Sitting of 16 March 1992

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

  CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION) 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.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL
  Not amended [in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  CHARITIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boswell.]
  Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [12 March].
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money by way of remuneration and allowances to the officers and employees of the Charity Commissioners;

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the Act by the Charity Commissioners; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;

  (2) the charging on the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for making good to any person sums for which the official custodian for charities may be liable in connection with land vested in him in accordance with section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987. —[Mr. Boswell.]

  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the charging of fees payable to the Charity Commissioners and the imposition of other charges so payable;

  (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [12 March].
  Clauses 1 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CHARITIES BILL [Lords]
    Clause 79

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 72, line 23, leave out subsection (8). —[Mr. Boswell.]
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

  COMPETITION AND SERVICE (UTILITIES) BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  TRANSPORT AND WORKS BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  Ordered,
  That further proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
  That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—

  (a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time, to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Standing Committee; and

  (b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to that Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session;

  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith on Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    LAND AND DEEDS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr.Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the remaining motions—Nos 11, 12 and 13 on the Order Paper.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
    That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Petition—Mr. Harry Greenway.
    Motion made, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall not put the Question on the Adjournment, because that might be unfair to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle): we have moved very fast. Accordingly, I shall suspend the sitting until 10.30 am.
    9.43 am
    Sitting suspended.
    10.30 am
    On resuming—
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An important precedent has been set today, in which the House was adjourned because the business on the Order Paper was rushed through so quickly that time was exhausted. The Sitting was then suspended to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) to come to the Chamber to move his very important Adjournment debate.
    That is an excellent precedent, and I hope that that practice can be pursued in the next Parliament. When something happens very quickly in the House, it is absurd that other business on the Order Paper should, as it were drop off the end of the table, simply because the business has been rushed through.
    While this may not be within your power at the moment, in your final hours as Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will be able to send a letter to the Procedure Committee about what has happened, so that the next Chairman of that Committee can do something about it.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Good try. The hon. Member is aware that that is a matter for the Procedure Committee. We must wait and see what happens in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I regret the fact that, for some procedural reason, it was not extended this morning to
    1234
    petitions. By chance, I was in the House but not in the Chamber, and had I intended to present an important petition on behalf of the residents of Northolt and elsewhere which was signed by 5,000 petitioners and the chairman of the Northolt village residents association—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should raise a point of order with me and not present a petition. If he is about to raise a point of order, will he come to his point so that I can deal with it?
    Mr. Greenway: My point of order is that, procedurally, I am delighted by the precedent of allowing the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) time to move his Adjournment debate. However, can that precedent now—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
    Mr. Greenway: May I just explain—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No, I have the gist. The hon. Gentleman was in the House, but he was not in the Chamber. That is to be regretted, but he cannot now officially present his petition formally. However, he can place it in the bag. I hope that he will do that now and allow us to get on with the Adjournment debate, the motion for which has already been moved.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was in the House when the sitting was suspended. As I understand it, the suspension took place in order to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to come to the Chamber.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is a long-standing Member, and he is very familiar with our proceedings. However, he is not correct in this instance. The Adjournment was moved and I must now call the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). Time is being taken from him.

British Nuclear Fuels (Warrington)
Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
10.33 am
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I must first thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to move this Adjournment debate. There were some procedural difficulties, and thanks to the kindness of the House, I have been allowed to initiate this debate at this time. Like other hon. Members, I was in the Chamber earlier.
I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) because I understand that he faced some small local difficulties [Interruption.]—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As a courtesy to the hon. Member for Warrington, North, will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly?
Mr. Hoyle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Minister because he was not aware of my Adjournment debate until almost the last minute. Like me, he was caught unawares by the sudden collapse of our business this morning. However, this is a historic occasion, as the Minister and I will be participating in the last debate of this Parliament. Although I cannot speak for the Minister, I must say that this is the first time that I have had such an opportunity.
The subject of this debate is very important for Warrington, and I note the presence of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) in the Chamber. This debate is about British Nuclear Fuels plc, and the 750 redundancies that are due to take place by the mid-1990s. The announcement of those redundancies caused some shock, as it closely followed the press announcement of an agreement between British Nuclear Fuels and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. under which they signed a contract for fuel-cycle services which will last for 15 years and probably lead to contracts worth more than £2·7 billion.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that this is a narrow debate about unemployment in his constituency at the British Nuclear Fuels headquarters at Warrington. However, in view of the importance of the occasion, the issue of redundancies will echo around the United Kingdom. There has been a stream of redundancies in the textile and engineering industries in my constituency, where 29,000 people depend on those industries for their jobs. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that in his debate. I congratulate him on obtaining his Adjournment debate, but I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that redundancies are hitting at the heart of British manufacturing industry. Since 1979, some 2·5 million jobs have been lost under the Tory Government.
Mr. Hoyle: I totally agree with my hon. Friend and I will refer to the effects of the recession shortly. My hon. Friend is aware of my keen interest in the textile industry since I entered the House in 1974. The textile industry requires a more stable economy if it is to expand in future. I was pleased to give way to my hon. Friend about that.
As I was saying, a deal worth £2·7 billion was completed. We all knew that, when THORP ceased operating, there would be some redundancies. However,
1236
the number of the redundancies and the fact that the announcement was made so quickly after the good news, took everyone by surprise.
The search by British Nuclear Fuels for alternative contracts has not been helped by the recession. It has been extremely difficult even for a company with the expertise of British Nuclear Fuels to find alternative contracts which might have meant fewer redundancies at Risley and elsewhere.
Last year's reorganisation in British Nuclear Fuels did not help matters. British Nuclear Fuels was divided into three divisions—United Kingdom, international and engineering. It is clear that British Nuclear Fuels is still making large profits, but it would have been easier for the company to be more flexible if it had not been divided in that way.
Each division appears to stand in its own right. There is no flexibility in relation to profit distribution. It is not as easy to transfer the labour force across the company. I remind the Minister that it is the expertise and skill, particularly of design, that have created the wealth that is accruing to the United Kingdom division. I hope that the Minister will consider that when he replies. I hope also that he will say that there would normally have been an opportunity for work transfer. As I have said, the overall profits might have cushioned the effects of the recession and the shedding of jobs in the engineering division.
British Nuclear Fuels has always had a human face. I pay tribute to its work in the Warrington community and further afield. It has supported the environment, helped sport, and, in particular, taken an interest in the youth in the town and in education projects. That is why it is rather regrettable that, among those redundant people, there are 76 apprentices. The apprenticeships, both trade apprenticeships and design apprenticeships, have always been of a very high calibre. That training is applicable not only to that industry but to engineering elsewhere. One of the sad matters was the ending of the apprentices' school roughly 12 months ago. In the past three to four years, British Nuclear Fuels has not retained any apprentices.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while out canvassing in Bradford recently, I met an apprentice-trained engineer who had worked for one firm for 37 years, was made redundant, obtained another job with an engineering firm, and then was told that he would be made redundant because of the recession? One of the points that my hon. Friend is making about his constituency and which is echoed elsewhere is that a pool of skilled engineering ability is simply being thrown on the dole by the Government's economic policies. That is a terrible shame and a waste of human resources.
Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is a tragedy, and that is why I appeal to the Minister on behalf of those young people.
Mr. David Bellotti: Does the hon. Gentleman share my disgust at the Government cutting, at this very time, £100 million from the budget for employment and youth training? When I previously visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Warrington and saw the YMCA there, I saw the pool of talented youth people who are ready to go on training courses, yet, at this very time, when they have the ability, such as that of the young people I know in Eastbourne, the Government are cutting their training programme.
Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with the hon. Member. The tragedy is that overall training has not been good enough. I look foward to the change of Government, since the next Government will provide adequate training for all. The hon. Gentleman will be very dismayed to know that the training of young people at the YMCA in Warrington is also coming to an end. That is the world that young people are now facing, and that is what will happen to young apprentices if there is no change of mind on the part of British Nuclear Fuels.
Unfortunately, having had an excellent record, British Nuclear Fuels has not retained any apprentices in the past three to four years, but it has offered short-term contracts, and some apprentices have been on contracts for up to four years. Those contracts are not being renewed.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, like Warrington, in many mining areas such as Pontefract and Castleford our mining apprenticeship schemes and mechanical and electrical schemes were the pride of the country and probably of the world? That is not now the case. Throughout the country, there will be an untrained work force if and when the economy ever lifts. We will not be in a position to use expertise, because it will not exist.
Mr. Hoyle: I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) with a little pain, because I went to Castleford the other Sunday and saw Warrington badly defeated there. However, I agree with my hon. Friend on apprenticeships. Mining is another industry in which apprenticeships are being cut. British Coal is renowned throughout the world for its training of engineers. It is sad that that is also coming to an end.
Although volunteers are taking up the redundancies that are being offered to them, in relation to the 76 apprentices, work is still continuing for agency staff. Some agency staff have been employed for 15 years. How temporary is that work? Surely, if work has been carried out by agency staff in the past 15 years, permanent posts should have been created during that time. When I discussed the matter with company representatives—they are always ready to discuss matters with me—it appeared to me that there were at least 12 months' work and perhaps more for those young people. In addition, people who have retired have been retained as specialists. Again, it might be possible to find such work for those young people.
Over the past few years, the company has been taking on 10 to 20 young clerical trainees. They have come into the company from local schools and colleges, and they have received training in business skills. They have also been well equipped for work in the community or, as has happened, been absorbed into the company. I appreciate that the company may not be able to do that in future, but I hope that it will continue the training scheme for 10 to 20 young clerical workers. Even if they cannot find a job with British Nuclear Fuels at the end of their training, they would be well equipped. Perhaps there will be a change of Government and better opportunities outside than are being offered at this moment.
It appears that the unions are not being given all the information they need on which to question what is happening to those young people and redundancies generally. I understand that, in certain areas, overtime is
1238
continuing, but they cannot get the full picture. I also understand that they cannot get the true picture of what is happening with agency staff. It appears that company employees are going, while agency staff are being retained. It would be good if the Minister could give an idea of the future corporate plan that British Nuclear Fuels announced when splitting into the four divisions. I do not want to take up much time, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope that he has some positive and constructive comments.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the interesting points about the debate is that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend? One of the reductions in accountability to Parliament has been the privatisation of important public utilities, from which British Nuclear Fuels is exempt. The accountability and answers that my hon. Friend is seeking are no longer available from Ministers because they have shrugged off accountability. My hon. Friend has all our backing for his plea for information from the Minister, because that is the process of accountability which we call democracy. During the ensuing election, we shall bring that issue to the fore. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees.
Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, as I have said on the two previous occasions when he rose to his feet. It is absolutely essential that we are able to question Ministers. As my hon. Friend rightly says, I can ask such questions in relation to British Nuclear Fuels because it is still in the public sector. Even in the public sector, such as the Department of Employment and elsewhere, quangos and agencies are being created. That makes it difficult to question Ministers. When one writes in, one is referred to the head of a quango instead of to a Minister. Ministers are ultimately responsible, but they can pass the buck, and that is what has been happening. That is one of the tragedies.
The Minister has given up his time and I am extremely grateful to him, because the matter was visited upon him at a late hour and he has had to perform at a rather earlier hour than he imagined this morning. However, I managed to have a word or two with him.
My great anxiety is that the overall total of 750 redundancies should be made by voluntary means, and that as much work as possible should be taken away from the agencies so that the company can retain employees. I hope that the future stategy will not be to use agencies and consultancies rather than directly employing people.
Even if the Minister cannot answer about the 76 apprentices this morning, I ask him to consider them in particular and whether they could be absorbed in some way and allowed to take over some of the work that is being done by the agencies. I have no criticism of the company. Indeed, it has good standing in the community for all the work that it has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford knows, rugby league has also benefited from sponsorship by British Nuclear Fuels, as well as by the coal industry and various other companies.
We are therefore grateful to the company, but we ask that the apprentices be retained. We also ask the company to retain clerical training. Even if it is not able to take on the young people at the end of the training period, at least

1239
they would be well equipped to face the future, I hope under a new Government, in an economy that is recovering.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I am glad that we managed to retrieve this Ajournment debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on the way in which he introduced the debate and his sense of timing in securing it, not too early and not too late in the Session —and, indeed, in this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the regrettable job losses at Risley in his constituency. As he recognised, they came about primarily because British Nuclear Fuels plc has just finished building the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—the so-called THORP. The commissioning stage is still to come, and will take a few months, but already the company has secured about £9 billion-worth of orders for the plant, of which more than half are from overseas. This is a remarkable achievement. It will ensure that THORP generates wealth for the region and the company for many years to come.
BNFL is also past the peak of a major programme of updating and upgrading its waste management and treatment plants at Sellafield. Each element of its nuclear process is being resolved, and solutions are being achieved to the highest environmental standards. So both programmes are somewhat in decline in terms of investment expenditure. The projects were a large task. The large team at Risley has worked on project management, design and procurement for some years.
I join the hon. Member for Warrington, North in paying tribute to the remarkable work that it has done and to the fact that it has finished construction of the plants on time. However, BNFL has concluded that, with the builk of its programme concluded, there is simply not enough work to maintain the present level of employment at its Risley office. Accordingly, the company has offered voluntary severance terms. I hope that there will be no need to move to compulsory redundancy.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North spoke about apprentices and the position of some ex-apprentices who are now on fixed-term contracts. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but the bulk of the people involved were offered permanent jobs at the Sellafield site on completion of their apprenticeships. Most of them chose to remain at Risley on fixed-term contracts, knowing that those contracts might not be renewed. BNFL has made it clear that it will assist those people in the pursuit of alternative employment, both within the company and outside. The apprentices have gained substantial training and work experience with the firm, which should stand them in good stead in whatever career or alternative employment they may pursue. However, I undertake to pass on the hon. Gentleman's particular points to the company.
The company has told me that it will give sympathetic consideration to providing additional work experience within the company for the apprentices who may finish this summer. I shall be in touch again with BNFL to ensure that it is aware of the contents of today's debate. I emphasise that such matters are for the management of the company. It is for it to decide, not Ministers. It would be
1240
wrong for us to prevent management from managing and put rigid barriers in the way of releasing staff who are no longer required.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I speak as a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), and I am pleased that he has raised this issue. I know what will be the impact in the community of job losses at BNFL. The Minister takes the usual line that we have heard for the past 13 years: he says that a commercial decision must be taken by management. But has the Minister attempted to estimate the social cost to his Department and the Department of Social Security of the redundancies that will occur in the Warrington area? If he has not, he is abdicating some responsibility.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course, there is always a cost associated with redundancy, but there would also be a cost associated with any decision by the Government to interfere with the commercial management of a company such as BNFL. Future wealth, prosperity and employment in the region depend very much on the success of the company in future, and in particular of its major asset, THORP. That success would be put at risk if we interfered in commercial management decisions of the company.
Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I at this point say how glad I am that it is my hon. Friend who is replying to this debate, because 31⅓ years ago, I took over from the well-loved Derick Heathcoat-Amory? It is a particular pleasure that, at the end of my last Parliament, a member of the same family should end that Parliament at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The next House of Commons will be the poorer without the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop).
Mr. Andy Stewart: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said about protecting jobs. I have been trying to protect jobs in my constituency in the coal industry, yet the hon. Gentleman's colleagues come into my constituency and say that they will phase out nuclear power and nuclear energy. That is a direct contradiction of what the hon. Gentlemen said today. Will my hon. Friend the Minister highlight the hypocrisy of the Labour party? Whenever it suits them, Labour Members say one thing, but when they go to another area they say another thing.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I cannot end the debate without drawing attention to the inescapable connection between long-term employment prospects at BNFL, and therefore at Risley, and the future of the nuclear industry in general. Indeed, the future of the nuclear industry would look extremely bleak under a Labour Government.
In its policy document "Opportunity Britain", published last year, the Labour party said that it was committed to phasing out nuclear power. The document said that no new power stations would be built and that most existing ones would be shut by the year 2000. The Liberal party has made an even more emphatic promise to shut down the nuclear industry. All that would be extremely serious for BNFL and all its employees. The job losses that we have seen recently at that company would be

1241
as nothing compared with what would flow from the full-scale running down of the nuclear industry as promised by the Labour party.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister has been helpful in giving way this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North mentioned the 750 job losses and expressed his grave anxiety about them. The Minister said that the project was a fixed construction project which was coming to an end, resulting in redundancies. Does the Minister accept that BNFL should have developed alternatives, rather than simply putting people on the dole? Does he agree that it is a good idea for industries such as the nuclear industry to do that, because, at any time, environmental pressure is present and processes can be changed and improved or, like people, made redundant? Should not the Government encourage BNFL and other similar companies to plan change to ensure that redundancies do not take place?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am informed that there is an excellent training and enterprise council in the north and mid-Cheshire areas. It has already been in touch to offer its services. There are also the more routine services available from the local department of employment offices.
My point is a slightly separate one. The nuclear industry employs some 40,000 people, and all those jobs would be put at risk by a Labour Government operating the policies that Labour announced last year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths).
Sir Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned the long-term interest of the industry. Will he take into account, and perhaps report to the chairman, the fact that, throughout much of eastern Europe and in some of the new republics of the former Soviet Union, there is an enormous amount of work potentially in assisting in the demolition and safe disposal of nuclear fuels of redundant nuclear power stations? If we were to follow the recommendations of both Opposition parties and virtually dismantle our nuclear fuels industry, we should lose a potential export market of great importance.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. There is a huge potential need to help eastern Europe dispose safely of fissile materials. We can help. Indeed, BNFL and the Atomic Energy Authority are following up a number of opportunities. That, too, would be put at risk if we were to shut down or wipe out our home-based facilities.
Mr. Hoyle rose—
Mr. Lofthouse rose—
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to the hon. Gentleman whose debate this is.
Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister acknowledge, first, how much of this has resulted from the privatisation of electricity and the surcharge that is already causing many problems? Secondly, will he acknowledge our point about the difficulty that the recession has caused BNFL in
1242
seeking alternative contracts? Thirdly, nothing is ruled out in eastern Europe, because the expertise that we have developed here can gain contracts for BNFL in the nuclear industry in eastern Europe, so that is irrelevant.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the privatisation of electricity. I must remind him that the nuclear industry, particularly Nuclear Electric, benefits from the fossil fuel levy, which is also helping to retain expertise and employment in the industry, including in BNFL. That, too, I understand, would be at risk from a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman makes that point for me.
I must emphasise that the Government will carry out an impartial review in 1994 of the future of nuclear power. We will not prejudge the issue by issuing hasty documents in advance that threaten to shut down the industry, regardless of its improving performance. We will permit Magnox stations to run if it is safe and economic for them to do so. They bring substantial work to BNFL.
We also support Nuclear Electric in its efforts, which are increasingly successful, to get more electricity and a higher performance than at present from the advanced gas-cooled reactors. We will commission Sizewell B in 1994, or thereabouts. Silence from the Labour party on that point.
All those projects would be put at risk by an incoming Labour Government and would feed through directly to the employment prospects of people at BNFL and Risley.
Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must proceed to a conclusion. This is, after all, only an Adjournment debate.
Even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Warrington, North should approach the Labour leadership and put the utmost pressure on his party to remove this threat to the nuclear industry. Perhaps there will be another U-turn and some change in the manifesto. In that case, employees in the nuclear industry will have to ask themselves whether a deathbed repentance on the part of the Labour party on nuclear power can offset years of hostility to their industry.
Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the hon. Gentleman is a friend of the hon. Member for Warrington, North, I will give way one more time.
Mr. Lofthouse: The Minister will appreciate that THORP is fully committed, with 10-year contracts. He will understand, too, that there is no return clause in the early contracts, so the rubbish and waste after reprocessing is left in this country. Does BNFL plan to increase the work force to make sure that waste from abroad dumped here will be made safe?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All that is done at Sellafield will be to the highest safety and environmental standards. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that all reprocessing contracts since 1976 have included a provision for the return of the subsequent wastes arising. The voters will have to ponder these matters during the forthcoming campaign.
A dissolution is imminent. I believe that I am the last Member to speak from the Dispatch Box and, indeed, in this Parliament. A new House of Commons will meet in six

1243
weeks' time, and I fully intend to be here, but exactly who returns and on what side we sit will be decided, as it should be, by the electorate. I have no epitaph for this Parliament beyond saying after Suetonius,
"Ave, Populus, morituri to salutant".
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm when either Black Rod will be expected imminently or a further announcement will be made about when he will arrive.
11.6 am
Sitting suspended until half past Two o'clock.
On resuming:—
2.32 pm
Sitting further suspended.
On resuming:—
3.15 pm
Sitting further suspended.
3.51 pm
On resuming:—

Royal Assent
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned:
Mr. Speaker(in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1992

Appropriation Act 1992

Finance Act 1992

Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992

Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Act 1992

Prison Security Act 1992

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Wales) Act 1992

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992

Medicinal Products: Prescriptions by Nurses etc. Act 1992

Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992

Traffic Calming Act 1992

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992

Cheques Act 1992

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

Timeshare Act 1992

Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992

Education (Schools) Act 1992

Army Act 1992

Friendly Societies Act 1992

Transport and Works Act 1992

Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992

Charities Act 1992

Museums and Galleries Act 1992

London Underground Act 1992

Aire and Calder Navigation Act 1992

Avon Weir Act 1992

Folkestone Habour Act 1992

Midland Metro Act 1992

Midland Metro (No. 2) Act 1992

Prorogation

  HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command, as follows:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to visit Australia in February.
  My Government have continued to make provision for the defence of the United Kingdom, including a substantial contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They ratified the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
  At the Summit meeting in Rome last November, NATO agreed a new Strategic Concept and set up the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, which at its Ministerial meeting on 10th March formally admitted republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States as members following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
  My Government welcomed President Yeltsin to London on his first official visit as President of the Russian Federation. They are contributing directly to international efforts to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the .former Soviet Union and to economic reform programmes there. The European Community have agreed emergency food aid grants and credits worth over £1·5 billion.
  My Government contributed significantly to the successful outcome to the European Council at Maastricht. Negotiations were concluded in the Inter-Governmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union, and on Political Union. The Treaty was signed on 7th February. My Government have continued to work within the Community to complete the Single European Market; to promote budgetary discipline; and to reform the Common Agricultural Policy; and for the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Agreement in principle has been reached to extend the Single Market to the European Free Trade Area from 1993.
  The Community have also moved to consolidate relations with the new democracies to the East. Three Association Agreements, which were originally proposed by the United Kingdom have been signed with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, and the trade liberalisation provisions of these Agreements have now come into effect.
  In Yugoslavia, My Government have strongly supported the European Community's peace conference under Lord Carrington's chairmanship. They recognised the independence of Croatia and Slovenia. They participated fully in discussions leading to the adoption of a United Nations' Security Council Resolution to authorise the deployment of a peace-keeping force.
  As President of the Security Council, My Government convened the first Summit meeting of Council Heads of State or Government which set in hand work to strengthen the United Nations' preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping efforts.
  My Government have worked for the full implementation of Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. The
  United Kingdom contributes to the coalition's deterrent force in southern Turkey and has continued to provide protection and help for the Kurds.
  My Government have supported the efforts of the United States and others to bring a just and durable peace to the Middle East. They warmly welcomed the release of the remaining British hostages from Lebanon.
  Acting with the United States and France, My Government have demanded that Libya hand over the two principal suspects for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. This has received the unanimous support of the UN Security Council.
  My Government welcomed the opening in December of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. They have been encouraged by its positive results so far.
  A substantial and effective programme of overseas aid has been maintained to contribute to good government and economic and social progress in developing countries.
  Members of the House of Commons
  I thank you for the provision you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  My Government have continued to pursue, within the framework of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, firm financial policies which have successfully reduced inflation. They are committed to maintaining the conditions necessary for sustained growth, the promotion of enterprise and training and the improvement of the working of the economy.
  Legislation has been enacted to achieve a substantial step towards My Government's goal of a 20 per cent. basic rate for all taxpayers and to cut car tax by half.
  As part of My Government's privatisation programme, a second tranche of shares in British Telecom has been sold to the public.
  Legislation has been passed to provide for a new council tax to replace the community charge as the means of raising local revenue to finance local government spending.
  An Act has been passed to establish a review of local government structure in England, and detailed proposals for structural reform in Wales have been published.
  Action has been taken to improve quality, choice and opportunity in education. Legislation has been enacted to reform funding of further education and sixth form colleges and to reform higher education in England and Wales. An Act has been passed to provide parents with more information about the performance of schools and to improve school inspection.
  My Government have taken forward their policies for enhancing the nation's health and for improving the effectiveness of the health and social services and the social security system.
  My Government have continued to work for the regeneration of our cities, developing the new partnerships between local authorities, the private sector and local communities within the City Challenge framework. They have continued to promote diversity of choice in housing, and have taken steps to extend and improve the stock of social housing. Legislation has been passed to enable income support in relation to mortgage interest payments to be paid directly to lenders. An Act has been passed to increase temporarily the threshold for payment of stamp duty on house purchase.
  My Government continue to take action to protect the environment, building on the policies in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The United Kingdom has played a leading part in international action on the environment.
  A Bill has been introduced to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with quickly and effectively.
  Measures have been enacted for England and Wales to create an offence of prison mutiny, to increase the maximum penalties for aiding prisoners to escape and for harbouring escaped prisoners, and to ensure that anyone guilty of taking a vehicle without consent is liable to a more severe sentence in aggravated circumstances.
  An Act has been passed to strengthen health and safety arrangements for offshore installations.
  Legislation has been enacted to enhance competitive tendering for local authority services. Other measures to implement the Citizen's Charter White Paper have been taken including the publication of a number of charters relating to individual public services.
  For Scotland, an Act has been passed to reform further and higher education.
  In Northern Ireland, My Government have continued to take vigorous action against terrorism. They have sought to promote political dialogue. Positive relations with the Republic of Ireland have been maintained and enhanced.
  Other important matters have been enacted.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
  Thereafter, a Commission proroguing this present Parliament was read, after which the Lord Chancellor said:
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Monday the twenty-third day of this instant March, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday the twenty-third day of this instant March."

PRIME MINISTER

  Gambling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on encouraging the demand for gambling.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 13 January 1992, at column 460.

  Government Objectives
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the present objectives of the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's objectives were set out in the Queen's Speech on 31 October 1991 at columns 5–7.

  Progress made on these objectives is detailed in today's Prorogation Speech.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister with reference to the changes proposed by the new article 8—citizens of the union—of the revised treaty of Rome, as specified in the draft treaty on European union, what variation will occur between the future status of any citizens of the United Kingdom and that of its monarch.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: There will be no change in the status of citizens of the United Kingdom or that of the monarch. Every person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes will hold citizenship of the union as an additional right.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics, Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures for(a) total recorded offences, (b) all violent crimes, (c) burglaries and (d) murders in Newham for each year from 1980–81 to 1991–92.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information has been given in the table. Annual figures for murder cannot be provided in time; I shall therefore write to the hon. Member with them shortly.
  790

  Notifiable offences recorded in the borough of Newham

  Year

  Total notifiable offences

  Total violent crime

  Burglary1

  1980

  18,230

  952

  4,309

  1981

  21,465

  977

  5,267

  1982

  21,233

  1,097

  5,695

  1983

  20,050

  1,081

  5,411

  1984

  23,561

  1,460

  6,180

  1985

  24,064

  1,476

  5,845

  1986

  23,109

  1,439

  5,150

  1987

  23,595

  1,685

  4,945

  1988

  25,090

  1,759

  4,971

  1989

  26,607

  2,007

  5,808

  1990

  28,332

  2,348

  6,609

  1991

  30,731

  2,854

  7,166

  1 Includes going equipped for stealing.

  Gambling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to raise money for the arts from the proceeds of gambling.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have decided to establish a national lottery to raise money for good causes, including the arts. On 6 March, we published a White Paper setting out the broad framework for the national lottery and inviting views of interested parties on a number of the practical issues.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office has completed a number of relocation reviews, and a current wider review of the Police National Computer Organisation includes the question of relocation. Some 2,000 posts in Prison Service headquarters and DTELS will move to the east midlands. There are no plans to relocate any posts to Mansfield.

  Eavesdropping Devices
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 344, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn); if he has any plans to restrict the circumstances in which eavesdropping devices may be used; what consideration he has given to the effect of their use on personal privacy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No, but the effect of the use of devices which amplify and transmit sound is kept under review.

  Parole
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of prisoners in England and Wales eligible for parole, who are awaiting consideration of their applications for parole; and what was the comparable figure at the same time in 1991 and 1990.
  791
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Central records show that there are now some 4,600 cases under consideration for parole and on which no decision has yet been reached. An additional unknown number of inmates will have had their reviews started locally, but the cases have not yet been received at the centre. At this time last year there were about 5,000 cases being processed at the centre. Figures for previous years are not readily available.

  Auto Crime
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning the methods to be used in the apprehension of those suspected of acts of aggravated vehicle-taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  This is an operational matter for the police.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has for the latest available year of all motor vehicles stolen or broken into, on the number of cases in which the method of entry was via(a) a forced window, (b) a smashed window and (c) a forced door.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The only information held centrally is from the British crime survey. The most recent sweep, conducted in early 1988, showed that of a sample of 1,500 motor vehicles which were stolen or broken into over the past year, entry was as shown below. The survey does not ask for methods of entry in quite the same way as the question specifies. Nor do all victims, particularly those of theft of cars, know the method of entry. The other methods referred to in the third row include entry by unlocked doors and open windows.

  Percentage

  Estimated number of crimes

  Broken windows

  33

  811,000

  Forced lock

  18

  445,000

  Other methods/not known

  49

  1,217,000

  Total

  100

  2,473,000

  Prisons
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement changes in the prison disciplinary system.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have laid before the House amendments to the prison rules and young offender institution rules which will implement, from 1 April, important changes to the prison disciplinary system. These implement commitments in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice". On 1 April boards of visitors will cease to have a role in hearing disciplinary cases or in remitting or mitigating any punishment. Governors will in future hear all charges, using their existing powers, and will refer allegations of serious criminal offences committed in prisons to the police for investigation. Guidelines have been agreed with the police and the Crown prosecution service on the referral of such cases. Governors will also be responsible for remitting or mitigating punishments. These changes will free boards of visitors to concentrate on their "watchdog" role.
  792
  The amendments to the prison rules also increase the statutory entitlement of convicted adult prisoners to receive visits from one a month to two. This change was implemented administratively in June 1991. In addition, the rule amendments make provision for their application to contracted-out prisons.

  Magistrates Courts
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has reached conclusions on the review of magistrates courts procedures initiated in 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have now received the report of the committee invited to review magistrates courts procedure by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) and have placed a copy in the Library. I am grateful to all those from the magistrates courts service and other bodies who participated in the review. With the exceptions noted below, and subject to deferral of questions relating to liquor licensing for further consideration, I am glad to endorse its recommendations. Some will require primary legislation, and I therefore cannot at this stage indicate when it will be possible to bring the necessary legislative proposals before Parliament. Others can be taken forward through changes to subordinate legislation or guidance to the courts.

  The recommendations on which I am not persuaded that action is justified are those that it should be an offence to fail to carry a driving licence when driving, that failure to produce a licence at court should attract a fixed penalty fine and that a review of the witnesses' oath should be undertaken.

  With these exceptions, I believe that the recommendations in the report will help to simplify and modernise court procedures in a way which maintains the requirements of justice. They should yield useful improvements in the efficiency of the criminal justice process as well as making court procedures clearer and more convenient for court users, in line with the citizens charter.

  Crime, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the crime rate in Basildon in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the implementation of EC identity cards for senior citizens.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Animal Welfare Groups
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance is available for animal welfare groups in Basildon.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Tethering
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been ma de since the implementation of the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Taxi Licences
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the issuing of licences to taxi drivers and private car hire drivers in Basildon.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply. I will write to my hon. Friend.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest information he has on the destination of people leaving the youth training programme.

  Mr. Needham
  The most recent information available on the destination of participants leaving the youth training programme is for the period 1 April 1991 to 29 February 1992.

  YTP leavers whose destination is known

  Number of young people

  Percentage of total

  To employment

  5,583

  54

  To full-time education

  723

  7

  Unemployed

  4,022

  39

  Languages
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a table to show the number of students in each education and library board area who passed in Irish language at(a) O-level or GCSE and (b) A-level in 1989, 1990 and 1991;

  (2) if he will publish a table to show how many students in each education and library board area passed at (a) GCSE or O-level and (b) A-level in each language taught, other than English and Irish, in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not readily available by board area. However the overall number of students who passed GCSE—that is, obtained grades A to C—and A-level—that is, obtained grades A to E—in languages other than English was as follows:

  GCSE passes (grades A to C)

  Subject

  1989

  1990

  1991

  French

  8,704

  8,549

  8,901

  Irish

  1,133

  955

  959

  German

  1,051

  1,054

  1,094

  Spanish

  997

  1,022

  1,155

  Italian

  123

  110

  170

  Latin

  362

  349

  263

  Greek

  13

  7

  13

  794

  GCE A-level passes (grades A to E)

  Subject

  1989

  1990

  1991

  French

  1,266

  1,239

  1,354

  Irish

  183

  229

  214

  German

  175

  210

  259

  Spanish

  227

  342

  294

  Italian

  33

  38

  36

  Latin

  72

  84

  63

  Greek

  8

  7

  —

  Department of Economic Development
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements since 1979 of the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of Economic Development has developed policies to stimulate the development of enterprise, to promote a more enterprising culture and to encourage the competitiveness and growth of small firms.

  Since the inception of the Industrial Development Board in September 1982 new investment projects worth a total of £ 2,740 million have been secured, an overall total of 41,446 new jobs have been promoted and 69,467 jobs safeguarded. Since 1979 LEDU, the small firms agency, has promoted 42,476 jobs.

  Harland and Wolff plc was privatised in September 1989 and Shorts Brothers in October 1989.

  On 2 April 1990 the Department launched the Training and Employment Agency which has 1,700 staff and a budget of £ 172 million. It assists employers to improve the competitive position of Northern Ireland companies and delivers programmes designed to provide skills and abilities to unemployed people and those seeking to enter the labour market.

  Against the background of plans for completion of the single European market, the Department adopted a new strategy which was set out in "Competing in the 1990s—the Key to Growth". The new strategy changes the emphasis of Government assistance for business away from grants for capital expenditure towards measures designed to improve business preformance in areas such as marketing, research, exporting, design and innovation.

  In March 1992 the Department of Economic Development published a comprehensive research and development strategy for Northern Ireland—"Innovation 2000"—and established a new industrial research and technology unit to improve the competitiveness of industry and strengthen the economy.

  The Electricity (NI) Order 1992 made on 11 February 1992, provides for the reorganisation and privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. Proceeds from the sale of the four generating stations, subject to audit, will amount to about £ 353 million. The sale of Ballylumford power station will lead to the construction of a gas pipeline between Northern Ireland and Scotland and agreement has also been reached to construct a 240 MW electricity link between these two parts of the United Kingdom.

  An estimated 15 per cent. reduction in energy consumption by the public sector has been achieved since 1984.

