that the independence of those who monitor what is going on in schools must be clear beyond peradventure.
    The Secretary of State has refused our proposal to provide safeguards over the appointment of the senior chief inspector by the Secretary of State—for example, by having it made by the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, as long as the chief inspector arid the inspectorate have to serve two masters—the public interest and Minister's private interests—their independence will be compromised. It would be far more satisfactory to have them as a body reporting to Parliament where the detailed scrutiny of their work, through the commission, took place in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. Inspectors will be available to give Ministers advice, but that is a separate matter.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that he can commend this arrangement, which I am sure that all concerned with education would endorse, by saying that the inspectors under this plan will be responsible to all the parents all the time rather than to the Secretary of State, who, even at best, can be representative only of some of the parents some of the time?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I would say that without hesitation. Moreover, under our proposals for an education standards commission, parents end up with much more than simply the paper choice that they get under the parents charter and, in many cases, under the Government's proposals.
    Parents' rights are reduced, as people are understanding, because in many areas it is not parents who are choosing a school but schools that are choosing parents. Our proposals give parents real rights, and the local authority's performance will be inspected. That has never happened in the past 13 years, which the Secretary of State bleats on about when he uses local authorities as a punchbag.
    For a brief period, HMI did snapshot inspections of local authority areas, but that policy was abandoned by the Secretary of State or his predecessor. We would require, by law, that the performance of the local authority be properly inspected. We would ensure that if parents felt that a local authority was behaving in a way likely to damage standards, they could appeal, through a properly constituted governors meeting, to the education standards commission and secure action.
    In Committee, Conservative Members asked me about this London borough or another borough that had been in the news. There was no dubiety about my answer, because we feel that the whole aim of policy should be to secure a
    1188
    high standard of education. If a local authority is doing a proper job, that is fine. If it is not, then the education standards commission and HMI will come down on it like a ton of bricks.
    Let me also make it clear to the Secretary of State, as he appears to be listening—again there is no dubiety about this, and it is all on the record—that the power to issue directions that is contained in sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, which has caused considerable problems would be strengthened. The commission could make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the exercise of those powers and could issue directions both in relation to a school and to a local authority.
    A clear message would go out that if governors were doing their job, that would be fine, but if they fell down, the interests of the children would come well above their constitutional position.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are touching on important matters. Both sides are espousing an interest in the independence of HMI. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave details of how he thinks that should be achieved. I shall briefly discuss the origin of the Bill's approach. The hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Blackburn give every appearance of believing the suggestions that the Bill is based on hostility to HMI, that it comes from the Centre for Policy Studies, and so on.
    When I became Secretary of State, I thought that, if we were to move towards a system of greater parental choice between schools and greater accountability to parents, we needed more information for parents so that their choice could be effective and informed. In fact, I felt that there was a need for a system of quality assurance to improve informed parental choice and public accountability. That led to a review of HMI's position in any system of quality assurance. As a result of that review within my Department, proposals emerged for an inspection at schools level, with inspectorates chosen by the governors but registered with and monitored by HMI. That is the origin of the Bill.
    As the hon. Gentleman said again today, the Bill has been presented as some sort of privatisation or emasculation of HMI. As a word, privatisation was always crude and clumsy, and it has never been more misused. HMI remains with statutory independence and statutory powers under the Bill. The reason why the numbers appear to be dramatically reduced is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because those inspectors involved in higher education will move to the quality assurance section of the higher education funding council, while those involved in further education will be accountable to the further education funding council. The reduction in numbers is not as dramatic as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It was based on the best judgment of the senior chief inspector and me about the numbers required to do the task required. We were not artificially fixing the numbers. The role that we gave the inspectors was powerful arid independent. However, because of amendments passed in the other place, the numbers will probably rise.
    It is absurd to refer to the reduction in the numbers required to do the task and say that that implies privatisation. Under the Bill, HMI remains independent, respected and with more independence of the Secretary of State than ever before.
    Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has such confidence in his proposals, why has he never been willing to publish the review? I do not want to keep hearing him coming out with stuff about official advice being confidential—I know that. However, I also happen to know that plenty of his colleagues have arranged for similar reviews to be published. The Rayner scrutiny of HMI in the early 1980s was published. Most Government reviews, of which this is one, are published. What was the Secretary of State scared of when he suppressed the review, and why did he become angry when it was leaked? Would not it have been better for the explanation and understanding of his policy if he had put the review before the House?
    Mr. Clarke: Every time the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter, I have said that my view is that advice to Ministers should not be published. Were he ever to become a Secretary of State, I do not think that he would publish most of the advice given to him, either. Most advice prepared for the purposes of publication is different to advice given to Ministers. As it happens, The Independent claimed an extensive leak of the review, which appeared in that newspaper shortly after it had been prepared for me. The hon. Gentleman has not drawn extensively on that leak. If The Independent was correct, the hon. Gentleman would know that the account that I have just given of the origin of the policy is correct. He knows that he is in a better position to make a fuss about the apparent banishing of the review—
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: Instead of listening to Labour Members, will my right hon. and learned Friend visit Bolton to talk to parents who are keen on his reforms—particularly those of children at Crompton Fold primary school, which hopes to secure full grant-maintained status by the time that its next term begins, on 27 April?
    Mr. Clarke: I may have an opportunity to do so in the next three or four weeks, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn contrasts the amendment with his proposals for HMI's greater independence, which I have another opportunity to challenge now. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, which he accused me of doing, when he said that HMI would, under Labour's proposals, have more independence. In fact, they threatened the inspectorate's independence in a way in which it has not been threatened since it was founded.
    "Raising the Standard" states that the hon. Gentleman's great quango, the commission, which would play an all-singing, all-dancing role in Labour's education policy,
    "would be responsible for inspecting and measuring the effectiveness of schools, and for securing measures to raise standards. It would take over the inspectorial work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education … and the bulk of the Inspectorate itself."
    That makes it clear that HMI would be subordinate to the new commission and that its inspectorial work would be taken over by that quango.
    HMI currently determines its own programme of work, but in future that would be done by the commission. At present, HMI reports directly to the Secretary of State; Labour wants it to report to the commission. The hon. Gentleman's analogy with the controller of the Audit
    1190
    Commission and with the Audit Commission is very revealing. The hon. Gentleman says that HMI would be in the same position as the controller—but he is not independent of the Audit Commission, but its servant. The commission appoints him.
    The hon. Gentleman's model and statement of policy suggests that HMI should be made subordinate to a commission that he, the Secretary of State, would appoint. Under Labour, the inspectorate would lose its independence, and its inspectorial role would be reduced.
    The hon. Gentleman opposes a Bill that will give HMI enhanced status and more independence than ever before. If, at this late hour, the hon. Gentleman has seen the light on the road to Damascus, really believes that inspection should be free of political control and freer of the Government, and that there should be independent inspection of schools; and if—wonder of wonders—Labour believes that the results of inspections should be divulged to parents, and that the public should be allowed to know the strengths and weaknesses of the schools that their children attend, I welcome the hon. Member for Blackburn to the fold. However, the hon. Gentleman's published documents and his speeches today make it clear that he is dressing up behind an air of independence a desire to take over HMI and to make it subordinate to a body that a Labour Secretary of State would appoint.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State talks utter nonsense. Nothing in "Raising the Standard" suggests that HMI's programme should be subject to the commission. In suggesting that I, as Secretary of State, would appoint the members of the commission, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to understand that that body would report to Parliament. Its members would be nominated by the Secretary of State but would be subject to endorsement of the all-party Education, Science and Arts Select Committee.
    That provision was specifically included in "Raising the Standard" to avoid precisely the kind of partisan appointments of which the Secretary of State is a past master, and which have so damaged the apparent independence of standing of bodies such as the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council—and of district and regional health authorities when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health.
    The Secretary of State is the last person in the House to talk about appointments being independent of Minister's partisan interests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot make any appointment without first asking of the person where his political affiliation lies. He is the last person to be trusted with any appointment that has any independence attached to it. The public will have no trouble at all—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention and not introducing an amendment.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence on the penultimate sitting of this Parliament.
    The public will have no difficulty in judging which sort of appointment system will be more independent. There is the choice between the Secretary of State, with his previous convictions, appointing the chief inspector and having him

    1191
    report to him, the Secretary of State, and our system, under which the membership of the commission would have to be approved by an all-party Select Committee, which would then make the appointment. It would then report—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must now follow my guideline and resume his seat.
    Mr. Clarke: That was not an intervention: it was a wild, intemperate and inaccurate outburst. The hon. Gentleman realised that I was exposing his policies. He is playing at the onset of a campaign in which regard for truth and accuracy is beginning to fade rather rapidly. I wish that it did not in political debates.
    The hon. Member for Ashfield accused me of attacking Her Majesty's inspectorate reports. I have told him that I have never attacked one. The hon. Member for Blackburn has said that, before appointing anyone to a post, I always ask about his or her political affiliations. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I have never asked anybody whom I was appointing to a post about his political affiliation. I have appointed ex-Labour Members as chairmen of health authorities. I defy the hon. Gentleman to produce any evidence.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn is trying to evade his own policy document. When I do not refer to it, he says that I have not read it. When I read it, he is deeply embarrassed. He has spent the afternoon proclaiming the independence of the inspectorate. I have quoted his document accurately and temperately and, as I discovered from his reaction, extremely damagingly. The relevant passage reads that the commission
    "would take over the inspectorial work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the bulk of the Inspectorate itself."
    The staff of the inspectorate would be made the employees of the commission, and they would lose their independence. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to argue that he is not taking away the independence of the inspectorate when his own words have always asserted that. The amendments are consistent with the independence of the inspectorate. The Bill makes Her Majesty's chief inspector more independent of the Government than at any time in the past. That being the reality, I suggest that the House should agree with the Lords in the proposed amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 16, after "schools" insert "in England".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 24.
    Mr. Clarke: The amendments would make drafting changes. Under the guillotine procedure, the Opposition have less than 18 minutes. They can debate the amendments if they are becoming desperately short of material to keep the debate going, but otherwise I suggest that the House might take them on the nod.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 29, at end insert
    ("( ) The Chief Inspector for England may at any time give advice to the Secretary of State on any matter connected with schools, or a particular school, in England.")
    Read a Second time.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, at end add
    "including whether there is adequate finance available to ensure the provision of good-quality education."
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment, amendment No. 10 and amendment (d) to that amendment.
    Ms. Armstrong: I cannot say that I am overjoyed to be moving the amendment at this time on a Friday afternoon. I have regarded my involvement in the consideration of education Bills as a learning exercise, and I have learnt an enormous amount from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I have learnt that so long as one is a Tory Secretary of State it is possible to say anything and expect it to be believed. I know that most people throughout the country, along with myself, do not believe a great deal of the assertions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I began to think that I was in the middle of another Tory party broadcast. The Sunday Times analysed his broadcast last week and told us that four of five assertions were entirely untrue. Perhaps that was why I expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman to blush when he moved the first group of amendments.
    The amendments deal with the powers of the inspectorate when reporting to the Secretary of State. This matter was debated in Standing Committee. It seemed to us that the Government were defining so carefully the inspection aspects that it might be impossible for the inspectors to comment on some of those aspects and on how Government policy was affecting the ability of individual schools to enable each child to learn as much as possible and make progress. We realise that the Government will not accept the amendments, but we believe it important that they should be made to think about them.
    I am amazed by the way that the Secretary of State has continued to defend his Bill against all the evidence. The evidence that has been given by people in all parts of the country, who have supported other aspects of his reforms, does not seem to matter much to the Secretary of State. They are therefore completely bewildered by his intransigence and by his determination to say that the Bill equates with anything like a parents charter.
    Amendment (a) deals with the right and the opportunity for the senior chief inspector to include in his report comments on whether adequate finance is available to ensure the provision of good quality education. The Government frequently tell us that expenditure on education has nothing to do with the outcome. That is an interesting argument. Conservative Members have made it clear time and again that they are so concerned about the quality of education for their own children that they choose to opt out of the state system, since the resources provided for the maintained sector are insufficient. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has not read the amendment. It refers to adequate finance being made available to ensure the provision of good quality education.
    Inspectors should be able to comment on whether there is a sufficient number of highly qualified teachers in a school, on whether the teaching staff have adequate and

    1193
    appropriate qualifications, accompanied by appropriate remuneration, and on whether the resources available to a school are sufficient for it to provide the right amount of equipment, the right number of books and the right laboratories that it needs if it is to implement the national curriculum. If children are not provided with appropriate texbooks, writing materials, computers, sports equipment, musical instruments and all the other facilities that are needed if they are to benefit from a good education, the quality of their education will not improve and will probably decline.
    I know from various reports and from the parents who have written, rung and come to see me that some schools are requesting a significant financial contribution to enable them to continue to provide experienced teachers. That is a particular problem with the local management of schools formula, but it faces many other schools. I do not accept that schools should believe that they can employ only newly qualified teachers because the formula to which they are working does not enable them to carry an experienced teaching force. Nor do I accept that it is legitimate for parents to be put in a position in which they have to contribute for their children to receive a basic education.
    Recently, a parent came to see me in tears. She has stopped going to parents' meetings, first, because her husband is long-term unemployed, she is not working and the visit involves a fairly costly bus journey. More than that, she said that whenever she went she was expected to contribute to a raffle or something else for fund-raising. She could not do so and felt embarrassed about that. When that creeps into parents' opportunity to consult teachers about their children's education, we must be in a very bad way. It must be recognised that it is legitimate for the inspector to comment on the quality of resources available to schools when he reports to the Secretary of State.
    Amendment (b) considers
    "whether class sizes need to be reduced in order to ensure the provision of good quality education".
    The Secretary of State is on record as saying that class sizes are irrelevant. I am told by the information officer of the Independent Schools Information Service that, according to its surveys, one of the key criteria that make parents choose to send their children to independent schools is because class sizes are small there. Therefore, class size means something to those parents. We want to ensure that class sizes in the state sector do not continue to increase as they are at the moment.
    I was horrified at the latest reports about the number of children being taught in classes of 40 or more pupils. It is a small percentage in terms of the whole school population. Nevertheless, for thousands of children it is their only experience in a class at that stage of their career. Although the number may not be large in terms of the overall school population, it is critical for each of those children. That is why we have said that one of our first acts will be to ensure that no child has to be taught in a class of more than 40 pupils. We shall reduce class sizes and introduce a maximum limit until they are reduced to 30.
    I visit and have regular contact with a number of primary schools and I know that class size is regarded as important not only by teachers but by parents and people on governing bodies who are determined to improve their schools. We believe that it is an issue of national
    1194
    importance and should be dealt with by any Government. We should have liked it to be dealt with by this Government, but it will of course be dealt with by the next Labour Government.
    Amendment (c) deals with the manner in which information is provided under clause 16 which deals with information and what have been called league tables. Essentially, the amendments give Her Majesty's chief inspector the power to advise the Secretary of State on any aspects of the information being given by schools. We argued consistently in Committee that the information that the Government had specified to date was too narrow, and was not clear. The criteria according to which information is to be given still allow too many variations.
    3.45 pm
    We should like more information to be available, but we also tabled the amendments to ask the Secretary of State to get rid of some of the rhetoric—I know that that is difficult for him. I am talking about the rhetoric that we have heard from him about information. Those aspects of the Bill are not necessary, because there is already the power for that information to be given, and under regulations it has to be given.
    The Bill is largely unnecessary legislation, which adds little to the present law on maintained schools. Its most significant effect is to require independent schools—including city technology colleges and their arts equivalents—and non-maintained special schools to publish the same information that maintained schools are required to publish.
    We seek to ensure that we at least place on record again the fact that clause 16 is in the Bill not because the law needed altering but because the Secretary of State wanted to give himself the opportunity to publish the parents charter. A lot of money has been spent on that, but most of the information involved is already made available to parents.
    We should like the information available to parents to be wider and to deal more clearly with children's progress in schools. Again, the Secretary of State will say that the Opposition want to make the information so complex that no one will be able to deal with it. I reject that suggestion. I believe that parents will be able to deal with information which shows them how their individual children are progressing and also how effective the school is.
    At present, the latest league tables for standard assessment tests have so many problems, as well as several inaccuracies, as to render the whole exercise somewhat farcical. Are the Government serious about the independence of Her Majesty's inspectorate? I have heard the Secretary of State speak many times. I am not a cynical person, but he drives one to cynicism when he keeps repeating his opinion of our policy when he has not really tried to understand it.
    I am amused when in other debates in the Chamber Conservative Members tell us how good the Audit Commission is and how we ought to value it more, because when we propose similar bodies for education, in order to recognise nationally the importance of having standards across the board, clear criteria by which to judge them and a clear means of measuring and tackling school effectiveness, the Secretary of State tries to be cynical about that.
    I am confident that in the next few weeks we shall be able to ensure that there is a Government who are really

    1195
    worried about standards. Our amendments would at least give the Government the opportunity to recognise the independence which many fear will disappear—the ability of the inspectorate to comment on the way in which Government policy is affecting schools' ability to deliver the quality of education that they wish. It is right that the inspectorate should comment on how Government policy affects schools. The amendments attempt to get information from the Government on that subject.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The amendments to the broad, sweeping Lords amendments are not necessary. It is not necessary to draw particular attention to the funding of schools when it has increased by 50 per cent. per pupil during the lifetime of this Government. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) referred to the parents charter, which she still attacked. She seemed to defend the fact that at one time her political allies refused to distribute it. From beginning to end of the debate—
    It being two hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Education (Schools) Bill (allocation of time), MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the chair, pursuant to Order this day.
    Amendment to the Lords amendment negatived.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Army Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
3.51 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The decision to merge the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers was especially important because it affects regiments that have stood for more than 20 years in the front line of the battle against terrorism. The decision is not a criticism of the UDR or of the Royal Irish Rangers. There is no conspiracy here and no hidden agenda.
The aim is to create in the home service battalions of the new regiment an even more professional, effective and flexible security force which is capable of playing an even more decisive role on behalf of all law-abiding people of Northern Ireland in bringing about the defeat of terrorism. The agenda is very much in the interests of Northern Ireland, of the UDR and of its members.
The UDR is about 6,000 strong with a roughly 50:50 ratio between full-timers and part-timers. We expect to maintain the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment at about the same total strength and with a part-time element of about the same size. Obviously, we are not going to commit ourselves to precise figures, but I can give the House a reassurance. Part-time service is a vital and cost-effective feature of the UDR and we expect to retain it at about its present level.
The home service battalions will, of course, be only one element in our total security forces deployed in Northern Ireland, which amount to about 17,000. The total number of troops deployed may vary in the future, depending on the security situation, just as it has varied in the past.
We are still working on the detailed terms of service for the new regiment. We recognise entirely that members of the UDR did not join to travel the world but joined to serve locally the people of Northern Ireland. We shall acknowledge that in the new terms of service for the home service battalions. Those terms will limit the service that is required to service within Northern Ireland.
For some, however, the opportunity to volunteer for a tour of duty or training with the general service element of the regiment may be attractive. It may enhance their military proficiency and chances of promotion. We certainly believe that for some, training or duty outside Northern Ireland will be to their wider benefit.
The principal cost element to which the Bill relates is military manpower. We shall continue to give the House the information about numbers in the home service battalions which we provide about the UDR at present. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.54 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is greatly to be regretted that, in the dying hours of this Parliament, we should be giving the Bill its Third Reading. The matter is highly controversial in Northern Ireland. Anyone who listened to a show on local radio last night will understand that. The charges made were very serious indeed.
I cannot accept—I wish that I could—what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said. I would merely ask him about the poll carried out by the Ulster

1197
Defence Regiment to ascertain the opinion of the regiment and of people in Northern Ireland. At a meeting at which the Minister was present, elected representatives of Northern Ireland found out for the first time that a public relations job had been done. We were entitled to know who did it. We were also entitled to know the sample that was taken and the attitude of members of the regiment. Some of them went public and said that they had been handed documents by their superior officer and told that, when on television and speaking to the press, they were to follow the official line that the officers were taking. They were told that if they did not take that line, and if they made television appearances or talked to the press, they would be subject to Army discipline. I do not think that that is the way in which to get a good response from loyal men who take their lives in their hands every time they put on their uniform or if they are known to be members of the UDR.
I utterly deplore the fact that Northern Ireland representatives have not had the opportunity to discuss the Bill as it should be discussed. I was promised that there would be representatives of all parties in the House when the Bill went into Standing Committee. The opportunity to serve on a Committee considering the Bill was denied to my party and to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which is interested in having the regiment abolished, as its representatives have always said.
We must have full democratic discussion of matters relevant to Northern Ireland. We must be able to probe the Government and table amendments, yet, as a representative of Northern Ireland, and representing a Northern Ireland party, I have had no opportunity to move any amendments to the Bill. Is that what democracy is coming to? We are told that there is much support for the Bill. Even if that is so and I am in a tiny minority, I should be allowed to exercise my democratic rights through the institutions of the House established for that purpose.
I feel strongly that it would have been better had the Government withdrawn the Bill at this stage. If the Conservatives are in government after the election, they could bring it back. As the Labour party agrees with the Bill, a Labour Government could also bring it back. We could then have a full and proper discussion in Committee and Northern Ireland Members could table amendments to make the Bill more in keeping with what they wish. That opportunity has been denied to us and, late on Friday, the Government are pressing on regardless in an attempt to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible.
In the name of those whom I represent and in the name of the vast majority of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I must protest. The question has been asked: why do not members of the regiment resign if they are unhappy with the proposals? Why should they? They volunteer to stand by and to serve their country. Yet people say, "There have not been many resignations from the regiment, so all its members must be happy." That claim is illogical and unjustified. As I said, a man who joins the UDR puts himself and his family at risk. The men who do that are loyal men who want to defend their country against the acts of terrorism that are taking place there.
There is one word on the lips of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of the Bill and it is "betrayal". Those people include the highest to the lowest parts of society.
1198
Why do they say it? Hon. Members seem to think that Ulster people say "betrayal" when they have no arguments to put. However, when one studies the history and how the thought of the Bill was born in the Government's mind, one sees how justified Ulster people are. The thought of doing away with the Ulster Defence Regiment did not start in the House or with the Government; it started with the Irish Republic. It started on the very day on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I have with me a statement by the then Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. He said:
"When we get into the conference we will put forward Irish views and proposals for the progressive establishment of a new security system which would obviate the need for the UDR to be involved in local security. This will be pursued sensitively, carefully and firmly."
Here we have the blueprint for the very thing that the House is asked to do. We must compare that statement with the statement that was made in the House. We were told that we are not abolishing the UDR but are making a better Army career structure for the UDR. That is exactly what the Taoiseach suggested—that the way to get rid of the UDR was to obviate its place in the security of Northern Ireland.
I must put a salute firmly on record. The obituary that was written by the Government does not take into account everything that has happened in respect of the UDR. More than 200 UDR men have been killed by terrorists, 44 former members have been murdered by the IRA and 377 have been seriously wounded. The Ulster Defence Regiment has given value for money. It costs £1·5 million a week, whereas the RUC costs £1·5 million a day. No other aspect of the security forces is so cost-effective. In 20 years, the UDR has trained 40,000 members. Of them, 17 have been convicted for murder. Four are having their appeals reheard. The UDR is responsible for only 0·28 per cent. of all deaths in Northern Ireland. Republican terrorists have killed 250 times as many people as the Ulster Defence Regiment in carrying out its statutory duties.
That is part of the record of this regiment. It ill becomes me not to pay the highest tribute to the men who left their homes, their children, their wives and their businesses to go on to the streets of Northern Ireland when the House could find no one else to do the job. Those men were recruited when the House, in its folly, abolished the Ulster Special Constabulary, a gallant body of men who defended Ulster so well that the official historian of the IRA has said that as long as they were there the IRA could not do the task that it wanted to do in taking over Northern Ireland. That was written by Tim Pat Coogan in the official biography of the IRA. It is a fine tribute.
History is now repeating itself. The UDR is a gallant regiment which the House should honour. In fact, a few weeks before the guillotine fell on the regiment, Her Majesty the Queen gave her colours to four of its battalions and spoke in the highest possible manner of the gallantry of those men. There has been and there continues to be, however, a vicious and diabolical campaign of slander against the regiment. We have had all cries. The greatest cry has come from the IRA. It has cried out, "Get rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment."
If the Minister of State for the Armed Forces believes that he is giving the right message to the people of Northern Ireland by pressing the Bill through today, he is gravely mistaken. It gives the wrong message at the wrong

1199
time to the people of Northern Ireland and those who have their backs against the wall under terrorism. I appeal to the Minister. Nothing will be lost if he withdraws the Bill tonight. Let it come back to the new House of Commons. Let us have a further discussion on the matter and put it to a Committee in which those who represent Northern Ireland can move the necessary amendments. That is the way in which it should be done.
As I said, history is, sadly, repeating itself. The Bill tells us that all members of the Ulster Defence Regiment will cease to be members of that regiment. It amounts to an abandoning of the regiment. The briefing paper that Tory Members of Parliament received said that the Bill was the end—the word "end" was used—of the Ulster Defence Regiment. No amount of assurances or talk from the Government Front Bench could do away with that fact. The Bill destroys the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The only reason why we have the Bill is that the regiment was brought into existence by a Bill becoming law. The Government thought that they could achieve their purpose in another way. When we told them that they would have to come to the House, they discovered that primary legislation would be necessary. If it had not been necessary, the measure would have been steamrollered through long before and we would not even have had this debate. That is why many people in Northern Ireland feel that Northern Ireland legislation should be dealt with properly, with Bills being announced, going through the House and becoming Acts.
It seems ironic that the Government praise the Ulster Defence Regiment when they intend to do away with it. I read the Committee proceedings on the Bill, which lasted barely an hour. I read all the praise and sympathy for the UDR. Many hon. Members said, "Yes, we know how you feel." The people in Northern Ireland do not want any sympathy. They want tangible expressions from the House that it has taken cognisance of what is happening in Northern Ireland and is prepared to do something about it.
Passing the Bill will not achieve what the Minister tells us that he is trying to achieve—peace and a better way to handle security in Northern Ireland. I know people on the border whose only defence is the Ulster Defence Regiment. I know how they feel about the Bill. I know how the lonely families in South Armagh, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the Londonderry border and South Down feel about the Bill. The last line of their defence is to be taken away from them. They deserve that defence and the House has a responsibility to give it to them. But today the House will take it from them.
No amount of appeals or assurances and no amount of lectures from the Government to representatives in Northern Ireland which do not tell them the things that they want to hear can alter the fact that fear is in the hearts of the people who have looked to the Ulster Defence Regiment and who received protection from it in the sad and bad days in the past which, although we do not want to prophesy, we are sure will continue.
The Bill is opposed and needs to be opposed. In discussions on the Bill I have been staggered by the way in which the measure has been sold to the people. I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland, or even the Minister during his brief introductory statement to the Third Reading debate, has ever suggested that the Ulster Defence Regiment was like any other regiment in the British Army. It was called into existence to do a specific
1200
job, not to create professional soldiers or to give them a career in the Army but to enlist them for the defence of their homes, their families and the country that gave them their birth. That is why it is called the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The Bill will delete the name of Ulster, although the Ulster Defence Regiment has held an honoured place among the regiments of the British Army. Ministers tell us that they want to introduce an Irish dimension into the Army. The largest part of Ireland—26 counties—is no longer part of this United Kingdom and therefore is not especially interested in it.
The explanatory note to the Bill says that the new regiment will be called the Royal Irish Rangers. It seems to me that if the Government had wanted to put the word "Royal" in the name and had wanted to give continued assurance and some respite in the fear in the hearts of the people in Northern Ireland, they could have called it the Royal Ulster Regiment.
Why is there such bitter hatred and why does the Army want to delete the name "Ulster" from its records—records which have brought honour to men who fought in the regiment—and put "Irish" in its place? That is the question that the Minister has to ask.
As I said in a previous debate, the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Defence, made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and to me that never again would Ulster be used in the name of any regiment in the British Army and he said, "You know why."
What is the reason? It is because of opposition from Dublin to that name. The Bill was born out of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Taoiseach of the Republic at the time made it crystal clear that it was his aim to see to it that that regiment was eventually disbanded. That is what will happen as a result of the Third Reading of the Bill.
At every Anglo-Irish Agreement meeting since the agreement was signed, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic has made a statement attacking the Ulster Defence Regiment. So, their propaganda went on and on.
At the last meeting—the first meeting under the new Irish Government—Mr. Andrews, the Foreign Minister, said that the Ulster Defence Regiment would be the first subject that he would raise at the Anglo-Irish Conference. There has been a well-orchestrated, well-planned campaign of propaganda to discredit the men of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
I should like to take the House to Castlederg. I should like to take hon. Members through the cemetery gate, turn them to the right-hand side and show them every plot in that graveyard where lie the bodies of UDR men murdered in that area by the IRA. I should like to do something else; I should like to tell hon. Members that when I sat in a room with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, Mr. Hermon, the body of men there said, "Sixteen of our colleague UDR men have been murdered. Now count us and come back in a year's time and see how many are left." I went back a year later, not Mr. Hermon, and those ranks were seriously depleted. Instead of men, there were vacant chairs. Some hon. Members may not want anybody to speak of these matters. Others may want to get away, and I can well understand why, but we will fail in our duty to represent Northern Ireland if we do not put these matters firmly on the record.

1201
This matter goes down into the very depths of the Ulster people. We are dealing with life and death. We are dealing with something that the Government said that they would do for the people of Northern Ireland when they abolished the old Stormont Parliament and took responsibility for security from the elected representatives there: they said that they would safeguard our homes and lives—that they would defend us. They recruited this regiment of Ulster men who were prepared to put their lives on the line to give their fellows on both sides of the religious divide security and defence. How have they been treated?
This is no good day for the House, for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces or for the people of Northern Ireland. We need to face up to that. I know that our voices will be like those of one crying in the wilderness. Nevertheless, those voices must be raised strongly and loudly in the House today. What is going to happen in Northern Ireland?
Some weeks ago we had a most distressing, terrible, heart-rending period of violence. There were a number of atrocious, diabolical, tit-for-tat killings. What happened? The Secretary of State called out the UDR. That poured oil on the waters. A couple of weeks later we had comparative calm and peace in that area of the city of Belfast. Only recently, the Secretary of State called out the regiment to alleviate the distresses of Ulster in the midst of its agony, and it was successful. Yet, at the same time the Government were pressing ahead to destroy the regiment. I see that even the Minister paid tribute in some Government papers and the Committee to its ability to do such a task. Why, then, does the Minister put his hand to abolishing a regiment that has done particular good recently in the war-torn Province that my colleagues and I have to represent?
The past 21 years have been hard years for everyone in Ulster. Violence and terrorism have been on the increase. One thing has been highlighted month in, month out over those terrible years—the Government's inability to give the death blow to the men of violence. There has been an increase in the growth of terrorism and counter-terrorism. The UDR soldier has never ceased to be a target. In many cases he has been not only a target but a victim of IRA violence.
Members of the IRA do not come out, declare themselves and say, "Let's fight it out", but perhaps four or five of them wait for that man when he goes off duty, having done his stint to defend the people of Northern Ireland, and shoot him in cold blood. Sometimes, when he is coming home from earning money to keep his family and children, they shoot him, perhaps in his own yard before his children and his wife. Hon. Members should be on their feet today defending the Ulster Defence Regiment, instead of acting as they are.
The other day, on the border, four IRA men attacked one UDR man who had a handgun. He demonstrated his bravery and fought off the four of them. He shot one and the other three fled to the safe sanctuary of the Irish Republic, to be released later by the authorities there. That was an up-to-date incident. More than 45 members have been killed and 377 members have been seriously
1202
wounded, both on and off duty. I would challenge any hon. Member who questioned the gallantry and loyalty of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
It has been said to me, "Haven't those men done things that they shouldn't have done?" Of course they have, but have not members of other regiments from other parts of the United Kingdom also done things that they should not have done? Have not they, too, been charged with murder in the courts and found guilty? Why do not we make an even comparison between all the regiments that serve in Northern Ireland? Why must the Ulster man be pilloried? Why must the Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers be picked out to be treated in that way? I make a plea in the House that all our men who serve in those regiments should be defended. If one, two or more people do something wrong, the law takes care of them, but that does not challenge the integrity of the other regiment members.
The Government appear not to take account of the sacrifices that have been made. They are not prepared to say to the Ulster Defence Regiment, "You have done a good job; you will keep your name and we shall put 'Royal' before it. Why shouldn't you be honoured with that title? Why shouldn't the name of the only part of Ireland that is now in the United Kingdom be the name of one of our regiments?" Instead of that, the miserable little Bill is presented to the House today as the House is about to close down, and we are told that it is imperative that it is passed. I appeal to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to think again. The people in Northern Ireland are saying, "All this is rubbing the noses of the suffering UDR members into the dirt. They would be better treated if they had not given their lives and paid the ultimate price in loyalty to defend the people of Ulster."
We are told that the Ulster Defence Regiment is sectarian. How can it be anything else when the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church tells its people that they should not join it, and the cardinal tells his people that the Ulster Defence Regiment should be done away with? We cannot expect Roman Catholic people to join it. If they do so, they have to leave their homes and live away. Their parents have to visit them in safe houses. Do hon. Members realise that police officers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who are Roman Catholics—I salute their loyalty and bravery—cannot go to their own homes? Their parents have to meet them in secret, safe houses in the city of Belfast or elsewhere, so they are cut off. We cannot expect people to serve in those circumstances.
No greater hardship has been suffered by any member of Her Majesty's forces than has been suffered by members of the UDR. They have borne the burden and the heat of the day and their share of hardship. The regiment, totalling 6,000 full-time and part-time members, is facing a crisis. The Minister cannot tell the House what will be left of the part-time sector of the regiment. It has been said that there might be 3,000 members. I noticed from the Committee Hansard that he said that he hoped that the forecast by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was right, and that 3,000 part-time members would be retained, but it is the part-time part of the regiment that is most important. It needs to be strengthened, not weakened, but the Minister cannot deny that when the Bill comes into force the regiment will be further weakened.
If the Government are honest when they say that the part-time element of the regiment should be increased,

1203
why has there been no intensive campaigning on its behalf? Why was there not a call-up asking people to join the regiment on a part-time basis? To emphasise only the career structure of the new amalgamated regiment is to miss the point, which is that there should be a determined effort to ensure that part-timers are not only kept at their present level but increased. The Government are not doing that. I will go further and make a prophecy, based on what the Minister said—the number of part-timers will be reduced more and more.
I am glad to say that it is acknowledged by those who are opposed to the Ulster Defence Regiment that it is not part of the problem. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. NcNair-Wilson) referred to a television programme, saying that it was unfair that the programme-makers should pillory the UDR and say that it was part of the problem that it had been brought into being to solve. No greater slander could have been made against the regiment.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, said at his party's conference that only 0·28 per cent. of violent deaths in Northern Ireland had been caused by the UDR and that 67 per cent. of those deaths had been caused by the Irish Republican Army or its associates. Put that 67 per cent. beside that 0·28 per cent. and take from the latter those who were killed because they were doing something that they had to be stopped from doing and the result shows that the UDR has the best record on killing of all the services in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to find any justification for what is happening today.
The UDR has been maligned by intrusive comments from successive foreign Governments of the Irish Republic. The Government, by their actions, show that they care nothing for the security of the Province. They are content to play the Republican green card of continuous criticism, ignoring the consequences of such catcalling. It was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which brought about the problem and gave rise to the proposed disbandment of the UDR, via a merger.
The Minister says that there is no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, and that we should not believe such rumours. He should come to Northern Ireland, where I would take him to homes that I have visited, with their curly-headed little boys and girls who have no father tonight. I would like him to speak to the wives so that they could tell him what they suffer when even the memory of their loved ones is maligned and attacked on television by those whose one aim is to blacken the name of the regiment. The House should wake up to the fact that if we keep blackening the names of our friends and those who are prepared to stand for law and order and decency, and to give their lives in defence of that, we shall be sowing the wind and one day we shall reap the whirlwind. That will happen because of the Bill.
The House should remember that under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement there is an obligation on the conference that at its every meeting it should consider the security position, and thus provide an opportunity to deal with policy issues, serious incidents and forthcoming events. The policy issue that has been hammered and hammered by the Irish Republic is the UDR. One would not think that the IRA was carrying out any murders. At every meeting an announcement is made that, once again, the UDR must be put under scrutiny. Once again, there must be an assurance that the police will accompany UDR
1204
members. Once again, we must agree to prevent the UDR from having any contact with members of the general public.
How can the UDR carry out its duties if it cannot deal with the general public? There has been a campaign to isolate the regiment and, that campaign having succeeded in the propaganda war, the way has been prepared for the regiment's final destruction. The will of the Government of the Republic to effect change in Northern Ireland and in the UDR was evident even before the defence review of Her Majesty's forces was announced. We saw it coming. I was relieved when I heard the Secretary of State for Defence say that there would be no change to the UDR. Suddenly, the greatest of all changes was announced—the regiment is to be disbanded. The Bill makes that perfectly clear. Even if we were to accept that the merger is a military proposal in which both regiments will be fully absorbed, as the Minister said, we could not accept that the will of the Government of the Republic did not influence the decision to bring about that merger.
The very fact that the Government of the United Kingdom would even consider the suggestions of a hostile and foreign Government—who make an illegal claim to Her Majesty's jurisdiction—is in itself a negation of responsibility. As I said in the House after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, it was an outrage that the first thing said by the Taoiseach was that there would be the demise of a regiment of the British Army as a result of the signing of the agreement. Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald said
"The UDR has a core of competent, professional military officers"—
or will the Minister claim that it is not competent and professional, down to company level?—
"as well as an adequate number of experienced NCOs."
When was the regiment lacking in those NCOs? He added:
"The part-time membership of the UDR should be disbanded"—
and we are seeing that happen—
"and better control of UDR operations should be ensured."
That was the Prime Minister of a foreign country dictating what should happen to a British Army regiment. When one considers the Bill's proposals, it is clear that the requirements of the then Taoiseach are being met.
The proposed UDR career restructuring is an attempt to hide the motives behind the merger, which is to get rid of the unacceptable face of security, as it is painted by the Irish Republic and others, and to change the UDR's ethos.
The emergency situation in which the regiment is even more evident today. Shame on successive Governments for not dealing with that emergency in the correct way. The current development originated in a campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary that suddenly switched to one against the UDR. Now that that regiment is to be done away with, opposition to the RUC is growing, with more and more criticism of its activities, accusations that it is a sectarian force, and questions about why more Roman Catholics are not to be found in its membership. So it will go on.
Northern Ireland's unique security situation calls for a unique force such as the Ulster Defence Regiment. Only the UDR can provide the manpower to assist the RUC in its fight against terrorism. Its Deputy Chief Constable told me, "We as police could not do anything about the security situation if we did not have the assistance of the Ulster Defence Regiment. If it is disbanded, how can we train men to take its place? How could we set up an adequate security apparatus to take its place? It cannot be done."

1205
The men who serve in the UDR could have joined other regiments that have closer associations with the Province, but they chose to join the UDR—to fight not for Ireland but for security, peace, and harmony in Ulster itself. The regiment's membership is an indication of its desire to serve for peace in that beleaguered Province.
The proposed merger will have many side effects, but the overall concern is the detrimental effect that it will have on security and on the morale of the regiment's members.
I wish to make it clear that I am not party to calling on people in Northern Ireland to leave the Ulster Defence Regiment. That is not what I advocate. I know how men feel. I am aware of how they have been treated. I know of those who were arrested and had false charges laid before them. I know that millions of pounds had to be paid to buy them new houses and to relocate them under the terms of the Stevens inquiry. Those men persevered in their membership of the UDR because they were dedicated and loyal men.
If the merger takes place, a force in which there is so much will lose its identity. Why should the regiment have to suffer in this way? If it had done something disgraceful and besmirched its good name, one would understand, but that, of course, is not the position. Even its detractors, as they come with glee to bury it, are prepared to pay fulsome eulogies to its members, the way they have served and the sacrifices that they have made.
The Government's proposals will add nothing to the overall effectiveness of the British Army's counter-terrorist role in Northern Ireland. Instead, they will detract from the implicit moral driving force that attracts men and women into the ranks of the UDR. The proposals will do nothing to improve security. Indeed, security will take a terrible hammering. That is because people are losing faith in what should be done. The enemies of our Province will be well pleased.
What of the proposed title of the regiment? Men have died because they joined the UDR. Men were murdered because they associated with them. Men were murdered even after they had done their stint and had returned to civvy street. They were killed for being British Ulster men and women. They were unprepared to swallow Irish rule. They died for the cause of Ulster, not for that of Ireland. They did not die to give an Irish dimension. They died because they chose to be part of the United Kingdom and its jurisdiction. The proposal to name the regiment the Royal Irish is a laughable attempt to grab orange with green—a vain attempt to inflict a hybrid name of Irish society upon the people of Ulster.
Why do the Government not wake up to the realities? The empire is dead and only British Ulster is British. The Irish have forsaken the Union. Why do the Government not honour those who wish to maintain the Union and are prepared to die for its preservation? They should rename the UDR the Royal Ulster Defence Regiment to give credit to those to whom credit is due.
If the Government honestly believe that calling the regiment the Irish regiment will attract support from the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Roman Catholic church, the Irish Government and the security forces, may God almighty help us. Since the announcement was made, the SDLP, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the southern Government have not said, "Join the new
1206
regiment that is about to be formed." That is the proof of the matter. Why do we not hear those who were the detractors of the UDR making a clear call—not an ambivalent one—in support of men and women joining the new regiment? Instead, we hear them say, "No, we shall not commit ourselves." When will they commit themselves? The answer is that they will never commit themselves to anything that is aimed at retaining and maintaining the Union.
Can the Government give a guarantee to the UDR that the merger will not result in removals, redundancies, transfers and demotions? They cannot do so, because the removals, redundancies and demotions have already begun. The thinning out process is in hand. Any officer can say to a man, "You can appear on the media, provided that you say this, but if you do not say that but say the opposite and oppose the merger, we shall take disciplinary action against you." The part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment is already understaffed and being phased out by natural wastage. At a time when Ulster is the victim of so many sectarian atrocities, instead of strengthening the armed forces the Government are pulling the carpet from under the feet of the UDR. If the Government continue to pursue this merger, it will have an unsettling effect on the family life of current UDR members. The Government must remember that if certain members of the UDR, for their own reasons, do not join the new merged regiment, they will still be marked men.
The tragedy is that a policy has begun to withdraw the personal weapons that members of the UDR were given with which to defend themselves when off duty. It is bad enough to have served in the security forces and therefore to be a marked man. It is bad enough to know that one's only hope of protection is one's own ability and a personal weapon. But what will happen when people find that they are no longer members of that regiment and that personal weapon is taken away from them? Is that the sort of treatment that should be handed out to men who have marked themselves out because by taking a stand and joining the regiment? They will lose both earnings and protection.
There will also be loss of employment. The Ulster Defence Regiment represents the greatest value for money in terms of security costs that the Province has ever seen or is ever likely to see. We hear every day about cuts. These continuous cuts will affect the money available to make the war effective against the enemies of Ulster. The proposals will undoubtedly set in motion the means by which the part-time element of the UDR will be reduced to a lower level than ever before in its history.
In November 1991 the ferociousness of the IRA's terrorist campaign necessitated the first call-up of those part-time men. Since November last year an emergency situation has prevailed in Northern Ireland. More troops have had to be brought into the Province. A law-abiding community has been able to say over and over again, "Thank God for our security forces, thank God for our police, and thank God for the Ulster Defence Regiment, because they have stood between us and the enemy." For some time now the British authorities have viewed part-time Ulster Defence Regiment membership as unacceptable by their career standards, but the very ethos of the UDR was to be a unique arm of the security forces in a unique situation. I can now see the demise of those part-time soldiers—not immediately, but in the long term. Their numbers are going down already.

1207
Terrorism in Ulster can be thwarted only through the civil power of the Royal Ulster Constabulary backed up and supported by a locally recruited Ulster Defence Regiment. The auxiliary forces must be drawn from and must interlock with the Northern Ireland community. The Ulster Defence Regiment offers the best network of intelligence within the community that it serves, and the only way in which terrorism can be destroyed is through intelligence. Who better to gather intelligence and to spearhead the strength of intelligence than those who live and go in and out of the community? Who better than those who use their eyes and ears to defend themselves and who in so doing can defend others? That is all to be sacrificed. It would be more advisable for the Minister of State to appeal to every Irish Member in the House to support the security forces and to appeal directly to the Social Democratic and Labour party to support the security forces.
As I have said, the lack of Roman Catholic members in the UDR is the responsibility of the IRA, who pick them out to murder them, but it is also the responsibility of their Church and their political representatives in the SDLP.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I apologise for interrupting my colleague so early in his contribution, but this relates to the role of the Social Democratic and Labour party. Is there not a strange irony in the fact that a political party which, since its inception, has done everything possible to undermine the security forces in Northern Ireland and to withhold its support from them and which, in recent years, has withheld support from the Ulster Defence Regiment and called for its disbandment is not in its place this evening to see the dawning of the hour that it sought?
Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say to my colleague is, when the British Government does that party's work so well for it, it does not need to be present. Even in its death throes, the House is eager to pass this mean little Bill and to add its insult to the UDR, so the SDLP does not need to be present.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The attitude of the Social Democratic and Labour party towards the Ulster Defence Regiment is of course all on record, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) says. However, is not it also on record that the SDLP is wholly opposed to the Royal Irish Rangers and that it campaigned against that regiment ever serving in Northern Ireland? As that is the SDLP's background, is not it natural that it will campaign against the new Royal Irish Regiment which is to be the successor to the Royal Irish Rangers and the UDR?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is of course on record that the SDLP campaigned against any of the Irish regiments in the British Army serving in Northern Ireland. It insisted—indeed, dictated—what regiments should come to Northern Ireland to serve. I think that it was only under a Conservative Government that the regiments eventually came. I may be wrong about that but, certainly for a long time during the troubles, none of the regiments were permitted to come. They were not considered acceptable in Northern Ireland by the SDLP. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Archie Hamilton indicated assent.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I see that I have the approval even of the Minister. We need the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to say that it will support the regiment, and the SDLP to call on its people to support it. At a meeting in Downing street when the Prime Minister talked to the four leaders of the constitutional parties, as they are called, I told him that it was not true that the four leaders were one when it came to supporting the security forces. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party did not support the security forces. He does not call. There is a great difference between saying to one's people, "If anything happens to you, go to the police," and saying, "Join the police. Support the police by becoming a member of the police."
That is what is happening in Northern Ireland. No nationalist or republican elected politician says, "Join the police. Put your emphasis on the police by joining them." Yet I still repeatedly hear them say that we shall achieve peace only when everybody can give his allegiance to the police. There is no country in which all the people give their allegiance to the police. Those who want to break the law do not give their allegiance to the police, and the IRA will not do so—neither will those who support it.
It is a sad fact that the proposals in the Bill are before us. It is all too easy, as hon. Members hasten away to the coming election, for a number of them to wait here and vote the Bill through. But they will not reap any of its harvest. They will go to bed tonight in the comparative peace and safety of their homes on this side of the water. They know nothing of the worry of the woman on the border with her family, and the family on the border who can no longer live in their own home. At night they have to live in an outhouse, where both the father and the mother have shotguns in their hands. Hon. Members know nothing about that. The House is ignorant of what is happening in Northern Ireland—ignorant of what one sees when one goes to a farmhouse, and the wife and the father take one to the outhouse and show one the bedding on the floor and the guns stacked against the wall, and say, "That is how we have to live, because our house could be attacked at any time". Those are the people who now live in more fear, because people in those areas have looked to the Ulster Defence Regiment for their defence.
That is why I say to the Government and to every Member of the House, "Some day you will have to remember—your conscience will remind you—and you will say, 'Yes, I voted for that.'" It is easy to vote for a Bill, but what will the end product be?
The trouble with the Bill is that, in one sweep, it says:
"Any person who is a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment at the commencement of this Act shall cease to be a member at that time and, if his term of service with the Regiment would have continued after that time…
he shall continue to be a member of the armed forces until the term of service current at that time expires or is otherwise brought to an end, and…
he may be transferred"—
it does not say "shall be transferred"—
"to another corps in the same way as a member of the regular forces serving in a corps other than the Ulster Defence Regiment."
With one sweep, those three little paragraphs completely wipe away the whole membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the regiment itself. It is the end of the road for the regiment. Would any hon. Member in similar circumstances not feel deeply aggrieved if that were the sentence of execution passed by the House? Does the

1209
House not feel that that is bound to be intolerable to members of the regiment, especially in view of their sacrifices?
What will the end of the story be? After the debate concludes and the House divides on Third Reading, the word will go back to Northern Ireland that this is the end of the UDR. People in our Province remember the day when the House did the same with the Ulster Special Constabulary. They will have more despair in their hearts at the end of this debate than they have had for many long years. They hoped and trusted that at long last the Government and the Prime Minister would take the matter in mind. Instead, they find that once again their hopes have been dashed. Those who have served well in the UDR have got their come-uppance, which they do not deserve. They have been treated in a manner that I put on the record as disgraceful.
I cannot accept the arguments that I have been given, although I should like to accept them. It is far easier to live at peace than to live at war, and it is far easier to conform than not to conform. However, when one is elected to office, one has a responsibility to ensure that the electors give their views. Having balanced those views and found them to be absolutely honest and trustworthy, one has a duty to put those views in the place to which one has been elected. Whether the House wishes to hear them and whether that man receives scorn from the people to whom he speaks, he must say what the people have convinced him is right. Having talked to UDR officers, to UDR men, to a prominent general in the British Army and to others related to military service, I am convinced—
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does it concern my hon. Friend that, in every contact with the Minister he has said with absolute conviction—I do not doubt him for one minute —that the UDR wants the change? Does it disturb my hon. Friend that the Minister actually believes that? I can see that the Minister is not interested in listening, although he will have plenty of time later in which to listen.
Is it not disturbing that the Minister clearly believes that the UDR wants the Bill? We who come from Northern Ireland know that the UDR wants nothing to do with the Bill and that the grass roots, the men who serve on the streets and roads of Northern Ireland, want the measure defeated.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not expect the Government to listen. The only time they listen to Northern Ireland is when they are in trouble. They then run to the leaders from Northern Ireland saying, "Please help us." The hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland say, "In God's name, help us. You are not helping us tonight by what you are doing."
It is no use the Government bluffing their way and saying, "Everything will be all right." Everything will not be all right. The Minister has the evidence. I put it to him again. I see a person in the Box who was present at the meeting at which it was revealed to us that the Government had spent money on a survey—an opinion poll—which came out overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. The Minister should now tell us when the poll took place, what money was spent on it, how many officers, NCOs and privates were questioned. What was the breakdown, and what was the result of that poll?
Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend said that the poll was of the officers and men of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Was it not also of the officers and men of the Royal Irish Rangers, and did not the Minister suggest that there was a less enthusiastic response from the Royal Irish Rangers when they were asked those questions—even though the sample was clearly geared to get the best result for the opinion poll?
Mr. John. D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) said more than an hour ago, the future of the UDR is very important to us in Northern Ireland. My party tabled an amendment in Committee, but it was defeated by the Government. We have not had a full and proper debate at any stage in the Bill's proceedings. The debate is now getting off the ground, and many hon. Members wish to take part in it. There is a rumour that the Government are about to curtail the debate. Can we have a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how long we have available to continue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The right hon. Gentleman and the House know full well that the occupant of the Chair cannot deal with hypothetical questions. I have to deal with the situation as it proceeds.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have an assurance that the debate can continue for as long as you are satisfied that hon. Members wish to voice their opinions on Northern Ireland, and that those opinions will be heard. I was told by those in the Table Office that the debate could continue for as long as there were people who were prepared to speak. If that is not so, I should like to hear it contradicted; if it is so, I should be happy to hear you say so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said. As long as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) is in order, he is entitled to proceed.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me take this opportunity to warn the Government not to try to gag Northern Ireland Members tonight. It does not matter to me if they curtail our proceedings; it would suit me because I have plenty of other things to do in Northern Ireland. But I can tell the Minister that, if the Government do that the people of Northern Ireland will realise the lengths to which they are prepared to go to gag Northern Ireland's public representatives and prevent us from speaking.
We do not enjoy the opportunities available to hon. Members representing seats in Wales, Scotland and England. In Great Britain, legislation is implemented by way of Bills which have stages—Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. Our laws are passed in one and a half hours in a series of Orders in Council. It is amazing that I can move an amendment to a law affecting the people of England and Wales but that I cannot amend a law affecting those who sent me to the House. Our opportunities for debates are limited, and if we do not have a full opportunity to debate Bills that affect Northern Ireland, the people of Northern Ireland had better know that we are limited in that way. We have no forum in Northern Ireland to which we can take matters.
The House should remember that it is always dangerous to stifle debate. If debate is stifled, frustrations will break out in another way. If that is what the

1211
Government are about, let them do it. That will be all right, but they will reap in Northern Ireland what they are sowing. This debate is open ended, but if the Government had wanted, they could have guillotined it. They thought that the matter would never be seen on the Order Paper and that it would be nodded through.
It will not be nodded through. I have already told the Minister of State that it would be better to withdraw the Bill and bring it forward again. What has he to fear? Is he not going to return to this place? If he returns, he will have the opportunity to do that. If he does not return, Labour Front-Bench Members, who are in favour of the Bill, can bring it back for him. The Minister of State can join them in a new coalition. He did not withdraw the Bill, so 1 shall continue. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend say something about the consequences of this measure becoming law, in particular the lessons that will be learned by the Provisional IRA, which campaigned for the removal of the B Specials? It was successful in persuading the House to remove the B Specials because of IRA propaganda. IRA propaganda has concentrated on the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the Government have again responded to IRA propaganda. Is there a lesson that the IRA will draw from that?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. The lesson that I have learnt is that I have to talk on and on, because I have discovered that the Government intend to move a closure motion when I sit down. That leaves me no option but to continue to speak on this matter. I deeply regret that attitude. It will have a sad reaping in my Province. The Minister of State should go the second mile on the issue. He is not even prepared to listen. He has been doing his correspondence and talking to his hon. Friends. He wants to silence the person to whom he is not prepared to listen. That is not democracy at all, it is the worst form of dictatorship.
Please, for the sake of the widows, orphans and memory of the Ulster Defence Regiment, let the House debate the matter. If nobody but Northern Ireland hon. Members want to take part in the debate, they should be heard. This is our only opportunity to debate the matter.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I am sorry to disturb the hon. Gentleman's brief remarks, but may I refer to something that he said a few moments ago? He said that other hon. Members are not aware of living under the threat of violence. We all appreciate that the threat in Northern Ireland is serious, but some hon. Members are living under the same threat. Their names have appeared on lists. Of course, hon. Members have been murdered. Two lists were discovered. One was in Limerick. It was discovered by the Garda six months ago. Other hon. Members who are not Northern Ireland Members were on that list. I remind the hon. Gentleman as gently as I can that the terror and fear are shared by many other hon. Members and their families.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know of any case on this side of the water of a family having to leave their own home at night and go into a lonely outhouse—a cowshed—and stretch out their beds, with the father bolting the door and putting two cartridges into a double-barrelled shotgun. I do not know of any part of the United Kingdom where a man goes out ploughing and his wife has to lie up against
1212
a hedge with a gun in her hand. I know and appreciate that there is fear among people. There is fear on both sides of the Community. I am aware of that.
In my other capacity as a minister of religion, I have to visit the hospital. When I visit the Royal Victoria hospital it takes 20 police officers to get me in and out safely. One of the Ministers visited the hospital the other day. It took 200 members of the security forces to get him in and out safely. Does the House realise the continual pressure that we are all under?
Mr. John D. Taylor: It is important to clarify the issue of fear. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) limited fear to the fear among elected Members of Parliament here in Great Britain. Of course a handful of Members of Parliament in Great Britain live in fear. But that is not the issue that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was addressing. He was not worried about Members of Parliament. He was rightly worried about the fear that has spread across the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is the people of Northern Ireland who live in fear. Ordinary Members of Parliament here in Great Britain still do not understand what the fear is like in practice in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I must say to the House that people who go into public life in Northern Ireland take their life in their hands. We all know that. The IRA attempted to kill the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). I remember visiting him in the hospital shortly after he received all those bullets in his face. I am warned continually that I am on the danger list and could be murdered. My wife has been attacked. I have been shot at. But if one chooses to take a stand and be a public representative in Northern Ireland, no matter who one is and what one's convictions, one will always be under threat. But that is not what I seek to convey to the House about the Bill.
The ordinary people in Northern Ireland who go about their daily business, whose name is never on the front of the newspaper, who are unknown, who bring up their children, send them to school and do their best to rear them and give them a chance in life, are living in fear. It is a fear that goes across the religious divide. Protestants are afraid and Roman Catholics are afraid. The fear enters into the gut of the people. There is great fear. If the Bill is passed tonight, there will be more fear. The Bill will not lessen but build up fears.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionists in the House, told the Prime Minister when we met him that there was a perception that the British Government would pull out of Northern Ireland. That perception leads to fear among not only Protestants but Roman Catholics, who do not know what will happen if the Government pull out. We have a super-abundance of fear.
Some people in the House may be cynical and say that the fears are unreal, but even if they are unreal, they are real to the people who have them. We must emphasise that to the House. The House should take cognisance tonight that there are real fears in the hearts of people.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Apart from the fear of terrorism, is there not a real fear in Northern Ireland as a consequence of legislation such as this? It creates fear that a Government who introduced the Anglo-Irish Agreement moved directly at the behest of Dublin to start making

1213
changes such as the removal of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Has my hon. Friend read the memoirs of Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald? In them it says that, during negotiations on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Dr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues pressed the Government of the United Kingdom to do away with the UDR. He says that there was less than a solemn defence of the Ulster Defence Regiment from the British Government during that time. Will the people of Northern Ireland not fear that there is a sell-out by the Conservative Government over the Ulster Defence Regiment, just as they sold out Northern Ireland over the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I must confess to my colleague that I have not read that large book—the memoirs of the Taoiseach—but I have read extracts from it, which made it clear that Garrett Fitzgerald entirely got his own way. As my hon. Friend said, he also put on record that he was amazed that representatives of the British Government did not defend the position of people in the north of Ireland and almost readily accepted his charges.
I emphasise that, when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, the whole attack was aimed at the Ulster Defence Regiment. Some hon. Members told us that the agreement would not make any difference, that the sovereignty of this country over Northern Ireland was more secure than ever before, and that the Dublin Government would have little interest. The Dublin Government has since had continual influence in Northern Ireland.
Where was this Bill born? It was not born in the hearts of the Government, but at an Anglo-Irish Conference meeting. It was born when the Dublin Government put on pressure to get rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
Winston Churchill said that appeasement never pays. You can appease and appease crocodiles, but eventually they will swallow you up. That is what will happen to the Government if they go on appeasing.
Mr. John D. Taylor: On the relationship of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and how that has led the Conservative party to recommend the abolition of the Ulster Defence Regiment, there is confusion in the political arena in Ulster tonight, confusion created by the British Conservative party. Although the Conservative party imposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Conservative candidates in Northern Ireland say that they are opposed to it. Although the Conservative party is promoting what are known as the Brooke inter-party talks, Conservative candidates have said that they will campaign against those talks during the election.
Can the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) at least help the Conservatives to clarify the confusion about the Ulster Defence Regiment? The Conservatives are abolishing the Ulster Defence Regiment in this House, but will Conservative candidates in Northern Ireland campaign to preserve it?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I find it amusing, because a Conservative candidate says that he will fight against me in Antrim, North. He is welcome to do so if he wants to lose £1,000 for central office. In my constituency, he says that he is against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Why does he say that? Because he knows that he would not stand any chance of anyone listening to him if he did not say it. That is absolutely dishonest, and that man is either a pirate, or
1214
he has the approval of central office to say something different in Northern Ireland from what is said on the mainland. That is what the issue is about.
On the Brooke talks, the leader of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, Mr. Kennedy, says that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for IRA murders because he called those talks. The other day, he was received at a meeting for candidates, and he met the Prime Minister at a candidates' reception. Yet when he got back to Northern Ireland, he said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was responsible for those killings.
So far, Conservative candidates have been mute on the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment, but after this debate they will all be saying, "We are for the Ulster Defence Regiment." Those candidates are against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is a child of this Government who helped to beget it. They are against the Brooke talks, which I happen to be for. It was through the honourable leader of the Unionist party and myself that these talks came about. We have been pleading with the Government to go ahead and have these talks, but the Government are against them and now they are to be against the UDR.
How can the people of Northern Ireland think that the Conservative party is serious when its candidates say that the direct opposite in Northern Ireland to what the Government say from the Front Bench here? Let us have some decency, some honesty. If a candidate—
The Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—
Rev. Ian Paisley(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. Does this mean that, if the Bill is passed now, the House will have no other opportunity of commenting on it? Does this bring the debate on it to an end?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am dealing with the Division on which the House is engaged. We must see what the result of the Division is.
The House having divided: Ayes 250, Noes 13.