  The Government have considerably strengthened the law against unlawful discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland through the introduction of the Fair

  795
  Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. It represents the most radical anti-discrimination law ever enacted in the United Kingdom. Through the monitoring information which has been gathered and published by the Commission, a clearer picture has emerged of the extent of the problem of inequality in the work force. Already, a small but helpful improvement in the situation is evident.

  Department of Education
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements since 1979 of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1979 spending on education and related services has increased, in real terms, by over 30 per cent; in 1992–93 the total spend will be £ 1.2 billion.

  Pupil-teacher ratios have improved between 1979–80 and 1990–91 from 23·8 to 22·8 in the primary sector and from 15·5 to 14·9 in the secondary sector. The proportion of 16-year-olds, over school leaving age, and 17-year-olds staying on at schools has increased over that period from 36·7 and 25·5 per cent. to 49·9 and 35·1 per cent. respectively. The proportion of school leavers with at least one A-level increased from 21·1 to 30 per cent., while the proportion leaving with no GCSE/O-level pass has fallen from 27 to 15·3 per cent.

  Some £ 650 million has been invested in capital projects by the Department. This has enabled work to be carried out on more than 210 major building projects at schools and further education colleges and on nine new libraries.

  Local management of schools— LMS— arrangements for financing schools, which gave all secondary schools responsibility for their own budgets, were introduced in April 1991.

  In further education, the number of students enrolled has increased by almost 30 per cent. Special resource allocations have been made available to improve staffing levels, replace equipment, provide for staff development and to implement a major computerisation programme which will improve management and financial information systems. Boards of governors of colleges have been reconstituted to strengthen the representation from the business world and local management of colleges—LMC— has given colleges responsibility for the management of their resources.

  In higher education, the outcome of a review in the early 1980s, led to the removal of the binary divide in Northern Ireland and the establishment of the University of Ulster. The number of full-time NI domiciled undergraduates in higher education rose by 54 per cent. and the proportion of female full-time undergraduate and postgraduate university students in Northern Ireland has increased from 42 and 37 per cent. in 1980–81 to 51 and 46 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Expenditure by DENI on recurrent and capital grants for arts, museums and libraries has increased from £ 17·429 million in 1979–80 to £ 33·299 million in 1990–91.

  The Department has promoted the improvement of community relations in the schools and youth sectors. The cross-community contact scheme was established in 1987, and to date some 420 schools and 300 youth and community groups have been involved. A common curriculum has been introduced in all grant-aided schools.

  Department of Health and Social Security
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements since 1979 of the Department of Health and Social Security for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1978–79, expenditure on health and personal social services in Northern Ireland has increased by 31 per cent. after allowing for general inflation. Cost improvement programmes have also generated savings of nearly £ 70 million for investment in services to patients and clients.

  Over the same period, levels of activity have increased by 33 per cent. Since 1981 the number of hospital in-patients has risen by 10 per cent. from 249,198 to 272,986; the number of day cases has increased fivefold, from 9,853 to 49,724; the number of operations has risen by 20 per cent.; and the number of out-patient attendances has risen by 17 per cent. from 1·7 million to 2 million.

  There have also been substantial increases in the numbers of professional staff: there are now 10 per cent. more dentists; 17 per cent. more hospital doctors; 26 per cent. more general practitioners; 9 per cent. more nurses and midwives; and 99 per cent. more qualified social workers. Particular emphasis has been placed on the training and development of professional staff. The training budget currently stands at over £ 14 million a year.

  Since 1979, perinatal and infant mortality rates in Northern Ireland have been reduced from 16.6 and 14.8 to 7.6 and 7.5 respectively. The latest available rates, for 1990, are, for the first time, the lowest in the United Kingdom.

  Through the emphasis on developing community services, there have been reductions of 34 and 28 per cent. respectively in the number of patients in psychiatric and mental handicap hospitals.

  The charter for patients and clients published on 10 March 1992 places a particular emphasis on quality and sets new, improved standards for the delivery of care and treatment.

  The social security benefits system has been maintained and reformed on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The cash value of pensions and other long-term benefits have been secured in real terms.

  In July 1991 a Social Security Agency was established as part of the next steps initiative. The agency has attracted around 850 jobs to Northern Ireland providing services to the benefit network in Great Britain. Investment in computer technology has enhanced the efficiency of the services provided.

  Adoption law and practice were brought broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

  A major reform of gambling and club registration laws has been undertaken.

  Since 1979 aid to the voluntary sector has been increased by 69 per cent. in real terms.

  Department of Agriculture
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements since 1979 of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1979 grants totalling £ 470 million have been paid to support capital investments on farms.

  To facilitate animal disease control the Department has introduced computerised animal health records to enable

  797
  the movement of animals to be monitored for disease control purposes. The Department has assisted in improving the hygiene standards of milk production resulting in the attainment of STEP II standards under the heat treated milk directive. It has also obtained an extra 65,000 tonnes of milk quota for the Province in 1984 in recognition of the special importance of milk production to the Northern Ireland economy.

  Since 1979 significant scientific advances have been made and an extensive research and development programme continues.

  Considerable advances have been made in assessing the pollution potential of farm effluents and an enhanced programme of marine and freshwater fisheries research, including the acquisition of a sea-going research vessel, has made a significant impact on national and international fisheries resource management. The advent of an experimental food irradiation facility has led to significant results on the extension of shelf life of food products and to a prospective methodology for the detection of irradiation treatment of foods.

  The Department's staff have carried out more than one third of a million personal consultations within the agri-food industry aimed at improving the efficiency of production and marketing and co-operation between individual businesses within the industry as a whole. A quality assurance scheme has been initiated within the agri-food industry designed to promote and sell a quality assured product. The Department has also encouraged farmers and growers to adopt good health and safety practices by a fivefold increase in farm inspections resulting in a 33 per cent. decline in the number of fatal farm accidents.

  Since 1979 the Department has catered for a threefold increase in the number of students on full-time and part-time courses at agricultural colleges and in excess of a sevenfold increase in the number of participants on short courses.

  Landings of fish into Northern Ireland ports have increased from the 12,800 tonnes in 1979 to 24,400 tonnes in 1991 and the number of persons employed full-time in the catching sector of the industry increased from 700 to 1,050. Numbers employed in the fish processing sector have also increased. Major development works costing some £ 8·8 million have been carried out at the three main fishery harbours in the Province.

  Timber sales by the Department's Forest Service have increased from 54,000 m3— value £ 580,000— in 1979 to 184,000 m3— value £ 3.6 million—in 1991. In the same period some 9,500 hectares of new afforestation has taken place and 10 new nature reserves have been established on forest land.

  A total of £ 80 million has been spent by the Department on capital projects to improve drainage infrastructure and to assist development. Currently some £ 17 million per annum is spent on new schemes and maintenance works to alleviate flooding and minimise risk to life and damage to property.

  Since 1987 the environmentally sensitive areas scheme has attracted a total of almost 1,000 farmers to enter 18,000 hectares of land in five-year agreements with the Department to use environmentally friendly farming practices.

  Some 160 water recreation projects have been completed.

  Department of the Environment
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the achievements since 1979 of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1979, the Department of the Environment has made substantial progress in conserving and improving the quality of the built and natural environment in Northern Ireland.

  Housing condition surveys show that the level of unfitness declined from 14·1 per cent. in 1979 to 8·4 per cent. in 1987 and that the proportion of dwellings lacking at least one basic amenity declined from 17·9 to 5·5 per cent. The level of home ownership, which was 52 per cent. in 1979, is now 65 per cent. The housing situation of people unable to purchase their own dwellings has also improved with a fall in the Housing Executive's urgent waiting list from nearly 19,000 in 1981 to under 10,000 at present.

  A total of £ 347 million has been invested in the further development of the road system, there has been considerable upgrading and expansion of the facilities at Aldergrove airport and extensive improvements at Belfast, Londonderry, Lame and Warrenpoint ports.

  In 1989 the Department gained approval from the European Commission for a comprehensive programme for a new transport infrastructure in Northern Ireland, involving total expenditure of over £ 150 million of which £ 100 million will come from the European regional development fund.

  Belfast city centre has seen a huge expansion of retail opportunities; areas of inner-city deprivation have been helped through the work of nine action teams; the Laganside corporation has been established to regenerate vacant and underused riverside land, and a new weir on the River Lagan is under construction. Londonderry has also seen significant economic improvement, with public and private investment in the last three years either spent or planned totalling over £ 200 million creating 2,500 full-time and part-time jobs.

  An extensive programme of economic and environmental improvement schemes is also being carried out in the provincial towns.

  New legislation during the period has helped improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of district councils. The local government auditor has completed seven value-for-money studies. Compulsory competitive tendering and improvements in the conduct of council business will soon be statutory requirements.

  As part of the next steps agency policy, a Rate Collection Agency was established in 1991, and an Ordnance Survey Agency and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to come into being from 1 April 1992.

  Since 1979, grants of £ 3·2 million to district councils have enabled 31,000 houses to convert to burn smokeless fuel. Two hundred and fifteen river water quality stations have been installed to monitor and control water pollution. Three major pieces of legislation have been introduced to protect and keep open rights of way; to designate areas of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest; and to protect certain plants and animal species.

  In addition, 4,300 buildings of architectural or historic importance have been listed, 700 monuments have been scheduled as being of archaeological or historic

  799
  importance and 32 monuments have been taken into state care. Four areas of outstanding beauty, covering 147,000 hectares, have been developed and 36 areas of special scientific interest covering 7,550 hectares.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been(a) lost and (b) created in manufacturing industry in East Antrim in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information in the table relates to redundancies notified to the Department of Economic Development, and its predecessors, involving 10 or more employees in manufacturing at any specific worksite and jobs promoted in manufacturing by Government agencies.

  East Antrim parliamentary constituency

  Notified redundancies in manufacturing

  Job promoted in manufacturing department of commerce-IDB

  LEDU

  1982

  182

  n/a

  29

  1983

  690

  n/a

  46

  1984

  38

  n/a

  95

  1985

  661

  n/a

  222

  1986

  955

  n/a

  114

  1987

  177

  37

  160

  1988

  85

  230

  188

  1989

  110

  596

  193

  1990

  401

  651

  110

  1991

  782

  129

  101

  Notes:

  Figures for notified redundancies refer to the calendar year in question; figures for jobs promoted refer to the financial year ending in March of that year.

  Figures from LEDU are not available for the parliamentary constituency of East Antrim. The figures given above relate to the district council areas of Lame and Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) job losses have occurred and (b) new jobs have been created in each of the last 10 years in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The information in the table relates to redundancies notified to the Department of Economic Development, and its predecessors, involving 10 or more employees in manufacturing at any specific worksite and jobs promoted in manufacturing by Government agencies.

  Notified redundancies in manufacturing

  Job promoted in manufacturing

  1982

  17,581

  2,974

  1983

  7,596

  5,571

  1984

  5,212

  6,024

  Northern Ireland— (Based on CM 1917— Table 1.1)

  Expenditure covered by 2·75/100 formula

  Expenditure within S of S switching discretion

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE

  Law, Order and Protective Services

  481

  546

  581

  638

  699:

  776:

  832

  880

  924

  NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

  National Agriculture (non Block) Local Agriculture, Fish and Forestry

  83

  85

  84

  97

  101:

  117:

  119

  124

  129

  800

  Notified redundancies in manufacturing

  Job promoted in manufacturing

  1985

  3,449

  8,051

  1986

  3,609

  5,435

  1987

  3,269

  6,394

  1988

  2,569

  7,741

  1989

  3,129

  8,110

  1990

  1,986

  7,100

  1991

  4,240

  4,937

  Note:

  Figures for notified redundancies refer to the calendar year in question; figures for jobs promoted refer to the financial year ending in March of that year.

  Stevens Report
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the main conclusions of the Stevens report into alleged collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the British military.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary published a summary of Mr. Stevens's report on 17 May 1990 and a copy is in the Library.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a table, consistent with table 1.1 of Cm 1917, showing separately for each sub-programme for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95,(a) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purposes of the application of the 2·75:100 formula, (b) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purposes of the Secretary of State's expenditure-switching discretion and (c) expenditure outside these blocks;

  (2) if he will publish tables, analysing for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95, the data in table 1.1 of Cm 1917, analysing the components of (a) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purpose of the application of the 2·75:100 formula and (b) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purposes of the Secretary of State's expenditure-switching discretion, by (i) public expenditure sub-programme and (ii) the functional classification used in the identifiable expenditure figures appendix E of Cm 1920.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows.

  For Northern Ireland, expenditure covered by the 2·75:100 formula is the same as that defined as being within the Secretary of State's switching discretion.
  801

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment

  353

  388

  723

  689

  397:

  389:

  450

  446

  444

  Transport

  123

  119

  131

  148

  146:

  163:

  173

  181

  187

  Housing

  335

  337

  334

  268

  245:

  258:

  249

  257

  267

  Environmental and Miscellaneous Services

  154

  174

  192

  209

  230:

  170:

  199

  234

  240

  Law Order and Protective Services

  21

  26

  28

  29

  32:

  35:

  27

  39

  40

  Education and Science, Arts and Libraries

  695

  750

  811

  897

  1,005:

  1,122:

  1,211

  1,274

  1,327

  Health and Personal Social Services

  733

  798

  880

  949

  1,052:

  1,162:

  1,242

  1,294

  1,344

  Social Security

  76

  96

  97

  110

  117:

  129:

  150

  150

  148

  Other Public Services

  39

  38

  46

  54

  56:

  66:

  90

  93

  102

  Total Northern Ireland

  3,092

  3,355

  3,907

  4,088

  4,079:

  4,386:

  4,754

  4,973

  5,153

  Northern Ireland (Based on CM 1917—Table 1.1)

  Expenditure not covered by 2·75/100 formula

  Expenditure not within S of S switching discretion

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

  National Agriculture (Non-Block)

  72

  69

  63

  80

  86

  85

  94

  90

  89

  Social Security

  1,335

  1,335

  1,466

  1,557

  1,705:

  1,978:

  2,177

  2,350

  2,494

  Total Northern Ireland

  1,407

  1,473

  1,528

  1,637

  1,791:

  2,063:

  2,271

  2,440

  2,583

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table, analysing the data in table 12.1 of Cm 1917, showing separately for each row for the years 1986–87 to 1994–95,(a) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purposes of the application of the 2·75:100 formula, (b) expenditure

  Northern Ireland (Based on CM 1917—Table 12.1)

  Expenditure covered by 2·75/100 formula

  Expenditure within S of S switching discretion

  £ 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

  NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE

  Central Government's own expenditure Voted in Estimates

  Law, order and protective services

  481

  544

  581

  637

  699

  776

  832

  880

  924

  Total Northern Ireland Office

  481

  544

  581

  637

  699

  776

  832

  880

  924

  NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

  Central Government expenditure Voted in Northern Ireland Estimates

  National agriculture and fisheries support Northern Ireland agriculture, fisheries and

  forestry services and support

  83

  85

  84

  97

  101

  117

  119

  124

  129

  Industry, energy trade, and employment

  377

  356

  761

  726

  468

  457

  442

  438

  435

  Of which:

  Northern Ireland Electricty

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport

  123

  126

  126

  147

  146

  167

  172

  179

  185

  Of which:

  Northern Ireland Public Trust Port Authorities

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  22

  21

  19

  22

  22

  23

  22

  23

  23

  Housing

  238

  237

  248

  187

  186

  195

  193

  198

  206

  Of which:

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  203

  202

  213

  157

  159

  162

  160

  162

  170

  Environmental and miscellaneous services

  124

  142

  160

  175

  196

  131

  158

  191

  194

  802
  within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purposes of the Secretary of State's expenditure-switching discretion and (c) expenditure outside these blocks.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  For Northern Ireland, the expenditure covered by the 2·75:100 formula is the same as that defined as being within the Secretary of State's switching discretion.
  803

  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

  Of which:

  Laganside Development Corporation

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  8

  6

  5

  5

  Law, order and protective services (Fire Service)

  21

  26

  28

  29

  32

  35

  37

  39

  40

  Education, arts and libraries

  690

  746

  807

  894

  1,002

  1,118

  1,208

  1,270

  1,324

  Health and personal social services

  733

  798

  880

  949

  1,052

  1,162

  1,242

  1,294

  1,344

  Social security

  49

  60

  59

  68

  71

  83

  101

  98

  93

  Other public services

  38

  37

  46

  53

  55

  65

  89

  92

  101

  Total voted in Northern Ireland Estimates

  2,476

  2,614

  3,198

  3,325

  3,310

  3,529

  3,761

  3,924

  4,054

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  2,243

  2,390

  2,966

  3,142

  3,123

  3,396

  3,573

  3,735

  3,856

  Public corporations (excluding nationalized industries)

  233

  223

  232

  182

  187

  193

  188

  190

  198

  Other (non-Voted)

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  -26

  25

  -41

  -43

  -73

  -74

  2

  2

  2

  Of which:

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  -37

  21

  -42

  -45

  -73

  -76

  —

  —

  —

  Social security

  28

  28

  30

  35

  38

  38

  41

  44

  46

  Housing—Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  96

  99

  86

  80

  60

  64

  56

  59

  61

  Transport—Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  —

  -7

  5

  2

  -1

  -4

  2

  2

  2

  Total other (non-Voted)

  98

  146

  81

  75

  24

  24

  102

  107

  111

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  38

  33

  32

  38

  38

  40

  44

  46

  48

  Public corporations (excluding nationalised industries)

  60

  113

  49

  37

  -14

  -16

  58

  61

  63

  Total central Government expenditure for Northern Ireland Departments

  2,574

  2,760

  3,279

  3,400

  3,333

  3,552

  3,864

  4,302

  4,165

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  2,281

  2,424

  2,998

  3,180

  3,161

  3,376

  3,618

  3,781

  3,904

  Public corporations (excluding nationalised industries)

  293

  336

  282

  220

  173

  176

  246

  250

  261

  Central Government grants to local authorities Voted in Northern Ireland Estimates

  Current grants—

  Environmental and miscellaneous services

  29

  31

  31

  33

  33

  37

  39

  42

  44

  Education, arts and libraries

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Capital grants—

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  2

  6

  3

  5

  2

  6

  6

  7

  7

  Environmental and miscellaneous services

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Education, arts and libraries

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Total voted in Northern Ireland Estimates

  37

  42

  39

  42

  39

  50

  51

  53

  55

  Other (non-Voted) —Current grants Social security

  —

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  9

  Total central Government grants to local authorities

  37

  50

  46

  50

  47

  58

  59

  62

  63

  Of which:

  Current

  31

  41

  41

  42

  44

  48

  50

  52

  55

  Capital

  6

  9

  5

  7

  3

  10

  9

  9

  9

  Total Northern Ireland Departments

  2,611

  2,810

  3,326

  3,449

  3,380

  3,610

  3,923

  4,093

  4,229

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility1

  3.092

  3,355

  3,907

  4,088

  4,079

  4,386

  4,754

  4,973

  5,153

  Comprising:

  National agriculture and fisheries support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Northern Ireland Block2

  3,092

  3,355

  3,907

  4,088

  4,079

  4,386

  4,754

  4,973

  5,153

  1 The Departmental programme deals only with expenditure in Northern Ireland which is within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There is expenditure in Northern Ireland in other programmes.

  2 The Northern Ireland Block comprises expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments excluding National Agriculture and Fisheries Support. The allocation of expenditure for future years among the services included in the Northern Ireland Block (except social security benefit expenditure) may be altered at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support is not part of the Block because it is influenced to a greater extent than others by national and EC policies.

  3 Includes expenditure financed by receipts from the European Communities. The amounts involved are as follows:

  804 805

  Financed by ERDF receipts

  23

  46

  47

  40

  49

  64

  75

  84

  52

  Financed by ESF receipts

  53

  56

  36

  46

  51

  54

  52

  49

  50

  Financed by EAGGF (Guidance section) receipts

  1

  9

  13

  9

  10

  38

  28

  25

  17

  Northern Ireland(Based on CM 1917—Table 12·1)

  Expenditure not covered by 2·75/100 formula

  Expenditure not within the S of S switching discretion

  £ 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

  NORTHERN IRELAND DEPARTMENTS

  Central Government's expenditureVoted in Northern Ireland

  National agriculture and fisheries support

  72

  69

  63

  80

  86

  85

  94

  90

  89

  Social security

  700

  736

  772

  813

  899

  1,059

  1,201

  1,308

  1,405

  Total Voted in Northern Ireland Estimates

  772

  805

  835

  893

  985

  1,144

  1,295

  1,398

  1,494

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  772

  805

  835

  893

  985

  1,144

  1,295

  1,398

  1,494

  Other (non-Voted)-Social security

  635

  667

  694

  744

  806

  919

  976

  1,042

  1,089

  Total other (non-Voted)

  635

  667

  694

  744

  806

  919

  976

  1,042

  1,089

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  635

  667

  694

  744

  806

  919

  976

  1,042

  1,089

  Total central Government expenditure for Northern Ireland Departments

  1,407

  1,473

  1,528

  1,637

  1,791

  2,063

  2,271

  2,440

  2,583

  Of which:

  Central Government's own expenditure

  1,407

  1,473

  1,528

  1,637

  1,791

  2,063

  2,271

  2,440

  2,583

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

  1,407

  1,473

  1,528

  1,637

  1,791

  2,063

  2,271

  2,440

  2,583

  Comprising:

  National agriculture and fisheries support

  72

  69

  63

  80

  86

  85

  94

  90

  89

  The Northern Ireland Block

  1,335

  1,404

  1,465

  1,550

  1,705

  1,978

  2,177

  2,350

  2,494

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish tables, covering the years 1986–87 to 1994–95 and consistent with Cm 1917, analysing by economic category within spending sector for(a) expenditure within the Northern Ireland block as defined for the purpose of the application of the 2·75: 100 formula, (b) expenditure within the Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland (based on Cm 1917—Table 12·4)

  Expenditure covered by 2·75/100 Formula

  Expenditure within Secretary of States Switching Discretion

  Spending Sector:

  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

  Central governments own expenditure

  Departmental running costs

  344

  380

  399

  429

  484

  535

  580

  551

  564

  Other public service pay and current expenditure

  1,624

  1,767

  1,924

  2,103

  2,339

  2,447

  2,676

  2,866

  2,996

  Subsidies

  52

  48

  50

  50

  38

  39

  41

  41

  43

  Current grants

  312

  329

  365

  405

  440

  522

  566

  590

  614

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  157

  178

  190

  238

  250

  307

  316

  353

  363

  Capital grants

  217

  205

  195

  190

  197

  206

  191

  199

  197

  Lending and other financial transactions

  55

  62

  457

  403

  112

  97

  79

  61

  50

  Total

  2,762

  2,968

  3,579

  3,818

  3,860

  4,152

  4,449

  4,661

  4,828

  Local Authority element of planning total

  Current grants

  31

  41

  41

  42

  44

  48

  50

  52

  55

  Capital grants

  6

  9

  5

  7

  3

  10

  9

  9

  9

  Total

  37

  50

  46

  50

  47

  58

  59

  62

  63

  Central Governments other public corporations

  806
  block as defined for the purposes of the Secretary of State's expenditure-switching discretion and (c) expenditure outside these blocks.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  For Northern Ireland, expenditure covered by the 2·75: 100 formula is the same as that defined as being within the Secretary of State's switching discretion.
  807

  Spending Sector:

  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

  Subsidies

  168

  171

  185

  139

  149

  153

  144

  144

  152

  Capital Grants

  65

  53

  48

  43

  38

  40

  44

  45

  46

  Lending and other financial transactions

  60

  113

  49

  37

  -14

  -16

  58

  61

  63

  Total

  293

  336

  282

  220

  173

  176

  246

  250

  261

  Total Northern Ireland

  3,092

  3,355

  3,907

  4,088

  4,079

  4,386

  4,754

  4,973

  5,153

  Spending Sector:

  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

  Central Government's own expenditure

  Subsidies

  34

  36

  39

  57

  66

  65

  74

  73

  73

  Current Grants

  1,336

  1,404

  1,466

  1,557

  1,705

  1,978

  2,177

  2,350

  2,494

  Capital grants

  38

  33

  23

  23

  20

  20

  20

  17

  16

  Total

  1,407

  1,473

  1,528

  1,637

  1,791

  2,063

  2,271

  2,440

  2,583

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what effect the next steps initiative has had on the quality of service to the public.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what effect the next steps initiative has had on customers.

  Mr. Renton
  Next steps is improving the quality of service provided to the public. There are many examples of this in the "Next Steps Annual Review"—Cm 1760— published last year. Agencies are set demanding quality of service targets and are increasingly consulting their customers about priorities.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are currently serving in civil service agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  There are currently 221,000 civil servants in next steps agencies and other organisations operating on next steps lines. I expect this to increase to half the civil service in the next few weeks.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent meetings he has had with trade union representatives regarding equal opportunities.

  Mr. Renton
  None, but my officials have regular meetings with the trades unions on equal opportunity issues. The Council of Civil Service Unions fully supports the programmes on race and disability and the excellent new programme for action on women, published earlier this month following discussions with the trade union side.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on opportunities for disabled people in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  The civil service is committed to providing equal opportunities for people with disabilities. Our 808
  magazine, Independent, published on 28 February, shows continuing progress. Copies have been placed in the Library.

THE ARTS

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what special allocation has been made to help with museums and galleries buildings.

  Mr. Renton
  I have allocated £196 million in 1992–93 to 1994–95 to the building programme of the National museums and galleries, which I sponsor, and last November within that sum I made a number of special additional allocations amounting to £ 9·3 million to priority projects.

  Arts Support
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of support for the Arts by private and corporate donations since 1979.

  Mr. Renton
  Comprehensive figures on donations to arts organisations are not available. I know, however, that they make a much valued contribution to the well-being of the arts. The gift aid scheme introduced in October 1990 has already attracted £ 200 million in donations to United Kingdom charities. The decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce the minimum threshold on qualifying gifts will provide a further important stimulus to charitable giving from which the arts and other good causes will derive substantial benefit.

  Libraries
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what public funds have been made available to libraries during the current year; what the amount was in May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Expenditure on the public library service in England in 1979–80 was £ 214 million. The estimated outturn figure for 1991–92 is £ 590 million, which is a cash increase of £ 283·6 million and an increase in real terms of 18·6 per cent.

  Living Arts
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the contribution to the economy made by the living arts.

  Mr. Renton
  There is no definitive assessment of the economic importance of the arts. A report by the Policy Studies Institute in 1988 suggested that the arts generated a turnover of around £10 billion and employed almost half a million people. Official figures suggest that in 1990, the arts contributed almost £6 billion to the United Kingdom's balance of payments.

  Although it is difficult to be precise, it is clear that the arts are a major sector of economic activity.

  Arts Opportunities
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to visit Battersea to discuss arts opportunities for young people.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited the Battersea arts centre last year and was impressed by the number of projects concerned with the arts for young people. I am delighted that the London arts board has increased the centre's grant by 40 per cent. I am also well aware of the excellent work with young people being done by other arts organisations in Wandsworth.

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what exhibitions he has in mind to fund in the coming year.

  Mr. Renton
  The Office of Arts and Libraries does not itself directly fund individual exhibitions. The OAL provides grant-in-aid to the national museums and galleries which mount a number of major exhibitions each year. In addition, the Arts Council provides funds to organisations which arrange exhibitions as part of their programmes.

  To celebrate the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community in the second half of 1992, £6 million has been allocated by the OAL towards a European arts festival. Some of this will be used to mount a variety of exhibitions in both national and regional museums and galleries.

  East Midlands Arts
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent meetings he has had with East Midlands Arts representatives to discuss local ventures.

  Mr. Renton
  I met the chairman and director of the East Midlands arts board on a number of occasions last year, when a range of subjects were discussed.

  I was delighted to be able to congratulate them personally on 1 October last year when the Arts Council announced that the east midlands region had won the competition to be the venue for the Arts 2000 year of dance in 1993.

  New Theatre, Keswick
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on the funding of a new theatre by the side of Lake Derwentwater at Keswick.
  810
  Mr. Renton
  I have received no such representations. But I am pleased that planning permission has been given for the construction of a theatre by Lake Derwentwater.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the contribution made by the arts to tourism in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  The United Kingdom as a tourist venue is a centre of cultural and artistic excellence; and, as year round activities, both the performing arts and heritage venues are major attractions to tourists, whether from within the United Kingdom or from abroad. Attendances at London's west end theatres reached a record high in 1990 at 11·3 million, and remained at around 11 million in 1991. The latest visitor figures for museums and art galleries show that there were 74 million such visits in 1990 throughout the United Kingdom.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give details of any proposed changes to the cash limits for his Department's votes for 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the late spring supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XII, vote 2, is to be increased by £10,800,000, to £240,092,000, to increase the grant in aid for the Arts Council.

  The additional provision will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will(a) arrange for the issue of an erratum slip with the "Report for 1992 of the Office of Arts and Libraries", Cm. 1912, in respect of the last sentence of paragraph 3.3 of that report and (b) issue a press notice, to draw attention to his answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East of 2 March, Official Report, column 20, on current Government policy in respect of access to the contingency reserve for the purpose of covering acceptances in lieu of tax.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]An erratum slip will be issued shortly by my office, amending the two final sentences of paragraph 3.3 of the above Report to read:"Lord Gowrie announced in July 1985 that the provision for Acceptance in Lieu may be supplemented by access to the Contingency Reserve for large and important offers. He said that "Looking simply at recent and current levels of acceptance in lieu offers, we would expect to call on the Reserve for around £10 million or so a year, taking one year with another. I must emphasise strongly that this is an estimate; it is neither a target nor a limit, as in any given year the demand could be either less or more."

  I see no need to issue a press notice on this matter.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the annual grant by the Scottish Arts Council to arts organisations and events in the regions of Scotland and the cities of Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee in the financial year 1991–92, and projected for the year 1992–93.
  811
  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Information for the Scottish regions is not available in the form requested. Projected figures for the cities of Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee for the financial year 1992–93 have yet to be decided. Information for 1991–92 is as follows:

  1991–92

  £

  Glasgow

  10,540,721

  Edinburgh

  3,959,670

  Aberdeen

  218,361

  Dundee

  449,979

  The figures for Glasgow and Edinburgh reflect the fact that they are the permanent bases for national organisations such as Scottish Opera, Royal Scottish Orchestra, Scottish Chamber Orchestra and Scottish Ballet, all of which tour throughout Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Payments to EC Farmers
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals the European Commission has made this year for additional payments to farmers in European Community countries; and if he will list the amounts involved for each country.

  Mr. Curry
  No proposals have so far been made by the European Commission in 1992 for additional payments to farmers.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No parts of the Department are currently under review for relocation. Major reviews completed recently have resulted in decisions to move a total of about 1,000 posts to North Yorkshire over the next four years.

  Arctic Foxes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) for how long Grange farm, Ovenden wood, Halifax has continuously factory farmed arctic foxes;

  (2) how many arctic fox factory farms are currently operating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected on the keeping of arctic foxes in England and Wales. There are no arctic fox farms operating in Northern Ireland.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink factory farms are currently operating under licence in each county of England and Wales.
  812
  Mr. Maclean
  No mink farms are currently operating in Wales. Details for England are as follows:

  England

  As a 12 March 1992

  Northumberland

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  3

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Lancashire

  8

  Cheshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Cornwall

  2

  Total

  25

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether neck breaking or an intra-abdominal injection of chloral hydrate are permitted means of killing mink in fur farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Protection of Animals Act 1911 requires any operation performed on an animal, including killing, to be performed with due care and humanity. The Department is not aware of either of the methods described being used on mink farms and intra-abdominal injection of chloral hydrate is not recommended. These methods would not be permitted for the routine slaughter of mink under the proposed Community regulation on protection of animals at slaughter.

  Factory Farmers (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions of factory farmers there have been under the Welfare of Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mink and Fox Carcases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations exist(a) governing the disposal of mink and fox carcases and (b) regarding the use of mink and fox carcases in pet food.

  Mr. Maclean
  The disposal of mink and fox carcases is controlled under part IV of the Agriculture Act of 1970, the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982, and the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989. If they were to be used in pet food these same safeguards would apply.

  Meat and Poultry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the sale as fresh turkeys of originally frozen birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has received no such representations.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been brought in
  813
  the last 12 months for selling as fresh meat and poultry previously frozen meat and poultry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Farm Produce (Marketing)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will give to help establish a farm producers marketing co-operative to sell west country produce to major supermarkets.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 3 March 1992,Official Report, column 120.

  Any eligible producer groups who wish to seek assistance under the group marketing grant will be entitled to apply.

  Leptospirosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's involvement in the control of leptospirosis, including the testing of cattle for the disease; what information he has about the incidence of the disease for each year since 1980; and whether local veterinarians are expected to pass test results on to his Ministry.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are no statutory controls relating to Leptospira hardjo in cattle. Precise figures on disease incidence are not available, but it is considered not to be widespread. My officials need not be informed of test results unless the farmer is a member of the voluntary cattle health scheme.

  Land Settlement Association
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to provide money to the Land Settlement Association's tenants who did not benefit from the litigation settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no such plans. Legal advice clearly indicates that those tenants who were not party to the litigation are not entitled to receive any money as a result of the settlement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the sale of the Land Settlement Association headquarters, including the date of sale, the amount the building was sold for; what proportion of this money has been given to the Land Settlement Association's central reserve fund; and what proportion has been used in the litigation settlement with Land Settlement Association tenants.

  Mr. Gummer
  The headquarters building of the Land Settlement Association Ltd. was the company's private property and the Ministry was not entitled to receive any money arising from the disposal of the building. I believe that the building was sold in August 1985, but I have no information about the sale price. None of the proceeds of the sale were transferred to the Land Settlement Association's general reserve fund or used in the litigation settlement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the 814
  Land Settlement Association central reserve fund, including the amount that was in the fund at the end of each of the past five financial years; whether money in this fund has been used in the litigation settlement to Land Settlement Association tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Land Settlement Association general reserve was created in October 1951 as a reserve against losses on the revenue account. Three appropriations were made over the years for that purpose. At the end of March 1982 the funds in the general reserve amounted to £236,277. This money was then absorbed into the revenue appropriation account and the deficit suspense account to cover some of the accumulated losses. The general reserve was nil on 1 April 1983 and no funds have been transferred into it since then. No money from the general reserve has been used to fund the settlement of litigation with Land Settlement Association tenants. Full details are contained in the reports and accounts for the year ended 31 March 1983 and for the nine months ended 31 December 1983 submitted to my Department by the Land Settlement Association Ltd. I am placing a copy of these in the Library of the House.

  ADAS
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Agricultural Development Advisory Service laboratories which have been closed since 1979 giving their location, date of closure and type of laboratory, distinguishing between research and development, veterinary, farm and countryside service or general.

  Mr. Gummer
  Work has been concentrated on fewer sites in the farm and countryside service, research and development service and veterinary service in order to improve efficiency and hence service to customers. The laboratories that have closed or merged as a result of this since 1979 are as follows:

  Date

  Farm and countryside service

  Accrington

  1 September 1989

  Bangor

  31 March 1986

  Caernarfon

  1 April 1990

  Carmarthen

  31 March 1990

  Cheshunt

  31 March 1987

  Crewe

  1983

  Evesham

  30 November 1989

  Kendal

  31 March 1987

  Liverpool

  1987

  Ormskirk

  1990

  Rhydmyn

  31 March 1990

  Shardlow

  31 March 1986

  Shrewsbury

  1979

  Wrexham

  1982

  Research and development

  Liverpool

  1 August 1982

  Tolworth

  29 February 1992

  Norwich

  29 February 1992

  Veterinary investigation centres

  Weybridge

  December 1980

  Cardiff

  March 1986

  Gloucester

  June 1986

  Leeds

  June 1986

  Northampton

  July 1986

  Chester

  April 1986

  Wye

  July 1991

  815

  Date

  Bangor

  September 1991

  Lincoln

  September 1991

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) scientists and (b) advisory staff employed by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of staff employed by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service as advisory officers since 1979 is:

  Number

  1979

  1,252

  1980

  1,243

  1981

  1,240

  1982

  1,156

  1983

  1,183

  1984

  1,193

  1985

  1,202

  1986

  1,159

  1987

  1,069

  1988

  1,061

  1989

  1,003

  1990

  925

  1991

  876

  Details for scientific staff would be available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Farming, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what special assistance has been made available to help farming in Basildon over the past five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  Farmers in Basildon, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, have benefited from the Government's determination to ensure fair treatment for British farmers under the common agricultural policy. This has already led to the virtual eradication of green pound discrimination, it has ensured a growing consensus for a fair alternative to Mr. MacSharry's proposals and it will continue to mean that Britain will not accept measures that distort agriculture to the detriment of our farming community.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the measures which he has taken to ensure there is equality of enforcement and implementation of the common agricultural policy in all EC member states.

  Mr. Gummer
  At the United Kingdom's instigation a declaration was agreed by member states at Maastricht stressing the need to ensure that Community law is properly implemented and enforced, and changes to the treaty were agreed giving the European Court the power to impose financial penalties on member states that persistently fail to comply with their Community obligations.

  We, of course, are still ready to draw to the Commission's attention any failures by other member states to implement and enforce the CAP. For example I
  816
  recently pressed the Commissioner responsible for agricultural policy and the French Minister of Agriculture on the apparent failure by the French Government to impose charges for poultrymeat inspection at the level required by Community legislation. I will continue to seek an urgent solution.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent appeals his Department has received against the refusal of the National Rivers Authority to approve an abstraction licence application, and with what result.

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

  My Department has outstanding three appeals against refusal of a licence. These appeals are being held in abeyance while the appellants and the authority attempt to agree terms under which the licences might be granted.

SCOTLAND

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of Scottish manufacturing exports in real terms in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) carries out an annual survey of Scottish exporters. This is the most comprehensive source of information on Scottish manufacturing exports. Up until 1984, the survey was only carried out on a triennial basis and coverage was less complete than in later years. These points should be borne in mind when interpreting the series, which is expressed in 1990 constant prices using the council's own suggested deflator; the United Kingdom producer price index for home sales of manufactured goods.

  Scottish manufacturing exports 1974–1990

  Year

  £ billion (1990 prices)

  Year

  £ billion (1990 prices)

  1974

  6·8

  1982

  5·7

  1975

  5·9

  1983

  6·0

  1976

  6·5

  1984

  6·6

  1977

  6·7

  1985

  7·0

  1978

  7·1

  1986

  6·4

  1979

  6·8

  1987

  7·4

  1980

  6·5

  1988

  8·0

  1981

  6·3

  1989

  8·1

  1990

  8·6

  GDP
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) Scottish and (b) United Kingdom gross domestic product was derived from (i) manufacturing and (ii) electronics in (1) 1979 and (2) the most recent figures available.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what share of Scotland's gross domestic product has been invested in education in each year since 1970.
  817
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 March 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scotland's share of United Kingdom gross domestic product has been in each year since 1971 until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Information on Scotland's share of United Kingdom GDP since 1971 is set out in the table.

  Scotland's share of United Kingdom GDP1 1971–1990

  Year

  Per cent. share

  Year

  Per cent. share

  1971

  8·8

  1981

  8·9

  1972

  8·7

  1982

  8·9

  1973

  8·9

  1983

  8·9

  1974

  8·9

  1984

  8·8

  1975

  9·0

  1985

  8·7

  1976

  92

  1986

  8·5

  1977

  9·0

  1987

  8·4

  1978

  8·8

  1988

  8·3

  1979

  8·8

  1989

  8·2

  1980

  8·7

  1990

  8·2

  Source: Central Statistical Office, regional accounts.

  1 United Kingdom less the continental shelf.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of Scottish gross domestic product invested in(a) health and (b) education in Scotland in each year since 1979 until the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Company Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the number of new companies established (b) the total number of registered companies and (c) the total number of bankruptcies in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Charing Cross Clinic, Glasgow
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the future of Greater Glasgow health board's Charing Cross clinic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has no plans affecting the future of the Charing Cross clinic or its location.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate for every health authority and trust in Scotland the amount required to bring the national health service estate to a condition B, exhibiting only minor deterioration.

  Mr. Lang
  The most recent information from health boards relates to 1990–91 and is set out in the table. There were no trusts in Scotland at that time.
  818

  Total estimated costs required to bring the National Health Service estate in Scotland up to Condition B, exhibiting only minor deterioration

  Health Boards

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  4·9

  Ayr and Arran

  1·5

  Borders

  1·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5·3

  Fife

  19·7

  Forth Valley

  7·6

  Grampian

  12·9

  Greater Glasgow

  131·3

  Highland

  11·9

  Lanarkshire

  18·1

  Lothian

  48·2

  Orkney

  0·1

  Shetland

  0·4

  Tayside

  23·7

  Western Isles

  0·2

  Total

  287·4

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the composition of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland and the date when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of(a) adults and (b) children in Scotland who are on health service waiting lists for nebulisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of nebulisers supplied or awaiting supply is not collected centrally.

  Powered nebulisers may be provided by the NHS in cases where a hospital respiratory consultant has judged it to be clinically necessary. Health boards are responsible for meeting the costs of the nebulisers supplied to patients.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 626, if he will list the sites in the Baillieston, Carmyle, Broomhouse and Mount Vernon areas of Shettleston constituency where industrial, commercial and household wastes have been deposited, and the sites where chromium waste has been deposited.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Local Government Commissioner
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in each of the last five years, and for each district council area in Scotland, how many complaints have been referred to the Local Government Commissioner; how many of these have been followed up by the commissioner; and how many have been found in favour of the complainant.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in(a) the number of employees in employment and (b) the number of employees in employment in manufacturing in Scotland between June 1979 and June 1991; and what the changes are in percentage terms.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Development Expenditure
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross provision for the Scottish Development Agency in every year since 1979 and the non-training element of Scottish Enterprise for 1991–92 and 1992–93 in cash prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Number of crimes and offences recorded hr the police 1979–90

  Grampian Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total crimes

  22,821

  25,203

  26,569

  30,037

  29,144

  31,340

  33,384

  37,466

  39,556

  33,567

  34,034

  37,070

  Non-sexual crimes of violence

  484

  854

  940

  823

  882

  868

  890

  910

  937

  814

  892

  860

  Crimes of indecency

  393

  370

  312

  407

  520

  589

  703

  602

  507

  548

  800

  737

  Crimes of dishonesty

  16,653

  17,790

  20,556

  21,682

  20,161

  21,592

  22,789

  26,278

  28,003

  22,923

  22,242

  24,887

  Fire-raising, vandalism etc.

  4,624

  5,421

  5,774

  6,039

  6,288

  6,697

  7,570

  8,203

  8,358

  7,374

  7,850

  8,302

  Other crimes

  667

  768

  987

  1,086

  1,293

  1,394

  1,432

  1,473

  1,751

  1,908

  2,250

  2,284

  Total offences

  27,783

  31,404

  31,110

  30,179

  34,128

  35,110

  38,275

  40,628

  39,198

  38,307

  42,504

  45,001

  Miscellaneous offences

  11,580

  12,032

  10,753

  10,296

  10,885

  11,080

  12,485

  13,560

  13,935

  13,946

  14,899

  15,204

  Motor vehicle offences

  16,203

  19,372

  20,357

  19,883

  23,243

  24,030

  25,790

  27,068

  25,263

  24,361

  27,605

  29,797

  Total crimes and offences

  50,604

  56,607

  59,679

  60,216

  63,272

  66,450

  71,659

  78,094

  78,754

  71,874

  76,538

  82,071

  Notes:

  Data for 1979 have been regrouped on the basis of the current Scottish Office Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences which was revised in 1980.

  Prior to 1980, the return included crimes and offences reported to the procurator fiscal by agencies other than the police in which a prosecution was taken. Since 1980, these cases have been excluded. In 1982, there were about 6,400 such cases in the whole of Scotland, of a total of 762,483 crimes and offences.

  Details of the SOHHD classification are given in the SOHHD statistical bulletin "Recorded crime in Scotland, 1990" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish the business plan and details of the application for trust status for the Aberdeen royal hospitals trust.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member on 18 December 1991, at column 201.

  Job Losses, Inverbervie
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take in relation to job losses in Inverbervie as a result of the closure of Sidlaw's textile mill and the Inlak's seafood processing factory.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Exports
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the composition of Scottish-manufactured exports, by standard industrial classification, for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Council Tax Rebates
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to provide a rebate for carers, under the proposals for the council tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Crime
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the crime figures for Grampian region broken down by standard category, including the total figure of crimes and offences, for every year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for 1979–90 is set out in the table.

  Grampian Police
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of police officers requested by the chief constable of Grampian police for every year since 1986 and (b) the number of additional officers permitted in response.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grampian regional council sought the consent of the Secretary of State for increases in the authorised establishment of Grampian police as follows:

  Year

  Request for increase in police establishment

  1986

  40

  1987

  11

  1988

  61

  821

  Year

  Request for increase in police establishment

  1989

  47

  1990

  42

  1991

  20

  Consent was given in full for each request.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an inquiry into the causes of bankruptcy in individuals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are presently reviewing all aspects of the operation of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. It is clear that the major factor influencing the number of sequestrations in Scotland is the easier access by individuals to the sequestration process following the introduction of the 1985 Act.

  The Government are actively considering the need for changes to the present legislation.

  Education (Funding)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of making an additional grant to Scottish local authorities for the purposes of ensuring a pay settlement for teachers in

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  (a) No. of sequestration awards where final outcome is known

  —

  3

  8

  24

  90

  373

  (b) No. of sequestration awards

  295

  437

  834

  1,457

  2,344

  4,364

  (c) No. of sequestration awards where final outcome is known expressed as a percentage of total number of sequestration awards

  —

  0·69

  0·96

  1·65

  3·84

  8·54

  Health Boards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reviews conducted by his Department into the accountability of health boards; and when he expects to publish the findings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The chief executive of the NHS in Scotland carries out accountability reviews of each health board each year. The reviews are primarily intended to agree the board's objectives for the following year. These will be reflected in a variety of published documents, such as the board's local health strategy, local charter for health etcetera.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1986 the population of each sheriff court jurisdiction in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives population estimates for the sheriffdom and sheriff court districts in 1981. These figures were prepared for a review which confirmed the district areas in 1983.
  822
  Scotland for 1992–93 in line with that in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement on his policy on this subject.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what element of the increase in the revenue support grant to Scottish local authorities in 1992–93 was allocated to(a) education spending and (b) pay for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Sequestration Awards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 348–50, if he will give gross payments to trustees including outlays, statutory fees, remunerations and VAT but excluding recoveries for each year from 1985 to 1991 in respect of the awards of sequestration granted in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the public purse.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 348–49, if he will list for each year since 1985 (a) the number of sequestration awards for which the final outcome is known and (b) the number as a percentage of the total number of awards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is:

  Table

  Sheriffdom and Court district

  Estimated population

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  Aberdeen

  269,000

  Stonehaven

  40,000

  Elgin

  83,000

  Banff

  80,000

  Peterhead

  Dingwall

  45,000

  Tain

  Dornoch,

  13,000

  Wick

  27,000

  Kirkwall

  18,000

  Lerwick

  22,000

  Inverness

  76,000

  Fort William

  20,000

  Portree

  10,000

  Lochmaddy

  30,000

  Stornoway

  Totals

  733,000

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  Dundee

  189,000

  Perth

  119,000

  Cupar

  65,000

  Kirkcaldy

  149,000

  Stirling

  79,000

  823

  Sheriffdom and Court district

  Estimated population

  Falkirk

  144,000

  Dunfermline

  126,000

  Alloa

  48,000

  Forfar

  92,000

  Arbroath

  Totals

  1,011,000

  Lothian and Borders

  Edinburgh

  538,000

  Haddington

  79,000

  Peebles

  14,000

  Linlithgow

  132,000

  Jedburgh

  35,000

  Selkirk

  33,000

  Duns

  18,000

  Totals

  849,000

  North Strathclyde

  Paisley

  267,000

  Kilmarnock

  218,000

  Dumbarton

  171,000

  Greenock

  101,000

  Campbeltown

  64,000

  Dunoon

  Oban

  Rothesay

  Totals

  821,000

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  Airdrie

  174,000

  Hamilton

  341,000

  Lanark

  57,000

  Ayr

  158,000

  Dumfries

  91,000

  Kirkcudbright

  22,000

  Stranraer

  29,000

  Totals

  872,000

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  Glasgow

  869,000

  Totals

  869,000

  Total (all sheriffdoms)

  5,155,000

  Private Forestry
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the rate of discount for calculation of compensation has been agreed between the Nature Conservancy Council and the representative body for private forestry as provided for under annex A of the financial guidelines to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The former Nature Conservancy Council did not reach agreement with the representative body for private forestry on the appropriate rate of discount to apply as provided for under the guidelines. There are a number of outstanding cases in Scotland involving afforestation proposals in respect of which application for afforestation grant was submitted prior to May 1989 when it was announced that compensation would no longer be offered for the refusal of grant where it was refused solely on nature conservation grounds. In deciding how such compensation in these cases can most appropriately be determined, the fact that such forestry planting would have been eligible for grant 824
  from the Forestry Commission and, prior to the 1988 Budget, to tax allowances, means that in general it should be expected to earn a commercial rate of return comparable to other forms of investment. On the advice of the Forestry Commission, I have concluded that it would have been reasonable for those undertaking such investments to have expected a real return of 6 per cent. on the assumption of no real increase in timber prices and I believe that this figure reflects a realistic view of the rate of return that investors in forestry might have been seeking. I am accordingly advising NCCS—and, as from 1 April 1992, Scottish Natural Heritage—that this figure should be used in negotiating management agreements in any of the outstanding cases where application for forestry grant was submitted before 10 May 1989.

  In general, I would find it hard to justify compensation under paragraph 3 of annex A of the guidelines based on a calculation of net revenue forgone which exceeded an estimate of the unrestricted value of the land and its crop, unless some exceptional circumstances so warranted.

  The review of the guidelines which will be undertaken later this year will take account of this change.

  Inheritance Tax
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any works of art accepted in lieu of inheritance tax have been allocated since he last made an announcement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts announced on 26 April 1991 that the following items had been accepted in lieu of inheritance tax.

  Items

  Amount of tax satisfied

  Portrait of Thomas Lamb by Allan Ramsay; two paintings and two volumes of drawings by Alexander Runciman

  £196,000

  I am pleased to announce that I have decided to allocate these items to the national galleries of Scotland.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many apprenticeships there were in Scotland and in what trades, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual figures for (i) road deaths and (ii) injuries for each year since 1981, including the number of(a) children and (b) adults who have been hit by cars on or near pedestrian crossings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Adult Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many adult students have been, or are at present, on access courses leading to higher education during the years 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92 in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 February 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Agricultural Investment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the figures for the investment in agriculture in Scotland for each of the last eight years.

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Government support

  3,007

  369

  3,376

  3,146

  372

  3,518

  3,519

  426

  3,945

  Expenditure

  3,730

  408

  4,138

  4,024

  416

  4,440

  4,364

  455

  4,819

  Self-financed expenditure

  723

  39

  762

  878

  44

  922

  845

  29

  874

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Current £ million

  Capital £ million

  Total £ million

  Government support

  3,810

  453

  4,263

  3,956

  456

  4,412

  4,791

  493

  5,284

  Expenditure

  4,654

  500

  5,154

  5,119

  487

  5,606

  5,592

  552

  6,144

  Self-financed expenditure

  844

  47

  891

  1,163

  31

  1,194

  801

  59

  860

  Notes:

  1. Government support for current expenditure consists of rate support grant (for 1986–87 to 1989–90), revenue support grant (from 1989–90 to 1991–92), community charge grant (from 1991–92), non-domestic rate income (for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90 local authorities were responsible for setting the level of non-domestic rates but since 1990–91 the Government have determined the level to be set), specific grants within aggregate external finance (AEF) and AEF grants outside the Secretary of State's responsibility. The figures in Cm 1915 represent the amounts paid in the respective year, not necessarily in respect of that year.

  2. Government support for capital expenditure represents tenet capital non-housing allocation.

  3. The current expenditure figures are total relevant expenditure figures including loan and leasing charges and are final outturn figures for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90, near final outturn for 1990–91 and is a budget estimate for 1991–92.

  4. The capital expenditure figures are net of receipts and are final outturn for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 and estimated outturn for 1991–92.

  5. The self-financed expenditure in relation to current expenditure is financed by way of domestic rate income for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 and community charge income for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table, covering the years 1986–87 and consistent with Cm. 1915, showing by sub-programme(a) total local authority expenditure in Scotland, (b) local authority expenditure in Scotland on services for which he has policy responsibility and (c) an analysis of the diferences between (a) and (b).

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The information requested is contained in tables 9.4 and 9.5 of Cm. 1915. It should be noted that due to a printing error, the last column in table 9.4 is erroneously headed "1991–92 Outturn"; it should read "1991–92 Budget Estimate".

  Crime Survey
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the British crime survey for Scotland before Monday 16 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Work on the survey is not yet complete. The results will be published as soon as possible.
  826
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a reconciliation between the local authority expenditure and(a) its financing figures contained in tables 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4 and chart 9.3 of Cm 1920, and (b) the figures announced in the latest revenue support grant and other settlements.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 March 19921: The information, based on total relevant local authority non-housing expenditure for the years 1986–87 to 1991–92 is as follows:

  Fish Processers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the Government's position on the provisions of article 7 of EC directive 91/493 dealing with derogations for small-scale fish processors.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Detailed guidance and application forms for derogations under article 7 of directive 91/493/EEC are being prepared. It is hoped to send these to local authorities early in April.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to provide guidance to environmental health officers to enable them to advise small-scale fish processors of the opportunities open to them to be exempt from the officially set health requirements as detailed by EC directive 91/493.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Small-scale fish processors are not exempt from the provisions of EC directive 91/493. However under article 7 of that directive fish processors may seek temporary derogations from certain structural and equipment requirements. It is hoped to issue guidance and application forms to local authorities early in April.
  827
  In addition, under article 14 of the directive, there is a prospect that minimum structural and equipment requirements may be set for small establishments which distribute on the local market and are situated in regions subject to particular supply constraints. This possibility is largely dependent on the content of a report to be submitted to the Council by the Commission by 1 July 1992 and the outcome of subsequent discussions.

  Arts Grants
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual grant to arts organisations and events in the regions of Scotland and the cities of Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee for the financial year 1991–92 and projected for the year 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: For those areas of expenditure on the arts for which the Scottish Office Education Department is responsible I set out the grants made to the national institutions and arts organisations in 1991–92 and those expected to be made in 1992–93.

  199–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  National Museums of Scotland

  13·355

  15·804

  National Galleries of Scotland

  7·379

  8·569

  National Library of Scotland

  11·801

  15·994

  Scottish Museums Council

  0·665

  0·731

  Scottish Film Council

  0·619

  0·686

  Scottish Film Production Fund

  0·087

  0·090

  Scottish Community Drama Association

  0·025

  0·025

  Scottish Youth Theatre

  0·053

  0·055

  National Youth Orchestra of Scotland

  0·034

  0·035

  The majority of the grants to the national institutions will be spent in Edinburgh. Grants to other organisations are to support their work throughout Scotland.

  In addition to the above grants, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 28 February that he would make an exceptional payment of £500,000 to Scottish Opera in the financial year 1992–93 to reduce their current deficit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Passes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 99, if he will request those hon. Members who have places on the research assistants' list which are currently not filled to release them in order to reallocate spare places to the hon. Members who require a researcher's pass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There are 172 actual pass holders, out of the 230 places allowed, which means that 58 Members are currently not filling their places. I suspect that this has come about because of the imminence of the general election and some Members who have places are not filling them until they know whether they will need their places after the general election.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy not to allow any hon. Member to 828
  have two full researchers passes until all hon. Members requiring only one such pass have been allocated one; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Only the leaders of the official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats have two full researchers' places, and, due to the imminence of the general election, I did not think that we could consider changing their entitlements.

  I am sure that the situation over Members' research assistants' places will sort itself out in the aftermath of the general election. However, if it does not, I think that it would be an appropriate subject for the Administration Committee to investigate.

  Evacuation (Westminster)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what account is taken, during the evacuation of Westminster station due to bomb threats, of the need to alert or evacuate staff in St. Stephen's house overlooking the station.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Full account is taken of the need to alert—or to evacuate if necessary—all staff in the vicinity of any bomb threat.

  European Delegates
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are his plans for the appointment of the delegation for the 1992–93 session of the Council of Europe/Western European Union.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making the appointments to the delegation at the end of April and will announce them to the House as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he received the Top Salaries Review Body report on the office costs allowance; and what implications it has for the uprating of the office costs allowance on 1 April.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have recently received the TSRB's report on the office costs allowance. It makes a number of important recommendations which it should be for the new Parliament to consider. Accordingly copies will be placed in the Vote Office and Library early in the new Parliament.

  The House will wish to know that the report recommends no immediate change in the uprating mechanism. It will be for the new House to decide what recommendations in the report it wishes to implement and in what time scale. Meanwhile, under the resolution of this House of 21 July 1987 the OCA will, as in recent years, be uprated from 1 April 1992 in line with the increase in the maximum point on the scale for civil service senior personal secretaries in receipt of inner London weighting. The uprating will be implemented as soon as a settlement is reached covering senior personal secretaries in the civil service.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Guarantee
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps have been taken to ensure that the training guarantee to young and unemployed people in Greenwich can be met during the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Our officials and their counterparts in the South Thames training and enterprise council have been seeking agreement on the level of youth training—YT—provision needed in 1992–93 in Greenwich and other areas for which the TEC is responsible. The aim is to agree a

  Employees and self employed persons (aged 16 or over) with a second job by sex, female marital status and occupation of second job: Spring 1991

  Great Britain

  Thousands

  Occupation of second job2

  All persons

  Males

  Married 3females

  Non-married females

  All occupations4

  1,074

  501

  395

  177

  1 Managers and administrators

  113

  73

  33

  1—

  2 Professional occupations

  147

  93

  42

  12

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  149

  84

  44

  21

  4 Clerical and secretarial

  141

  40

  83

  18

  5 Craft and related

  44

  34

  1—

  1—

  6 Personal and protective services

  233

  87

  76

  71

  7 Selling

  78

  27

  31

  21

  8 Plant and machine operatives

  36

  26

  1—

  1—

  9 Other occupations

  127

  33

  73

  22

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown.

  2 Based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) major groups, (first published February 1990).

  3 Married includes those reported as cohabiting.

  4 Includes persons with a second job for which the occupation was inadequately described or not stated.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total average hours worked per week by those with second jobs, broken down by occupational group, for employees and the self-employed,

  Average total actual hours worked in the survey week (excluding mealbreaks), by employees and self employed persons (aged 16 or over) with a second job, by sex, female marital status and occupation of second job: spring 1991—Great Britain

  Hours2

  Occupation of second jobs3

  All persons

  Males

  4Married females

  Non-married females

  All occupations5

  39·1

  48·3

  29·1

  35·7

  1 Managers and administrators

  51·0

  57·1

  38·5

  1—

  2 Professional occupations

  35·6

  41·1

  31·5

  33·7

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  40·3

  45·5

  30·5

  39–0

  4 Clerical and secretarial

  34·3

  45–4

  29·3

  32·8

  5 Craft and related

  48·0

  38·0

  1—

  1—

  6 Personal and protective services

  37·7

  49·4

  26·2

  35·7

  7 Selling

  35·1

  41·7

  29·2

  35·3

  8 Plant and machine operatives

  46·4

  50·9

  1—

  1—

  9 Other occupations

  30·1

  42·5

  24·1

  21·9

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown·

  2 Averages are based only on persons reporting valid hours of work

  3 Based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) major groups (first published February 1990)

  4 Married includes those reported as cohabiting

  5 Includes persons with a second job for which the occupation was inadequately described or not stated

  Second Jobs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average number of hours worked in second jobs, broken down by occupation, for employees 830
  business plan sufficient to support the guarantee of the offer of a suitable YT place to young people under 18 who are unemployed and are seeking training.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the occupational distribution of the number of persons employed in second jobs, including both employees and the self-employed, in the labour force survey for the latest year for which figures are available, giving the information by males, married females, other females and all persons.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates for Great Britain from the spring 1991 labour force survey are as follows:

  in the labour force survey for the latest year for which figures are available, giving the information by males, married females, other females and all persons.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates for Great Britain from the spring 1991 labour force survey are as follows.

  and the self-employed in the labour force survey for the latest year for which information is available, giving the information by males, married females, other females and all persons.
  831
  Mr. Forth
  Estimates for Great Britain from the spring 1991 labour force survey are as follows.

  Average actual hours worked in second jobs in the survey week (excluding mealbreaks), by employees and self employed persons (aged 16 or over) with a second job, by sex, female marital status and occupation of second job: spring 1991—Great Britain·

  2Hours

  Occupation of second job3

  All persons

  Males

  Married females4

  Non-married females

  All occupations5

  9·5

  10·5

  8·8

  8·4

  1 Managers and administrators

  13·7

  15·1

  11·2

  1—

  2 Professional occupations

  6·0

  6·0

  6·5

  4·3

  3 Associate professional and technical occupations

  8·5

  8·9

  7·6

  8·4

  4 Clerical and secretarial

  8·8

  9·5

  8·5

  8·4

  5 Craft and related

  11·3

  11·0

  1—

  1—

  6 Personal and protective service

  9·7

  11·4

  9·0

  8·4

  7 Selling

  8·5

  9·8

  8·0

  7·4

  8 Plant and machine operatives

  14·4

  14·9

  1—

  1—

  9 Other occupations

  10·4

  13·7

  9·1

  10·0

  Source: Labour Force Survey·

  1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown·

  2 Averages are based only on persons reporting valid hours of work

  3 Based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) major groups (first published February 1990)

  4 Married includes those reported as cohabiting

  5 Includes persons with a second job for which the occupation was inadequately described or not stated

  Collier Industrial Waste Ltd.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate has taken following the incident on 2 August 1991 when a worker in the paint shop at Collier Industrial Waste Ltd. collapsed, was hospitalised and diagnosed as suffering from isocyanate-induced asthma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate has received no notification of an incident on 2 August 1991 at Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park, in which a worker collapsed in the paint shop and was diagnosed as suffering from isocyanate-induced asthma.

  However, on 8 August 1991 an employment medical adviser from HSE interviewed an employee who had a medical history consistent with isocyanate-induced asthma. An inspector subsequently visited the company and wrote to it to confirm the precautions to be observed during the spraying of isocyanate paint.

  A follow-up visit was also paid.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information has been laid against Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park and P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton by the Health and Safety Executive since January 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what prosecutions have been taken and what convictions gained against Collier Industrial Waste Ltd.. Trafford Park and P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton by the Health and Safety factory inspectorate since January 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences were reported to the Health and Safety Executive by Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park and P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton since January 1989.
  832
  Mr. Forth
  Since January 1989, Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park has reported no diseases or dangerous occurrences but has reported to the Health and Safety Executive the following three injuries:

  in 1989 a tyre fitter sustained an injury to his forehead;

  in 1990 an employee tripped and broke his arm;

  in 1991 a fitter/welder received bruises to his arm and leg.

  No injuries, diseases or dangerous occurrences have been reported to HSE by P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton, since January 1989.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what notices have been issued against Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park and P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton, by the Health and Safety Executive Factory Inspectorate since January 1989.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate has issued one improvement notice against Collier Industrial Waste Ltd., Trafford Park, since January 1989, in respect of machinery safety.

  The factory inspectorate has issued no notices against P. J. Collier Ltd., Rixton, since January 1989.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action was taken since February 1991 by the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate to ensure that paint shop workers at Collier Industrial Waste Ltd. were not exposed to dangerous isocyanate fumes, by taking action including carrying out dust sampling and consideration of the use of alternative paints in the paint shop and consideration of the adequacy of respiratory protection.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations, it is the legal responsibility of Collier Industrial Waste Ltd. to ensure that its paint shop workers are not exposed to risks to their health and safety. This includes the risk of exposure to dangerous isocyanate fumes. Since February 1991, the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectorate has visited the premises at Trafford Park on two occasions and has drawn the company's attention to its legal obligations, including the duty to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. In
  833
  particular the company's attention has been drawn to the need to assess exposure to dust in the paint shop, to consider using alternative paints and to check the adequacy of the respiratory protective equipment provided.

  Hazardous Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are being taken by the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate and the employment medical advisory service to investigate reports of ill-health by employees of hazardous waste disposal companies.

  Mr. Forth
  Regulation 5 of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 requires certain occupational diseases to be reported to the appropriate enforcing authority. The information on all reports of diseases made to the Health and Safety Executive, including those in respect of employees of hazardous waste disposal companies, is verified by HSE's Employment Medical Advisory Service to ensure that it is accurate and complete. EMAS investigates all reported exposures to toxic substances. Other incidents are selected for investigation if in the judgment of the employment medical adviser, intervention may secure prevention or recurrence, prevent exposure of other workers, or derive new information about the cause or prevention of occupational ill health.

  EMAS liaises closely with HSE's factory inspectorate, which also determines, using similar criteria, whether a report of an occupational disease should be investigated. The subsequent investigation of those reports selected may be carried out either independently by factory inspectors, jointly by factory inspectors and EMAS, or by EMAS at the request of the factory inspectorate.

  A current priority of HSE's field operations division is to raise awareness of occupational health in industry.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and proportion of reinstatements for cases of unfair dismissal over the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The number and proportion of reinstatement and re-engagement orders made by industrial tribunals over the last five financial years are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Percentage of reinstatement/re-engagement orders

  Percentage of unfair dismissal cases proceeding to a hearing

  1990–91

  63

  1·0

  1989–90

  59

  1·0

  1988–89

  58

  1·0

  1987–88

  83

  1·1

  1986–87

  103

  1·1

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of claims for unfair dismissal by(a) trade union safety representatives and (b) trade union representatives for the last five years; and what was the average settlement for each group.
  834
  Mr. Forth
  We do not have this information for the period before 1989–90. For the period 1989–90 and after, this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are being taken by the Health and Safety Executive factory inspectorate to ensure that companies which handle hazardous waste are fully implementing the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Forth
  Inspectors seek compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations —1985COSHH—at all premises and work activities for which they have enforcement responsibility for health and safety legislation and to which the regulations apply, including those of companies which handle hazardous waste. Enforcement of the regulations has been integrated into normal inspection arrangements and inspectors take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that those responsible comply with their duties under the legislation.

  Inspectors give a high priority to exaimining employers' action to comply with COSHH when there is exposure to hazardous substances, and liaise with the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service on matters relating to health risk and medical surveillance. The action taken by inspectors to secure compliance can range from giving advice to the use of enforcement notices and legal proceedings in those circumstances where there is a disregard for health and safety. Inspectors enforce the regulations vigorously and pursue their inquiries to the highest levels in companies which do not meet the required standards.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 November 1989,Official Report, columns 471–72, to the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and which, training and enterprise councils have notified his Department in writing about a failure to deliver(a) the youth training guarantee or (b) the employment training requirement as required under the TEC contract for 1991–92; how many individual youth training and employment training cases this involved; how the problems were resolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The delivery of the YT and ET guarantee is a contractual commitment upon the TECs. Additional funds have been provided in the year 1991–92 to the following TECs:
  835

  Essex

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  Somerset Avon

  Dudley

  Hereford and Worcester

  Sandwell

  Shropshire

  Walsall

  Sheffield

  Rochdale

  Bolton and Bury

  This is consistent with maintaining the delivery of the guarantees. Meanwhile, the existence of a procedure under which individuals may register problems covering their treatment under the training guarantees is an important aspect of the policy in guarantees, and will continue under the new TEC operating agreement for 1992–93.

  Training Initiatives
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training initiatives have been introduced in Basildon in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Over the last two years Essex TEC has carried out the training initiatives specified in its contract, including youth training, employment training, enterprise allowance scheme, high technology national training, business enterprise training and various education programmes, such as education business partnerships. TECs have also been given the flexibility to introduce other initiatives to meet specific local needs and information on these can be obtained by contacting Essex TEC direct.

  European Grants
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what European grants have been made to Basildon in the last year.

  Mr. Jackson
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his current estimate of the number of self-employed people in the northern region.

  Mr. Forth
  In September 1991 there were 115,000 self-employed in the northern region.

  Tourism
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help is available for tourism in Basildon.

  Mr. Forth
  Basildon is within the area of the East Anglian tourist board which, with the help of financial support from the English tourist board, encourages the development and promotion of tourism within its region.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help is available to help small businesses start up in Basildon.

  Mr. Forth
  The Essex training and enterprise council provides a wide range of help and advice to small business.836
  This includes a business start-up programme which in 1991–92 will assist some 800 people throughout the county. In addition, my Department operates a loan guarantee scheme to help viable small businesses obtain loans where conventional funding would not otherwise be available.

ENERGY

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what have been his Department's achievements in the development of combined heat and power since 1979; and what plans he has to further advance the development of combined heat and power in the next five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The main achievements of my Department in the development of CHP since 1979, mainly through the programmes of the Energy Efficiency Office and in conjunction with industry and other Government Departments, have been:The 'Lead City' programme to evaluate the potential for large scale CHP/Community Heating (CHP/CH). This stimulated widespread interest in the potential for CHP/CH which is culminating in schemes such as that recently announced by Citigen.
  To develop and demonstrate the use of small-scale packaged CHP for buildings, leading to an unprecedented rise in the installation of such units.
  The development and encouragement of the use of cost effective CHP applications in industry based on the use of modern gas turbines.
  The environmental benefits of CHP have been assessed and the potential of the technology to reduce environmentally harmful emissions is now widely acknowledged.
  The privatisation of both the electricity and gas industries has led to the creation of new competitive markets. CHP operators can obtain gas on a non-discriminatory basis and they have a market into which they can sell surplus electricity. The majority of genuine on-site CHP operators generating for own use are free to continue to do so without the need for a licence and, therefore, do not have to pay the fossil fuel levy. This has provided a commercial environment which is stimulating interest in CHP not only from the privatised companies but from energy users in all sectors of the economy. The Pooling and Settlement Agreement now enables companies generating their own electricity to sell only surplus power to the pool, instead of having to sell all they generate and buy back their own requirements.
  Measures have also been provided, where appropriate, to assist the development of CHP. Under the 1989 Electricity Act CHP operators as licensed generators may have powers to break streets to lay heat and power mains. There are special provisions for the treatment of CHP in the Department of Environment's Integrated Pollution Control regulations. Equitable treatment for CHP/CH schemes in the Department of Environment's rating formulae has been secured.
  The Department has produced a wide range of publications and two videos highlighting successful applications of CHP technology. The Department has also successfully collaborated with industry on the promotion and marketing of CHP, particularly with the CHPA on their Power Plus campaign. These activities have helped to raise the profile and awareness of CHP in industry, commerce and the public sector to a record level.