Division No. 113]

[5.25 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Bowis, John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Allason, Rupert

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Amess, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Arbuthnot, James

Brazier, Julian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bright, Graham

Ashby, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Baldry, Tony

Burns, Simon

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Chris

Bellingham, Henry

Butterfill, John

Bendall, Vivian

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carrington, Matthew

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Carttiss, Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Cash, William

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Boswell, Tim

Chapman, Sydney

Bottomley, Peter

Churchill, Mr

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

1215

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knowles, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knox, David

Cormack, Patrick

Latham, Michael

Couchman, James

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Critchley, Julian

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Curry, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

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

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Day, Stephen

Lord, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Dicks, Terry

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dorrell, Stephen

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Dover, Den

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dunn, Bob

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Maclean, David

Dykes, Hugh

McLoughlin, Patrick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Farr, Sir John

Madel, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Major, Rt Hon John

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Malins, Humfrey

Fookes, Dame Janet

Maples, John

Forman, Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Forth, Eric

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

French, Douglas

Mates, Michael

Fry, Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gale, Roger

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mitchell, Sir David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moate, Roger

Gorst, John

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Gregory, Conal

Moss, Malcolm

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Ground, Patrick

Nelson, Anthony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nicholls, Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hannam, Sir John

Norris, Steve

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

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Harris, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, Richard

Hawkins, Christopher

Paice, James

Hayes, Jerry

Patnick, Irvine

Hayward, Robert

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Portillo, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Price, Sir David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Raffan, Keith

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Redwood, John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Riddick, Graham

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunter, Andrew

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Irvine, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Jack, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Jackson, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Janman, Tim

Sackville, Hon Tom

Janner, Greville

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Jessel, Toby

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shelton, Sir William

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

1216

Sims, Roger

Trippier, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Trotter, Neville

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Viggers, Peter

Speed, Keith

Walden, George

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waller, Gary

Squire, Robin

Ward, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stevens, Lewis

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Watts, John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Wheeler, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Whitney, Ray

Summerson, Hugo

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wilshire, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Wood, Timothy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Yeo, Tim

Thorne, Neil

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tracey, Richard

Mr. David Lightbown and

Tredinnick, David

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Robinson, Geoffrey

Cohen, Harry

Skinner, Dennis

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Wareing, Robert N.

Flynn, Paul

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Tellers for the Noes:

Haynes, Frank

Mr. John Taylor and

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Peter Robinson.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 3.

Division No. 114]

[5.36 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Allason, Rupert

Cash, William

Amess, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Arbuthnot, James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Ashby, David

Churchill, Mr

Aspinwall, Jack

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Batiste, Spencer

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cormack, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Couchman, James

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Critchley, Julian

Body, Sir Richard

Curry, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Day, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Devlin, Tim

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dicks, Terry

Bowis, John

Dixon, Don

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Dorrell, Stephen

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dover, Den

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dunn, Bob

Brazier, Julian

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Farr, Sir John

Buck, Sir Antony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Burns, Simon

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Chris

Flynn, Paul

Butterfill, John

Fookes, Dame Janet

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Forman, Nigel

1217

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Forth, Eric

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

French, Douglas

Mates, Michael

Fry, Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gale, Roger

Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mitchell, Sir David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moate, Roger

Gordon, Mildred

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gorst, John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Moss, Malcolm

Gregory, Conal

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Ground, Patrick

Nelson, Anthony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholls, Patrick

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Norris, Steve

Harris, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Haselhurst, Alan

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hawkins, Christopher

Page, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Paice, James

Haynes, Frank

Patnick, Irvine

Hayward, Robert

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Mrs Maureen {Wolv' NE)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Portillo, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Price, Sir David

Hordern, Sir Peter

Raffan, Keith

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, John

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Irvine, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Jackson, Robert

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Janman, Tim

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Janner, Greville

Rowe, Andrew

Jessel, Toby

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, David (Dover)

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shelton, Sir William

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knowles, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Knox, David

Sims, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Livingstone, Ken

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Speed, Keith

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Squire, Robin

Lord, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Madel, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Major, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Maples, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marlow, Tony

Thorne, Neil

1218

Thurnham, Peter

Watts, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wells, Bowen

Tracey, Richard

Wheeler, Sir John

Tredinnick, David

Whitney, Ray

Trippler, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Trotter, Neville

Wiggin, Jerry

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wilshire, David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wolfson, Mark

Viggers, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Walden, George

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. David Lightbown and

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Neil Hamilton.

NOES

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Rev. Ian Pailsey and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. John David Taylor.

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

Army Bill
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT
    Resolved,
    That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville]

    MINES AND QUARRIES
    Resolved,
    That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr: Sackville.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12 March],
  That a further sum, not exceeding £241,460,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 341.
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES 1992–93
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12 March],
  That a further sum, not exceeding £109,478,692,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 273, 274 and 275.
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES 1992–93

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the two foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mr. John Maples and Mrs. Gillian Shephard.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1992 and 31st March 1993, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 15].

Points of Order
Mr. Peter RobinsonOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The disgraceful manner in which the Government dealt with the Third Reading of the Army Bill will cause much concern throughout the House. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have consistently defended the rights of Back Benchers when you have occupied the Chair, will you please advise us—although your advice may be of little use during the course of this Parliament —whether it is in order for a Minister, having opened a debate, to interrupt in midstream the very next speaker in that debate, and not to allow right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House freedom of speech? To deal in such a shabby manner with the gross betrayal of the Ulster Defence Regiment is a disgrace to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What occurred was perfectly in order. I well understand the hon. Member's feelings, but the matter was in order, we have disposed of that business, and we cannot continue the debate now.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any precedent for what occurred today? The Government, in one move, disbanded the Ulster Defence Regiment, with only one Back Bencher being allowed to take part in the debate. Is there any precedent for such a lack of democracy within the Conservative party?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Member is not disputing the judgment of the Chair, which is a difficult one for the Chair to have to make. The Chair is able to do so in accordance with long-established precedents, and it does not give reasons. What has happened was perfectly in order. We cannot continue the debate now.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. Is it not in accordance with the rules of the House that, before the Question is put on a closure motion, Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker must be satisfied that there has been a full and adequate debate on the topic before the House? How can there have been a full and adequate debate when Members were rising in their places who had not spoken and when Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies were denied the right to be members of the Committee that considered the various elements of the Bill?
In acting in defence of minority parties in the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, could the Chair be satisfied that there had been a full and adequate debate when only one Back-Bench Member was allowed to speak after the Minister had completed his opening remarks, that Back-Bench Member not being allowed to finish what he had to say?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member is not questioning the discretion of the Chair. I have exercised my discretion to the best of my ability, and the House has come to its decision. There is nothing further that I can add.
Mr. John D. Taylor: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are not questioning your ruling on this matter. It is [Interruption.] The problem with the Conservative party is that it wants to steamroller the people of Northern Ireland without even listening to the
1220
voices of the Members who represent them. As I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not questioning your ruling. It is—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are interrupting because they are ashamed of what they have done today against the people of Northern Ireland. We are asking only whether there is a precedent for the Chair accepting a closure motion when no one from the Opposition Benches has been given the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said already, there is nothing further that I can add to what I have said. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for reassuring me that he was not questioning the judgment of the Chair.
I understand that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill motion is not to be moved.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
Mr. Gwilym Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought to give notice that I would raise this matter. I refer to a press release which was issued by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I received this morning. The release announces that the decision of the Committee will be delayed untii 2 April, when there will be no Select Committee and no Chairman of it, because all of us will have been dissolved by that date, only seven days before the general election.
The possibility has been raised that a Select Committee report is being used for political purposes, when otherwise we would expect the report to be a helpful one. For the Committee to bring out a report in the teeth of an election must devalue any of its work. Surely it would have been better if the report had been published on Wednesday two days ago, when it was agreed by the Committee.
Would you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is out of order, or most inappropriate, for the report to be published on 2 April? Do you agree also that it would be much better if it were published this coming Monday with the other report that was agreed on Wednesday by the Select Committee? Secondly, will you ensure that no taxpayers' money will be spent on the press conference that is to be held at Swansea on 2 April at the same time as the report is published?
Thirdly, even if taxpayers' money is spent on holding the press conference, with the present Chairman of the Select Committee present, would you agree that it is entirely wrong for a document to be issued by the Committee Office of the House that will effectively publicise someone who will then be only a Labour candidate?
Mr. Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we do not expect the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to return to this place, I do not think that he is going to be dissolved in the way that he suggested. His fate will be rather more pleasant than that. It is disgraceful, however, that he should suggest that the dates involved any political manipulation. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has been run in an entirely impartial, non-partisan manner by its splendid Chairman for many years, and has enjoyed the respect of Members in all parts of the House. It is wrong to end this Parliament on such a note.
This afternoon, we have witnessed an undemocratic display, when a fascinating and interesting debate in which many of us would have liked to take part was disgracefully

1221
guillotined. An attempt is now being made to manipulate the timetable in a way that is to the benefit of the Conservative party, but nothing will help the Conservative party in Wales. It will lose several seats in Wales and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the drift of this point of order. This is obviously a political argument, not a point of order for the Chair. Perhaps, however, I can make two points both to the hon. Gentleman and to the House which might be helpful. First, the time when Select Committees publish reports is a matter for them. They are frequently published during a recess, so that is in order.
Secondly, it would not be in order for a member of a Select Committee to call a parliamentary press conference when Parliament is prorogued. If he did something on an individual basis, I assume that it would be as a parliamentary candidate, but it would not be in order for him to call a parliamentary press conference. We shall start the Adjournment again.

Asraam System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
5.56 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. After the last spurious point of order, we return to the serious business of the House and come to the Adjournment debate, which is very important because of its subject matter. I am grateful to the Minister of State for coming to the House this afternoon to respond in, I hope, a positive manner to my complaints and strictures. When I say "complaints and strictures", I do not mean that I am making the obvious kind of complaint that one makes when a decision such as this is made.
On 3 March, the Secretary of State announced his decision regarding the choice of the contracting parties for the advanced short-range air-to-air missile project and contract. One accepts that a choice had to be made and that there would be a winning party and a losing party. In this case, there were three applicant groups, including a foreign group. There were the two British-led clusters— one with American partners, the other with French partners. The one with French partners is of particular concern to me because of my local constituency interest. I repeat that on these occasions one has to accept that there are winners and losers. The excellent high-technology space missile defence company, GEC Marconi, with its headquarters in Stanmore—of which I, as the local Member of Parliament, and others both in that area and in the territorial zone around it are intensely proud because of its past achievements and, I hope, its considerable future achievements—has been the recipient of contracts for excellent projects from the Ministry of Defence over many years.
This was a crucial project. One can only congratulate the British Aerospace group on having won the contract. The decision was widely welcomed by other hon. Members who have local constituency interests. Most of them sit on this side of the House. Therefore, I was somewhat of a lone voice when I said that I thought that the wrong contractor had been selected. When the Secretary of State made his announcement on 3 March I said:
"Of course, the equipment is essential and vital for the future defence of the realm and we are proud that missile equipment of that sort is British."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 167.]
I believed then, and I believe now, that the wrong contractor was selected. In my view, it is a bitter blow for GEC Marconi.
I hasten to add that these remarks are made entirely on my own initiative. People often feel that on these occasions Members of Parliament are doing some respectable, legitimate and proper lobbying on behalf of an equally legitimate outside interest—a company in their constituency—and that they have been prompted to do so by that particular company. That is certainly not the case on this occasion. Although I know the company well, have visited its headquarters many times and know its executives and staff, this is very much my own initiative and I do not wish to engage them in any commentaries that I may make on this project. These are entirely my views. I stick to them, and I welcome the opportunity of this short debate for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to reply to the points that I shall make.

1223
I wish to make one crucial but obvious point. As I said, a series of comments were made approving of the Secretary of State's selection. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) also welcomed the Secretary of State's decision and statement and said that it
"underpins the strategy of flexibility outlined in 'Options for Change'."
However, my hon. Friend, significantly, added an important question, which perhaps stood out. He asked:
"Can he assure us that Hughes, whose parent company is based in the United States, will not run into problems of technology transfer when seeking to export?"—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 163.]
That is a crucial question which must be answered satisfactorily to reassure people.
During the post-war period there has been much American domination of such projects. We often start out believing—I see that the Minister has decided not to listen to my remarks for the moment. Perhaps I should pause while he returns to the Front Bench. It is funny to see a Minister leaving when a colleague is making a speech. I am a trifle surprised, but I shall continue now that he is returning to take an interest in the debate.
In the post-war period it has been on the weaknesses of European and British defence contracts that we thought that we were going to be an equal partner and would have full control over the development of the technology, instrumentation and equipment, especially in electronics defence projects. However, we ended up being dominated —perhaps unduly—by the Americans.
The crucial advantage of the alternative in this instance—the MICASRAAM, in which MICA represents the French missile configuration component—was that that would not be so. It was to be a European project and Matra, the French partner, was to be fully and heavily involved. It was to be a quintessentially European project, getting away from the old weakness from which United Kingdom defence projects have suffered repeatedly in the post-war period and from which they perhaps still suffer even now that European defence projects are at long last gaining greater ascendancy.
I remember many visits to the Pentagon when embarrassed senior officials of that great department in the United States would give a list of the United Kingdom's share of American defence orders. It would usually turn out to be extremely puny despite their protestations that they would do better next time. The new project for the European fighter aircraft and for our existing fighter aircraft was to get away from that.
On the day of the selection, I wrote to the Secretary of State to express my disappointment about the choice. I am still waiting for a reply to my letter, but I imagine that the Minister of State will deal with some of the points today. In order to be fair to the Government, I said that I knew of the difficulties in making such choices. There will always be one set of aggrieved parties and another set that is delighted to have won. One hopes that GEC Marconi will be the recipient in future.
In the fourth paragraph of my letter of 3 March to the Secretary of State I wrote:
"I was glad to note in answer to my supplementary question"—
by the way, I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State tried very hard to be helpful in his answer in what was a difficult situation, and I pay tribute to him for that—
"that you expected Marconi to be the recipient of other key government defence orders in the future."
1224
I shall crystallise what I believe would have been the main salient advantages if the MICASRAAM alternative had been chosen as opposed to the British Aerospace ASRAAM offering. I am an outside party and probably do not have access to all the expert, behind-the-scenes figures available to people in the Department and companies involved, but, having considered the project, I believe that one advantage would have been that it was the competitive and compliant bid. It drew on the combined expertise in missile seekers of GEC Maconi and on Matra, the outstanding French group, in airframe and propulsion systems.
The bid represented value for money, too, and a low-risk development programme, bearing in mind that such equipment has often gone wrong in the past and has cost public departments of defence—including the Ministry of Defence—a lot of money when things did not quite work out. I imagine that it is always difficult to be certain about different competing specifications.
The French Government had clearly and unequivocally offered a French ministry of defence financial contribution to the development programme, and there was a strong certainty—I was about to say that there was a "likelihood", but that word is not strong enough; it was a certainty—that there would have been a French order, too, for the armée de l'air, of a size similar to that of the Royal Air Force order. That would have followed the selection of MICASRAAM rather than ASRAAM.
The Anglo-French missile configuration would have represented a significant opening up of a genuinely European defence market. Things are a little better than they have been over the previous decade, but there is still far too little in the way of a genuinely European defence equipment market, involving joint contracting efforts between the member states. There are still plenty of national efforts, but not enough joint efforts. We need to encourage that, and the MOD has missed an opportunity.
Within Europe, and elsewhere, the export prospects of MICASRAAM would have been truly outstanding. For Europe, as a centre of defence equipment excellence, to be able to sell a total weapons system with missiles and aircraft, without the danger of a United States veto—I have emphasised that risk before—would have enhanced the prospects for both MICASRAAM and the European fighter aircraft.
I stress, too, the high-technology seeker expertise that has been developed by Marconi over several decades for highly successful British Aerospace missiles, such as Skyflash, Sea Skua, Sea Eagle and Alarm. That is a crucial part of technology, upon which future national security depends. We saw the excellence of such pieces of equipment during our efforts in the Gulf, yet our equipment now runs at least a risk of being surrendered to the eventual control of the American supplier, rather than staying in British and European hands.
The expertise is crucial; that is why I am raising the matter. I am not criticising the Government severely, because of the difficult nature of such choices, and I hope that Marconi will receive many such valuable orders in future. However, as the local Member of Parliament, with those fantastic headquarters in my constituency, I worry about what may happen to the excellent outstanding team of scientists and researchers. Such a team of experts in electronics and missile technology has been built up over decades—it take time. They are highly qualified, brilliant people. Yet the original staff of 450 people has been cut to

1225
less than half that number as a result of the inevitable redundancies that, sadly, the firm has recently had to make. I am acutely concerned to preserve that highly skilled executive work force of scientists and technicians at Stanmore to ensure that it remains intact for employment and—
Mr. David Evans: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his European views, seems to be speaking on behalf of the Commission, rather than on behalf of his constituents. Some of us believe in competitive tendering and in the freedom and fairness of choice. Some of us actually believe in Anglo-American relationships, and we are not so keen on the frogs. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and of the people of Welwyn and Hatfield and we welcome the fact that the Ministry of Defence has given the order to that great manufacturing company, British Aerospace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pay more attention to British interests and less attention to the French.
Mr. Dykes: I knew that it was a serious mistake to give way to my hon. Friend—as I call him, although he called me an hon. Gentleman. Presumably, the fact that Luton Town football club has had difficulty getting into Europe has led him to sound off in his characteristic way.
Ignoring that contribution totally, and returning to my speech, I was describing the essential anxiety of a local Member of Parliament. To express that anxiety is my job on such occasions. Who would have thought a few years ago that in an area such as Stanmore or Hertfordshire we would be worried about unemployment developing into a serious and durable problem among highly skilled people as well as among what would be described as ordinary applicants for work? It is serious when highly skilled teams are reduced in size. It affects adversely our ability to compete in projects for national orders and for international orders. Where do those people go? Do some of them go abroad because they cannot get jobs here? The technology, expertise and skills of those brilliant scientists and technicians will be lost to this country for ever unless the Government have regard to those matters.
Would anyone have believed a year or two ago that the specialist design team at Stanmore would be cut from about 450 graduate engineers to just under half that number? If that project had been selected instead of the other, which was widely welcomed by my hon. Friends because of the location of the plants that would benefit from the British Aerospace alternative, employment from the project would probably have been greater than under the British Aerospace alternative. The greater number of MICASRAAM's export potential effects in different countries—I believe that some countries were already expressing considerable interest in the possibility, subject to the development configuration and success—would have provided greater employment.
Some 400 or 500 jobs at headquarters alone would have resulted from the project going to GEC Marconi. If the Minister, in return, can reassure me that GEC Marconi will receive other orders which will make up for this danger of loss of employment, value and money, my concerns will
1226
be partly allayed. However, I am sure that he understands fully the reasons why I raised this serious problem on the Adjournment today.
6.11 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for giving me the moment that I relish to answer him in this last Adjournment debate on the last full day of the last Parliament in which I shall attend the House. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not labour me with strictures. Had he done so, it would not have been the first time. He and I have a particular personal relationship—I use the word "relationship" in its archaic form. In the course of my almost nine years in Government and three Departments—
Mr. Dykes: Are you going to answer the debate?
Mr. Clark: That is exactly what I intend to develop. I admit that I have had idiosyncratic, some would say tendentious, moments of behaviour which have always been treated with great tolerance by the House. Although there have been calls for my resignation, they have largely been jocular.
I recall the hon. Member for Harrow, East exhibiting an altogether higher level of commitment. He did not invite me to resign—he actually said that I should be sacked, and to make his feelings absolutely clear, he called on the Prime Minister to sack me. To ensure that his views would be widely disseminated, he expressed that view not in a letter, as I might reasonably have expected, nor even in the Chamber, but full-frontally before the television cameras. I am sorry to say, as testified by my presence here today, that despite being so widely publicised, the call fell on deaf ears.
It is unusual—indeed, I have no recollection of its occurring before—for an hon. Member of one party to call for the dismissal of a colleague who has ministerial office in the same party, except in the Tea Room where, as we know, it happens all the time. I am glad to answer the hon. Gentleman's debate. I might have thought that his insistence that I be dismissed from the Government suggested a certain lack of confidence, and I suggested through the usual channels that he might prefer another Minister to answer the debate. However, the hon. Gentleman insisted that I answer it. I infer from that that I have regained his confidence.
The requirement for a new advanced air-to-air missile dates back to the early 1980s when the strategic environment was very different. While the monolithic threat in Europe has receded, however, regional tensions remain which could affect us. In terms of specific systems, the most potent threat comes from the MIG 29 and SU-27 aircraft, and the highly capable air-to-air missile known as Archer. I must emphasise that these weapon systems are not confined to the former Soviet Union; they have already been widely exported and further proliferation is likely in the future.
Our overwhelming success in the Gulf conflict was the result of the early establishment of air supremacy. Clearly, we must continue to maintain our superiority in air defence to protect the United Kingdom itself and British forces operating elsewhere.
Our original intention was to procure the missile in collaboration with our NATO allies. Under the family of

1227
weapons memorandum of understanding signed in 1980, the United States was to develop an advanced medium-range air-to-air missile, and the United Kingdom and Germany a short-range system. France took observer status only and did not participate in either programme. Later, Norway and Canada joined Germany and the United Kingdom in the short-range programme. Both programmes experienced the difficulties and delays so often inseparable from collaborative projects. Eventually in 1989 and 1990, our partners withdrew from the project.
The withdrawals led to reassessment of our own position. The threat was re-examined, and the operational requirement found still to be valid. In the absence of collaborative partners to share the burden of development costs, however, I decided that we should follow our standard procurement procedures and hold a competition. British Aerospace Dynamics was the United Kingdom industrial leader in the former collaborative procurement, and naturally could be expected to put forward the ASRAAM missile which was to have been procured collaboratively. We were also aware that GEC Marconi, in association with Matra, would wish to offer a derivative of the short-range variant of the French MICA.
The competition was successful in attracting bids of systems to meet the requirement, and a lower-cost, lower-capability system offered by the German company Bodenseewerk Geratetechnik or BGT. Two United States companies expressed interest, but in the event neither submitted a bid.
After careful examination of the BGT offer, including mathematical modelling, we decided that the improvement that it offered over the most sophisticated hostile system was not decisive and could not justify the expenditure. But I am grateful to BGT for its bid, and I repeat that it was given the most serious consideration.
As for the BAe and GEC Marconi bids, although their systems adopted different technical solutions to the problems, each was broadly compliant with the operational requirement. In addition, we took into account three other factors.
We attached much importance to having a contract with taut terms and conditions which placed the risk with industry rather than with my Department. We therefore paid close attention to compliance with our contractual requirements. Price was obviously of great importance, but the competitiveness of a price depends very much on the terms and conditions associated with it.
The prospect of export sales was also a factor taken into account, and this aspect was of interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House last week. Both companies were optimistic about achieving export sales in different markets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he said, has been in contact with the United States Secretary for Defence in relation to export sales of the ASRAAM, which uses the United States designed seeker. I am pleased to say that we received a satisfactory letter of assurance from him.
Finally we quite properly took account of the prospects for jobs in the United Kingdom, and I pay tribute to the insistent and persuasive advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, also took a keen interest in the progress of the project. British Aerospace pointed to more
1228
than 80 per cent. of the work in total being carried out in the United Kingdom and claimed that the jobs of some 7,000 people would be secured. The GEC Marconi offer, on its own figures, would have led to a lower proportion of work being done in the United Kingdom, even when potential sales to a third party were taken into account.
Of course, I recognise that jobs in the United Kingdom is not a concept which has much significance for the hon. Gentleman. He has long since ceased to consider, still less to welcome, the concept of the United Kingdom as a national identity of its own. His loyalty, as we know, is to the European Community, if not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said, to the European Commission. And so a "job" anywhere in the Community will, of course, be of equivalent value to him.
Our assessment of all those factors pointed to British Aerospace as the winner. The assessment was supported, as in all major investment decisions in the public sector, by a formal investment appraisal. That also pointed to British Aerospace as the clear winner of the competition.
In every competition, of course, there must be losers. It would be wrong for me to disclose the grounds on which the GEC Marconi bid fell short of our needs, as the information in its offer was submitted to us in confidence purely for bid assessment purposes. I understand that GEC has asked for a briefing on the reasons why it was not not selected, and I hope that it will take full advantage of the opportunity. I must say, however, that my hon. Friend is, at best, premature in his criticism of the decision.
Mr. Skinner: Friend?
Mr. Clark: At that moment.
GEC Marconi will have a much clearer understanding of the factors that we took into account once it has received the briefing next Tuesday. I hope that it will enable it to improve its prospects in future competitions for defence requirements.
As for my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents in Stanmore, I can assure him that GEC Marconi is highly valued by my Department as a major defence contractor which has made a significant contribution to a range of defence projects. We have some 150 contracts, worth more than £2 million each, with GEC Marconi Stanmore, with a total current value of approximately £3·3 billion.
In addition, on 20 January I announced that a consortium led by GEC Marconi had been chosen to develop the defensive aids sub-system for EFA. That contract is due to be placed very shortly and it will be worth more than £100 million. Much of the work will be undertaken at GEC Marconi Stanmore, where some 200 jobs will be created. Taking the GEC group as a whole, since the beginning of last year orders worth more than £2 billion have been placed either directly with GEC companies or with those companies acting as major sub-contractors.
All potential defence contractors need to show that their proposals represent cost-effective use of public funds. The best way to do that is through competition, which not only ensures keen prices but offers a vehicle for original and innovative technical solutions. We were fortunate in the competition to have three European bids, two of them British-led. It is a tribute to British industry that both those bids were enterprising and professionally presented.

1229
I am confident that ASRAAM will be a successful programme, and that it will make a vital contribution to the defence of the United Kingdom well into the next century.
1230
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Zoos
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many zoos are licensed in England and Wales under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981; if he will publish a list of these zoos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Zoo licences are issued by local authorities. The information they have supplied to my Department indicates that 284 zoos are currently licensed in England under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The corresponding information for zoos in Wales is held by the Welsh Office. I have placed a list of zoos licensed in England under the 1981 Act in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make further statements on the measures which he has taken to reduce homelessness.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have spent £311 million on a two-year programme to help homeless families in the pressure areas of London and the south-east. We also plan to spend £96 million over three years to create 900 new hostel spaces and 2,500 places in permanent accommodation for single homeless people in London and £20 million on grants to organisations helping homeless people all over the country. In addition, development of low-cost housing is rising substantially as a result of increases in public expenditure through the Housing Corporation to more than £2 billion a year by 1993–94 and housing associations' ability to attract private finance. The deregulation of the private rented sector has also led to a welcome increase in private investment in rented housing.

  Countryside Protection
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect planning policy guidance note 7 has on the Government's policy of protecting the countryside for its own sakeg as set out in circular 16/87.

  Sir George Young
  Planning policy guidance note 7 reaffirms the Government's policy that the countryside should be protected for its own sake. It states that the planning system helps to integrate development necessary to sustain the rural economy with protection of the countryside for the sake of its beauty, the diversity of its landscape, the wealth of its natural resources and its ecological, agricultural and recreational value. Planning policy guidance note 7 cancels DOE circular 16/87.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recommendations he has received from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee 674
  on the European Commission's proposals for measures accompanying the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly the agri-environment action programme, COM 91 415.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recommendations he has received from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the European Commission's proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy, COM 91 258.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on(a) the seminar hosted by Her Majesty's Government on 5 February on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and (b) the reception given to his presentation to the final preparation committee meeting for UNCED in New York on 2 March.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 5 March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met representatives of leading environment, development and business organisations who made presentations on their objectives for UNCED. This was followed by a general discussion. The speech which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to the meeting of the UNCED preparatory committee on 2 March was very well received.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the latest figures available, stating whether they are final outturns, provisional outturns or budget figures, for 1988–89 to 1991–92 on the statistical basis of table 1—summary of gross expenditure and income, excluding double counting of flows—table 2 —capital and revenue expenditure by service—table 3—local authority income by source—and table 4—general fund revenue account by service—of "Local Government Financial Statistics, England".

  Mr. Portillo
  The information for 1988–89 is published in "Local Government Financial Statistics England No. 2 1990" which is in the Library of the House. The information for later years cannot be provided in this form as detailed gross expenditure and income figures on all accounts are not yet available.

  Toxic Products
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library copies of the documents(a) "Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals and Prevention of Illegal International Traffic in Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes", (b) "Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes" and (c) "Safe and Environmentally Sound Management of Radioactive Waste" which were submitted for consideration to the final preparatory committee meeting for UNCED in March.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department already has copies of the documents.

  Bushy Park
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which contractors have been appointed to work in Bushy park to maintain trees, shrubs, grass and clearance of waste; what conditions are in the contract in relation to trees and shrubs; how long is the contract; what sanctions exist to uphold quality of work; and if he will set out, in relation to the 18 former park employees, other than the gamekeeper, how many applied for interview with the contractor and how many are employed.

  Mr. Yeo
  Glendale Industries Ltd. has been appointed to carry out the garden and landscape maintenance work in Bushy park for a period of four years. Thirteen former parks staff applied and were interviewed for jobs with Glendale, of whom nine were successful.

  The contract specification sets down in detail all the planting and maintenance duties required of the contractor for Bushy park, including maintenance of trees and shrubs. The work will be instructed and closely monitored by the Department's site supervisors, and will be approved for payment only if it has been completed to the high standards that we have specified.

  Nitrous Oxide
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of annual United Kingdom emissions of nitrous oxide broken down by source; and of the relative global warming effect of nitrous oxide in comparison with other United Kingdom emissions of gases with global warming potential.

  Mr. Trippier
  Provisional estimates made by Warren Spring Laboratory for my Department are as follows:

  United Kingdom emissions of nitrous oxide—provisional estimates for 1990 (thousands of tonnes per year)

  Source

  Emission

  Per cent.

  Production of adipic acid for nylon manufacture

  90

  57

  Emissions from soil

  65

  41

  Road transport

  3

  2

  Other fuel combustion

  2

  1

  Total

  160

  100

  These estimates are very uncertain, but they suggest a direct global warming effect equivalent to about 7 per cent. of that from current United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Water Act 1989 to enable the Director General of Water Services to ensure that the water companies follow a least-cost policy in respect of their environmental obligations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991, a consolidating measure, the Director General of Water Services already has a duty to promote economy and efficiency on the part of a water, or water and sewerage, company in carrying out its functions.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to issue tax amending orders for the advertising of planning applications before 20 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The need for local planning authorities to publicise planning applications under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 will not require the issue of tax amending orders.

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 in England and Wales; which provisions are not yet in force; and when it is proposed to implement them.

  Sir George Young
  In the eight months since it received Royal Assent on 25 July 1991, almost all the major provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 have been brought into effect in England and Wales in four commencement orders. The main compensation pro-visions, together with a number of the planning and development control measures, came into operation two months after Royal Assent on 25 September 1991. The Act provided for home loss payments improvements to be backdated to 16 November 1990. The bulk of the enforcement provisions commenced on 2 January 1992, and the new development plans system became operative on 10 February 1992. A direction relating to publicity for, and notification of departures from development plans came into force on 28 February.

  Where appropriate, advice and policy guidance for local authorities and other agencies, and existing advice, has been brought up to date to reflect the provisions of the 1991 Act as follows:

  DOE Circ 14/91

  August 1991

  Planning and Compensation Act 1991

  DOE Circ 15/91

  September 1991

  Land Compensation and Compulsory Purchase.

  MPG8

  September 1991

  Interim Development Order Permissions (IDOs) Statutory Provisions and Procedures.

  DOE Circ 16/91

  October 1991

  Planning Obligations.

  DOE Circ 23/91

  December 1991

  Awards of Costs in Planning Proceedings Following Late Cancellation of an Inquiry or Hearing.

  DOE Circ 18/91

  December 1991

  New Development Plans System: Transitional Arrangements (England and Wales).

  DOE Circ 21/91

  December 1991

  Implementation of the Main Enforcement Provisions.

  PPG 18

  December 1991

  Enforcing Planning Control.

  PPG7

  January 1992

  The Countryside and the Rural Economy.

  PPG 12

  February 1992

  Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance.

  MPG9

  March 1992

  Interim Development Order Permissions (IDOs) Conditions.

  PPG1

  March 1992

  General Policy and Principles.

  PPG3

  March 1992

  Housing.

  PPG 19

  March 1992

  Outdoor Advertisement Control.

  DOE Circ 5/92

  March 1992

  Town and Country Planning Control of Advertisement Regulations 1992.

  677
  The remaining provisions of the Act are scheduled to take effect in the spring and summer of 1992, within a year of Royal Assent as follows:

  Remaining provisions on enforcement powers (sections 2, 4 (part) and 10).

  Remaining provisions on planning obligations (section 12, sections 106A and 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

  Demolition of buildings (section 13).

  Notices etc. of applications for planning permission (section 16).

  Land of interested planning authorities and development by them (section 20).

  Simplified planning zones (section 28).

  DLA and DWA
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the test of resources for house renovation grants to take account of the new disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have today given to local housing authorities advance notice of amendments to the test of resources applied to applicants for house renovation grants including those to help provide facilities for disabled people. These regulations under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 come into force on 6 April. They introduce disability living allowance and disability working allowance as qualifying conditions for a number of premiums used to calculate the applicable amount in the test of resources. Disability living allowance will replace the current mobility allowance and, where the disability arose before age 65, attendance allowance. As with the two allowances it replaces, this new allowance will be disregarded in full as income in the test.

  Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number and type of notifiable pollution incidents in(a) Cornwall and (b) Cumbria in each year since 1979; what companies or organisations were involved; and what has been done to restore the ecological balance of the environment in each county.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 January 1992]: I will write to the hon. Member.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail ("Organising for Quality")
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of British Rail's reorganisation known as "Organising for Quality".

  Mr. Rifkind
  Substantial progress has been made with the implementation of this reorganisation. The process will be substantially completed on 6 April 1992 with the abolition of the railway regions. The British Railways Board has recently submitted a report on this reorganisation, which I have accepted. I have today laid this report before both Houses.

  Vehicle Testing Fees
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes the vehicle inspectorate is proposing to make to vehicle testing fees.

  Mr. Chope
  On 9 March, I laid before the House a draft order which contains the fees which the vehicle inspectorate proposes to charge from 30 March. The fees will need to be reviewed again later to take account of the incorporation into the heavy goods vehicle test from I September of measured checks of smoke emission. I have also asked that we should seek views on a revised structure for fees which reflect more closely the increased costs to the inspectorate of vehicles with a higher number of axles. Consultation on these matters will take place in the summer.

  London Underground
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of capital expenditure by London Underground during each of the last five years; and what is the planned level for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  London Underground investment £ million 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  1987–88

  259

  1988–89

  234

  1989–90

  328

  1990–91

  459

  1991–92

  1353

  1992–93–94

  2—

  1 Forecast outturn.

  1 Estimated combined total for these years—over £2 billion.

  M1/M62 Link
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the time period for consultation on his proposals for an M I /M62 link in west Yorkshire to enable the proposals to be exhibited in the Horbury area of Wakefield.

  Mr. Chope
  Special arrangements have already been operated for people in the Horbury area. Nevertheless. I am arranging for additional exhibitions of the MI/M62 link road proposals to be held next week both in the Horbury and Thornhill Lees areas, subject to the availability of suitable venues.

  There seems no case for extending the consultation period which does not expire until I May, but any comments received after that date will still be taken into account.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected date for announcing the preferred route for the proposed MI/M62 motorway link in west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Chope
  No date has been set for announcing the outcome of the public consultation, into the options for a proposed link between the M1 south-west of Wakefield and the M62 east of Huddersfield, which started on 27 February 1992. This is because it is impossible to anticipate at this stage how long it will take to assess fully the large number of responses we expect to receive from the public and representative bodies.

  Initial Response Teams
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those initial response teams he expects to be operating on 1 April without official vehicles.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 1 April 1992 there will be a total of 65 initial response teams.

  Initial response teams operating without official vehicles are listed below. These stations have not previously operated with an official vehicle, prior to redesignation as IRTs. The implementation period for the review is four years, and alterations to the current plan could occur over this period, should circumstances change significantly.

  Aberdeen SRR:

  Outskerries

  Whalsey

  Bressay island

  Huxter

  West Burra island

  Noness

  Gloup

  Balta Sound

  North Roe

  Melvich

  Papa Westray

  Westray

  Long Hope

  Rousay

  Eday

  Stronsay

  Sanday

  North Ronaldsay

  Flotta

  Deerness

  Shapinsay

  Gourdon

  Collieston

  Portsoy

  Nairn

  Crail

  Fisherrow

  Cockburnspath

  St. Abbs

  Yarmouth SRR:

  Holy Island

  Newton

  Ravenscar

  Burniston

  Speeton

  Wrangle

  Sheringham

  Sea Palling

  Sutton Bridge

  Dover SRR:

  Shingle Street

  Swansea SRR:

  Instow

  Mortehoe

  Portishead

  Port Talbot

  Llanstephan

  Wooltack Point

  Moylegrove

  Penrhyn

  Gwbert

  Borth

  Fairbourne

  Harlech

  Aberdaron

  Cemaes Bay

  Hilbre Island

  New Brighton

  Morecombe

  680

  Workington

  Clyde SRR:

  Port Ellen

  Ardpatrick

  Cumbrae

  Stranraer

  Griminish

  Staffin

  Dunvegan

  Kilchoan

  Coastguards
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current responsibilities of Her Majesty's coastguard; and if he will implement the sector review in accordance with the definition contained in paragraph 2.12 of that report.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply I gave to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on the same subject on 9 March 1992.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what preventive and educational measures are required by Her Majesty's coastguard of sector officers; and what proportion of their time they are required to spend on education and preventive work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's coastguard sector officers are primarily responsible for the management, training and operational efficiency of the several auxiliary coastguard companies within their sectors, including maintenance of buildings and equipment.

  As part of their workload, sector officers will provide both solicited and unsolicited safety and educational advice in the course of their duties, including presentations at local schools, local public events, yachting and other organisations which use the sea, as well as routine daily contact with the general public. This is done in concert with the auxiliary coastguard companies under their charge. There is no requirement for a specific number of hours per month to be spent on this aspect of work.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of his study of auxiliary operations room assistance; what are the cost implications of employing administrative assistants to replace auxiliary coastguards; and when the recommendations will be implemented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The recommendation that a separate study of auxiliary operations room assistance be undertaken formed part of the long-term aims of the coastal review. Although some preliminary work was put in hand it was considered that this item was secondary in importance to other recommendations contained in the review, and no conclusions have yet been reached.

  Shipping Industry
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to increasing the total amount of money allocated to the Government assistance for training scheme for the shipping industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In accordance with Treasury guidelines, a policy review of the Government assistance for training scheme was conducted last year by my
  681
  Department. This review highlighted GAFT's success in revitalising cadet recruitment. It did not identify an immediate need to increase the target of 500 cadets per annum for which the scheme has been designed although it acknowledged the possibility of reviewing the GAFT budget to coincide with future public expenditure surveys.

  Cycling
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what directions he has given to the London traffic director concerning cycles.

  Mr. Chope
  The Secretary of State's draft traffic management and parking guidance which he issued for consultation on 11 March sets out his aims for cycling in London and possible measures to assist cyclists in relation to red routes. It will be for the London traffic director and the London local authorities to have regard to the final guidance when meeting their respective traffic management responsibilities.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the budget for cycle schemes within the traffic division for 1992–93; and what is the proportion of the total budget for the traffic division of cycle schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  The traffic policy division of the Department of Transport has no executive responsibilities for providing cycling facilities, and so has no budget for cycle schemes. Cycle schemes are funded from other budgets as is the work on the 1,000-mile cycle route for London.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific schemes are planned(a) within the Department's bypass scheme and (b) within the Department's trunk road programme for cycling.

  Mr. Chope
  The answer is:

  a) The Department's bypass demonstration project was launched earlier this year. Work is being undertaken with the local authorities in six towns. It will implement measures such as traffic calming, traffic management and environmental improvements so as to show how the fullest possible benefits to the local community can be realised. The schemes are likely to include improved provision for cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

  Site

  Applicant

  Capacity

  Date of consent

  Charterhouse Street, London EC1

  Citigen Ltd.

  90 MW

  26 February 1992

  Spondon

  Derwent Cogeneration Ltd. (formerly Courtaulds)

  318 MW

  10 March 1992

  Medway

  Medway Power Ltd.

  450 or 660 MW

  10 March 1992

  Sutton Bridge

  Independent Power Generators Ltd.

  700 MW

  11 March 1992

PRIME MINISTER

  Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Prime Minister when the supplement to the ninth report of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and the Professions Allied to Medicine will be published.
  682

  b) The Department takes the needs of cyclists into account from the outset when planning new trunk road construction or major reconstruction. Where demand exists, consideration is also given to measures that would enable cyclists to cross the trunk road more safely. The information asked for on individual schemes is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is being conducted by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on cycles and cycle safety.

  Mr. Chope
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has begun to evaluate the effectiveness of current pedal cycle helmets in reducing head injuries.

ENERGY

  Dounreay Processing Plant
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the decision announced by the European Commission and EURATOM on 4 March to prohibit the reopening of the MTR 1203 reprocessing plant at Dounreay until nuclear materials accountancy procedures have been satisfactorily approved.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Commission decision of 4 March applied a "warning" to Dounreay. This requires Dounreay to rectify failures in the implementation of accounting and records systems before the plant resumes normal operations. To this end, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is vigorously implementing the recommendations of its internal inquiry, and is consulting with the Commission as necessary.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the licences he has issued for gas-fired power stations giving the location and date in each case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 24 February at columns 398–400.

  Since then, four further section 36 consents have been granted, details of which are given herewith.

  The Prime Minister
  The review body's report, which deals with the pay of senior nurses and senior midwives, is being published today. The Government are grateful to the review body for the additional work it has undertaken to prepare this report.

  The report recommends that with effect from I September 1991 the senior nurse and senior midwife pay spine should be increased by approximately 6 per cent. to

  683
  the level of the senior manager pay spine and that senior nurses should each receive a single non-superannuable cash payment of £300.

  The Government have accepted the review body's recommendations but have decided that the single cash payment should be superannuable, in order to comply with the provisions of the NHS superannuation regulations.

  China
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his plan to send a human rights fact-finding team to the People's Republic of China.

  The Prime Minister
  In January in New York I proposed to Premier Li Peng that a high-level delegation should visit China later this year to look into human rights issues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has agreed to lead this mission, which will take place later this year.

  Planning (Countryside)
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his approach to planning in the countryside in the light of the publication of the revised planning policy guidance note 7.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are not, and never have been, in favour of uncontrolled development. Planning is essential. Our commitment to it was demonstrated through our introduction of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the implementation of the plan-led system it provides for. We have made clear the role of the planning system in ensuring that development and growth are sustainable.

  Balanced decisions within the planning system require various points of view to be heard and weighed. The views of those who oppose development are often got across very effectively indeed to those taking planning decisions. But weight must also be given to the views of individuals submitting planning applications. For them, especially those in the farming community, success may make all the difference as to whether they can continue to live and work in the countryside. In my speech to the Oxford farming conference, I was speaking on behalf of those individuals—who sometimes feel that their voice counts for relatively little—when I encouraged planning authorities to balance the need to protect the countryside with the need for jobs and houses.

  This position is clearly set out in the revised planning policy guidance note 7 on the countryside and the rural economy. This note explains this Government's policy of encouraging rural enterprise, while ensuring that the environment is protected. It reminds planning authorities of the need for a balanced approach to rural development and conservation. The planning system helps to integrate development necessary to sustain the rural economy with protection of the countryside for the sake of its beauty, its diversity of landscape, its wealth of natural resources and its ecological, agricultural and recreational value. When paragraph 2.5 of the PPG says that "little weight" should normally be attached to the loss of lower grade agricultural land it means little weight in terms of agricultural value; other factors such as landscape and nature conservation need to be taken fully into account.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom is making towards the development of southern African countries faced by severe drought.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have substantial and continuing programmes of development aid for countries of the southern Africa region amounting to some £165 million in 1990. As my hon. Friend is aware, I announced a package of additional assistance last week in response to the drought comprising £2 ½ million of balance of payments support each for Zambia and Zimbabwe plus 15,000 tonnes of food aid for Mozambique and for Mozambican refugees. I am able to announce today a further £1 million in the form of a contribution to the world food programmes's targeted feeding programme for vulnerable groups in Malawi.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by project the amount of know-how fund grant committed to date under the two schemes to encourage the establishment of British investment operations in central and eastern Europe, the Baltic states and the former Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  So far over £3 million has been committed to 150 successful applicants under the two schemes. The first scheme provides up to 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of pre-investment feasibility studies (PIFS) into proposed British investment operations; the second scheme finances, on a pump-priming basis, the costs of providing training in management and business skills to key indigenous personnel who will run British investment operations (the training for investment personnel scheme—TIPS). There has been a good response from a wide cross-section of British industry and service sector firms and organisations and the schemes appear to be achieving their aims. Forty-nine pre-investment feasibility studies supported by the know-how fund have so far been completed; in 35 of these, applicants have decided definitely to proceed with their investment; in a further five a final decision has not yet been taken.