  Throughout the remainder of the 1990s the EEO will continue to vigorously promote the technology through its best practice programme and will aim to achieve the environment White Paper commitment to double CHP capacity to 4,000MWe by 2000.

  British Coal
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what figures he has for the change in the level of productivity in British Coal since 1983–84.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since 1983–84 productivity at British Coal's deep mines has increased by 110 per cent.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department carries out an annual relocation review as part of the public expenditure survey. An independent assessment of the case for and against the relocation of my Department's petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen is currently being undertaken. No posts are currently being considered for relocation to the east midlands.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Thames Polytechnic
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public resources are made available to Thames polytechnic.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council—PCFC—has made the following public funds available to Thames polytechnic for the financial year 1991–92:

  £

  Main allocation

  19,307,579

  Equipment

  1,933,332

  Hunter capital

  541,700

  Minor works

  424,000

  Research

  250,000

  Total

  22,456,611

  In addition the polytechnic's publicly funded tuition fee from funded places is expected to be £11,944,000. Total public funds available to the polytechnic are therefore £34,400,611. Institutions are free to recruit additional students who do not attract PCFC grant but who bring with them the publicly funded tuition fee, averaging £2,200 in the PCFC sector in 1991–92.

  Handicapped Pupils
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Government policy to ensure the integration of handicapped children into the maintained school system.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's policy on the intergration of children with special needs in mainstream schools is reflected in the provisions of the Education Act 838
  1981. The Act requires local education authorities to educate children with statements of special educational needs in ordinary schools wherever possible.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department is considering the scope for relocating some 50 posts from London to Darlington in 1992.

  Seven-year-olds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, columns 374–76, if he will list by local education authority (a) the proportion of usable return from maintained schools for seven-year-olds and (b) the number of children seven plus years old included in the seven-plus league tables of usable returns as a percentage of the total number of seven-plus pupils in maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  Tables showing this information were provided in written answers to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 15 January,Official Report, columns 580–82, and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 17 February, Official Report, columns 35–36.

  The following tables have been updated to incorporate details for Lambeth and Tower Hamlets, which were not included in the original tables.

  LEA RANKING

  Proportion of returns from maintained schools with 7 year olds used to compile the National analyses of the 1991 test results

  Percentage Returns used

  Avon

  100

  Barking

  100

  Berkshire

  100

  Bexley

  100

  Bury

  100

  Cleveland

  100

  Coventry

  100

  Croydon

  100

  Enfield

  100

  Essex

  100

  Hackney

  100

  Hammersmith

  100

  Haringey

  100

  Havering

  100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100

  Kingston Upon Thames

  100

  Merton

  100

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Stockport

  100

  Sutton

  100

  Calderdale

  99

  Devon

  99

  Hereford and Worcester

  99

  Humberside

  99

  Lincolnshire

  99

  Sunderland

  99

  Tameside

  99

  839

  Percenteage Returns used

  Wakefield

  99

  Walsall

  99

  West Sussex

  99

  Bradford

  98

  Bromley

  98

  Cambridgeshire

  98

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  98

  Dudley

  98

  North Yorkshire

  98

  Northumberland

  98

  Rotherham

  98

  Solihull

  98

  South Tyneside

  98

  Suffolk

  98

  Warwickshire

  98

  Gateshead

  97

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  97

  Surrey

  97

  Trafford

  97

  Westminster

  97

  Wirral

  97

  Wolverhampton

  97

  Manchester

  96

  Shropshire

  96

  Somerset

  96

  Redbridge

  95

  Sefton

  95

  Waltham Forest

  95

  Kent

  94

  St. Helens

  94

  Staffordshire

  94

  Barnet

  93

  Gloucestershire

  93

  Leeds

  93

  Rochdale

  93

  Wiltshire

  93

  Barnsley

  92

  Brent

  92

  Camden

  92

  Cheshire

  92

  Cumbria

  92

  Doncaster

  92

  Knowsley

  92

  Sandwell

  92

  Durham

  91

  Harrow

  91

  Hertfordshire

  91

  Lancashire

  91

  Bedfordshire

  90

  Derbyshire

  89

  Isle of Wight

  89

  Lewisham

  89

  Oldham

  89

  Nottinghamshire

  88

  Richmond Upon Thames

  88

  Wandsworth

  88

  Sheffield

  87

  Dorset

  87

  Lambeth

  83

  Hampshire

  82

  Leicestershire

  81

  840

  percentage Returns used

  Hillingdon

  78

  Ealing

  77

  Greenwich

  75

  Wigan

  75

  Tower Hamlets

  74

  North Tyneside

  73

  Birmingham

  72

  Bolton

  70

  Liverpool

  70

  Oxfordshire

  70

  East Sussex

  66

  Islington

  65

  Kirklees

  65

  Salford

  65

  Southwark

  60

  Buckinghamshire

  59

  Norfolk

  59

  Hounslow

  58

  Newham

  55

  Proportion of 7 year old pupils from maintained schools included in the national analyses of the 1991 test results

  Percentage of pupils in KSI results

  Camden

  94

  Greenwich

  74

  Hackney

  100

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100

  Islington

  62

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100

  Lambeth

  82

  Lewisham

  90

  Tower Hamlets

  67

  Southwark

  55

  Wandsworth

  85

  Westminster

  96

  Barking and Dagenham

  100

  Barnet

  91

  Bexley

  100

  Brent

  91

  Bromley

  97

  Croydon

  100

  Ealing

  72

  Enfield

  100

  Haringey

  100

  Harrow

  92

  Havering

  100

  Hillingdon

  78

  Hounslow

  49

  Kingston upon Thames

  100

  Merton

  100

  Newham

  46

  Redbridge

  95

  Richmond upon Thames

  86

  Sutton

  100

  Waltham Forest

  94

  Birmingham

  72

  Coventry

  100

  Dudley

  98

  Sandwell

  93

  Solihull

  99

  Walsall

  100

  841

  Percentage of pupils in KSI results

  Wolverhampton

  96

  Knowsley

  91

  Liverpool

  67

  St. Helens

  94

  Sefton

  98

  Wirral

  97

  Bolton

  68

  Bury

  100

  Manchester

  97

  Oldham

  86

  Rochdale

  94

  Salford

  63

  Stockport

  100

  Tameside

  99

  Trafford

  94

  Wigan

  73

  Barnsley

  93

  Doncaster

  87

  Rotherham

  97

  Sheffield

  87

  Bradford

  99

  Calderdale

  100

  Kirklees

  59

  Leeds

  96

  Wakefield

  100

  Gateshead

  97

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  96

  North Tyneside

  74

  South Tyneside

  96

  Sunderland

  98

  Avon

  100

  Bedfordshire

  89

  Berkshire

  99

  Buckinghamshire

  56

  Cambridgeshire

  98

  Cheshire

  88

  Cleveland

  100

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  99

  Cumbria

  93

  Derbyshire

  88

  Devon

  99

  Dorset

  89

  Durham

  91

  East Sussex

  62

  Essex

  100

  Gloucestershire

  93

  Hampshire

  78

  Hereford and Worcester

  99

  Hertfordshire

  93

  Humberside

  98

  Isle of Wight

  84

  Kent

  94

  Lancashire

  90

  Leicestershire

  85

  Lincolnshire

  too

  Norfolk

  60

  North Yorkshire

  100

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Northumberland

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  89

  Oxfordshire

  72

  Shropshire

  96

  Somerset

  95

  Staffordshire

  93

  Suffolk

  96

  Surrey

  97

  Warwickshire

  97

  West Sussex

  99

  Wiltshire

  92

  Total England

  89

  Expenditure, Eastern England
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the GM-relevant costs less the expenditure on school meals in each of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex local education authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  Using the definition of GM-relevant costs set out in the reply to my hon. Friend on 17 December 1991,Official Report, columns 114–16, the information, taken from the LEAs' section 42 budget statements for 1991–92, is as follows:

  £

  Norfolk

  172,117,000

  Suffolk

  149,632,000

  Essex

  364,119,000

  Note:

  The GM-relevant costs constitute the total budget in respect of the LEA's maintained schools which corresponds to the total annual maintenance grant—AMG—of grant-maintained—GM—schools, is the general schools budget less expenditure on items for which provision is made outside the AMG of GM schools, those items being: central Government specific grants; capital expenditure; and expenditure on home to school transport, education welfare officers and psychologists, pupil support, statemented pupils and special units.

  Ethnic Minority Teaching
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 116, if he will send the letter referred to, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, before the dissolution of Parliament; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 13 March confirming his decision.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Amens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children went into higher education in each of the last two years in Basildon.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information for the Basildon area is not available centrally.

  The estimated numbers of school leavers from maintained schools in the Essex local education authority area whose intended destination was further or higher education for the academic years 1988–89 and 1989–90, the latest years available, were 5,000 and 6,150 respectively. Information for higher education is not available separately at local authority level.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give the numbers attending full-time and sandwich courses at universities and polytechnics in the northern region in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of home and overseas domiciled students attending full-time and sandwich higher education courses at the three polytechnics in the northern region in 1990 was 18,900, and the number attending similar courses at the two universities in the region was 14,700.

  Operating Initiatives
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what operating initiatives have been launched in Basildon in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The main on-going initiative launched by Essex education authority in Basildon was the establishment of Basildon tertiary college and the consequent abolition of school sixth forms in the area. More recently, in response to local demand, my right hon. and learned Friend accorded grant-maintained status to Chalvedon school, and re-established its sixth form.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each private sector consultancy firm which has been retained by each agency within his Department, and for his Department as a whole, for the purposes of advising on the market testing programme; and whether the appointment in each case was the result of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Heseltine
  To date no private sector consultancy firms have been retained by my Department, or any of its agencies, to advise on the market testing programme as a whole. However, Messrs Donaldson are advising on the preparation of contractual documentation for market testing property management services. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte are advising on, among other things the value for money of alternative arrangements for providing the services offered by the Government car service and the interdepartmental dispatch service. Watts and Partners are advising on documentation for royal parks works contracts. All these contracts were let by competitive tender.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information about the(a) percentage of people who have made a payment of the community charge, (b) percentage of community charge collected by 31 December, (c) percentage of community charge collected for the financial year ending 5 April and (d) level of community charge for 1991–92 and 1992–93 for the boroughs of Gedling, Rushcliffe, Broxtowe and the City of Nottingham.

  Mr. Key
  The latest information concerning the percentage of people making community charge payments in 1991–92, and the collection rates to December 1991–92 for all authorities who have provided information, is listed in the departmental press release No. 164 which was placed in the Library on 27 February 1992.

  Charging authorities have until 18 March to make their "Demands and Precepts Return" to the Department and until 1 April to set a 1992–93 community charge. The available community charge information is as follows.
  844

  1991–92 Average Community Charge£

  1992–93 Average Community Charge£

  Gedling

  266·58

  No return

  Rushcliffe

  265·11

  No return

  Broxtowe

  265

  278·54

  Nottingham

  295

  316

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when rates or the community charge have been capped in Basildon since 1983;

  (2) what is the proposed level of community charge in Basildon; and at what levels it or rates have been set in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the revenue support grant per capita for 1992–93 in the Wandsworth, Westminster and Rotherham local authorities; and if he will state the community charge which has been determined by each of these authorities for 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  Many authorities have yet to make a return to the Department giving information about community charges. Charging authorities have until 18 March to make their "Demands and Precepts Return" to the Department and they have until 1 April to set a charge.

  The available information is as follows:

  1992–93 revenue support grant £ per adult

  1992–93 revenue support grant £ per adult

  Westminster

  1,263

  36

  Wandsworth

  975

  No return

  Rotherham

  406

  No return

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will hold a public inquiry regarding the application by National Power to burn orimulsion at Padiham power station before allowing a decision to be made on the said application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am satisfied that the public have been made aware of this application. HM IP has received a number of representations which it will take into account in determining the application.

  It remains open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to direct that the application should be referred for his determination. In that event, he would consider whether a local public inquiry would be appropriate.

  A299
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposed route for the A299 Thanet way between Whitstable and Herne Bay will be the subject of a public inquiry.

  Mr. Yeo
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Community Charges
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the proposed level of community charges in London in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Wild Birds
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish a new inspection and enforcement service to ensure adequate safeguards for the trade in wild birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 March 1992,Official Report, at column 372.

  New Homes
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate discussions on the future use of public sector sites which are no longer needed, as areas for new homes construction.

  Mr. Yeo
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is available to local authorities concerning the need to assess the effect that plans or projects may have on special areas of conservation designated under the new EC habitats directive.

  Mr. Trippier
  Our obligation under the forthcoming directive to assess the effect of plans and projects on designated special areas of conservation is covered in the draft planning policy guidance on nature conservation. This was circulated for consultation by the Department of the Environment on 27 February.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to identify those areas in the United Kingdom which should be considered for designation as special areas for conservation under the forthcoming EC habitats directive.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government and their scientific advisers are currently examining the criteria set out in annex III of the forthcoming EC habitats directive with a view to evaluating the eligibility of sites for inclusion on the United Kingdom's proposed national list of SITES of Community importance. While I expect it to be some time before I am in a position to determine the full list, the Government intend to comply with the timetable set by the directive.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to introduce in order to comply with article 6·2—avoidance of the deterioration of the habitats—of the EC directive on the conservation of natural and semi-natural habitats arid of wild fauna and flora—the habitats directive.

  Mr. Trippier
  Officials are currently consulting the statutory nature conservation agencies and other 846
  Government Departments about the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions through which the forthcoming directive is to be implemented in the United Kingdom. The measures already in place under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, give considerable protection to the important wildlife habitat in this country. A recent further welcome step has been the launch of English Nature's wildlife enhancement scheme to secure more positive management of sites of special scientific interest.

  Aqueous Cleaners
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to tackle the increase in effluent from disposal of increased amounts of aqueous cleaners used to replace CFC-G113; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Such discharges would be subject to existing statutory authorisation procedures as appropriate under section 88 of the Water Resources Act 1991, sections 118 and 120 of the Water Industry Act 1991, and section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the reference to little weight being attached to the loss of moderate and poor quality agricultural land in paragraph 2·5 of planning policy guidance note 7 "The Countryside and Rural Economy" refers only to that aspect of paragraph 2·4 which deals with the agricultural value of land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Yes. When paragraph 2·5 of PPG7 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. The PPG explains the 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 arid its ecological, agricultural and recreational value.

  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete the consultation exercise prior to amending the local government superannuation regulations concerning the treatment of war service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations which came into force on 28 February 1992 include a provision enabling certain probation officers to count their war service for superannuation purposes. No formal request has been received to make further amendments to the provisions on war service already included in the regulations and no consultation exercise is planned.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter of 4 March, what consideration he has given to banning immediately the production of ozone-depleting substances and filling essential applications, including asthma inhalers, from existing stocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government are firmly committed to phasing out CFCs by the end of 1995 at the latest. An immediate phase-out of these substances would not be possible, because substitutes for some relatively high volume uses of CFCs still require further development before the overall demand will be low enough to be met by existing stocks.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on emissions of(a) carbon dioxide and (b) carcinogens of the increased use of unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Trippier
  Increased use of unleaded petrol will result in a modest increase in carbon dioxide emissions from refineries. Any effect on carcinogenic emissions is likely to be very small, but a detailed assessment of hydrocarbon emissions from cars using leaded and unleaded fuel is in progress and results are expected in the autumn. Catalytic converters will be mandatory on all new petrol-engine cars from the end of this year and will secure dramatic reductions in all harmful emissions, including carcinogens. Cars equipped with catalysts can run only on unleaded petrol.

  Waste Carriers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of registration for waste carriers; what information he has on how many waste carriers have received information on duty of care regulations; whether he has had any discussions with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers about the practicability of meeting the 1 April deadline for registration of waste carriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Buildings (Disabled Persons' Access)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Government policy to ensure maximum mobility and access to buildings by registered disabled persons on visits to buildings and installations in both the public and private sectors.
  848
  Mr. Yeo
  The Government have introduced revised Building Regulations relating to access and facilities for disabled people which come into force on 1 June this year and apply in both the public and private sectors. The requirements have been extended to cover all floors of new non-domestic buildings and most extensions to such buildings. They now, for the first time, address some of the needs of people with impaired hearing and sight.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the 1992–93 schemes for recovery of pollution control costs in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  Cost-recovery charging to cover the costs of regulating processes under integrated pollution control, under local authority air pollution control, and premises subject to regulation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 were introduced in April 1991, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  With the agreement of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has now made revised charging schemes to introduce the 1992–93 scales of fees and charges, which will take effect from 1 April 1992. I have placed copies of the revised schemes in the Library.

  The schemes have been prepared following consultation with industry and other bodies.

  The form of the schemes remains the same. For integrated pollution control—IPC—the scheme comprises an application fee to cover the cost of assessment of the operator's proposals and preparation of the authorisation; an annual subsistence charge for holding an authorisation, to cover the costs of inspection and oversight of the plant; and a variation fee to cover the costs of assessment of any proposals for substantial variation to a process.

  The application fee for 1992–93 is £2,450 per component for processes which have previously been subject to air pollution control; £3,650 per component for processes coming under regulation by HMIP for the first time. These fees reflect the amount of time and cost involved in the assessment of IPC applications in 1991–92, which has proved to be higher than the estimates on which the 1991–92 fees were based. However, HMIP has set itself the objective for 1992–93 of reducing its average application handling time by 12½ per cent., and the fee levels allow for this efficiency target.

  HMIP is publishing extensive technical IPC guidance notes, and is also organising a programme of local seminars for industries currently involved in preparing IPC applications. These steps will ensure that industry has all the necessary information, and will help to achieve speedier authorisation, and reduce application handling further.

  The variation fee is £1,200 per component—one third of the application fee.

  On 8 November 1991 I announced a further substantial strengthening of HMIP's complement for 1992–93, to ensure that the inspectorate is able to maintain rigorous levels of inspection and oversight, and provide the high degree of public confidence which industry requires to be able to conduct its business. The annual subsistence charge of £1,500 per component reflects the costs of the higher level of oversight which HMIP will be able to provide in 1992–93.
  849
  As noted, the IPC fees for 1991–92 underestimated the time involved in assessing IPC applications, the cost of which was therefore not fully recovered. The legislation governing the charging scheme requires that costs and income are balanced, taking one financial year with another. It is therefore necessary to recoup the under-recovery of costs in 1991–92. However this recoupment will be spread over the remaining four years of the IPC implementation period. It will be carried out by way of an additional charge applied only to authorisations related to applications submitted during 1991–92. The additional charge in 1991–92 will be £410 per component for processes previously under air pollution control, £610 per component for others.

  The charges payable on a plant are related to its complexity and scale by being linked to the number of defined components which the plant contains. The schedule of components has been reviewed in consultation with industry, in the light of experience in operating the charging scheme, and revised for 1992–93.

  For the longer term, we wish to consider the option of moving to a system of direct charging for IPC applications according to the time and costs incurred in dealing with each application.

  For local authority air pollution control, the application fee is increased to £900, and the annual subsistence fee to £550, taking account of the local authority associations' submissions to the Department reporting that local authorities' staff are spending more time than expected in implementing part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The substantial change fee and the fee for processes already registered under the Alkali Act are increased to £580. Fees and charges for small waste oil burners, which reflect a simplified authorisation procedure, remain unchanged at £100.

  The form of the radioactive substances regulations—RSA 60—charging scheme also remains the same. Nuclear licensed premises will be billed individually on the basis of regulatory time spent and costs incurred at each site. Non-nuclear premises are charged on the basis of flat-rate fees similar to the IPC scheme, relating to applications, substantial variations, and the subsistence of consents to cover inspection and oversight costs.

  For premises authorised to accumulate and dispose of radioactive waste—"band 3 premises", for example, research establishments, major universities—the application and variation fee will be £1,350 and the annual subsistence charge £800. For premises registered to keep and use radioactive material—"band 4 premises", for example industrial users of radioactive sources—the application and variation fee will be £500. The annual subsistence charge will be £80, but this will apply only to holders of larger sources. The majority of registration holders, using smaller closed sources, will not pay any annual subsistence charge, since these sources do not require routine inspection.

  As with the IPC scheme, the RSA60 application fees set for 1991–92 underestimated the time involved in assessing applications, and costs were under-recovered. This scheme is also subject to a statutory requirement to balance income and costs. As for the IPC scheme, it has been agreed with the Treasury that the recovery will be spread over four years, through an additional charge applying to
  850
  consents related to applications made in 1991–92, which will be £210 for band 3 authorisations, and £80 for band 4 registrations.

  Charging schemes for Scotland will be made in due course.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many replies were received in response to the consultation paper "Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Proposed New Regulations"; and if he will make the responses publicly available.

  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the 181 responses received have been placed in the Department's library, where they are available for public inspection. A list of responses received has also been placed in the Library of the House, through which copies of individual responses may be obtained.

  Urban Areas
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by his Department in revitalising the urban and inner-city areas of the northern region since June 1987.

  Mr. Key
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Historic Churches, Basildon
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants are available to restore historic churches in Basildon.

  Mr. Yeo
  English Heritage provide grants for the repair of outstanding historic churches from grant in avid provided by my Department. The church grants budget proposed for 1992–93 is some £9 million. Local authorities also have discretionary powers to provide assistance.

  Pitsea
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what moneys are available to clean up Pitsea creek;

  (2) what response he has made to the Environment Committee's report on dumping on Pitsea tip, seventh report of 1990–91, HC 263;

  (3) what recent representations he has received; and what response he has made about dumping on Pitsea tip.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council and Commission for the New Towns houses have been sold in Basildon since(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Yeo
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Rochester upon Medway City Council (Housing Stock)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the district auditor into the sale by Rochester upon Medway city council of its housing stock to the Medway housing society; and if he will make a statement.
  851
  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 5 March 1992]: I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the comparative public sector revenue costs of housing homeless families in(a) Greater London, (b) other metropolitan authorities and (c) English non-metropolitan areas by (i) providing them with newly built council dwellings, (ii) providing them with council dwellings newly acquired from the private sector and improved for letting and (iii) providing them with bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will publish these figures on a comparable basis with those in his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 23 February 1989, Official Report, column 741.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: I have looked carefully at the basis on which such an answer can be given and have concluded that the information is not available in a form which enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Expenditure, London
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the budget and forecast actual expenditure of his Department's London region office in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: The London regional office's budget for pay and day-to-day running costs, excluding accommodation which is centrally funded, was £3·184 million for 1991–92. Forecast actual expenditure for the year is £3·092 million. The budget for 1992–93 has not been finalised.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure of the London residuary body on administration in each year from 1986–87 to 1991–92, at current prices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: Expressed in current prices, net expenditure by the London residuary body on general management or administrative services, including preparation and transfer of records to successor bodies by the LRB's administration department, was as follows in the years 1986–87 to 1991–92:

  £'000

  1986–87

  6,874

  1987–88

  4,164

  1988–89

  3,597

  1989–90

  2,962

  11990–91

  7,365

  21991–92

  3,466

  1 On April 1 1990 the LRB took on responsibility for winding up the affairs of the Inner London Education Authority.

  2 The figures for 1991–92 are from the LRB's 1991–92 original budget while information for other years comes from the LRB's Annual Report and Accounts for the relevant year.

  Further details may be found in the London residuary body's annual report and accounts.

  Birds
  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 relating to United Kingdom nature conservation and land use policies arising from the publication of the recent reports sponsored by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on birds and pastoral agriculture in Europe; the conservation of lowland dry grassland birds in Europe; and breeding waders on wet grassland.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: None. However, the studies and recommendations contained in the reports will make a valuable contribution to our consideration of countryside policies in the United Kingdom and Europe.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the sum allocated by the London Docklands development corporation for its sponsorship of the Sports Scholarship Foundation for sports scholarships in the United States of America; the sum it is likely to expend in its trial event to be held in Florida in July next; the residential and other qualifications it expects of those it intends to sponsor at the trial event and the particulars of the persons there present who will make the selection for scholarship awards, together with details of any charges met in cash or kind for the trial event or the scholarships from individuals or bodies other than the corporation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The corporation has made provision for expenditure of £3,000 for the sponsorship of local young people attending the scholarship trials in Florida this year. From those urban development association residents selected by LDDC as suitable to attend the trial, a number who would otherwise be unable to take part will receive financial assistance.

  The Sports Scholarship Foundation—an independent body—is entirely responsible for the running and organisation of the sports trial event. Assessment of an individual's sporting ability and the related costs are matters for the foundation.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure of the London Docklands development corporation on administration, research and planning for each year since its creation, at current prices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 March 1992]: Expenditure by the London Docklands development corporation on administration, research and planning, at current prices, is as follows:

  £ million (rounded)

  Year

  Amount

  1981–82

  4

  1982–83

  10

  1983–84

  10

  1984–85

  12

  1985–86

  12

  1986–87

  12

  1987–88

  12

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  17

  853

  Year

  Amount

  1990–91

  18

  11991–92

  16

  1 Estimated.

  It is not possible to separate the amount specific to each item.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on businesses in Greater Manchester of the introduction of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: The table shows the average change, between 1989–90 and 1990–91, in non-domestic rates bills in Greater Manchester flowing from the introduction of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation, but taking no account of the transitional arrangements.

  District

  Average effect on rates bills per cent.

  Bolton

  -8

  Bury

  -19

  Manchester

  -38

  Oldham

  -34

  Rochdale

  -35

  Salford

  -36

  Stockport

  -18

  Tameside

  -34

  Trafford

  -14

  Wigan

  -39

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the Local Government Boundary Commission's recommendations that Thamesmead East ward be transferred from the London borough of Bexley to the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Seventy-six representations from hon. Members, local groups, members of the public and other interested persons have been received. Most of these oppose the proposed transfer.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of contracts awarded by his Department in each of the four calendar years to 31 December 1990 to(a) GPT Ltd. Strategic Communications Systems, (b) Rolls-Royce Industrial and Marine Gas Turbines Ltd., (c) Lucas Aerospace Ltd., (d) Dunlop Aviation Division, (e) Alvis Ltd., (f) Abbey Panels Ltd., (g) Commercial Hydraulics Keelavite Ltd., (h) Cornercroft Ltd., (i) Neol Penny Turbines Ltd., (j) J. S. Chinn Ltd., (k) Rotherhams Ltd., and (l) Self-Changing Gears Ltd.; and if he will list the total amount paid to each company in each of those years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information the hon. Gentleman requests is commercially sensitive and cannot be released.

  1 Submarine Squadron
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the home addresses of the 350 naval personnel committed to the 1 Submarine Squadron; and whether they are home owners or tenants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on home addresses is held locally on all service personnel who work for the 1 Submarine Squadron. About one third are home owners, the remainder are either private tenants or occupy RN accommodation. It is not possible at this stage to say which personnel will move to Devonport.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of relocating the 1 Submarine Squadron from Gosport to Devonport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost is some £3·5 million. With annual savings in running costs of some £2 million per year, we expect to recoup these costs within two years.

  HMS Dolphin
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the type 2400 Upholder class submarine maintenance facilities at HMS Dolphin, Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since the mid-1980s some £4·4 million has been spent on the provision of facilities at HMS Dolphin specifically for the maintenance of Upholder class submarines.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and nature of the workers who will be transferred from Gunwharf, Portsmouth to HMS Dolphin, Gosport as envisaged in the Minister of State for the Armed Forces' letter of 10 March to the hon. Member for Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of around 100 service and civilian posts are expected to relocate from Gunwharf to HMS Dolphin in the mid-1990s, although further work still needs to be done on our detailed plans. The following units are expected to transfer:

  the Royal Engineers Diving Establishment;

  the Minewarfare and Maritime Trade School;

  the DNIS Management Systems Group and Small Systems Group;

  the Fleet Diving Group;

  the Portsmouth Area Clearance Diving Unit.

  Green Rover
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of the former Royal Navy ship Green Rover to Indonesia; and what restrictions have been placed on its use.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Indonesian Government are purchasing the surplus Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Green Rover. She is a replenishment ship for fresh water, fuel and refrigerated goods. She has no offensive capability. Restrictions on her use would be irrelevant.

  Telecommunications Station, Outhmuir
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed telecommunications station being built at Outhmuir, Fife, giving details of the costs and the purpose of the system in terms of overall operation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The installations under construction at Outhmuir, Fife, are components of the Uniter communications system and the associated bearer network, Boxer. The estimated total costs of Uniter and Boxer at 1991–92 prices are about £410 million and £230 million respectively.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Much work is going on within the Ministry of Defence to determine future locations for both service and headquarters personnel. The aim is wherever possible to rationalise and concentrate personnel on existing defence sites away from London and the south-east. Certain RAF recruitment activities will transfer to RAF Cranwell, with the addition of 89 service and 70 civilian jobs for the region. At present, no posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield.

  Submarine Notification Scheme
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has come to a conclusion on the extension of the submarine notification scheme to cover the whole of the Minches.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Extension of the SUBFACTS notification scheme is one of the subjects covered in a consultation document on submarine operations and fishing vessels which has recently been circulated to fishing industry representatives, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. A decision on the areas to be covered by the extended arrangements will be made once this consultation has been completed.

  Cwrt-y-Gollen Camp
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision will be made in the near future by the Ministry of Defence to ensure the education of the children of service personnel shortly to move into Cwrt-y-Gollen camp, Crickhowell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The responsibility for making provision for the education of the children of service personnel in the United Kingdom rests with local education authorities.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence contracts have benefited Basildon in each of the last three years.
  856
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The number and value of defence contracts placed in the Basildon/Southend-on-Sea area are as follows:

  1990–91—311 contracts valued at £34·733 million.

  1991–92—280 contracts valued at £18·175 million to end January.

  Figures for earlier years could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Pacific Atomic Tests
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of whether former service man Andrew Dickson, now of Wakefield, was contaminated from radioactive fallout from atomic bombs tested in the atmosphere over the Pacific in 1959; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: In general it is not the policy of this Department to detail individual dose records which are medically confidential. Almost all participants in the United Kingdom nuclear test programme, however, were not exposed to ionising radiation from the tests. An independent study by the National Radiological Protection Board showed neither a loss of life expectancy nor an overall increase in the incidence of malignant disease.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Basildon Crown Court
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Attorney-General when he proposes to start the building of a Crown court in Basildon.

  The Attorney-General
  It is expected that construction of a Crown court in Basildon will commence in the summer of 1993.

HEALTH

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds(a) in each individual health authority in England and (b) in each health trust in England and were designated (i) for intensive care and (ii) for children's intensive care; how many of such beds were closed or otherwise not available for use on 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps he intends to take to encourage more organ transplant donors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are continually looking at ways of improving the supply of donor organs.

  Hospital Beds, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute and (b) long-stay hospital beds there were in the Leeds metropolitan district in each year since 1979 shown (i) in total and (ii) by hospital.
  857
  Mr. Dorrell
  Details requested about acute beds for each year from 1979 are given in the tables. Information about the total number of long-stay beds and the number

  Number of daily available beds of Acute specialties for each hospital in Leeds Western and Leeds Eastern Health Districts for the years 1979 to 1990–91

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  B6201 Leeds General Infirmary

  649

  654

  653

  669

  650

  615

  620

  618

  625

  631

  621

  606

  B6203 Cookridge Hospital

  152

  149

  150

  149

  151

  153

  138

  117

  104

  118

  117

  119

  B6204 Ida and Robert Arthington Hospital

  91

  82

  78

  79

  74

  31

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  B6205 Leeds Maternity Hospital

  28

  28

  28

  28

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  B6207 Wharfedale Hospital, Otley

  140

  142

  142

  141

  144

  142

  145

  142

  134

  136

  136

  140

  B6210 Roundhay Hall Hospital

  78

  81

  80

  81

  68

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  B6211 Middleton Hospital

  82

  70

  58

  58

  52

  47

  36

  29

  10

  0

  0

  0

  B6212 Ilkley Convalescent Home

  53

  56

  56

  56

  56

  55

  58

  58

  56

  58

  0

  0

  B6219 Chapel Allerton Hospital

  284

  285

  280

  232

  189

  188

  184

  213

  207

  187

  173

  120

  B6230 Clarendon Wing, General Infirmary

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  178

  173

  178

  176

  172

  166

  170

  B6313 St. James' Hospital

  784

  788

  786

  789

  790

  792

  797

  813

  819

  802

  804

  756

  B6314 Seacroft Hospital

  178

  176

  173

  271

  287

  273

  269

  253

  242

  234

  248

  219

  B6315 Killingbeck Hospital

  201

  202

  198

  195

  177

  172

  164

  166

  173

  167

  168

  171

  B6321 Marguerite Hepton Hospital

  46

  47

  47

  47

  47

  36

  32

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  B6322 Gateforth Hospital

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  2,786

  2,760

  2,729

  2,795

  2,727

  2,682

  2,651

  2,612

  2,583

  2,530

  2,458

  2,326

  Please note that Chapel Allerton Hospital was in Leeds Eastern for 1979–81 and Leeds Western 1982–91.

  Source: DH Form SH3 and KHO3

  SM1 Fylde 4 March 1992.

  Leeds Acute In-Patient and Day Case Activity 1979 to 1990–91

  In-Patients

  Day Cases

  Total

  1979

  76,887

  14,213

  91,100

  1980

  81,476

  14,601

  96.077

  1981

  82,636

  14,934

  97,570

  1982

  82,492

  14,988

  97,480

  1983

  88,638

  16,872

  105,510

  1984

  90,705

  16,397

  107,102

  1985

  93,181

  17,075

  110,256

  1986

  94,670

  18,055

  112,725

  1987–88

  95,892

  0

  95,892

  1988–89

  104,925

  18,427

  123,352

  1989–90

  104,637

  23,733

  128,370

  1990–91

  1104,846

  227,024

  131,870

  1 Increase 28·7 per cent.

  2 Increase 90·1 per cent.

  Number of authorised pay beds in NHS hospital

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  56

  56

  78

  103

  103

  105

  95

  101

  96

  99

  97

  97

  Yorkshire

  140

  140

  154

  182

  199

  199

  193

  193

  187

  192

  188

  188

  Trent

  130

  130

  150

  143

  143

  143

  138

  136

  128

  136

  136

  136

  East Anglian

  90

  90

  94

  106

  106

  108

  108

  108

  96

  108

  108

  108

  North West Thames

  339

  339

  352

  292

  292

  292

  287

  285

  271

  285

  283

  283

  North East Thames

  278

  278

  286

  398

  404

  410

  413

  411

  347

  393

  411

  411

  South East Thames

  263

  263

  302

  332

  337

  337

  339

  341

  322

  333

  333

  333

  South West Thames

  156

  156

  168

  180

  182

  194

  182

  180

  141

  180

  180

  180

  Wessex

  99

  99

  106

  117

  120

  120

  116

  116

  105

  115

  116

  116

  Oxford

  164

  164

  180

  180

  180

  180

  183

  193

  188

  193

  194

  194

  South Western

  78

  78

  82

  102

  104

  104

  104

  102

  96

  100

  100

  100

  West Midlands

  181

  181

  217

  258

  267

  276

  273

  270

  209

  281

  276

  276

  Mersey

  67

  67

  92

  112

  123

  123

  123

  129

  123

  129

  129

  129

  North Western

  170

  170

  214

  231

  244

  245

  243

  237

  207

  233

  233

  227

  858
  of long-stay beds by hospital is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. P. Smith, the chairman of leeds health authority, for detalls.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the figures from 1979 to 1992 inclusive for the number of family planning clinics in(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Manchester, (d) Leeds, (e) Newcastle, (f) Southampton, (g) Bristol and (h) England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Pay Beds
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of pay beds in each district health authority in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available centrally is given in the tables.
  859

  Regions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Special health authorities and boards of governors

  194

  194

  202

  183

  183

  183

  178

  178

  177

  160

  178

  178

  England

  2,405

  2,405

  2,677

  2,919

  2,987

  3,019

  2,975

  2,980

  2,693

  2,937

  2,962

  2,956

  Private Bed—Number of beds authorised in District under section 65 of the National Health Service Act19711

  District Health Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  A01 Hartlepool

  6

  6

  6

  6

  A02 North Tees

  7

  7

  7

  7

  A03 South Tees

  13

  15

  15

  15

  A04 East Cumbria

  10

  10

  10

  10

  A05 South Cumbria

  9

  9

  9

  9

  A06 West Cumbria

  4

  4

  4

  4

  A07 Darlington

  6

  5

  5

  5

  A08 Durham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  A09 North West Durham

  3

  5

  3

  3

  A10 South West Durham

  3

  3

  3

  3

  A11 Northumberland

  4

  4

  4

  4

  A12 Gateshead

  3

  3

  3

  3

  A13 Newcastle upon Tyne

  15

  15

  15

  15

  A14 North Tyneside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  A15 South Tyneside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  A16 Sunderland

  7

  7

  7

  7

  B12 Hull

  12

  12

  12

  12

  B13 East Yorkshire

  10

  10

  8

  8

  B14 Grimsby

  7

  7

  7

  7

  B15 Scunthorpe

  9

  7

  7

  7

  B22 Northallerton

  5

  7

  7

  7

  B23 York

  3

  5

  5

  5

  B24 Scarborough

  6

  6

  6

  6

  B25 Harrogate

  6

  6

  6

  6

  B32 Bradford

  34

  31

  31

  31

  B33 Airedale

  15

  12

  12

  12

  B42 Calderdale

  24

  24

  24

  24

  B52 Huddersfield

  0

  10

  10

  10

  B53 Dewsbury

  6

  6

  6

  6

  B62 Leeds Western

  31

  29

  29

  29

  B63 Leeds Eastern

  7

  6

  6

  6

  B72 Wakefield

  10

  10

  10

  10

  B73 Pontefract

  2

  4

  2

  2

  C01 North Derbyshire

  8

  6

  6

  6

  C02 Southern Derbyshire

  15

  15

  15

  15

  C03 Leicestershire

  23

  30

  30

  30

  C04 North Lincolnshire

  18

  18

  18

  18

  C05 South Lincolnshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  C06 Bassetlaw

  6

  6

  6

  6

  C07 Central Nottinghamshire

  15

  15

  15

  15

  C08 Nottingham

  20

  20

  20

  20

  C09 Barnsley

  3

  5

  5

  5

  C10 Doncaster

  2

  3

  3

  3

  C11 Rotherham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  C12 Sheffield

  8

  8

  8

  8

  1 Source: DH form KH02

  Private beds Number of authorised in district under section 65 of NHS act 19771

  District health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  D01 Cambridge

  11

  11

  11

  11

  D02 Peterborough

  6

  18

  18

  18

  D03 West Suffolk

  10

  10

  10

  10

  D04 East Suffolk

  24

  24

  24

  24

  D06 Norwich

  28

  28

  28

  28

  D07 Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  5

  5

  5

  5

  D08 West Norfolk and Wisbech

  8

  8

  8

  8

  D09 Huntingdon

  4

  4

  4

  4

  E01 North Bedfordshire

  10

  12

  12

  12

  E02 South Bedfordshire

  7

  9

  9

  9

  E03 North Hertfordshire

  10

  10

  8

  8

  E04 East Hertfordshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  E05 North West Hertfordshire

  18

  13

  13

  13

  860 861

  District health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  E06 South West Hertfordshire

  6

  6

  6

  6

  E07 Barnet

  12

  12

  12

  12

  E08 Harrow

  13

  13

  13

  13

  E09 Hillingdon

  30

  30

  30

  30

  E10 Hounslow and Spelthorne

  7

  7

  7

  7

  E11 Ealing

  0

  3

  3

  3

  E12 Brent2

  10

  E13 Paddington and North Kensington2

  53

  E14 Riverside

  85

  85

  85

  85

  E17 Parkside2

  75

  75

  75

  F01 Basildon and Thurrock

  9

  11

  11

  11

  F02 Mid Essex

  18

  18

  18

  18

  F03 North East Essex

  9

  9

  9

  9

  F04 West Essex

  18

  20

  21

  21

  F05 Southend

  17

  19

  19

  19

  F06 Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  10

  13

  13

  13

  F07 Hampstead

  27

  29

  29

  29

  F08 Bloomsbury

  132

  161

  178

  178

  F09 Islington

  31

  31

  31

  31

  F10 City and Hackney

  9

  15

  15

  15

  F11 Newham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  F12 Tower Hamlets

  34

  34

  34

  34

  F13 Enfield

  6

  6

  6

  6

  F14 Haringey

  10

  10

  10

  10

  F15 Redbridge

  8

  8

  8

  8

  F16 Waltham Forest

  7

  7

  7

  7

  1 Source: DH form KH02.

  2 E12and E1 combined to form E17 from 1988–89.

  Private Beds—Number of beds authorized in District under section 65 of National Health Service Act 19771

  District health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  G01 Brighton

  24

  24

  24

  24

  G02 Eastbourne

  10

  10

  10

  10

  G03 Hastings

  6

  6

  6

  6

  G04 South East Kent

  10

  10

  10

  10

  G05 Canterbury and Thanet

  27

  29

  29

  29

  G06 Dartford and Gravesham

  6

  8

  8

  8

  G07 Maidstone

  5

  7

  7

  7

  G08 Medway

  6

  8

  8

  8

  G09 Tunbridge Wells

  37

  37

  37

  37

  G10 Bexley

  10

  10

  10

  10

  G11 Greenwich

  12

  14

  14

  14

  G12 Bromley

  22

  22

  22

  22

  G13 West Lambeth

  37

  38

  38

  38

  G14 Camberwell

  41

  41

  41

  41

  G15 Lewisham and North Southwark

  69

  69

  69

  69

  H01 North West Surrey

  15

  11

  11

  11

  H02 West Surrey/North East Hants

  12

  9

  9

  9

  H03 South West Surrey

  0

  15

  15

  15

  H04 Mid Surrey

  20

  20

  20

  20

  H05 East Surrey

  21

  23

  23

  23

  H06 Chichester

  0

  6

  6

  6

  H07 Mid Downs

  19

  21

  21

  21

  H08 Worthing

  5

  4

  4

  4

  H09 Croydon

  10

  12

  12

  12

  H10 Kingston and Esher

  8

  6

  6

  6

  H11 Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  12

  12

  12

  12

  H12 Wandsworth

  0

  20

  20

  20

  H13 Merton and Sutton

  19

  21

  21

  21

  J11 East Dorset

  14

  14

  14

  14

  J12 West Dorset

  11

  13

  13

  13

  J21 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  J22 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  16

  14

  14

  14

  J23 Winchester

  0

  11

  11

  11

  J24 Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  11

  11

  11

  11

  J31 Salisbury

  10

  10

  10

  10

  J32 Swindon

  12

  12

  12

  12

  J33 Bath

  11

  10

  11

  11

  J41 Isle of Wight

  6

  6

  6

  6

  K11 East Berkshire

  17

  17

  17

  17

  K12 West Berkshire

  36

  36

  36

  36

  K21 Aylesbury Vale

  29

  31

  32

  32

  K22 Wycombe

  24

  24

  24

  24

  862 863

  District health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  K23 Milton Keynes

  5

  5

  5

  5

  K31 Kettering

  10

  10

  10

  10

  K32 Northampton

  10

  13

  13

  13

  K41 Oxfordshire

  57

  57

  57

  57

  1 Source: DH form KH02.

  Private beds—Number of beds authorised in district under section 65 of NHS Act 19771

  District health authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  L11 Bristol and Weston

  6

  6

  6

  6

  L12 Frenchay

  4

  4

  4

  4

  L13 Southmead

  2

  2

  2

  2

  L21 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  13

  13

  13

  13

  L31 Exeter

  10

  10

  10

  10

  L32 North Devon

  5

  5

  5

  5

  L33 Plymouth

  6

  6

  6

  6

  L34 Torbay

  9

  9

  9

  9

  L41 Cheltenham

  14

  14

  14

  14

  L42 Gloucester

  14

  18

  18

  18

  L51 Somerset

  13

  13

  13

  13

  M01 Bromsgrove and Redditch

  6

  6

  6

  6

  M02 Herefordshire

  2

  4

  4

  4

  M03 Kidderminster and District

  6

  6

  6

  6

  M04 Worcester and District

  8

  20

  20

  20

  M05 Shropshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  M06 Mid Staffordshire

  8

  10

  8

  8

  M07 North Staffordshire

  16

  16

  16

  16

  M08 South East Staffordshire

  8

  8

  8

  8

  M09 Rugby

  5

  13

  13

  13

  M10 North Warwickshire

  3

  6

  3

  3

  M11 South Warwickshire

  0

  13

  13

  13

  M12 Central Birmingham

  30

  67

  67

  67

  M13 East Birmingham

  10

  10

  10

  10

  M14 North Birmingham

  9

  9

  9

  9

  M15 South Birmingham

  21

  21

  21

  21

  M16 West Birmingham

  10

  10

  10

  10

  M17 Coventry

  15

  10

  10

  10

  M18 Dudley

  10

  10

  10

  10

  M19 Sandwell

  6

  6

  6

  6

  M20 Solihull

  4

  4

  4

  4

  M21 Walsall

  11

  11

  11

  11

  M22 Wolverhampton

  7

  7

  7

  7

  N11 Chester

  6

  8

  8

  8

  N12 Crewe

  15

  16

  16

  16

  N13 Halton

  6

  6

  6

  6

  M14 Macclesfield

  15

  15

  15

  15

  N15 Warrington

  14

  15

  15

  15

  N21 Liverpool

  20

  20

  20

  20

  N31 St. Helens and Knowsley

  15

  15

  15

  15

  N41 Southport and Formby

  7

  7

  7

  7

  N42 South Sefton

  10

  10

  10

  10

  N51 Wirral

  15

  17

  17

  17

  1 Source: DHform KH02.

  Private beds—Number of beds authorised in district under section 65 of NHS Act 19771

  District Health Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  P01 Lancaster

  13

  13

  13

  13

  P02 Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  15

  15

  15

  15

  P03 Preston

  18

  12

  12

  12

  P04 Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  7

  7

  7

  7

  P05 Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  6

  8

  8

  2

  P06 West Lancashire

  9

  9

  9

  9

  P07 Chorley and South Ribble

  0

  4

  4

  4

  P08 Bolton

  6

  20

  20

  20

  P09 Bury

  13

  13

  13

  13

  P10 North Manchester

  7

  9

  9

  9

  P11 Central Manchester

  43

  43

  43

  43

  P12 South Manchester

  33

  33

  33

  33

  P13 Oldham

  5

  5

  5

  5

  P14 Rochdale

  2

  2

  2

  2

  P15 Salford

  9

  11

  11

  11

  P16 Stockport

  5

  6

  6

  6

  864 865

  District Health Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  P17 Tameside and Glossop

  0

  2

  2

  2

  P18 Trafford

  0

  5

  5

  5

  P19 Wigan

  16

  16

  16

  16

  T01 Hospital for Sick Children

  31

  31

  31

  31

  T02 National Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  17

  16

  16

  16

  T03 Moorfields Eye Hospital

  20

  22

  22

  22

  T04 Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  6

  6

  6

  6

  T05 National Heart and Chest Hospitals

  38

  38

  38

  38

  T06 The Royal Marsden Hospitals

  27

  27

  27

  27

  T07 Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  38

  20

  38

  38

  T09 Eastman Dental Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England

  2,693

  2,937

  2,962

  2,956

  1 Source: DH form KHO2

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate for every district health authority and trust in England the amount required to bring the national health service estate to a condition B, exhibiting only minor deterioration.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Hospital Services, London
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report on hospital services in London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In October 1991, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science appointed Sir Bernard Tomlinson, assisted by a small team of experts, to advise us on London's health services, and on medical education and research issues in the capital. This appointment is for about 12 months. During that time Sir Bernard will provide us with advice on the many aspects of his remit. We have not requested the production of a single report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent changes in waiting lists and waiting times in Greenwich.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional figures for January 1992 show that since last March, the number of patients waiting over two years in Greenwich health authority has fallen by 91 per cent. and the number over one year by 41 per cent. The authority—along with all other authorities—expects to have no patient waiting more than two years by 31 March.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the spending, in real terms, each year since 1974 on the family health services authority and on the hospital services in the Greenwich area.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested for the years since 1 April 1982, which is derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department, is shown in the table. This shows overall, real-terms increases, measured at 1991–92 prices, in revenue expenditure between 1982–83 and 1990–91 of 29·9 per cent. for family health services and 3·6 per cent. for hospital and community health services, Greenwich 1·2 per cent. and Bexley 7·7 per cent.

  Expenditure figures for individual health authorities are not readily available centrally for 1974–75. However, for Greenwich and Bexley taken together the relevant annual
  866
  accounts record total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services—HCHS—and family health services—formerly family practitioner services—of £44·4 million cash in 1975–76, £62 million cash in 1978–79 and £181·3 million cash in 1990–91, the latest year available.

  The figures represent increased expenditure in 1990–91 in real terms of 12·5 per cent. on 1975–76 and 15·2 per cent. on 1978–79, measured at 1991–92 prices.

  Total revenue expenditure in Greenwich and Bexley

  Family Health Services (FHS)

  Greenwich and Bexley Family Health Services Authority

  £'000(Cash)

  £'000(At 1991–92 prices)

  1982–83

  21,748

  36,376

  1983–84

  23,098

  36,924

  1984–85

  25,439

  38,731

  1985–86

  26,365

  38,040

  1986–87

  29,330

  40,971

  1987–88

  32,681

  43,295

  1988–89

  36,993

  45,727

  1989–90

  39,507

  45,855

  1990–91

  44,158

  47,249

  Hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  Greenwich health authority

  Bexley health authority

  Total

  £000(cash)

  £000(at 1991–92 prices)

  £000(cash)

  £000(at 1991–92 prices)

  £000(cash)

  £000(at 1991–92 prices)

  1982–83

  54,159

  90,586

  30,536

  51,075

  84,695

  141,661

  1983–84

  55,996

  89,515

  32,164

  51,418

  88,160

  140,933

  1984–85

  57,825

  88,039

  34,447

  52,445

  92,272

  140,484

  1985–86

  61,135

  88,206

  35,608

  51,375

  96,743

  139,581

  1986–87

  61,441

  85,827

  38,012

  53,099

  99,453

  138,926

  1987–88

  64,894

  85,972

  41,924

  55,541

  106,818

  141,513

  1988–89

  73,312

  90,621

  46,685

  57,707

  119,997

  148,328

  1989–90

  79,534

  92,315

  48,473

  56,263

  128,007

  148,578

  1990–91

  85,685

  91,683

  51,431

  55,031

  137,116

  146,714

  Sources:

  Annual accounts of the Greenwich and Bexley Health Authorities and the Greenwich and Bexley Family Health Services Authority. (Predecessor Greenwich and Bexley Area Health Authority: Greenwich and Bexley Family Practitioner Committee).

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1991–92 prices by the use of Gross Domestic Product deflators.

  2. HCHS covers total expenditure managed or accounted for by the health authorities during the years concerned and includes hospital, community health and other services.

  3. All expenditure on family health services—FHS (formerly family practitioner services) is essentially regarded as current (ie revenue) expenditure. It is not strictly attributable to particular districts and is recorded in annual accounts after the deduction of charges to patients.
  867
  4. The FHS figures for the years since 1 April 1985 also include the administrative expenses of the Greenwich and Bexley Family Health Services Authority which are shown below. Prior to 1 April 1985 the Greenwich and Bexley Family Practitioner Committee was associated with the Bexley Health Authority/Greenwich and Bexley Area Health Authority and its administrative costs formed a comparatively small part of those health authorities' total expenditure and are not separately identifiable.

  £ 000 (cash)

  1985–86

  612

  1986–87

  643

  1987–88

  676

  1988–89

  765

  1989–90

  805

  1990–91

  1,290

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the work of the Royal Free trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We receive information on all the first wave NHS trusts and we are glad to say that the Royal Free is doing well. We are especially pleased to note that since becoming a trust the Royal Free has opened a new AIDS day care, out-patient, and counselling centre. It is also pleasing to note that the Royal Free has sucessfully devised and launched its own "Learning from Patients" initiative. This scheme sits particularly well with the spirit and aims of the patients charter.

  We are delighted to note the increase in admissions which the Royal Free has achieved since becoming a trust. This is illustrated by the fact that in the trust's first year ordinary admissions increased by 4·2 per cent. We are very pleased to note the trust's success in reducing its waiting lists. For example in June 1991 there were 560 people waiting over a year for general surgery, currently no one has to wait over a year, a reduction of 100 per cent. in seven months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions prevent a hospital trust or other trust from seeking to leave the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  By virtue of section 5(a) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is empowered to establish NHS trusts to assume responsibility for the ownership and management of hospitals or other establishments or facilities previously provided by health authorities. The order establishing the trust sets out its functions and it may only undertake to treat private patients and generate income to the extent that this does not interfere with the performance of its obligations under any NHS contract or the obligations imposed on the trust by its establishment order.

  Brook Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since July 1991 on the future of the Brook hospital from the Brook Hospital Defence Campaign.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have not received any representations from this organisation.

  St. Thomas's Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the timetable for St. Thomas's hospital to become an NHS trust.

  Mr. Dorrell
  St. Thomas's was established as a NHS trust on 1 November 1991 and will, subject to the recommendations to be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the inquiry headed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, become fully operational on 1 April 1993.

  Childhood Diseases
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent changes in the levels of child protection against avoidable illnesses or diseases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates for national childhood immunisation uptake are:

  Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio vaccines—93 per cent. at 18 months.

  Whooping cough—88 per cent. at 18 months.

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella—90 per cent. at 24 months.

  Notifications of these diseases are now running at exceptionally low levels, and provisional returns show that in 1991 no child died from acute measles or whooping cough. The introduction of measles, mumps and rubella immunisation in October 1988, the GP targets scheme in April 1990 and the accelerated infant schedule in May 1990, have all contributed to this success. We plan to add another vaccine, "Hib", to the programme from October 1992. This will protect young children against invasive haemophilus disease, a major cause of bacterial meningitis.

  Human Organs
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EC countries about establishing an EC directive banning the sale of human organs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The sale of human organs for transplantation is prohibited in the United Kingdom by the Human Organ Transplant Act 1989.

  Nurses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are currently employed by the national health service; how many there were five years previously; and how many in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The whole-time equivalent number of nursing and midwifery staff, including agency staff, employed by the NHS in England was 402,100 at September 1990, 401,200 at September 1985 and 358,400 at September 1979. These figures are derived from the Department's annual census of non-medical manpower. They have not been adjusted for the reduction in nurses' working hours during 1980–81 from 40 to 37·5 hours per week.

  Adoption
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking in relation to children coming to this country from Romania for adoption.
  869
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that the Romanian Adoption Committee is not at present authorising arrangements for overseas adoption pending agreement with foreign Governments on the arrangements to be made. A delegation of officials from the Department is at present in Romania and I hope that a voluntary working arrangement can shortly be agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will establish a helpline for local authorities and prospective adopters seeking information on adoption from overseas.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with setting up a helpline for inter-country adoption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have now reached an agreement with the Bridge Child Care Consultancy who will host the project to start as soon as possible. The Bridge is a well-established registered charity with a reputation for work with children in substitute families and I am confident that they will provide an excellent base for this project. The objective of the project is to provide a service of sound information on intercountry adoptions arid for prospective adopters themselves. The project will not arrange adoptions for particular children.

  The grant of the order of £43,000 will be for six months in the first instance during which time requirements for the service will be assessed.

  The project will be steered by a board on to which I am inviting members from statutory and voluntary sector.

  GPs (Referrals)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of written referral requests by general practitioners to consultant ophthalmologist out-patient clinics for each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information available centrally is given in the table.

  Consultant Ophthalmology Out-patient clinics, NHS hospitals, England

  Year

  General practitioner written referral requests

  1987–88

  451,006

  1988–89

  467,371

  1989–90

  462,710

  1990–91

  478,141

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has been monitoring the costs charged by optometrists for a private eye test; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will conduct any further surveys into the numbers of people having their eyes tested.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department collects information on NHS sight tests only. Other sight tests are private transactions and, as such are inappropriate for Government information gathering. Surveys conducted by the optical profession indicate that the total number of sight tests has returned to 1987 levels, the last typical year before changes in the sight testing arrangements were announced.

  Hypertension and Diabetic Clinics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been taken by the Government in developing specialist hypertension and diabetic clinics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Clinics are held by hospital consultants and by some general practioners for the treatment of diabetes. Some hospitals have specialist hypertension clinics and some GPs run clinics which include screening for hypertension.

  Kevin Rooney
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the case of Kevin Rooney.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An independent inquiry has been established by the North East Thames regional health authority. The chairman is Mr. Andrew Collins QC. The other members are Dr. Oscar Hill, consultant psychiatrist, St. Luke's Woodside hospital, and Mr. Michael Taylor, director of social services, London borough of Hillingdon. The committee will seek other professional advice as the need arises.

  The terms of reference are:
  "To inquire into the arrangements for the assessment, care, discharge and follow-up of Mr. Kevin Rooney by the mental health and related services in City and Hackney Health Authority and North East Thames Region;
  To consider the adequacy of these arrangements;
  To report their findings and to recommend any action which, in the light of these, might assist the assessment and care of mentally disordered patients and the protection of those patients and the public from the risk of harm."

  The committee has been asked to report by July 1992.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the numbers of infant deaths each year between 1974 and the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in numbers and (b) as a rate per thousand live births.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information for the period 1974–1990, is given in the table.

  Infant deaths, England and Wales 1974–1990: (a) Numbers; (b) rates (per 1,000 live births)

  Year

  Numbers

  Rates

  1974

  10,459

  16·3

  1975

  9,488

  15·7

  1976

  8,334

  14·3

  1977

  7,841

  13·8

  1978

  7,881

  13·2

  1979

  8,178

  12·8

  1980

  7,899

  12·0

  1981

  7,021

  11·1

  1982

  6,775

  10·8

  1983

  6,381

  10·1

  1984

  6,037

  9·5

  1985

  6,141

  9·4

  1986

  6,313

  9·6

  1987

  6,272

  9·2

  1988

  6,270

  9·0

  1989

  5,808

  8·4

  1990

  5,564

  7·9

  Source: Key population and vital statistics, Series VS.
  871
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the infant mortality rate in 1979 and the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Infant mortality rate (England and Wales)

  Year

  Rate per thousand live births

  1979

  12·8

  1990

  7·9

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in waiting lists in all specialties of health care in each of the last three years.

  Wailing lists: changes in the number of patients waiting over two years—March 1990-March 1991

  Regional health authority

  General surgery

  Urology

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  ENT

  Opthalmology

  Oral surgery

  Plastic surgery

  Obs and gyn (gynaecology)

  Other

  All specialties

  Northern

  -433

  -129

  -262

  -32

  -79

  -123

  -507

  -19

  -14

  -1,598

  Yorkshire

  223

  -257

  -123

  -18

  125

  -110

  -480

  -117

  60

  -697

  Trent

  -391

  -228

  -685

  -167

  -112

  -208

  -912

  -180

  -73

  -2,956

  East Anglia

  -2

  98

  -180

  -49

  7

  -206

  -455

  -222

  -62

  -1,071

  North West Thames

  -98

  159

  -8

  0

  57

  264

  -1,772

  6

  -24

  -1,416

  North East Thames

  -795

  -33

  -1,259

  -1,068

  -44

  -1,805

  -1,191

  -152

  -209

  -6,556

  South East Thames

  -1,184

  342

  -1,219

  -569

  -58

  -158

  -12

  -134

  -130

  -3,122

  South West Thames

  -718

  -218

  -811

  -436

  -485

  -132

  -266

  -364

  -47

  -3,477

  Wessex

  -344

  -136

  -454

  -10

  -1

  -120

  96

  181

  30

  -758

  Oxford

  -183

  -64

  -250

  -137

  9

  6

  -324

  -98

  1

  -1,040

  South Western

  -423

  44

  -304

  -106

  -11

  -200

  -62

  26

  -7

  -1,043

  West Midlands

  -679

  -420

  -109

  -594

  -113

  -286

  -327

  -212

  -226

  -2,966

  Mersey

  n/1

  n/1

  n/1

  n/1

  n/1

  n/1

  17

  n/1

  n/1

  -17

  North Western

  -657

  -278

  -325

  -504

  -285

  -249

  -627

  -83

  -214

  -3,222

  Notes:

  Based on KH07 returns at 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1991.

  Includes ordinary admissions and day case waiting lists.

  n/1 denotes no one waiting over two years at March 1990 and March 1991.

  Positive values indicate an increase from March 1990 to March 1991.

  Negative values indicate a decrease from March 1990 to March 1991.

  Drugs Abuse, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives and programmes have been launched over the past five years to prevent drug abuse in Basildon.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Disabled Organisations, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants and help has been made available to disabled organisations in Basildon in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will give the number of in-patients, out-patients and day patients treated in the northern region in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Lead
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to amend the law relating to lead levels in the light of recent research; and if he will make a statement.
  872
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, by specialty and by region, the decrease in the numbers of people waiting over two years during his recent initiative to reduce long waits.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 February 1992]: The latest information available centrally by region and specialty is given in the table. Provisional figures for January show that since last March the number of patients waiting over two years in all specialties has fallen by a further 30,730—60 per cent. in January alone, over-two-year waiters fell by 30 per cent.—the largest monthly fall ever.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department keeps under review the results of research into the effects of lead on health and advises as necessary those Departments that are responsible for legislation to control exposure to lead.

  I understand that there are no proposals currently to amend any regulations or guidelines relating to lead levels.

  Measures already taken have reduced lead exposure through petrol, water, air, food, industrial emissions, paint, cosmetics, ceramic glazes and toys, and monitoring programmes have shown a continuing fall in blood lead levels in children and adults.

  The Government's policy remains to contain and reduce exposure to lead wherever practicable.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the factors taken into account in attributing the profit of £20·2 million under the community pharmacists balance sheet in its final year of operation 1988–89.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pure profit was calculated at 1 per cent. of the total cost of labour, overheads, interest charges, ingredients and containers.

  Children
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to give assistance to the international initiative, Children Youth Families; what help he is giving to the Boys and Girls Welfare Society in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During 1992–93, the Department will relocate to Leeds around 1,100 posts in the National Health Service Management Executive and the National Health Service Estates Agency. There are no plans at present to relocate further posts, to Leeds or elsewhere.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of serious adverse reactions to immunisation there have been in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The reports were as follows:

  Year

  Number of reports

  1982

  125

  1983

  104

  1984

  165

  1985

  160

  1986

  162

  1987

  121

  1988

  242

  1989

  272

  1990

  210

  1991

  159

  A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily denote a causal association between the reaction, the outcome and the vaccine.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of serious adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine there have been in each year since it has been widely used.

  Mrs. Viginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 2 March 1992:] Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was introduced in this country in October 1988. Reports of suspected serious adverse reactions since then have been as follows:
  874

  Number

  11988

  13

  1989

  110

  1990

  58

  1991

  37

  1Part.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of intensive care beds per 1,000 of the population or other convenient measures, in Coventry, the west midlands, and the United Kingdom; and what is the ratio of intensive care beds to the total number of national health service beds in Coventry, the west midlands and the United Kingdom at(a) the latest convenient date, (b) three years ago, (c) seven years ago and (d) 12 years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 March 1992]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Health Service, York
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered private hospital and nursing home beds there were in the York health authority area, and previously in York health district, in 1979 and each year since then.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The information available centrally is given in the table. Information prior to 1985 is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the York health authority for details. Private hospitals, homes and clinics registered under section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984, in York health authority area are as follows:

  Number of beds in private institutions

  Year

  Nursing Homes

  1Hospitals

  1985

  414

  24

  1986

  478

  24

  1987–88

  616

  24

  1988–89

  936

  34

  1989–90

  1,201

  34

  1990–91

  1,218

  34

  1 Private institutions with operating theatres.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many full-time equivalent hospital doctors worked in York health authority hospitals, and previously in York health district hospitals, in 1974 and each year since then;

  (2) how many national health service staff, expressed (a) in terms of a full-time equivalent and (b) in terms of total hours worked, were employed by York health authority, and previously in York health district, in 1974 and each year since then.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 March 1992]: The available data are shown in the following table:

  875

  NHS hospitals, York Health Authority

  Year

  Hospital doctors in York Health Authority—30 September each year analysis by WTE1

  Directly Employed Staff in post at 30 September each year — York DHA (WTE)2

  Total Number of

  In-patients

  Day Cases

  1979

  —

  —

  27,296

  4,444

  1980

  —

  —

  28,085

  4,658

  1981

  —

  —

  28,330

  4,548

  1982

  89·9

  4,340

  27,071

  3,796

  1983

  88·2

  4,290

  29,641

  4,444

  1984

  89·7

  4,590

  30,020

  4,469

  1985

  79·8

  4,420

  31,646

  4,801

  1986

  84·0

  4,370

  32,596

  5,686

  1987–88

  88·4

  4,310

  34,062

  4,549

  1988–89

  87·4

  4,230

  334,176

  5,523

  1988–89

  —

  —

  438,184

  5,523

  1989–90

  98·7

  3,970

  39,434

  5,626

  1990–;91

  79·6

  3,950

  39,530

  5,425

  Notes:

  1 Please note that the figures include permanent paid and honorary staff but exclude consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the region. Details therefore refer to junior doctors, clerical assistants and hospital practitioners. Information prior to 1982 is not available.

  Mental health services transferred from Clifton Hospital, York to Harrogate, Northallerton and Scarborough in 1982. Doctors transferred with the service.

  2 (1) All figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalent.

  (2) Medical staff-figures include permanent paid and honorary staff but exclude consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the region.

  (3) Figures include agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  Information prior to 1982 is not available. Information in terms of total hours worked is not collected centrally.

  3 discharges and deaths

  4 finished consultant episodes

  in-patients 1979—1988–89 discharges and deaths

  in-patients 1988–89—1990–91 finished consultant episodes 1990–91 figures provisional

  Between 1979 and 1990–91 in York health authority the numbers of in-patient cases treated in the acute sector increased from 19,460 hospital discharges to 26, 726 finished consultant episodes, an increase of 31 per cent. On a comparable basis, and for all sectors increased by 30 per cent. from 27,296 hospital discharges to 39,530 finished consultant episodes.

  Breakdown of income from charges which supports the data shown in table 4 of Cm. 1913

  Breakdown of income from charges

  Year

  Total income from charges £ million

  Hospitals2£ million

  Pharmaceutical £ million

  General dental £ million

  General ophthalmic £ million

  Welfare foods £ million

  1978–79

  141·0

  35·0

  24·0

  55·3

  26·5

  0·2

  1979–80

  171·0

  38·2

  39·1

  66·3

  27·2

  0·2

  1980–81

  245·0

  52·5

  71·2

  92·0

  29·0

  0·3

  1981–82

  298·0

  64·3

  86·2

  115·1

  32·1

  0·3

  1982–83

  348·0

  66·7

  102·1

  141·1

  37·8

  0·3

  1983–84

  383·2

  74·2

  110·0

  155·3

  43·4

  0·3

  1984–85

  414·8

  78·0

  122·1

  170·7

  43·8

  0·2

  1985–86

  422·6

  85·7

  129·2

  195·9

  11·5

  0·3

  1986–87

  465·5

  91·1

  150·1

  223·5

  0·5

  0·3

  1987–88

  493·5

  95·6

  157·5

  240·1

  —

  0·3

  1988–89

  601·3

  106·8

  203·6

  290·6

  —

  0·3

  1989–90

  956·7

  398·7

  191·3

  366·2

  —

  0·5

  1990–911

  1,014·8

  404·8

  220·6

  389·2

  —

  0·2

  1991–921

  1,059·2

  395·1

  237·6

  426·0

  —

  0·5

  1 Estimated.

  2 Mainly income from pay and amenity beds.

  3 Figures for 1978–90 are from the appropriation accounts and for 1990–991–rom the Vote Estimates.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide detailed information on the amount and origins of the income from charges column of table 4 Cm. 1913.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

TRANSPORT

  Marine Accidents (Reports)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the marine accidents investigation branch report into the Wilhemina J and the Zulficar.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents expects to submit his report to the Secretary of State around mid April; following which it will be published.

  Quality Assurance
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will restrict the awarding of his Department's contracts to companies with accredited quality assurance;

  (2) if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding quality assurance and companies tendering for his Department's contracts;

  (3) what favourable consideration he gives when awarding his Department's contracts to companies which have accredited quality assurance.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Seafreight Freeway
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North with a copy of all reports relating to the Seafreight Freeway incident of 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The investigation into the engine room fire on board the Seafreight Freeway on 23 May 1988 was carried out by the Department on behalf of Bermuda, the flag state. A report was produced for the Bermudian authorities, but was not generally released.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the value of road improvement schemes for Yorkshire/Humberside between(a) 1979 and 1987 and (b) 1987 and 1991; and how much is due to be spent over the next five years.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Red Routes (London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the consultation period on the red route proposals for London.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Taxis
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to make any adjustments to the existing policy of supply of taxi services to registered disabled persons by licensed taxi cab operators in the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. This is a matter for the London boroughs, which operate the London taxicard scheme.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government policy on subsidies for the transport by taxis and similar vehicles of registered disabled persons making essential journeys.
  878
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Throughout the country the provision and funding of concessionary fares schemes for elderly and disabled people and special service transport —for example, dial-a-ride services—are responsibilities of local authorities. Some special services in London are also provided by London Transport.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the working papers produced by his Department and British Rail for the high-level forum on the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No papers were produced for the inaugural meeting of the high-level consultative forum on the rail link held on 17 February. Some of the material for subsequent meetings will need to be confidential to forum members so as to avoid generating unnecessary blight.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  One formal relocation review—of part of the Department's highways, safety and traffic command—is currently in progress.