  Information on the grant committed by project is as follows:

  Pre-investmenl feasibility studies (PIFS) scheme

  Proposed Investment Operation

  Grant Approved £

  Poland

  Airport terminal

  41,000

  Bulk liquids storage terminal

  12,500

  Interpreter/translation service

  2,946

  Poultry breeding

  14,350

  Fuel efficiency etc instrumentation

  13,383

  Coffee production

  21,725

  Engineering consultancy

  5,097

  Bulk sugar terminal

  50,000

  Disposable medical equipment

  43,996

  Business/accountancy forms

  11,775

  Bulk liquid storage terminal

  47,500

  Carpet manufacture

  50,000

  Printing inks manufacture

  20,215

  685

  Proposed Investment Operation

  Grant Approved £

  Business Centre

  11,323

  Training/consultancy for financial sector

  6,656

  Technology (CAD/CAM) centres

  50,000

  Navigation, surveying and vehicle products

  35,484

  Soft drinks production plant

  22,325

  Handbags manufacture

  12,950

  Joint venture with survey, mapping etc company

  24,190

  Non-woven material manufacture

  11,970

  Medical indemnity insurance joint venture

  20,670

  Fruit, vegetable processing plant

  6,924

  Environmental management consultancy

  12,122

  Management consultancy

  4,925

  Mining equipment manufacture

  24,690

  Hungary

  Gas-fired generation plant

  15,000

  Bed manufacture

  8,244

  Poultry breeding

  10,740

  Rack shelving

  23,815

  Technology transfer/development

  25,000

  Project consultancy

  9,736

  Business centre/consultancy

  10,500

  Business intelligence service

  9,500

  Water/environmental engineering consultancy

  13,010

  Alcoholic beverages

  50,000

  Management training

  6,676

  Corrugated board manufacture

  50,000

  Pre-fabricated housing

  8,425

  Tractor manufacture

  50,000

  Consulting engineering/environmental consultancy

  17,643

  Knitwear, knitted fabric manufacture/trading

  27,911

  Training/consultancy for financial sector

  5,625

  Timber building system manufacture

  9,031

  Water control, monitoring equipment joint venture

  3,348

  Financial advisory service

  1,400

  Pig breeding

  21,210

  Leisure/learning project

  50,000

  Funeral services joint venture

  27,611

  Czechoslovakia

  Architectural practice

  19,395

  Castings

  20,393

  Warm air ducting

  2,260

  Coal tip washing

  6,631

  Clothing manufacture

  14,992

  Quarrying

  50,000

  Plasterboard manufacture

  50,000

  Software development

  41,737

  Hotel

  50,000

  Business centre

  11,088

  Electronic and technology training equipment

  4,061

  Copper smelting

  50,000

  Investment castings foundry

  23,842

  Hand tools manufacture

  26,542

  Deer breeding

  7,654

  Diesel engines manufacture

  50,000

  Historic residential property restoration/development

  13,126

  Electronic components manufacture

  50,000

  Mining venture

  32,986

  Dolomite etc. mining

  15,435

  Chemical manufacture

  50,000

  Clay production

  47,954

  Commercial TV channel consortium

  40,037

  Motor industry research and development etc. joint venture

  40,603

  Clay production

  21,508

  Bulgaria

  Industrial training joint venture

  29,035

  Technical training joint venture

  3,945

  Waste oil reclamation plant

  47,625

  Consultancy joint venture with institute

  6,167

  Ski resort development

  46,553

  Electronic products (civil markets)

  36,800

  Healthcare company

  33,125

  Offshore exploration support facility

  2,750

  686

  Proposed Investment Operation

  Grant Approved £

  Romania

  Mushroom farming

  2,950

  Diesel engines manufacture

  50,000

  Plant hire joint venture

  20,413

  Russia

  Oil/gas industry training centre

  18,049

  Small business development

  50,000

  Advertising/marketing etc. consultancy

  34,726

  Mining industry software

  6,467

  Dairy food processing equipment manufacture

  10,162

  Vehicles manufacture

  18,385

  Vehicles joint venture

  22,019

  Food processing joint venture

  27,354

  Agricultural spray equipment etc. joint venture

  10,289

  Bakery operation

  33,857

  Ukraine

  Coal washing plant

  31,477

  Bakery operation

  32,743

  Kazakhstan

  Poultry breeding

  14,264

  Mining project

  50,000

  Training for investment personnel scheme (TIPS)

  Investment operation

  Grant approved £

  Poland

  Bulk packaging manufacture

  6,050

  Language/business skills training

  8,420

  Boiler manufacture

  8,644

  Consulting engineers practice

  8,900

  Management training school

  25,642

  Open learning centres

  50,000

  Dental products manufacture

  8,966

  Property/asset valuation, consultancy

  4,139

  Pharmaceutical products

  50,000

  Business computer systems

  25,921

  Hungary

  Management consultancy

  33,264

  Water and effluent consultancy

  18,922

  Marble quarrying

  28,276

  Pallet racking/shelving manufacture

  22,862

  Quantity surveying

  23,961

  Printing business

  12,388

  Bed manufacture

  24,120

  English language training

  14,185

  Sewing thread manufacture

  26,424

  Business centre/consultancy

  29,205

  Property development

  7,165

  Risk assessment consultancy

  17,480

  Bar code systems

  5,835

  Management consultancy

  12,269

  Shopping complex joint venture

  8,500

  Medical indemnity insurance operations

  16,205

  Czechoslovakia

  Machine tool manufacture

  1,646

  Warm air ducting

  4,000

  Business consultancy

  7,550

  Property consultants/chartered surveyors

  28,839

  Management/engineering consultancy

  23,900

  Mechanical seals manufacture

  50,000

  Building and construction joint venture

  10,916

  Bar code systems

  4,690

  Pipe and cable locating equipment

  14,434

  Mineral water bottling plant

  8,104

  Plant and tool hire joint venture

  40,000

  Investment castings foundry

  45,234

  Investment consultancy

  9,376

  687

  Investment operation

  Grant approved £

  Bulgaria

  CAD/CAM sytems

  11,863

  Romania

  Mushroom farming

  27,380

  Estonia

  Retail fabric shop

  15,600

  Russia

  Machinery design and manufacture

  30,610

  Fuel filtration systems manufacture

  23,984

  Supermarket bakery

  22,311

  Bar code systems

  8,345

  Design, management services consultancy

  30,312

  Home study language training joint venture

  15,523

  Tourism joint ventures

  24,776

  Ukraine

  Tampon manufacture

  29,064

  Ex-German Democratic Republic(approved before unification in October 1990) Consulting engineers practice

  20,265

  Western Samoa
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the assistance given by the United Kingdom to western Samoa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not have a regular country aid programme for western Samoa, but have provided disaster relief after recent cyclones. This included £115,000 for emergency supplies, help with reconstruction and 1,125 tonnes of rice following cyclone Ofa in February 1990; and £120,000 for emergency supplies and other relief activities following cyclone Val in December 1991.

  China
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how the overseas aid criterion about good government is applied to the People's Republic of China.

  £

  Years

  Youth Opportunities Programme

  Youth Training Scheme

  Community Programme

  Job Training Scheme

  Employment Training

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  Local Collaborative Project1

  Open Tech/Open Learning

  Open College

  1979–80

  Cash

  123

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Constant price

  268

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  Cash

  214

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Constant price

  392

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  Cash

  396

  —

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Constant price

  662

  —

  145

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  Cash

  543

  —

  160

  311

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Constant price

  849

  —

  251

  486

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  688
  Mrs. Chalker
  In allocating aid we consider recipient countries' needs, their ability to use aid well, their economic and social policies, other good government considerations and the scope for supporting activities which promote better government. These considerations apply to China where our programme includes a project to improve investment appraisal methodology and introduce social and environmental analysis into project appraisal and United Kingdom training in a range of subjects including public administration and law. We also discuss human rights concerns frequently with the Chinese Government, including most recently during the Chinese Foreign Minister's meeting with the Secretary of State on 9 March.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment since 1979, what has been the annual expenditure on the programmes:(a) work experience on employers' premises, (b) youth opportunities programme, (c) youth training scheme, (d) community programme, (e) job training scheme, (f) employment training, (g) technical and vocational education initiative, (h) local collaborative programme and (i) open tech and open college, expressed (i) in cash terms, (ii) in constant 1991 prices and (iii) as a figure which indicates the amount of EC funding included in each programme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The table shows expenditure for Great Britain at cash and constant 1990–91 prices in each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91 on youth opportunities programme (which includes work experience on employers premises), youth training scheme (which includes training credits), community programme, job training scheme (which includes new job training scheme), employment training (which includes the Gateshead garden festival), technical and vocational education initiative, local collaborative projects and open tech and the Open college. I will write to the hon. Member separately on the question of the EC funding.
  689

  Years

  Youth Oppor-tunities Programme

  Youth Training Scheme

  Community Programme

  Job Training Scheme

  Employment Training

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  Local Collabora-tive Project1

  Open Tech/ Open Learning

  Open College

  1983–84

  Cash

  349

  427

  403

  241

  —

  7

  —

  5

  —

  Constant price

  522

  638

  602

  360

  —

  11

  —

  7

  —

  1984–85

  Cash

  —

  836

  534

  233

  —

  26

  —

  18

  —

  Constant price

  —

  1,190

  760

  331

  —

  37

  —

  26

  —

  1985–86

  Cash

  —

  870

  686

  245

  —

  41

  —

  18

  —

  Constant price

  —

  1,173

  925

  331

  —

  55

  —

  24

  —

  1986–87

  Cash

  —

  939

  1,073

  287

  —

  72

  —

  15

  2

  Constant price

  —

  1,226

  1,401

  375

  —

  94

  —

  19

  3

  1987–88

  Cash

  —

  1,065

  1,118

  339

  —

  61

  —

  16

  10

  Constant price

  —

  1,319

  1,384

  420

  —

  75

  —

  20

  12

  1988–89

  Cash

  —

  994

  674

  —

  425

  88

  5

  —

  6

  Constant price

  —

  1,148

  779

  —

  491

  102

  5

  —

  7

  1989–90

  Cash

  —

  976

  —

  —

  1,107

  129

  1

  —

  4

  Constant price

  —

  1,059

  —

  —

  1,201

  140

  2

  —

  4

  1990–91

  Cash

  —

  844

  —

  —

  1,076

  135

  —

  —

  5

  Constant price

  —

  844

  —

  —

  1,076

  135

  —

  —

  5

  Notes:

  1.Figures for each year up to 1987–88 include programme administration costs on a pro rata basis except for CP where all years include administration costs and Open college which includes no administration costs.

  2.Constant prices were calculated by the use of the GDP deflator index from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement published in November 1991.

  1 Expenditure on the local collaborative projects is not separately identifiable between 1987–88 and 1990–91.

  City of Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons under 18 years are in full-time employment in the City of Durham constituency.

  Mr. Jackson
  The 1981 census of population figures represents the latest available. In 1981 there were 2,413 16 to 19-year olds in full-time employment in the then City of Durham constituency.

  Training Guarantee
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he proposes to make to the representation by the London East training and enterprise council in appendix 3 to his evidence to the Employment Committee on 27 November House of Commons Paper 92-i—on the non-fulfilment of the training guarantee for 16 and 17-year-olds mentioned in paragraph 3.8 of Cm 1810 "People, Jobs and Opportunity".

  Mr. Jackson
  Our officials have been in regular contact with London East training and enterprise council (LETEC). As LETEC's evidence to the Employment Committee indicated, agreement was reached on two occasions on additional funds to enable LETEC to contract for more training places. The position on the supply of and demand for youth training continues to be closely monitored in east London as elsewhere. Under its contract with the TEC the Department stands ready to 690
  discuss any further measures that may be needed to ensure that the guarantee of the offer of a suitable training place to all unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds who want one is met.

  Employment and Training
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people benefiting from special employment and training measures at the latest available date in the constituency of Bury, North; and what is the average cost per person under each.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department has a number of employment and training measures in the Bury area but it is not possible to provide figures on a constituency basis, and data on different measures is collected on different bases.

  The total number of people who participated in employment service measures (restart and 13-week interviews of claimants, jobclub entrants, participants in restart courses, job review workshops and job search seminars) in the Bury area, in the period April 1991 to February 1992 inclusive was 3,501. In the period April 1991 to 7 February 1992, a total of 610 unemployed people in the Bolton and Bury area were also assisted by the job interview guarantee scheme.
  691
  The number of people participating in measures delivered through the Bolton and Bury training and enterprise council (youth training, employment training, and employment action), at 5 February 1992, was 2,732.

  Information on the average cost per person under each measure is not readily available.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he expects to make to the representations made by young people from the Canning Town and Beckton area of east London in the course of the ministerial interview on 10 March concerning the lack of quality and effectiveness of his youth training scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  I had a constructive and positive meeting with these young people about a range of concerns going much wider than youth training. I invited them to write further to me through their Member of Parliament, and action will be taken in response.

  TECs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils in London have not yet signed their 1992–93 operating agreements.

  Mr. Jackson
  As at 12 March none of the London training and enterprise councils had signed their 1992–93 operating agreements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated full cost of implementing all of the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations on the social fund in Northern Ireland in 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee would entail wide-ranging changes to the social fund and the full information needed to produce a reliable estimate of the cost is not readily available.

  Fund Holding
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the NHS management executive's efforts to canvass interest in general practitioner fund holding in Northern Ireland, detailing dates and venues of presentations to general practitioners or officials, names and roles of experts from Scotland, England or Wales brought over to advise interested parties and the scope of the activity of such consultants or advisers.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 19 February,Official Report, Vol. 204, column 211. Since then, the management executive has held one seminar, on 26 February 1992, for practices expressing an interest in becoming fund holders. Dr. John Steyn, a general practitioner fund holder from Scotland, and Mr. Mark Miller, a deputy director with the NHS management advisory service, spoke to the seminar about the preparatory period and the first year of fund holding.
  692
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether general medical practices which are granted fund holding status will have to specifically inform each patient of this fact and its consequences.

  Mr. Hanley
  Practices which become fund holders are not required to inform their patients; however it is likely that fund-holding practices will wish to explain the details of the scheme to their patients and they will receive every encouragement to do so.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he makes for each year since 1979 of(a) the total population of working age regardless of whether or not they were in work and (b) the percentage of the population which was not in work whether or not they were looking for work.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Population of working age in Northern Ireland percentage not in employment 1979–19911

  Year

  Population of working age (000s)2

  Percentage not in employment3

  1979

  859

  35·5

  1981

  874

  38·8

  1983

  888

  41·5

  1984

  898

  41·5

  1985

  906

  41·8

  1986

  915

  40·1

  1987

  923

  40·6

  1988

  927

  38·6

  1989

  932

  37·2

  1990

  938

  36·2

  1 Population of working age figures are general registrar's office mid-year estimates. The percentage not in employment is based on estimates from the labour force survey. This surve was not conducted in 1980 and 1982.

  2 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  3 Unemployed plus economically inactive as a percentage of population of working age.

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the value of the contracts received by the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast in 1991 from Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. for modification of ships owned by PNTL.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a commercial matter between the Harland and Wolff group and Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd. The hon. Member should address his inquiry to one of those companies.

  Road Accidents, Ards Peninsular
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road accidents in the Ards peninsular during the 24 hours of Tuesday 10 March were reported to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; how many involved injuries; at which locations did these injuries occur; from which locations other ambulances were required to attend each of these road accidents in which personal injuries were involved; and how long it took for the ambulance in each instance to deliver the injured persons to hospital from the time of the initial report of a need for an ambulance.
  693
  Mr. Hanley
  Two. The first occurred in Portaferry road, Cloghy, the second in Ballyvester road, Donaghadee. Both involved injuries. An ambulance from Bangor station attended the Cloghy accident. One hour and 47 minutes elapsed between the initial request for an ambulance and its arrival at the Ulster hospital. Twenty-two minutes were spent at the scene of the accident stabilising the casualty, and a further 52 minutes transporting him to hospital at a restricted speed necessitated by the nature and severity of his injuries. An ambulance from the Donaghadee area attended the second accident. Thirty-two minutes elapsed between the initial request for an ambulance and its arrival at the Ards hospital.

  Social Security
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, persuant to his answer of 9 March 1992 Official Report, columns 399–400, on staff administering the social security programme, if he will give the answer per 1,000 claimants.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff per 1,000 claimants

  1984

  3·8

  1985

  3·8

  1986

  3·8

  1987

  3·9

  1988

  3·9

  1989

  3·7

  1990

  3·6

  1991–92

  3·2

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would have been the gross additional cost, in cash terms and at 1991–92 prices of uprating child benefit fully in line with inflation, assuming each child in the family receives the same rate, in April of each year from 1988 to 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: The information requested is set out.

  Additional Cost

  In Cash Terms

  At 1991–92 Prices

  £million

  £million

  1988–89

  7·3

  9·0

  1989–90

  18·0

  20·8

  1990–91

  32·8

  35·1

  1991–92

  34·8

  34·8

  1992–93

  30·3

  29·0

THE ARTS

  Book Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the expenditure on books for public libraries in the United Kingdom for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Renton
  Public library statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy 694
  and supplemented with material from local authorities will shortly be published by my Library and Information Services Council (England). They show expenditure on books as follows:

  £million

  1981–82

  44·0

  1982–83

  49·9

  1983–84

  54·3

  1984–85

  56·3

  1985–86

  60·7

  1986–87

  64·2

  1987–88

  68·2

  1988–89

  75·2

  1989–90

  81·4

  Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Minister for the Arts by what percentage rise or fall attendances at public galleries charging for admission have changed since the charges were introduced.

  Mr. Renton
  The national galleries which I sponsor— the National gallery, the Tate gallery, the National Portrait gallery and the Wallace collection—do not charge for admission to their core collections. Information on charges and attendances relating to other public galleries is not held centrally.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Department of the Environment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of time(a) on the Floor of the House of Commons and (b) in Standing Committee, has been spent on matters under the auspices of the Department of the Environment in the current Session.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The total time spent on the Floor of the House this Session up to the adjournment of the House on Friday 6 March 1992 was 649 hours and 37 minutes.

  The amount of time spent on the Floor of the House on matters falling within the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment was 75 hours and 30 minutes, or 11–6 per cent. of total time on the floor.

  The total time spent in Standing Committees up to the adjournment of the House on Friday 6 March 1992 was 491 hours and 13 minutes.

  A total of 137 hours and 7 minutes were taken up by matters under the auspices of the Department of the Environment1. This amounts to 28 per cent. of time spent in Standing Committee this Session.

  1 This figure does not take account of suspensions in Standing Committee. It includes time "shared" with other Departments when a number of statutory instruments are grouped together for debate in a Standing Committee.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Buildings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities seeking approval for urgent building work for schools.
  695
  Mr. Fallon
  We have received representations from six local education authorities about urgent building work at schools since our announcement last December of the distribution of annual capital guidelines to LEAs and the voluntary-aided grant allocations for 1992–93.

  It is for LEAs to ensure that their schools are in a satisfactory condition. They do not need our approval to undertake building work they judge necessary.

  Margaret Ward RC High School
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider the case of building work approved for St. Margaret Ward RC high school, Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Fallon
  Grant for capital expenditure and repairs at voluntary-aided schools for 1992–93 will increase by 15 per cent., compared with the current year, to £151 million. However, it is not possible to provide grant for all the projects submitted by local education authorities. Whilst my right hon. and learned Friend cannot reconsider his decision, it is open to Staffordshire county council to submit the project again next year.

  Stratford School
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the(a) pupil roll, (b) cost per pupil and (c) annual maintenance grant at Stratford school in each month since April 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  The school began to receive annual maintenance grant (AMG) only on being incorporated as grant maintained on 1 April 1991: it was funded until that date by Newham local education authority.

  The school's total AMG for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, which has been paid in 12 instalments, £1,533,311. There were 574 pupils registered at the school in January 1992 as recorded on its annual departmental return: we do not collect monthly pupil data. The school's total AMG divided by 574 pupils produces a per pupil figure of £2,671.

  Performance Levels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the testing of performance levels of children with special education needs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's objective is that the national curriculum testing arrangements should be accessible to pupils with special educational needs. My right hon. and learned Friend and I receive many helpful representations from parents and teachers about how this objective can be met.

  GCSE
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has recently received from(a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) members of the public about GCSE coursework.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received 740 letters from Members of Parliament and 2,110 letters from members of the public about GCSE coursework.
  696
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received from(a) the National Association for the Teaching of English, (b) the Northern Examining Association, (c) the Joint Matriculation Board, (d) the National Association of Advisers in English and (e) the joint council for the GCSE, about GCSE coursework; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received various representations from all but the Joint Matriculation Board about GSCE coursework. He is convinced that limits on coursework are needed in order to maintain public credibility in the GCSE, and is satisfied that the limits which he has set will secure that confidence whilst giving sufficient scope for the innovative assessment techniques facilitated by coursework.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement giving details of the evidence which he has considered in reaching his conclusion that changes should be made to GCSE coursework.

  Mr. Eggar
  My decision to limit the coursework element of the GCSE in order to maintain public confidence in that qualification was taken in the light of advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) and based on evidence in the HMI report "The Introduction of the GCSE in Schools 1986–88", the SEAC report "Examining GCSE: First General Scrutiny Report" and the "Report of the Independent Appeals Authority for School Examinations". All three reports stressed the difficulty of ensuring standardising marking and adequate moderation in coursework. The first also drew attention to the unfairness caused by coursework not being conducted under uniform conditions.

  Barnet
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many out of borough pupils have been educated at Barnet schools during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  January 1987

  5,296

  January 1988

  5,392

  January 1989

  4,747

  January 1990

  5,023

  January 1991

  5,377

  Pupil Expenditure
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in Durham in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Fallon
  School based spending per pupil in nursery and primary schools, secondary schools and special schools in Durham is shown in the table. The figures show spending from 1980–81 until 1989–90, the latest year for which actual expenditure figures are available.
  697

  School based spending per pupil

  Year

  Nursery and Primary £

  Secondary £

  Special £

  1980–81

  565

  730

  2,700

  1981–82

  635

  810

  3,030

  1982–83

  705

  866

  3,345

  1983–84

  735

  905

  3,735

  1984–85

  750

  965

  4,180

  1985–86

  840

  1,095

  4,640

  1986–87

  935

  1,225

  5,045

  1987–88

  1,050

  1,405

  5,405

  1988–89

  1,160

  1,575

  6,825

  1989–90

  1,225

  1,735

  8,150

  Notes:

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

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

  3. Spending on nursery and primary schools was not collected separately for years after 1986–87, so the figures for the years shown in the table cover both nursery and primary schools.

  Local Education Authority Property
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a specimen agreement of a type he has approved between a college of further education and a local education authority regarding the college's leasing of local education authority property.

  Mr. Eggar
  The agreements that have been approved to date have been specific to the particular case. We expect governing bodies and local education authorities, in agreeing arrangements, to cover the following: the length of time the college is to remain on the site concerned; the nature of the occupancy—eg. lease or licence; whether any rent is to be paid; the responsibility for repairs and other outgoings; and the terms for cessation of the occupancy.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of nursery school provision by local education authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have arranged that details of nursery provision for each local education authority in England for January 1991 will be published shortly. Details of nursery provision as at January 1990 were published last year in the DES "Statistical Bulletin 7/91", copies of which are available in the Library

  Nursery provision in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to fund after-school clubs in primary schools in Wigan local education authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) announced on I March the Government's intention to expand child care for school 698
  age children. The Government plan, through Department of Health programmes, to support a number of new development posts in voluntary organisations, which will work with schools and others to pilot the development of innovative schemes.

  It is important that local education authorities and schools should play their part in the development of out of hours care schemes, and we have encouraged schools to respond accordingly by opening up their premises to meet local needs.

  Technology Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will state the total number of individual applications he received for his technology schools initiative, the number successful and unsuccessful, and of the latter the number he regarded as being of a satisfactory standard and the additional cost to his allocated £25 million of agreeing to those applications, together with the criteria he adopted to distinguish the categories of application referred to in the ministerial speech made at Shenley Wood school on 14 February;

  (2) on what date and in what manner he informed all local education authorities of his schools technology initiative; what criteria he laid down for applications; what maximum costs in capital and revenue were indicated; arid what account was taken of existing provision in maintained schools in the authorities containing successful applicants;

  (3) if he will state the number of local education authorities making applications in respect of the technology schools initiative together with the number of authorities gaining all, some, or none of their applications, respectively, and the names of those authorities whose applications were satisfactory but unsuccessful.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 5 December 1991 chief education officers of local education authorities (LEAs) in England were invited in writing to submit up to two projects for funding under the technology schools initiative (TSI). The letter explained that proposals were to be normally for projects in the region of £250,000, although consideration would exceptionally be given to projects costing up to a maximum of £500,000. Priority would be given to bids from schools committed to making good technology provision whatever their existing level of resources. Amongst the factors stated which would be taken into account in assessing bids were:

  (i) the track record of the school in technology including its use of the technical and vocational education initiative; clear evidence of a commitment to the development of teaching in technology, including plans to develop vocational courses at 14 to 16 and for older pupils;

  (ii) Existing links with industry—where they are demonstrably effective, including the availability of industrial or business funding to match grant; or resources from within the schools budget;

  (iii) Existing skills of the school's teaching staff and their enthusiasm for the project; and evidence of high quality school management.

  Eighty-nine LEAs submitted proposals in respect of 164 schools. In addition, 30 schools submitted projects directly to the Department. In the face of intense competition, the most worthy projects at 62 schools in 50 LEAs have been approved up to a total of £15 million: 12 LEAs received approval for two bids; 38 LEAs received

  699
  approval for one bid and 39 LEAs were unsuccessful. The remaining £10 million was allocated for projects at VA and GM schools.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the schools in Gravesham which have opted to become grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are two schools in Gravesham operating as GM and a third has recently been approved to become GM in September. The total number of schools operating or approved for GM status in Kent is now 26. I am delighted that so many schools in this area will enjoy the benefits of grant-maintained status.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils applied to go to Hendon grant-maintained school in the years beginning September 1991 and September 1992; and what was the corresponding number of applicants in 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not collect centrally information on applications for admissions to grant-maintained schools. However, I understand from Hendon school that it has received 386 applications for admission in September 1992. At this time last year the school had 308 applications for admission to the school in September 1991. The corresponding number in March 1987 was 110.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether in assessing borrowers' claims for deferment, the Student Loans Company will disregard income from disability living allowance and disability working allowance when those benefits are introduced.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Yes, We have today laid before Parliament regulations amending the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1991 to ensure that these allowances are fully taken into account.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange for the booklet "Student Grants and Loans—a brief guide" to be published in braille.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am delighted that the Royal National Institute for the Blind has produced, at my Department's expense, a braille edition of the booklet. I have placed a copy in the Library. The Royal National Institute for the Blind's Peterborough office (PO Box 173, Peterborough PE2 OWS) will make further copies available on request.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the cost of extending an entitlement to student fees to part-time students on first degree courses, assuming a maximum fee entitlement of £750 and that all such students would be eligible for fees support.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: Approximately £87 million, with some 115,000 students
  700
  —the number of part-time first degree students in England and Wales in 1990, including Open university students, and representing some 29 per cent. of the 401,000 part-time students in higher education that year. This assumes that all students are personally eligible for support.

WALES

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Vale of Glamorgan is to be one of the unitary authorities in Wales under his recently announced proposals for local government reform.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes, the Vale of Glamorgan is one of the 23 authorities listed in my proposals.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the reasons why the boundaries of the Vale of Glamorgan were not specified in his recently announced proposals for local government reform in Wales; and how he intends to determine them.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The boundaries of the Vale of Glamorgan were marked with dotted lines on the map illustrating my proposals so that I can listen to any further representations on their precise locations.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table, covering the years 1986–87 and consistent with Cm 1916, showing by sub-programme(a) total local authority expenditure in Wales, (b) local authority expenditure in Wales on services for which he has policy responsibility and (c) an analysis of the differences between (a) and (b).

  Mr. David Hunt
  Consistent with appendix 3 of Cm 1916, the information is as follows:

  Local authority expenditure in Wales 1986–87 Local authority expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State

  £ million

  Agriculture

  160107 Other agriculture and fisheries

  —

  160108 Support fishing industry

  1

  160114 Land drainage and flood prevention

  1

  160115 Coast protection

  2

  160117 Land drainage and flood prevention

  9

  160118 Coast protection

  —

  Total agriculture

  13

  Industry

  160209 General labour market—capital

  —

  160211 General labour market—current

  5

  Total industry

  5

  Roads and Transport

  160405 Roads new construction and improvement

  67

  160406 Other transport capital

  3

  160407 Road maintenance

  82

  160408 Other transport current

  29

  Total roads and transport

  181

  Housing

  160503 Administration

  7

  701

  £ million

  160504 Expenses of rent officers

  1

  160505 Rate fund contribution to HRA

  2

  160506 Local authority improvements

  79

  160507 Enveloping

  9

  160508 New dwellings

  23

  160509 Land

  3

  160510 Municipalisation

  1

  160511 Repurchase of defective dwellings

  2

  160512 Slum clearance

  1

  160513 Low-cost home ownership

  1

  160514 Improvement grants

  61

  160515 Reinstatement grants

  3

  160516 Home insulation grants

  2

  160518 Local authority lending to others

  4

  160519 Sales

  -53

  160520 Repayments loans—former tenants

  -16

  160521 Repayments loans—others

  -13

  Total housing

  115

  Other environmental services

  160604 CADW grants to local authorities

  1

  160605 Tax and rate collection

  8

  160606 Records, registrations and surveys

  1

  160607 Urban programme

  5

  160609 Other local environmental services

  178

  160610 Urban programme

  21

  160612 Derelict land

  13

  160613 Water services grants to local authorities

  —

  160614 Gypsy sites

  —

  160615 Other local environmental services

  76

  Total other environmental services

  304

  Education

  160702 Higher and further education

  119

  160735 Youth service

  7

  160737 Other education services

  5

  160742 Primary and nursery education

  235

  160743 Secondary education

  291

  160744 Special education

  28

  160745 Administration and inspection

  32

  160746 Other education support services

  2

  160747 School catering

  29

  160741 Capital expenditure

  40

  Total education

  789

  Arts and libraries

  160804 Libraries capital

  2

  160805 Libraries current

  18

  160806 Museums and art galleries capital

  —

  160807 Museums and art galleries current

  2

  Total arts and libraries

  22

  Personal social services

  160910 Personal social services capital

  8

  160911 Personal social services current

  134

  160912 Port health service current

  —

  Total personal social services

  143

  Total local authority expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State

  1,572

  Local authority expenditure outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales

  £ million

  Intervention board for agricultural produce

  030102 EC subsidy for school milk

  —

  030103 EC subsidy for school meals

  1

  Total intervention board

  1

  Employment

  040602 Consumer protection

  5

  040702 Sheltered employment and workshops

  2

  Total Department of Employment

  7

  702

  £million

  Transport

  060401 Ports and piers

  —

  060601 Airports

  —

  Total Department of Transport

  —

  Home Office

  090110 Magistrates courts

  10

  090111 Other courts

  1

  090203 Probation and after care

  9

  090204 Probation—bail hostels

  —

  090301 Police

  148

  090304 School crossing patrols

  2

  090400 Civil defence

  1

  090601 Fire service

  40

  090804 Registration of electors

  2

  Total Home Office

  214

  Department of Education and Science

  100203 Universities—EC student fees

  —

  100205 Mandatory student awards

  46

  Total Department of Education and Science

  46

  Department of Social Security—Housing benefits

  121102 Rent allowances

  48

  121104 Rent rebates—discretionary

  1

  121105 Rent allowances—discretionary

  —

  121109 Rent rebates

  134

  121111 Administration of housing benefit

  7

  Total Department of Social Security

  190

  Total Local authority expenditure outside the responsibility of the Secretary of State

  458

  Total Local authority expenditure in Wales

  2,030

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table analysing the data in appendix 1 of Cm 1916, showing separately for each line for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95,(a) expenditure within the Welsh block and (b) other expenditure.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh block comprises all Welsh Office programmes apart from agriculture, industry and nationalised industries. With the exception of local authority unhypothecated current grants and credit approvals, expenditure is identified on a programme basis in appendix 1 of Cm 1916. The unhypothecated current grants cannot be allocated to specific programmes. The breakdown of credit approvals between block and other programmes is as follows:

  £ million

  Block

  Other

  Total

  1986–87

  266

  2

  268

  1987–88

  283

  4

  287

  1988–89

  283

  3

  286

  1989–90

  297

  4

  301

  1990–91

  252

  3

  255

  1991–92

  306

  4

  310

  1992–93

  332

  5

  337

  1993–94

  302

  4

  306

  1994–95

  293

  4

  297

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest figures available, stating whether
  703
  they are final outturns, provisional outturns or budget figures, for 1988–89 to 1991–92 on the statistical basis of table 1.1 (summary of revenue expenditure and income), table 1.2 (summary of capital expenditure and income), table 1.3 (revenue accounts outturn summary), table 1.4 (capital accounts outturn summary) and table 2.3 (revenue account summary) of Welsh local government financial statistics.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The tables to which the hon. Gentleman refers are based on final outturn information received from local authorities. Outturn figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 have already been published in Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics volume 14 1990 and volume 15 1991 for these years respectively. Outturn figures for later years are not yet available. Provisional or budget based figures are not available centrally at this level of detail for all accounts.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a reconciliation between(a) the local authority expenditure and its financing figures contained in figures 1.03 and 1.04 and appendices 1 and 3 of Cm 1916 and (b) the figures announced in the latest revenue support grant and other settlements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Within the aggregate external finance package of £2,352 million for 1992–93 the revenue support grant—RSG—element is £1,621 million, the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating—NDR—account is £536 million and the allocation for revenue specific grants is £195 million.

  The Welsh revenue support grant report 1992–93 (revised) (HC 247), approved by the House on 12 February, set out my decisions on the level of RSG and NDR for 1992–93. The RSG total includes the additional resources of £3.5 million that I am making available in recognition of the school teachers' review body recommendations. This additional sum was announced too late to be included in Cm 1916. Appendix 1 of Cm 1916 refers therefore to my original proposal for an RSG allocation of £1,617 million and provides details of the NDR distributable amount and other revenue grants to local authorities for 1992–93.

  The unhypothecated support to local authorities for 1992–93 of £2,230 million in figure 1.03 of Cm 1916 includes my original proposals for RSG and the distributable amount of NDR together with the other grants itemised in the table.

  Wales summary cash plans: 1992–93 (Cm 1916) Unhypothecated support to local authorities

  £ million

  Revenue Support Grant

  1,617

  Non-domestic rating: distributable amount: 1992–93

  536

  Non-domestic rating collection costs

  4

  Community Charge Grant

  27

  Community Charge Reduction Scheme Grant

  40

  Council Tax Preparation Cost Special Grant

  6

  2,230

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish tables, covering the years 1986–87 to 1994–95 and consistent with Cm 1916, analysing(a) the Welsh block by economic category within spending sector and (b) the Welsh programme by economic category within spending sector.
  704
  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is set out in tables 1 and 2. The definition of economic categories referred to is as follows:

  A10

  Pay and pension costs of staff employed in central government departments which are subject neither to central government trading body or trading fund treatment.

  A20

  Pay and pension costs of Ministers, staff of the Northern Ireland civil and court services, staff of other public bodies (eg NHS, fringe bodies, local authorities), locally engaged staff overseas, and the armed forces.

  B20

  Current expenditure on goods and services ("general administrative expenses") of central Government Departments, the armed forces, the Northern Ireland civil and court services including receipts from central government departments' general administrative expenses and VAT refunds of running costs expenditure.

  B30

  Receipts covering general administrative expenses which come from outside the government sector

  B40

  Current expenditure on goods and services (other than the general administrative expenditure of central government departments) including receipts for the provision of goods and services by one part of government to another where the corresponding payment is classified as B40.

  B50

  Receipts from the provision of goods and services other than those rendered exclusively to another part of general government (ie covered by B20 and B40) or covering general administrative expenses (ie included under B30).

  C10

  Subsidies to the private sector.

  C20

  Subsidies to central government and local authority trading bodies.

  C40

  Subsidies to other public corporations.

  D10

  Current grants to the private sector.

  E10

  Expenditure on the purchase of land an existing buildings.

  E20

  Expenditure on the construction of new dwellings and improvements to existing dwellings.

  E30

  Expenditure on other new construction.

  E40

  Expenditure on the purchase of vehicles, plant, machinery and equipment.

  G10

  Capital grants to the private sector—companies.

  G20

  Capital grants to the private sector—persons and non-profit making bodies.

  G30

  Capital grants to nationalised industries.

  G40

  Capital grants to list I and II public corporations.

  H10

  Net lending to the private sector—companies.

  H20

  Net lending to the private sector—persons and non-profit-making bodies.

  H30

  Long term net lending to nationalised industries and issue of public dividend capital (PDC).

  H40

  Net lending to list I and II public corporations.

  J10

  Long term market and overseas borrowing and financial leasing by nationalised industries.

  J20

  Market and overseas borrowing and financial leasing by list I public corporations.

  J30

  Net temporary borrowing by nationalised industries from the national loans fund, the market and overseas).

  J40

  Deposits by nationalised industries (bank deposits and transactions in interest-bearing securities) plus all borrowing/lending transactions with other natiolalised industries and with public corporations.

  M10

  Current grants to local authorities within AEF/AEG (excluding EC grants and those covered by M20).

  M15

  Current grants to local authorities outside AEF/AEG (excluding EC grants and those covered by M20).

  M30

  Current grants made by the European Communities to local authorities

  M40

  Non-domestic rates.

  N10

  Capital grants to local authorities (excluding EC grants and those covered by N20).

  N40

  Credit approvals.

  705

  1. Welsh office block

  £ million

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Forecast outturn

  1992–93 Plans

  1993–94 Plans

  1994–95 Plans

  1. Central Government's own expenditure1

  A10

  25

  27

  29

  32

  36

  42

  46

  49

  50

  A20

  526

  588

  662

  701

  785

  897

  933

  975

  999

  B20

  10

  11

  12

  14

  14

  16

  18

  19

  19

  B30

  -1

  -

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -3

  -2

  -3

  -3

  B40

  463

  512

  571

  620

  703

  781

  922

  978

  1,055

  B50

  -34

  -37

  -42

  -48

  -53

  -23

  -24

  -25

  -26

  C10

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  7

  9

  9

  9

  C20

  12

  11

  11

  18

  22

  12

  14

  45

  51

  D10

  17

  17

  19

  23

  26

  34

  87

  81

  82

  E10

  2

  3

  2

  -2

  6

  -0

  -0

  -1

  -1

  E20

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E30

  133

  165

  178

  174

  217

  223

  249

  290

  301

  E40

  26

  18

  26

  39

  39

  51

  61

  35

  29

  G10

  3

  11

  6

  14

  8

  11

  11

  12

  12

  G20

  59

  61

  69

  99

  153

  175

  171

  168

  171

  G30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H10

  -0

  -0

  0

  -0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H20

  -0

  10

  13

  1

  -19

  -48

  -38

  -22

  -22

  Total

  1,246

  1,397

  1,556

  1,686

  1,939

  2,175

  2,454

  2,610

  2,727

  2. Local authority elements of the planning total

  M10

  889

  966

  1,035

  1,071

  1,166

  1,530

  1,672

  2,348

  2,449

  M15

  8

  9

  12

  13

  184

  234

  249

  211

  220

  M40

  308

  338

  368

  414

  443

  525

  536

  0

  0

  N10

  30

  31

  29

  30

  149

  140

  190

  196

  210

  N40

  268

  287

  286

  301

  255

  310

  337

  306

  297

  Total

  1,503

  1,631

  1,729

  1,829

  2,197

  2,739

  2,984

  3,060

  3,176

  3. Nationalised Industries

  C30

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G30

  1

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H30

  13

  70

  44

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J10

  2

  -59

  -36

  -34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J30

  5

  -7

  -6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J40

  -4

  6

  5

  33

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  17

  17

  9

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4. Other public corporations

  C40

  0

  2

  3

  3

  2

  4

  3

  3

  3

  E10

  -4

  -21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E20

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E30

  6

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G40

  0

  10

  15

  26

  31

  29

  32

  42

  46

  H20

  -1

  -0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H40

  -2

  1

  0

  -2

  -1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J20

  -3

  1

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  -2

  -3

  19

  29

  34

  32

  35

  45

  50

  Grand Totals

  2,764

  3,043

  3,312

  3,559

  4,170

  4,946

  5,473

  5,714

  5,953

  1 Excluding finance to public corporations.

  2. Welsh office programme

  £ million

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Forecast outturn

  1992–93 Plans

  1993–94 Plans

  1994–95 Plans

  1. Central Government's own expenditure1

  A10

  25

  27

  29

  32

  36

  42

  46

  49

  50

  A20

  526

  588

  662

  701

  785

  897

  933

  975

  999

  B20

  10

  11

  12

  14

  14

  16

  18

  19

  19

  B30

  -1

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -3

  -2

  -3

  -3

  B40

  463

  512

  572

  622

  705

  783

  924

  981

  1,057

  B50

  -34

  -37

  -42

  -48

  -53

  -23

  -24

  -25

  -26

  C10

  83

  66

  77

  76

  101

  143

  163

  175

  177

  C20

  12

  11

  11

  18

  22

  12

  14

  45

  51

  D10

  17

  18

  19

  23

  27

  34

  87

  81

  83

  E10

  2

  3

  2

  -2

  6

  -0

  -0

  -1

  -1

  E20

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  706 707

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Outturn

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Forecast outturn

  1992–93 Plans

  1993–94 Plans

  1994–95 Plans

  E30

  133

  165

  178

  174

  218

  226

  251

  292

  303

  E40

  26

  18

  26

  39

  39

  51

  61

  35

  29

  G10

  116

  90

  101

  81

  61

  87

  78

  85

  87

  G20

  78

  73

  80

  110

  165

  187

  182

  179

  183

  G30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H10

  -0

  -0

  0

  -0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H20

  -0

  10

  13

  1

  -19

  -48

  -38

  -22

  -22

  Total

  1,461

  1,553

  1,738

  1,840

  2,104

  2,405

  2,693

  2,866

  2,987

  2. Local authority elements of the planning total

  M10

  890

  968

  1,037

  1,073

  1,167

  1,532

  1,674

  2,350

  2,451

  M15

  8

  9

  12

  12

  183

  233

  248

  210

  219

  M30

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  M40

  308

  338

  368

  414

  443

  525

  536

  0

  0

  N10

  32

  33

  30

  33

  152

  144

  195

  200

  215

  N40

  268

  287

  286

  301

  256

  310

  337

  306

  297

  Total

  1,506

  1,635

  1,732

  1,832

  2,201

  2,746

  2,990

  3,066

  3,182

  3. Nationalised Industries C30

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G30

  1

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H30

  13

  70

  44

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J10

  2

  -59

  -36

  -34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J30

  5

  -7

  -6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J40

  -4

  6

  5

  33

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  17

  17

  9

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4. Other public corporations

  C40

  6

  9

  11

  7

  9

  12

  13

  13

  13

  E10

  -4

  -21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E20

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E30

  6

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G10

  0

  0

  0

  -0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G40

  36

  63

  80

  103

  118

  121

  110

  108

  114

  H20

  -1

  -0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  H40

  -0

  5

  2

  -4

  -1

  -1

  2

  2

  2

  J20

  -1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  43

  63

  97

  111

  132

  135

  127

  125

  132

  Grand Totals

  3,028

  3.268

  3,575

  3,797

  4,437

  5,286

  5,809

  6,056

  6,300

  1 Excluding finance to public corporations.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish tables analysing for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95 the data in figure 1.03 of Cm 1916, analysing the component parts of(a) the Welsh block and (b) other

  Public expenditure sub-programmes Welsh Block

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Roads and transport

  160401 Motorways and trunk roads new construction/improvement

  97

  116

  137

  118

  163

  146

  174

  —

  —

  160402 Freight facilities and other grants

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160403 Motorways and trunk roads maintenance

  15

  14

  15

  15

  19

  20

  21

  —

  —

  160404 Other central government

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160405 Principal roads grant

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160405 Industrial Development Act grant

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  160408 Loss of redundancy rebate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160409 Transport grant

  20

  21

  20

  20

  27

  36

  37

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  24

  24

  69

  65

  54

  62

  62

  —

  —

  161213 New towns—capital expenditure on roads

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total roads and transport

  159

  179

  242

  220

  264

  267

  298

  329

  342

  Housing

  160501 Subsidies—central Government to local authorities

  12

  10

  10

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  708
  expenditure, by (i) public expenditure (sub)-programme and (ii) the functional classification used in the identifiable expenditure figures (appendix E of Cm 1920).

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows:
  709

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  160502 Subsidies—other

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  6

  8

  —

  —

  160504 Other current expenditure

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  5

  —

  —

  160506 Renewal areas, OIA's and HAM's

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  160507 Group repair and enveloping

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  14

  13

  —

  —

  160511 Repurchase of defective dwellings

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  160512 Slum clearance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160513 Improvement for sale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160514 Improvement grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  54

  104

  —

  —

  160515 Reinstatement grants for defective dwellings

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  160516 Homes insulation grant

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160522 Miscellaneous central Government capital expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160523 Housing for Wales—grant-in-aid

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  —

  —

  160524 Housing for Wales capital grants to housing association

  48

  49

  56

  86

  130

  158

  155

  —

  —

  160525 Housing for Wales lending to housing associations

  3

  15

  17

  4

  -14

  -41

  -32

  —

  —

  160526 Housing for Wales grant redemption fund surpluses

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -2

  -1

  —

  -1

  —

  —

  160527 Housing for Wales redemption of grant following sale

  -1

  -1

  -2

  -3

  -4

  -3

  -1

  —

  —

  160528 Housing for Wales—receipts other

  -3

  -5

  -4

  -3

  -5

  -8

  -6

  —

  —

  160529 New housing revenue account subsidy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  179

  170

  210

  —

  —

  160530 Housing for Wales—HAG on deferred interest

  8

  7

  8

  7

  8

  8

  4

  —

  —

  161212 New towns capital expenditure

  -1

  -6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  140

  151

  114

  114

  84

  115

  154

  —

  —

  Total housing

  210

  225

  203

  226

  486

  485

  625

  673

  697

  Other environmenlal services

  090400 Civil defence

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160301 Promotion of tourism

  8

  9

  9

  10

  10

  11

  14

  —

  —

  160601 Ancient monuments and historic buildings— CADW

  5

  7

  7

  7

  9

  10

  12

  —

  —

  160602 Central environmental services—cash limited

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  23

  30

  —

  —

  160603 Central environmental services—non-cash limited

  2

  9

  4

  10

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  160604 CADW grants to local authorities

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  160607 Urban programme/urban development grant— current

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  —

  —

  160609 Storm and flood damage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  160410 Urban programme/urban development grant— capital

  8

  7

  6

  8

  21

  29

  26

  —

  —

  160613 Grants for rural water services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160614 Gypsy sites grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160615 Clean air grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160616 Land Authority for Wales

  -5

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160617 Urban regeneration grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  —

  —

  160618 Council tax and rating

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  11

  12

  —

  —

  160619 National parks supplementary grant

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  161214 New town capital expenditure

  1

  -14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161215 Urban development corporation

  —

  11

  18

  29

  33

  32

  35

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  65

  59

  42

  60

  53

  60

  46

  —

  —

  Total environmental services

  98

  104

  104

  143

  152

  197

  194

  193

  199

  Educational arts and libraries

  160731 Schools

  2

  4

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  —

  —

  160732 Access funds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160733 Higher education

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  45

  —

  —

  160734 Further education

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  5

  —

  —

  160735 Youth service

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160736 Welsh language

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  —

  —

  160737 Other educational services

  1

  1

  2

  3

  5

  9

  8

  —

  —

  160738 Education support

  3

  8

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  —

  —

  160739 Bilingual education

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  160748 Other specific grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals (education)

  28

  39

  49

  48

  50

  57

  55

  —

  —

  160801 National Library of Wales

  3

  4

  4

  4

  5

  6

  6

  —

  —

  160802 National Museum of Wales

  8

  9

  12

  16

  16

  15

  14

  —

  —

  160803 Other arts and libraries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals (arts and libraries)

  2

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Total education and arts and libraries

  56

  76

  91

  99

  107

  122

  168

  167

  168

  Health and personal social services

  160901 Hospitals and community health services

  728

  807

  894

  962

  1,077

  1,232

  1,363

  —

  —

  160902 Other health services

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  710 711

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  160904 Other centrally funded health

  19

  23

  30

  39

  52

  68

  81

  —

  —

  160905 Personal social services

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  —

  —

  160906 Family practitioners services administration

  5

  5

  5

  7

  10

  12

  12

  —

  —

  160907 Family practitioners services

  229

  254

  254

  305

  342

  368

  402

  —

  —

  160908 Welfare food and EC medical costs

  7

  7

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  —

  —

  160909 NHS contributions, cost of collection

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  160911 Child care training, etc.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  160913 GP practice funds

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  6

  8

  7

  6

  9

  10

  11

  —

  —

  Total health and personal social services

  995

  1,106

  1,228

  1,333

  1,501

  1,713

  1,892

  1,960

  2,053

  Departmental/Central Administration

  161001 Departmental running costs

  34

  36

  38

  43

  48

  55

  60

  —

  —

  161002 Contracted-out VAT refunds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161003 Central administration receipts

  -1

  -1

  -1

  —

  -2

  -1

  -1

  —

  —

  161004 Central administration capital

  2

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  161005 Other current expenditure

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total departmental/Central administration

  34

  36

  39

  45

  49

  55

  61

  64

  66

  Unhypothecated support to local authorities

  160620 National non-domestic rate collection cost

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  4

  —

  —

  161302 Revenue support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,411

  1,236

  1,617

  —

  —

  161303 Rate support grant

  576

  950

  1,015

  1,049

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  161304 National non-domestic rate payments

  308

  338

  368

  414

  443

  525

  536

  —

  —

  161312 Community charge grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  268

  27

  —

  —

  161305 Rate rebates to disabled people

  4

  4

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161306 Rate rebates in enterprise zones

  3

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161307 Community charge transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  161311 Community charge reduction scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62

  40

  —

  —

  161312 Community charge rebilling and administration

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  161314 Council tax preparation costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Total Unhypothecated Support to Local Authorities

  1,193

  1,296

  1,392

  1,474

  1,608

  2,102

  2,230

  2,324

  2,425

  (b) Other Programmes

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  160101 Market support under CAP

  39

  22

  38

  33

  54

  82

  103

  —

  —

  160102 National supplement to market support under CAP

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  160104 Grants and lr j 7–2oans for capital and other improvements

  13

  9

  8

  8

  9

  9

  13

  —

  —

  160105 Support for agriculture in special areas

  36

  35

  33

  34

  35

  45

  42

  —

  —

  160106 Animal health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160107 Other agricultural and food services

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  160108 Support for the fishing industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160109 Support for the fishing industry and other fishery services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160110 Other agriculture and food—EC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160111 Support—fishing industry EC

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160112 Compensation to sheep producers

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160114 Arterial drainage grants to LAs

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  160115 Coast protection

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  4

  4

  —

  —

  160116 Arterial drainage grants to WRA

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  2

  4

  3

  3

  3

  4

  5

  —

  —

  Total Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  99

  77

  86

  87

  112

  154

  175

  185

  186

  Industry

  160201 Regional development grants

  86

  51

  57

  29

  22

  20

  5

  —

  —

  160202 Regional selective assistance

  34

  34

  41

  42

  35

  60

  54

  —

  —

  160206 Regional enterprise grants

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  160207 Other support services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  160208 Small firms measures

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  160210 Careers strengthening scheme

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  161201 Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW)

  8

  7

  10

  10

  10

  12

  13

  —

  —

  161203 DBRW—housing subsidies

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  —

  —

  161204 Welsh Development Agency

  35

  57

  66

  69

  85

  89

  76

  —

  —

  161301 Credit approvals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total—Industry

  167

  152

  178

  155

  158

  190

  166

  160

  164

  712 713

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Nationalised Industries

  161101 Welsh Water Authority External Finance Limits

  17

  17

  9

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Identifiable General Government Expenditure

  It is not possible to analyse the data shown in figure 1.03 of Cm 1916 in terms of the functional classifications used in the identifiable general Government expenditure tables which appear in appendix E of Cm 1920.

  The main reason for this is that, for the local authority sector, general Government expenditure has a different coverage than the planning total (which underlies figure 1.03 of Cm 1916).

  General Government expenditure measures the net expenditure of the local authority sector, including that which is financed from local authorities' own resources, such as income from the community charge and from capital receipts. The planning total covers those elements of local authority spending over which central government has controlߞgrants, non-domestic rate payments and credit approvals.

  Whereas the net out-turn expenditure of local authorities is allocated across the various functions shown in appendix E of Cm 1920, it is not possible to do the same with several components of the planning total, such as revenue support grant.

  Specialised Employment Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Welsh initiative for specialised employment on the effect of residential costs on the livelihood of people with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Welsh Office officials have received a letter from the Welsh Initiative for Specialised Employment—WISE—principally concerned with the relationship between income support and earnings in employment. A reply will be sent when consultation with the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been completed.

  Monmouth Borough Council
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is allocated for 1991–92 by Monmouth borough council for bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless persons.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The amount budgeted by local authorities for bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless persons for 1991–92 is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Maria Hill
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from Mrs. Maria Hill, Burnt Barn road, Bulwark, Chepstow, Gwent regarding the imminent repossession of her property; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No representations have been received from Mrs. Maria Hill about the repossession of her property. However, following discussions with the Government last December, mortgage lenders have introduced a range of measures to reduce the number of repossessions and Mrs. Hill should be advised to contact her lender as a matter of urgency.

  Felinteli (Port Dinorwic) Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the statement by the Minister of State on 27 February,Official Report, column 1206, on what date work on the Felinteli (Port Dinorwic) bypass will commence; what is the estimated target date for completion; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Tenders have been invited. Work is expected to start later this year although the precise date is contingent on the management of the trunk road programme as a whole. The scheme will take approximately two years to complete.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement of 27 February,Official Report, column 1152, how much money has been earmarked specifically for the new east Dwyfor and north Meirionydd community hospital whether a location has been determined; what is the planned date to commence work on this hospital; when it will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A sum of £598,000 has been reserved in the 1992–93 all Wales major capital building programme for the proposed new east Dwyfor and north Meirionydd community hospital. Management responsibility for this development rests with the Gwynedd health authority. It is for the authority initially to determine its location and the planning and construction time scale subject only to the approval in principle of the Welsh Office. No submission has yet been made.

  Agricultural Investment
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales further to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 420, if he will give the figures for investment in fixed capital in agriculture in Wales for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of investment in gross fixed capital formation in agriculture in Wales in the last eight years for which information is available are as follows:

  Year

  £ million Wales

  1982

  113

  1983

  123

  1984

  133

  1985

  114

  1986

  119

  1987

  94

  1988

  96

  1989

  89

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received for and against the West Glamorgan health authority's proposal to stop funding the night casualty service at Singleton hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Fifty-one letters and a petition opposing the proposal have been received.

  Government
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about the government of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Very few individuals and organisations have written to me specifically about the establishment of an elected Assembly. I have received many representations from individuals and organisations about my proposals for local government reorganisation and the establishment of a structure of unitary authorities.

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the total amount of funding currently given by his Department towards the setting up of sheltered workshops for disabled people in Wales and (b) the number of places made available; and what were the corresponding figures for each year from 1979 onwards.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: Government funding for sheltered workshops is the responsibility of the employment service and details of its expenditure in Wales which it has provided are shown in the following table. These include an element from revenue support grant paid to local authority by my Department through the employment service. The employment service does not have information on expenditure before 1986–87 nor the number of places before 1981–82.

  Sheltered workshops places and Government expenditure in Wales

  £ million

  Year

  Workshop numbers

  Total Government expenditure (including capital)

  1981–82

  416

  n/a

  1982–83

  431

  n/a

  1983–84

  448

  n/a

  716

  Year

  Workshop numbers

  Total Government expenditure (including capital)

  1984–85

  466

  n/a

  1985–86

  479

  n/a

  1986–87

  480

  1·277

  1987–88

  480

  1·405

  1988–89

  495

  1·491

  1989–90

  486

  1·483

  1990–91

  471

  1·434

  MOT Inspections
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will propose legislation to enable local authorities to tender for carrying out MOT inspections of vehicles owned by other organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Existing legislation provides for MOT examinations to be carried out by inspectors appointed by any council designated by the Secretary of State for Transport. There is no restriction on the ownership of the vehicles which may be tested by such councils.

  National Curriculum (Arts and Music)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to make the orders for art and music in the national curriculum in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today laid the final orders with associated documents setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for art and music in the national curriculum for pupils aged five to 14. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The orders apply to Wales. My right hon. Friend has already published draft orders for England on 10 March.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bananas
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of the European Commission on the question of banana exports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and GATT tarification, following the Commissioners' meeting on 4 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  I understand that no decision was reached at the meeting on 4 March and that the Commission is planning to discuss this question again on 25 March. The United Kingdom has pressed the importance of a GATT settlement in conformity with our continuing commitments to the Windward Islands and Jamaica.

  Calf Rearing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the criteria acceptable to his Department before an intensive calf rearing unit can be established in the countryside.

  Mr. Curry
  Anybody wishing to establish an intensive calf rearing unit in the countryside would have to comply with all the appropriate legislation including the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (as amended) and the Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations occurred between his Department and(a) the International Society for Professional Aromatherapists and (b) the Society for the Promotion of Natural Therapy concerning his Department's initiative on dietary supplements.

  Mr. MacLean
  Our officials sent the European Community discussion paper on dietary supplements to the International Society of Professional Aromatherapists and the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy and received comments from these organisations. The Department will continue to consult both them and other interested groups as EC negotiations progress.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the average yield of diesel per acre from oilseed rape;

  (2) how many gallons of diesel are used to produce 15 gallons of diesel from oilseed rape, taking into account that used by machinery, pesticides and fertilisers.

  Mr. Curry
  Diesel fuel from rapeseed oil is not in production in the United Kingdom, so only theoretical estimates can be given. Taking a five-year average (1987 to 1991) of rapeseed yields in the United Kingdom, very approximately 520 litres of diesel might be produced from an acre of rapeseed. Diesel derived from rapeseed could cost around three times as much to produce as diesel derived from inorganic sources. Calculating the ratio between the energy expended on the production of diesel 718
  from rapeseed and the energy released when that diesel is consumed is complex. In particular, the inputs are difficult to quantify comprehensively. The best assessment currently made by my Department is that the ratio of energy expended to energy obtained is possibly in the range 1:1 to 1:1·5.

  Rovral
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban all imports of French wine for vines in vineyards treated with Rovral produced by Rhône-Poulenc.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place Rovral on off-label approval so that it can be used on English vines in English vineyards.

  Mr. Maclean
  Approval for off-label use can be given only where an application supported by adequate data has been received and evaluated. The relevant data have not been received to support such an application.

  Sweeteners
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to the EC to ensure that aspartame is not eliminated in the new European directive on additives;

  (2) what representations he has received with regard to the use of high-intensity sweeteners used as flavour enhancers in sugar sweetened chewing gum; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make representations to the European Commission to ensure that high-intensity sweeteners are not withdrawn until a suitable alternative which permits the manufacture of chewing gum that does not stick to dentures has been found;

  (4) what estimate he has made of the effect on sales of sugar chewing gum of the prohibition of high-intensity sweeteners and of the impact on employment opportunities.

  Mr. Maclean
  The proposals currently under discussion in Brussels would permit continuation of the existing use of intense sweeteners specified by the hon. Friend. The question of a ban or of the need for representations does not, therefore, arise. My officials have, however, discussed with representatives of the industry concerned how their existing position might best be maintained should the present proposals be changed.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on conversion payments for organic farmers; and whether he has any proposals for paying farmers for organic management.

  Mr. Curry
  Organic farmers and those converting from non-organic to organic methods of farming can receive assistance under various MAFF grants including the farm and conservation grant scheme, nitrate-sensitive areas scheme and the set-aside scheme.

  It is hoped that the European Commission's proposals for agriculture and the environment will provide a means whereby direct assistance could be given to existing organic farmers and those wishing to convert.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recommendations he has received from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the European Commission's proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy, COM 91 258;

  (2) what recommendations he has received from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the European Commission's proposals for measures accompanying the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly the agri-environment action programme, COM 91 415.

  Number of rabies cases (1 January 1991—to 30 September 1991)

  Foxes

  Other Wildlife

  Livestock/Horses

  Dogs/Cats

  Humans

  Total

  Netherlands

  —

  112

  —

  —

  —

  112

  Belgium

  14

  —

  5

  1

  —

  20

  Luxembourg

  6

  —

  2

  —

  —

  8

  France

  41,335

  69

  192

  87

  21

  1,684

  Germany

  2,195

  238

  188

  272

  —

  2,893

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  34

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Source: Rabies Bulletin Europe (WHO Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Tiibingen, Germany)

  1 All insectivorous bats

  2 Contracted in Mexico

  3 All in Spanish North Africa—Ceuta and Melilla

  4 Includes one case in a fox in Pas de Calais

  Ostrich Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has laid down for ostrich farms on spongiform encephalopathy in ostriches.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following recent reports in the German scientific press of a spongiform encephalopathy-like disease in three ostriches which died in Germany in 1986, 1988 and 1989, guidance was issued to known keepers of ostriches in this country. The guidance provided information on these reports and asked that owners' veterinary surgeons be given copies so that they could monitor the birds for neurological symptoms. Procedures in cases of suspicion were recommended, which included in particular informing the Ministry. No reports have been received as a result.

  Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations he has received from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee relating to United Kingdom nature conservation and land use policies arising from the publication of the recent reports sponsored by the JNCC on birds and pastoral agriculture in Europe; the conservation of lowland dry grassland birds in Europe and breeding waders on wet grassland.

  Mr. Curry
  No recommendations arising from these reports have been received, but the reports are of interest to my Department in the development of its policies for nature conservation and land use.
  720
  Mr. Curry
  None, but the Earl of Selborne's speech on reform of the common agricultural policy, delivered in the other place on 17 October 1991, was noted with interest.

  Rabies
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of cases of rabies reported in 1991 in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal; how many of these cases arose in areas within 50 km of a main port of entry; and if he will provide separate figures for the Pas de Calais area of France.

  Mr. Maclean
  Precise information on the locality of rabies cases in relation to main ports of entry is not available, but the number of such cases is likely to be small. The other information requested is as follows:

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of BSE confirmed cases by county or region for England and Scotland for the period 1 January 1992 until 28 February 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 10 March 1992,Official Report, column 453.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority about the provision of funds to compensate the holders of water abstraction licences whose licences have to be revoked in the interest of maintaining river flows at an acceptable level, or to protect groundwater levels.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss the authority's business. The provision of funds for revocation of abstraction licences has not been raised in any recent discussion.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Wing
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he proposes to make any further changes in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of a late spring supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class II, vote 2ߞother external relationsߞwill increase by £105,857,000 from £193,370,000 to £299,227,000. This to take account of a further contribution to the United Nations Advance Mission in CambodiaߞUNAMICߞan initial contribution towards the United Nations Transitional Authority in CambodiaߞUNTACߞand the agreement of the transfer of gold to the Baltic states. This increase is partly offset by a reduction in the cash limit for class II, vote 1 of £4,000,000 from £637,285,000 to £633,285,000. The running costs limit on vote 1 will be decreased by £2,600,000 from £478,460,000 to £475,860,000. The remainder will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufactures (Exports)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the volume of exports of manufactures since the second quarter of 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following is the available information:

  United Kingdom exports of manufactures: volume index (1985 = 100)

  Balance of payments basis Seasonally adjusted

  Index

  1979

  Quarter 2

  99

  Quarter 3

  91

  Quarter 4

  94

  1980

  Quarter 1

  96

  Quarter 2

  92

  Quarter 3

  89

  Quarter 4

  88

  1981

  Quarter 1

  83

  Quarter 2

  85

  Quarter 3

  88

  Quarter 4

  88

  1982

  Quarter 1

  88

  Quarter 2

  89

  Quarter 3

  85

  Quarter 4

  87

  1983

  Quarter 1

  86

  Quarter 2

  86

  Quarter 3

  88

  Quarter 4

  88

  1984

  Quarter 1

  93

  Quarter 2

  92

  722

  Index

  Quarter 3

  94

  Quarter 4

  99

  1985

  Quarter 1

  99

  Quarter 2

  102

  Quarter 3

  99

  Quarter 4

  100

  1986

  Quarter 1

  101

  Quarter 2

  105

  Quarter 3

  103

  Quarter 4

  107

  1987

  Quarter 1

  112

  Quarter 2

  109

  Quarter 3

  115

  Quarter 4

  113

  1988

  Quarter 1

  113

  Quarter 2

  118

  Quarter 3

  122

  Quarter 4

  120

  1989

  Quarter 1

  127

  Quarter 2

  127

  Quarter 3

  131

  Quarter 4

  137

  1990

  Quarter 1

  138

  Quarter 2

  143

  Quarter 3

  139

  Quarter 4

  141

  1991

  Quarter 1

  141

  Quarter 2

  146

  Quarter 3

  146

  Quarter 4

  146

  Value Added Tax
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning VAT on house renovation work; and if he will reconsider his policy on charging VAT on these works.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received a number of representations from the construction industry and individual property owners; our obligations under the EC sixth VAT directive prevent us extending the scope of our current zero-rating.

  Cider
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy in the EC Council of Ministers to resist proposals that cider should be taxed as wine.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government support the industry's case for a separate tax category for cider and perry. We shall continue to oppose any proposal which would require cider and perry to be subject to the same rates of duty as wine.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for the latest year available, identifiable public expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) as an index (United Kingdom total identifiable public expenditure = 100), (c) as an amount per capita and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an index (United Kingdom amount per capita = 100).

  Mr. Mellor
  Identifiable public expenditure by function and territory for 1990–91 is set out in table E6 of the statistical supplement to the 1991 "Autumn Statement."

  Income Tax
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 322–23 to the hon. Member for Mid Kent (Mr. Rowe) if he will give the answer at 1991–92 prices and at 1991–92 earnings (average gross male earnings).

  Mr. Maude
  The information is in the table at 1991–92 prices. It is not appropriate to apply a gross earnings deflator to total tax liabilities.

  Tax liabilities 1985–86 to 1990–91 at 1991–92 prices

  Year

  Total tax liability

  Tax liability at the basic rate

  Tax liability at the higher rate

  of which Tax liability excess over the basic rate

  (£ billion)

  (£ billion)

  (£ billion)

  (£ billion)

  1985–86

  54·6

  47·2

  7·4

  2·9

  1986–87

  58·5

  49·4

  9·0

  3·8

  1987–88

  59·5

  49·1

  10·4

  4·9

  1988–89

  57·6

  47·1

  10·5

  3·9

  1989–90

  61·3

  49·3

  12·0

  4·5

  11990–91

  62·2

  49·1

  13·2

  4·9

  1 Latest estimate based on a projection of the 1989–90 Survey of Personal Income.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in the basic rate of income tax which would be required to yield the same revenue as his latest estimate of the net yield from the community charge in 1992–93.

  Mr. Maude
  Community charge receipts in 1992–93 are expected to be £8 billion as set out in table 1.2 of the 1992 FSBR. This is equivalent to 4p on the basic rate of income tax.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average mortgage loan in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

  Mr. Maples
  The average outstanding mortgage in the United Kingdom was £27,200 in 1991–92. The average new mortgage in 1991Q4 was around £45,000. No directly comparable figures are available for France and Germany. However, the average mortgage loan issued by a leading lender in France is currently in the region of 370,000 French francs, while the average new loan advanced by the German mortgage banks was 270,000 deutschmarks in 1989.

  Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue yield in 1992–93 from freezing(a) the married couple's allowance, (b) the additional pesonal allowance and (c) the widow's bereavement allowance, instead of index-linking them.

  Mr. Maude
  The yields in a full year at 1992–93 levels from freezing the married couple's allowance for those aged under 65 would be about £190 million. Corresponding yields for the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance are about £10 million and under £5 million.

  Valuation Reviews
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute a general valuation review of hotels, guest houses and holiday flats in north Devon.

  Mr. Maples
  I do not intend to institute a general valuation review of hotels, guest houses and holiday flats in north Devon.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to carry out a general review of the rating valuations of properties used for the accommodation of tourists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  It is not planned to carry out a general review of the rating valuation of properties used for the accommodation of tourists although the valuation officer, Bournemouth, is reinspecting hotels in the Bournemouth area and making adjustments to the rating assessments where necessary.

  National Debt
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the interest on the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product during the past five years and in 1978–79.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for both gross and net general Government debt interest during the past five years and in 1978–79 as a percentage of gross domestic product are given below:

  General Government debt interest as percentage of gross domestic product

  Gross

  Net1

  1978–79

  4·3

  2·6

  1986–87

  4·5

  3·0

  1987–88

  4·2

  2·8

  1988–89

  3·8

  2·5

  1989–90

  3·6

  2·2

  1990–91

  3·3

  2·1

  1 Interest payments by general government less interest receipts.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, otherwise comparable to table 5.11 of Cm 1920, providing similar analyses for(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 is set out in the table. Corresponding data for later years are not available.
  725

  Local authority expenditure in the United Kingdom by territory1

  1986–87 outturn £ million

  1987–88 outturn £ million

  1988–89 outturn £ million

  1989–90 outturn £ million

  1990–91 outturn £ million

  England

  Total expenditure

  34,726

  37,066

  38,856

  44,415

  47,333

  Less central Government support

  27,207

  29,136

  29,549

  30,783

  34,357

  Equals local authority self-financed expenditure

  7,519

  7,930

  9,307

  13,632

  12,976

  Scotland

  Total expenditure

  5,026

  5,394

  5,724

  6,228

  6,696

  Less central Government support

  4,259

  4,565

  4,885

  5,268

  5,527

  Equals local authority self-financed expenditure

  767

  828

  838

  959

  1,168

  Wales

  Total expenditure

  2,224

  2,398

  2,517

  2,839

  3,182

  Less central Government support

  1,890

  2,040

  2,141

  2,262

  2,589

  Equals local authority self-financed expenditure

  334

  358

  376

  577

  592

  Northern Ireland

  Total expenditure

  130

  134

  152

  155

  163

  Less central Government support

  37

  50

  46

  50

  47

  Equals local authority self-financed expenditure

  93

  84

  106

  106

  117

  1 The split of debt interest figures between territories is partially estimated.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, otherwise comparable to table 5.5 of Cm 1920, showing separately for local authorities in

  Central Government support for Local Authorities in the United Kingdom By Territory and Department

  £ million

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 plans

  1993–94 plans

  1994–95 plans

  England

  Current

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  24

  26

  25

  -59

  -118

  -133

  -164

  -186

  -207

  Department of Trade and Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  12

  15

  11

  12

  Department of Employment

  220

  238

  245

  330

  356

  404

  376

  390

  385

  Department of Transport

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  DOE—Housing

  21

  22

  26

  26

  2,351

  2,602

  2,980

  2,948

  3,076

  DOE—Environment

  93

  75

  66

  64

  61

  66

  87

  79

  82

  DOE—Local government

  17,047

  18,234

  18,817

  19,521

  20,342

  28,022

  30,714

  32,274

  33,761

  Home Office

  1,767

  1,970

  2,103

  2,366

  2,701

  3,074

  3,257

  3,476

  3,670

  Department of Education and Science

  636

  782

  831

  982

  1,529

  2,127

  2,353

  2,511

  2,637

  Department of Health

  —

  —

  7

  21

  29

  57

  84

  80

  78

  Department of Social Security

  4,159

  4,386

  4,153

  4,387

  3,267

  3,034

  3,614

  3,900

  4,200

  Total current

  23,968

  25,734

  26,275

  27,639

  30,520

  39,267

  43,319

  45,500

  47,700

  Capital Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  36

  30

  28

  29

  31

  43

  43

  42

  43

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Employment

  3

  3

  2

  2

  4

  5

  8

  4

  3

  Department of Transport

  487

  594

  670

  626

  747

  912

  1,025

  1,025

  1,048

  DOE—Housing

  1,613

  1,584

  1,508

  1,417

  1,851

  1,962

  1,924

  1,914

  1,964

  726
  England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the source departments for central Government support, distinguishing current from capital.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  727

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 plans

  1993–94 plans

  1994–95 plans

  DOE—Environment

  533

  607

  439

  474

  408

  496

  573

  571

  589

  DOE—Local government

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  —

  —

  Home Office

  102

  113

  113

  121

  222

  297

  322

  345

  357

  Department of Education and Science

  400

  402

  438

  406

  488

  545

  598

  611

  625

  Department of Health

  65

  69

  74

  69

  86

  109

  131

  128

  131

  Total capital

  3,239

  3,402

  3,274

  3,145

  3,837

  4,369

  4,665

  4,640

  4,760

  Total England

  27,207

  29,136

  29,549

  30,783

  34,357

  43,636

  47,984

  50,150

  52,450

  Scotland

  Current

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Department of Employment

  6

  6

  7

  14

  16

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Department of Social Security

  507

  589

  560

  629

  697

  680

  825

  850

  900

  Scotland

  3,034

  3,165

  3,533

  3,820

  4,000

  4,912

  5,214

  5,495

  5,728

  Total current

  3,551

  3,763

  4,103

  4,466

  4,716

  5,599

  6,046

  6,350

  6,650

  Capital

  Department of Employment

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Department of Transport

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  706

  800

  781

  801

  811

  873

  901

  924

  982

  Total capital

  708

  802

  783

  803

  812

  875

  901

  924

  982

  Total Scotland

  4,259

  4,565

  4,885

  5,268

  5,527

  6,474

  6,947

  7,300

  7,650

  Wales

  Current

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Employment

  12

  10

  10

  14

  16

  17

  18

  17

  18

  Home Office

  85

  96

  103

  109

  132

  150

  157

  167

  177

  Department of Education and Science

  38

  41

  44

  48

  78

  118

  133

  145

  153

  Department of Social Security

  238

  246

  244

  251

  153

  127

  151

  150

  200

  Wales

  1,207

  1,315

  1,416

  1,498

  1,794

  2,291

  2,458

  2,559

  2,670

  Total current

  1,581

  1,709

  1,817

  1,923

  2,174

  2,705

  2,919

  3,050

  3,200

  Capital

  Department of Employment

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Home Office

  9

  11

  7

  5

  8

  12

  17

  18

  19

  Wales

  300

  320

  316

  334

  407

  454

  531

  506

  512

  Total capital

  309

  331

  324

  339

  416

  467

  549

  525

  531

  Total Wales

  1,890

  2,040

  2,141

  2,262

  2,589

  3,172

  3,468

  3,600

  3,750

  Northern Ireland

  Current

  Northern Ireland

  31

  41

  41

  42

  44

  48

  50

  52

  55

  728 729

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  1992–93 plans

  1993–94 plans

  1994–95 plans

  Capital Northern Ireland

  6

  9

  5

  7

  3

  10

  9

  9

  9

  United Kingdom

  33,393

  35,792

  36,621

  38,363

  42,521

  53,340

  58,458

  61,050

  63,900

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, consistent with table 5.7 of Cm 1920 and showing separately for England, Scotland, Wales, Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, the sources of finance for that expenditure, structuring the analysis to be as closely related as possible to table 5.13 where full comparability is not possible because certain adjustments are not calculated at the level of the territories.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Budgets (Gains)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the average individual cumulative gain in 1992 prices to those with incomes(a) under £5,000 a year, (b) £5,000–10,000, (c) £10,000–15,000, (d) £15,000–20,000, (e) £20,000–25,000, (f) £25,000–30,000, (g) £30,000–40,000, (h) £40,000–50,000, (i) £50,000–60,000, (j) £60,000–70,000, (k) £70,000–80,000 and (l) over £80,000 per year (i) as a result of the Budget on 10 March and (ii) cumulatively as a result of all Budgets since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of liability to income tax compared with statutory indexation and with an indexed 1978–79 regime are given in the table. The 1978–79 and 1991–92 income tax regimes have been indexed to 1992–93 level by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  Range of individuals income in 1992–93 £

  Average gain (+)/loss (-) in income tax in 1992–93 £

  Compared with 1991–92 indexed regime

  Compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  Under 5,000

  40

  200

  5,000–10,000

  90

  420

  10,000–15,000

  90

  730

  15,000–20,000

  90

  1,060

  20,000–25,000

  90

  1,430

  25,000–30,000

  70

  1,830

  30,000–40,000

  -70

  2,230

  40,000–50,000

  -90

  3,570

  50,000–60,000

  -90

  6,010

  60,000–70,000

  -90

  9,830

  70,000–80,000

  -90

  13,200

  over 80,000

  -90

  45,800

  Average

  70

  1,240

  For the purpose of the calculation in the second column of the table, the indexed regime of 1978–79 has been applied directly to the income base of 1991–92. In practice, retention of the 1978–79 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the terms of the alternative financial assistance offered to staff civil servants when they are relocated.

  Mr. Maples
  A discretionary scheme to help civil servants who are permanently transferred and who are reluctant to move for domestic reasons was announced on 15 November 1990 at columns 188–89. The elements of the scheme are taxable. Departments and agencies discretion in offering this scheme will be further widened in 1992 to enable them to meet the cost-of the tax liability of the financial assistance, other than for the advance of salary, where this is cost-effective, and can be met within existing running costs.

CIVIL SERVICE

  "Next Steps"
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on progress in the "next steps" initiative.

  Mr. Renton
  Progress is good. During April we expect the total of agencies launched to grow to 72. About 290,000 civil servants, half the total, will be working in agencies and other organisations operating on "next steps" lines. In addition, 27 candidates have been announced covering over 65,000 more civil servants. Many other areas are under consideration. As Cm 1760—"Improving Management in Government—the Next Steps Agencies, Review 1991"—shows, "next steps" is delivering benefits for customers, staff and taxpayers.

  The list of agencies established or to he established during April 1992 is:

  Staff1

  Accounts Services Agency

  90

  ADAS Agency2

  2,500

  Building Research Establishment

  700

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  230

  Central Office of Information3

  670

  Central Science Laboratory2

  370

  Central Statistical Office

  1,090

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  590

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment4

  600

  Civil Service College

  230

  Companies House3

  1,070

  Compensation Agency2 5

  150

  Defence Research Agency

  12,150

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts4

  2,130

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  4,580

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency2 5

  250

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,080

  Duke of York's Royal Military School2

  100

  DVOIT2

  590

  Employment Service

  38,400

  Fire Service College2 3

  160

  Forensic Science Service

  600

  731

  Staff1

  Historic Royal Palaces

  330

  Historic Scotland

  630

  HMS03

  3,250

  Hydrographic Office4

  860

  Insolvency Service

  1,470

  Intervention Board

  980

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  340

  Land Registry

  9,800

  Medicines Control Agency

  300

  Meteorological Office

  2,390

  Military Survey4

  1,300

  National Engineering Laboratory

  390

  National Physical Laboratory

  830

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  440

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation2 4

  1,510

  NHS Estates

  120

  Occupational Health Service

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  2,380

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland2 5

  210

  Patent Office3

  1,080

  Planning Inspectorate2

  630

  Public Record Office2

  440

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  60

  Queen Victoria School2

  60

  Radiocommunications Agency

  520

  RAF Maintenance4

  13,300

  Rate Collection Agency5

  270

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  240

  Registers of Scotland

  1,280

  Royal Mint3

  1,020

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency2

  140

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  210

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)4

  2,300

  Social Security Agency5

  5,350

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  63,100

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  8,000

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  4,000

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  520

  Teachers' Pensions Agency2

  300

  The Buying Agency5

  110

  Training and Employment Agency

  1,670

  Transport Research Laboratory2

  580

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,250

  Valuation Office

  5,200

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  80

  Vehicle Inspectorate3

  1,820

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  80

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  310

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  30

  72 in number

  210,960

  Customs and Excise6 (30 executive units)

  26,800

  Inland Revenue6 (34 executive offices)

  62,100

  Total7

  299,860

  Number of civil servants in the above total8

  290,490

  The list of candidates for agency status announced by Ministers is as follows:

  1Staff

  Army Logistics9

  12,700

  Chessington Computer Centre

  440

  Child Support Agency5 10

  see note

  Common Services Division9

  1,700

  Defence Animal Centre9

  150

  Defence Operational Analysis Establishment9

  180

  Defence Postal Courier Service9

  600

  Defence Statistics Organisation9

  150

  Directorate Information Technology Bureau Services9

  120

  Equipment Test and Evaluation9

  2,220

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  20

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  34,900

  732

  1 Staff

  Human Factors Research9

  390

  Meat Hygiene Service11

  see note

  Ministry of Defence Police9

  4,550

  Naval Training9

  5,040

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  2,150

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  150

  Property Division

  120

  Property Holdings Portfolio Management

  460

  Royal Air Force Training9

  11,200

  Royal Parks

  580

  Scottish Office Superannuation

  160

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,100

  Social Security Child Support Agency12

  see note

  Valuation and Lands Office5

  350

  Youth Treatment Service

  220

  TOTAL (27 in number)7

  82,650

  Number of civil servants in the above total8

  66,320

  1 1 October 1991 figures for civil servants and armed forces personnel. Casuals are excluded. Part-time staff are counted as half units.

  2 Expected to be launched in April 1992.

  3 Trading fund.

  4 Defence Support Agency.

  5 Northern Ireland civil service.

  6 Departments operating fully on "next steps" lines. Staffing figures for Inland Revenue exclude the Valuation Office, which is a free-standing agency.

  7 Figure for total staff in agencies includes 8,070 armed forces personnel in Ministry of Defence agencies and 1,300 locally engaged staff in service children's schools (north-west Europe). Figure for total staff in candidates includes 16,330 armed forces personnel in Ministry of Defence candidates.

  8 Includes in the totals 7,900 staff in agencies and 350 staff in candidates in the Northern Ireland civil service.

  9 May be launched as a Defence Support Agency.

  10 Estimated to require 550 staff by April 1993. Of these 120 will come from the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency.

  11 Estimated to require 1,800 staff, drawn from a variety of sources.

  12 From early 1993 the agency is estimated to require 4,500 staff, 1,500 of which will come from the Social Security Benefits Agency.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many chief executives of "next steps" agencies have been recruited following open competition.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government's objective in appointing agency chief executives is to get the right person for the job. Open competition is now the norm, and about two thirds of chief executives and chief executives-designate —47 out of 74—have been recruited in this way.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Community Charge
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community charge defaulters have been gaoled in England and Wales since the charge was introduced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, one prisoner was received into a Prison Service establishment in 1990 following committal for non-payment of the community charge.

  Data for 1991 are not yet complete but the provisional figure for such receptions in the year is about 110.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional hours have been worked by prison officers, in each appropriate prison establishment, above those for which they have been contracted, and for which they are currently owed time off in lieu.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The latest readily available figures, for 5 January, show an average balance of 4.84 hours owed per officer. This is 34 per cent. less than the level at 1 September 1991. The situation varies in each establishment in line with a range of factors.

  The overall number of net additional hours per establishment and the average balance of hours owed per officer at each establishment is as follows.

  Establishment

  Balance of hours 5 January 1992 (week 41)

  Balance of hours per office 5 January 1992

  Category B

  Blundeston

  1,266

  8·17

  Coldingley

  -309

  -2·01

  Cookham Wood

  272

  4·86

  Dartmoor

  -787

  -3·27

  Garth

  1,373

  6·18

  Grendon

  452

  2·54

  Kingston

  90

  1·30

  Maidstone

  856

  4·16

  Nottingham

  1,084

  8·74

  Styal

  59

  ·52

  Swaleside

  -204

  -·96

  Total

  4,152

  2·40

  Category C

  Acklington

  -132

  -·71

  Aldington

  146

  3·04

  Ashwell

  196

  2·15

  Blantyre House

  117

  2·35

  Camp Hill

  353

  1·94

  Channings Wood1

  -122

  -·84

  Downview

  -144

  -1·26

  Erlestoke

  434

  4·72

  Everthorpe

  80

  ·85

  Haverigg

  230

  2·23

  Highpoint

  874

  4·14

  Lancaster

  535

  6·15

  Lindholme

  -361

  -1·64

  Littlehey

  1,331

  8·27

  Northeye

  542

  7·63

  Ranby

  720

  6·67

  Risley (F)

  70

  ·69

  Risley (M)

  2,182

  14·64

  Send

  -83

  -1·69

  Shepton Mallet

  330

  3·88

  Stafford

  761

  3·28

  Stocken

  1,046

  7·93

  The Mount

  447

  3·22

  The Verne

  -179

  -1·17

  Thorp Arch

  10

  ·14

  Wayland

  607

  3·94

  Wellingborough

  241

  1·96

  Whatton

  401

  5·49

  Wymott

  117

  ·55

  Total

  10,749

  2·96

  Local and Remand

  Bedford

  66

  0·33

  Belmarsh

  2,530

  6·04

  Birmingham

  -1,009

  -2·37

  Bristol

  246

  0·88

  Brixton

  18,346

  27·38

  Brockhill

  -112

  -0·93

  Bullingdon

  77

  3·35

  734

  Establishment

  Balance of hours 5 January 1992(week 41)

  Balance of hours per officer 5 January 1992

  Canterbury

  1,736

  9·09

  Cardiff

  1,281

  5·74

  Chelmsford

  830

  3·90

  Dorchester

  -215

  -2·01

  Durham

  3,712

  8·78

  Exeter

  568

  2·59

  Feltham

  1,471

  3·89

  Gloucester

  1,620

  12·18

  Haslar

  -186

  -3·96

  Hindley

  204

  1·19

  Holloway

  415

  1·40

  Hull

  139

  0·51

  Latchmere House

  75

  1·27

  Leeds

  2,463

  6·19

  Leicester

  4,088

  17·18

  Lewes

  1,438

  6·82

  Lincoln

  518

  1·90

  Liverpool

  2,973

  5·16

  Low Newton

  996

  8·23

  Manchester

  3,208

  8·89

  Moorland

  -683

  -2·52

  New Hall

  257

  2·16

  Norwich

  824

  3·06

  Oxford

  1,070

  9·39

  Pentonville

  1,308

  -4·42

  Preston

  270

  0·90

  Pucklechurch

  265

  4·14

  Reading

  260

  1·76

  Rochester

  263

  1·50

  Shrewsbury

  2,471

  16·36

  Swansea

  2,047

  13·74

  Wandsworth

  3,668

  7·58

  Winchester

  1,269

  4·63

  Local and Remand

  58,151

  5·90

  Dispersal

  Albany

  4,190

  12·74

  Frankland

  8,763

  21·38

  Full Sutton

  1,214

  2·30

  Gartree

  -399

  -1·33

  Long Lartin

  4,020

  11·59

  Parkhurst

  3,491

  9·49

  Wakefield

  10

  0·02

  Dispersal Total

  21,289

  7·77

  Open

  Askham Grange

  53

  1·23

  Drake Hall

  -305

  -4·62

  Foston/Sudbury

  1,238

  15·28

  Kirkham

  -28

  -0·38

  Leyhill

  -127

  -1·63

  Morton Hall

  117

  3·53

  North Sea Camp

  149

  3·91

  Rudgate

  -18

  -0·34

  Standford Hill

  326

  4·18

  Open Total

  1,404

  2·58

  Closed YOI

  Aylesbury

  310

  1·78

  Bullwood Hall

  65

  0·84

  Castington

  -13

  -0·10

  Deerbolt

  54

  0·37

  Dover

  180

  1·46

  Eastwood Park

  362

  7·54

  Hollesley Bay

  547

  2·99

  Kirklevington

  1,057

  21·57

  Northallerton

  91

  1·01

  Onley1

  1,771

  10·42

  Portland

  -131

  -0·83

  Stoke Heath

  320

  2·19

  Swinfen Hall

  792

  7·84

  Usk/Prescoed

  -452

  -4·91

  Werrington

  -574

  -14·00

  735

  Establishment

  Balance of hours 5 January 1992 (week 41)

  Balance of hours per officer 5 January 1992

  Wetherby

  3

  0·04

  Closed YOI Total

  4,382

  2·43

  Open YOI

  East Sutton Pk

  -318

  -13·83

  Guys Marsh

  -322

  -5·19

  H'Combe/F'Wood

  577

  5·25

  Hatfield

  -41

  -0·69

  Hewell Grange

  113

  2·46

  Thorn Cross

  -96

  -1·30

  Open YOI Total

  -87

  -0·23

  National Total

  100,040

  4·84

  £ million

  Expenditure

  Terms

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 1outturn

  1992–93 plans

  1993–94 plans

  1994–95 plans

  Home Office—central Government's own expenditure—total voted in estimates

  Cash

  1,072

  1,194

  1,369

  1,631

  1,966

  2,155

  2,227

  2,376

  2,433

  Real

  1,399

  1,478

  1,581

  1,769

  1,966

  2,014

  1,992

  2,048

  2,036

  Total other non-voted

  Cash

  —

  22

  —14

  —16

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Real

  —

  27

  —16

  —17

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Total central Government's own expenditure

  Cash

  1,072

  1,216

  1,356

  1,615

  1,967

  2,156

  2,227

  2,377

  2,434

  Real

  1,399

  1,506

  1,566

  1,752

  1,967

  2,015

  1,992

  2,049

  2,037

  Total central Government grants to local authorities

  Cash

  1,890

  2,092

  2,239

  2,500

  2,964

  3,402

  3,604

  3,846

  4,056

  Real

  2,467

  2,590

  2,586

  2,712

  2,964

  3,179

  3,223

  3,315

  3,394

  Credit approvals

  Cash

  73

  97

  87

  101

  100

  131

  149

  161

  167

  Real

  95

  120

  101

  110

  100

  122

  133

  139

  140

  Total central Government support to local authorities

  Cash

  1,963

  2,190

  2,325

  2,601

  3,064

  3,533

  3,753

  4,007

  4,223

  Real

  2,563

  2,712

  2,686

  2,822

  3,064

  3,302

  3,356

  3,454

  3,534

  Total Home Office

  Cash

  3,035

  3,405

  3,681

  4,216

  5,031

  5,689

  5,981

  6,384

  6,656

  Real

  3,962

  4,216

  4,252

  4,574

  5,031

  5,317

  5,349

  5,503

  5,570

  Of which is voted in Estimates

  Cash

  2,962

  3,286

  3,608

  4,131

  4,929

  5,558

  5,830

  6,222

  6,489

  Real

  3,867

  4,069

  4,168

  4,481

  4,929

  5,194

  5,214

  5,363

  5,431

  Charity Commission— voted in Estimates (administration)

  Cash

  5

  6

  7

  10

  15

  20

  22

  22

  23

  Real

  7

  7

  8

  11

  15

  19

  20

  19

  19

  Total Home Office and Charity Commission

  Cash

  3,040

  3,411

  3,688

  4,226

  5,045

  5,708

  6,002

  6,406

  6,679

  Real

  3,969

  4,223

  4,260

  4,585

  5,045

  5,335

  5,368

  5,522

  5,590

  Total current local authority spending

  Cash

  4,094

  4,474

  4,928

  5,563

  6,207

  6,938

  —

  —

  —

  Real

  5,345

  5,540

  5,693

  6,035

  6,207

  6,484

  —

  —

  —

  Local authority net capital spending

  Cash

  120

  172

  208

  291

  250

  311

  —

  —

  —

  Real

  157

  213

  240

  316

  250

  291

  —

  —

  —

  Total local authority expenditure

  Cash

  4,214

  4,647

  5,136

  5,854

  6,457

  7,249

  —

  —

  —

  Real

  5,501

  5,754

  5,933

  6,351

  6,457

  6,775

  —

  —

  —

  1 Estimated.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reasons for the differences between the 1991–92 expenditure plans published last year in Cm 1509 and the 1991–92 totals for estimated outturn.

  Community Charge Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the document which magistrates' clerks return to enable his Department to compile the quarterly progress of community charge enforcement figures and any ancillary explanatory memoranda.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have arranged for a copy of the last return and accompanying notes to be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will express the totals and sub-totals for planned expenditure given in the cash plans published in Cm 1909 in real terms as well as cash terms.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is as follows. The real term figures are expressed in 1990–91 prices using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The difference of £115 million between 1991–92 expenditure plans for the prisons as shown in Cm 1909 and estimated outturn as shown in Cm 1509 is because there has been additional expenditure to pay for the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells, mainly
  737
  due to an increase in prison population. Extra expenditure was also necessary to meet the construction costs of new prisons, due mainly to slippage in the programme, claims from contractors and the accelerated integral sanitation programme.

  Expenditure on the police has risen because estimated outturn now includes £3 million representing the cost of superannuation in the charges made for services and £4 million to meet the cost of centralising the provision of an existing service. The Forensic Science Service estimated outturn also now includes £2 million for the cost of superannuation. The increase of £3 million for miscellaneous services is mainly due to higher than anticipated levels of transfer values and pensions payments.

  The increase of £13 million for immigration and citizenship is mainly attributable to the increased resources made available in the summer supplementary estimate (HC486) for the processing of asylum applications. This also accounts for the £1 million increase for community services, which covers grants to organisations assisting asylum seekers. The £1 million reduction in the estimated outturn for other broadcasting is due to the changed requirements of the loan to the Radio Authority.

  Other changes to the distribution of central Government's own expenditure are caused by reallocations of resources within the overall total.

  1991 Departmental Report

  1992 Departmental Report

  Changes

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Central Government

  Prisons

  1,290

  1,300

  1,363

  1,399

  73

  (6)

  99

  (8)

  Police

  110

  110

  146

  148

  36

  (33)

  38

  (35)

  Forensic Science Agency

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  (—)

  2

  (—)

  Emergency Planning

  50

  40

  50

  41

  0

  (0)

  1

  (2·5)

  Fire

  10

  10

  15

  112

  5

  (50)

  2

  (20)

  Central Administration

  100

  110

  106

  111

  6

  (6)

  1

  (1)

  Court Services

  30

  30

  38

  38

  8

  (27)

  8

  (27)

  Criminal Injuries Compensation

  130

  140

  137

  150

  7

  (5)

  10

  (7)

  Probation and Aftercare

  60

  60

  68

  80

  8

  (13)

  20

  (33)

  Miscellaneous Services

  10

  20

  19

  22

  9

  (90)

  2

  (10)

  Immigration and Citizenship

  120

  140

  166

  199

  46

  (38)

  59

  (42)

  Passport Department

  50

  60

  58

  60

  8

  (16)

  0

  (0)

  Community Services

  40

  40

  41

  43

  1

  (2)

  3

  (8)

  Other Broadcasting

  0

  0

  1

  -1

  1

  (—)

  -1

  (—)

  Total Central Government

  2,000

  2,060

  2,227

  2,376

  227

  (11)

  316

  (15)

  Central Government grants to local authorities

  Police

  2,770

  2,960

  2,869

  3,058

  99

  (4)

  98

  (3)

  Of which:

  Current

  2,664)

  2,850

  2,752

  2,932

  92

  (3)

  82

  (3)

  Capital

  110

  110

  118

  126

  8

  (7)

  16

  (15)

  Emergency Planning

  20

  20

  27

  28

  7

  (35)

  8

  (40)

  Of which:

  Current

  20

  20

  23

  24

  3

  (15)

  4

  (20)

  Capital

  0

  0

  4

  4

  4

  (—)

  4

  (—)

  Magistrates Courts

  280

  310

  290

  308

  10

  (4)

  -2

  (-1)

  Of which:

  Current

  230

  250

  236

  252

  6

  (3)

  2

  (1)

  Capital

  50

  60

  54

  56

  4

  (8)

  -4

  (-7)

  Probation

  270

  290

  287

  310

  17

  (6)

  20

  (7)

  Of which:

  Current

  260

  280

  273

  294

  13

  (5)

  14

  (5)

  Capital

  10

  10

  14

  16

  4

  (40)

  6

  (60)

  Commonwealth Immigrants

  130

  140

  134

  141

  4

  (3)

  1

  (1)

  Fire

  0

  0

  -3

  0

  -3

  (—)

  0

  (0)

  Total Central Government grants to local authorities

  3,480

  3,720

  3,604

  3,846

  124

  (4)

  126

  (3)

  Of which:

  Current

  3,310

  3,540

  3,414

  3,643

  104

  (3)

  103

  (3)

  Capital

  180

  190

  190

  202

  10

  (6)

  12

  (6)

  738
  The total increases of £168 million in central Government current grants to local authorities are attributable to changed local authority estimates of expenditure and to grant adjustments for previous years. The only difference in the outturn for capital grant is to cover an increase of £1 million in capital expenditure by the Metropolitan police, and was authorised by the summer supplementary estimate (HC486).

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the rise in the estimate of outturn for 1991–92, as recorded in Cm 1909, will have on his Department's expenditure plans for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Some of the developments affecting estimated outturn for 1991–92 can be expected to become a regular feature of the Department's expenditure. To the extent consistent with the resources available to my Department, such developments have been taken into account in planning expenditure in 1992–93.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what differences there are between the planned outturns for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the planned expenditure for those years as recorded in last year's annual report; and what are the reasons for these differences.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is as follows:
  739

  1991 Departmental Report

  1992 Departmental Report

  Changes

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Credit Approvals

  130

  140

  149

  161

  19

  (15)

  21

  (15)

  Total Central Government support to local authorities

  3,610

  3,860

  3,753

  4,007

  143

  (4)

  147

  (4)

  Total Home Office

  5,610

  5,920

  5,981

  6,384

  371

  (7)

  464

  (8)

  1 Figure shown is an amalgamation of both the Fire Service College and Other Fire, which are shown separately in the 1992 Departmental Report.

  The main reasons for these differences are that additional provision has been made for extra police manpower; improved security and the ending of slopping out in prisons; increased expenditure to implement the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and continue the programme of diverting offenders from custody; and strengthening the immigration control system. Further details were given in the House Office news release accompanying the Home Office aspects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 1991 autumn statement. A copy of this news release was placed in the Library.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional commitments which will involve spending in the years after 1994–95 he has undertaken since the publication of his Department's 1991 annual report.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In June 1991, I announced the appointment of Mr. Anthony Mullett, QPM as director-designate of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The service will become operational on 1 April 1992 and will bring together a number of national units

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 estimated outturn

  Change

  Change after gross domestic product deflator

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Central Government

  Prisons

  1,342·0

  1,447·0

  8

  1

  Police

  96·0

  114·0

  19

  11

  Forensic Science Service

  18·0

  2·0

  -89

  -89

  Emergency Planning

  55·0

  53·0

  -4

  -10

  Fire Service College

  8·0

  6·0

  -25

  -33

  Other Fire

  5·0

  7·0

  40

  40

  Central Administration

  92·0

  100·0

  9

  2

  Court Services etc·

  22·0

  26·0

  18

  8

  Criminal Injuries Compensation

  100·0

  119·0

  19

  11

  Probation and Aftercare

  39·0

  49·0

  26

  17

  Miscellaneous Services

  14·0

  21·0

  50

  40

  Immigration and Citizenship

  91·0

  118·0

  30

  22

  Passport Department

  48·0

  52·0

  8

  2

  Community Services

  36·0

  39·0

  8

  0

  Other Broadcasting

  —

  1·0

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  1,966·0

  2,155·0

  10

  2

  Local Authority Services

  Police1

  2,379·0

  2,783·0

  17

  9

  Magistrates Courts1

  261·0

  294·0

  13

  5

  Probation 1

  228·0

  272·0

  19

  11

  Emergency Planning 1

  22·8

  26·8

  18

  10

  Commonwealth Immigrants 2

  135·5

  4 116·7

  -14

  -20

  Fire 3

  45·0

  47·0

  4

  -2

  TOTAL

  3,071·3

  3,539·5

  15

  8

  740
  such as the national drugs intelligence unit and the Interpol bureau, together with several national intelligence functions at present performed by the Metropolitan police.

  The Home Office will be responsible for meeting the United Kingdom's share of the cost of a new Europe-wide, computer-based information system for immigration control purposes (the European information system).

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies he has to constrain expenditure if pay increases in 1992–93 are greater than allowed in departmental running costs plans.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  If pay increases in 1992–93 are greater than allowed in my Department's running costs plans. I will reconsider my priorities and seek offsetting savings.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in the 1991–92 estimated outturn compared with the 1990–91 outturn in(a) percentage terms and (b) after adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is as follows:
  741

  1 Current, capital and special grants, and credit approvals.

  2 Current grants

  3 Credit approvals.

  4 Due to a change from paying grant in advance to paying grant in arrears, only three quarterly payments have been made during 1991–92.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures his Department has for keeping itself informed of the regional distribution of its expenditure and for correcting any significant unintended imbalances which appear.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The nature of Home Office services is such that their provision is generally demand-led, and as the greater part of Home Office expenditure takes the form of grants to local authorities, the mechanism for achieving a fair distribution is inherently self-regulating. So far as the Home Office's own direct expenditure is concerned, it would not he feasible to adopt a policy of ensuring that such expenditure is divided proportionately between the regions because other considerations must take precedence in determining the distribution of resources. In the Prison Service, however, the vote is constructed broadly on the basis of regional structure, and each region bids for its own funds. The financial management system records expenditure against regional budgets. The position is monitored regularly by the central finance committee, which will adjust any imbalance by virement and/or by means of a supplementary estimate.

  Departmental Efficiency
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Deparmtent what percentage growth in aggregate departmental efficiency he estimates will be achieved by the Home Office between 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The latest estimates are that between 1991–92 and 1992–93, the Prison Service will achieve efficiency savings of 1·7 per cent. and the remainder of the Department 1·9 per cent. in the use of its respective running costs.

  Agencies
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to alter current financial arrangements for his Department's agencies;

  (2) if it is his policy for the Passport Agency and the Forensic Science Service eventually to operate as trading funds.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is the policy of the Department for the two agencies to operate as trading funds as soon as they have gained sufficient experience and developed appropriate systems. In each case, work is in hand to develop improved financial and management information system.

  The proposed target date for establishing the United Kingdom Passport Agency as a trading fund is 1 April 1994. Achieving this will depend on the successful development of the agency's new computerised accounting system.

  The Forensic Science Service is aiming to introduce in 1992–93 an integrated IT system to support its business activities, and progress has been made in moving to a business-like basis of operation. But the further development necessary to enable the FSS to operate successfully as a trading fund is likely to take at least another three to four years.
  742
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish any executive agencies in 1992–93, apart from the Fire Service College.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have no plans to establish any other new agencies during the coming financial year, but, as I said in answer to a question from my hon. Friend yesterday at column 592, I intend that the Prison Service should become an executive agency from 1 April 1993. A number of other areas of the Department are also being considered as potential agencies.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicity was given to the publication of his Department's annual report, Cm 1909.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A Home Office news release was issued on the publication of the Department's annual report, 1909. A copy was placed in the Library.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of his Department's annual report, Cm 1909, have been sold at the latest available date.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand that at 5 March 1992, HMSO had sold 1,748 copies of my Department's annual report, Cm 1909.

  Bomb Explosion (Victoria Station)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injury from the bomb explosion at Victoria station on 18 February 1991 have still not been settled; when the claim from a constituent of the right hon. Member for Worthing is likely to be met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following information about the 42 applications for compensation arising from the bomb incident at Victoria station on 18 February 1991 has been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:

  Status of applications

  Number of applications

  Yet to be considered by board member

  11

  Currently with board member for initial decision

  5

  Interim payment or payments awarded

  23

  Final award made

  3

  Total

  42

  The board recently agreed an interim award to an applicant from Worthing and an offer letter will be sent shortly. Total compensation in this case cannot be assessed until the final medical position is established and loss of earnings has been agreed.

  Research (Non-human Primates)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received a copy of the response from the Research Defence Society dated January 1992 to the Advocates for Animals report on the use of non-human primates in research in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A copy of the Research Defence Society analysis of the Advocates for Animals report, which it sent to Members of Parliament who had signed early-day motion 214, was received in the Department on 29 January 1992.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department published its response to the Advocates for Animals report into the use of non-human primates in research in Great Britain; and if he will name those organisations to whom it was sent.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Home Office responded to the Advocates for Animals report on 3 February 1992 after detailed consideration of its contents. The Home Office response was made available to the Animal Procedures Committee, but has not otherwise been made available to any organisation.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department consulted(a) the Research Defence Society or (b) any other pro-animal research organisation before responding to the Advocates for Animals report on the use of non-human primates in research in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the course of the regular contact which the Home Office has with the Research Defence Society, along with other organisations concerned with the use of animals in research, the report by Advocates for Animals was discussed. The Home Office response to the report was however formulated in the light of detailed comments from Home Office inspectors about the research work in question and was not discussed with any outside organisations.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the similarity between the wording used by his Department in its response to the Advocates for Animals' report on the use of non-human primates in research in Great Britain and that contained in the response received earlier from the Research Defence Society.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Although the Home Office was aware of the Research Defence Society's views, the responses were prepared separately.

  Crime, Manchester
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help prevent crime in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have set up safer cities crime prevention projects in Rochdale and Salford, and drugs prevention teams in Salford and Manchester. My right hon. Friend has also approved an additional 20 posts in Greater Manchester police from 1 April this year. In addition the Government encourage the growth and development of local neighbourhood watch schemes and there are now approximately 9,000 watch schemes in the area, covering 270,000 households.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Determined efforts have been maintained and developed to counter crime. The number of police posts in England and Wales has increased by 4,257, bringing the total to 127,127. The number of civilians supporting the police has increased by 6,242 to 46,948 and since 1986–87 expenditure on the police has increased by 24·9 per cent. in real terms. Action has been put in place to develop the most efficient use of resources, to enhance the police capacity to deal with crime and the other demands on them and to improve the quality of service to the public.

  Twenty safer cities projects have been set up in inner-city areas supporting over 2,300 initiatives with the objectives of reducing crime, lessening the fear of crime and creating conditions in which economic enterprise and community life can flourish. Crime prevention has been taken forward rigorously with the establishment of "Crime Concern" and initiatives, including on car crime, have been taken.

  Legislation has been passed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention against the illicit traffic in drugs; to enhance the control of firearms; to strengthen the country's defences against terrorism; to increase the powers available to the courts for dealing with football hooligans; to improve our ability to give effect to our policy of firm but fair immigration control; to create a new and more open and competitive framework for the licensing and regulation of independent radio and television services, leading to greater choice for viewers and listeners while maintaining proper safeguards for programme quality and standards; to remove outdated restrictions on licensing laws; to enable the United Kingdom to participate more effectively an international co-operation against crime, including a major reform of the extradition law; to make provision for courts to order the confiscation of the proceeds of profitable crime; to provide for unduly lenient sentences to be reviewed; to tighten the law on possession of knives and to ban the sale of offensive weapons which have no legitimate use; to strengthen the jury system; to reform the law on official secrets by replacing section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 with provisions protecting just six classes of official information; and to put the Security Service on a statutory basis, with the appointment of a commissioner and provision for complaints to be made to an independent tribunal.

  Legislation has been passed to encourage key Hong Kong personnel and their families to remain there by giving them the assurance of British citizenship in order to help them maintain the future stability and prosperity of the territory. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 strengthened the range and effectiveness of community penalties and provides a new and more coherent legislative framework for sentencing.

  Legislation has also been enacted for England and Wales to create an offence of prison mutiny and to increase the maximum penalty for aiding prisoners to escape and to ensure that anyone guilty of taking a vehicle without consent is liable to a more severe sentence in aggravated

  745
  circumstances. A Bill was introduced to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with quickly and effectively.

  A Royal Commission has been established to examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in securing the convictions of those guilty of criminal offences and the acquittal of the innocent.

  In addition to a major programme to impose existing prisons, since the beginning of 1987 10 new prisons have been opened, providing over 5,500 places. A further three prisons are due to open in the next three months, giving another 1,600 places, and five are under construction providing over 3,000 more places. Arrangements are being made so that from the end of December 1994 all prisoners in Prison Service establishments will have access to sanitation at all times.

  The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice", presented to Parliament last September, charts a course for the Prison Service in England and Wales into the next century and plans have been announced for the management of the Prison Service, including a move to agency status for the service. My Department launched two other "next steps" agencies in 1991— the Forensic Science Service and the United Kingdom Passport Agency —and the Fire Service college will become an agency next month.

  Naturalisation Applications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding applications for naturalisation as a British citizen are(a) less than one year old, (b) between one and two years old, (c) between two and three years old and (d) more than three years old.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at II March 1992 the number of applications for naturalisation awaiting determination was 41,799. Of these(a) 14,992 were less than one year old, (b) 14,640 were between one and two years old, (c) 5,486 were between two and three years old, and (d) 6,681 applications were more than three years old. In addition, there were about 3,500 applications of all types for citizenship awaiting allocation to caseworkers.

  Child Abuse, Rossendale
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Lancashire on the steps the police are now taking to re-open investigations arising from inquiries made by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) in 1987 relating to alleged abuse by Mr. Michael Finn while he was a teacher at a primary school in Rossendale.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The investigation of criminal offences is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  Shops Act 1950
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the progress of his consultations about the future of the Shops Act 1950.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have recently concluded my extensive programme of separate discussions with a wide range of major interest groups on possible ways of reforming the 746
  Shops Act 1950. Once the legal position of the Act in relation to Community law is clear, I hope to be in a position to recommend a way forward to the House.

  Firearms Licensing
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review of the firearms licensing system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  New controls on firearms and shotguns were imposed by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I am sure that these controls are justified and should remain.

  Responsibility for administering the controls currently rests with chief officers of police. The licensing function places an onerous administrative burden on police forces and diverts police officers from skilled police work, which only they can do.

  I have today issued a public consultation paper which suggests that firearms licensing might be administered by a new civilian firearms control board, staffed by trained firearms and crime prevention experts. This is an imaginative proposal: it would put public safety first by providing a licensing system operated expertly, consistently and economically; and it would release police officers for other work. I urge all those involved to study the consultation paper. Their comments will be most carefully considered. I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Inquests
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of inquests into deaths in police custody or in prison where the Government Departments were represented; and how long these inquests lasted during the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: Between 1 January 1990 and 6 March 1992 there were 175 deaths in prison custody. The Prison Service was represented at 44 of the 131 inquests which have so far been held into these deaths. There is no Home Office representation at inquests into deaths in police custody.