  The review has only recently begun and a short list of locations has yet to be drawn up.

  M3
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his original estimate of the cost of the M3 extension from Bar End to Compton; what is his current estimate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to place "Welcome to Basildon" signs on trunk roads and motorways in the Basildon area.

  Mr. Chope
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the impact of the citizens charter on the standards of rail services delivered to Pitsea, Basildon and Laindon stations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The objective of BR's passengers charter is to raise standards on all lines, including the London, Tilbury and Southend line. To this end it outlines a range of measures to encourage efficient management and to make BR more responsive to customers' needs. On the London, Tilbury and Southend line a further key factor in achieving a significant improvement in quality of service will be the £50 million resignalling programme for which BR intends to let a contract shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Village Halls
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to date of zero-rating the construction of new village halls and those buildings which are similarly treated for VAT purposes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not available because builders do not have to identify the value of this work separately in their VAT returns.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many refunds of VAT under section 20 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 have been made to parish councils in connection with building work for voluntary village halls, carried out as part of the council's non-business activity; and what is the value of these refunds.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available. Local authorities are not required to distinguish, in their VAT returns, the tax refunded under section 20 from the tax deducted on their business inputs; nor are they required to itemise the section 20 tax to reveal the sort of information requested by my hon. Friend.

  VAT
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations have so far been recognised by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise as falling within schedule 3 S.I. note 4(1) Finance Act 1989 relating to charging of VAT at zero rate on the construction of a new building for a charity use.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs and Excise do not have any formal system of "recognition". Any charity constructing a new building for the use specified in note (4) to group 8 of schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983, as amended by the Finance Act 1989, is eligible to claim zero-rating by giving a certificate to the building contractor or developer.

  Civil Servants (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each Government Department, including executive agencies, their estimated expenditure on travel and associated expenses incurred by civil servants in the current year.

  Mr. Maples
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of civil servants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maples
  This information can be found in the publication "Civil Service Statistics" 1991 edition, which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those parts of his Department including the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise,880
  which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation; to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Among the Chancellor's departments, a relocation review is currently in progress in the Registry of Friendly Societies, though none of the posts are expected to go to the east midlands. Under the current policy, departments review the location of their work regularly and systematically with a view to making best use of resources. As a result, the Chancellor's departments have announced relocation decisions involving more than 9,300 posts, of which more than 2,300 Inland Revenue posts are relocating to the east midlands, including 2,100 to Nottingham and 160 to Leicester.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, columns 163–64, if he will list by Department the distribution of the 24,000 Government Department posts still under review for relocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The departmental distribution of the 24,000 posts which were in the relocation review process in June 1991 is as follows:

  Department

  Review started

  Review planned

  Trade and Industry

  3,110

  —

  Property Holdings

  —

  1,640

  Defence

  2,280

  12,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  850

  —

  MAFF

  700

  —

  Home Office

  370

  —

  Office of Fair Trading

  —

  320

  Treasury

  250

  —

  Transport

  180

  240

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  130

  —

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  110

  630

  Land Registry

  100

  —

  Energy

  90

  800

  Crown Prosecution Service

  70

  —

  Environment

  30

  50

  Education and Science

  30

  20

  8,300

  15,700

  National Income
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures for per capita national income for the 20 most prosperous countries.

  Mr. Maples
  Following are the latest OECD estimates of gross domestic product per capita in 1991, using purchasing power parities for the 20 most prosperous OECD countries.

  GDP per capita, 1991. Converted at purchasing power parities, United Kingdom = 100

  GDP per capita

  United States

  137

  Switzerland

  134

  Luxembourg

  127

  Canada

  121

  Germany

  121

  881

  GDP per capita

  Japan

  119

  France

  114

  Denmark

  111

  Austria

  110

  Belgium

  108

  Norway

  107

  Sweden

  107

  Italy

  104

  Netherlands

  104

  Iceland

  103

  Australia

  101

  Finland

  101

  United Kingdom

  100

  New Zealand

  85

  Spain

  78

  Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators, February 1992.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of low incomes he used to determine that 4 million people on low incomes will pay income tax at only the 20p rate; and how many of those 4 million people will lose benefit as a result of the new 20 per cent. lower tax rate.

  Mr. Maude
  The new 20 per cent. tax rate applies to the first £2,000 of taxable income in 1992–93. Nearly 4 million taxpayers will pay tax only at this new rate as their taxable income is £2,000 or less.

  Of these, about half a million will be entitled to a smaller amount of income-related benefit as a result of the introduction of the lower rate band, when their benefit is next assessed.

  TESSA
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1991,Official Report, column 588, if, in his regular review of the tax-exempt special savings account scheme, he will consider what measures may need to be taken to attract new money to the scheme rather than funds switched from other savings products.

  Mr. Maude
  The objective of TESSA was to encourage the culture of thrift and, by giving tax relief only to accounts held for five years, to make savings less liquid. The proportion of new savings attracted into the scheme is likely to increase. The TESSA rules are designed to be as simple as possible and I have no current plans to change them.

  Budget
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from pensioners in Basildon about the Budget.

  Mr. Maples
  A large number of Budget representations have been received from pensioners, but we cannot separately calculate the number from Basildon except at excessive cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent estimates of the number of people who are(a) under state retirement age
  882
  and (b) over state retirement age, and receiving (i) an occupational pension and (ii) a personal pension, giving in each case the number who are (1) non-taxpayers, (2) basic rate taxpayers and (3) higher rate taxpayers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 13 March 1992]: Available estimates for 1992–93 for taxpayers with occupational pensions are as follows. I regret that information on personal pension recipients is not available.

  Thousands

  Lower rate taxpayers

  Basic rate taxpayers

  Higher rate taxpayers

  Aged under 65

  220

  700

  50

  Aged 65 and over

  570

  990

  70

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research Funding
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he uses in determining whether or not research applications for his Department's funding are near market.

  Mr. Leigh
  The DTI does not normally support near-market R and D under its innovation programmes. Research and development work is prima facie near-market if its primary objective is the development of a specific product or process for commercial sale or use. Typically, near-market R and D will display low technological risks, and the returns from the project will mostly accrue to the firm itself, with externalities or wider benefits being relatively minor. Such risks as there are will largely be commercial. Commercial risks are generally inappropriate for Government to underpin.

  However, exceptions may be made where, for instance, enterprises may lack some of the necessary information to enable them to make a sensible judgment on their competitive position or on the way the market will develop, for example in the case of small firms, or where commercial outcomes may be significantly affected by future United Kingdom, foreign or international legislation. Moreover, Government support may be considered if a project exhibits a significant degree of both technical risk and wider benefits, or if it exhibits one of these characteristics to a very marked degree, or for other policy reasons such as the promotion of international collaboration or the facilitation of exports. The case for support would be strengthened if other forms of market failure were shown to exist. The project would also need to satisfy established criteria such as additionality, viability, degree of innovation and value for money.

  China
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the export from the United Kingdom of surveillance equipment and instruments of torture to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The export of a range of equipment that may be used for surveillance is controlled by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991. As to "instruments of torture" I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 23 January,Official Report, columns 293–94.

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The locations of some 300 posts in the Radiocommunications Agency and 120 in parts of the Insolvency Service are currently under review. None of these is planned for relocation to the east midlands.

  Scottish Bankruptcy System
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost to date of the evaluation process of the Scottish bankruptcy system initiated in March 1990; and whether the inquiry has considered(a) the provision of insolvency advice to the public by means of helplines or otherwise and (b) procedures in (i) other European countries, (ii) the United States of America and (iii) Canada.

  Mr. Redwood
  No specific figures are available for the cost of the evaluation process. The details of the review are confidential, but all points raised by those who submitted comments have been taken into consideration.

  Newspaper Recycling
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to offer financial support for investment in newspaper recycling at Aylesford, Kent.

  Mr. Lilley
  Having consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I decided to consider an application from the Swedish paper-making company, SCA, for a grant under the assistance to exceptional projects facility. I took that decision primarily because of the significant environmental benefits which the proposed new mill, at Aylesford in Kent, would provide.

  After thorough appraisal, we propose to offer a £20 million grant to the company to encourage it to invest £260 million in a newspaper recycling plant at Aylesford. Our proposal will require the approval of the House and the agreement of the European Commission which has been told about the project.

  This investment will quadruple the amount of newsprint currently produced at Aylesford from 100 per cent. recycled fibre. The plant will consume 430,000 tonnes of waste paper a year, much of it from household waste paper. This will make a vital contribution to the achievement of the Government's recycling targets.

  The Aylesford project would be the first to produce this volume of newsprint from 100 per cent. recycled waste and it will have the immediate environmental benefit of reducing the need for landfill.

  Section 8(8) of the Industrial Development Act 1982, requires that the assistance proposed be authorised by a resolution of this House. The resolution will offer an opportunity to give more details about the project and to debate its merits.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many offices providing public access for the purpose of claiming benefit, including unemployment benefit, were in operation on 1 April 1979, and at the latest available date, in Great Britain.

  Mr. Jack
  The payment of social security benefits, excluding unemployment benefit, is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. We are unable to supply precise figures for social security offices for 1979, as records are not readily available, but it is estimated that there were about 800 offices open to the public at that time. These included both national insurance offices and area offices which dealt solely with supplementary benefit.

  At 30 September 1991, the latest available date for which figures are held, there were 694 offices providing public access. This reduction was in part due to the creation of integrated local offices, combining some former national insurance offices and area offices. Overall there has been an increase in the accessibility to the service available including the provision of improved telecommunications, better publications and services such as Freeline.

  I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that precise figures for 1979 are not held centrally, but there were about 1,000 unemployment benefit offices open to the public at that time. At 31 January 1992, the latest date for which figures are held, there were 1,028 such offices.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if will update the figures provided for the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on 7 February 1985,Official Report, columns 685–86, on the level of state old age pensions as a percentage of current gross average earnings.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no meaningful, updated comparable statistics available on average earnings in the member states of the European Community, and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 14 January at column 552.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answers to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) of 27 March 1990,Official Report, column 161–62, using the 1989 family expenditure survey on pensioner incomes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested for 1989 is not yet available. In 1988, 16 per cent. of pensioner units received all their income from state benefits compared with 23 per cent. in 1979. The original tables have been updated(a) to include details of the information held using the 1988 family expenditure survey and (b) with medians rather than means used to calculate the average incomes in each quintile and decile. The updated tables are as follows:

  Table 1: Real percentage changes in pensioners' net income by quintile.

  Quintile

  Lowest

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Highest

  All

  1979–80

  4

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1980–81

  5

  6

  6

  4

  3

  5

  1981–82

  3

  3

  2

  1

  -3

  -1

  885

  Quintile

  Lowest

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Highest

  All

  1982–83

  5

  6

  7

  9

  12

  11

  1983–84

  2

  1

  -2

  -2

  -1

  -1

  1984–85

  -1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  1985–86

  2

  2

  3

  6

  8

  5

  1986–87

  -2

  1

  2

  4

  4

  7

  1987–88

  -3

  0

  1

  3

  6

  2

  Overall

  14

  24

  24

  30

  37

  34

  Table 2: Cash changes in real equivalised income at each decile group of pensioner tax units. Change since previous year in £ per week in 1988 prices. Median values used for deciles, means for total values.

  1979 to 1980

  1980 to 1981

  1981 to 1982

  1982 to 1983

  1983 to 1984

  1984 to 1985

  Lowest Q1

  1·10

  4·10

  -0·40

  4·40

  0·90

  -0·60

  Q2

  0·50

  4·80

  0·90

  4·50

  1·10

  -1·10

  Q3

  1·00

  5·30

  1·00

  5·10

  1·50

  -1·10

  Q4

  0·80

  5·00

  1·70

  5·80

  0·80

  -0·50

  Q5

  0·90

  4·90

  2·00

  6·30

  0·40

  0·60

  Q6

  0·90

  5·00

  2·20

  6·80

  0·50

  -0·20

  Q7

  0·80

  5·30

  1·80

  7·80

  0·70

  -0·40

  Q8

  -1·00

  7·30

  0·80

  10·80

  -1·00

  2·50

  Q9

  -0·90

  10·20

  -3·00

  16·10

  -4·50

  7·00

  Q10

  12·00

  4·40

  -10·40

  29·60

  -3·60

  11·90

  Total

  1·40

  6·60

  -1·40

  11·60

  0·10

  0·30

  Change since 1979

  1·40

  8·00

  6·60

  18·20

  18·30

  18·60

  1985 to 1986

  1986 to 1987

  1987 to 1988

  Lowest Q1

  1·90

  -1·90

  -0·50

  Q2

  2·20

  0·00

  -1·50

  Q3

  2·50

  0·60

  -1·60

  Q4

  3·40

  0·80

  -1·00

  Q5

  2·80

  2·10

  -1·00

  Q6

  3-40

  3·10

  -0·30

  Q7

  3·70

  4·70

  1·40

  Q8

  6·50

  4·70

  5·70

  Q9

  7·00

  6·10

  13·00

  Q10

  15·30

  22·90

  20·10

  Total

  6·40

  6·80

  1·40

  Change since 1979

  25·00

  31·80

  33·10

  Table 2: Percentage changes in real equivalised income of each decile group of pensioner tax units. Percentage change since previous year. Median values used for deciles, means for total values.

  1979 to 1980

  1980 to 1981

  1981 to 1982

  1982 to 1983

  1983 to 1984

  1984 to 1985

  Lowest Q1

  2

  6

  -1

  6

  1

  -1

  Q2

  1

  7

  1

  6

  1

  -1

  Q3

  1

  7

  1

  6

  2

  -1

  Q4

  1

  6

  2

  6

  1

  -1

  Q5

  1

  6

  2

  7

  0

  1

  Q6

  1

  5

  2

  7

  0

  0

  Q7

  1

  5

  2

  7

  1

  -1

  Q8

  -1

  6

  1

  9

  -1

  2

  Q9

  -1

  7

  -2

  11

  -3

  4

  Q10

  6

  2

  -5

  14

  -2

  5

  Total

  1

  6

  -1

  10

  0

  0

  Change since 1979

  1

  7

  6

  17

  117

  17

  886

  1985 to 1986

  1986 to 1987

  1987 to 1988

  Lowest Q1

  3

  -3

  -1

  Q2

  3

  0

  -2

  Q3

  3

  1

  -2

  Q4

  4

  1

  -1

  Q5

  3

  2

  -1

  Q6

  3

  3

  0

  Q7

  3

  4

  1

  Q8

  5

  3

  4

  Q9

  4

  4

  7

  Q10

  6

  9

  7

  Total

  5

  5

  1

  Change since 1979

  23

  30

  31

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional pensioners will be brought into means testing by becoming eligible for income support as a result of the proposed addition to the income support pensioner premium.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that up to half a million pensioners on low incomes will become newly entitled to claim income-related benefits from October. Around three quarters of these will qualify for income support, and the remainder for housing benefit and or community charge benefit.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the real-terms increase in benefit expenditure on the elderly is attributable to the commencement and growth of spending on additional pensions with contributory benefit between 1978–79 and the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Benefit expenditure on the elderly rose by 32·6 per cent, in real terms between 1978–79 and 1991–92. Additional pensions account for4·4 percent, real terms growth between those years, and all other benefits account for 28·2 per cent, real terms growth.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) of 3 July 1990,Official Report, columns 513–16 concerning the income of retired households, using the 1989 family expenditure survey.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) of 2 December 1991,Official Report, column 51, on pensioner incomes, using the information in the 1989 family expenditure survey.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and number of pensioners will benefit from the addition to the income support pensioner premium.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that some 5 million people aged over 60 will stand to gain from the increases announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
  887
  Exchequer on 10 March. About half these will gain from income support and about half from housing benefit and community charge benefit. Nearly half of all those over pension age will be entitled to extra benefit as a result of the increase.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) of 18 October 1991,Official Report, columns 273–74, regarding pensioners' living standards, to take account of the 1989 family expenditure survey results.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Income and Benefits Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give, for each uprating date since November 1979,(a) the cash level, (b) the percentage

  Table 1

  Unemployment benefit

  Uprating date

  Single

  Couple

  Percentage increase in RPI since previous uprating date

  Percentage increase in adult male gross full-time earnings since previous uprating date

  Percentage increase in adult male net full-time earnings since previous uprating date

  Rate (£)

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  Rate (£)

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  Single

  Couple

  November 1979

  18·50

  —

  29·95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  20·65

  11·6

  33·40

  11·5

  15·3

  18·4

  16·9

  17·0

  November 1981

  22·50

  9·0

  36·40

  9·0

  12·0

  10·7

  8·1

  7·8

  November 1982

  25·00

  11·1

  40·45

  11·1

  6·3

  7·4

  6·3

  6·7

  November 1983

  27·05

  8·2

  43·75

  8·2

  4·8

  7·3

  7·5

  7·2

  November 1984

  28·45

  5·2

  46·00

  5·1

  4·9

  8·7

  9·0

  9·0

  November 1985

  30·45

  7·0

  49·25

  7·1

  5·5

  6·5

  6·8

  6·9

  July 1986

  30·80

  1·1

  49·80

  1·1

  1·7

  5·7

  7·0

  6·1

  April 1987

  31·45

  2·1

  50·85

  2·1

  4·4

  6·2

  8·4

  7·6

  April 1988

  32·75

  4·1

  52·95

  4·1

  3·9

  9·7

  12·1

  11·2

  April 1989

  34·70

  6·0

  56·10

  5·9

  8·0

  9·6

  9·4

  9·3

  April 1990

  37·35

  7·6

  60·40

  7·7

  9·4

  9·7

  11·2

  11·2

  April 1991

  41·40

  10·8

  66·95

  10·8

  6·4

  7·9

  8·1

  7·8

  Table 2: Sickness Benefit

  Single

  Couple

  Uprating date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  November 1979

  16·50

  —

  29·95

  —

  November 1980

  20·65

  11·6

  33·40

  11·5

  November 1981

  22·50

  9·0

  36·40

  9·0

  November 1982

  25·00

  11·1

  40·45

  11·1

  November 1983

  25·95

  3·8

  41·95

  3·7

  November 1984

  27·25

  5·0

  44·05

  5·0

  November 1985

  29·15

  7·0

  47·15

  7·0

  July 1986

  29·45

  1·0

  47·65

  1·1

  April 1987

  30·05

  2·0

  48·65

  2·1

  April 1988

  31·30

  4·2

  50·70

  4·2

  April 1989

  33·20

  6·1

  53·75

  6·0

  April 1990

  35·70

  7·5

  57·80

  7·5

  April 1991

  39·60

  10·9

  64·10

  10·9

  888
  increase on the previous year, (c) the percentage increase in the retail prices index since the previous year, (d) the percentage increase in adult male gross average full-time earnings since the previous year, (e) the percentage increase in adult male average full-time earnings net of national insurance and income tax since the previous year, for (i) unemployment benefit, (ii) sickness benefit, (iii) statutory sick pay since its introduction, (iv) child benefit, (v) retirement pension, (vi) invalidity benefit, (vii) one-parent benefit and (viii) maternity benefit at the single and couple rate, where appropriate.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is in the tables. As the information requested in(c), (d) and (e) is identical for all the benefits-with the exception of statutory sick pay, which was uprated on a different month from the other benefits mentioned here from 1983 until 1987. This is given once in table 1.
  889

  Table 3

  Statutory sick pay

  Uprating date (April)

  Rate (£)

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  Percentage increase in RPI since previous uprating date

  Percentage increase in adult male gross full-time earnings since previous uprating date

  Percentage increase in adult male net full-time earnings since previous uprating date

  Standard

  Middle

  Lower

  Standard

  Middle

  Lower

  Single

  Couple

  1983

  40·25

  33·75

  27·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  42·25

  35·45

  28·55

  5·0

  5·0

  5·0

  5·2

  8·6

  8·8

  9·2

  1985

  44·35

  37·20

  30·00

  5·0

  4·9

  5·1

  6·9

  7·6

  7·9

  7·9

  1986

  46·75

  39·20

  31·60

  5·4

  5·4

  5·3

  3·0

  7·8

  8·9

  8·5

  1987

  47·20

  —

  32·85

  1·0

  —

  4·0

  4·2

  8·0

  10·0

  9·4

  1988

  49·20

  —

  34·25

  4·2

  —

  4·3

  3·9

  9·7

  12·1

  11·7

  1989

  52·10

  36·25

  5·9

  —

  5·8

  8·0

  9·6

  9·4

  9·3

  1990

  52·50

  —

  39·25

  0·8

  —

  8·3

  9·4

  9·7

  11·2

  11·2

  1991

  52·50

  —

  43·50

  0·0

  —

  10·8

  6·4

  7·9

  8·1

  7·8

  Table 4: Child Benefit (Standard Rate for first or eldest child)

  Uprating Date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  April 1979

  4·00

  33·3

  November 1980

  4·75

  18·8

  November 1981

  5·25

  10·5

  November 1982

  5·85

  11·4

  November 1983

  6·50

  11·1

  November 1984

  6·85

  5·4

  November 1985

  7·00

  2·2

  July 1986

  7·10

  1·4

  April 1987

  7·25

  2·1

  April 1988

  7·25

  0·0

  April 1989

  7·25

  0·0

  April 1990

  7·25

  0·0

  April 1991

  8·25

  13·8

  October 1991

  9·25

  12·1

  Table 5: Retirement Pension

  Uprating Date

  Single

  Couple

  Rate

  Percentage Increase on Previous Rate

  Rate

  Percentage Increase on Previous Rate

  November 1979

  Under 80

  £23·30

  —

  £37·30

  —

  Over 80

  £23·55

  —

  £37·80

  —

  Novemerber 1980

  Under 80

  £27·15

  16·5

  £43·45

  16·5

  Over 80

  £27·40

  16·3

  £43·95

  16·3

  November 1981

  Under 80

  £29·60

  9·0

  £47·35

  9·0

  Over 80

  £29·85

  8·9

  £47·85

  8·9

  November 1982

  Table 6: Invalidity Benefit

  Single

  Couple

  Uprating date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  November 1979

  23·30

  —

  37·30

  —

  November 1980

  26·00

  11·6

  41·60

  11·5

  November 1981

  28·35

  9·0

  45·35

  9·0

  November 1982

  31·45

  10·9

  50·30

  10·9

  November 1983

  32·60

  3·7

  52·15

  3·7

  November 1984

  34·25

  5·1

  54·80

  5·1

  November 1985

  38·30

  11·8

  61·30

  11·9

  July 1986

  38·70

  1·0

  61·95

  1·1

  April 1987

  39·50

  2·1

  63·25

  2·1

  April 1988

  41·15

  4·2

  65·90

  4·2

  April 1989

  43·60

  6·0

  69·80

  5·9

  April 1990

  46·90

  7·6

  75·10

  7·6

  April 1991

  52·00

  10·9

  83·25

  10·9

  890

  Uprating Date

  Single

  Couple

  Rate

  Percentage Increase on Previous Rate

  Rate

  Percentage Increase on Previous Rate

  Under 80

  £32·85

  11·0

  £52·55

  11·0

  Over 80

  £33·10

  10·9

  £53·05

  10·9

  November 1983

  Under 80

  £34·05

  3·7

  £54·50

  3·7

  Over 80

  £34·30

  3·6

  £55·00

  3·7

  November 1984

  Under 80

  £35·80

  5·1

  £57·30

  5·1

  Over 80

  £36·05

  5·1

  £57·80

  5·1

  November 1985

  Under 80

  £38·30

  7·0

  £61·30

  7·0

  Over 80

  £38·55

  6·9

  £61·80

  6·9

  July 1986

  Under 80

  £38·70

  1·0

  £61·95

  1·1

  Over 80

  £38·95

  1·0

  £62·45

  1·1

  April 1987

  Under 80

  £39·50

  2·1

  £63·25

  2·1

  Over 80

  £39·75

  2·1

  £63·75

  2·1

  April 1988

  Under 80

  £41·15

  4·2

  £65·90

  4·2

  Over 80

  £41·40

  4·2

  £66·40

  4·2

  April 1989

  Under 80

  £43·60

  6·0

  £69·80

  5·9

  Over 80

  £43·85

  5·9

  £70·30

  5·9

  April 1990

  Under 80

  £46·90

  7·6

  £75·10

  7·6

  Over 80

  £47·15

  7·5

  £75·60

  7·5

  April 1991

  Under 80

  £52·00

  10·9

  £83·25

  10·9

  Over 80

  £52·25

  10·8

  £83·75

  10·8

  891

  Table 7: One Parent Benefit

  Uprating date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  November 1979

  2·50

  —

  November 1980

  3·00

  20·0

  November 1981

  3·30

  10·0

  November 1982

  3·65

  10·6

  November 1983

  4·05

  11·0

  November 1984

  4·25

  4·9

  Table 8: maternity benefit

  Single

  Couple

  Uprating date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate Per cent.

  November 1979

  18·50

  —

  29·95

  —

  November 1980

  20·65

  11·6

  33·40

  11·5

  November 1981

  22·50

  9·0

  36·40

  9·0

  November 1982

  25·00

  11·1

  40·45

  1l·1

  November 1983

  25·95

  3·8

  41·95

  3·7

  November 1984

  27·25

  5·0

  44·05

  5·0

  November 1985

  29·15

  7·0

  47·15

  7·0

  July 1986

  29·45

  1·0

  47·65

  1·1

  April 1987

  30·05

  2·0

  48·65

  2·1

  April 1988

  31·30

  4·2

  50·70

  4·2

  April 1989

  33·20

  6·1

  53·75

  6·0

  April 1990

  35·70

  7·5

  57·80

  7·5

  April 1991

  40·60

  13·7

  65·10

  12·6

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 510, on the number of households claiming a social security benefit, if he will indicate in what form information is available.

  Mr. Jack
  Broad estimates of households' receipt of benefits including retirement pension could be made from the family expenditure survey, subject to some difficulties such as underreporting of certain benefits. These estimates could be obtained for the sequence of years 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 only at disproportionate cost. For the other years, data are not readily available in the form requested and would involve significantly more work, again at disproportionate cost.

  Reliable information on households' receipt of benefits excluding retirement pension is not available for any year because survey data do not distinguish accurately between receipt of supplementary benefit/income support by pensioners and contributory retirement pensions.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support who are entitled to a disability premium are aged(a) 18 to 19, (b) 20, (c) 21, (d) 22, (e) 23 and (f) 24 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of recipients (thousands)

  Age group

  Disability premium

  Servere disability premium

  Total

  18–19

  10

  —

  10

  20

  6

  *

  6

  21

  6

  *

  6

  22

  6

  *

  6

  892

  Uprating date

  Rate £

  Percentage increase on previous rate

  November 1985

  4·55

  7·1

  July 1986

  4·60

  1·1

  April 1987

  4·70

  2·2

  April 1988

  4·90

  4·3

  April 1989

  5·20

  6·1

  April 1990

  5·60

  7·7

  Number of recipients (thousands)

  Age group

  Disability premium

  Servere disability premium

  Total

  23

  5

  *

  5

  24

  6

  *

  6

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Number of claimants * denotes fewer than 499.

  3. Included in the above table are 2,000 lone parents who receive income support at the rate appropriate to a person aged 25 or over.

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry May 1990.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his estimate of the number of separate households comprising 16 and 17-year-olds not eligible for income support.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households are currently receiving income support premiums under the Social Security Act 1986; and how many households he estimates would be eligible for this help but for their lack of accommodation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In May 1990, 2,898,000 income support claimants were in receipt of one or more premiums. The number of income support claimants without accommodation was 8,000, but it is not possible to estimate how many of these would have been entitled to a premium if they had entered accommodation.

  Residents of boarding establishments and hostels, including homeless families placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities, are entitled to the full range of income support premiums.

  Source: Income support annual statistics inquiry May 1990.
  893
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) of 5 November,Official Report, column 84, on premia paid with income support, if he will give the total number of claimants for each of the premia.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the table:

  Premium

  Total number of recipients

  Higher pensioner

  688,000

  Enhanced pensioner

  314,000

  Pensioner

  496,000

  Severe disability (higher)

  13,000

  Severe disability (lower)

  50,000

  Disability

  331,000

  Lone parent

  793,000

  Disabled child

  18,000

  Family premium

  1,144,000

  Note: Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source: Annual statistical inquiry May 1990.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support claimants there were with deductions(a) for arrears of community charge and (b) for recovery of social fund loans, at the end of the most recent months for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 2 March 1992]: The latest information of the number of income support claimants with deductions for arrears of community charge deductions is contained in the Department's management information statistics for the quarter ending November 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library. The number of social fund loan recoveries made in the most recent month for which figures are available, January 1992, is 693,353. The figures are based on the number of people making repayments during the whole of January and not at the end of that month. It is not possible to exclude from these figures repayments made by people not in receipt of income support.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1992,Official Report, column 423, what information he has concerning the number of home visits, including specialist visits, excluding those for the purpose of investigating fraud, that were made per 1,000 claimants in 1991–92.

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

  Staffing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 1992,Official Report, column 318, regarding staffing, if he will give the total number of full-time equivalent staff in each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of full-time equivalent staff administering the social security programme for the years 1979–80 to 1990–91 is in the table.
  894

  Number

  1979–80

  88,429

  1980–81

  87,902

  1981–82

  87,578

  1982–83

  85,698

  1983–84

  82,975

  1984–85

  82,527

  1985–86

  83,869

  1986–87

  85,276

  1987–88

  89,023

  1988–89

  87,137

  1989–90

  81,633

  1990–91

  79,715

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the maximum daily amount an employed person was allowed to earn per day without loss of entitlement to unemployment benefit in 1979–80 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  Unemployment benefit is primarily for those who are entirely without work. However, a day on which an unemployed person does a small amount of work in a subsidiary occupation can still count as a day of unemployment provided he satisfies the usual conditions and earnings for that day do not exceed the daily limit. In 1979–80 the limit was 75p a day and in 1991–92 it is £2 a day.

  This represents an increase above the rate of growth in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to change the 21-hour rule which enables unemployed claimants to study part time; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 11 March at column 527.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the numbers who will still be in receipt of transitional additions in 1992–93; and if he will break it down by pensioners, families with children, lone parents and others.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that immediately following the April 1992 uprating there will only be 10,000 people in receipt of income support transitional additions. The total can be broken down as follows:

  Number

  Pensioners

  2,000

  Lone parents:

  1,000

  Couples with children

  1

  Others

  5,000

  1 Denotes a caseload of fewer than 500.

  Note: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Loss of Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of people affected by the proposed 20 per cent. income tax lower rate will lose benefit as a result.
  895
  Mr. Jack
  On the introduction of the 20 per cent. income tax rate, all those receiving income-related benefits and who pay tax will be better off. In time the increased net earnings of those eligible for income-related benefits will result in the normal reductions in benefit levels which occur when net earnings are increased. The complex interaction of benefit upratings, tax changes and changes in personal circumstances at April 1992 make it difficult to determine with precision the number of people who will be affected, but we estimate that individual benefit levels will be reduced for around 1 million people out of the 25 million people who will benefit from the lower tax band.

  Bickleigh Down Clinic
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which hon. Members were invited to inspect the site last month of the future Bickleigh Down clinic in the constituency of South Hams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We are not aware of any hon. Members from this Department invited to inspect a clinic at Bickleigh Down, but at the invitation of Plymouth city council I attended and performed its turf cutting ceremony at the site of the Plymouth Child Support Agency centre. All invitations for this event were issued by Plymouth city council, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) attended.

  Students
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many full-time students are currently receiving housing benefits and income support, by

  Recipients whose Housing Benefit is reduced through non-dependent deductions: May 1990

  Age of claimant

  HB with non dependent deductions LA tenant

  HB with non dependent deductions Private tenant

  All cases

  Non-IS cases

  16–17

  0

  0

  0

  18–24

  400

  200

  600

  Over 25

  126,000

  13,100

  139,100

  All ages

  126,400

  13,300

  139,700

  IS cases

  All ages

  186,400

  23,700

  210,100

  Source: The housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample.

  Disability
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households are currently receiving disabled living allowance and whether he will make a statement as to the effect of housing costs being excluded from calculations for this allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance will not begin to be paid until 6 April 1992.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inquiries were made through the benefit inquiry line by the end of February; and how many were concerned with(a) disability living allowance, (b) disability working allowance, (c) other disability benefits and (d) a combination of the above.
  896
  entitlement category; and if he will express the total as a proportion of all full-time students who would be entitled to these benefits if they were not students.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available data for term-time indicate that in May 1991, 5,200 students were receiving housing benefit. Of these, 1,200 were also in receipt of income support. Data for August 1991 show 3,100 students were receiving housing benefit of whom 1,600 were also in receipt of income support.

  A breakdown of the different categories of student claiming and information about the number of students on income support but not on housing benefit are not available. Similarly, information on the number of students who would be eligible for benefits but for their student status is not available. However, previous survey data have shown that only a minority of students claimed benefits.

  Source: The housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system quarterly stock count for May and August 1991.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his estimate of the number of households, by tenure, whose housing benefit is reduced because of non-dependants deductions; and if he will sub-divide this number by 16 to 17-year-old, 18 to 24-year-old, and 25 years old and over age groups.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Such information as is available is in the table.

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

  Relocation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those parts of his Department which are currently under review for relocation; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to the east midlands; how many of these posts are being considered for relocation to Mansfield; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  During 1992–93 the Department of Social Security will relocate around 700 Benefits Agency
  897
  staff to Leeds. Around 3,000 Child Support Agency staff will be located in centres at Falkirk, Belfast, Birkenhead, Dudley, Hastings and Plymouth during 1993.

  The Contributions Agency has recently reviewed the effectiveness of its activities in local offices and there may be localised relocation of a small number of staff. In those locations where the Contributions Agency has plans to redeploy its resources, a departmental reception service will continue to be provided. There are no significant numbers moving to the east midlands, although there are proposals to increase staff in Mansfield by around six posts.

  Benefits Claims, Scotland
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the target time scale for benefit claims to be dealt with in each region in Scotland.

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

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful and unsuccessful applications were made to the social fund, in the last period for which figures are available, for help with(a) the cost of furniture and other essential household items, (b) rent in advance and (c) other items, by category, and where the application was successful, whether the assistance was provided by way of grant or loan, and the average amount of such assistance.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information for the period 1 April 1991 to 29 February 1992 is in the tables. Information regarding unsuccessful applications for specific items or services could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund Loans

  Number of awards

  Size of average award (£)

  Furniture and household

  662,911

  226

  Rent in advance

  14,795

  137

  Washing machines

  33,656

  209

  Home improvements, repairs and maintenance

  12,722

  174

  Removal expenses

  6,180

  154

  Travelling expenses

  5,923

  42

  Living expenses

  441,922

  38

  Clothing and footwear

  49,471

  119

  Bedding

  25,754

  127

  Other

  15,298

  142

  Social fund grants

  Number of awards

  Size of average award (£)

  Furniture and household

  142,139

  387

  Rent in advance

  427

  202

  Washing machines

  14,494

  288

  Home improvements, repairs and maintenance

  7,021

  238

  Removal expenses

  8,624

  182

  Travelling expenses

  45,808

  60

  898

  Number of awards

  Size of average award (£)

  Living expenses

  924

  77

  Clothing and footwear

  26,503

  152

  Bedding

  6,152

  156

  Other

  4,052

  179

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) crisis loans, (b) budget loans and (c) all loans from the social fund have gone to people aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the percentage of social fund loans awarded to people aged 60 and over from 1 April 1991 to 31 January 1992.