  Information on the number of inquests between 1988 and 1990 at which the Prison Service was represented could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on the duration of inquests is not available.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the results of the 1986 inter-censual survey(a) in south Glamorgan and (b) other areas were used to supplement the results of the 1981 census in determining the factors considered in calculating the number of officers needed by the South Wales constabulary as part of his Department's recent review of police manpower.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 December 1991, c. 508]: I now understand from OPCS that an inter-censual sample survey did take place in Wales in 1986; there was however no survey in England. The results of the Welsh survey could not have been used to calculate the relative establishment need of the South Wales constabulary because the formula used to assess relative need requires comparable information for all force areas in England and Wales.

HEALTH

  North Staffordshire DHA (Radiation Treatment)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the terms of reference of each of the two inquiries into the radiation treatment at the North Staffordshire district health authority; and when he expects each of the reports to be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has assigned an inspector, appointed to enforce the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Treatment) Regulations 1988, to investigate the circumstances of this incident. He will make recommendations, when he has completed his investigations, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on what action, if any, is needed and what wider lessons can be learned. In addition, North Staffordshire health authority has appointed two independent experts, Dr. Ash of Cookridge hospital, Leeds and Dr. Bates of St. Thomas' hospital, London, to carry out a clinical review of all cases and West Midlands regional health authority has announced an independent inquiry, chaired by Sir Peter Baldwin, into how the incident occurred. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir James Ackers, the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, for the terms of reference for both these inquiries.

  Computer Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the capital expenditure and (b) the revenue expenditure incurred on computer hardware and software by each individual health authority in England in each year since 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A table showing the information requested for 1987–88, which was derived from the annual accounts of health authorities in England for that financial year, has been placed in the Library. For comparable information for the years since 1987–88 and notes on this expenditure, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 January at columns 541–43.

  GPs Examination Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the maximum charge which a general practitioner is entitled to make to provide a doctor's examination certificate for motor insurance for a patient in receipt of invalidity benefit and mobility allowance.

  (2) if he will exempt claimants on disability benefits from insurance certificate charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under their terms of service in the NHS, general practitioners must issue free of charge only certain specified certificates needed by patients to meet statutory requirements, such as those needed to support claims for social security benefits. Doctors may make a charge for providing private certificates including those requested by insurance companies; the amount charged in such cases is for agreement between the doctor and the patient.

  General Practice Nurses
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses worked for general practitioners in 1978–79, 1983–84, 1990–91 and at the latest available date, respectively.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of GP practice nurses—whole-time equivalent—in England were: 888 in October 1978; 1,657 in October 1983, and 7,698 in October 1990—the latest figure available.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of hospitals closed in each year since 1979; and what information his Department has on the number of closures in the current financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of proceeds from the sale of closed hospital sites in each year since 1979; and what information his Department has on proceeds from sales in the current financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Total capital receipts from the sale of NHS land and buildings in England since 1979 are shown in the table. The latest estimate available for the current financial year is about £200 million.

  £ million

  1979–80

  9·9

  1980–81

  15·2

  1981–82

  19·4

  1982–83

  18·0

  1983–84

  31·5

  1984–85

  48·4

  1985–86

  82·3

  1986–87

  145·1

  1987–88

  197·8

  1988–89

  265·8

  1989–90

  221·0

  1990–91

  159·4

  All proceeds have been reinvested in the NHS.

  Television
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines or restrictions exist covering the charging by health authorities and health trusts for the use of television by patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provision of communal television sets is a matter left to the discretion of individual trusts and health authorities. Charging is considered appropriate to meet the reasonable cost involved where patients wish to have a TV facility for their own personal use.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the ratio of patients to general practitioners in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the table which relates to the average list sizes in England at 1 April 1991, the latest date for which figures
  749
  are available. The information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Region

  Average list size

  Northern

  1,916

  Yorkshire

  1,894

  Trent

  1,985

  East Anglia

  1,820

  North West Thames

  2,036

  North East Thames

  2,015

  South East Thames

  1,977

  South West Thames

  1,991

  Wessex

  1,824

  Oxford

  1,887

  South Western

  1,763

  West Midlands

  1,969

  Mersey

  1,992

  North Western

  1,778

  Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to report on the outcome of the review of the health benefits low income scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are giving careful consideration to a number of proposals arising from the review. The results will be announced when this process is complete.

  West Middlesex University Hospital
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between the Houslow and Spelthorne district health authority and the North West Thames regional health authority concerning a new surgical block for the West Middlesex university hospital; on what date the district is expected to submit the formal application to the region; by what date the region expects to decide; what is the expected gross capital cost; what contribution to the cost will be made from the sale of the site of the former South Middlesex hospital following the grant of planning permission for a Tesco shop; and whether the consent of the Secretary of State for health is required.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that there have been discussions between the Hounslow and Spelthorne district health authority and the North West Thames regional health authority over many months concerning the use of funds of some £29 million from the sale of the former South Middlesex hospital towards the further development of the West Middlesex university hospital. A formal application was submitted in January 1992. Until the final shape and cost of the scheme is decided it is not possible to say whether the scheme will require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's consent.

  Deaths
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred in 1991 from HIV-related illnesses, measles, meningitis, whooping cough and cot death; and what resources are being deployed by his Department to combat these diseases, respectively.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1991, the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance 750
  centre reported the number of deaths in reported AIDS cases as 816. The actual number, not yet available because of delays in the reporting system, is estimated to be over 1,250. In addition, 46 deaths were reported in 1991 in HIV infected persons without AIDS. This number may also increase as a result of delayed reporting. In 1991 the Government allocated £11 million for the development of AIDS public education, £147·5 million to health and local authorities for the development of AIDS services including diagnosis, treatment, care and prevention, and nearly £2 million to the voluntary sector. The Medical Research Council has been allocated £31 million over five years for programmes on vaccines and drugs for treatment.

  Provisional reports indicate that there were no deaths from acute measles or whooping cough in England and Wales in 1991. Immunisation against both diseases is included in the national childhood immunisation programme, and at November 1991, coverage was 90 per cent. of children aged two years for measles and 88 per cent. at 18 months for whooping cough. It is not possible to give the precise cost of these vaccines, but the immunisation publicity campaign in 1991–92 has cost 1·8 million with £2·2 million planned for 1992–93.

  Deaths from all forms of meningitis totalled 236 in England and Wales for the first three quarters of 1991. Figures for the final quarter are not yet available. In October a vaccine—"Hib"—against invasive haemophilus disease, one of the main causes of bacterial meningitis, will be added to the programme. A major information and education campaign will precede the launch of Hib vaccine.

  In 1990, the latest year for which figures are available, the number of infant deaths in England and Wales with any mention of sudden infant death on the death certificate was 1,280, a welcome reduction from the peak of 1,629 deaths in 1988. Whilst the causes of sudden infant death remain unknown, recent research showing that placing babies down to sleep on their back or side can reduce significantly the risk of cot death led to the launch of the £2 million "Back to Sleep" campaign in December 1991 and the issue of 3 million leaflets on "Reducing the Risk of Cot Death". We hope that this will lead to a continuation of the downward trend we have recently seen. Since 1979, the Government have spent £3·8 million on research into sudden infant death and respiratory distress syndromes through the Medical Research Council.

  Pharmacist Contractors' Fees
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount paid to pharmacist contractors in England and Wales in respect of fees and on-cost, expressed in pence per prescription and as a percentage of the total amount paid per prescription for each of the last 10 years at actual and constant prices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is given in the table:

  Fees and oncost—Pence per prescription

  Year

  Actual prices

  Constant prices2

  Percentage of total amount paid

  1981

  76·3

  136·7

  22·4

  1982

  84·6

  141·6

  22·4

  1983

  88·7

  141·8

  21·5

  1984

  1041

  158·5

  23·8

  19851

  97·8

  148·9

  21·9

  751

  Year

  Actual prices

  Constant prices2

  Percentage of total amount paid

  1985–86

  115·6

  166·8

  23·9

  1986–87

  121·9

  170·3

  23·8

  1987–88

  120·6

  159·8

  21·9

  1988–89

  132·0

  1632

  21·9

  1989–90

  145·7

  169·1

  22·7

  1990–91

  138·7

  148·4

  20·8

  11 January 1985 to 31 March 1985.

  2 Constant prices calculated using 1991–92 prices as base.

  Note: Lump sum underpayments are included in the year in which they were paid.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of expenditure on primary health care was paid to pharmacist contractors in respect of fees and on-cost for the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is shown in the table.

  Total expenditure on pharmacists' fees and on-costs as a percentage of total expenditure on primary health care services England

  Primary health care

  Pharmacists' fees, etc.

  Fees, etc· as percentage of primary health care

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  1981–82

  2,443

  232

  9·5

  1982–83

  2,832

  264

  9·3

  1983–84

  3,041

  282

  9·3

  1984–85

  3,349

  336

  10·1

  1985–86

  3,527

  359

  10·2

  1986–87

  3,820

  384

  10·1

  1987–88

  4,220

  409

  9·7

  1988–89

  4,801

  457

  9·5

  1989–90

  5,099

  477

  9·4

  1990–91

  5,427

  516

  9·5

  Source: Department of Health Tables (FI): Total cost of services and sources of finance for health and personal social services.

  Note: Primary health care services are those provided by family doctors, dentists, community pharmacists, opticians and community nurses.

  Insulin Injections
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the net extra cost to his Department of supplying insulin injection pen needles for diabetics on prescription.

  Table 1

  Income from charges under the Road Traffic Acts—£000 (Cash)

  Region

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  216

  296

  398

  391

  424

  349

  398

  397

  384

  390

  Yorkshire

  351

  448

  515

  573

  618

  631

  679

  751

  680

  744

  Trent

  369

  519

  630

  664

  754

  716

  971

  1,005

  931

  994

  East Anglia

  276

  361

  386

  471

  515

  500

  467

  514

  716

  625

  North West Thames

  224

  285

  356

  303

  315

  384

  403

  438

  468

  333

  North East Thames

  271

  326

  364

  363

  390

  331

  436

  430

  391

  418

  South East Thames

  337

  444

  542

  548

  629

  534

  500

  513

  392

  507

  South West Thames

  246

  379

  348

  357

  379

  338

  461

  517

  574

  211

  Wessex

  316

  458

  584

  583

  775

  753

  742

  836

  861

  1,077

  Oxford

  217

  319

  356

  571

  558

  609

  624

  534

  729

  665

  South Western

  335

  473

  678

  690

  725

  691

  824

  720

  890

  741

  West Midlands

  488

  722

  786

  837

  780

  850

  1,020

  929

  1,040

  969

  Mersey

  228

  392

  399

  385

  466

  458

  491

  407

  517

  624

  North Western

  318

  468

  603

  584

  590

  722

  669

  753

  681

  779

  SHAs

  6

  4

  5

  4

  (2)

  5

  2

  4

  2

  3

  England

  4,198

  5,894

  6,950

  7,324

  7,916

  7,871

  8,687

  8,748

  9,256

  9,080

  752
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The addition of insulin injection pen needles to the list of items GPs may prescribe is the subject of continuing negotiations with manufacturers. The price which will be paid for needles when they become prescribable, and therefore the cost to the Department, are part of these negotiations.

  English Wine
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will delay the implementations of all those recent environment and health regulations applying to the production of English wine in English vineries until a full assessment has been made by the deregulation unit of his Department of their impact on the industry and effect on unemployment and the industry of obligatory requirements imposed by local authority environmental health officers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No new regulations have been introduced relating specifically to the safe production of wine. Wine producers are subject to the general requirements of the Food Safety Act 1990 for hygienic and safe production. As for other food businesses, their premises must be registered with local authorities under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. Any enforcement measures should relate to the known risks of the product. In the case of wine production, the risks are generally relatively low.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount charged by each health authority for treatment given to patients following road traffic accidents for each of the last 10 years; and if he will give the comparable figures for NHS trusts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: The information requested, which is derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department, is shown in the tables for the financial years to 1990–91—the latest available. Such information is not collected in-year.

  Table 1 shows the figures for the 10 years by region and table 2 for each health authority for the most recent three years. A complete analysis to each health authority for the entire 10-year period could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  753

  Table 2

  Income from charges under the Road Traffic Acts

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–90 (£)

  1990–91 (£)

  Northern Region

  Hartlepool

  10,779

  18,973

  21,645

  North Tees

  17,948

  21,272

  22,311

  South Tees

  27,630

  47,551

  34,229

  East Cumbria

  39,031

  45,766

  51,260

  South Cumbria

  28,259

  29,854

  37,415

  West Cumbria

  12,349

  13,135

  11,410

  Darlington

  10,209

  10,238

  14,161

  Durham

  26,503

  30,837

  29,808

  North West Durham

  6,826

  21,562

  16,017

  South West Durham

  22,965

  13,040

  25,609

  Northumberland

  20,434

  44,926

  42,923

  Gateshead

  10,734

  12,570

  10,517

  Newcastle

  129,785

  36,664

  36,495

  North Tyneside

  11,842

  8,794

  12,052

  South Tyneside

  9,121

  8,436

  5,702

  Sunderland

  12,215

  19,952

  18,269

  Total

  396,630

  383,570

  389,823

  Yorkshire Region

  Hull

  153,110

  125,621

  152,581

  East Yorkshire

  5,148

  4,302

  4,350

  Grimsby

  20,682

  31,113

  37,678

  Scunthorpe

  13,499

  17,120

  28,640

  Northallerton

  24,201

  15,932

  12,925

  York

  26,556

  38,971

  31,291

  Scarborough

  33,488

  34,655

  55,701

  Harrogate

  27,745

  30,428

  28,731

  Bradford

  47,252

  66,756

  50,563

  Airedale

  29,637

  37,418

  57,086

  Calderdale

  37,74!

  25,640

  35,644

  Huddersfield

  66,754

  35,713

  30,219

  Dewsbury

  28,108

  38,417

  41,807

  Leeds Western

  78,784

  57,920

  38,736

  Leeds Eastern

  117,071

  80,582

  90,796

  Wakefield

  26,002

  19,155

  33,125

  Pontefract

  15,694

  19,835

  13,731

  Total

  751,472

  679,578

  743,604

  Trent Region

  North Derbyshire

  63,128

  39,661

  56,000

  South Derbyshire

  137,672

  138,300

  108,772

  Leicestershire

  172,495

  79,819

  140,508

  North Lincolnshire

  87,372

  74,019

  134,055

  South Lincolnshire

  108,796

  107,585

  131,640

  Bassetlaw

  11,172

  15,307

  19,860

  Central Notts

  61,453

  61,481

  55,035

  Nottingham

  123,754

  133,736

  98,694

  Barnsley

  21,357

  48,687

  30,990

  Doncaster

  81,221

  104,048

  108,534

  Rotherham

  50,955

  44,696

  65,161

  Sheffield

  85,881

  84,061

  44,535

  Total

  1,005,256

  931,400

  993,784

  East Anglian Region

  Cambridge

  46,271

  138,388

  86,301

  Peterborough

  47,584

  109,887

  89,459

  West Suffolk

  37,573

  49,872

  42,756

  East Suffolk

  43,814

  36,469

  31,302

  Norwich

  190,102

  204,360

  213,959

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  28,721

  75,331

  41,905

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  95,884

  73,973

  92,552

  Huntingdon

  23,649

  28,080

  26,962

  Total

  513,598

  716,360

  625,196

  North West Thames Region

  North Bedfordshire

  80,820

  86,996

  46,780

  South Bedfordshire

  53,266

  74,524

  68,648

  North Hertfordshire

  41,081

  47,942

  12,698

  754

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–90 (£)

  1990–91 (£)

  East Hertfordshire

  4,405

  20,174

  17,618

  North West Hertfordshire

  58,989

  59,945

  37,027

  South West Hertfordshire

  20,935

  25,478

  16,912

  Barnet

  24,425

  33,575

  22,299

  Harrow

  10,547

  5,328

  10,747

  Hillingdon

  55,837

  40,118

  32,498

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  71,732

  71,828

  51,160

  Ealing

  10,084

  (6,191)

  10,109

  Riverside

  1,815

  3,529

  2,837

  Parkside

  4,374

  4,170

  4,162

  Total

  438,310

  467,416

  333,495

  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  20,987

  15,315

  15,306

  Mid Essex

  97,613

  67,113

  89,729

  North East Essex

  13,281

  33,168

  28,039

  West Essex

  54,092

  36,825

  23,204

  Southend

  32,672

  13,939

  24,717

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  55,163

  79,143

  56,546

  Hampstead

  23,128

  24,431

  23,913

  City and Hackney

  7,639

  28,122

  12,120

  Newham

  36,878

  25,319

  43,134

  Tower Hamlets

  27,326

  2,601

  26,073

  Enfield

  7,647

  5,860

  16,137

  Haringey

  1,683

  1,848

  2,537

  Redbridge

  8,909

  4,901

  16,064

  Waltham Forest

  16,470

  35,507

  29,963

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  26,787

  17,104

  10,067

  Total

  430,275

  391,196

  417,549

  South East Thames Region

  Brighton

  36,344

  29,647

  29,915

  Eastbourne

  59,396

  36,938

  55.990

  Hastings

  7,102

  8,201

  8,926

  South East Kent

  21,307

  28,065

  49.105

  Canterbury and Thanet

  95,067

  95,510

  76.468

  Dartford and Gravesham

  32,325

  54,094

  21.810

  Maidstone

  28,501

  5,892

  26,755

  Medway

  35,357

  54,143

  124,693

  Tunbridge Wells

  95,992

  44,651

  71,635

  Bexley

  24,187

  (9,522)

  7,358

  Greenwich

  15,015

  15,585

  10,575

  Bromley

  27,992

  5,402

  16,606

  West Lambeth

  30,925

  10,674

  570

  Camberwell

  734

  5,916

  (7,260)

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2,609

  6,241

  14,304

  Total

  512,853

  391,437

  507,450

  South West Thames Region

  North West Surrey

  23,458

  14,503

  21,760

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  32,032

  26,611

  39,082

  South West Surrey

  54,672

  20,440

  44,572

  Mid Surrey

  16,443

  740

  8,715

  East Surrey

  12,679

  14,674

  12,754

  Chichester

  60,350

  49,988

  60,201

  Mid Downs

  60,609

  71,512

  90,627

  Worthing

  190,269

  233,194

  (17,151)

  Croydon

  15,465

  69,794

  32,204

  Kingston and Esher

  10,042

  38,429

  40,102

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  (623)

  930

  (804)

  Wandsworth

  7,898

  2,895

  4,963

  Merton and Sutton

  33,875

  29,760

  32,068

  Total

  517,169

  573,470

  211,093

  755

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–90 (£)

  1990–91 (£)

  Wessex Region

  East Dorset

  121,668

  107,252

  150,008

  West Dorset

  27,559

  33,077

  28,386

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  114,425

  112,389

  121,614

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  151,657

  171,367

  164,717

  Winchester

  85,145

  80,716

  92,925

  Basingstoke

  71,611

  44,390

  99,669

  Salisbury

  84,498

  119,673

  113,194

  Swindon

  59,130

  70,023

  58,485

  Bath

  109,021

  104,188

  212,102

  Isle of Wight

  11,624

  17,524

  36,046

  Total

  836,338

  860,599

  1,077,146

  Oxford Region

  East Berkshire

  43,424

  87,948

  54,094

  West Berkshire

  100,400

  100,611

  142,669

  Aylesbury

  49,064

  57,278

  54,586

  Wycombe

  46,800

  64,532

  21,031

  Milton Keynes

  24,752

  20,647

  18,260

  Kettering

  62,696

  116,378

  69,867

  Northampton

  61,946

  69,051

  55,119

  Oxfordshire

  144,844

  212,922

  248,941

  Total

  533,926

  729,367

  664,567

  South Western Region

  Bristol and Weston

  71,158

  178,126

  101,851

  Frenchay

  35,647

  122,324

  79,091

  Southmead

  40,030

  33,196

  29,645

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  121,422

  140,566

  120,609

  Exeter

  106,093

  99,823

  109,024

  North Devon

  21,775

  18,317

  19,311

  Plymouth

  83,094

  79,930

  81,415

  Torbay

  67,092

  55,320

  60,506

  Cheltenham

  37,104

  16,218

  22,466

  Gloucester

  42,902

  38,907

  36,811

  Somerset

  93,116

  107,007

  80,012

  Total

  719,433

  889,734

  740,741

  West Midlands Region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  14,559

  11,200

  19,453

  Herefordshire

  10,657

  23,033

  28,517

  Kidderminster

  26,017

  24,717

  19,991

  Worcester

  15,720

  32,890

  17,955

  Shropshire

  166,282

  161,089

  153,432

  Mid Staffordshire

  25,500

  31,674

  28,908

  North Staffordshire

  150,086

  131,227

  90,594

  South East Staffordshire

  35,257

  92,865

  41,077

  Rugby

  20,813

  24,222

  52,406

  North Warwickshire

  37,985

  34,173

  17,277

  South Warwickshire

  23,730

  20,974

  28,442

  Central Birmingham

  21,679

  6,124

  47,317

  East Birmingham

  37,770

  43,996

  67,506

  North Birmingham

  27,792

  39,839

  31,773

  South Birmingham

  84,783

  98,091

  75,284

  West Birmingham

  6,539

  5,343

  4,350

  Coventry

  36,022

  32,774

  35,276

  Dudley

  59,849

  65,359

  80,807

  Sandwell

  14,041

  30,883

  25,976

  Solihull

  16,657

  10,161

  8,533

  Walsall

  51,118

  36,567

  43,685

  Wolverhampton

  46,439

  82,686

  50,900

  Total

  929,295

  1,039,887

  969,459

  Mersey Region

  Chester

  60,056

  69,636

  86,583

  Crewe

  62,641

  91,408

  74,816

  Halton

  1,605

  2,927

  3,493

  Macclesfield

  14,475

  16,224

  31,067

  Warrington

  40,127

  18,792

  59,658

  756

  1988–89 (£)

  1989–90 (£)

  1990–91 (£)

  Liverpool

  53,831

  88,046

  143,966

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  14,028

  20,060

  31,466

  Southport and Formby

  13,979

  8,018

  12,967

  South Sefton

  65,363

  83,329

  105,334

  Wirral

  80,564

  121,217

  74,492

  Total

  406,669

  519,657

  623,842

  North Western Region

  Lancaster

  24,361

  28,694

  19,253

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  33,991

  28,575

  26,962

  Preston

  64,692

  67,831

  50,448

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  29,764

  24,677

  42,611

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  49,985

  48,386

  45,247

  West Lanchashire

  37,224

  37,274

  43,768

  Chorley and South Ribble

  6,820

  8,502

  10,352

  Bolton

  31,775

  30,248

  35,816

  Bury

  12,212

  12,488

  13,334

  North Manchester

  40,150

  20,856

  28,968

  Central Manchester

  43,440

  58,256

  59,019

  South Manchester

  45,720

  62,781

  55,148

  Oldham

  35,224

  19,351

  19,910

  Rochdale

  51,859

  19,592

  29,064

  Salford

  81,598

  35,670

  38,929

  Stockport

  89,610

  77,476

  82,642

  Tameside and Glossop

  30,981

  28,699

  51,028

  Trafford

  11,722

  12,186

  12,477

  Wigan

  31,587

  58,882

  114,267

  Total

  752,715

  680,424

  779,243

  Hospitals for Sick Children

  15

  14

  22

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes Hospital

  4,369

  2,246

  2,855

  S.H.As Total

  4,384

  2,260

  2,877

  England Total

  8,748,323

  9,256,355

  9,079,869

  Source: Annual accounts of district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London post-graduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities for 1981–82).

  Notes:

  1. The annual figures are for total income from charges for emergency and further treatment under the Road Traffic Acts (RTA) and represent sums due for the financial year but not necessarily received.

  2. The figures also reflect accounting adjustments and RTA charges written-off as bad debts in the year of account. Such adjustments and write-offs include RTA sums due from earlier years and a negative income figure may occasionally result for a particular year (figures shown in brackets in the tables).

  3. The annual accounts of the fourteen regionl health authorities (RHAs) in England and six of the eight special health authorities (SHAs) for the London post-graduate teaching hospitals record no income from RTA in the period 1988–89 to 1990–91 and are omitted from table 2.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish annex B of Cm 1913 adjusted for input unit costs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The information requested for the hospital and community health services, family health services and the health service as a whole for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 is given in the table. Information is not available in this form for other parts of the programme or for later years.
  757
  This information measures changes in total inputs at constant factor cost but ignores the continuing success of the national health service in increasing the efficiency with which it uses resources. Therefore, in order to give a complete picture, figures adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator have also been included.

  It has not been possible to adjust these figures for certain national health service review related changes. Figures for 1991–92 onwards are therefore not directly comparable with those for earlier years. The main points are:

  Expenditure figures as they appear in Annex B of Cm 1913 adjusted for changes in input unit costs and by the GDP deflator (All at 1990–91 prices)

  £ million

  NHS hospital, community health, family health (cash limited) and related services

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Current expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  gross

  18,790

  19,112

  19,202

  19,241

  20,073

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  18,273

  18,602

  18,687

  18,710

  19,513

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  17,787

  18,618

  19,285

  19,434

  20,073

  21,582

  22,748

  net

  17,298

  18,120

  18,767

  18,898

  19,513

  21,050

  22,256

  Capital expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  gross

  1,703

  1,697

  1,731

  1,930

  1,864

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  1,491

  1,420

  1,365

  1,638

  1,661

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  1,642

  1,631

  1,643

  1,878

  1,864

  1,911

  1,731

  net

  1,437

  1,364

  1,295

  1,594

  1,661

  1,698

  1,538

  NHS family health services (non cash limited)

  Current expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  gross

  6,097

  6,306

  6,491

  6,460

  6,275

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  5,454

  5,658

  5,802

  5,704

  5,574

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  5,616

  5,895

  6,222

  6,164

  6,275

  6,263

  6,535

  net

  5,024

  5,289

  5,561

  5,442

  5,574

  5,552

  5,803

  Total health services

  Current expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input cost

  gross

  25,776

  26,300

  26,536

  26,601

  27,247

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  24,600

  25,130

  25,325

  25,310

  25,960

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  24,221

  25,337

  26,309

  26,450

  27,247

  28,851

  30,329

  net

  23,117

  24,209

  25,108

  25,166

  25,960

  27,575

  29,069

  Capital expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input unit cost

  gross

  1,774

  1,744

  1,786

  1,981

  1,933

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  1,561

  1,463

  1,394

  1,688

  1,729

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  1,710

  1,676

  1,695

  1,928

  1,933

  2,080

  1,910

  net

  1,505

  1,407

  1,323

  1,642

  1,729

  1,801

  1,717

  Total expenditure

  Adjusted for change in input cost

  gross

  27,572

  28,069

  28,350

  28,592

  29,180

  (a)

  (a)

  net

  26,179

  26,616

  26,758

  27,011

  27,689

  (a)

  (a)

  Adjusted by the GDP deflator

  gross

  25,931

  27,015

  28,003

  28,377

  29,180

  30,932

  32,239

  net

  24,622

  25,616

  26,431

  26,809

  27,689

  29,376

  30,786

  (a) Estimates are not made for changes in input unit cost until the financial year has ended.
  758

  (i) Sums provided for trust debt remuneration are included in hospital and community health services current in 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (ii) Trusts' capital spending financed via health authorities' payments for services is included in hospital and community health services current, for 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (iii) General practitioner fundholders' expenditure on drugs is included in hospital and community health services current in 1991–92 only.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each district health authority, regional health authority, special health authority, and for England as a whole the amount spent on agency staff for each year since 1987 and for the latest available year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The information, which is derived from annual accounts

  Total revenue expenditure on non-NHS (agency, etc.) staff

  1987–88 £ (cash)

  1988–89 £ (cash)

  1989–90 £ (cash)

  1990–91 £ (cash)

  Northern regional health authority

  122,371

  151,306

  183,836

  96,133

  Hartlepool

  18,733

  5,538

  30,410

  79,736

  North Tees

  16,486

  27,571

  0

  15,008

  South Tees

  435,021

  569,875

  540,069

  360,587

  East Cumbria

  90,628

  97,941

  109,007

  117,503

  South Cumbria

  91,692

  74,880

  109,195

  60,705

  West Cumbria

  54,979

  64,030

  39,999

  54,571

  Darlington

  314,896

  154,067

  246,541

  438,420

  Durham

  85,031

  204,624

  19,661

  50,431

  North West Durham

  50,947

  91,928

  5,042

  27,855

  South West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  42,835

  29,114

  30,093

  12,440

  Gateshead

  0

  29,977

  105,435

  138,908

  Newcastle

  122,543

  101,775

  159,949

  968,019

  North Tyneside

  89,331

  65,189

  130,367

  166,277

  South Tyneside

  91,772

  45,475

  34,666

  80,841

  Sunderland

  80,465

  89,553

  156,815

  69,338

  Northern region total

  1,707,730

  1,802,843

  1,900,085

  2,736,772

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  68,575

  82,940

  211,022

  186,881

  Hull

  374,644

  257,545

  270,058

  301,040

  East Yorks

  303,707

  242,172

  216,573

  111,846

  Grimsby

  290,769

  243,584

  415,612

  461,954

  Scunthorpe

  181,049

  228,714

  87,796

  94,472

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  0

  98,588

  York

  118,860

  288,820

  279,915

  207,812

  Scarborough

  492,494

  340,459

  337,421

  221,960

  Harrogate

  147,860

  168,457

  179,803

  228,228

  Bradford

  670,368

  726,030

  880,794

  1,025,534

  Airedale

  37,364

  19,939

  15,525

  39,647

  Calderdale

  462,592

  496,776

  370,302

  209,220

  Huddersfield

  23,119

  26,953

  66,526

  57,919

  Dewsbury

  33,946

  5,969

  90,955

  109,696

  Leeds Western

  1,869799

  2,533,830

  3,274,651

  2,629,311

  Leeds Eastern

  506,698

  749,710

  1,152,806

  1,334,620

  Wakefield

  449,460

  348,417

  431,231

  442,089

  Pontefract

  237,028

  147,342

  154,856

  251,802

  Yorkshire region total

  6,268,332

  6,907,657

  8,435,846

  8,012,619

  Trent regional health authority

  294,698

  300,236

  325,810

  202,386

  North Derbyshire

  31,738

  98,581

  234,532

  176,156

  South Derbyshire

  595,635

  477,658

  512,592

  333,341

  Leicestershire

  530,858

  763,651

  1,242,231

  806,257

  North Lincolnshire

  105,119

  120,848

  160,367

  133,818

  South Lincolnshire

  583,200

  623,673

  621,831

  544,590

  Bassetlaw

  0

  42,215

  170,314

  220,211

  Central Nottinghamshire

  65,002

  40,657

  63,406

  232,172

  Nottingham

  501,317

  454,044

  455,369

  757,044

  Barnsley

  65,465

  63,308

  112,928

  117,057

  Doncaster

  224,243

  206,050

  195,525

  259,518

  Rotherham

  146,223

  259,528

  429,098

  590,632

  Sheffield

  1,277,009

  1,849,679

  3,484,517

  3,155,054

  Trent region total

  4,420,507

  5,300,128

  8,008,520

  7,528,236

  East Anglian regional health authority

  475,878

  802,505

  1,374,541

  1,846,612

  Cambridge

  1,521,781

  1,656,476

  2,179,186

  1,565,006

  Peterborough

  676,536

  619,743

  589,200

  509,803

  West Suffolk

  410,296

  491,299

  602,125

  837,760

  East Suffolk

  303,075

  533,803

  655,222

  1,014,282

  Norwich

  1,875,080

  1,555,447

  1,482,742

  1,342,194

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  436,536

  359,775

  377,276

  400,635

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  388,409

  452,406

  497,413

  397,316

  760
  submitted to the Department for the financial years 1987–88 to 1990–91-the latest available-is shown in the table.
  761

  1987–88 £ (cash)

  1988–89 £ (cash)

  1989–90 £ (cash)

  1990–91 £ (cash)

  Huntingdon

  90,488

  132,924

  198,498

  764,506

  East Anglian region total

  6,178,079

  6,604,378

  7,956,203

  8,678,114

  North West Thames regional health authority

  2,299,214

  727,892

  729,071

  884,125

  North Bedfordshire

  591,093

  538,398

  519,366

  424,593

  South Bedfordshire

  820,269

  1,022,665

  1,243,620

  1,621,391

  North Hertfordshire

  1,071,328

  1,206,162

  1,555,862

  1,911,468

  East Hertfordshire

  951,014

  882,852

  675,886

  752,335

  North West Hertfordshire

  1,567,927

  1,719,755

  1,919,530

  1,991,275

  South West Hertfordshire

  1,261,893

  1,721,574

  1,729,753

  2,114,156

  Barnet

  3,409,043

  4,372,478

  5,084,348

  5,064,702

  Harrow

  2,289,898

  2,429,707

  2,906,290

  3,269,381

  Hillingdon

  2,796,748

  3,742,080

  4,190,196

  3,348,431

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  3,179,646

  3,830,287

  4,547,753

  3,907,046

  Ealing

  1,597,487

  2,372,980

  3,143,666

  3,253,397

  Riverside

  9,905,227

  13,590,643

  15,020,274

  11,040,240

  Parkside

  7,785,034

  9,436,938

  11,277,056

  9,863,888

  North West Thames region total

  39,525,821

  47,594,411

  54,542,671

  49,446,428

  North East Thames regional health authority

  738,317

  859,563

  937,619

  721,659

  Basildon and Thurrock

  1,576,965

  2,059,683

  2,393,580

  1,363,868

  Mid Essex

  1,206,645

  1,204,844

  1,148,747

  1,007,351

  North East Essex

  393,908

  752,040

  971,582

  861,628

  West Essex

  1,205,271

  1,025,548

  1,371,384

  1,245,951

  Southend

  1,980,270

  2,296,332

  2,120,877

  2,006,720

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  2,812,714

  2,788,896

  2,186,979

  1,793,355

  Hampstead

  3,137,349

  4,238,981

  5,072,956

  4,440,927

  City and Hackney

  4,854,313

  6,802,822

  7,436,144

  7,102,272

  Newham

  3,112,504

  3,232,217

  3,619,816

  4,278,542

  Tower Hamlets

  3,193,918

  4,342,609

  5,293,025

  4,762,839

  Enfield

  2,218,174

  2,022,592

  1,981,352

  2,064,315

  Haringey

  2,737,355

  2,468,426

  3,569,347

  3,493,981

  Redbridge

  2,281,034

  2,486,399

  2,996,419

  2,079,569

  Waltham Forest

  3,979,398

  4,682,746

  5,206,875

  5,673,948

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  14,014,663

  17,711,380

  18,564,424

  16,152,205

  North East Thames region total

  49,442,798

  59,011,078

  64,871,126

  59,049,130

  South East Thames regional health authority

  1,019,536

  1,462,288

  796,115

  590,079

  Brighton

  1,497,134

  2,111,328

  2,600,706

  2,154,798

  Eastbourne

  989,148

  1,052,220

  937,118

  894,674

  Hastings

  765,009

  732,564

  967,282

  817,694

  South East Kent

  596,850

  534,040

  600,897

  357,573

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1,105,938

  1,229,828

  1,225,943

  1,000,535

  Dartford and Gravesham

  2,370,141

  2,177,132

  2,099,310

  1,098,097

  Maidstone

  1,221,563

  965,653

  844,706

  773,787

  Medway

  787,278

  923,396

  1,080,877

  1,912,306

  Tunbridge Wells

  1,515,017

  2,198,385

  2,549,673

  1,364,468

  Bexley

  1,037,467

  1,057,577

  1,311,721

  1,157,721

  Greenwich

  2,220,621

  2,674,043

  2,670,592

  2,444,405

  Bromley

  1,734,511

  2,550,508

  3,098,195

  2,138,229

  West Lambeth

  4,044,238

  5,240,423

  6,131,448

  3,710,181

  Camberwell

  4,381,014

  4,787,608

  6,135,868

  7,039,915

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  4,165,801

  5,631,563

  5,187,217

  4,945,197

  South East Thames region total

  29,451,266

  35,328,556

  38,237,668

  32,399,659

  South West Thames regional health authority

  4,125,246

  3,442,085

  4,090,940

  1,767,941

  North West Surrey

  1,416,863

  1,418,310

  2,547,056

  2,255,178

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  1,311,438

  1,584,613

  1,665,467

  1,176,231

  South West Surrey

  1,427,241

  1,938,917

  1,866,119

  1,525,951

  Mid Surrey

  856,057

  1,255,626

  1,566,838

  1,273,307

  East Surrey

  1,880,246

  2,439,164

  2,888,940

  1,900,255

  Chichester

  450,957

  591,739

  805,124

  645,371

  Mid Downs

  1,150,744

  1,384,841

  1,556,396

  1,288,472

  Worthing

  1,311,811

  1,392,828

  1,702,995

  1,540,308

  Croydon

  1,446,044

  2,384,516

  3,467,328

  2,649,097

  Kingston and Esher

  1,666,994

  2,437,871

  3,049,237

  1,748,899

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  2,687,663

  3,097,592

  3,299,278

  3,397,120

  Wandsworth

  5,245,180

  6,200,298

  7,310,733

  4,883,203

  Merton and Sutton

  2,114,184

  2,913,701

  2,852,301

  2,419,863

  762 763

  1987–88 £ (cash)

  1988–89 £ (cash)

  1989–90 £ (cash)

  1990–91 £ (cash)

  South West Thames region total

  27,090,668

  32,482,101

  38,668,752

  28,471,196

  Wessex regional health authority

  538,495

  359,860

  214,285

  667,732

  East Dorset

  1,483,282

  1,703,900

  2,034,615

  1,812,459

  West Dorset

  298,835

  366,168

  461,944

  527,303

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  667,152

  1,023,047

  1,253,703

  1,415,997

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  678,522

  610,280

  1,127,391

  1,053,254

  Winchester

  569,488

  764,819

  702,203

  584,851

  Basingstoke

  832,146

  1,234,165

  1,395,171

  1,071,689

  Salisbury

  433,641

  336,344

  418,191

  437,442

  Swindon

  353,095

  460,172

  711,407

  804,305

  Bath

  268,719

  346,062

  827,694

  979,203

  Isle of Wight

  232,666

  442,206

  974,080

  827,582

  Wessex region total

  6,356,041

  7,647,023

  10,120,684

  10,181,817

  Oxford regional health authority

  129,673

  327,235

  735,085

  527,375

  East Berkshire

  1,964,409

  2,135,708

  2,440,727

  1,997,510

  West Berkshire

  1,259,707

  1,474,065

  1,754,567

  1,790,170

  Aylesbury

  1,057,468

  1,215,867

  1,187,034

  1,041,672

  Wycombe

  587,818

  647,502

  645,455

  522,144

  Milton Keynes

  370,248

  603,210

  690,050

  375,893

  Kettering

  194,847

  223,515

  287,835

  285,144

  Northampton

  284,477

  518,735

  762,548

  630,322

  Oxfordshire

  624,718

  978,589

  1,361,879

  1,084,462

  Oxford region total

  6,473,365

  8,124,426

  9,865,180

  8,254,692

  South Western regional health authority

  484,000

  498,941

  679,450

  835,586

  Bristol and Weston

  870,341

  1,427,086

  1,964,462

  2,086,772

  Frenchay

  191,581

  378,586

  758,969

  1,229,122

  Southmead

  385,695

  405,633

  520,437

  556,042

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  261,374

  263,452

  281,408

  350,875

  Exeter

  493,777

  647,282

  1,028,593

  666,534

  North Devon

  222,920

  193,294

  249,417

  261,510

  Plymouth

  265,221

  336,871

  665,431

  1,106,159

  Torbay

  150,855

  179,697

  221,672

  283,306

  Cheltenham

  175,424

  366,690

  603,368

  545,015

  Gloucester

  70,231

  106,558

  112,332

  157,212

  Somerset

  1,219,532

  1,144,346

  1,275,176

  1,459,015

  South Western region total

  4,790,951

  5,948,436

  8,360,715

  9,537,148

  West Midlands regional health authority

  730,773

  755,235

  791,136

  1,152,371

  Bromsgrove and Rcdditch

  336,575

  187,481

  215,171

  327,382

  Herefordshire

  129,256

  156,257

  285,567

  398,690

  Kidderminster

  100,275

  107,993

  120,621

  165,699

  Worcester

  535,924

  615,610

  1,197,012

  1,622,959

  Shropshire

  184,187

  104,640

  263,915

  488,022

  Mid Staffs

  87,262

  201,680

  259,417

  357,971

  North Staffs

  246,491

  295,718

  280,954

  359,734

  South East Staffs

  169,574

  197,927

  254,502

  255,658

  Rugby

  275,708

  333,652

  369,078

  295,023

  North Warwickshire

  226,802

  181,189

  240,086

  281,029

  South Warwickshire

  386,444

  313,797

  346,493

  493,518

  Central Birmingham

  1,096,622

  1,176,816

  1,926,228

  4,113,048

  East Birmingham

  623,485

  728,890

  1,393,344

  1,504,775

  North Birmingham

  468,028

  286,357

  340,191

  323,158

  South Birmingham

  939,572

  744,906

  982,011

  854,728

  West Birmingham

  686,553

  1,248,416

  1,550,390

  1,367,969

  Coventry

  421,659

  612,652

  861,914

  635,468

  Dudley

  226,484

  541,503

  851,751

  807,849

  Sandwell

  330,893

  477,915

  447,402

  205,281

  Solihull

  315,479

  201,299

  186,268

  342,793

  Walsall

  445,706

  443,617

  533,675

  610,182

  Wolverhampton

  666,328

  634,398

  791,357

  465,332

  West Midlands region total

  9,630,080

  10,547,948

  14,488,483

  17,428,639

  Mersey regional health authority

  244,866

  271,163

  253,517

  288,395

  Chester

  110,888

  24,224

  229,033

  67,143

  Crewe

  496,125

  350,167

  519,320

  639,719

  Halton

  217,425

  353,701

  369,752

  267,952

  Macclesfield

  276,859

  285,794

  538,806

  613,345

  Warrington

  227,261

  219,578

  264,482

  30,584

  Liverpool

  770,672

  375,875

  2,094,580

  2,510,559

  764 765

  1987–88 £ (cash)

  1988–89 £ (cash)

  1989–90 £ (cash)

  1990–91 £ (cash)

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  96,422

  44,602

  81,166

  133,408

  Southport and Formby

  284,061

  258,126

  247,071

  315,320

  South Sefton

  163,903

  439,085

  668,066

  491,794

  Wirral

  92,277

  157,465

  269,355

  285,823

  Mersey region total

  2,980,759

  2,779,780

  5,535,148

  5,644,042

  North Western regional health authority

  18,969

  4,552

  100,542

  94,215

  Lancaster

  43,603

  57,988

  43,165

  74,386

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  249,381

  286,763

  267,094

  340,762

  Preston

  287,932

  388,428

  335,075

  493,246

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  0

  0

  118,621

  114,180

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  57,073

  276,988

  116,619

  138,652

  West Lancashire

  118,769

  177,447

  570,483

  741,067

  Chorley and South Ribble

  19,142

  27,648

  14,863

  57,141

  Bolton

  526,670

  700,095

  586,073

  413,544

  Bury

  115,890

  71,054

  178,085

  300,077

  North Manchester

  150,309

  320,374

  446,372

  993,235

  Central Manchester

  372,029

  494,026

  816,384

  1,152,637

  South Manchester

  90,689

  675,087

  589,147

  1,245,214

  Oldham

  344,533

  353,911

  273,386

  171,600

  Rochdale

  100,777

  50,608

  60,548

  65,388

  Salford

  363,522

  355,484

  255,378

  525,580

  Stockport

  139,237

  152,253

  163,522

  187,236

  Tameside and Glossop

  212,375

  213,735

  214,070

  166,320

  Trafford

  202,788

  242,912

  112,842

  192,333

  Wigan

  29,689

  42,892

  209,149

  228,576

  North Western region total

  3,443,377

  4,892,245

  5,471,418

  7,695,389

  Hospitals for Sick Children

  3,007,397

  3,929,924

  5,655,215

  5,364,730

  National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  1,886,045

  2,145,783

  2,706,325

  2,286,274

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  1,192,738

  1,697,004

  1,580,001

  1,204,326

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  1,146,088

  1,351,302

  2,316,199

  1,530,689

  National Heart and Lung Hospitals

  1,409,469

  2,272,109

  2,804,712

  3,682,776

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  1,394,752

  1,783,790

  2,295,757

  1,926,012

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes Hospital

  3,367,977

  3,675,845

  3,280,373

  3,472,062

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  271,154

  339,793

  380,587

  394,333

  SHA total

  13,675,620

  17,195,550

  21,019,169

  19,861,202

  England

  211,435,394

  252,166,560

  297,481,668

  274,925,083

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Notes:

  1. The table excludes the similar but comparatively small costs of staff wholly or mainly concerned with capital projects and which are charged to capital expenditure by the health authorities. Such costs totalled as follows:

  £000 (cash)

  1987–88

  2,449

  1988–89

  2,876

  1989–90

  4,612

  1990–91

  4,899

  2. The table also excludes any expenditure incurred by special health authorities other than those for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Scientists
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to establish a United Kingdom body to retrain nuclear scientists and weapon designers from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in civil development projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what changes he proposes in the budget of the Hydrographic Office defence support agency from 1 April; what consequences for staffing he expects to result; and what consultations have taken place with representatives of the employees.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 1992–93 business plan for the Hydrographic Office defence support agency is still being prepared, and consequently the budgetary allocation and any staffing implications have yet to be finalised by the
  767
  chief executive. Discussions between the management and representatives of Hydrographic Office staff will continue by means of well-established local Whitley committee machinery.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had over the prospect of the Hydrographic Office defence support agency achieving metrication of charts on a world basis by 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been received concerning the metrication of charts by the Hydrographic Office defence support agency, including some from hon. Members. One of the key targets set for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office is to reduce the number of imperial unit charts in the inventory by at least 90 per year. This will allow the metrication programme to be completed by 2005. By 1999 all imperial charts relating to EC waters will have been converted to metric units of measurement in accordance with an EC directive covering the territories of EC member states and their territorial waters.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the adequacy of staff numbers employed on marketing by the Hydrographic Office defence support agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the automation programme of the Hydrographic Office defence support agency and the likely staff savings(a) before 1995 and (b) after 1995.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the running costs and (b) the incomes from sales in request of the Hydrographic Office defence support agency in each year since 1971 (i) at current prices and (ii) at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked him to reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the savings required under current proposals from the Hydrographic Office defence support agency should be based on net rather than total running costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Hydrographic Office defence support agency has been required to achieve a number of economy measures as a contribution to savings needed throughout the fleet support area. The chief executive has been given certain freedoms and flexibilities to deal with these savings measures and will be considering how best to implement them while ensuring that the Hydrographic Office continues to respond effectively to the needs of its customers.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what figures he has been given by the military authorities of the Commonwealth of Independent States forces for 768
  (a) the total number of nuclear warheads in the CIS stockpile and (b) the total amount of nuclear explosive material in warheads or in store in the CIS.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Russian authorities have indicated that the former Soviet nuclear arsenal contains in excess of 27,000 warheads but have given no details of the amount of fissile material they possess.

  Plymouth Development Corporation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which defence vote and subhead he proposes to make funds available to the proposed new urban development corporation in Plymouth; how much he proposes to make available; and what value has been placed on the amounts of development land surplus to his Department's requirements which he proposes to hand over to the proposed corporation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence has undertaken to provide £20 million and some surplus land to support the proposed Plymouth urban development corporation announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the 6 March; this forms part of a package for the disposal of the Royal William yard.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to pay Mr. W. Martin of Blackdown Goat farm, Loddiswell, near Kingsbridge, south Devon, compensation as a result of a low-flying service helicopter on 5 February; if he will make a full investigation into the circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Mr. Martin has only recently submitted a claim to my Department for compensation. The matter will be fully investigated and dealt with as quickly as possible.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in Scotland were growing up in households dependent on income support or supplementary benefit; and what share of the Scottish population aged 16 years and under this represented, in each year since 1974.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The answer is given in the table. The information requested is not available for the years prior to 1977 and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures in the table largely reflect the increased numbers of lone parent families that is a characteristic of Great Britain as a whole and the fact that 60 per cent. of lone parents are either separated or divorced. Members of this group tend to become dependent on income support because of the problems that they face in obtaining appropriate levels of maintenance for their children and also in entering the labour market. This situation will be helped by the two changes in family credit that are to take effect from April; the definition of remunerative work is to be reduced to 16 hours and a £15 disregard is to be

  769
  introduced for child maintenance from absent parents. In the longer term the Child Support Agency will help lone parents obtain the child maintenance that is due to them.

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  Year

  Number of children in Scotland aged 16 or under dependent on income support

  (B) expressed as a percentage of the total number of children in Scotland aged 16 or under

  (000's)

  1977

  122

  8·6

  1978

  121

  8·8

  1979

  111

  8·2

  1980

  121

  9·2

  1981

  158

  12·3

  1982

  186

  14·9

  1983

  180

  14·7

  1984

  200

  17·1

  11986

  216

  18·9

  1987

  221

  19·6

  1988

  232

  21·0

  1989

  229

  21·0

  1990

  222

  20·4

  Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sources: Supplementary benefit/income support annual statistical inquiries for 1977 to 1990. Population statistics branch. General Register Office, Scotland.

  1 There was no annual statistical inquiry in 1985: the one due in December that year was deferred until February 1986.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of income support recipients are responsible for a mortgage or home loan and are(a) not in arrears with their payments, (b) more than three months in arrears and (c) more than six months in arrears.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Benefits Agency is currently

  Table 1

  Average payment (at 1991–92 prices) (£ per annum)1

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Retirement Pension2

  2,400

  2,360

  2,330

  2,410

  2,490

  2,540

  2,490

  2,550

  2,590

  2,550

  2,450

  2,450

  2,450

  2,570

  Widows' Benefit2

  2,770

  2,670

  2,640

  2,690

  2,730

  2,800

  2,810

  2,820

  2,880

  2,890

  2,840

  2,640

  2,720

  2,810

  Unemployment Benefit

  3,010

  2,760

  2,620

  2,500

  2,300

  2,350

  2,360

  2,400

  2,410

  2,390

  2,280

  2,270

  2,190

  2,320

  Sickness Benefit

  3,370

  3,110

  2,950

  2,140

  2,350

  2,490

  2,360

  2,490

  2,500

  2,440

  2,260

  2,260

  2,200

  2,230

  Statutory Sick Pay3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,330

  3,220

  3,210

  3,300

  3,230

  3,040

  3,060

  2,840

  2,620

  Invalidity Benefit2

  3,800

  3,730

  3,640

  3,720

  3,810

  3,940

  3,950

  3,920

  3,990

  3,890

  3,770

  3,740

  3,750

  3,970

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  2,170

  2,100

  2,080

  2,170

  2,160

  2,230

  2,230

  2,220

  2,160

  2,070

  1,890

  1,850

  1,820

  1,820

  Industrial Death Benefit

  2,890

  2,790

  2,750

  2,810

  2,840

  2,880

  2,790

  2,790

  2,840

  2,970

  2,430

  2,280

  2,570

  2,600

  Maternity Allowance

  2,850

  2,530

  2,440

  2,260

  2,030

  2,050

  2,040

  2,060

  2,130

  2,250

  2,220

  1,740

  1,820

  1,950

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,200

  3,860

  3,690

  4,200

  4,050

  Non-contributory RP

  1,540

  1,520

  1,490

  1,400

  1,490

  1,640

  1,700

  1,690

  1,290

  1,400

  1,270

  1,160

  1,100

  1,060

  War Pension

  2,400

  2,360

  2,310

  2,490

  2,550

  2,660

  2,720

  2,840

  2,940

  2,940

  2,850

  2,810

  2,970

  3,100

  Attendance Allowance

  1,720

  1,640

  1,620

  1,690

  1,730

  1,780

  1,790

  1,780

  1,800

  1,770

  1,700

  1,690

  1,690

  1,760

  Invalid Care Allowance4

  2,170

  1,860

  1,960

  2,150

  1,340

  1,600

  1,670

  1,880

  5,810

  3,050

  2,140

  1,860

  1,650

  1,690

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,250

  1,200

  1,210

  1,290

  1,320

  1,390

  1,470

  1,570

  1,500

  1,470

  1,450

  1,430

  1,580

  1,940

  Mobility Allowance

  1,340

  1,310

  1,330

  1,480

  1,490

  1,540

  1,390

  1,450

  1,560

  1,530

  1,490

  1,530

  1,520

  1,610

  Income Support/Supplementary Benefit5

  2,030

  1,940

  2,000

  2,330

  2,510

  2,020

  2,100

  2,230

  2,180

  2,100

  2,170

  2,140

  2,270

  2,470

  Child Benefit (per child)6

  360

  490

  440

  460

  470

  500

  520

  520

  520

  510

  460

  440

  400

  430

  One Parent Benefit

  210

  270

  280

  290

  300

  320

  320

  330

  340

  330

  310

  310

  320

  300

  Family Credit/FIS7

  770

  780

  870

  950

  950

  980

  940

  910

  1,050

  1,080

  1,740

  1,620

  1,650

  1,760

  Rate Rebate5

  150

  150

  160

  180

  170

  280

  270

  300

  310

  320

  320

  310

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance5

  460

  420

  390

  470

  480

  840

  910

  890

  1,130

  1,120

  1,330

  1,420

  1,590

  1,770

  Rent Rebate58

  460

  460

  470

  560

  510

  850

  840

  870

  880

  890

  1,010

  1,080

  1,070

  1,080

  Community Charge Benefits9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  250

  330

  190

  Notes:

  1 Cash values revalued by use of the GDP deflator.

  2 Includes additional pensions.

  3 80 per cent. reimbursement in 1991–92 grossed up to 100 per cent.

  4 Data for 1986–87 and 1987–88 distorted by major increase in numbers of beneficiaries and extensive arrears payments following the extension of entitlement to married women, first announced in 1985–86.

  5 Changes in 1983–84 reflect the transfer of support for housing costs from supplementary benefit to housing benefit.

  6 Increase in 1979–80 reflects the full introduction of child benefit and abolition of most child tax allowances.

  770
  undertaking an exercise to identify claimants in difficulties with their mortgage interest payments and to make those payments direct to lenders. From April all claimants receiving help with mortgage interest will have payments made automatically to qualifying lenders.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the reduction in overall expenditure in all welfare benefits, with the exception of child benefit, if all the adult working population including those currently classified as unemployed were deemed to have earned £100 per week.

  Mr. Jack
  The outcome of the proposal outlined in i he question would not result in a benefit saving.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average expenditure per claimant for each social security benefit at 1991–92 prices for each year since 1979; and what was the percentage increase or decrease each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is in the tables. In considering this data, it must be borne in mind that wholly beneficial benefit enhancements can, by increasing beneficiary numbers, produce an apparent fall in real average payments whereas in reality household real income from social security can be higher—for example, the growing number of married women receiving pensions in their own right. For income-related benefits, amounts paid reflect other income and other benefits, and changes from year to year are the consequence of increases in various benefits made to reflect the Government's concern to help elderly and sick people and families.
  771

  7 Increase in 1988–89 reflects the introduction of family credit.

  8 Includes expenditure on Department of the Environment and Welsh Office programmes in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  9 Reduction in 1991–92 reflects effects of the community charge rebate and reduction schemes.

  Table 2

  Percentage change over preceding year

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Retirement Pension2

  -2

  -1

  3

  3

  2

  -2

  2

  2

  -2

  -4

  0

  0

  5

  Widows Benefit2

  -3

  -1

  2

  1

  3

  0

  0

  2

  0

  -2

  -7

  3

  3

  Unemployment Benefit

  -8

  -5

  -5

  -8

  2

  0

  2

  0

  -1

  -4

  -1

  -3

  6

  Sickness Benefit

  -8

  -5

  -7

  -14

  6

  -5

  5

  0

  -3

  -7

  0

  -2

  1

  Statutory Sick Pay3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  0

  3

  -2

  -6

  1

  -7

  -8

  Invalidity Benefit2

  -2

  -2

  2

  2

  3

  0

  -1

  2

  -3

  -3

  -1

  0

  6

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  -3

  0

  4

  0

  3

  0

  -1

  -3

  -4

  -9

  -2

  -1

  0

  Industrial Death Benefit

  -4

  -1

  2

  1

  1

  -3

  0

  2

  4

  -18

  -6

  12

  1

  Maternity Allowance

  -11

  -3

  -7

  -10

  1

  0

  1

  4

  6

  -1

  -22

  4

  7

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  -5

  14

  -4

  Non-contributory RP

  -1

  -2

  -6

  6

  10

  4

  0

  -24

  8

  -9

  -9

  -5

  -4

  War Pension

  -2

  -2

  8

  3

  4

  2

  5

  4

  0

  -3

  -1

  6

  4

  Attendance Allowance

  -5

  -1

  4

  2

  3

  1

  0

  1

  -1

  -4

  0

  0

  4

  Invalid Care Allowance4

  -14

  8

  9

  -38

  19

  5

  12

  210

  -48

  -30

  -13

  -11

  3

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  -4

  1

  7

  2

  5

  6

  7

  -4

  -2

  -2

  -1

  10

  23

  Mobility Allowance

  -2

  1

  11

  1

  4

  -10

  4

  8

  -2

  -3

  2

  0

  5

  Income Support/ Supplementary Benefit5

  -4

  3

  16

  8

  -20

  4

  6

  -2

  -4

  4

  -1

  6

  9

  Child Benefit (per child)5

  36

  -10

  5

  3

  6

  4

  -1

  -1

  -2

  -8

  -6

  -8

  6

  One Parent Benefit

  31

  3

  4

  3

  6

  2

  1

  3

  -3

  -4

  0

  3

  -8

  Family Credit/FIS7

  2

  11

  9

  1

  3

  -5

  -2

  14

  4

  60

  -7

  2

  7

  Rate Rebate5

  4

  4

  16

  -6

  61

  -2

  9

  4

  4

  -1

  -4

  —

  —

  Rent Allowance5

  -8

  -7

  19

  2

  77

  8

  9

  13

  0

  18

  7

  12

  11

  Rent Rebate58

  -1

  2

  20

  -9

  86

  -1

  3

  2

  1

  14

  6

  0

  1

  Community Charge Benefit9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  -44

  Note: For footnotes see Table 1.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which areas of Lancashire have received cold weather payments in the 1991–92 winter; and for what relevant dates.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information is available in the Library.

  Kidderminster Local Office
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the full cost of temporary accommodation with regard to the closure of the Kidderminster integrated local benefit office will be funded centrally; and if a new integrated local office will be established in Kidderminster.

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

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated full cost of implementing all of the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations on the social fund in Great Britain in 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee propose wide-ranging changes to the social fund. The full information needed to produce a reliable estimate of the cost is not readily available. We are considering this report carefully, including the basis on which sound estimates might be constructed.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) posting query cases, (b) receivership cases and (c) refund requests are currently outstanding at Contributions Agency central operations in Newcastle; and when they will be cleared;

  (2) what are the (a) benefit entitlement implications and (b) revenue implications of the current posting query and receivership cases backlog at Contributions Agency central operations in Newcastle.

  Mr. Jack
  The current state of processing work at Newcastle and the implications this has on benefits and revenue is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out(a) the number of claimants, (b) the number of claimants' partners and (c) the number of dependants on supplementary benefit and income support in each year from 1979 to the latest available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is published annually in the supplementary benefits or income support statistics, copies of which are available in the Library.

  It is regretted that there was a transcription error in one figure of a previous answer to a similar question, on 5 November 1991, columns 85–86. The number of claimants in May 1987 should have read 4,895,525 not 4,095,525.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1983–84,

  773
  (c) 1987–88 and (d) 1991–92 the average number of claimants in receipt of (i) benefits paid to disabled people and (ii) benefits paid to retired people.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), on 9 March 1992 at columns 422–23.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of raising the income support personal allowance to the level of the personal allowance for those aged 25 years and over for people aged(a) 18, (b) 19, (c) 20, (d) 21, (e) 22, (f) 23 and (g) 24 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated disaggregated costs are shown in the table.

  Benefit (£ million)

  Age

  IS

  CCB

  HB

  Total

  18

  55

  5

  —

  60

  19

  60

  5

  5

  65

  20

  50

  —

  —

  50

  21

  40

  —

  5

  50

  22

  35

  —

  5

  40

  23

  35

  —

  5

  40

  24

  30

  —

  5

  35

  Total

  305

  15

  25

  340

  Source: Data shown from the 1987–89 family expenditure surveys and the 1990 annual statistical inquiry, modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £5 million. Because of this individual columns or lines do not necessarily sum.

  2. — Indicates a cost of less than £2.5 million.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support who have a child included in their assessment of entitlement are aged(a) 18 to 19, (b) 20, (c) 21, (d) 22, (e) 23 and (f) 24 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Income support recipients who have children

  Age group

  Number of claimants (000's)

  18 to 19

  42

  20

  33

  21

  39

  22

  40

  23

  51

  24

  53

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry May 1990.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many recipients of housing benefit who are also receiving income support are aged(a) 16–17, (b) 18–19, (c) 20, (d) 21, (e) 22, (f) 23 and (g) 24 years;

  (2) how many recipients of housing benefit are aged (a) 16–17, (b) 18–19, (c) 20, (d) 21, (e) 22, (f) 23 and (g) 24 years.
  774
  Miss Widdecombe
  The available estimates are in the table:

  Number of housing benefit recipients in Great Britain—May 1990

  Age of recipient

  With income support

  Without income support

  All cases

  16–17

  5,100

  2,900

  8,000

  18–19

  37,600

  25,400

  63,000

  20

  32,200

  32,000

  64,200

  21

  38,800

  36,900

  75,700

  22

  43,000

  30,000

  73,000

  23

  52,500

  19,100

  71,600

  24

  50,800

  14,800

  65,600

  Total

  260,100

  161,100

  421,200

  Source: The Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the extent to which local authorities have complied with the requirements of regulation 66 of Housing Benefits (General) Regulations 1987; what is the effect of non-compliance on voted expenditure for subsidies in respect of authorities' benefit expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am aware that in the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 some local authorities in Great Britain have not complied with the requirements of the regulations and have continued to make awards of benefit without undertaking reviews at the prescribed time. In such cases, the effect of the regulations is that authorities are only entitled to direct subsidy at the rate proper for overpayments resulting from the authorities' error; 15 per cent. of benefit expenditure in respect of allowances and rebates not paid through the housing revenue accounts and nil in respect of rebates paid through the housing revenues accounts. Subsidy which has been paid in excess of these rates has not therefore been paid in accordance with the full requirements of the regulations.

  In the vast majority of cases, however, it is likely that the overrun awards represented the claimants' correct benefit entitlements and would have attracted full subsidy had the awarding authorities complied with the review requirements in the regulations. I therefore propose that authorities should examine all overdue review cases and bring them to account by 5 October 1992. In cases where authorities have awarded more benefit than they would if they had carried out reviews at the prescribed time, they will receive reduced subsidy in the normal way. Where, however there would have been no change in benefit following a review at the prescribed time, I propose to allow full subsidy. From 5 October, I propose to introduce a new subsidy penalty for failure to comply with regulation 66, in addition to those already in place for overpayments. The new penalty will be proportionate to the number of cases outstanding and the length of time they remain unreviewed.

  Subject to consultation with the local authority associations and the local authorities about these proposals, the necessary provisions will be brought forward in the relevant subsidy order and determinations.

  Land Purchase (Blackpool)
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce the result of the negotiations between the Information Technology Services Agency and Blackpool borough council regarding the purchase of land at Peel Corner.

  Mr. Jack
  We are pleased to say that Blackpool borough council has agreed in principle to the sale of land at junction 4 (Peel Hill), Blackpool to the Information Technology Services Agency. Negotiations are continuing and if finalised they should ensure the retention in the area of some 2,500 jobs and the further prospect of some 250 new jobs, over the next few years. We understand that it is hoped that contracts will be exchanged in the next few weeks.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what investigations his Department is undertaking into the pension funds managed by members of the family of Jacob and Jeremiah Harouni; and if he will make a statement.

  Name of company

  Report sent

  Decision notified

  1 Milbury plc Westminster Property Group Ltd.

  26 October 1988

  17 February 1992

  2 Minet Holdings plc WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.

  13 August 1990

  3 Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  13 August 1990

  4 The Greenbank Trust plc

  June 1990

  11 June 1991

  5 Aldermanbury Trust plc

  31 January 1991

  6 Sound Diffusion plc

  15 March 1991

  7 The Animal Defence Society Ltd.

  14 March 1991

  22 July 1991

  8 Rotaprint plc

  5 July 1991

  9 The Milford Docks Company

  16 January 1992

  10 BOM Holdings plc

  26 February 1992

  British and Commonwealth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost so far of his Department's investigation into the collapse of British and Commonwealth.

  Mr. Redwood
  Inspectors were appointed on 15 June 1990 under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of Atlantic Computers plc and Atlantic Computer Systems plc, companies in the British and Commonwealth group. The cost, so far, of the Atlantic investigation is £3·89 million.

  Inspectors Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 397, what was the cost of each of the reports listed; what auditing firms were criticised in the reports; and to what interested parties he has supplied the unpublished reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  The cost of the inspections listed in the reply I gave on 25 November is set out below, where available.

  The inspections into Dunlop Holdings Ltd., Euroflame Holdings plc and Hartley Baird plc were carried out by departmental staff and cost information is not available.
  776
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: The Department does not undertake investigations into the management of pension funds. The Occupational Pensions Board monitors the ability of contracted-out schemes to meet their guaranteed minimum pension liabilities. From the limited information available the board is unable to trace a contracted-out scheme in which either Jacob or Jeremiah Harouni is involved.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Institute of Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the inspectors' reports which have been passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, with the date on which each report was passed to the institute.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows, updating the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 3 July 1991,Official Report, column 160:

  The inspections into British Anzani and Graylaw Holdings Ltd. were linked and cost information is only available for the combined investigation.

  Company name

  Cost (£)

  Bryanston Finance Ltd. (now Ramor Investments Ltd.)

  760,301

  British Anzani plc

  474,045

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd.

  Blue Arrow plc

  3,569,800

  The Bestwood plc

  2,709,446

  BOM Holdings plc

  1,185,343

  Each of these reports is unpublished and it would be inappropriate for me to discuss details of them. Such reports are disclosed, where appropriate, under the Companies Act 1948, as amended, under part XIV of the Companies Act 1985, as amended, and under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Austiin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's inspectors' reports published since 1979 contain evidence of audit failures.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to replies I gave on 19 December 1989 Official Report, column 138 and 139,

  777
  21 February 1990 Official Report, column 789 and 26 October 1990 Official Report, column 328. Four inspectors' reports have since been published which contain criticism of auditing firms:

  Name of company

  Date of publication

  Name of accountants

  Aldermanbury Trust plc

  20 March 1991

  Levy Gee

  South Diffusion plc

  1 May 1991

  Spicer and Peglar, Gibraltar

  Rotaprint plc

  24 July 1991

  Arthur Young Ernst and Whinney

  The Milford Docks Company

  16 January 1992

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Corporate Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has opposing the environmental disclosures in annual corporate reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Insurers made representations expressing reservations on the practicability of a recent private Member's Bill, the Corporate Safety and Environmental Information Bill, which, among other things, would have required publication of certain environmental impact information in the directors' report.

  Reporting Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the firms which have acted as reporting accountants on any of the companies privatised by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cadbury Committee on Corporate Governance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has made to the Cadbury Committee on Corporate Governance.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have made no written representations on matters of substance, but a representative of the Department participates in the committee as an observer.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will require companies to publish the amount spent on staff training.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government, through the Secretary of State for Employment's support for the investors in people initiative and by other means, encourage companies to publish their expenditure on training where this is appropriate to the objectives of companies' business.

  Inspectors' Fees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the fees of his Department's inspectors are agreed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Fee rates are agreed by negotiation between my officials and prospective inspectors.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has plans to propose legislation under which auditing firms would be prevented from designing tax avoidance schemes for their clients and then auditing the same.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The provision by auditors of other services to their clients is a matter that is best dealt with by professional rules of conduct.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will propose regulations to impose an obligation on the supervisory bodies listed by him in his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 346,, to allow the public to have access to the minutes of those bodies.

  (2) if he will propose regulations to impose an obligation on the supervisory bodies listed by him in his answer of 22 November, Official Report, column 346, to give the public a right of admission to their council meetings.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to define the expression "true and fair" in audit reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a list showing the inspectors appointed by him who were partners of Ernst and Young.

  Mr. Redwood
  Mr. J. M. Barney and Mr. D. J. Macleod were appointed as inspectors under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Mr. Macleod was also appointed an inspector on 10 February 1987 under section 442 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate the membership of Bremner plc. No other partners in the firms which combined to form Ernst and Young, or in that firm itself, have been appointed inspectors since 1979.

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the Polly Peck administrators.

  Mr. Redwood
  None, apart from those received from the hon. Member.

  Maxwell Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate an inquiry into the conduct of the Maxwell auditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Serious Fraud Office—SFO—is investigating events leading up to the collapse of the Maxwell group. Whether the role of the auditors may be relevant to those enquiries is a matter for the SFO. If any matters arise which could more appropriately be investigated using my right hon. Friend's powers, we will not hesitate to use them provided this would not impede
  779
  the SFO's work. The Government's response to the report of the Social Security Committee on pension funds, which refers to the conduct of auditors, will be made in due course.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what intellectual property rights protection is available for companies applying for his Department's funding for research programmes.

  Mr. Leigh
  Applicants for assistance under Department of Trade and Industry programmes are expected to take appropriate steps to protect intellectual property rights arising from the assisted work. The costs of such protection are not normally supported because they form part of the commercial exploitation phase which follows the Government-assisted research phase. However, the particular difficulties facing small independent firms are recognised by allowing necessary patent costs to be assisted.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total of his Department's funded research each year since 1979 in cash terms, real terms on 1979, and as a percentage decrease or increase on the previous year.

  Mr. Leigh
  Figures are available from 1981–82 to 1989–90 only, as shown below. They are subject to qualification. Their composition has been altered by changes in the structure of government and transfer to the private sector of public corporations for which my Department was formerly responsible, and from 1987 expenditure of up to £50 million per annum was re-classified to other budgets. Real terms figures are readily available only to a 1989–90 base.

  DTI expenditure on R&D

  £ million

  Year

  cash terms

  real terms 1

  1981–82

  284·9

  440·6

  1982–83

  284·0

  410·1

  1983–84

  313·1

  432·1

  1984–85

  346·7

  455–3

  1985–86

  374·4

  466·4

  1986–87

  362·9

  436·9

  1987–88

  324·4

  370·8

  1988–89

  314·4

  334·4

  1989–90

  310·0

  310·0

  1 base year 1989–90

  Source: Cabinet Office Annual Review of Government Funded R&D 1991, published by HMSO.

  British Telecom
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will hold talks with the director general of OFTEL about the replacement of rural telephone exchanges.

  Mr. Redwood
  British Telecom has invested more than £17 billion since its privatisation in 1984, with the result that more than 75 per cent. of customers' lines are now served by digital or modern analogue exchanges. Ninety-five per cent. of BT's exchanges will have been 780
  digitalised by the end of 1995. I meet the director general of OFTEL from time to time to discuss a wide range of telecommunications issues. He fully shares the Government's view that all customers, including those in rural areas, should benefit from the modernisation and expansion of telecommunications networks and services in the United Kingdom.

  Maxwell Communications
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has received concerning actions that could be taken on behalf of constituents involved in pension funds managed by the Maxwell Communications pension fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Forced Labour Products
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls exist on the import of products produced by forced labour; if these are being applied to imports from the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are severe practical difficulties in identifying goods allegedly produced using forced labour given the varied and complex channels of production and distribution which exist in international trade. More generally, it is highly doubtful whether the social conditions that give rise to forced labour can be improved by restricting trade: indeed, opening up trade is more likely to contribute to economic growth in the developing world, which is a prime objective of the current GATT Uruguay round negotiations.

  The Government do, however, urge all states which have ratified international instruments covering slavery, servitude, forced labour and similar practices to meet their obligations under those instruments, and also urges those states which have not done so to ratify at the earliest opportunity.

  Trade in goods produced specifically with prison labour is governed by the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act 1897, as amended in 1988. For enforcement of the Act, the Government have to rely in the main on the private sector or others to supply sufficient evidence to HM Customs and Excise.

  English Wine
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make it his policy to serve exclusively English wine at all official receptions and events sponsored by Her Majesty's Government taking place in the British pavilion at Expo 92 in Seville, and in particular on British national day whether in the pavilion or elsewhere in Seville;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to display wines from England in the British pavilion at Expo 92 in Seville without requiring a sponsorship fee from the English wine industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  English wines will be included in the British pavilion restaurant wine lists throughout the
  781
  duration of Expo 92. They will also be offered at official Government receptions in the pavilion, including on British national day.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of regional selective assistance in the Bury/Bolton travel-towork area.

  Mr. Leigh
  Since 1982–83, 82 projects with total project costs of £48–4 million have been supported by regional selective assistance in the Bury-Bolton travel-to-work area. The amount of grant accepted was £6·1 million and at the time the offer was accepted the projects were expected to create a total of 1,520 new jobs and safeguard a further 1,364.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the figures of injuries caused by fireworks in 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  According to reports from accident and emergency units in hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland, 723 people required treatment for injuries caused by fireworks during the three weeks leading up to November 5 1991 and the few days after, a decrease of just over 10 per cent. Serious injuries fell by 23 per cent. There was a decrease in injuries to all age groups, but particularly to 16 to 20-year-olds, where the fall was 31 per cent. There were also significant reductions in injuries to those under 16 years of age. There was a decrease of 36 per cent. in injuries from rockets and of 8 per cent. for bangers, but an increase of 9 per cent. from sparklers. Injuries from incidents in the street were down 21 per cent., from large public displays 18 per cent., from small public dislays 3 per cent. and from family firework parties 2 per cent. There were over 110 million fireworks let off in 1990, but we estimate that there were 2 to 5 per cent. less in 1991. The detailed breakdown for 1991 and the preceding four years is as follows:

  Firework injuries in Great Britain (4 week period in October-November)

  Year

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  Total

  723

  805

  800

  877

  960

  Place of accident

  1. Family or private party

  263

  269

  280

  300

  260

  2. Semi-public display (eg scouts, cricket club)

  57

  59

  71

  69

  88

  3. Large public display

  111

  135

  135

  123

  155

  4. Casual incident in street etc.

  209

  264

  247

  298

  364

  5. Other place

  68

  64

  46

  65

  73

  6. Indoors

  15

  14

  21

  22

  20

  Type of firework

  1. Banger

  146

  158

  136

  162

  163

  2. Rocket

  92

  144

  131

  164

  174

  3. Roman candle, coloured fire etc.

  68

  66

  89

  83

  96

  4. Home-made or extracted powder

  16

  7

  18

  17

  24

  5. Other proprietary fireworks

  68

  73

  125

  86

  109

  782

  Year

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  6. Sparklers

  101

  93

  83

  102

  95

  7. Unspecified type

  232

  264

  218

  263

  299

  Severity of injury

  1. Fatal injury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2. Detained for more than one night

  26

  38

  46

  69

  60

  3. Sufficient to cause absence from work or equivalent

  109

  138

  142

  167

  158

  4. Minor injury

  583

  590

  551

  587

  661

  5. Unspecified injury

  5

  39

  61

  54

  81

  Eye injuries (included in 2–5)

  247

  269

  275

  269

  312

  Age group of injured persons

  1. Over 20

  263

  269

  251

  280

  252

  2. 16 to 20

  98

  142

  135

  151

  168

  3. 13 to 15

  122

  134

  152

  266

  220

  4. Under 13

  240

  260

  262

  280

  320

  Inner Cities Task Forces
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what was the budget of the urban task forces covering London councils in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The budget of the Government's inner cities task forces covering London boroughs in 1991–92 was £5,396,000. This was divided among Deptford £1·2 million, north Peckham £1·5 million, west London £1·25 million, Spitalfields £1·3 million and Hackney—which opened in November 1991—£146,000.

  The budgets for 1992–93 have not yet been set.

  Containerised Cargo Handling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what is his policy on maintaining competition in containerised cargo handling facilities on the River Thames, east of Tower bridge.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: In this as in other commercial activities, the Government's policy is to maintain and promote competition vigorously.

SCOTLAND

  Gaelic Language Examination
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table to show the number of students who passed in Gaelic language at(a) GCSE and 0-level and (b) A-level in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The tables show for the years in question the numbers of awards in bands 1 to 3 for the Scottish certificate of education examinations at ordinary grade and standard grade, and in bands A to C at higher grade.

  Ordinary grade

  Standard Higher grade (introduced 1990)

  Higher

  Gaidhlig (Native Speakers)

  1989

  68

  —

  18

  1990

  56

  13

  30

  783

  Ordinary grade

  Standard grade (introduced 1990)

  Higher

  1991

  13

  65

  31

  Gaelic Learners

  1989

  232

  —

  106

  1990

  184

  38

  106

  1991

  94

  164

  99

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on schools at 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  1978 to 1979

  1979 to 1980

  1980 to 1981

  1981 to 1982

  1982 to 1983

  1983 to 1984

  1984 to 1985

  1985 to 1986

  1986 to 1987

  1987 to 1988

  1988 to 1989

  1989 to 1990

  1990 to 1991

  Borders

  0·701

  1·202

  1·925

  1·545

  1·007

  1·052

  1·301

  1·437

  1·145

  1·179

  1·224

  1·726

  3·162

  Central

  8·904

  7·106

  4·997

  4·058

  2·174

  1·599

  1·543

  1·902

  3·106

  3·469

  5·046

  5·416

  4·687

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·651

  3·285

  2·892

  2·798

  3·198

  3·593

  3·385

  3·328

  2·746

  0·814

  1·917

  1·962

  1·383

  Fife

  7·853

  4·989

  4·604

  4·145

  3·649

  2·553

  4·105

  5·789

  5·994

  2·575

  5·485

  6·308

  8·639

  Grampian

  18·198

  14·898

  15·928

  19·801

  13·444

  9·730

  8·271

  11·145

  10·358

  2·804

  3·934

  4·246

  5·808

  Highland

  7·523

  5·063

  4·828

  5·373

  4·407

  2·469

  1·164

  1·783

  1·469

  3·125

  4·218

  4·233

  3·113

  Lothian

  22·841

  16·860

  16·045

  11·866

  12·535

  8·830

  8·465

  8·286

  4·874

  10·053

  9·034

  12·549

  9·442

  Strathclyde

  59·035

  37·643

  34·977

  39·370

  29·781

  29·530

  28·451

  27·123

  22·582

  24·444

  28·731

  28·722

  23·533

  Tayside

  5·847

  4·850

  3·170

  3·018

  3·137

  2·170

  3·012

  3·718

  2·627

  4·051

  4·160

  3·819

  3140

  Orkney

  1·057

  0·337

  0·175

  1·010

  1·898

  1·343

  1·786

  1·636

  1·192

  1·214

  1·185

  1·074

  1·288

  Shetland

  4·493

  6·326

  5·690

  5·963

  4·245

  3·754

  2·606

  1·425

  0·655

  0·666

  1·072

  0·784

  0·835

  Western Isles

  1·032

  1·056

  1·152

  2·386

  2·566

  1·372

  1·373

  1·606

  4·237

  4·800

  2·534

  1·718

  2·275

  Scotland

  140·137

  103·615

  96·381

  101·333

  82·043

  67·994

  65·461

  69·178

  60·986

  59·196

  68·538

  72·559

  67·305

  Note: The figures include expenditure on nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Outturn figures have been converted to 1990–91 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Fur Factory Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mink factory farms are currently operating under licence in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two licensed mink farms currently operating in Scotland.

  Whitson-Fairhurst Houses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will agree to meet members and officials of Roxburgh district council to discuss ways of financing the re-purchase of the Whitson-Fairhurst houses in Hawick which were sold to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy provisions without notification of the structural design defects;

  (2) what action the Government propose to take to safeguard the interests of the purchases of the Whitson-Fairhurst homes in Burnfoot; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The existing law relating to the sale of defective houses safeguards the interests of the purchasers and I have no power to intervene; any matters concerned with the performance or discharge of the seller's obligations are a matter for the sheriff court. I shall however write to the hon. Member about the sale of Whitson-Fairhurst houses by Roxburgh district council.

  Supplementary housing capital allocations are made available to local authorities specifically to cover their obligations to owners of defective houses, such as
  784
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of capital expenditure on schools in(a) each regional authority in Scotland and (b) Scotland in total in each year since 1978–79 in constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information given in the table has been compiled from local authority financial returns. The fall in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in school pupil numbers which has reduced the requirement for new school building.

  Whitson-Fairhursts, where the circumstances meet the statutory requirements of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Decisions on repurchasing houses in other cases are a matter for the district council and such repurchases must be funded from the council's general housing capital allocations. In the circumstances, I see no purpose in a meeting with the council during the general election period.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table, analysing the data in appendix 1 of Cm 1915, showing separately for each line for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95(a) expenditure within the Scottish block and (b) other expenditure;

  (2) if he will publish tables, covering the years 1986–87 to 1994–95 and consistent with Cm 1915, analysing (a) the Scottish block by economic category within spending sector, (b) the Scotland programme by economic category within spending sector and (c) the Scotland programme minus Forestry Commission by economic category within spending sector;

  (3) if he will publish a table, analysing the data in the "summary cash plans" of Cm 1915 (page vii), showing separately for each line within the sub-total, total Scottish Office and Departments, for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95 (a) expenditure within the Scottish block and (b) other expenditure;

  (4) if he will publish tables, analysing for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95, the data in the "summary cash plans" of Cm 1915 (page vii), analysing the component parts of (a) the Scottish block and (b) other expenditure, by

  785
  (i) public expenditure (sub) programme and (ii) the functional classification used in the identifiable expenditure figures, appendix E of Cm 1920.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the latest figures available, stating whether they are final outturns, provisional outturns or budget figures, for 1988–89 to 1992–93 on the statistical basis of table 2 (summary analysis of general fund services revenue account), table 3 (summary analysis of housing, trading and special revenue accounts), table 4 (summary analysis of capital accounts) and table 5 (general fund services revenue account: total expenditure) of Scottish local government financial statistics.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested will take a little time to assemble and I shall therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Fish Processors
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to be able to provide application forms to enable small scale fish processors to make applications for the derogation under article 14 of directive 91/493;

  (2) if he will make a statement outlining the Government's position on the provisions of article 14 of EC directive 91/493 dealing with temporary relief from officially set health requirements as they affect small-scale fish processors until January 1996;

  (3) whether member states are required to amend the existing provision of the Food Safety Acts to enable the derogation scheme under article 14 of directive 91/493 to proceed;

  (4) what form of guidance his Department intends to provide to local environmental health officers to enable them to advise prospective applicants for derogations under article 14 of directive 91/493; and how soon he hopes to he able to provide it.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under article 14 of directive 91/493/EEC, the Commission is to submit a report to the Council on the minimum structural and equipment requirements to be met by small establishments which distribute on the local market and are situated in regions subject to particular supply constraints. It wil; be necessary to consider the Government's position on such matters once the Commission's proposals are seen. Meanwhile we have sought the views of the industry. It should not be necessary to amend existing United Kingdom legilsation to enable derogations under article 14 to be put in place should such derogations be agreed.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish guidelines to encourage careers service partnerships between education authorities and local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidelines on the formation of careers service partnerships are being issued today. Quality careers guidance is vital if young people are to achieve their potential and take full advantage of the numerous 786
  opportunities in education and training. It is also vital that employers play an active and increasing role in the careers service to ensure that the best possible information and advice are available.

  Careers service partnerships are a significant move in that direction. The active involvement of local employers will enable the careers service to offer a valuable and flexible service to its clients and one which is fully attuned to local needs and opportunities to help promote partnerships.

  Education authorities are being invited to submit applications for finance to assist them in meeting initial development costs of partnerships during 1992–93. Support is likely to range from £5,000 in the smallest authorities to £30,000 in the largest.

  The Government are determined to give young people the best possible deal in education and training and in getting themselves a job. The issue of these guidelines is another step towards achieving that goal.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any information about the examination performance of assisted places pupils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The aim of the assisted places scheme, which was set up by the Government in 1981, is to allow children to attend Scottish independent schools which would otherwise be beyond the financial means of their parents.

  Some 2,900 children now benefit from the scheme in Scotland and I expect that number to rise to 3,000 in the 1992–93 session.

  The examination performance of children on the scheme has also demonstrated once and for all that children from families with low incomes and from a wide social background can, and do, perform just as well as children from better-off families when they are given the same opportunity.

  A survey, which has been commissioned by the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, will I am sure, shortly provide further evidence to confound those who have questioned the merit of the scheme. Final results from the survey are expected in July. The scheme is working well. I look forward with interest to the results of the survey.

  Set-aside Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of payments under the set-aside scheme in Scotland which have been recovered or withheld in each region since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 March 1992]: The information is set out in the table. It takes account of developments since my earlier answers on 20 December 1991 and 13 February 1992 which contained some provisional figures.

  Set-aside Scheme: Scotland Payments recovered/withheld

  Region

  1988–89£

  1989–90£

  1990–91£

  Borders

  —

  —

  2,608·80

  Central

  692·00

  4,894·20

  —

  Fife

  —

  1,662·00

  51·00

  787

  Region

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Grampian

  23,814·74

  13,123·33

  7,926·80

  Highland

  —

  1,031·33

  2,238·00

  Lothian

  2,687·40

  408·00

  —

  Tayside

  4,884·60

  9,754·70

  7,064·50

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  32,078·74

  30,873·56

  19,889·10

  Infertility Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the National Medical Advisory Committee's report on an infertility service for Scotland will be published; and when he expects its recommendations to be implemented.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: There are a number of matters about the provision of an assisted reproduction service which call for further investigation and I have sought supplementary advice from the NMAC. When these matters have been resolved, the NMAC report will be published and the issues surrounding implementation addressed.

  Planning (Guidelines)
  Mr. Sahnond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give details of guidelines pertaining to notification times given to third parties in planning matters when a reporter is due to inspect a site; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has had regarding the adequacy of guidelines pertaining to notification times given to third parties in planning matters when a reporter is due to inspect a site; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: There is no statutory obligation for a reporter to notify third parties when he is due to inspect a site and there are therefore no guidelines. But the Scottish Office inquiry reporters unit normally informs third parties as a matter of courtesy. Site inspections can be arranged at short notice, but the unit normally gives parties two weeks' notice.

  The Scottish Office inquiry reporters unit has had representations on a site inspection which was arranged at short notice at Memsie in Banff and Buchan. The two days' notice given to third parties in this case was shorter than normal and arose from the cancellation of another case.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the numbers of single people with incomes of over £40,000 per annum who will qualify for a 25 per cent. discount under his council tax proposals.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: This information is not available.
  788
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his estimate of the total number of discounts for(a) single person households and (b) other eligible groups he expects to be available under his council tax proposals, shown in aggregate and by region.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: For the illustrative calculations published in 1991, it was estimated that 30·4 per cent. of households were one adult households. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to estimate the incidence of other discounts under the council tax.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each ambulance authority, and for each year since 1987, the number of complaints lodged.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The information is not held centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for 1987 and 1991, and for each ambulance service in Scotland, the percentage of emergency calls responded to within(a) 7 to 8 minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The information is not held centrally in the form requested.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the numbers of national health service front-line staff for the national health service in Scotland in 1979, 1983, 1987 and the latest available year; and if he will list the percentage change in these figures between each of those years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Direct care staff in the NHS in Scotland: Whole-time equivalent (WTE) as at 30 September

  Total1

  Percentage change

  Year

  WTE

  Period

  Percentage change

  1979

  72,320·3

  —

  —

  1983

  79,928·4

  1979–83

  25·1

  1987

  81,588·7

  1983–87

  2·1

  1 1991

  82,550·8

  1987–91

  1·2

  Notes:

  1 Direct care staff include doctors and dentists, nursing and midwifery staff, scientific and PAMs staff, technical staff, hospital pharmacists and opticians, ambulance staff. The figures include some staff who are not involved in direct patient care—for example, those in teaching, administration or public health medicine. Staff in the state hospital are excluded.

  2 Numbers have been adjusted to reflect the change for nursing staff from a 40-hour week in 1979 to a 37–5-hour week in subsequent years.

  3 Provisional

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Sheep Dip Compounds: Advice to Farmers
Baroness Masham Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue advice to farmers to avoid the harmful effects of organo-phosphorus compounds used in sheep dipping.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government have already issued advice to farmers on the safe use of these potentially dangerous substances. At the start of the 1991 sheep dipping season the Health and Safety Executive issued a free leaflet entitled Sheep Dipping—protect your health. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate also issued complementary guidance on the safe handling and disposal of sheep dip. Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House. In addition, information on the wearing of protective equipment and the safe use of sheep dips must be printed on the product label.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in recent years many people have started to keep a few sheep of rare breeds, causing a great deal of interest? Some people keep just a few to mow their lawns or to graze in their orchards. These people use other people's sheep dip and may not know of the dangers. Can something be done to provide the information to a wider number of people in the community?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, especially concerning those who keep only a few sheep. However, it would be highly irresponsible if a farmer or contractor passed on sheep dip not in its container. The labelling on the container gives the required information for the safety of the operator.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as long ago as 1961 the Lancet published an article outlining the dangers involved in these compounds? Why has it taken so long for anything to be done about it? Is he also aware that the effects of the poisoning can be quite disastrous for people? Will he tell us whether the disease which must affect farm workers engaged in sheep dipping is a prescribed disease under the industrial injuries legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have been aware of the potential dangers of sheep dip over a number of years. The sale and supply of sheep dip is controlled by the Medicines Act 1968, so the anxiety has been known for some time.
1490
There is a voluntary scheme for reporting incidents involving veterinary medicines, including sheep dips, to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which is the licensing authority. However, there is also a legal requirement to report confirmed organo-phosphorus poisonings to the Health and Safety Executive. That is under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, on the basis that prevention is better than cure, does my noble friend know whether there are any effective sheep dips which do not contain these dangerous substances? If so, will the Government give encouragement to their marketing? If not, will they give encouragement to the development, marketing and use of such other substances?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Of the 19 approved sheep dips for the treatment and prevention of sheep scab —because that is what we are talking about—17 have the organo-phosphorus compounds as active ingredients. The other two are based on flumethrin, which, although effective against sheep scab, is not effective against blowfly strike. That is one of the problems that sheep farmers have to face in the summer months.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the difficulties is that sheep dip tanks are very big and hold a lot of water containing the dip. Getting rid of the dip safely is not easy. I have experience of sheep dipping in the hills where farmers used to think, "What harm can it do here?", and they used to tip it out. On one such occasion the dip went down the stream and into the water supply for quite a big area. The problem has been solved to a certain extent by spraying rather than dipping. However, it is difficult to get rid of the dip at the end of the work.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Disposal of the spent dip should be carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner. Another leaflet prepared by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate on the safe handling and disposal of sheep dips should be consulted. If the dip is spread on grassland, care must be taken as the substances used in sheep dip are especially toxic to birds, including domestic geese, poultry, ducks and even pheasants. Access by stock should be restricted for at least one month.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would it be sensible if both leaflets were combined in one so that everyone who uses the dip could consult it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I simply asked my noble friend whether it would be sensible if one leaflet covered all aspects of advice to users rather than several coming from different directions, some of which may miss their target.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the leaflets cover the various aspects of using sheep dip. However, they mention the two areas I have referred to in some greater detail.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, am I to gather from the Minister's response to my question that the condition arising from the use of these compounds is not regarded as an industrial disease within the meaning of the industrial injuries legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as far as I am aware that is the case, but I shall make certain of that and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the chemical used in sheep dip is similar to the chemical used in nerve gas? Is my noble friend satisfied with the labelling of sheep dip? Is there, for instance, a skull and crossbones marked on each container? Do farmers pay much attention to the labelling?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend whether containers are marked with a skull and crossbones. Such a marking would indicate the substance was poisonous and the sheep dip we are discussing is certainly not subject to the regulations on poisons. I can confirm that the symptoms suffered by people who come into contact with this sheep dip are similar to those caused by nerve gas in that the central nervous system is attacked. However, the symptoms may not necessarily be severe. Many farmers have called the symptoms "post dipping flu" and have recovered from them quite quickly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some farmers have had to go out of business as a result of the effects of this sheep dip? Some have become paralysed as a result of contact with the sheep dip and others have suffered loss of memory and depression. How does the chemical affect sheep?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am aware that there have been reports in the press which suggest that some people have been affected by contact with this sheep dip and have had to go out of business. Obviously I regret that very much. The Health and Safety Executive carried out a regional survey in the South West in October 1990 which studied the risks of coming into contact with organo-phosphorus sheep dip. The results of the biological tests did not indicate that operators or bystanders had absorbed significant quantities of the substance. I understand that the use of the material at the recommended dilution rates has no observable effects on dipped sheep.

Buchanan Bus and Coach Station
11.15 a.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What requirements have been laid on the Scottish Transport Group in respect of the disposal of the Buchanan Bus and Coach Station, Glasgow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, following privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, the Scottish Transport Group is under an obligation to dispose of all its remaining assets including its leasehold interest in Buchanan Bus Station. Any purchaser of the Scottish Transport Group lease would require planning permission before the use of any part of the bus station site could be changed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has set out the position nicely. Is he aware that the Buchanan Bus and Coach Station, Glasgow is a centre for nearly 2 million people? Coaches depart from that bus station on long distance journeys and they often travel to areas where there are no railways or any other means of transport. There is considerable unease at the auction which will take place under government directions. The correct thing to do would be to transfer the station to the regional council, which is the responsible authority. However, is the Minister prepared to make available the money that is necessary to enable the regional council to take over this vital centre of communication?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of everything the noble Lord has said. Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive can put in a bid when the property is put up for sale.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware how difficult the situation is in the centre of Glasgow, particularly as the Anderston Bus Station will also be taken away from the city? Buses and coaches are now parking in the streets and that is causing difficulties. This was all pointed out during our debates on the deregulation of these services. We pointed out the difficulties that could arise in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We have seen what happened in Southampton where the bus station was sold to the highest bidder. We need central bus stations in our major cities. Would it not be better to give preference to the Passenger Transport Executive to enable it to take control of the bus station in Glasgow so that the terminal may be retained as a city centre terminal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there may well be a good case for having a central bus station in the centre of Glasgow. However, that is a decision for the Passenger Transport Executive and the planning authorities to take when they decide what their requirements are. If they wish to buy the bus station, it is totally open to them to make a bid.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister did not answer part of my supplementary question. I pointed out the importance of the bus station and the obvious shortage of money available to the regional council. Will the Minister be prepared to look sympathetically at the question of grants to the regional council for this purpose?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to Strathclyde Regional Council to make a bid and to make a case to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the extra funding. There is no reason why the bus station should not be sold to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive as opposed to a purely private bidder.

Citizen's Charter: Motorists
11.19 a.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the Citizen's Charter will protect the interests of motorists.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Citizen's Charter aims to control the dreaded cone, minimise delays on the roads, make better use of available road space and enhance the information available to motorists to inform their journey planning and progress. We also intend to publish service standards where we can, mainly for the department's agencies, and we will be conducting a survey of motorists to find out what they want from the motorway and trunk road network.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he not agree that the right of motorists to information about the cars they purchase, especially second-hand cars, should also be protected? Does he therefore agree that we need some further measure to prevent the practice of clocking which goes on in the second-hand car trade? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the subject of clocking the noble Lord may like to refer to a Written Question which I answered only yesterday or the day before. My Answer set out new proposals to try to deal with the problem of clocking which will be of benefit to those wishing to buy second-hand cars.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Minister had nothing to say about enhancing standards of car security in view of the wave of car crime which is afflicting this country? Is it not remarkable that he said nothing about the provision of better car servicing standards so that motorists are not so easily duped? Is it not remarkable that he said nothing about the provision of incentives for those wishing to fit catalytic converters? May I recommend to the Minister a document that the Labour Party has published which deals with all those matters and is entitled Quality Motoring? It is good reading.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord can recommend the document to me as much as he likes. Whether I shall read it or take note of it is another matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that any intelligent reading of The Citizen's Charter shows that it gives sensible guidelines to protect the freedoms and well-being of all citizens, and that of course includes motorists?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I hope that the measures which I outlined in my original Answer will be of great benefit to motorists.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House as a matter of information how many cones there are on British motorways now as opposed to the number of cones on British motorways when the Citizen's Charter was announced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords.

Milk Marketing: EC Interim Measures
11.21 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the effect on the United Kingdom milk marketing schemes of the European Commission interim measures on low fat milk.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is too early to say what the effect on the operation of the schemes will be. That will depend on the exact terms of the interim measures granted.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that implementation of the interim measures in full will effectively mean the end of the milk marketing schemes which are so important to the dairy farmer, the dairy industry and the consumer? Is she further aware that the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation are totally opposed to the European Commission view on the matter? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will oppose the application of the interim measures by the EC with the utmost vigour?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the interim measures are not intended to end the milk marketing boards; they are intended to maintain the status quo until the court reaches a definitive judgment. The Commission does not intend to undermine the milk marketing schemes by seeking to allow all sales of low fat milk outside the schemes while the issue is unresolved by the European Court of Justice. It simply seeks to protect the interests of existing producers of low fat milk in the meantime. We are still considering whether to put up a defence against the interim measures and your Lordships can be assured that, whatever we decide, our objectives will remain the same.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether this is a matter on which unanimity

1495
is required or whether we can be overruled by the majority? Is she aware that many of us regard low fat milk as in the same category as non-alcoholic beer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I like it too! I agree with my noble friend. These are purely interim measures which have been suggested until the European Court of Justice makes a decision on whether the way in which the Milk Marketing Board operates is within EC rules.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case perhaps I may ask my noble friend to bear in mind that what is at issue is a judgment or potential judgment of the European Court of Justice. Will she also bear in mind that Her Majesty's Government have always taken great and honourable pride in their observance of Community law? Would it not be a tragedy if the Government's magnificent record in that respect were brought into question by unfortunate comments which might be made?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very busy bearing in mind all the points made by my noble friend.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we do have to amend the arrangements for marketing milk in the United Kingdom to take full advantage of our entry into the single market? Will she also confirm that we need stability in the industry and should not take action until the proper marketing schemes are amended by Parliament?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is widely recognised in the industry that change to existing statutory milk marketing arrangements in the UK is necessary. All five milk marketing boards in the UK are working on detailed proposals for their replacement by non-statutory bodies which they have agreed to present to the Government by Easter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the marketing schemes in Scotland are not affected by the interim measures since the Scottish schemes specify milk in all its forms? Would it not be absurd if the schemes were to continue in Scotland while those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were to founder on a bureaucratic argument about the legal definition of milk?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that the milk marketing schemes in Scotland were extended to cover low fat milk some years ago. The situation there is stable and there is no need for interim measures. The Commission's application, therefore, does not apply to Scotland, but the final judgment would apply equally in Scotland. The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
11.26 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament the standing orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session. — (Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
11.27 a.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to begin with an apology to the House in that on the Order Paper the Bill is adorned with a paragraph symbol indicating that the recommended interval between the First and Second Readings has not been observed. At a time like this when we are up against an imminent Dissolution I hope that the House will agree that that is an unfortunate necessity. I ask the House to agree to expedite the passage of the remaining stages of the Bill for that reason. It is a Bill which is immensely worth while and it is also politically non-controversial, or so I believe.
The purpose of the Bill is to extend the law giving statutory anonymity to victims of rape to victims of other sexual offences. It implements, with minor improvements, a recommendation of the Calcutt Committee on Privacy and Related Matters. Incidentally, I am very pleased to see that the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, is in his place because I believe that it was he who gave a welcome in the other place to the report of the Calcutt Committee when he was Home Secretary.
It is, in short, a Bill to give anonymity to alleged victims of sexual offences. That power is given in Clause 1 and the sexual offences are listed in Clause 2.
I must confess that, in order to make the subject matter of the Bill immediately intelligible, I should have preferred to entitle it "Victims of Sexual Offences (Anonymity) Bill". However, like other Members of your Lordships' House I must exercise self-restraint and not propose any amendments. The Bill is a model of the draftsman's craft. I am happy to say that it is free-standing. Perhaps one of the reasons that it is so easily intelligible is that it is not drafted by reference to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. In due course I hope that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act will be consolidated.

1497
In the House of Commons the Bill was most skilfully handled by Mr. Brandon-Bravo. He was supported by six other Conservative Members, four Labour Members and one Liberal-Democrat. Their names are listed on the back of the Bill. That indicates the extent of support in the House of Commons where the Bill had an unopposed Second Reading and remaining stages.
The guts of the Bill are in Clause 1 which confers anonymity on victims who have been subject to the offences listed in Clause 2. There are special rules in Clause 4 for anonymity when the complaint is one of incest or buggery. Clause 3 allows the judge—the House may feel quite rightly—to lift the reporting restrictions imposed in Clause 1 in certain circumstances, which I can briefly encapsulate in the phrase "in the interests of justice". Clause 5 provides for the offence and also for defences and follows the 1976 Act. Clause 6 is the interpretation clause. Clause 7 follows the 1976 Act and makes provision for courts-martial to follow the proceedings which apply in the civil courts.
I am happy to answer any questions on the detail when I reply. At this stage I should say that I am entirely satisfied with the Bill. The Bill provides anonymity where it is absolutely necessary. It also provides suitable safeguards. Undoubtedly it stops the exposure of innocent victims to the public press and the media. Such exposure may ruin their lives in the case of sexual offences. That should be stopped and that is the effect of the Bill. I ask the House to support it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henderson of Brompton.)
11.34 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill and explaining it with a reasonable degree of thoroughness. Its general principles are to be commended. Ever since 1976 it has seemed to me to be illogical that the protection of anonymity should be confined to the victims of rape. To be a victim of enforced oral sex or sodomy must be every bit as traumatic and humiliating, if not more so. For that reason it is absolutely right that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
However, having said that and despite the explanation given by my noble friend, I feel that to rush the Bill through all its stages in a single day is a different matter. What is the pressing urgency? Where are the impassioned public pleas? Over the past 16 years there have been any number of measures dealing with criminal justice, into which provisions such as those contained in this Bill could have been inserted, after the thorough scrutiny to which the other place and even more so your Lordships' House, with noble Lords' great fund of legal expertise and experience, normally subject any Bill which involves criminal justice. One has only to think of the perfectly justifiable passions aroused very recently in our lengthy debates on the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill.
Yet, in sharp contrast, noble Lords effectively are being asked to rubber stamp this Bill. I know that the
1498
Calcutt Committee made most of the recommendations on which this Bill is based. But it is not the habit of Parliament automatically to rubber stamp recommendations of committees, Royal Commissions or anything else. Perhaps it may come to that eventually but, thank goodness, it has not yet done so. We are being asked to rubber stamp this Bill without considering amendments of any sort, even drafting amendments of an improving nature—your Lordships are quite adept at putting forward such amendments —since any such amendments would effectively postpone the passage of the Bill until later this year, assuming that it were to be reintroduced at the beginning of the next Session, as it almost certainly would be.
But, why not? Why should it not wait for another six months or so? After 16 years will another six months be too long to wait to make sure that the Bill is absolutely right in every detail? Perhaps we should contrast this Bill with the Timeshare Bill which is to be introduced later this morning. The idea of putting through the Timeshare Bill without proper scrutiny —let us not forget that the raison d'être of this House is the proper scrutiny of Bills—to some extent also sticks in the gullet. But at least it helps to remedy a long-standing abuse about which there has been almost continuous public concern and debate over the years. The provisions of that Bill merely bring timeshare sales into line with other forms of salesmanship, such as life insurance and consumer credit, so far as compulsory cooling-off periods are concerned.
Moreover, although I am not sure that this is appreciated, the Timeshare Bill was at least debated for a total of three hours and 25 minutes in another place, whereas the total time given to the Bill now before your Lordships was a mere 35 minutes, of which less than 30 minutes was devoted to the subject matter of the Bill.
This Bill, albeit with the best of motives—I do not doubt that for one moment; as I said, I support the general principles—undoubtedly affects the freedom of the press, the freedom of the media generally and freedom of speech. I think that we were all, when young, taught that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The more that anonymity is extended to those involved in criminal trials, the less demonstrably is justice seen to be done. In other words, it is not simply a question of what some might consider to be airy-fairy abstractions, such as freedom of the press. It is a question of justice for particular individuals.
The kindness to victims or alleged victims that anonymity gives might result in a very substantial unkindness to an individual who has been unjustly accused of a sexual offence, possibly a minor sexual offence. Let us consider the law as it stands. Suppose, for example, that an individual living hundreds of miles away from the scene reads in his morning newspaper that a Mr. Bill Jones has been committed for trial on a charge of indecent assault for assaulting a Miss Sharon Smith. One must remember that for forensic reasons indecent assault is even more difficult to prove conclusively than rape, in the absence of

1499
witnesses. The person who has seen the report happens to know that Sharon Smith is an inveterate liar, inveterate fantasist and possibly an occasional extortionist and consequently he or she may be prepared to give evidence for the defence. Conversely, he or she may happen to know that Sharon Smith is a person of the utmost integrity, truthfulness and virtue and accordingly may be prepared to give evidence for the prosecution. However, neither of those courses of action will be possible if the unamended Bill becomes law.
There is also the question of the definition of indecent assault, which is an extraordinarily wide-ranging offence. It ranges at its worst extreme from forced oral sex to the other extreme of putting one's arm around a fellow employee at an office party against the wishes of the employee. Is it really to be the case that in the least serious of the offences the protection of anonymity should be conferred when the accused person may be pilloried or ridiculed whether or not he or indeed she is found guilty? (Of course a woman can also be charged and found guilty of indecent assault.) I believe that this provision probably goes a little too far in that respect.
There may be perfectly conclusive, good answers to all these reservations but they would take time to develop. Once again, I do not oppose the Bill. However, in the normal way we would have Committee and Report stages and those reservations could be debated; but that is not possible under the procedure that we adopt today. The Bill is well intentioned and admirable but we are being deprived of our right to act as a revising Chamber in this instance. While I thoroughly approve of the Bill being given a Second Reading, I believe it premature and unnecessary to rush it through all its stages today.
11.41 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for explaining the Bill very clearly and making us understand how useful its provisions will be. I agree with him about his preferred title. It would certainly describe the Bill better. However, as he said, we shall have to accept the existing title.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, it is a well drafted Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also made a fair point. However, we on this side of the House do not agree with him. He objected that there will not be time to discuss the Bill's provisions further as it is being pushed through all its stages this morning. But we believe that the provisions of the Bill are useful. Further anonymity has been requested from many in this respect for a long time. We believe it right that the measures should be on the statute book although, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, stated, that means there will be no further discussion.
The Bill makes useful additions to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. We note that it implements a subsidiary recommendation of the report of the Calcutt Committee on privacy and related matters. Equally, we note and fully recognise that the balance between giving anonymity and not
1500
creating a problem for the police in the investigation of an alleged offence is delicate to achieve. However, I believe that that issue is dealt with well in Clause 1 which gives two levels of different protection and seems to avoid that problem.
There is little doubt that the Bill deals with an area of the greatest sensitivity. Indeed, Clause 2, listing the offences to which the Bill applies, makes very sorry reading. However, I entirely agree that it is right that the Bill should include indecent conduct towards young children among the offences listed, although the Calcutt Report did not do so.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will give his opinion on whether the Bill will help in these areas. The anonymity of a victim is sometimes lost because reports in different newspapers pick up different details, but not all of them, and jigsawing (as I understand it is called) then takes place. From such details the identity of the person can be established. One paper might give an address and another might give the date of return home.
Perhaps I may cite examples from the report of the Press Complaints Commission. The Director of Social Services, near Manchester, complained that the Manchester Evening News had published prominently a story and picture likely to lead to the identification of children involved in an alleged gang rape at a children's home. The Director of Social Services said that the council's legal department had asked the newspaper not to publish the name or picture of the home as the children were all wards of court. However, in its first edition the paper published a picture of the home. Two of the boys had been charged with rape and a third with aiding and abetting. But the editor of the newspaper said that it could not possibly be argued that a publication of a photograph of the children's home could lead to the identification of the children. However, the complaint was upheld by the Press Complaints Commission on the basis that the details were sufficient details for the victims of the sex crime to be identified.
I shall not give further examples but there are many borderline situations. A complaint against the Sport newspaper was upheld by the commission. It related to a rape victim. The paper published an inaccurate report of the girl's rape which contributed to her being identified as a rape victim. Such jigsawing effect seems to pose a problem. Will the provisions in the Bill help in some small way towards preventing the identification of certain victims of sexual crime?
We are happy to support the Bill. We believe that it will be useful. We support its rapid progress onto the statute book. We very much hope that the additional anonymity which the Bill provides will prevent the untold suffering which must occur to so many when sexual offences are identified as relating to a specific person.
11.49 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual but happy position of agreeing wholly with the noble Baroness. I hope that your Lordships will decide to allow the Bill to go through.