  Per cent.

  Crisis loans

  1·05

  Budgeting loans

  3·96

  All loans

  2·66

  Carers
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long is the average delay in application for carers' benefits in Scotland, by region, since 1989.

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

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. Jack
  [holding answer 27 February 1992]: In 1992–93 we estimate that gross expenditure on child benefit will be £5.7 billion. If child benefit had been uprated each April from 1988 in line with the retail prices index, the rate payable for each child from April 1992 would be £9.95. It is estimated that to pay child benefit at this rate in 1992–93 would cost an additional £720 million gross or £470 million net, after allowing for the normal adjustments to other benefits. The extra help that has been made available to less well-off families since 1988 through the income-related benefits will be worth around £620 million in 1992–93.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the current number of political and religious prisoners of conscience held in the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Chinese authorities have said that there are 1.1 million inmates in prisons and reform camps in China, of whom 0·5 per cent.—5,500 people—
  899
  have been indicted for so-called counter-revolutionary offences. Such offences often relate to those regarded in the west as prisoners of conscience. Some foreign researchers estimate that the real figures are much higher, but this cannot be verified.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present BBC World Service broadcasts to the People's Republic of China; and if he has any plans to increase the service.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Broadcasting to China is a high priority. Broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese total 241/2 hours and 51/4hours a week respectively. The former will be increased by 31/2 hours a week in early 1993, when the World Service has recruited the necessary specialist staff. World Service broadcasts in English are also audible in China.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has of the number of executions in the People's Republic of China last year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to Amnesty International, there have been published accounts of more than 1,000 executions while unofficial sources suggest that up to 20,000 executions may have taken place in 1991. We have no means of verifying such figures.

  Insolvency, France
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens currently imprisoned in France are presently seeking to prove insolvency under articles 752 and 756 of the French code of penal procedure.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not have the requested statistics. British nationals are not obliged to inform consular officers that they or their lawyers are negotiating a reduction or waiver of customs fines imposed by French courts.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for the variation in the English translation of article 198a of the treaty agreed at Maastrict on 11 December 1991.

  Mr. Garel-Jones: The first English version of article 198a referred to
  "representatives of regional and local authorities"
  but in the version signed at Maastricht the word "bodies"
  was substitited for "authorities". Jurists/linguists decided that the term "bodies" translated better the word "collectivites" in the French text.

  Geneva Convention
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to state when he will sign the additional protocols of the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Not yet. Our consultations are still not complete.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about growth in overseas aid since 1986–87.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Between 1986–87 and 1990–91, the aid programme grew by 33·7 per cent. in cash terms, and 2·5 per cent. in real terms.

  Additional Aid
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commnwealth Affairs what proposals have been made by the European Community for additional subsidies, grants and loans to north African countries and Jordan; and if he will state the amounts involved.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As part of the Community's new Mediterranean policy, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed in 1991 to the following new series of financial protocols for 1992–96;

  Grants and risk capital

  Loans

  ecus million

  £ million

  ecus million

  £ million

  Algeria

  70

  149

  280

  196

  Morocco

  218

  153

  220

  154

  Tunisia

  116

  81

  168

  118

  Egypt

  258

  180

  310

  217

  Jordan

  46

  32

  80

  56

  1 Approximate.

  The above countries and others are also eligible for 300 million ecu—£210 million—in grants in support of structural adjustment; and for 230 million ecu—£161 million—in grants and 1,800 million ecu—£1,260 million —in loans for horizontal co-operation—projects benefiting more than one country in the region.

  Bolivia (Soya Beans)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 167, what were the previous uses of the area now under cultivation for soya bean production.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 27 January 1992,Official Report, column 421.

WALES

  Village Halls
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the village halls in Wales which have been assisted financially by the urban aid programme since June 1979, with an indication of the grant given to each, respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The village halls assisted by the urban programme in Wales since June 1979 are listed in the table:
  901

  Name

  Grant £

  Financial year

  Penybryn village hall, Rhymney Valley

  72,000

  1982–83

  Gilwern village hall, Blaenau Gwent

  3,789

  1985–86

  St. Brides village hall, Newport

  79,500

  1991–92

  Pontneath Vaughan village hall, Brecknock

  25,000

  1991–92

  Singleton Hospital
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decisions about the night casualty service at Singleton hospital.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend's policy is to allow at least two to three months after the end of the one-month appeal period for careful consideration of any representations made to him about a service change. The appeal period in respect of the Singleton hospital night-time casualty service ended on 28 February.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he proposes to issue to local authorities regarding the impact of large-scale retail development in conservation areas and on unlisted buildings in conservation areas.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Guidance on development proposals within conservation areas is provided in Welsh Office circular 61/81: "Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas". The Department has also issued guidance on large-scale retail development in planning policy guidance note 6: "Major Retail Development".

  Copies of both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Roads
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the spending per capita on roads in Wales.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of road starts in Wales planned in the next two financial years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1979, total net spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is almost £2 billion; including £360 million transport grant. Twenty-two miles of motorway and 145 miles of trunk road have been completed. Seven schemes totalling almost 18 miles are presently under construction. Twenty-three local authority schemes are being sponsored by transport grant.

  Total expenditure on roads in Wales per head of population in 1990–91 was £145·49.

  Six major trunk road scheme starts are planned for 1992–93. The total cost of these schemes is estimated to be £204 million. Starts in 1993–94 have not yet been announced, but 20 schemes, costing £391 million, are indicated over the next three years in the 1992 supplement to roads in Wales published in February.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of male and female unemployed in Ogmore, Mid-Glamorgan and Wales at the latest available date, together with the figures for the same areas in May 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures that are consistent between 1979 and 1992 are available for Wales only. The seasonally adjusted figures in January 1992 were 97,100 males and 26,500 females. Corresponding figures for May 1979 were 49,800 and 19,000 respectively.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in work in Wales in May 1979; and what the figure is at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number was 1,157,000 in June 1979, which has now increased to 1,175,000 on the latest available figure.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has for rural unemployment for(a) Clwyd South West and (b) Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is no classification by which unemployment can readily be categorised as rural.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state the number of male unemployed in Newport, Gwent and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In January 1992, there were 5,712, 16,063 and 101,149 unemployed male claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales respectively.

  Clwyd Health Authority
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of administrative staff employed by the Clwyd health authority; what percentage this is of the total number of staff employed; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Between 1979 and 1990 the numbers of administrative and clerical staff and senior managers increased by 2 per cent. as a proportion of the total work force employed by the district health authority and the family health service authority in Clwyd.

  This compares with the 3 per cent. increase in numbers of nurses and midwives over the same period.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the difference between the amounts paid by the Welsh Office to Welsh area health authorities to pay for agreed pay rises in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and the actual costs of the pay rises.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Health authorities must meet the cost of pay awards from within the totality of the resources available to them. They receive a cash increase each year and may receive further funding in-year as a contribution toward the excess costs of review bodies' recommendations. These resources, together with the cash released from cost improvement programmes and income-. generation schemes, have not only been sufficient to meet the cost of pay and price rises over the period since 1987 but permitted a sustained expansion in the volume of services.
  903
  The figures relating to the funding available to health authorities and the actual cost of pay awards is as follows:

  Purchasing power of health authorities1

  Actual cost of pay awards2

  £ million

  £ million

  1987–88

  67·9

  44·5

  1988–89

  83·8

  371·2

  1989–90

  65·6

  49·0

  1990–91

  80·4

  56·1

  1 Welsh Office and value for money unit, Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  2 Health authorities in Wales.

  3 Includes the cost of the clinical regrading of nursing staff.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals in Wales have expressed an interest in applying for trust status.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has invited applications from 14 health units for NHS trust status in April 1993. These cover 82 hospitals, 11,000 beds and contractual income of some £600 million. Including Pembrokeshire, some 65 per cent. of acute services and 60 per cent. of community services in Wales could be NHS trust based in 1993.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the recession on small businesses in Wales; and what new initiatives he has taken to help local authorities help Welsh companies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of VAT registered businesses in Wales increased by over 10 per cent. in the years 1988 to 1990—the latest year for which figures are available—to 8,250. Government policy to assist this sector is clearly working and the Welsh economy is strongly placed to respond to the economic upturn.

  Environment Report
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an annual report on the state of the environment in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Welsh Office already publishes the "Environmental Digest for Wales." In addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales last September published the "Environment in Wales" report which described progress on environmental matters in Wales since the publication of the Government's White Paper "This Common Inheritance."

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of local authorities in Wales to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 24 February to discuss implementation of the council tax.
  904
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage change in the amount paid per household under community charge in Wales compared to the last year of domestic rates in real terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Average domestic rates per household in Wales for 1989–90, after domestic rate relief, were £327 or around £380 at 1991–92 prices, using the GDP deflator. The average community charge set for 1991–92 after community charge reduction grant was £92, or £184 per two charge payer household—52 per cent. less than the average domestic rates figure for 1989–90.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate of how much money could be saved by moving to unitary local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My proposal for a structure of 23 unitary authorities is estimated to be cost neutral; I am placing in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office copies of the report submitted to me by financial consultants.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made to consult with hon. Members on options for local government reorganisation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have invited hon. Members to submit their views to me, and have held meetings with every Member who has requested one.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority concerning hospital closures.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None.

  Coal and Steel Industries
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales were employed in the coal and steel industries in 1979; and what is the total at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In December 1979, 55,200 were employed in the steel industry in Wales. The current figure is some 18,000. In March 1979, 31,000 people were employed in the coal industry in Wales. The latest available figures show that some 2,800 people now work in the industry.

  Buses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from bus operators in Wales on the question of the dual sourcing of buses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have received no such representations.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his proposals for the provision of secure accommodation.
  905
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I announced in August 1991 proposals for the provision of a new secure unit in Wales. I made a further announcement on 25 February following consideration of the responses received to those proposals.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in rail services in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is to meet Sir Bob Reid in the near future.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the total expenditure by the Welsh Office on housing during the current financial year; and how this compares with similar expenditure in real terms in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The latest estimate of expenditure on housing in Wales in 1991–92 is £591 million, an increase of more than 7 per cent. in real terms on the comparable figures for 1987–88. No comparison is possible with expenditure in 1979–80, as figures for that year are not available on a consistent basis.

  Eryri Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects work to take place on upgrading the Eryri hospital at Caernarfon into a full community hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennet
  It is a matter for Gwynedd health authority to decide when work on the upgrading of Eryri hospital should start.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to strengthen the guidelines governing conflicts of interests involving board members and staff of the Welsh Development Agency and the agency's clients.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Requirements concerning board appointments and procedures are set out in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Guidance is also contained in "Non Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments". The guide is kept under review.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the number of craft workshops available at the Old Cornmill, Porthmadog.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Welsh Development Agency's Bangor regional office routine monitoring report dated 11 April 1989 in relation to the Old Cornmill, Porthmadog development and of the communication from the Bangor regional office to the agency's head office in December 1989, and of the 906
  chairman's first letter to the then agency chief executive referred to in his second letter to the present chief executive dated 25 November 1991 concerning the same development.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he or his ministerial colleagues were informed of(a) the application for, and payment of, a rural conversion grant to Mr. Gwyn Jones, chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, (b) the request to Mr. Jones for a partial refund of the grant and (c) the basis on which the refund was assessed and its amount.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is:

  (a)—on 13 January 1992

  (b)—I was informed on 13 January 1992 that Dr. Jones had requested advice on the level of partial refund that might be involved.

  (c)—on 18 February 1992.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development agency on improving procedures in making senior agency appointments.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on licensing policy for gas-fired power stations by(a) PowerGen and National Power and (b) independent generators.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All proposals for new power plant are considered on their merits. All such projects are subject to the relevant provisions of the electricity and town and country planning Acts and also to the pollution controls operated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority. These procedures ensure that power station projects take full account of general planning and environmental protection considerations.

  Welsh National Opera
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposals for a new home for the Welsh National Opera Company.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The report of the feasibility study for a Cardiff Bay opera house is still under consideration and no firm decisions have yet been reached.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate for every health authority and trust in Wales the amount required to bring the national health service estate to a condition B, exhibiting only minor deterioration.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  District health authorities in Wales are required to review the cost of backlog maintenance annually and for 1990–91, they estimated that it would cost £186·3 million to bring the whole of the NHS estate in Wales to a standard where it is exhibiting only minor deterioration. There were no trusts in Wales at that time. This sum may be broken down by district health authority as shown in the table:
  907

  DHA

  £ million

  Clwyd

  20·3

  East Dyfed

  17·9

  Gwent

  18·7

  Gwynedd

  11·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  22·1

  908

  DHA

  £ million

  Pembrokeshire

  0·9

  Powys

  3·5

  South Glamorgan

  82·0

  West Glamorgan

  9·5

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Networker Trains: Contracts
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with British Rail and BREL Limited concerning the case for contracts to be placed for a substantial number of Class 465 trains (the Networker train) as a matter of urgency.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has discussed the prospects for further rolling stock orders with the chairman of British Rail and BREL. BR is not yet in a position to say when any orders for further Networker trains will be placed, but the Government fully recognise the advantages of BR being able to proceed with this as soon as possible. Decisions on the award of contracts are for British Rail to take.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that on 10th March the chairman of British Rail wrote to the secretary of the BREL works committee saying:
"we are unable to finance this order within the current EFL. This is under discussion with the Government with a view to seeking an early solution to the problem"?
Can the Minister indicate whether any further progress has been made? Does he recognise that this is an issue of great urgency in which about 1,600 of the 5,500 jobs at BREL are in jeopardy in an area of high unemployment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are very much aware of the importance of the Networker orders for BREL and for the workforce at York. The Government aim to maintain the high levels of railway investment over the next few years and we hope that BR can proceed with the order as soon as possible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has not given an indication as to whether the Government are prepared in principle to extend the constraints that the external finance limit currently imposes on British Rail. The essence of the matter is that British Rail must look to the Government to change their stance. Is the Minister prepared to indicate that the Government regard this as an issue where time is of the essence, where many jobs are involved and where the initiative must come from them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Autumn Statement announced major increases in British Rail's external finance limit. It was a generous settlement, but BR still faces a tight financial situation,
1562
particularly as a result of lower income from fares and property. It is a matter for British Rail how it allocates the investment. However, I assure the noble Lord that British Rail's external finance limit and the investment ceiling are kept under regular review.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the order is not placed soon, is there not a danger that the country will lose the capacity to build this type of aluminium constructed carriage? Under those circumstances, would it not be as well if the Government intervened? If they do not and if we do not obtain the order, we could in future be at the mercy of our foreign competitors.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I recognise that competition is important in the railway supply industry. The original order went not only to BREL but also to another company: two suppliers are involved in the order. As I said, competition is desirable.

The Social Fund
11.9 a.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the Social Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we welcome the constructive approach of this report. It endorses many of the principles on which the fund's operation rests and acknowledges the excellent service which Social Fund officers provide. Several of the points made in the report have already been acted on and improvements in the operation of the fund, including new allocations for next year, have recently been announced. We will be considering the report's recommendations carefully.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the findings of the Government's committee that it is not only a matter of money but of changing the structure of the fund? Although we know that this moribund Government have fallen in love with lotteries, does the Minister agree with the report that it is leaving too much to luck when applicants to the Social Fund are either refused money or in some cases are granted it according to where they live? This is because budgets are allocated locally and according to the time of year when the application is made. The budget for the fund is granted annually on a cash-limited basis. Can the Minister say whether the same arrangements apply in Northern Ireland for the Social Fund?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Baroness's allegation that the Social Fund's operation is a lottery. Obviously, there will be some variation between decisions of individual Social Fund officers and between one office and another. That is an inevitable consequence of a system with discretion. A rigid system like the old single payment was much less likely to get resources out responsively to individual

1563
needs. It was far more arbitrary in its operation and by the end 80 per cent. of all the money from single payments was going to 17 per cent. of eligible claimants.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Social Fund—inadequate, cash-limited and mainly based on loans rather than grants—has forced many thousands of vulnerable people not only into unacceptable poverty but into unacceptable debt? Does he agree that the constructive points made by the Social Security Advisory Committee, his own committee, reiterate what was said from the Labour Front Bench in the debate five years ago by my noble friend Lady Jeger and myself?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what the noble Lord does not accept is that the old system of single payments was growing out of control at far too fast a rate. There had to be budget limits, and that is what we came up with. We brought in the Social Fund which is working very well. I accept that criticisms have been made by the Social Security Advisory Committee: we shall respond to those in due course.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again but I did not hear the noble Lord answer my question about Northern Ireland.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not respond to the noble Baroness on Northern Ireland because she asked quite a few—certainly, in excess of two—questions. The Question on the Order Paper does not relate to Northern Ireland.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, was the social security committee made aware of the Government's intention to provide uniforms for social security staff at a cost of several million pounds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I honestly do not see how that question relates in any way whatever to the Question on the Order Paper.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the evidence reaching the General Synod of the Church of England through its clergy and parishes is that the operation of the fund is uneven and that on one occasion a need may be met whereas on another occasion the same need may not be met? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that due to the policy of awarding loans rather than grants there is a mounting debt problem? Does he agree with the recommendation of the advisory committee that a longer period for repayment of debt should be allowed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already accepted that there are variations from one office to another and from one time to another but that is the inevitable consequence of there being discretion in the scheme. There was a far greater degree of arbitrariness under the old system of single payments. The right reverend Prelate also asked why we should award loans and whether these could be converted to grants. I must say that other people on low incomes have to budget for
1564
larger, one-off items of expenditure and I see no reason why those on income support should not be put in the same position.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept the validity of the main arguments put by his own advisory committee?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we welcomed the report. We said that it was a useful contribution to a very difficult area of social security policy, but obviously we have many queries about the details of the points put forward. I do not accept the noble Lord's claim that the amount of money available in the fund is inadequate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that applicants to the Social Fund should be treated equally at the time of their need, at the place of their need and according to their need? Does the Minister accept the findings not only of his Social Security Advisory Committee but also those of the Government's National Audit Office which stated last year that there were significant and unacceptable variations between offices and within offices according to the time of year? Does the Minister also accept, along with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the National Audit Office, the Church of England, the Rowntree Trust, the CAB and these Benches, that the Social Fund is severely flawed and must be reformed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Baroness says. I repeat again what I said before. Obviously, there will be variation in decisions of individual officers: that is an inevitable consequence of a discretionary system. The rigid system of single payments that existed before produced far, far greater discrepancies of treatment between one individual and another.

Private Residential Care: Costs
11.14 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the report by the Association of Directors of Social Services concerning the increased costs of private residential care for the elderly.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the recent report of the social security and health committees did not recommend a general increase in the levels of income support for people in residential and nursing homes beyond the normal annual up-rating exercise. The Government welcome this support for their policy and note that the numbers in such homes being supported by social security benefits continue to increase.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that this is both a sad and serious matter and that in many instances people cannot afford these increases which have been imposed as a result of escalating costs? There are many ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who are now approaching their mid-70s and 80s who could be the victims of these higher costs because their children or

1565
grandchildren cannot afford to meet them. Will the Minister and the Association of Directors of Social Services take a fresh look at this matter to see whether private nursing homes can be assisted and thus enabled to continue their magnificent work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question relates to residential homes as opposed to nursing homes. I have to say that the levels of income support available to people in residential homes vary from £160 to some £230 per week. Those figures are to increase to £175 and £245 per week as from next April. Those are very significant increases and I do not see a case for any further increases in income support levels on top of that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that we have an ageing population and therefore there is a great need for high quality nursing and accommodation in many parts of the country for people who are highly dependent on such care, does the Minister think the time has now come when a government, regardless of their complexion, should consider whether residential and nursing homes should be required to accept residents who are within the level of income support rather than force families to have to pay up and often to reduce their own level of savings? That requirement should apply to residential and nursing homes irrespective of whether they are privately run, run by local authorities, or by health authorities.
Lord Henley: My Lords, quite honestly I see nothing wrong with relatives, charities and other bodies topping up residents' fees. Special provisions in the income support regulations allow for that money to be disregarded in relation to income support. Therefore, the full levels of income support are still available to those residents. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the levels of income support available to people in residential homes vary from £160 to £230 a week.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in some cases people have been asked to leave homes because they cannot afford the fees charged and the relatives cannot afford to top up their resources? Is that a satisfactory situation for any government or party?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it may be that some homes cannot provide places at the income support levels. We have little evidence of this but it might be that people have therefore had to leave those homes and move to another home in the same area that can provide places within the income support limits. However, I should say to the noble Lord that I see no case for increasing the income support levels willy-nilly, much as the noble Lord would like that, because what happens then —surprise, surprise—is that the fees of the homes go up. That is not really fair on those who are paying the fees out of their own incomes rather than out of income support.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that the Government recognise the importance of the home help service which enables so
1566
many elderly people who would prefer to stay at home to avoid going into an institution, whether private or public?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. I hope that that is something which will be very much considered by local authorities once the community care policy comes into effect next April.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on the fact that private residential homes face uncertainty as to how much money they will receive from the Government because that will not be known until November 1992? In the meantime, costs are high and some homes are being squeezed and may go out of business. Will he also comment on the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, if people have to resort to home helps there may be a nationwide shortage of home helps to meet the needs of people thrown out of private residential homes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I have to say that there is no uncertainty for the homes themselves. They know exactly what the levels of income support are. I also think it very unlikely that they will find themselves short of people coming in to the homes if one considers the demographic changes which are taking place and which have taken place over the past few years. I suspect that the noble Lord was referring to the uncertainty that those people running homes feel they face as a result of the changes which will take place in April next year and the fact that local authorities do not yet know exactly what resources will come to them. I have to say that I think that those uncertainties are somewhat unfounded, and I suspect that they probably reflect the concerns of the Association of Directors of Social Services about future funding rather than the concerns of individual homes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord know how many private homes have gone out of business?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, following the Minister's earlier reply about the provision of home helps and the advent of community care, what assurance can he give to this House that there will be adequate financial support from central resources to local authorities to ensure that community care and the provision of home helps will be adequate?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have always made it clear, and it has been made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on many occasions, that there will be adequate funding for the community care policy when it comes into effect next April. No doubt the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite will say that whatever figure we come up with is inadequate, but they would say that wouldn't they?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that home helps do a remarkably good job? However, they are not qualified doctors or nurses, and when old

1567
people reach the stage when a doctor has to be called several times a week it is wise for them to be sent to one of those private institutions. Is the noble Lord further aware that much of what he has said today would be strongly contested by no less a body than, as I mentioned, the Association of Directors of Social Services? Can there be some contact now with the directors to see whether positive action can be taken to resolve what is now a sad and serious situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question relates to residential homes. I am not aware that it is necessary for either doctors or nurses to be resident in residential homes.

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992
11.24 a.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will draw the attention of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice to fears expressed by lawyers that the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 may lead to miscarriages of justice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am grateful for that informative reply. While a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice is sitting and the Government have rushed through a Bill to change the criminal law in all its stages in a single day—not during the recent days of panic but before Christmas—and that Bill has been widely criticised, could there be a more suitable instance for the Government to take responsibility for placing the whole matter before the Royal Commission and seeking its advice in case it is possible that the Government made a mistake over the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that the Bill was rushed through Parliament. It was not.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, perhaps I am not supposed to interrupt an answer, but I said that the Bill was rushed through all its stages in the House of Commons in a single day.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not need to tell the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that before a Bill becomes law it has to pass through both Houses of Parliament. The Bill may have gone through another place in a day but it was introduced here on 10th December: it had a Second Reading on 17th January, more than a month later: Committee stage was on 11th February, three weeks later: Report stage was on 25th February, two weeks later: and Third Reading was on 3rd March, which was a week later. Therefore, there is no question of rush. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, participated fully in all the stages of the Bill.
The noble Lord said that there is some doubt about the Bill. Of course there is always doubt about all Bills. The noble Lord retains a doubt about that Bill.
1568
However, Parliament has passed the Bill and I believe that the noble Lord is being excessively imaginative if he thinks that the Government will produce a Bill to Parliament, see Parliament pass it and then turn round to the Royal Commission and say: "It is such an awful Bill will you have a look at it?" That is not practical reality.

Army Bill
11.25 a.m.
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48: read a first time.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords' Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. (HL Paper 56)—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
1. Parliamentary computer network.
The Committee has been informed of plans for a parliamentary computer network for members and staff of both Houses of Parliament. The Library and Computers Sub-Committee has recommended that the network should be jointly planned between the two Houses and that as a first step a network should be installed in the Phase 1 and 7 Millbank buildings. Possible services to be provided on the network include electronic mail throughout the parliamentary estate, access to POLIS and other internal and external databases, fax and word processing facilities and TV, radio and annunciator signals. The Committee has approved expenditure on the provision of the first stage of the network. No decision has been taken on whether to proceed beyond this first stage.
2. Library Services during dissolution.
The Committee has taken note with approval of a proposal from the Library and Computers Sub-Committee that from the dissolution of Parliament until the day of the election itself Library facilities should be restricted as follows—

(a) Peers should not use the Library for electoral purposes.

(b) Peers may use the Library for reading and writing and the loan of books only.

(c) Peers' research assistants should be excluded.

(d) Services for the Law Lords should be provided as normal.

3. Delegation of financial authority.
The Committee has endorsed proposals put forward by the Clerk of Parliaments for—

(a) delegation of financial authority, within prescribed limits, to designated budget holders on the staff of the House;

(b) the proposed budgets for these budget holders for the year 1992–93, and for expenditure on financial management training for budget holders and their staff;

(c) a scheme of contractual delegations within the Parliamentary Directorate of Works.

4. Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The Committee has approved—

(a) the terms of a proposed supply and services agreement between the House of Lords and HMSO;

(b) the payment by the House of Lords of a 22 per cent. share of the cost of "dead time" of the Hansard and Parliamentary presses during dissolutions of Parliament.

5. International assemblies in 1992–93.
The Committee has approved provision—

1569

(a) towards the cost of a meeting of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD) Thesaurus Working Group proposed to be held in London during the financial year 1992–93.

(b) towards the cost of a Conference of European Affairs Committees of European Community Member States proposed to be held in London during the United Kingdom Presidency in the second half of 1992.

(c) to meet the travelling and subsistence costs of Lords members of a proposed Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE).

The Committee has also approved in principle that provision should be made towards the cost of a Conference of Parliaments of the European Community to be held in the second half of 1992 during the United Kingdom Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
6. Revised scales of pay and allowances.
The Committee has approved—

(a) increases in the salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees;

(b) revised late night allowances to permanent Hansard reporting staff and revised attendance fees to temporary Hansard reporters.

7. Parliament Office.
The Committee has been informed of the following appointments—
Miss H E McCauley as Library Clerk from 2 March 1992;
Mr. D L Prior as Assistant Clerk of the Records from 1 April 1992.
The Committee has also been informed of the promotion of Mr. S P Burton to Senior Clerk and the secondment from 1 April of Mr. E C Ollard to succeed Mr. D F Slater as Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and Government Chief Whip.
The Committee has approved the extension of a temporary Clerical Officer post in the Accountant's Office to 30 June 1992.
8. Superannuation.
The Committee has been informed of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme—

(i) death benefit to the personal representative of Mr. W Arthur, former Attendant, who died on 12 September 1991;

(ii) pension and lump sum to Mrs J M Tonks, Cleaner, who retired on 30 November 1991;

(iii) pension and lump sum to Mrs. D V Simmonds, General Assistant, who retired on 20 December 1991;

(iv) pension and lump sum to Mrs. M R Fisher, Personal Secretary, who retired on 24 December 1991;

(v) pension and lump sum to Air Chief Marshall Sir John Gingell, GBE, KCB, KCVO, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, who retired on 13 January 1992;

(iv) pension and lump sum to Mrs. I M Heyhood, General Assistant, who retired on 6 February 1992.

Finance Bill
11.26 a.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill contains those Budget measures which the Government consider it essential to pass into law before Parliament dissolves. They put the Budget changes implemented on Budget Day beyond legal doubt and they renew income tax, as must be done each year, and enable the Inland Revenue to implement the other Budget changes to income tax in the simplest way.
In more detail, Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 confirm changes to excise duties, car tax and VAT which were implemented on Budget Day. Clause 1 confirms the rise of 4½ per cent. in duties on alcohol, in line with inflation. Clause 2 confirms the increases in duties on
1570
tobacco—about 10 per cent. on cigarettes, indexation of pipe tobacco and 10 per cent. for other tobacco products.
Clause 3 covers duties on petrol, diesel and other oils. It confirms the indexation of duty on diesel and unleaded petrol, and the rise in duty on leaded petrol by 7½ per cent. Clause 4 confirms the increases of £10 to £110 in vehicle excise duty on cars. It also reduces the duty on small tricycles from £50 to £15—a small but welcome change to the mainly disabled users of such tricycles.
Clause 7 cuts from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. the rate of VAT serious misdeclaration penalty charged on traders' mistakes. It also reduces from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. the maximum rate for default surcharge, charged on traders who make late payments or returns. That measure has effect from 1st April, because default surcharge is linked to monthly accounting periods.
Clause 8 reduces car tax from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the wholesale price of a new car.
Those changes had provisional statutory effect on Budget Day. Under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act that means that they must be confirmed by a Finance Bill before Parliament is dissolved. If they are not then Customs and Excise would be obliged to repay any extra tax which it had collected.
Clause 5 also concerns an excise duty—betting duty. The reduction from 8 per cent. to 7¾ per cent. will have effect from 1st April, just in time for the Grand National on 4th April. It will also coincide with the new levy year. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced that most of the benefit from the reduction in betting duty will go to horseracing through the statutory levy. To ensure betting duty is cut on 1st April the necessary provision must also be included in the Bill.
Clause 6 deals with monthly payments on account for the largest VAT traders. There is no provision for payments on account at present. The existing power to ask traders to make monthly returns has been called into question in a judicial review. We believe it best to put the legal position beyond doubt as soon as possible. That will give businesses which are affected the certainty that they need. It will also give them the time that they need to plan for the change to monthly payments, which is due to be introduced in the autumn.
The two remaining substantive clauses in the Bill deal with income tax. Income tax must be renewed by 5th May each year. If that is not done, no income tax can be collected. There would not be time to be sure of renewing income tax after the election. So Clause 10 reimposes income tax for 1992–93.
At the same time, the Government believe it right to implement the important changes to income tax announced by my right honourable friend in his Budget.
Apart from anything else, to have implemented some changes —such as indexation of the allowances —but not others, would have required the Inland Revenue to go through two recoding exercises. That

1571
would have been an expensive burden for the revenue and for employers. It would have been confusing for taxpayers.
Clause 9 therefore provides for the introduction of a lower rate of income tax chargeable on the first £2,000 of taxable income.
Clause 10, as well as renewing the tax, 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—the personal and age-related allowances—are indexed under the statutory provisions.
Clause 10 also sets at £30,000 the limit on mortgage interest relief, which must be set each year.
This must be a record year for short Finance Bills. We have already approved one three-clause Finance Bill this year to raise the threshold for stamp duty on property. Now I commend another short Finance Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
11.34 a.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having introduced the Finance Bill in such a succinct fashion. All things being equal, I hope I can be at least as brief. This House normally has an economics debate on the basis of the Finance Bill. Some noble Lords may be aware that it is not my desire to have a major economics debate today, simply because it is hardly a fortnight since I last spoke in this Chamber on the economy. Therefore I hope your Lordships will bear with me when I tell them—especially those noble Lords opposite who always look forward to my speeches on the economy—that I do not intend to make such a speech today. I said all that I had to say a week ago. I do not wish to bore the House with a repetition of it.
I freely admit that I am also in some difficulty because my right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor will be making a statement on the budgetary position as we on our side see it in terms of what we should like to do. It is quite impossible for me to jump the gun and tell noble Lords what is in that statement. I am therefore doubly constrained this morning.
I start by telling the Government that I wholeheartedly approve of several matters that they included in the Finance Bill. I shall take them in no particular order. First, the Government are to be congratulated on overindexing the duty on cigarettes and tobacco. The Government have not been backward in raising the real price of tobacco products. I hope to see that continue. I am certain that the next Government, of which some noble Lords on this side hope to be Members, will follow this Government's lead on that matter.
Secondly, I approve of the concession concerning horseracing. My noble friend Lord Donoughue will speak further on this subject. It is a matter which is dear to the hearts of a number of noble Lords. The Government are to be congratulated on that measure.
1572
Thirdly, the White Paper on budgetary reform is a document of great interest. Many noble Lords have argued for some years that it makes very good sense for the Government's expenditure plans to be published at the same time as they are obliged to say how they propose to pay for that expenditure: and, to the extent that they do not propose to pay for it immediately, in what form they intend to borrow. I strongly believe that that is a move in the right direction. It is not a party matter and many of us have argued for it for many years. Indeed, I noticed over the weekend in the newspaper that Mr. Enoch Powell claimed to be the originator of the idea, which dates back to the 1950s. That does not prevent me from agreeing with it.
The help to small firms is also attractive. However, I am bound to say that it seems to me to have taken place rather later than small firms would have desired. Equally, although there are complications with the technicalities of the concession on cars, clearly it was right to do something about the motor industry. We shall not oppose the Government on that point, but there are complications which disturb me.
Those are my remarks in support of the Government. I have not written down any others. However, no doubt noble Lords would be disappointed if I did not at least make one or two critical remarks also.
I wish I were wrong but certainly the Treasury forecast in the Red Book—Financial Statement and Budget Report—seems to me to be completely unbelievable. The suggestion that the gross domestic product in the first half of 1993 will grow at a rate of 3 per cent. per annum above the equivalent earlier period does not seem believable. It implies that the economy is already recovering at the moment. Clearly it is not. It implies a rate of recovery in the second half of the year which I know that no serious economist remotely believes. I must point out to noble Lords that that is simply not a possible view of the matter.
I do not want to say anything that would imperil the currency and other such matters at this critical time. But as we all know, the public sector borrowing requirement as outlined rather appalled serious opinion in the City. As I pointed out a few days ago, in my judgment that is, if anything, a lower limit to the likely outturn. Certainly, if my view of the economy is correct, the PSBR outturn will be rather worse than the Government say and therefore the borrowing problem will be worse. That means that, if this Government are returned, they will have to question whether their overall macro-strategy can work. As I pointed out, it means that the successor government will undoubtedly have to bring financial matters back under control before they can do much else.
I turn to two other matters, slightly but not excessively to provoke noble Lords opposite. I am told that on political grounds the Government chose to introduce a standard Labour Party policy: namely, the lower rate tax band. They did so, although a number of leading figures on their side, not least the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, argued that nothing could be more ludicrous. I do not criticise them for listening to the Labour