1501
I make only one further comment in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He stated that if we do not do so the Bill will go through in six months' time. I believe that that would be a very optimistic assumption. The new Parliament will not be opened until 6th May. There will be the usual proceedings at the opening of a new Parliament, with the Queen's Speech and so on. By the time that those are completed there will be two months before the Long Recess. It is undoubtedly the case that if my noble friend's party, to which I belong, is victorious at the election there will be a flow of wise, beneficent and constructive measures. Equally, if the noble Baroness's party succeeds there will be a great many subversive and highly damaging measures. However, on both hypotheses the procedure would take a great deal of time. It is most rash to assume that the Bill will necessarily pass through Parliament in six months.
Most people outside this House, and I am sure most of your Lordships, agree that this is a sensible extension of the already accepted principle of preserving the anonymity of victims of various offences. If that is so, why delay? Why for months and years expose people to this most unpleasant publicity when we can stop it by carrying the Bill? I hope that we will.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I too may say a few words. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has made out a powerful case for the Bill. I have no difficulty with it and I hope that it will soon be on the statute book. I am in favour of proceeding in the way suggested by the noble Lord largely because the Bill is based on the report of the Calcutt Inquiry. The issues involved have been carefully reviewed, and on that basis it is reasonable that the Bill should go through today under the terms of this accelerated procedure.
However, I am bound to make one qualification. This is the first of three Bills with which we shall deal today where this course of action is recommended. I believe that some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are more appropriately applied to one of the other measures largely because the issues in respect of this Bill have been considered by a serious committee of inquiry. As a revising Chamber the House must be careful about allowing Bills to go through on the nod. I believe that on this occasion the procedure is desirable but I hope that we shall be careful about doing so in the future.
11.53 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on introducing this Bill. Modest though the reform may be, it will provide some much-needed further consideration for victims of sexual crimes and will, we believe, also help to encourage victims to report such crimes to the proper authorities. The Bill is thus good for victims and good for the administration of justice. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships of the
1502
Government's support for the Bill. It comes to us from another place unamended and will, I hope, receive similar broad support in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has already perfectly described the Bill's aims and clauses. I am sure that your Lordships would deplore, as I think do all decent people, the graphic—one might almost say pornographic—reporting of cases of sexual assault, complete with the unfortunate victim's name and sometimes even his or her address. The net effect of such identification is of course to add further suffering and humiliation. Sexual offences are by definition peculiarly embarrassing and intimate. The victim who comes forward should feel that he or she can do so with confidence that the authorities will spare him or her unnecessary public degradation.
Of course the Bill will not prevent salacious reports. But it will prevent the naming of victims. Your Lordships may consider that it would be better additionally to prevent salacious reports altogether. I confess that there are occasions when I too have seen some merit in that proposal. But we are not in the business of censoring the reports of the facts of court cases. The basic principle of open justice which this Government uphold demands that justice is normally to be seen to be done. But the principle, like all good principles, must be tempered with mercy and balanced with the interests of the victim and the administration of justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why it was urgent. I must remind him that the Bill is based on the recommendations of the Calcutt Inquiry published in 1990. It is a simple but important Bill. It has been considered in another place and your Lordships have been able to study it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that if it were lost today there would be no guarantee that it would find a place in the ballot in the next Parliament. If it did not find a place in the ballot there would be no guarantee that it would pass through.
Perhaps I may point out to your Lordships that even yesterday a newspaper reported:
"A self-confessed student-hater was jailed for seven years yesterday for a savage sex assault on a young graduate".
The paper published the name, the age and a picture of the unfortunate victim. We support the Bill; victims need the protection that it offers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may question his remark that the Bill might not find a place among the Private Members' Bills next Session. Is there any reason why the Government, of whichever party, should not introduce their own Bill?
Lord Annan: My Lords, is it not a fact that that is a dubious proposition? How can the noble Viscount give an assurance for his party, still less for any other party which might form a government, that this Bill, which is a small measure, will find a place at the beginning of the next Session?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining clearly what should have been my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the reception that the Bill has received in this House, even from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who commended its general principles. He was entirely right to raise the question of taking a Bill through all its stages. However, we are under a constraint of time to which we must have regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked what was the urgency. We have waited too long for all the recommendations of the Calcutt Inquiry to be implemented and therefore the Bill is overdue. Secondly, if the noble Lord could put himself in the position of an innocent victim he would say that there was indeed urgency. One has only to think of the disgusting Beck case in which the wretched young boy victims had to give evidence. They are now in their thirties, married and happily living in their communities. The trial resulted in their necessary evidence being made public. The press followed the youths. One in particular who is now in his thirties was photographed in his village and in his home. That is an incident which we cannot afford to allow to happen again. It must be stopped as quickly as possible, and the Bill will do that. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency.
As was said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, there is no guarantee that the Bill will be reintroduced in a subsequent Session of Parliament, let alone in the first six months. Anyone who has had anything to do with the business of Parliament will know that that is so. But I do not object to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, having raised those points and I believe that he was adequately answered during the debate.
I welcome the favourable reception which the Bill received from the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I recognise the difficulty of jigsawing, as she called it. I may be wrong but I believe that that may be a matter for the presiding judge and that Clause 3 deals with it. If there is a case of the press contravening the judge's decision about anonymity, I imagine that they will be in contempt of court. I have not been able to consult on the matter but I believe that to be the answer.
Having disposed of those few matters I have no need to refer to any other questions which have been raised. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
Midday
Report received.
Clause 1 [Standards of performance]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, moved amendments to require the directors general for telecommunications, gas supply and electricity supply to conduct research into the views of individual customers, when setting standards of performance, in addition to the requirement that customer representative bodies be consulted.
I agree that the views of customers should be known before performance standards are set, if those standards are to be of benefit to the customer.
As I promised in Committee, I have considered further the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have decided that it is right to require the directors general to research the views of individual customers likely to be affected before setting standards. I have therefore tabled these amendments covering such consultation by all four directors general for both individual service standards and overall performance standards. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for listening to our arguments which we put forward in Committee and for bringing forward amendments which meet our case. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that he was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 to 29 and 34? If he is, we support those amendments.
Lord Reay: My Lords, indeed I was.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. Can my noble friend assure the House that the research will include research into methods of payment, particularly payments by people with disabilities and those who are elderly who often have considerable difficulty in obtaining the right tokens and so on for prepayment meters?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that question should be dealt with by the directors general.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 28 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, tabled four amendments during the Committee stage of this Bill with the intention of ensuring that the Director General of Telecommunications was required to state reasons for his determination of a dispute. In view of the strong support expressed by the Committee for those amendments, I promised to give some further consideration to this matter.
I have now done so. As I indicated to the Committee, we believe it is important that the Director General of Telecommunications and the other three regulators should give reasons for their determinations of disputes. I understand that where they have existing powers of determination they do so. Furthermore, a failure by the regulators to give reasons is likely to be grounds for judicial review—a view upheld in the recent case of the Crown v. the Civil Service Appeal Board ex parte Cunningham. Even without any statutory obligation on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations, it is highly unlikely, therefore, that they would fail to do so.
Nevertheless, it became clear during discussion of the amendments that there was a considerable body of opinion in this House which favoured placing a clear requirement in the Bill on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations. I have reflected upon the views put forward and am persuaded that there would be considerable advantage in putting the question of the need for the regulators to give reasons for their determinations beyond any doubt.
I have therefore tabled these amendments, which implement the proposal of the noble and learned Lord Brightman that the Director General of Telecommunications should state reasons for his determinations. It is clearly right that the same requirement should be placed upon all four regulators so I am also proposing that the Bill should be amended to require the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Water Services to state reasons for their determinations. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for reconsidering the amendments which I tabled and for tabling the current amendments.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend's amendments which will be a great improvement to the Bill and I support them wholeheartedly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("may") to end of line 12.
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("(2) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consulting the designated operator concerned and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Disputes about discrimination etc. in fixing charges]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (3) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Deposits]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) Except in such circumstances as may be specified in the criteria, no person who is disabled (as defined by the criteria) shall be required to pay a deposit before being provided with any relevant service by the designated operator.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, I listened with some sympathy, to the anxieties voiced by noble Lords that disabled people should not be dissuaded from having the benefit of their own telephone by the need to raise a deposit where this is required by the designated operator.
As I explained to the Committee on that occasion, the Government similarly wish to see a system in place that is fair to the disabled and, despite the commendable action which BT is already taking, we are not complacent about this issue. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who tabled an amendment on this subject, voiced interest in the new steps being taken by BT and withdrew his amendment to consider the situation further.
I too have been giving the issue further consideration. I am anxious to do as much as possible to protect the interests of the disabled, but the Government cannot lose sight of the position of customers as a whole. The original amendment went too wide in that it provided a blanket exemption and did not attempt to define who would qualify as "disabled". Instead of it, I have therefore tabled the amendment now on the Marshalled List. The effect of this will be that the operator will not be able to require a deposit from a disabled person except in circumstances specified in the criteria agreed by the director general; and "disabled" will also be defined in the criteria. Together with the amendment introduced in Committee requiring consultation with bodies representative of those likely to be affected, this will ensure that the interests of the disabled are fully understood and considered in the context of setting deposit criteria. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking on board the anxieties expressed not only by me but also by other noble Lords. This is an extremely welcome amendment which I wholeheartedly support. Perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to ask the director general to let other noble Lords who spoke in Committee and I know what the criteria are when he has had a chance to consider them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. I do not necessarily have the same request as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because I do not wish to be deluged with too much paper. However, I should welcome a statement at a fairly early stage by the director stating

1507
how he intends to interpret the clause and what kind of criteria he has in mind. That will achieve the same objective as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seeks. The matter is rather up in the air at the moment but we hope that that will be defined so that it can be discussed if necessary.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the question of criteria is a matter which needs to be drawn up by the designated operators in the first instance for approval by the director general. The director general has to agree to them and my understanding is that those criteria will be publicised. I am willing to give the assurance that I will ask the directors general to reply to noble Lords who have requested information.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, unless the complaint has been withdrawn or it is otherwise inappropriate to proceed,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Ezra and Lord Hacking, supported an amendment to Clause 7 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill in Committee.
The point at issue concerned the actions of the Director General of Telecommunications if he considered that the criteria for deciding how large a deposit, if any, a person should be asked to pay had been either incorrectly applied or was inappropriate to a particular case. In such circumstances the Bill as currently drafted would allow the director to determine whether a person should have to pay a deposit and, if so, how much it should be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and several other noble Lords, suggested that in such a case the director should be obliged to make such a determination rather than having the discretion to do so.
I agreed in Committee to look further into the arguments of noble Lords. I have now done so and on reflection agree that the director should be obliged to make a determination on the necessity for, and the size of, a deposit when he considers that a designated operator has incorrectly applied criteria for assessing the need for a deposit or where those criteria were inappropriate to the particular case. This amendment will place such an obligation on the director, but will make allowance for cases where it is clearly inappropriate for him to make a determination; for instance, where a person withdraws his request for a phone or, more seriously, where a person has been sent to prison or died.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for raising the issue and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment and for tabling this version of it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9:
1508
Page 9, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Any person giving a direction under subsection (3) above shall include in the direction his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the complaint.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Enforcement of standards of performance, etc.]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("above") to end of line 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 24A. These are drafting amendments which have no substantive effect. It is not usual to include a description of the section when reference is made to another section in the same Act. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 remove two such descriptions from new section 27K, which is inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984 by Clause 9 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 24A corrects a cross-reference in Clause 37 which is incorrect as a result of the addition of a further subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 27, leave out ("(procedure for dealing with complaints)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Standards of performance]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 16:
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("and").
Page 12, line 33, at end insert ("and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results.").
Page 13, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
Page 13, line 35, leave out from ("may") to ("from") in line 37.
Page 13, line 45, at end insert:
("(1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consulting the public gas suppliers and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Determination of disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert:

1509
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may he specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(" .—(1) In section 39(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases) there shall be inserted, after paragraph (b), "; and
(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results,".
(2) In section 40 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: overall performance), the words from "after" to "affected" shall be omitted from subsection (1) and the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—
"(1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

(a) consultation with public electricity suppliers and with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and

(b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 21, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 21:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(".—(1) Section 39 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for making regulations under section 38 relating to standards of performance in the supply of water) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".
(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results."
(4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)—
"(bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 22:
Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Research concerning views of customers
(".—(1) Section 96 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for regulations under section 95 relating to standards of performance in the provision of sewerage services) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".
(3) The following subsection shall he inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results."
(4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)—
"(bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above:".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Determination of disputes by the Director]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 27, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Where the Director determines any dispute under this section he shall give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Billing disputes]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Inset appointments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 34, line 28, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments No. 25 and 26:
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("20") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 20)").
Page 44, line 35, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 45, line 4, leave out ("25") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 25)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:
Page 47, line 23, leave out ("section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989") and insert ("section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989 (determination of disputes), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute."
11A. In section 25 of the Act of 1989").
Page 47, line 27, at end insert:
("12A. In section 39 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—

1511
"(5A) Any person making an order under subsection (5) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
Page 48, line 6, at end insert:
("15A. In section 38 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with water supply) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
Page 48, line 37, at end insert:
("20A. In section 95 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 49, line 36, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 39(1), the word "and" immediately before paragraph (b).

In section 40(1), the words from "after" to "affected".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
12.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to start by thanking noble Lords, particularly noble Lords opposite, for their co-operation and assistance in facilitating the progress of the Bill in the light of the curtailing of the parliamentary Session. Without it we could not have expected the Bill to reach the statute book within the timescale and in the form now arrived at.
This Bill implements the commitments we gave in the Citizen's Charter to bring the powers of all the regulators up to those of the strongest. It is an important and worthwhile Bill for the 25 million utility customers who will benefit as a result.
Standards of service and choice were central themes of the Citizen's Charter. Building on the basis laid when the utilities were privatised, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill paves the way for a real improvement in service for the regulated utility customers; and for greater choice for gas and water services customers.
As a result of the Bill all the regulators will have power to set guaranteed service standards for individuals; establish compensation schemes where individual service falls below those standards; set overall performance standards; ensure that the utilities establish and publicise complaints procedures; resolve disputes over standards; and, where the
1512
Secretary of State provides, resolve disputes over billing. In addition, the Bill opens up scope for greater competition in gas and water services.
Although we have not been able to have the usual intervals between the Committee and Report stages, and between Report and Third reading, I believe that we have had most useful debates on the details of the Bill. Important points have been raised and discussed and we have made a number of improvements to the Bill as a result—not necessarily fewer than if we had progressed the Bill at a more normal tempo. As a result of those changes, which I will not enumerate again, I am confident that we shall be returning a better Bill to another place.
I should like to address some issues which were of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The noble Lord was anxious that BT will be required to satisfy a stricter measure of performance in relation to overall standards than the energy utilities. He also questioned the arrangements for telecommunications in relation to the power of the regulator to order an operator who has breached licence conditions to remedy that breach. Ministers take such anxieties seriously and we have therefore reconsidered whether some differences in our approach to BT and the other utilities are justified.
We have looked thoroughly into the matter once again, but I must say to the noble Lord that in our view our policy is soundly based. In the case of telecommunications, the director general is responsible for overseeing a large number of operators— some 130 in all. This is in marked contrast, for example, to the position in gas where there is only one public gas supplier. So the structures of the industries are different, as are the regulatory frameworks for them as already built up through the privatisation Acts and the related licences. It is on those various frameworks that we need to build.
One other point I should mention is that, as a result of anxiety expressed in Committee about the operation of the existing telecommunications advisory committees, which represent customers' interests, I promised that I would ask the Director General of Telecommunications to consider whether a review of their operation is necessary. Your Lordships may wish to be aware that I have now done so.
This Bill exemplifies our dual approach to the utilities. Competition is the best spur to efficiency and value for money. When we privatised the utilities we sought to introduce as much scope as possible for competition. The Bill builds on that with measures to encourage further competition in gas and water. Eventually competition may develop to a point where the role of the regulator can be diminished, but, where competition is not full and effective, we need strong regulators to ensure that the interests of customers are protected and the utilities do not abuse their market dominance. The new powers the Bill gives to the regulators will enable them to carry out their role more effectively.
In closing, I should like to thank your Lordships for the constructive and useful suggestions which have resulted in the improved Bill now before the House. As a result of the Bill, customers will have more

1513
choice, more information, better standards of service and redress when standards are not met, and straightforward procedures for resolving disputes with the utilities. These are very real benefits for customers and will be welcomed by them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for what he has said. We on these Benches are grateful to him for accepting that we did our utmost to make sure that the Bill passed through your Lordships' House in the agreed timespan.
The Bill has been sensibly amended and I am grateful also to the Government for their flexibility in some matters about which we felt strongly. As an improved Bill we welcome it rather more enthusiastically than perhaps we did at Second Reading. I put on record that as far as we are concerned we do not believe that, as yet, the Bill goes far enough. We would like to see it strengthened. It may be that in the course of time we shall have an opportunity to strengthen some of its provisions.
In particular, there are at present two major gaps in the Bill. First, the Gas Consumer Council is not replicated in all the other utilities covered by the Bill. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the Gas Consumer Council which has operated very effectively. We should prefer to see similar arrangements across the full range of the utilities covered by the Bill.
The second matter which has not been resolved, and which remains to be resolved by a future Parliament, is the relationship between the regulators themselves, Parliament and/or Ministers. It has been called regulating the regulators. As these regulators become more and more important in our national life, as they will if the Bill goes through and is enacted, as we hope, they should be much more responsive to Parliament or some kind of parliamentary body than they are at the moment. Having said that, I accept that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. As half a loaf we believe that this Bill should be enacted. We will support the Government in that effort.
It only remains for me to reciprocate the gratitude expressed to me by the Minister by thanking him very much for his usual courtesy in dealing with this Bill and his willingness to consider proper and rational arguments when put before him. We do not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and we wish it well.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too express satisfaction that this Bill will be going through. It contains much which will be of considerable value to consumers. It has been much improved by the amendments moved this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I am of the same opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that at some later stage we should like to return to the question of the Gas Consumer Council and also to the point raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that we should look once more at the responsibility of the regulators to Parliament or to some other supervisory body. However, that can come at a later stage. In the
1514
meantime, I am delighted that this Bill will be going through so that consumers can benefit from the new provisions.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening, but in view of what has just been said by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, perhaps I may say right away that I believe that the argument about regulating the regulators is totally misconceived. The whole point of the present system is to protect the regulator from political interference and pressure. The worst possible thing that could be done would be to subject what were intended to be independent regulators to political manoeuvring.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have participated at each stage of the Bill, as I have, became aware at a very early stage in Committee that something was afoot. The Minister said with confidence that he expected this Bill to reach the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said he hoped that the Bill would become an Act. The Minister smiled at the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord smiled at the Minister. I believe that I collected one smile myself from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Then it became more apparent that something was afoot. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has a reputation for tabling reasoned amendments and pressing them at every stage of the Bill with lucid argument. But the noble Lord seemed to lose steam about half way through the Committee stage. Before we reached the second day of Committee the noble Lord had withdrawn 26 of his reasoned amendments.
All has now been revealed. There has been a private alliance between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. It is almost perhaps an unholy alliance. From the position of a Back Bencher one cannot think of a more unholy alliance than that of the two Front Benches gathering together to thwart the honest endeavours of noble Lords on the Back Benches.
My quarrel now is not so much with the alliance but with its result, which is that this Bill has taken a shortened course through this Parliament rather than a more considered one through the next. If there was unity between the two Front Benches, surely that unity could have produced the result of your Lordships giving much better consideration to the Bill. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It remains my case that there is a great deal more work that could usefully have been done on the Bill, as your Lordships so often usefully perform on Bills.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He said that there was agreement between the Front Benches. There was also agreement with the Back Benches on this side of the House and, I believe, also on the other side of the House.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, then I feel even more in the cold on the Cross-Benches. In preparation for Report stage I tabled a number of amendments. I did so because I thought they were amendments that deserved your Lordships' attention. But when it

1515
became quite plain that it was the will of this House to take the Bill through on a shortened course, I thought that the only responsible action was to withdraw those amendments, which I duly did. Indeed, those amendments had been tabled following representations that were made to me and other noble Lords by British Telecom and British Gas. I can tell your Lordships that neither of those two companies has any wish to impede the passage of this Bill.
However, I am intervening at Third Reading because I believe that it is still reasonable to ask both the Government and the Opposition—perhaps on the details of today's poll the Opposition can be described as the Government in Waiting—to continue to listen to the anxieties which have been expressed in this Bill and to keep the door open for further revision. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that if the Opposition become the Government, they would look again at the Bill for certain reasons concerned with strengthening the Bill.
I wrote to the Minister about my anxieties after Committee stage and he has been kind enough to answer some of them in his Third Reading speech. I shall merely put in a marker now and then wish the Bill well as it leaves your Lordships' House. Placed in the marker is, first, the concern that the new regulatory scheme falls outside the established regulatory licensing scheme that exists for all four of the utility industries. On that point, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recalls, he gave me support in Committee. That is perhaps a matter which he may particularly wish to consider if his party returns to government.
Perhaps I may add a further point because I mentioned it to the Minister. There is the position of British Gas and the other utility companies that, as the competition element of each of these industries increases, they are in the rather strange position of not having the right to seek reference to the MMC while the utility directors can. That is merely an additional point. The Minister referred in his speech to the reasonable test as regards the standards of performance. Noble Lords will recall from Committee stage that the position is this: the electricity and gas industries are entitled to the reasonable test while the water and telecommunications industries are not. The case here is that that is simply unfair. Even though there may be different situations in which each of these industries operate, it is still an uneven playing field.
We can consider the 1987 hurricane and perhaps a 1994 hurricane where electricity wires are carried over the same piece of ground as the telephone wires, and where the gas is being carried in pipes underneath that ground, and water too. If the hurricane should hit ferociously at that point on our land all those supplies could be damaged. However, as regards only two of them—namely, electricity and gas —can they fend off suits from their customers whose supplies have been cut off? It is for the electricity and gas industries just to take every reasonable step. The hurricane could not have been foreseen. Why should the telecommunications industry be penalised?
1516
There are three points that I shall now make shortly. The first is on the enforcement of compliance orders. Your Lordships may recall that there was a discretion open to the directors for all the industries except the gas industry when the offending party has taken steps to put the breach right. The second concern is the load on directors of the new quasi-judicial role and the absence of any appeal in arbitration proceedings. That was advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Finally, there is the particular concern of British Gas with the removal of the tariff thresholds without at the same time releasing it from its statutory obligation to provide up to 25,000 therms of gas per annum to its suppliers. That is not parity; that is not fair. It is for all those reasons that I ask both political parties, whoever may be in government after this general election, to keep their minds open.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. Could he amend "both" political parties?
Lord Hacking: All political parties. I am delighted to hear that I have another audience. I ask that "all" political parties, whichever comes back to power and in whatever form of alliance—perhaps we are open to a few surprises on that —keep their minds open. For those reasons I do not press the matter at this stage. I wish the Bill well for its Third Reading but better still for further consideration at another time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of encouraging this Bill on its way at Third Reading. I should also like to thank the Minister and in particular his staff for the very efficient and prompt way in which they have dealt with all the points that I raised in Committee. Had they been unable to satisfy me on those points I should certainly have wanted to bring them back at Report stage. But they have dealt with them expeditiously and well and I have received excellent letters covering those points. Therefore the Gas Consumers Council is very satisfied with the answers given at Committee stage.
The other replies have come since, both from the noble Lord himself and his department and also from Offer. They have done what was required to reassure the electricity industry and, I believe, others as to the billing procedures and meter disputes which apply to gas as much as to electricity—the matter of security of supply and safety of meters. I am most grateful for that.
The point about regulating the regulators, which was the subject of an amendment which I brought forward, is very interesting. But I am a great believer in giving people an opportunity to put their own house in order first. It may be that the very fact that this Bill has come in this way—the slightly telescoped form now—means that there will be an opportunity to see that it will not prove necessary. In which case my noble friend Lord Cockfield will be only too pleased. Certainly points of concern were raised and this gives us an opportunity to take the first dose of medicine

1517
—whether it is our first dose of medicine or half a dose —and see whether we need more. Therefore I welcome the Bill in that way.
I cannot support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Back-Benchers have been thwarted. The Back-Benchers have been treated very well in this matter. In fact I wish we had some way in this House and in the other place of making all Bills process through as efficiently as this one has. When it is seen how rapidly we have achieved the real needs in this Bill compared with the time that we spend in going into all sorts of impossible and impractical amendments, as well as the very necessary and important ones, it gives us an idea of how we could save a little time in the future. With that, I wish the Bill every success.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that my officials will have heard with pleasure the words spoken by my noble friend. I am grateful for what she said. I am also pleased that she made the point that the opinions of Back-Benchers have been listened to during the course of the debate. I strongly believe that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his kind words. Beyond that there is nothing that I can usefully add. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Transport and Works Bill
12.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Parts I and III of this Bill have their origins in the findings of a Joint Committee of this House and another place chaired by my honourable friend the Member for New Forest. The report was published in 1988. The committee was set up because there was dissatisfaction with the way in which the Private Bill procedure was operating; and there was some resistance in the other place to sitting on Select Committees which dealt with matters which these days are mostly subject to planning inquiries. I think it is fair to say that that dissatisfaction is felt by some Members of your Lordships' House, although perhaps it is characteristic of the reflective way in which we conduct our proceedings that there has never been difficulty in persuading noble Lords to serve. Indeed, we have people of some experience who are well capable of making judgments on planning matters. That said, the Joint Committee reported in favour of a new system of ministerial orders based on the procedures for light railway orders which have been with us since 1896 and of changes to the Harbours Act 1964 to enable more proposals to be dealt with by harbour revision or empowerment orders.
This House discussed the proposals on 17th May
1518
1989 in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who was a member of the Joint Committee. The House generally felt that the Government should consult more widely on the issues raised by the Joint Committee and gave us some useful guidance. In particular, some noble Lords thought that Parliament should influence the very largest schemes. The Government duly published a consultation document called Private Bills and New Procedures in June 1990. Well over 100 responses were received. While there were reservations about the details of the new orders system proposed in it, most respondents favoured the sort of changes which the Joint Committee recommended. The Government announced their conclusions in May 1991 and they are embodied in this Bill.
During the work on the new procedures, which included studies of the content of recent Private Bills, it was discovered that legislation on railway and tramway safety matters was inadequate and that, consequently, Private Bills had included powers for the Secretary of State to supervise new works and operations of modern tramways in particular, which are a far cry from the trams which the Tramways Act 1870 sought to control—which were of course drawn by horses. At the same time we had the Hidden and Fennell reports on the accidents at Clapham Junction and King's Cross. Both reports recommended changes in railway safety legislation. Part II achieves this. It also introduces a new code on drink and drugs. Regrettably, there have been a few incidents in recent years of railwaymen who have operated trains while under the influence—or where there was a strong suspicion of it.
I shall now describe the Bill, picking up as I go along some of the issues which arise from it. I shall not attempt to describe every clause but I shall try to deal later with specific questions which noble Lords may have.
Part I of the Bill provides a new order-making power for the Secretary of State in most of those cases where none exists at present; and as a consequence powers have had to be sought by Private Bill. There are two major groups. Those in Clause 1 deal with systems like railways and tramways where vehicles travel along rails or other means of guidance or can work only with external equipment, like trolleybuses. In Clause 3 we cover inland waterways and works which interfere with navigation.
There was a lot of discussion in the other place about inland waterways, partly because the consultation process with waterways interests before the Bill was introduced did not work well. There are positive advantages in this Bill for the restoration of canals and that safeguards now built in—I shall come to them —prevent some of the abuses of the powers which they feared.
Clause 5 deals with the subject matter of orders. It introduces Schedule 1, which illustrates the sort of powers which might be given by order. We thought it right that there should be some indication on the face of the Bill of what might go in orders. The subject matter is of course limited by the broad definition of the objects in Clauses 1 and 3. We cannot hope to be

1519
comprehensive and definitive. Any attempt at complete coverage will run the risk of leaving outstanding minor matters to be dealt with by Private Bill.
In Clause 5(7) we have, by amendment in the other place, provided that the sections of the Transport Act 1968 which deal with closure and other matters concerning waterways should be preserved. This means that if works require the closure of a waterway, that closure would have to be approved under the 1968 Act. An order under this Bill could not displace it. Clauses 6 to 14 provide for procedures for making orders, and the lead clause is Clause 6. It provides that the Secretary of State may make rules about the way in which orders are to be applied for. We have already circulated a first draft of the application rules to interested bodies, and many have responded. A revised draft, taking into account these comments, is being prepared.
The remaining clauses—other than Clause 9 to which I shall refer later—lay out the rest of the procedure to be followed for all applications. After the applicant puts in his draft order, according to the rules under Clause 6, and using model clauses, if appropriate, for which Clause 8 provides, objections will be made under Clause 10. The Secretary of State then decides whether a public inquiry is necessary. The local authority or any person whose land is to be compulsorily acquired may insist on one. But it is as likely as not that a public inquiry will take place anyway if there are lots of objections and one or more come from other statutory bodies whose expertise is particularly relevant. Anyone may object. There will be no equivalent of the locus standi rules. But objectors must comply with the rules to be made under Clause 10.
Clause 13 provides that the Secretary of State may make the order applied for, refuse it, or make it with modifications. If he wants to make modifications he must give persons affected the opportunity to comment. Clause 14 deals with publicity for the order.
Clause 9 is, however, unique. It arises because there were those in both Houses who felt that major schemes should come to Parliament for approval in some form, but they did not want to carry out the inquiry themselves. The clause provides that if the Secretary of State decides that a scheme is of national significance he submits to the House a resolution about it before the local inquiry. The resolution will not approve the order. It will endorse it in principle and may equally endorse some aspect of it. The Secretary of State may not make an order inconsistent with the resolution. But the Secretary of State will still be able to refuse the order after the local inquiry and, if he is minded to, ask Parliament to adjust the resolution if, for example, a particular problem is identified by the public inquiry, a facility built in by amendment in the other place. This should give ample scope for a proper inquiry, but give Government and Parliament an opportunity to make clear what their policy view is. This is a reversal of the proposal in the consultation document, but we were convinced by a number of respondents that the alternative—a
1520
decision after the inquiry—was wrong. Developers said that if Parliament was going to say no, they would prefer to know early rather than late. Perhaps more significantly, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Council on Tribunals also opposed it. The council thought that the local inquiry process might be brought into disrepute if it were overturned by a single vote in Parliament. The RTPI thought that strategic policy issues ought to be decided in advance of a local inquiry. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has been anxious about this. I think that the Bill as amended ought to allay their anxieties about procedure. I know that they think that the principle should be decided after the detail. I think that, in the case of these very few strategic questions, they are wrong.
Before I leave these procedural matters I should deal with timescales. It was almost inevitable that we should come under pressure to build into these procedures on the one hand the widest possible consultation and opportunity for objections and on the other the shortest possible timescale for making decisions. Both have been urged on us, in some cases by the same people! The purpose of this Bill is not principally to reduce timescales, but we have looked carefully at what its effects might be. By way of preface, I should say that Private Bills are now taking longer than they were when the Joint Committee reported. The committee said that between 1979 and 1985 more than 60 per cent. of Private Bills received Royal Assent within 12 months and only 5 per cent. took more than two years. In the years 1986 to 1990 153 Bills were deposited of which only 29 (or 19 per cent.) were enacted within 12 months and 11 (or 7 per cent.) took over two years. Thirty-three Bills were withdrawn or lost and 25 have yet to be enacted. Of those not yet enacted, seven have already taken more than two years and the remaining 18 have been in Parliament for more than 12 months.
Since we announced this Bill in the Queen's Speech some of the more automatic blocking of Bills has ceased, but timescales are still long. We think the new system will be quicker for small schemes and no worse for most others. There were debates in the other place about putting timetables on the face of the Bill, but it is difficult to find an amendment which is flexible enough to allow enough time but also tight enough to be enforceable. We have said that we will put pre-inquiry time limits into secondary legislation and publish guidelines about timetables for decisions. The Secretary of State is, of course, under a general obligation to exercise his functions reasonably. There must not be unreasonable delay; but there must not be unreasonable haste either. The important thing is the right decision.
I come now to harbours—but not yet alas into port —which are dealt with in Clause 63 and Schedule 3. As recommended by the Joint Committee, we have extended the purposes for which harbour orders can be sought and removed the facility which harbour authorities have to come to Parliament for a Bill even if it is not necessary. We have also taken this opportunity to put beyond doubt one or two other

1521
matters which, while they have been included in harbour orders, have no specific enabling provision attached to them.
I turn next to safety and first to the provisions in Clauses 26 to 40 about drink and drugs. It has been an offence since 1842 to operate a railway while drunk. Drugs were not then a problem. But that provision is inadequate now. There have been very few incidents but any such incident is disturbing. The last, the Cannon Street crash, led to the Coroner for the City writing to the Secretary of State to say that in his view the law was unsatisfactory, especially because there were no compulsory medical testing powers. The clauses in this Bill are based on the well tested road traffic legislation. The railway jobs which are to be subject to them are in Clause 27. We have provided for the same breath, blood and urine limits as in the Road Traffic Act. Clauses 41 to 46 provide a new regime for the approval of work on railways and similar systems as regards safety and the reporting of accidents.
This is the first time since 1871 that the legislation in this area has been looked at properly. As I have said the Hidden and Fennell Reports and the work on this Bill have exposed weaknesses in our arrangements. These clauses provide for the expansion of jurisdiction of the Railway Inspectorate to all railways and similar systems. The Secretary of State is given power to make regulations about the approval of new works and rolling stock. The scope of accident reporting is expanded to incidents which may have led to accidents.
This measure commands a wide degree of support. Some will be sorry to see the Private Bill procedure go for railway works. But all those with whom we have been in touch are now anxious to get on with the new system. I hope therefore that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
12.48 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care he has taken in setting out the purposes of the Bill and for describing in some respects the detail underlying it. Undoubtedly the cross-party support which the Bill enjoyed in another place created the opportunity to ensure that the Bill was improved both at Committee and Report stages. I believe that the Opposition were positive and constructive in that regard—that has been recognised by the Government—and the Government were receptive to the need for some change.
It is possible that further scrutiny of the Bill in this place might have led to even further improvement. There is no doubt that a number of organisations are worried that we are proposing to truncate the proceedings here. Indeed only a moment ago I received a letter from the Inland Waterways Association expressing concern that the matter was not receiving the care and attention that it thought was appropriate. I shall certainly deal with that aspect.
The dilemma that confronts the House, and which has confronted the Opposition and the Government in
1522
respect of the issue, is essentially the following. Having regard to the fact that the House will be prorogued on Monday, were we to insist on the Bill undergoing the scrutiny which this Chamber would undoubtedly prefer in normal circumstances, the Bill would be lost. That is the clear and inescapable truth. On the other hand, should we—as, indeed, we sought to do—seek a compromise with the Government that in consideration of their acceptance of some important amendments, subject of course to the approval of the House, or an undertaking to include other significant matters in the rules under the legislation, the Bill would complete all its stages today so that it has every possibility of being enacted by Monday.
That is not a happy choice. I believe that the Minister will be the first to recognise that fact. It is not unknown for Ministers to decide on second thoughts to introduce their own amendments to a Bill. However, it is a Bill which is essentially technical. While I think that it is right that the House should always be cautious about truncating its ability to exercise its powers as a revising Chamber, I believe that it was right to adopt the second course that I described.
At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for being so prepared to accept the dilemma of the Opposition and for being helpful and forthcoming in seeking to resolve it by accepting two amendments (which I and the noble Baroness, Lady White, have tabled which will of course be dealt with later) and for agreeing to another matter being referred to in the rules. Indeed, other matters may be picked up from those discussions which may find their way into the rules.
The concessions with which I am sure the Minister will deal later are substantive. However, perhaps I may summarise what was at stake from our point of view, as the Minister has already described some of the background.
The Bill responds to proposals made in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, following very considerable study on its part of the issues involved. Private legislation authorising public transport schemes and work support at ports have imposed an increasingly heavy burden on Parliament and on parliamentary time. The queue of Private Bills awaiting parliamentary consideration was outlined by the Minister's honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin who is the junior Minister dealing with such matters in another place. On Second Reading he said:
"Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed" —
and this point was dealt with by the Minister—
"was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday"
—that is, prior to the 2nd December—
"16 of which would involve works".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/91; col. 40]
Of course, that is a very serious state of affairs. There can be absolutely no certainty that either of the main parties or—to acknowledge his position—that of the

1523
noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, could possibly give an assurance to the House that the reintroduction of the Bill could be given priority in the new Parliament. There are so many other issues that would have to be dealt with, especially—as I hope it will be—by an incoming Labour Government. Therefore, we face a rather desperate situation in that regard.
The Bill was accorded very detailed scrutiny in another place. It was substantially amended or undertakings were given that significant issues would be dealt with in the rules. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis, although not wishing in any way to diminish its importance, that I believe it is right that tribute should be paid to the work of the rights of way review committee which also made a substantial contribution. Consultations with relevant authorities have taken place albeit, in some respects, rather late. It is right to say that one learns from mistakes. The Government in their dying days are also learning from their mistakes. They now know that consultations have to be meaningful. Of course, as a result of the situation, any party would be prepared to give an undertaking that consultations must be effective if the Bill is to stand any chance of being worth while.
The Minister dealt with Part I of the Bill; indeed, he dealt with it at considerable depth. There is therefore no need for me to go into a number of matters as I would otherwise have chosen to do. In summary, from our point of view, it provides an improved method of examining technical details. It enables inquiries to be held locally rather than in London. One should not underestimate the inconvenience and cost to which the public who wish to petition against Bills may be exposed in attending parliamentary committee hearings in relation to any specific Bill.
The Minister also dealt with some of the objections which were either met or to which he felt answers were appropriate and adequate. I am not happy that the timetabling of inquiry hearings has been appropriately dealt with. But that is a matter that only time will decide and may, as the Minister said, be picked up at least in part in the rules. I am convinced that the Minister has an open mind about that. However, the value of that over the next few days remains to be tested.
The preference for holding the inquiry first and the parliamentary consideration subsequently, rather than the other way around as prescribed in the Bill, continues to give many people some concern. However, at the end of the day it is a matter of fine judgment. Only experience will tell whether the apprehension of some developers such as Eurotunnel and Trafalgar House, who have written to me about such matters, will prove to be accurate or whether in fact the procedure will not, as they feel, slow up the deliberations. As I said, it is a matter which only experience will enable us to judge. We need time to determine how the procedure works and to decide whether it will require review after a reasonable period.
There is then the question of environmental impact assessment and environmental duties. The Government have stuck to the last of their view about
1524
environmental impact assessments. I should have preferred them to be more forthcoming. It is an argument that we have had in regard to many pieces of legislation in this Parliament. Indeed, we are very familiar with the Government's position on the matter. Again time, and above all the law, will indicate whether they were right or wrong. But an important concession is to be made on the environmental duties of harbour authorities. I believe that will be thoroughly worth while.
There is also the question about the criteria concerning schemes of national importance. It is a matter which has given rise, and which continues to give rise, to anxiety on behalf, for example, of the Association of Municipal Authorities and many other organisations. It is not an easy matter. The Government feel that this is not a matter which is susceptible to legislative change. I believe that it requires further investigation.
The question of consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council has proved to be a problem which could have been obviated by the Government. I believe that they recognise the error of their ways. But at least, belatedly, actions were taken by the department which—it is to be hoped—have mitigated those difficulties. I am confident that those mistakes will not be repeated.
I shall refer briefly to Part II of the Bill. By its regulatory provisions, it should materially assist in enhancing the safety of passengers on rail and on other transport systems. The question of levels of alcohol in the blood on the part of train drivers proved to be a problem in another place. However, the Minister recommended that the situation should be left as it is in the Bill and, with some concerns, I agree that that is the right course to take.
It is therefore with some apology to the House that the Opposition felt that it was incumbent upon them to go along with this truncated procedure. It is not something to be recommended and I hope that the Minister acknowledges that. Having said that, however, I hope that the Bill will pass and that it will prove to be an effective piece of legislation in dealing with an issue that has caused great concern to both Houses of Parliament over a long period.
1 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the details of the Bill so clearly and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for filling in some of the gaps. We have heard an interesting double-headed exposition of the Bill this morning. There is no doubt that considerable amounts of thought, consultation and effort have gone into putting the Bill into the state in which we now find it. We all know that there is a problem and that the Private Bill Committees have faced difficulties for a number of years. As the convener of a group considering accommodation in this place, perhaps I may say that not the least difficulty has been finding places in which those committees can meet. Perhaps my task in terms of accommodation will be made easier when the Bill passes.

1525
Nevertheless, there is obviously still a considerable amount of worry in various parts of the transport industry and in related industries about the efficacy of the Bill. I have heard it said that it will prolong proceedings rather than shorten them. There are those who believe that the restrictions in the Private Bill Committees on the locus of the petitioners is much more closely drawn than will be the case when the Bill is enacted. I do not know whether the Minister can give us any reassurance on that point. It is clear that people connected with the waterways still feel that the Bill enables an abuse of power. I am sure that my noble friend Lord McNair will speak on that point later.
My honourable friend in another place, the Member for Southport, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, has made it plain that he is far from satisfied about the Bill's provisions on alcohol abuse. He is concerned that the alcohol levels allowed in the Bill are still too high and that particular responsibility lies with the drivers and with other people working in public transport. The levels should be drawn as low as possible in practical terms. Clearly, however, the moment has gone when we can do very much about that. As I have said, the other place has done an unusually good job on this Bill. Generally speaking, it is now in a workable form.
However, I feel hesitant about the procedure we are allowing in this House today—especially on a Bill that contains 72 clauses and four schedules. It seems to me that to allow such a Bill to go through your Lordships' House, which is supposed to be a revising chamber, in a matter of minutes—or, at most, in an hour and a bit—is an abuse of what this Chamber is supposed to be for. This is a complex and technical Bill. Noble Lords whom one would have expected to be present to participate in our deliberations on this Bill are not present today. I am sure that their contributions would have been valuable if they had had more time to peruse the Bill and to examine some of its more detailed provisions and if we had had more time to deliberate upon it.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said in the last debate that too many amendments tend to be tabled to Bills. Although that may sometimes be the case, there have been many occasions when when this House—in Committee or on Report—has discovered problems in Bills that others have not. Some Bills can be pushed through quickly without any regrets, but the history of Bills that have been rapidly forced through Parliament is not a happy one. The Official Secrets Act is a classic case. It was pushed through by a Liberal government in 1911 and we have regretted it ever since. I do not put this Bill into quite the same category, but the ability of this House to scrutinise Bills should be jealously guarded.
I was not consulted about whether the Bill should be included in the wrapping-up proceedings—that is not necessarily anybody's fault, but I was obtainable if people had looked a little harder than they did. I am not saying what I have just said because I was not consulted but because I feel that, on behalf of the House as a whole, one must protest about this abuse. I hope that when future governments come to their
1526
last year in office they will consider the amount of business for that last year. There has been far too much business in this last Session of Parliament for the Government to have any hope of getting it all through. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the difficulty for the next government, of whatever flavour or mixture, to be able to guarantee that this Bill, if not passed today, could still reach the statute book. However, I imagine that this House would have a fair amount of time in the first few weeks of the new Parliament in which it could deal with a Bill such as this—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, both in this and the previous debate. He referred to a "mixture" government. Is that the level to which the Liberal Party now seeks to ascend?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we shall abide by the decision of the electorate. If the electorate has the good sense to return a Liberal Democrat government we shall be ready to provide one for the country. Apart from that, we are interested in participating in any other mixture in which we can participate. However, that is not a matter for this House or for this debate.
The Bill will pass on its way. I very much hope that it will improve the planning procedures and that we are not throwing any babies out with the bath water. I hope that the environment will not be damaged at any stage as a result of the Bill and that procedures are improved, but I have the gravest doubts about that. Above everything else, I have the gravest doubts about the procedure that we are adopting this morning.
1.7 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for introducing the debate and the Bill so clearly. I was hoping to be able to welcome the Bill absolutely because I thought that it would speed up the procedures governing the very necessary orders that enable the works that are covered by the Bill to get underway speedily.
That leads me to address an issue that is causing considerable concern to many current promoters of Bills in Parliament. This issue relates to the seeming lack of time limits for the determination of an application for an order under the proposed new procedure. Quite clearly, the rules applying to the new procedure will set a timetable for the giving of the relevant notices of application for an order, for the lodging of objections, and so forth. The inquiry procedure will no doubt run along the lines of a highways inquiry and the inspectors will do their job in their usual professional and efficient manner.
It is the period after an inspector has made his or her report to the Secretary of State about which the promoters or, as they will probably be called, the applicants are concerned. Once an inspector has made his report, there is no compulsion on him to make a final determination of the matter. This situation could last a long time.
The promoter's concerns are threefold. First, the Secretary of State acts in a dual capacity. He acts in a

1527
quasi-judicial role in deciding on the merits of the application, having taken into account his inspector's report. However, together with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, he is or may also be responsible for decisions on the funding of such projects as may be the subject of an application for an order. It is felt that there may be a danger that such financial considerations may interfere with what should be a separate judgment of the merits of the scheme in question.
The second point is that these days one always expects, and perhaps even requires, significant investment from the private sector as well as the public sector. Naturally, a promoter would seek to ensure, so far as is possible, that he has the funding for a project before he embarks upon the costly exercise of applying for an order. He would seek commitments from investors. Obviously those investors would wish to know the extent of their commitment in terms of cost but, what is equally important, in terms of how long that commitment must last. Without an investor being able to have the certainty of knowing when a decision was to be made it will be difficult to get him to commit himself. That applies equally to public bodies which need to be able to plan ahead and to have a clear indication of the level of funding and when it will be needed.
The third and final reason relates to changes in respect of blighted property. Under the present Private Bill procedure and planning procedures, a property is blighted legally only once the Bill is enacted or planning permission is granted. It is recognised that that can cause unfairness. The Bill provides that land is blighted when an application for an order is made. That may well remedy an existing wrong, but it would put bodies such as the passenger transport executives, which are likely to be the users of the new procedures, under great financial strain. They may well have to buy properties long before a decision on their application for an order is made. No scheme funds will be available, and so purchases would have to be funded from the executives' existing resources which, in today's financial climate, are already being squeezed.
The result would be that other sectors of public transport will suffer. That situation could arise in respect of a scheme which may not even be approved, and the executives could well be left with a great deal of property on their hands which they may not be able to dispose of easily. For that reason alone, it is important that decisions on schemes are made as quickly as possible.
I have heard the arguments that aggrieved applicants could always seek redress from the courts by way of an application for mandamus, but why should they have to? Besides which, I hardly see that that would make the proposition any more attractive to investors. It would merely mean greater unnecessary expense. Surely, good government means that decisions are made in a timely fashion.
Finally, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the fact that applicants will be paying a fee for the process
1528
and should therefore be entitled to have the process dealt with expeditiously. I should be grateful if my noble friend would answer those points.
1.13 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I agree that the Bill is a desirable one for the purposes for which it was originally intended: primarily to expedite much needed work on railways and other forms of guided transport, docks and harbours. Despite some of the difficulties adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, there is general support for it. It is not a party matter even in an election period, although my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis does not seem to believe that.
We all recognise the parliamentary stresses of the current Private Bill system and acknowledge, as did the Joint Committee, that some action is required. But the late inclusion, without due consultation, of the inland waterways is another matter, and in my opinion that inclusion was possibly misjudged. Some of the waterway interests are in danger of being sacrificed to the necessities of the railways, docks and harbours.
I am not speaking of the designated commercial waterways. There the problems are comparable with those of other forms of transport and they are concerned mainly with unsuitable or conflicting rights of navigation; for example, which authority is to control river navigation. Should it be the NRA or the British Waterways Board? But the management of the cruising and so-called remainder waterways belongs to another world. They affect a host of personal and highly individualised interests. Unless one has had close experience of it, it is difficult—especially, if I might say so, for civil servants—to understand.
We concluded, late in the evening of 4th March, consideration by the House of a Private Bill promoted by the British Waterways Board. Most of us hoped that that Bill would be taken to another place rather than dropped and subsumed in the Bill now before us. Of course, we appreciate the reasons for pushing the Transport and Works Bill through all its stages today. They were described adequately by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We acknowledge fully the efforts made by the Government, and especially the Minister, to co-operate and so far as possible to meet proposals and suggestions.
At noon yesterday I received a helpful letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It came of course from the Department of the Environment and not from the Department of Transport. Co-ordination between the two departments does not seem to be complete. Her letter was helpful. It had clearly been drafted a week ago, but she has been so much preoccupied by other matters, including education, that I in no way blame her for not being able to send it earlier. Nevertheless, the other place has been working on the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, since 2nd December. A major change in parliamentary procedure is before us. Much of it is desirable but much of it is dauntingly legalistic for any

1529
non-legal person to understand, and that covers the great majority of users of this country's noncommercial waterways.
A number of amendments have been tabled, even as late as today, which indicate some of the general worries that still remain in the minds of noble Lords. This morning I spoke to the senior executive officer of the British Waterways Board at its headquarters in Watford. He had received no information that the Bill was to be taken through all its stages today. He confirmed that the British Waterways Board intended to revive its present Private Bill after the election and to take it to its conclusion in another place. He added that the British Waterways Board hoped that the inland waterways provisions of the Transport and Works Bill would, in practice, be used in a few special situations only where the Bill's provisions could be helpful, but he hoped that it would not be a matter of general administrative application.
It is only right to inform the House that, although this was an off-the-cuff judgment given in a telephone conversation, it is quite clear that the British Waterways Board does not wish to use the provisions in this complicated Bill more than it has to in order to obtain the desirable development. We clearly have to accept the situation today. There is all-party agreement to get the Bill through, but this underlines the belief of some of us with experience of the inland waterways that possibly a more thorough review of the legal position may be desirable. Legislation passed in 1968 or earlier, together with various successive Private Bills, may not adequately meet the changed conditions of today.
The considerable growth of interest in the quiet enjoyment of inland waterways, which I have observed since I first became involved as a Minister more than 20 years ago, is perhaps a response to the increasingly stressful aspects of our modern life. With that, I leave the matter until consideration of the amendments.
1.21 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation and also to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her comments. This is a useful and necessary piece of legislation in respect of roads, trains and tramways. It could also be useful in respect of the inland waterways. However, I understand that the people who framed our timetable for this Bill also prepared the British Waterways Bill with its general powers. In view of all that has gone before on relations between the British Waterways Board and its customers, I am sure that the Government will understand the real fears of the navigational users of the canals when considering the Transport and Works Bill. It appears that it seeks to reduce the influence of those directly involved with the waterways. That seems to be at variance with the Citizen's Charter. The Government must be beginning to wish that they had never invented the charter because it keeps being cast at them.
Nevertheless, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, impressed upon your Lordships last week in the Third Reading debate on the British Waterways
1530
Bill, waterways legislation needs consolidation and clarification. I believe that if the Transport and Works Bill is applied to waterways, it would only serve to complicate matters still further.
This House gave clear markers to the other place last weekend that the general powers Bill would benefit from considerable amendment before it became acceptable to the main user organisations whose constructive views had been passed with considerable emphasis to many of your Lordships. I believe that the process of clarification and simplification should be carried out as soon as possible. For preference, waterways would not be included in the Bill but should be dealt with in further legislation.
As your Lordships know, no opportunity was given to the user organisations involved with the canals for consultation on the Transport and Works Bill before its publication. That was said to be a simple mistake, but canals were not included in the original draft of the Bill. Although the Government have made several concessions, many users still feel that inland waterways do not sit easily with the other operations for which this Bill was originally designed. While the users see some advantages in the Bill in respect of new or newly restored waterways, we need strong assurances from the Minister—possibly stronger than the off-the-cuff remarks to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred—in respect of the waterways provisions in the Bill. We feel that the Bill has not given sufficient consideration to the waterways and certainly the consultation process in advance of its publication was inadequate.
I do not believe that I am allowed to refer to officials by name, but an official at the Department of Transport took part in a meeting where canal user interests were represented. He said that a local public inquiry would be held where the objections were substantive. Who is to say whether the objections are substantive? I can see that this would be fruitful ground for complex disagreements. Ground rules need to be laid down and bodies such as IWAAC should be statutory consultees under a provision on the face of the Bill in respect of works relating to the canals.
An assurance has apparently been given that IWAAC will be involved in drawing up new procedures and rules for applications and objections. However, I repeat that IWAAC should be a statutory consultee.
I refer your Lordships to comments I made in our debate on the general powers Bill, and I apologise for constantly referring to it. On the Motion that the Bill do now pass I mentioned the attitude of the British Waterways Board to consultation. Its tactics and strategy in regard to consultation are quite clearly aimed at downgrading the process of consultation in general and the importance of IWAAC in particular.
I welcome the addition of Clause 5(7) which I am sure will meet some of the anxieties expressed by the navigational interests. But on the subject of consultation in general, both in relation to this Bill and the general powers Bill, it happens too often and in too many policy areas for comfort or confidence that those directly affected are not consulted in

1531
advance of proposals being drawn up. Apart from being more democratic, that would save time, taxpayers' money and effort in changing proposals at a later stage.
If I may be permitted to develop the thought a little further, this unsatisfactory state of affairs is a direct result of the climate of secrecy and the "closet" government that all Administrations have operated since time immemorial. After the election, the new Government will, of course, rapidly introduce comprehensive and effective legislation on the freedom of information.
1.28 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend and Members of the House for not putting down my name but I shall be brief. First, I wish to congratulate my noble friend on the clarity with which he introduced the Bill. I am sure we are all grateful for that.
I am afraid I cannot add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who used the expression "abuse" about 12 times. He was keen to show that this was an abuse of procedure and one understands the argument, but he is an experienced parliamentarian and I am surprised that he does not accept this as a practical parliamentary procedure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I accept that perhaps there was an overuse of the word "abuse". However, I think that the noble Lord will agree that the Minister himself said that the matter had rested unchanged since 1870. Here we are completely revising the statute on these important matters in an hour and a half. That seems to me to be something of an abuse.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for interrupting me since he now says "something of an abuse". I accept that it is an unusual procedure and that this is a sensitive Bill. However, my purpose in speaking on Second Reading is to express the concern which has been put to me.
One could not help thinking, with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he seemed to be happy over the dilemma about whether the Bill should be lost because he won two amendments in association with the noble Baroness. We all await our turn to see whether we have won any amendments or concessions on our amendments.
My purpose in speaking on Second Reading is to express the general worry about the future of the consultation procedure. The Crossrail Bill, for example, involves the interests of something like 1 million people. It is a Private Bill. Would a Bill of that size come under the procedure that is being used for the Bill we are discussing? If that is the case, how can my noble friend be assured that all private individuals will have the same rights of protection as regards consultation as they would receive under the Private Bill procedure?
The noble Baroness, Lady White, is an eloquent speaker on the subject of inland waterways. I believe she is a custodian, in parliamentary terms, of the inland waterways. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, is
1532
also deeply interested in the inland waterways. The noble Baroness mentioned the concerns that have been expressed by the Inland Waterways Association. As she said, there are thousands upon thousands of users of the canals. Those users largely come under the representation of the inland waterways, although in a fairly loose form. I congratulate the representatives of the inland waterways on the work they have done in another place. I also congratulate my noble friend and his department on taking a great deal of trouble to try to allay the genuine fears people have, particularly as regards the consultation procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to environmental assessment in one of his amendments. I hope my noble friend will say whether the duty of environmental assessment in the draft directive which I believe Brussels has issued conflicts with our position.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, regrettably the amendment to which the noble Earl refers is rather more limited than that. I wish it were otherwise. If the noble Earl studies Amendment No. 15, he will see what it spells out.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I was asking my noble friend to clarify the position between the Brussels interest in environmental assessment and the Government's.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the general support that this Bill has received in the House. I of course recognise that it is not entirely satisfactory that we should take all the stages of the Bill through the House in one day. It is a large Bill and it changes the Private Bill procedure which has been in place for well over 100 years. However, as I said in my opening speech, the Bill has involved a good deal of consultation and a good deal of work by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses which considered this procedure. Therefore it is not a matter of considering entirely new ground.
Nevertheless it would have been useful if this House could have scrutinised the Bill further. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, succinctly described the dilemma we face. I believe that most noble Lords and most Members of another place would like to see this Bill on the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the large number of schemes coming forward at the moment which would otherwise have to be dealt with by the Private Bill procedure. This new procedure will be better because it will save the time of Parliament in dealing with those schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that some of the schemes were only of local importance. I believe it is much better that they should be dealt with locally.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said the history of all stages of Bills being pushed through the House in one day has not always been a happy one. I should add, however, that we have lost Bills such as this at the end of a Session. Their loss has been regretted and it has not always been possible for an incoming

1533
government to bring them back into the legislative programme very quickly. Therefore there are two ways of looking at that point.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord McNair, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to the inland waterways and particularly to consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. As I said in my opening speech, it is common ground that that body was inadequately consulted before the Bill was published. Be that as it may, since the Bill was published the department has met IWAAC and other inland waterway interests on three occasions. On one occasion my honourable friend the Minister responsible for shipping was present. The Bill was carefully explained at those meetings and it was also explained in writing.
Amendments have been drawn up which in effect prevent the closure, or alteration of status, of an inland waterway. IWAAC is among the bodies which are being consulted about the rules to be made under Clause 6. There will be a further meeting with IWAAC about that and other matters as the secondary legislation is developed. The normal process of consultation is taking place and any fears about a future lack of consultation are totally unfounded. I shall deal with the matter of other inland waterway concerns in Committee.
The question of an environmental impact assessment was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I can assure the House that an environmental statement will be required under the rules for all but the most trivial works projects. That is not mentioned on the face of the Bill because the requirement already exists in European law. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know that directives must be transposed into national law correctly. It would not be sensible to put the whole directive into primary legislation. There is no point in merely stating that environmental assessment is required. We shall therefore he doing what is necessary in the rules under Clause 6. That has the advantage that if further directives arise we can change the rules without disturbing the primary legislation.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Tordoff, referred to the alcohol limits mentioned in another part of the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, the limits are the same as those in use in road traffic legislation. We gave a great deal of thought to this matter and we concluded there was no evidence that lower limits were justified by the greater level of skill involved in driving a train or a heavy lorry. It would be unjust to discriminate against railwaymen, and in the case of tram operators the relevant personnel would be on the road. Different limits would be quite unjustifiable in those circumstances. We debated this matter during the passage of the road traffic legislation. The limits themselves can be changed by a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses so that if it is decided in future that all limits should be lower, that can be achieved without the need for new primary legislation.
1534
My noble friend Lord Teviot raised several points. As regards timetables, administrative guidelines on timetables will be issued but it is not possible to set hard and fast limits for decisions by the Secretary of State. He must of course make the right decision as otherwise a judicial review might lead to an even longer timescale.
My noble friend also referred to the mix of financial and planning considerations that face the Secretary of State. I take his point. The Secretary of State must separate in his mind financial and planning considerations. I can assure my noble friend that there is nothing new about that.
My noble friend also referred to funding certainty and to blight. We certainly take his point about the certainty of funding. While blight payments do not have to be made when a Bill is deposited, it has become the custom to do so to relieve hardship.
I shall now discuss the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, as regards the British Waterways Bill. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the British Waterways Bill is the Bill of the British Waterways Board and the Government are not responsible for it. This Bill is of course a Government Bill and is framed by different people. The inland waterways were mentioned in the consultation document and they always formed part of the Bill.
The greater part of the British Waterways Bill is concerned with general duties. The Bill we are discussing concerns procedures for approving works and ancillary matters. Orders under this Bill will not be capable of setting aside general powers permanently as Clause 5(3) ensures that orders under the Bill may repeal only local legislation. Therefore the provisions of general public and private statutes such as the constitution and duties of the British Waterways Board and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council may not be changed without recourse to Parliament.
In particular, if the general duties of the board as drafted in the British Waterways Bill which we have just passed become law they, too, cannot be set aside by an order. Equally, if the board wishes to seek the kind of powers provided in the British Waterways Bill parliamentary sanction will continue to be required. Given the Bill's extremely laborious passage through this House I know that that is unlikely to please all our colleagues, but the Transport and Works Bill is very much designed to apply to the consideration of essentially local works schemes.
Finally, I think that I have answered most of the points raised by noble Lords, but I should like to pick up the question raised by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull as to whether Crossrail, for example, could be dealt with under this procedure. The answer to that question is yes. That is an example of the type of Bill which might very well be dealt with under the procedure. I suggest that it would be the sort of scheme on which Clause 9 would have effect. There would be parliamentary approval in principle for such a large scheme. However, I cannot accept that there would be any less opportunity for the public to make representations than at present under the Private Bill

1535
procedure. In the case of a scheme such as Crossrail there would be a major public inquiry just as there is at present for a major road scheme or power station scheme, for example.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reference to the Crossrail Bill. Can he give an assurance that the Crossrail Bill will proceed as a Private Bill and will not be withdrawn and swept up under this new procedure?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that assurance is not for me to give. The Government are not promoting the Crossrail Bill. It is a British Rail Bill. As I understand it, that Bill has started its progress and let us hope that it is completed.
I hope that I have answered most of the points which were raised by noble Lords. Of course we shall deal with others during the Committee stage. In the meantime I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
1.40 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT OF OXFUIRD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders as to inland waterways etc.]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, after ("State") insert ("after satisfying himself that proper consultation with any authority, organisation or individual who will be affected has taken place,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and 5 to 14. The amendments emphasise the need for consultation generally, and I shall not repeat laboriously what I said at Second Reading.
In so far as concerns Amendment No. 2, I am a little puzzled as to why the procedure is established only for tidal barrages. I should very much like to know why that procedure cannot be the same for inland waterways.
Turning to Amendment No. 3, the Secretary of State has the power to dispense with the procedure and simply make an order. I should like to ask the Minister why that is necessary. If one is making rules, surely the point of having those rules is that they should be complied with. Consultation, a vital part of the democratic process, is important and is likely to result in better legislation. I do not wish to speak for long on the amendments, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 13. As we discussed
1536
earlier at Second Reading, the question of consultation under the new procedure of public inquiry is clearly vital to the Bill. Everyone knows and trusts the well-tried Private Bill system which allows a right to attend and allows people to feel that they have been given a good and sensible hearing. What we do not know—and here I speak on behalf of associations—is whether the obligatory rights which the Secretary of State will have under the Bill will cover not only the people who would normally be advised but also those who have a statutory right under the Transport Act 1968. Amendment No. 5 seeks to embody that right and to ensure that the Secretary of State, when he receives an objection, will be obliged to hold a public inquiry. I hope that my noble friend can give an assurance that at least no body will lose its consultation rights as a result of the new procedures.
This was a matter which was discussed in another place, as were the issues raised by my other amendments. However, those who are affected were not entirely happy with the assurance that was given. I hope that my noble friend will be very firm in giving his assurance.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to Clause 15 which deals with assimilation of procedures. That will be more apt when the regulations are published. Once again I am seeking an assurance that no one will lose their right to notification, under the Transport Act 1968.
The final amendment to which I should like to refer is Amendment No. 13 which relates to Schedule 1. The bones of the Bill will be formed by the regulations which will follow. Those ministerial orders will authorise railways, tramways and inland waterways under this fast track procedure. It is a minor amendment, but it reflects the anxiety that it is not clear that land under water is included. The purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification.
Baroness White: Amendment No. 14 is included in the grouping. The only purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to draw attention to the astonishingly wide powers which it is proposed to give to any Minister dealing with the matters falling within Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill. I put down the amendment as an example of a matter which bewilders any lay person reading a Bill of this kind. The 18th item of Schedule 1, which is obviously preceded by 17 other items—or at least 16 other items since the first paragraph is explanatory—concerns:
"The alteration of the powers of any body established by or under an Act of Parliament".
Surely it is taking matters a little wide to give the Minister such discretion. He might be able to get it within either Clauses 1 or 3 for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with the main purposes of the matter. This was an exclamation mark rather than an amendment. I treated it as such. I cannot help thinking that any person with a little boat on one of the canals can suddenly see all this happen. If there is any operation of any kind provided for in Section 3 it might be used as an excuse for altering the powers of any body established by any Act of Parliament.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to noble Lords for their exposition of these amendments. I am also grateful that they have agreed to put the amendments together in a group and to the noble Baroness, Lady White. Perhaps I may deal with them briefly but, I hope, conclusively.
Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. The requirement to be placed on applicants relating to consultation and notification of draft Clause 3 orders will be set out in rules made under Clause 6. Under those rules anybody will be able to object to a draft order. If there are objections from statutory objectors—local authorities and landowners whose land would be compulsorily acquired—which are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will have to give them an opportunity of giving evidence to an inquiry or hearing. In practice, an inquiry would almost certainly be held where statutory bodies such as IWAAC oppose the order. However, once the inquiry had been held, and the inspector has presented his important recommendation, the Secretary of State must make a determination on the evidence before him. Further consultation at that stage, whether with the applicant or objectors, would suggest that he is ready to consider fresh evidence. He could not do that without giving other interested parties an opportunity to comment on the new evidence. Otherwise he would be acting contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is unclear what purpose Amendment No. 1 would serve other than to delay the decision-making process.
Turning to Amendment No. 2, the power in Clause 4 to prescribe description of works is limited to orders relating to works which interfere with navigation, because the nature of these works are potentially many and varied and by dealing with the matter in this way we can ensure that all cases can be covered without the need to resort to the Private Bill procedure. This is not a problem with inland waterways, the works for which do not necessarily need to be prescribed in that way. Therefore, I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
I am sure that the noble Lord did not intend the undesirable effect which will result from Amendment No. 3. By removing subsection 6(6) the Secretary of State would be prevented from promulgating the application rules relating to orders under Clauses 1 and 3. Without such rules we would be unable to implement the order-making system. The omission of subsection 6(5) would prevent the Secretary of State from making rules providing for fees for processing orders.
If subsection 6(4) were taken out, a useful provision enabling the Secretary of State to dispense with certain rules relating to the form of the application or the consultation and notification requirements would be lost. For example, an environmental impact statement would not be needed for penalty fare schemes, nor would it be necessary to consult the railway inspectorate about an inland waterway scheme. But this amendment would mean that both might be required. In exercising his powers under subsection (4) the Secretary of State would be bound to act reasonably because his decisions would be subject to
1538
judicial review. I can give an unqualified assurance that we shall consult about the rules that have been made under Clause 6.
Amendments No. 5 to 7 seek to expand the protection afforded in this Bill to the interests of inland waterway users. I fear, however, that the amendments will not in practice have that effect. I start with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to Clause 15. Following amendments to this clause in another place, it will simply not be possible to do in regulations what paragraph (b) of new subsection 3(A) seeks to prevent. Regulations under Clause 15 will be able only to assimilate two procedures so that the process of giving notice and public inquiries can be run in parallel. It cannot oust the rights of anyone. Paragraph (a) is positively undesirable. It would mean that we could not line up Schedule 13 of the 1968 Act with the procedure under this Bill. We have explained in detail to IWAAC what is proposed and will of course consult them on a draft of the regulations which are subject to the enrolment procedure. There are positive advantages for IWAAC in being able to adapt Schedule 13. For example, we shall be able to provide a longer period for lodging objections. Amendment No. 5 is consequently unnecessary. I might add that it should refer to Section 5(7) and not to Section 5(6).
Schedule 13 of the 1968 Act already gives in substance the rights which the amendments would confer. Since the regulations to be made under Clause 15 cannot displace those rights, organisations representative of waterway organisations will still be able to insist on an inquiry.
Amendment No. 8 runs counter to Clause 3(1) (a), the provision which would enable orders under the Bill to authorise the construction and operation of inland waterways. I can see no good reason why works to inland waterways should not be included in the scope of the Bill. If they were not, they would continue to have to come to Parliament for approval.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 are designed to give a level of protection to inland waterways' land which is not accorded to any other statutory transport undertaking. The effect of these amendments is undesirable, as it would mean that any proposed transport system which intersected with an inland waterway could only be approved by Parliament. I am confident that the Bill already provides perfectly adequately for the protection of inland waterway interests.
Amendment No. 13, too, is unacceptable, the purpose of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is to make clear that orders under Clauses 1 or 3 can adjust or rescind private agreements or contracts relating to land affected by the proposed works. If the Secretary of State were to sanction a provision of that sort he would be bound by the rules of natural justice to ensure that proper arrangements had been made for protection of the interests affected by this provision and, where necessary, for financial compensation. I can see no reason why inland waterways should be excluded from such provisions. The effect of the amendment could be very undesirable. For example, it could fetter the ability of the Secretary of State to

1539
authorise an order for a new railway under the River Thames, or any other inland waterway for that matter.
The concerns reflected in these amendments have been fully discussed by officials of the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment and with representatives of inland waterway users. As my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said, many of them were debated in another place as well. In answer to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, land under a waterway is land by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978. If that is a little legalistic, I am afraid that that is the way things are.
I turn lastly to Amendment No. 14, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord McNair. The purpose of paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 was to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State's powers by order to make small adjustments to an applicant's own or another body's statutory powers in connection with an order under Clauses 1 or 3. For example, an order for a new privately operated transport system might include a provision to extend the remit of the London Regional Passenger Committee to that new system. However, on reflection we agree that paragraph 18 might just be perceived as going too far in its application and that the sort of limited changes that might be required as part of an order can be achieved by virtue of the provisions in Clause 5(3). I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord McNair, after what I fear has been a rather lengthy but I hope a useful explanation, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 will not be moved. When we reach it, I shall advise the Committee to accept Amendment No. 14 to which I have just referred.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. I am particularly pleased that the Government have decided to accept Amendment No. 14. As others have said, we shall look at the way in which the Bill works in practice and reserve judgment on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
2 p.m.
Clause 4 [Description of works for purposes of section 3]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Applications for orders under sections 1 and 3]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Objections to route of certain works
.—(1) Where the objections to the making of an order under section 1 above are to be the subject of a local inquiry, the Secretary of State may by notice served on the persons making such objections or by the notice announcing the
1540
holding of the inquiry, direct that any person who intends at the inquiry to submit that any transport system or proposed transport system to which the order relates should follow an alternative route, shall send to the Secretary of State within such period as may be specified in the notice, being a period not less than 14 days and ending not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the holding of the inquiry, sufficient information about the alternative route to enable it to be identified.
(2) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under subsection (1) above in relation to an inquiry, the person holding the inquiry and the Secretary of State may disregard so much of any objection as consists of a submission in which the direction applies unless the person making the objection has complied with the direction.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill already makes provision for the Secretary of State to ignore objections where they are deemed to be frivolous. However, it seems appropriate that the power should be extended so that the Secretary of State can ignore objections to the principle of a project where that principle has already been debated and approved by Parliament.
There seems no justification for public inquiries in those cases to consider the principles of projects. The ground rules would be clearly established if the principle is written into the legislation. However, although the Bill could be improved on in terms of clarity—if such provision were included in the legislation it would avoid debate on whether or not a particular objection was frivolous—I shall be content for the situation to be dealt with in the rules if the Minister were so inclined. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have some sympathy with the principles that lie behind the new clause put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The purpose of a public inquiry is to examine the merits of the development set down in the draft order. Certainly it would not be conducive to effective and expeditious decision making if inquiries were to become bogged down in debating the merits of alternative schemes or alignments which neither the inspector nor the applicant had been notified about beforehand. It would be particularly unhelpful if objectors were able to put forward fanciful alternative routes at an inquiry merely as a delaying tactic. Having said that, we think that the noble Lord's objective would be achieved rather more effectively in the inquiry rules. The proposed new clause might make it more difficult for the inspector to disallow evidence relating to alternative routes where the objector has complied with the none too onerous requirement of identifying the alternative route 14 days before the start of the inquiry. That would be counter-productive.
It is our intention to make rules under Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 based on the Compulsory Purchase by Non-Ministerial Acquiring Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990. These fix a timetable for pre-inquiry procedures. In particular, statutory objectors and anyone else who says that they want to appear at an inquiry can be required to produce a statement of their case within four weeks of being asked to do so. Objectors who produce such a statement are entitled to appear at the inquiry; otherwise the inspector has discretion to

1541
refuse an appearance, although that is not unreasonably withheld. At the inquiry itself the inspector can refuse to hear irrelevant or repetitious evidence.
We are satisfied that these rules provide a useful model for the inquiry procedures for Clauses 1 and 3 orders and that we can adapt them to meet the spirit of the noble Lord's proposals. We shall, of course, consult widely on the rules and they will be subject to the annulment procedure. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Inquiries and hearings]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Assimilation of procedures]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Matters within sections 1 and 3]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved.]
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 36, line 32 leave out paragraph 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendment of Harbours Act 1964]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 43, line 31 at end insert:
"("5A. After section 48 (service of documents) there shall be inserted.—
"Environmental duties of harbour authorities.
48A. It shall be the duty of a harbour authority in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under any enactment to have regard to—

(a) the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest:

(b) the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to places of natural beauty; and

(c) the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting or inspecting any building, site or object of archaeological, architectural or historic interest;

and to take into account any effect which the proposals may have on the natural beauty of the countryside, flora, fauna or any such feature or facility.")".
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes the legislation beyond that which was agreed in another place. The amendment speaks for itself. It is an important amendment dealing with the environmental duties of harbour authorities. I hope that it will be regarded as a great improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The amendment seeks to impose on harbour authorities a general duty to have regard to environmental and conservation issues when carrying out any of their statutory functions. It is a theme which noble Lords may recall came up during the passage of the Ports Act 1991. While there is a wide range of measures already in place which impose
1542
environmental and conservation requirements on harbour authorities, we accept that the duty which this amendment imposes could be seen as supplementary to the raft of existing legislation dealing with these matters. In particular, the general duty (which, indeed, some harbours already have in their local Acts) would pull together these various requirements and plug any possible gaps in the existing framework, so as to ensure that these important matters are given proper attention in the way the harbour authorities carry out their functions. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having moved the amendment. I recommend that the Committee accept it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that concession.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Transport and Works Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Timeshare Bill
2.9 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In the dying days of this Parliament I hope to persuade your Lordships to pass this long overdue and greatly needed consumer protection Bill. In many ways the timeshare concept is admirable and it is not the purpose of this Bill to criticise it or to interfere with its availability. According to the best estimates, there were by 1990 about half a million timeshare owners across Europe, with a quarter of a million people becoming timeshare owners in this country during the past five years. Surely that would not be the case if thousands of individuals and their families were not happy with the timeshares that they had purchased. However, there is another and darker side to the story.
Regrettably, the timeshare industry has attracted more than its fair share of sharks. It is to their activities that the Bill is directed. Despite its length, which has much to do with ensuring that it is watertight in order to prevent evasion by unscrupulous people, the purpose of the Bill is simple. It compels all vendors of timeshare within the United Kingdom, and in certain circumstances outside the jurisdiction, to allow a minimum 14-day cooling-off period. During that time potential purchasers have a chance to change their minds, thus adding timeshare

1543
to the list of situations in which the consumer can be pressurised and therefore needs a degree of protection; for example, life insurance and doorstep selling.
I am sure that many noble Lords, and indeed most households in the country, have received a circular which appears to announce that they have "won" a glittering prize—perhaps a car or a holiday in some exotic place—and that all they have to do is to attend a friendly holiday presentation in order to collect it. People who fall for that approach either through naivety or optimism are likely to be subjected to anything up to seven hours of hard sales technique. Every trick in the book is used to persuade them to sign the contracts. Many succumb, but in the light of day, when free from the pressure of the salesman, they come to regret it.
With all too few exceptions it is then too late. Some contracts may appear to include a cooling-off period but when that is tested often the assurance counts for nothing. Sometimes release from a contract can be bought by forfeiting the contract or by paying a percentage of its price. Often people are stuck with a contract that they do not want and, even worse, may not be able to afford. It is not surprising that local authority trading standards departments receive some 10,000 complaints a year about timeshare. Approximately one-third of those relate to the absence of an obligatory cooling-off period. Surely that is proof positive that a substantial number of purchasers of timeshare come to regret their purchase. It also says much about the effectiveness of the sales techniques to which they have been subjected.
I now turn to the Bill. Although it is simple in concept, it consists of 13 clauses and one schedule. There are three reasons for that. First, as I previously mentioned, it is to ensure that it is watertight. Secondly, it is necessary to include provision for enforcement. That is inevitably a lengthy process since in creating a criminal offence one must define precisely the nature of the offence and the defences available against it. Thirdly, since many timeshare agreements are accompanied by credit agreements, it is necessary to provide the proper machinery for the cancellation of these.
Clause 1 of the Bill consists of definitions. It defines the contracts to which the Bill applies; that is, any contract which is governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whether made in the UK or abroad. That is important because many timeshare contracts specify that they are not subject to UK law. Isle of Man or Channel Island law is frequently invoked. This measure makes it impossible for timeshare companies to use that as a device to get round the provisions of the Bill. The honourable Member for Basingstoke, who introduced the Bill in another place, told me that a great deal of attention was given to whether the provisions of the Bill may be extended to contracts not signed under UK law but later disputed in the United Kingdom courts. He was advised by some experts that it would undoubtedly prove to be a legal minefield which was best left alone. He accepted that advice and I am afraid that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to argue with it.
1544
Disputes about timeshare contracts not signed under UK law are best resolved in the courts of the appropriate country. If judgment is obtained in a foreign court, it is enforceable in the UK in accordance with the normal principles of private international law as applied under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982.
Clause 1 also defines what is meant by timeshare accommodation, timeshare rights, timeshare agreements and timeshare credit agreements. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is a complex Bill. It is important that it does not inadvertently catch non-timeshare actions such as the granting of leases, student lettings or repeat hotel bookings.
Clauses 2 and 3 are the meat of the Bill. Clause 2 makes it obligatory for anyone selling timeshare by way of business (the "offeror" in the language of the Bill) to make the offeree (also in the language of the Bill) aware of his rights for at least 14 days after the agreement has been made to cancel the agreement. The Bill makes it a criminal offence for the offeror not to do that.
Clause 3 contains parallel provisions for timeshare credit agreements which often form part of the total timeshare package. However, there is one exception: failure to provide notice of credit agreement cancellation rights will not be a criminal offence. The reason for that is that no criminal offence is created under the cooling-off provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It would be wrong to adopt a stricter approach in the case of the selling of timeshare. There are those who advocate cooling-off periods of seven, 14, 21 and 28 days. Fourteen days was the length of time which the Director General of Fair Trading recommended for a cooling-off period in his 1990 report on the timeshare industry. Therefore, that has been adopted in this Bill.
Clause 4 contains certain supplementary provisions to Clauses 2 and 3: first, the offeree has no cancellation rights if he is acting in the course of business; secondly, a blank notice of cancellation must accompany notice of cancellation rights; thirdly, that notice must be in such form as may be prescribed; and, fourthly, agreements are not invalidated by contravention of Clauses 2 and 3. That last provision enables the purchaser/offeree to have the right to enforce the agreement if he wishes. It does not affect his cancellation rights.
Clauses 5 and 6 make provision for the purchaser's rights under the Bill to cancel a timeshare agreement or timeshare finance agreement. The basic right is contained in subsection (1) of both clauses. Subsection (2) extends the right of cancellation indefinitely if the purchaser has not been notified of his rights. However, that is subject to subsection (3) which says that if the purchaser affirms the agreement after 14 days, then he loses his cancellation rights. It is for the courts to decide what constitutes affirmation, but basically it means that the purchaser loses his right to cancel if by a positive action he has made it perfectly clear that he is happy with the agreement.
Clauses 5 and 6 make provision for what happens after the agreement is cancelled. The purchaser is entitled to the return of any deposit or moneys he may

1545
have paid over. In the case of a credit agreement, the position may be complicated by the involvement of the third party—the finance company. The consequences of cancellation are therefore set out in more detail in a separate clause, Clause 7.
Except for necessary changes in wording, Clause 7 is identical with subsections (1) to (3) of Section 71 of the Consumer Credit Act. It is important that the provisions of the Timeshare Bill should be consistent with the broader legislation regarding consumer agreements.
The rest of the Bill contains standard and technical provisions. Clauses 8 to 11 are standard provisions regarding enforcement. They are more or less drawn word for word from the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. Clause 8 allows timeshare sellers a due diligence defence in the event of failure to provide the purchaser with a cooling-off notice and places certain conditions on the defendant if he wishes to claim that his omission was due to false information or the fault of another.
Clause 9 makes it possible to prosecute employees of timeshare companies in appropriate circumstances and also renders directors and managers of bodies corporate, or members of partnerships in Scotland, liable if an offence is committed. Clause 10 calls up the enforcement schedule. Clause 11 lays down time limits for prosecutions.
Clause 12 contains a number of general provisions which are grouped together here for convenience. Subsection (1) makes it clear that a cancellation notice does not have to be in a prescribed form to be effective. Subsections (2) and (5) are designed to ensure compatibility with the Consumer Credit Act. Subsection (3) allows for notices of cancellation getting lost in the post—or timeshare companies claiming that they have been. Subsection (4) is important since it ensures that the purchaser cannot sign away his right to cancel. Subsection (6) contains certain necessary definitions, and subsections (7) and (8) contain the necessary order-making powers. Clause 13 contains the Short Title and provides for entry into force and application in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the enforcement schedule contains standard provisions laying a duty of enforcement on local authority trading standards departments (the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland) and giving powers regarding the production and seizure of documents and information stored on computers.
I hope that I have made myself clear. The Bill received a warm welcome on all sides in another place and completed its stages there unamended and unopposed. Not only that, it also has the backing of the legitimate operators in the timeshare industry and of the timeshare council. I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies if I have been long-winded but the matter needed some explanation. However, I believe in the Bill's simple objectives and warmly commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
2.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, for introducing the Timeshare Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill and I therefore make clear that I am speaking only for myself and not for my party. I have a general welcome for the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl is right in saying that the measure is generally desirable. The whole area of timeshares requires to be addressed in legislation.
I have four observations about this Bill which might be considered relevant. First, I understand that the question of timeshare is being considered by the European Commission. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me, but I understand that a Community-wide solution to the timeshare problem may well emerge at some fairly close future point, in which case this Bill will either be relevant and apposite or it will have to be totally revised. There is a little questionmark as to whether it is wise to go ahead with this measure if we are to revise it completely in a very short period of time as a result of Community activity.
My second point refers to the expression in Clause 1(7) to which the noble Earl referred about the law of the United Kingdom. I have had some communication with the Minister on that point. It is settled private international law that there is no such body of law known as the law of the United Kingdom. I understand that there are many statutes that apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that it can be said that there is such a thing as a "concept" of the law of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as the law of the United Kingdom. There is the law of constituent parts for the United Kingdom but that is a different matter. I understand why the expression has been included and the noble Earl explained quite carefully why. If one is dealing with statutes, then it is possible that as regards criminal offences there can be various interpretations of what is and what is not the law of the United Kingdom which would play a role.
On the other hand, if one is dealing with contracts and private international law, there seems to be a much greater problem if the contract itself is expressly written to be governed by the law of the United Kingdom. One cannot have jurisdiction of a concept, but one can have jurisdiction of a law. When the noble Lord the Minister comes to reply I ask him to comment on that observation because it seems to me and to the Law Society of Scotland, which has advised me on this matter, that it is an anomaly. That has nothing to do with the fact that Scotland has separate law from England and Wales and from Northern Ireland, but is simply a general comment which the Scottish Law Society has been kind enough to make.
The third point is the provisions in Clause 4(3) which provide that,
"An agreement is not invalidated by reason of a contravention of section 2 or 3".
The Bill is concerned to provide obligations to give notice of a right to cancel a timeshare agreement and that is provided for in Clauses 2 and 3. A failure to comply with these provisions results in criminal penalties. That is all very well but it does not help the

1547
person who has signed the contract. If one has signed a contract it does not help to get out of it if one knows that the other signatory is in prison or has suffered a fine. What is required is some arrangement that sanctions for violating Clauses 2 and 3 should not only be criminal, but the ability to cancel the agreement.
My fourth observation concerns the cooling-off period. In property transactions, generally speaking there is no cooling-off period. It is certainly a question as to whether a cooling-off period should be extended to all property transactions. A cooling-off period is useful only if there has been full disclosure of what is on offer and sold. For instance, as regards a house purchase it is a question of caveat emptor. The buyer will take such precautions as he or she feels necessary to ensure that he or she is perfectly certain about what is on offer.
If there is no full disclosure in the case of a timeshare, then the cooling-off period seems to have slightly less relevance. A cooling-off period is useful only if there has been full disclosure by the timeshare operator prior to the contract. That full disclosure would have to include, for instance, how the development is to be financed; what steps are taken to ensure that it will be completed with all the facilities that have been advertised; what guarantee there may be that services will be provided and what the relationship is between the developer and manager of the timeshare. Unless all these things are disclosed prior to the signature of the contract, a 14-day cooling-off period does not seem to me to have a great deal of relevance.
Those are four observations which I offer to your Lordships. It is not my intention at all to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill or to move any amendments when we come to Committee stage, if indeed we do. But I hope very much that the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate, will be able to reassure me on the points that I have made.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill and congratulate him on the way in which he did so. As he made plain, it is quite a complex measure, but nevertheless he made clear to the House the nature and the purpose of the Bill and indeed the need for it.
I should like to emphasise that this Bill is not an attack on timeshare as a product, whether it is timeshare properties, as we normally understand them, timeshare caravans or timeshare fishing rights. There are many thousands of satisfied timeshare owners in the United Kingdom and around the world, I have no doubt. I am sure that there will be many more in the future. The Bill aims to help those who find themselves committed to purchasing timeshare properties that they do not want and may not be able to afford simply because they have succumbed to dishonest and unethical selling tactics.
There is not much that I can add to the exposition which my noble friend has given, but perhaps I could say a bit about the background of the Bill, outline the Government's position and deal with some of the
1548
matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. In 1990 in response to a request from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Director General of Fair Trading conducted an inquiry into the timeshare industry and published a report on its problems which included a comprehensive set of recommendations for action. Among these was a right for the consumer—the "offeree"—to withdraw from the contract without penalty during a 14-day cooling-off period. The director general also recommended that in view of the international nature of timeshare the European Commission should consider measures to control abuses in the industry throughout the European Community.
We agreed with that recommendation and last February, therefore, the Government asked the European Commission to bring forward a directive addressing the problems which the Director General of Fair Trading had identified. I am glad to say that the Commission has reacted positively to our suggestion and has drafted a directive which I understand it hopes shortly to be able to submit to the Council of Ministers. If, as we certainly hope, that happens within the next few months, we would attach priority to carrying it forward during our presidency.
We are assured that the directive will include a cooling-off period and it might then appear that the Bill before us will thus simply duplicate what European legislation is likely to provide for. But we cannot be sure what any ultimate European measure is likely to look like, nor when it is likely to arrive. The Community wheels grind surely but slowly.
Meanwhile, the mischief which we are addressing is with us here and now. Despite all the publicity which these operators have rightly attracted, unethical and unacceptable practices by timeshare sales companies continue. That is the reason why we support the Bill before us.
These practices are all too often effective because they catch the consumer when he is vulnerable and he is bullied—I do not think that that is too strong a word—into signing a contract which as soon as he has had time to reflect he regrets. We believe a cooling-off period, which is what this Bill provides, should do much to make such tactics ineffective. This Bill should draw the teeth of the sharks which currently disfigure what is otherwise a respectable industry. We believe that this should be done straightaway if their victims are to be protected. It is for that reason that we support the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why the agreement is not invalidated when notice is not given. It is in case the purchaser wishes to enforce it against the seller. There is no reason why he should be deprived of his right to do that. With regard to the law of the United Kingdom, the noble Lord referred to the fact that I had written to him on the subject. The answer is that if Clause 1(7) (a) did not refer to the law of the United Kingdom it would be open to the parties to provide that their contract was governed by the law of the United Kingdom and thereby avoid the

1549
application of the Bill. The reference therefore avoids what would be an unsatisfactory result. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.36 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for their kind words and for the welcome they have given to the Bill. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. First, on the European dimension, it will take time to get a solution onto the statute book. In the meantime, if nothing is done, there will be potential purchasers of timeshare who will not enjoy the protection that the Bill will give. We do not know for how long they would remain unprotected.
On the noble Lord's second point, I am no expert on the finer points of law regarding contracts and the overseas dimensions. I believe that the Bill does the best possible. On the noble Lord's third point, I believe that the Bill will have a powerful deterrent effect and therefore one would hope that people will not find themselves in the position of having to fulfil these contracts despite the fact that the offeror who has committed the criminal offence is in prison. Fourthly, the noble Lord touched on the subject of caveat emptor. The Bill seeks only to address this specific problem to do with the timeshare industry. It does not cover all the problems. It is not intended to absolve purchasers, and potential purchasers, of timeshare of the necessity of making the proper inquiries and searches. I believe that the 14-day period is sufficient not just as a cooling off period but that it also gives time, if someone is really in a hurry to make a purchase, to carry out the proper searches and inquiries. I have nothing further to add except to say that I look forward to seeing the Bill become law. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992
2.40 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this order I should like, at the same time, to speak also the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope Act) Order 1992. I seek the approval of the House for the two orders. The first—the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1992—I shall for convenience refer to as the No. 2 exemptions order and the second—the
1550
Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992—I shall refer to as the extension of scope order.
The No. 2 exemptions order will introduce exemptions from the requirements in Section 57 of the Financial Services Act. Under that section, investment advertisements may be issued only if they have either been approved by, or issued by, persons authorised under the Act. Section 57 aims to protect investors from misleading advertisements. The Government attach importance to avoiding, wherever possible, unnecessary controls which add to the costs of legitimate business.
The No. 2 exemptions order is intended to remove certain restrictions on publishers of investment advertisements in this country where the advertisements are aimed at, and by their nature are of interest only to, professional or expert investors. In future, such advertisements will not require approval by an authorised person. That requirement has led to unnecessary delay and costs for publishers and advertisers, without any corresponding benefits for investor protection.
Article 2 of the order defines the professional and expert investors to whom advertisements may be addressed for the exemption to apply. To help publishers and advertisers, Articles 3 and 4 include indications to be taken into account in considering whether an advertisement benefits from the exemption. Article 5 exempts documents which relate to securities admitted to dealing on the markets listed in Schedules 1 and 2, where the rules of the exchange require or permit the document to be published. Article 6 exempts advertisements issued by markets listed in the schedules to the order as regards the facilities that they provide.
The extension of scope order is intended to bring back within the scope of the Financial Services Act investment advice given in pre-recorded telephone messages, screen-based systems and other electronic communications systems. Giving investment advice is an activity which may constitute investment business under the Act. Investment advice given in any television or radio programme and teletext transmission was originally exempt.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 introduced the concept of "programmes service" to the Financial Services Act. That had the effect of widening the scope of the exemption for investment advice to include advice given on 0898 telephone numbers and screen-based systems. That could have had undesirable consequences for investor protection and the present order restores the exemption to its previous more limited scope. Investment advice in programmes for transmission on televise on or radio, or on teletext, will remain exempt.
The changes before the House today will make for more effective regulation under the Act. Taken together, they will reduce unnecessary costs while maintaining adequate investor protection. As such, they have been warmly welcomed during the department's consultations. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Motion. I usually take great interest in orders under the Financial Services Act because they often contain controversial elements. However, the present orders contain no controversial elements, bar one which I shall note in passing because I do not wish to resist it.
It is the case that the extension of scope order is an order under what is known as a Henry VIII clause; in other words, it changes primary legislation by means of a statutory instrument. It would be wrong of me to let that go through without a quick remark. I know that your Lordships will have ways and means in the future to deal with such matters. As regards the substance of the orders, I agree that they are right and that they will make for better regulation in the future. I see no reason to oppose the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1992
Lord Reay Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1992
2.45 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations benefit small employers in their operation of the statutory sick pay scheme. They implement the announcement made on 7th February in another place to increase the contributions payments level at which employers may qualify for SSP small employers' relief from £15,000 to £16,000 from 6th April 1992.
The regulations also provide for such small employers to revert to 100 per cent. recovery of the SSP paid out to an individual employee after six weeks, irrespective of the rate at which it is paid. This ensures that where SSP payments span the usual up-rating date of 6th April the employer's rights to 100 per cent. recovery remain protected. This is largely a technical amendment and has no administrative impact on the employer's operation of the SSP scheme. The regulations are entirely beneficial and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations, which are welcomed on this side of the House. I well recall that when the statutory sick pay legislation was originally debated in your Lordships' House, we on this side of the House, along with other peers, were very anxious to ensure that there should be small employers' relief. This further improvement in the regulations is very much welcomed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Class 1 Contributions— Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1992
2.47 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review the contracted-out terms at least every five years. His report and that of the Government Actuary were laid with the statutory instruments and they demonstrate how technically complex this subject is. I propose to avoid burdening the House with too many technicalities and to concentrate as far as possible on the broad principles.
It may help to put these statutory instruments into context if I remind the House that since 1978 occupational pension schemes have been able to contract out if they guarantee to provide a pension which is at least as good as the state earnings related pension. In return a reduction, commonly called "the rebate", is made to the national insurance contributions for such contracted-out employments.
The Government Actuary reports that the cost to schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions has been decreasing as the average rate of accrual of guaranteed minimum pensions declines. For the five years from April 1988 to April 1993 the rebate is set at 5.8 per cent. Following consultation, the Government Actuary has concluded that the range of uncertainties caused by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Barber case concerning equal treatment in occupational pension schemes makes it more sensible for the rebate level to be based on the costs for the first three years of the period only. He assesses that figure as 4.77 per cent. in his final recommendation to the Secretary of State, who accepts both that view and the recommended figure—subject only to rounding the figure to 4.8 per cent. The 4.8 per cent rebate will be shared so that employees receive 1.8 per cent. and employers 3 per cent.
Turning to the second order, in some circumstances contracted-out schemes may transfer their liabilities for guaranteed minimum pensions to the state scheme. This "buying back" is achieved by paying a state scheme premium. This premium is payable by the occupational pension scheme to the state scheme to transfer the liability for the guaranteed mimimum pension from the occupational scheme back to

1553
SERPS. The actuarial tables contained in the order before us today represent the average cost of providing a guaranteed minimum pension and are used to calculate the level of the state scheme premium payable.
The recommendations made by the Government Actuary will in most cases reduce the level of the state scheme premium payable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted the Government Actuary's recommendations for that sensible adjustment.
My right honourable friend announced in another place that the Government would be consulting the pensions industry and other interested parties on the implications of equal treatment for contracting out. Those consultations are under way. In considering what changes are needed, we intend to give particular consideration to the scope for moving from flat-rate rebates to rebates related to age, at least for personal pensions and possibly also for other contracted-out schemes.
I hope that I have demonstrated how the Government have continued to safeguard the interests of those people who are contracted out through the rebate and buy-back terms. The House will see, I think, not only how complex this subject is but how these two statutory instruments fit into the Government's overall pension strategy, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation of these highly technical instruments. This side of the House has no objection to offer. We regard the orders as uncontroversial, and I have pleasure in accepting them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1992
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposals before your Lordships seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to raise a levy on the employers in the engineering construction industry to finance the board's running costs and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals do not relate
1554
to engineering manufacturing as that part of the engineering industry moved to independent training arrangements in the middle of last year. The basis of the proposals is a levy of 1.5 per cent. on the payroll of site employers in the industry, although no levy will be paid by firms whose payroll is £75,000 or less.
Site employers will also pay a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by them for sub-contract labour. For head office establishments there is a levy of 0.4 per cent. of payroll on those with more than 40 employees. In addition, head offices will pay a levy of 0.5 per cent. on all payments made by them for sub-contract labour. The proposals have the support of the employers as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the board's full support. Your Lordships will know that the Government remain committed, as a general rule, to independent employer-led training arrangements.
However, engineering construction is an industry which has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry, the mobile nature of its workforce, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of sub-contract and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances in this sector of the engineering industry.
For those reasons the industry argued strongly for the need to retain statutory arrangements, including the power to impose a levy on employers. They argue that that is the best way of ensuring that sufficient numbers of new entrants are trained and brought into the industry and that the skills of existing workers are kept up-to-date.
We were persuaded to accept those arguments and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board was established in its own right in the middle of last year. At the same time, the engineering manufacturing sector opted instead to set up its own independent arrangements and was taken out of the statutory system.
I am happy to say that since then the ECITB has worked hard in partnership with the industry to meet the manpower and skill needs of this important sector of the economy. Employers in the industry remain firm in their support for the board and clearly this will be taken into account when the next review takes place in 1994.
We were concerned though to ensure that statutory burdens on firms are kept to a minimum and that firms who train appropriately are rewarded. To this end, we asked the new board to replace its head office exemption scheme by a voluntary code of practice based on the Investors in People initiative, to raise the exclusion level for small firms and to review the effects of its grant scheme on training employers.
I am pleased to say that all those issues have been addressed. In the proposals before your Lordships the small firms threshold has been raised for both head offices and sites. Also, the exemption scheme has been replaced by a grant scheme designed to reward those employers who train in key skill areas and those who seek Investors in People awards.

1555
I believe that it is right for 1992 that the House should approve the proposals before it and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the draft statutory instrument. We accept it on this side of the House. He will not be surprised, I am sure, to learn again from me this afternoon that we regret the demise of the Engineering Industry Training Board. We still believe that there is a role for statutory provision in the engineering manufacturing industry.
We are glad that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has been established, although I have a query about the exclusion of small firms in this context. It seems to me that it is often in relation to small firms that safety issues are most important and are often overlooked. Training plays a vital role towards ensuring safety. The engineering construction industry, like the construction industry generally, does not have a good record when it comes to safety issues.
Having said that, we accept the order and will watch with interest to see how the new board functions.
2.57 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rochester, I have been instructed to welcome the order and wish it godspeed. There is obviously a tremendous case for it in this important industry. It is important for exports to raise the skills of the whole industry. So for once we are able to commend the order.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for supporting the introduction of the order today. I note carefully the comments that the noble Baroness made. It is important that we should ensure that the training is carried out in this important, albeit small sector of the industry.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that the Engineering Training Authority, Entra, has achieved a remarkable number of things in a short time. I know that she was worried that when the manufacturing sector was hived off—if I may put it like that—it would not achieve its objectives. It is the leader in the development of standards in the engineering manufacturing industry and it has developed excellent working links with TECs. It is piloting various training initiatives. However, its most tangible success so far is the support it has been given by employers in the industry. Over half a million employees are now covered through their employers' membership of Entra.
I believe that we agree that the engineering construction industry is different from most, if not all
1556
other industries, and needs to be treated accordingly. I know that the proposals before your Lordships have the support of the employers in this industry and have been approved by the board. I believe that they should be approved by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Bill
3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This was a Private Member's Bill in another place promoted by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim and it had full support across all parties. Although it is short and simple, it has important consequences. This simple Bill would remedy a deficiency in existing fisheries legislation and would provide Ministers with parallel responsibilities to those that currently exist for agriculture.
Under the present legislation MAFF and the agriculture and fisheries department of the Scottish Office and local sea fisheries committees in England and Wales are responsible for commercial fish stocks. However, they have no statutory responsibility for the conservation of the wider marine environment. Fisheries affect the wider environment, sometimes through the incidental catch of sea birds, porpoises, dolphins and other marine wildlife in nets. Fishing can damage the sea-bed and remove important prey such as sand eels from the wildlife food chain. The ecological damage in such cases is difficult to assess. It is clear, nonetheless, that the fisheries authorities are in the best position to make this assessment. As matters stand they can legitimately claim to have no responsibility for the consequences of fishing other than those that directly affect commercial fish stocks.
The areas of sea surrounding the United Kingdom support an abundance of marine wildlife. There are 17 species of sea bird in our waters that exist in internationally important numbers. We have national and international responsibilities to protect this wildlife resource. As a signatory to the RAMSAR Convention, the United Kingdom has an international obligation to protect our estuaries and near-shore marine sites—that is to say, marine waters of less than six metres depth at low tide—from ecological damage. The United Kingdom also has an obligation to protect marine habitats that hold internationally important numbers of sea birds through the designation of special protection areas defined in terms of the European Community's directive on the conservation of wild birds.
As I said at the start, this Bill enjoys full government support and cross-party support. It is supported by the National Federation of Sea Anglers, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. If passed, the Bill will not allow wildlife conservation interests to dictate fisheries

1557
policy. The wording of the Bill is carefully modelled on provisions that already exist in relation to the functions of Ministers responsible for agriculture.
The Bill is designed to put in place a statutory mechanism whereby a balance can be formed between a sustainable fishing industry and the conservation of the marine environment. This Bill has become especially important in the light of the proposals for marine consultation areas which were put forward by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office at the end of last month. The system of marine consultation areas that has been proposed is intended to operate as follows.
Sites of marine conservation interest will be formally identified and listed. All bodies taking decisions on proposals that might affect that interest are asked to consult the conservation agencies, which will include English Nature, at the earliest feasible stage. All bodies giving formal approvals to such proposals are asked to check that consultation has taken place. Any advice offered by the conservation agencies is to be given due weight by the decision makers.
The responsibilities of Ministers and of sea fisheries committees within the marine consultation area system will become clear, but this Bill will reaffirm the statutory position of Ministers and sea fisheries committees in relation to those responsibilities. It will also encourage all concerned to take the same integrated approach to the utilisation of marine resources for sustainable use throughout the wider marine environment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for introducing the Bill. It is a small Bill with only two clauses, but it is an important measure. As is the convention when I speak from this Dispatch Box, I express my personal view, but the noble Earl is correct to say that the Bill is widely supported. Indeed, everyone who spoke in the other place supported it. I shall be extremely brief because we wish to take the Bill through all its stages today, and it consists of only two clauses.
As I said, it is a thoroughly welcome measure and a useful piece of legislation. It is concerned with achieving the balance we need between a sustainable level of fish stocks and the conservation of the marine environment, as the noble Earl said. Your Lordships may know that Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee has just completed the taking of evidence on the report it is preparing on the common fisheries policy. Everyone on that committee has become extremely well aware of the environmental and conservation aspects of fisheries policy.
It is a little surprising that the lacuna in existing fisheries legislation was not remedied sooner, particularly as the Agriculture Act 1986 gives the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a specific conservation responsibility for the flora and fauna of the countryside. As we know, the marine flora and fauna are just as important and just as threatened.
1558
In that connection I am pleased to see from the news release which I received only today from the ministry that plans for preventing the introduction and spread of fish and shellfish disease in Great Britain are to be implemented from 1st January next year in connection with the relevant European Community directive.
As I said, this is a sensible and welcome piece of legislation and it gives me great pleasure to support it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Bill. It is a sensible Bill. It enjoins the Ministers responsible to look at the whole picture. Failure to do so has been the problem in many conservation issues involving farming and fisheries. The case of the sand eel is particularly important and has shown that everything hangs together.
The Bill enjoins the Minister to have regard to those important considerations but does not say that they must take precedence over commercial fisheries. It simply points out that those issues hang together. I am happy to commend the Bill.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to say that the Government welcome and support the Bill. The Government are committed to taking account of environmental considerations in all government activities, as our White Paper on the environment of 1990 made clear.
It is right, therefore, that in carrying out their functions fisheries Ministers and sea fisheries committees in England and Wales should he required to take into account the environmental implications of their decisions. The Government congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on his efforts to ensure that this useful Bill can be enacted before the Dissolution.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I welcome everything that has been said on all sides of the House. I look forward very much to reading the report of Sub-Committee D in due course. The work which is done by the sub-committees of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities is extremely valuable and influential. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his remarks and I welcome the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have some late business news. It now seems likely that in addition to the Bills which I previously announced to your Lordships would be received from another place, we shall also receive the Museums and Galleries Bill as a result of a further usual channels agreement. It is therefore

1559
intended to take that Bill through all its stages on Monday, after the Friendly Societies Bill and the Army Bill, which we also expect to receive.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I remind noble Lords that, in these circumstances, these Bills are likely not to be reprinted before being considered by your Lordships. Any amendments which your Lordships may wish to move in Committee should therefore relate to the Commons Bill, which is already available, and may accordingly be tabled forthwith.
I apologise for making this announcement so unexpectedly to your Lordships, but noble Lords will understand that the situation is somewhat fluid. I can assure your Lordships that the decision to take the Museums and Galleries Bill is a reflection of the uncontroversial and even, arguably, desirable nature of the measure.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches have been fully consulted about the need for the statement and its nature. Noble Lords may not be aware that attempts to bring the Bill before the House over the past two days have been made repeatedly. There has been no animus whatever as to the nature of the Bill but objections have been raised to the procedures and the exclusions and inclusions to the Bill.
This House has merely been the facilitator of discussions in depth that began in another place. I am fairly certain that on Monday the Minister, when proposing to give the Bill a Second Reading, will explain fully the nature of the Bill and the reason for the hesitation.
1560
Without commitment, and understanding completely the special circumstances of the past two or three days, we on this side of the House look forward on Monday to facilitating the passage of the Bill in these very unusual circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the context of Monday's business—I understand that the Finance Bill will be taken—will my noble friend list the order in which the various measures will be taken?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I believe I am correct in saying that we shall start with finance and then move on in the order which I laid out in the first paragraph of the statement that I have just made.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, for the purpose of proceeding with the facilitation of the business of your Lordships' House in a successful and satisfactory manner, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past three o'clock.

  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PROPOSAL: RESPONSE
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PROPOSAL: RESPONSE
  SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS: DESIGNATIONS
  SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS: DESIGNATIONS
  GUILDFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE: POWERS
  GUILDFORD DIOCESAN BOARD OF FINANCE: POWERS
  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION: POWERS
  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION: POWERS
  ERITREA: HUMANITARIAN AID
  ERITREA: HUMANITARIAN AID
  WORLD POPULATION PLANNING
  WORLD POPULATION PLANNING
  BRITISH RAIL REORGANISATION: REPORT
  BRITISH RAIL REORGANISATION: REPORT
  LIFE ASSURANCE INDUSTRY: DISCLOSURE
  LIFE ASSURANCE INDUSTRY: DISCLOSURE
  BBC: DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
  BBC: DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
  CZECH AND HUNGARIAN VISITORS: STATISTICS
  CZECH AND HUNGARIAN VISITORS: STATISTICS
  EXTRADITION: POWERS
  EXTRADITION: POWERS
  PRISONERS: PUBLICATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
  PRISONERS: PUBLICATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
  PENTONVILLE PRISON: PRISONER ADMITTANCE
  PENTONVILLE PRISON: PRISONER ADMITTANCE
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS VISITS
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS VISITS
  EC: IDENTITY CARDS
  EC: IDENTITY CARDS
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS
  FIREARMS: LICENSING
  FIREARMS: LICENSING
  SANDEEL STOCK: SHETLAND
  SANDEEL STOCK: SHETLAND
  SCOTTISH FISHERIES
  SCOTTISH FISHERIES