1573
Party on this or any other matters. After all, it is part of our educative role on economic matters. But it seems to me that in terms of the possibilities, given the money that was being spent, there were better options available to the Chancellor. Adopting, curiously, what the leaders of noble Lords opposite have argued in the past, my view is that overindexing tax allowances (if one is to work in that field at all), apart from having the obvious advantage of taking many more people out of the tax bands, would be the correct thing to do.
Lastly, let me raise a matter about which everyone seems to remain a little quiet; that is, the technical question of whether it makes any sense whatever for the employees' national insurance contribution to end arbitrarily at a particular income level of approximately £20,000 per annum. My right honourable friends take the view that that is an anomaly. So far as I know, every serious student of the subject regards the cut-off as arbitrary. I look towards the officials in the Box, and I am perfectly aware that no one in the Treasury believes that it is other than an arbitrary cut-off point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that he is not allowed to refer to officials in the Box.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. I apologise both to him and the officials in the Box. I am glad that he pointed it out to me. I might well have carried on along those lines whereas my main interest is in the substantive matter. I shall take the House back to that point, and to where the noble Lord wished to guide me.
I simply make the point that all serious students of the subject are aware that the cut-off point is anomalous. Quite independent therefore of what the rate of national insurance contribution ought to be, the fact is that an important reform (which any government will have to face in due course) is precisely the one that my right honourable friends have placed before the country: namely, that we have to end that anomaly. I mention the point simply to forestall any noble Lord who was thinking of intervening to ask why I had not referred to it.
I have tried to be brief and relatively noncontroversial. As we wish to keep matters within the confines of the Finance Bill, I do not believe that we should involve ourselves too much in party politics.
I conclude by asking the Minister when he replies to confirm one statement which I heard on the wireless: that the inheritance tax matter was not included in the Finance Bill simply because the Treasury and the Chancellor forgot. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it was not simply an oversight that the Treasury forgot to include the subject, but that there is some technical reason which is beyond me. I ask that question in the spirit of friendliness which he knows I always have towards him. It would be amusing to know whether the reason is simply that pieces of paper fell on the floor, the provisions of which did not get included in the Finance Bill. Having said that, I look forward to hearing other contributions on the subject.
11.41 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was in a very agreeable mood even though he indicated a lack of enthusiasm for debating the Finance Bill. That in itself is rather unlike him because he normally revels in any opportunity that he thinks he can find for an attack on the financial and economic policies of the Government.
Before I pass to the substance of the matter, I believe the reason that the changes in the inheritance tax are not included in the Bill is that inheritance tax is not covered by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act and therefore would not be required to be included in the Finance Bill. No doubt the Minister will confirm or vary that observation, which I offer somewhat tentatively because I have not had an opportunity to confirm it as the noble Lord spoke only two minutes ago.
I am sure that your Lordships' House should debate the Finance Bill even in the somewhat inconvenient circumstances of today and even although we shall have to take all stages during the day. This time it is not only the Finance Bill. It has the Speaker's certificate that it is a money Bill. Therefore there is no question of our having any power to amend it. However, that does not mean that the very considerable financial expertise which exists in this House should not he brought to bear either by way of criticism of or support for this enormously important measure. The Finance Bill, even in its truncated form, is of very great importance. Without causing offence down the corridor, I believe that I can say that your Lordships' House has Members who speak with at least the same authority on financial matters as those in another place.
Having said that, I should like to comment generally on the Bill. I believe that the proposals contained in it are well designed for the difficult situation with which any government would be faced at present. They exhibit a nice balance between the desirability of stimulating the economy by the remission of taxation and yet not forfeiting the great gains which we have made in recent months in combating inflation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got that balance about right. I am particularly glad to be able to say that of him, as he is my successor as Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I naturally therefore have, as have those of your Lordships who served in another place, rather a bias in his favour. Having disclosed that bias, I suggest to your Lordships that on the whole he has got the balance about right.
Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Peston, did not indulge in the violent nonsense which others of his friends have indulged in outside. One spokesman of the Labour Party announced that the Government have caused the longest recession since the war. It is really difficult to assess the intellectual quality of someone who can say something like that. Does it mean that this British Government have caused a recession in Germany, France, Italy and the United States? Such a statement completely ignores the fact that the British economy has to be operated at a time of world recession when other countries, over whose

1575
affairs we have no control whatever, are going into recession. To announce therefore that the recession, as it affects this country, has been so caused (that was the word used) suggests that whoever said it is totally unfitted to be put in charge of our finances in this country at any time: and I profoundly hope that he will not be.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred favourably, as I wish to do, to the reduction in the duty on cars. But I am sorry that the Chancellor did not go a little further in respect of cars. Although he has reduced the car tax from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent., he still left what seems to be in principle the very serious anomaly that VAT is levied not only on the price of a car but on the price of the car plus the tax on it. To levy a tax upon a tax must in principle be oppressive and seems to me quite wrong. I would have hoped that if it were impossible, because of European complications—my noble friend Lord Cockfield will no doubt say that that is so—to take VAT off cars, the only alternative should have been to take the car tax off altogether and leave VAT operating on cars as it operates on other articles of use.
I did not see in the Budget speech any reference to the subject which your Lordships discussed at a little length recently, the importation, duty free, of Chinese bicycles. When one of my noble friends answered Questions recently, we were given some reason to hope that the British bicycle industry might be given a little support by means of some compensating duty on imported Chinese bicycles. However, nothing appears to have been done. There is some rather mysterious power which I understand can be invoked without legislation to impose the duty if it is felt that those duty-free importations are going too far and are damaging the British bicycle industry.
Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the increase in the tobacco duty. That is absolutely right. My only regret is that it is not larger. If citizens of this country like to add cumulatively to the cost of the National Health Service by smoking, they should be made to pay for it by duties upon that tobacco. I can reminisce a little on rates of tobacco duty. On three occasions during my two terms of office in the Treasury, we substantially increased tobacco duty. On all three occasions, Customs and Excise warned us that we were pushing it too far and that we should lose revenue. The department was concerned not to discourage smoking at that time but about the loss of revenue. It said that if we made the proposed increases we should lose revenue. On all three occasions the same thing happened. For a fortnight Customs and Excise was right. For a fortnight receipts of duty on cigarettes and tobacco went down. But in the third week receipts began to mount again. It was not the officials of Customs and Excise but (I hope that I may say) the worldly wise Treasury Ministers of the day who were right and we received an increased revenue as a result. I hope that after this lapse of years my friends in Customs and Excise will forgive that revelation.
The most important change is that in respect of income tax. The relief of reducing to 20 per cent. the
1576
tax on the first £2,000 of income within the the tax level will be of considerable benefit to many people. I have been informed that some 4 million people will be removed from the 25 per cent. income tax band. Everyone, whatever their income, will gain a modest —not enormous—appreciable relief from taxation. That is an ingenious way of concentrating relief on the smaller incomes while not wholly excluding the higher incomes.
In the context of higher incomes I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He referred to the national insurance contribution and its cut-off point. When I was responsible for national insurance the contribution that one paid was related more or less directly to the benefit that one received. Now people receiving high earnings are paying contributions which, in insurance terms, are far beyond the benefit that they are receiving. To say in that situation that one should remove any limit seems to be an expedient for obtaining more taxation from people on high incomes. I believe that about 9 per cent. is added to the rate of tax paid by people earning high incomes.
It is in respect of that matter that we quarrel with noble Lords opposite. I do not believe that relatively high taxation is at all helpful to the economy. I believe that it discourages enterprise. It encourages the enterprise of working abroad or retiring abroad, even perhaps to the Channel Islands. I doubt whether it makes a great financial contribution at the top levels to national finances. I am certain that it has a dampening effect upon development in this country.
The Leader of the Opposition in another place said that the Labour Party favoured an increase in investment. I was delighted to hear that. But can one imagine a worse way of trying to encourage investment than by increasing income tax? It is by lowering the rate of tax that one opens up people's desire to earn more, to work harder, to be more enterprising and to do all the things that we wish to see in the present state of the economy. Therefore, I differ strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as regards national insurance contributions.
We do not have time to debate fully this great issue. I regard the Budget as being part of a consistent, sensible economic policy designed to pull this country out of the current recession and bring it back into prosperity as quickly as possible. In that context I take almost as my text a few words spoken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the conclusion of his Budget speech. He said:
"Over the past decade our belief in low taxation has brought unparalleled growth in the living standards of the British people. My Budget today continues that process, and I commend it to the House".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/92: col. 761.]
My Lords, so do I.
11.55 a.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to start by making one partisan point. I shall then move on to speak in a tone of moderation, as did my noble friend Lord Peston. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that it was wrong to say that the Government had caused the recession. Perhaps that is right. If the

1577
Government had said that the miracle of productivity and growth during the 1980s was due to the growth in other countries I should accept the noble Lord's argument. Why is it that when the circumstances are good governments want to claim all the credit for themselves but that when circumstances are bad someone else is responsible? That is not fair. The recession first started in this country. I do not deny that it may have deepened as a result of recession elsewhere, but it cannot be said that it was caused by the world recession.
Whichever party wins the election it must be made clear that our public finances are in serious trouble. There must be no mistake about that. It is not from a partisan point of view that I say that a gross PSBR, not discounting for the proceeds from privatisations, of almost 6 per cent. in 1992–93 and continuing at that level in 1993–94 is a serious issue. It may be said that we are in the ERM, that we are in the global financial markets and that the UK will be able to finance that borrowing requirement. Of course we shall be able to do so, but at what rate of interest? According to some calculations the real rate of interest is almost 5 per cent. to 5.5 per cent. Perhaps that is not solely the Government's fault but is due to a combination of reasons. The state of our public finances is such that perhaps in an unanticipated fashion we are landed with a PSBR of almost £34 billion—I do not include privatisation—even before any stimulus is given to the economy. That is a serious issue and we should concentrate on it. Whichever party is in power after 9th April must rethink all the previous promises and Budgets because the problem of raising resources will he serious.
In that respect I must comment on the fact that all the predictions are based on the Treasury model. The Red Book points out that the average error of the forecasts is as large as the mean forecast. For a large part of my life I have been a practising econometrician and model builder. I know that model building is a difficult art in which people have tried to progress. I believe that in the near future we must examine the entire basis of the Treasury's macro-economic forecasting. The Treasury model influences the models used by all the City brokers. Whether the Treasury model is right or wrong City brokers must follow it because they believe that the Government will do so. Therefore, we are surrounded by compounding errors of forecast, and action based on those forecasts, which may be derived one way or another.
We have learnt that opinion polls allow for three percentage point errors either way. They constantly add that little health warning. Perhaps the time has come for the Red Book to state, "The growth rate could be 0.75 per cent. as it is now: it could be zero, or it could be 1.5 per cent.". Let us hope that the error in forecast is of underestimating the growth rate for 1992. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that the growth rate projections for the next year are unbelievably high. Therefore, if there is an unbelievably high projection of growth rate of 3 per cent. and we are expecting the PSBR to be 6 per cent. of national income, we are in really serious trouble.
1578
Lastly, as regards the tax proposals in the Finance Bill, much has been made of the fact that there is a new band of income tax. As noble Lords will know, it is not a new band. That band was abolished in 1979 and has been reintroduced in 1992. If we wanted to help the lower paid it has been known for a long time that it is better to raise the threshold above the rate of inflation—perhaps double the rate of inflation—and that would help the lower paid people more than a change in the band. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quite rightly pointed out, the advantage of the 20p band is that it helps not only the lower paid but everyone.
In looking at the Red Book, I estimate that raising the threshold at double the rate of inflation would cost £700 million extra. The introduction of the 20p band has cost £1.7 billion. That means that that change is costing £1 billion extra, which I believe is not totally unconnected with the coming election. I make that point as moderately as possible. Given the precarious state of the PSBR, which was known before we started, if realistic measures had to be adopted—and raising the threshold would also have been electorally popular—we could have saved £ 1 billion. I believe that a billion here and a billion there matter at this stage of the proceedings. I should prefer the threshold to be raised at double the rate of inflation rather than to have the introduction of the 20p band.
The time to introduce the 20p hand will come. I do not deny that we should all like to pay less income tax. I do not quite understand why we are all so keen to pay less income tax and yet we do not seem to worry about increases in VAT and so on. However, be that as it may, I believe that the time for a 20p hand will come but such fundamental tax changes should be justified by sound public finance rather than by deliberate risk taking.
Whichever party wins power, there will be extremely harsh times ahead. We should bear that in mind when we are discussing the Finance Bill.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, one always listens with great interest to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Desai. They are both distinguished economists and their views are well worth attention, whether or not one agrees with them. However, I do not propose to follow either of them in the line that they have taken in this debate.
I do not propose to comment on the specific proposals included in the Finance Bill nor indeed do I propose to comment on the particular Budget which underlies it. Of course, this is a truncated Finance Bill, as is customary when a general election prevents the presentation and full consideration of a normal full length Finance Bill. It will be followed in due course by a much more detailed Finance Bill after the election.
It is becoming increasingly obvious, not just because of the arguments advanced in the general election' campaign but for other reasons to which I shall refer, that fiscal policy is moving back centre stage—a position that it occupied many years ago.

1579
There are many reasons for that, not merely developments in this country and the EC but worldwide, both in monetary terms and as regards international and global financial markets. The effect of those developments is that individual countries have less and less control over monetary policy. Increasingly, they are reactive rather than proactive to events.
As we understand it, monetary policy is a comparatively recent invention. It is a theme which I have developed in your Lordships' House on many an occasion. That is why I say that we are now moving back into a position where, before the emergence of monetary policy, it was fiscal policy which occupied centre stage.
We are increasingly moving into an era of uncertainty and danger. Five years ago there was a position of stable equilibrium in the world. It was not an entirely acceptable or agreeable situation but it was a situation of relative stability. The fall of the Berlin wall and the events which followed it led to an outbreak of euphoria. That euphoria has now faded. Increasingly, we are having to come to terms with the fact that we shall be living in the next decade and in the next century in a different world from the world in which we were living before October 1989. That must be true in the economic field as well as in the broader political field.
The economic theories and the policies based upon them, which stood us in good stead, or at times in not such good stead, over the past 50 years—I deliberately quote the past 50 years not simply because that incorporates the heyday of Lord Keynes but also because it covers a period during which both political parties were in office and, therefore, I am not making a party political point at all—are now obviously reaching the end of the road.
In the years ahead, we must not simply repeat the outworn wisdom of the past. I do not regard the wisdom of the past as necessarily unworthy or as something which does not constantly need to be borne in mind, but there is nothing worse or more misleading than people coming forward with discarded, discredited policies of an earlier era, simply because they were not there at the time to see those policies fail.
We shall need a great deal of new thought in the years which lie ahead. That is an area in which your Lordships can play a singularly important part. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this House has a great reserve, or reservoir, of financial experience. But its experience goes very much wider than that. I have been greatly perturbed in recent weeks to hear the constant repetition of the phrase that your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber. That may be true, but it is a small part of the total truth. Your Lordships' House is the repository of the nation's wisdom. In effect, it is the nation's think tank and it has the enormous advantage that it has a much wider spread of expertise than any other known think tank in this country or elsewhere.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that when we come to debate the next Finance Bill your Lordships will have an adequate opportunity to debate not only the Bill
1580
but also the policies which underlie it and the policies which should underlie it. I hope also in that connection that your Lordships' entrenched rights under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913 as amended, a matter to which I drew the attention of your Lordships' House on 16th July last year at col. 107 of Hansard, will be fully respected.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that we are taking part in this debate this morning. It is perfectly correct for the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to point out that for many years—I do not know how many—we seem to have lost our entrenched rights, or at least failed to grasp them. I am therefore particularly glad that we are holding the debate today. At the time of a general election one becomes conscious of the fact that we taxpayers, who are also Members of the House of Lords, are not represented in Parliament. We are not allowed to vote for a representative who can vote on the Finance Bill. Therefore we may as well exercise what right we do have—our voice. That is what I propose to do now, as did those noble Lords who spoke before me and as will those who will speak after.
I want to comment on one or two of the tax changes, but first I shall comment on the general economic position. The Government seem to be attempting to do two things. First, they seek to blame everybody but themselves for the recession. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, this morning, supporting his Government, that it is all the fault of a world recession. However, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, the United Kingdom was in recession well before any other country in the world. Indeed, it could be said that it was this country that led the world into recession.
Secondly, I want to attempt to show that the proposition that the Tories cut taxes and Labour increases them is not sound. There is no question but that the British recession was caused almost entirely by government mismanagement of the economy over several years. As the Select Committee on overseas trade pointed out, the Government failed to ensure that manufacturing industry did not suffer and decline as a result of the inflow of North Sea revenues. Further, there was a failure to recognise early enough that the 1987 stock market collapse did not herald an immediate slump. Interest rates were held at unsustainably low levels which harmed the economy and, indeed, set off the wild credit boom of 1988 to 1990. That credit boom was exaggerated by the then Chancellor, Mr. Lawson, ineptly handling the withdrawal of double mortgage tax relief. He encouraged a huge housing boom which inflamed the economy even further.
Having stimulated the economy to an unsustainable level, the Government realised that inflation was accelerating out of control. Consequently they slammed on the footbrake by jacking up interest rates to 15 per cent. and holding them there for a long period of time. However, just as that harsh medicine was beginning to work, the Government panicked again and not only pulled on the handbrake but also

1581
put the economy into reverse gear by joining the ERM. Incidentally, they joined it at a rate which was far too high and helpful not to British businesses and workers but to our foreign competitors. We are now on the road to an unemployment figure of well over 3 million. It is clear that the claim that the Conservatives are best able to manage the economy is unsustainable and that the reverse is true.
Let us consider the claim that the Conservative Party is the party of low taxation and that the Labour Party is the party of high taxation. Before the debate I looked at page 16 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Table 2A indicates that in 1979–80—the last year when a Labour Government had anything to do with the economy—the percentage of non-North Sea taxes, social security contributions and community charge as a percentage of non-North Sea money GDP, was 35½ per cent. I looked at the figures for 1987–88 and found that under the Tories that percentage had increased to 38¼ per cent. Even this year it will be higher at 35¾ per cent. But in 1996–97 it is estimated to be as high as 38 per cent. That gives us 38 per cent. GDP under the Tories as against 35½ per cent, under Labour. In my view that completely demolishes the claim that the Conservative Party is the party of low taxation and Labour the party of high taxation.
I turn to the taxation proposals themselves. Great play has been made of the new 20 per cent. rate for the first £2,000 of taxable income. I am not against lower tax bands. Indeed, I believe that the lower tax band should be 15 per cent. and that people should proceed to the standard rate at a much lower gradient than at present. But such reform should be brought about by a proper examination of personal taxation, not as the result of a cheap party political gimmick. It is much too important for that. As my noble friend Lord Peston said, the correct course of action this year was clearly to increase personal tax allowances by more than indexation.
I wonder also what the Government are thinking of by not indexing the married man's allowance. We hear so much from the Tory Party about the family and the need to keep it together and yet the Government have not indexed the married man's allowance. That is not the way to help to keep the family together. Married couples have lost a fair amount because the Government did not index the married man's allowance last year. Last year it was £1,720. If it had been dynamised—indexed—it would have risen by £172–10 per cent. It was not dynamised this year so a further £76 has been lost. Had the married allowance been properly indexed it would be £1,968 in this Finance Bill, but it is not. It is £1,720. That means in the two years from 1990–91 to 1992–93 in cash terms a married couple will have lost £119.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yes, if the noble Lord must.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is failing to take into account that which alters the whole situation: that is, the separate assessment of husband and wife.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have taken all that into account. We still have a married couple's allowance and it is not being indexed. I am seeking to show that in the two years from 1990 to 1992 a married couple will lose £119. That is not conducive to saving the family, which is what the Conservative Party apparently wishes to do.
Perhaps I may now turn to car tax and give a special welcome to the reduction to 5 per cent. of the special car tax. It is a belated boost to the motor car industry bearing in mind that last year the Chancellor did so much harm to the car industry.
I turn to the excise duty on cigarettes. I was described to my face by a noble Lord as being idiosyncratic.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we did not have the opportunity to discuss it further. I believe that the reason I am considered by that noble Lord to be idiosyncratic is that I am prepared to stand up for the rights of smokers and also because I still believe that this is a great country entitled to self-government and not government from Brussels. The excise duty on cigarettes is being increased by 10 per cent. It seems to me that the Treasury and the Department of Health are shooting themselves in the foot by their vindictive campaign against smokers who are a very large minority. About 33 per cent. of the population smoke and in my view they are entitled to their rights in a democratic society. However, they are increasingly having them eroded by government action at the behest of self-interested, narrow-minded bigots intent on forcing their own opinions and policies on others.
Noble Lords must remember that there are many vested interests to keep going the campaign against smokers as many of those running it draw substantial salaries which are paid by taxpayers. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was actually arguing against himself but I shall not go into that. Despite what the noble Lord said, the Government are shooting themselves in the foot because from 1993 border controls will be virtually non-existent and every person returning from abroad will be able to bring in 800 cigarettes without let or hindrance. The differences in the prices of cigarettes on the Continent and in Britain are great. It is £2.21 for a packet of 20 cigarettes in this country and in Greece they are 41p per packet. Smuggling will become very attractive to many people.
Apart from that fact the extra duty will simply drive smokers from low-tar, British-manufactured cigarettes to cheaper, high-tar imports. That came out in questioning the other day. In fact Greece gets a huge subsidy from the EC to produce very high-tar cigarettes and because they will be cheaper they will be more attractive to smokers. Therefore, the health implications, as a result of this additional taxation, will be worse rather than better.

1583
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, accuses the smoker of imposing a huge burden on the National Health Service. I say to him that the figures are something like this: the extra cost for the treatment of smokers to the NHS is alleged to be £500 million a year, but because we have smokers who pay £7,000 million into the Exchequer, they are paying for their treatment on the National Health Service 13 times over. The noble Lord must take that into account because, if smokers did not pay that extra cost, the ordinary non-smoking tax-payer would have to do so. I suggest that noble Lords should remember that.
The Budget does nothing to bring Britain out of recession. The danger now facing us is that the economy will go from recession to slump with all that that means for the British people. Michael Howard predicted a Budget for jobs, but instead we have a Budget for more lost jobs. There is nothing that can now prevent unemployment rising to over 3 million by 1993 under this Government. Fortunately, there is hope because the impending election gives people the chance to elect a new government committed to resuscitating our manufacturing industry through investment and education, while at the same time ensuring that wealth not only increases but that it is shared more equitably among our people.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I was not surprised to be able to applaud the Budget introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and I spent some years together in the Conservative research department. a long while ago. He was always a dogged, determined and cautious Shetland Islander. That is reflected in his Budget and in the Finance Bill which we are considering today. He had no intention of taking his eye off the main target, the reduction of inflation. My noble friend Lord Cockfield referred to new and old thinking. In one sense the problem of the Heath Government—to which I was a minor adviser and my only excuse is that my advice was seldom if ever taken—was that they took their eye off inflation. They tried directly to counter unemployment at a time when unemployment was largely structural rather than cyclical.
The sad thing about the Labour Party is that in many ways it would go back to the policies of the Heath Government. Being as charitable as one can about the prospect of a Labour Government, they will be very like the Heath Government. There would be very high levels of taxation: the trades unions would have a new lease of life: there would be massive public spending: the private sector would contract and the public sector would expand again. I do not believe that we should return to that. We must continue on the new route which has been taken for the past 13 years.
Perhaps I may say a few words about tax policy and the PSBR, bearing in mind particularly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The noble Lord was suggesting that it would have been better to have used any money available to raise the threshold rather than at this stage introduce a 20 per cent. band rate.
1584
In a sense that is surely more regressive than what Mr. Lamont has done because for every £100 by which one raises the threshold, the top rate tax payers benefit by £40. That is because they reduce their taxable income by £100. Whereas, if one introduces a 20 per cent. rate for the low paid then for every £100 the top rate tax payer is benefiting only by £5. In that way, all the cash conceded in the Budget is focused on the low paid with little of it going to the higher paid. Similarly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately decided in this Budget not to use the Rooker-Wise indexation on the higher rate of taxation. It remains at the same level, which is again a progressive measure. That is an important point to remember.
Such a measure is also a means of bringing forward to reality the Government's 20 per cent. target. People can see that the 20 per cent. band now exists and it will be possible to move towards a 20 per cent. standard rate either by extending the band of income taxed at 20 per cent. or by reducing the 25 per cent. rate eventually to 20 per cent. by stages of 1 per cent., 2 per cent., or 3 per cent., which on the whole is more expensive. That is part of the strategy which is being faithfully carried out. Another part is to keep the top rate of taxation at 40 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter explained why it is not sensible to uncap the NIC so that everyone has to pay the extra 9 per cent. In the terms of the objective of the NIC that would be over-funding insurance and merely taking money in the form of taxation. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding at that explanation. He is admitting that to uncap the NIC and to apply the 9 per cent. NIC to everyone is a means of raising marginal taxation. It would be much better to face up to the fact that the 50 per cent. top tax rate proposed by the Labour Party would in fact be a 59 per cent. top marginal tax rate.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. He is leading me into other fields. I do not know anybody now who does not understand that the National Insurance Contribution is a tax. It is not, and has not been, an insurance contribution in any meaningful use of the word "insurance" since almost the time that it was invented. That is the point I was making: it is a tax.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the logic of that then is to consolidate it into the tax system. I have not heard the Labour Party say at any stage that what they are proposing is to scrap the NIC and to introduce a top tax rate of 59 per cent. I can see why they would not want to say that: because 50 per cent. sounds lower than 59 per cent. But that would be the logic of the position.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but as he can see I am in quite a good mood this morning. However, 40 per cent. does sound a little lower than 49 per cent.—does it not? —for a party that keeps talking about 20 per cent.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to move on now to the PSBR of which, again, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made much. If ever there was an issue on

1585
which this present Government have for the past 13 years been able to claim considerable credit it is in the management of the PSBR. First, no less than £26 billion has been taken off the national debt between 1987 and 1990. Secondly, the net public sector debt as a proportion of GDP has been halved. Thirdly, the PSBR has on average been 1.75 per cent. of GDP, whereas under Labour it was 6.75 per cent.—in fact, at one time it reached 9.5 per cent. With the present PSBR prediction of £28 billion it would still be only some 4.5 per cent. of GDP.
It is obvious that the main reason for the increase in PSBR is the recession. First, tax revenues are falling as economic activity declines: secondly, the cost of paying unemployment and other social security benefits to the unemployed is rising. As the economy recovers—and nobody denies that it will recover—the PSBR problem will be self-correcting. It is surely right, at a time when unemployment is primarily cyclical, to allow the PSBR to rise by whatever amount is necessary in order to make the extremely unpleasant experience of being unemployed sustainable and bearable. It is good that we have a relatively generous regime for the unemployed, and that must be paid for. I should have thought that far from criticising the level of the PSBR, that ought to be fully recognised.
I have one slight criticism of the Budget. In my opinion too much has been done for the car industry. Many of the car industry's problems in this country have been brought on by itself. I would be prepared to settle for what was urged by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—the reduction of the car tax to zero, provided the amount saved went on to the excise duty. The excise duty was increased from £100 to 110. One of the main problems is that there are too many cars. The more cars there are, relatively, the less use that is made of every car, the greater the imposition of cars on the road, the greater the pollution and the greater the cost of building roads. It is rather ridiculous that the vehicle excise duty has been allowed for so many years to lag well behind the rate of inflation. If it were to be brought back in real terms to the rate it was when it was first put at £100 I think I am right in saying that it would now be between £140 and £150.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I understood the noble Lord to say that there are too many cars. I have a direct question to ask the noble Lord. If he has a car himself does he propose to give it up?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I have more than one car—that is the whole problem. The reason I have more than one car is because it is so cheap to have a car. One only paid £100, now £110, a year. If we had to pay a great deal more we might think about having a second or third car. That is precisely the point I am making.
Perhaps I may now say a word about bicycles. I know that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter feels strongly about Chinese bicycles coming into this country. Surely we should welcome them. The more bicycles the better because that means better health and fewer cars.
1586
In place of all the things that have been done for the car industry I had hoped that the Chancellor might have done a little more for the construction industry. There are two ways in which I would have done that. First, I would have hoped to have seen capital allowances restored to their 100 per cent. level, though only for a limited length of time. Secondly, again on a temporary basis, I should have liked to have seen zero-rating of VAT, which applies to new buildings, apply also to alterations and modifications of existing buildings. That would have produced a useful stimulus to small builders as people quickly placed orders. It would have been a great help.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. But I should like to say that I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I am sorry that he is not still here —recognises the educative role of the Labour Party. There will always be crumbs to be picked up from the extravagant table at which the leaders of the Labour Party sit when they plan their tax and economic policies. But, basically, I do not see my right honourable friend the Chancellor ever wishing to eat at that table. When we have the cost of Labour's menu revealed to us this afternoon I suspect that most of the electorate will not choose to eat at that table either.
12.36 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, in your Lordships' House many records are made and some are broken. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that on this day 43 years ago I was first elected to the House of Commons.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, that is not a record. The record is probably that I was 51 years of age when I began and that accounts for my being so old now. I am sure I must be approaching retirement age but I am presuming on the goodwill of the House to give myself a little extension.
When I arrived at the House of Commons on 16th March 1949 I had my eyes on two young men for different reasons. One was Harold Wilson who was then President of the Board of Trade at 33: the other was James Callaghan, aged 37, who was Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. I am very glad indeed that both of them are here nudging me on this Bench for a place within earshot of speeches in your Lordships' House.
I have been privileged to hear many notable speeches in your Lordships' House. I am coming to the conclusion that one of the most notable of our colleagues is the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield who today made a second very thoughtful and deeply searching speech of recent days. This opens the prospect of your Lordships' House going more deeply into some aspects of our life and our way of living and our social and fiscal system. That may lead us to want some revision of the role of your Lordships' House over matters dealt with in the Finance Bill.
Noble Lords will notice that the Bill states at the top that it has been certified by the Speaker as a money Bill. That is the catechism that goes back 81 years. It is the same as it has always been. But it has not always

1587
kept within the original concept of what your Lordships were expected to do and refrained from doing on matters of finance.
We had the extraordinary spectacle of nine days being spent on the Committee stage of the Bill introducing the council tax and then three or four days being spent on Report stage and Third Reading. We went into every aspect of the Bill and hundreds of amendments were tabled. Yet we cannot move an amendment to increase by 50p the personal allowances under taxation. We are beginning to find that to get to the bottom of some of our problems we shall have to go deeper beneath our fiscal system. I hope that in another Parliament we shall deal with the question of the obsolescence of the 1911 Act and allow your Lordships' House wider terms of reference in matters of this kind.
One of the great disadvantages that we have suffered during this recession is the effects of VAT. I know that it is not a tax peculiar to us and that in a way we have harmonised with the rest of Europe. What I am not so sure about is whether the strictness and harshness of the VAT regime is reflected in or derives from the European version of the tax. I am convinced that a large number of the businesses that have had to fold up in recent months have been driven to it by the pressure of VAT.
The present harsh system was introduced in the Finance Bill 1985. However, because it was a money Bill we were not able to deal with the automatic and non-discretionary penalties which were written into the scheme of VAT and which took what had previously been the powers of the courts out of the hands of the courts and put them into the hands of the officers of Customs and Excise. They had no discretion but to apply them. Some modifications of those powers have taken place over the years and more are proposed in this Bill but your Lordships will understand the evil of the VAT regime when I say that, so far as concerns the trader, every time he writes an invoice and adds the amount of VAT he creates a debt to the Customs and Excise whether or not he has received the money.
In its initial form the regime of the tax was that one paid VAT on money one had not received. Written into the code of conduct under the VAT regime was the escape clause that penalties had to be imposed unless the delinquency or fault for which they were a punishment had been committed with reasonable cause. The great bugbear of the whole system of penalties under VAT relates to due cause for having fallen foul of the strict code of the Act. Many of those cases are going to tribunals and a good many are quite farcical. Nevertheless we have under the Bill before us some relaxation.
The main problem is the imposition of an extremely complicated and strict regime on businesses of relatively small turnovers. The turnover under the Bill is to be £36,600, increased from last year by the amount of inflation. Last year the threshold was increased to 40 per cent. but it is still very difficult for a small business to have to cope with a complicated
1588
system of taxation and have reserves to deal with its position under it. Many small businesses have to give up.
In his speech the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter. He said:
"For businesses facing cash flow difficulties, value added tax penalties can be the last straw. It has been put to me on many occasions that the VAT penalty regime is too strict. The serious misdeclaration penalty is catching too many minor mistakes. This must stop".—[Official Report. Commons, 10/3/92: col. 753.]
Why has this been left until now? This regime has not been stopped in time to save people from bankruptcy. One finds all through the Chancellor's speech that he is now realising that more flexibility and lower penalties for minor misdemeanours must be made the order of the day. Let us not ignore the fact that the Chancellor is certainly doing a good turn to small businesses in his proposals regarding the fixed small business rate. The Chancellor prides himself on sparing the traders affected by VAT the £35 million of penalties that they would otherwise pay but for the proposals he is making under the Bill. Imagine, my Lords, £35 million into the coffers of the state!
That £35 million is being relieved by the flexibility and the lightened burden that the Chancellor is introducing. I welcome that, but the suffering has gone on and the damage in many cases has already been done. Small businesses rarely capitalise themselves sufficiently to stand credit and many businesses fail because they have no capital safeguard against credit. When they cannot get the money in they have to borrow to cover their prospects of revenue from their negligent customers. I welcome these changes to VAT but it is a regime which should be lifted out of the field of strict and harsh application.
One of the problems about VAT is that it was given to the Customs and Excise to run. The tradition of Customs and Excise is that of the Collector of the King's Taxes. The King's servants acted against the smugglers, the bootleggers and the runners of contraband in order to ensure that the Crown received its revenues. The Customs and Excise, with its tradition of dealing with smugglers, drug traffickers, bonded warehouses and all the other factors relating to our traditional system of indirect taxation years ago, is quite unsuited to the application of VAT.
I know that at various stages in the history of VAT —certainly at the beginning in 1973—it was considered whether it should go to the Inland Revenue. It did not go there for various reasons but the two services are very close and ought to come closer together on the administration of VAT. On the one hand, we have the Inland Revenue with its collection of pay-as-you-earn, national insurance contributions and the assessment of profits tax and corporation tax, with its collection and enforcement machinery being applied to the taxpayer, and, on the other hand, we have VAT with its own system of penalties also going to the same person for the payment of a separate tax. To get that taxpayer in focus, one has to look at his position under the Inland Revenue, and, at the same time, look at his position under VAT. He is one taxpayer, one trader: but he has

1589
those two monolithic systems of taxation gnawing at his resources. That fact should be borne in mind in any review of administration.
I do not know why it is that this Chamber is thought unsuitable to consider matters of administration. Most of us have had experience of administration in some form. Too much is left to Ministers: indeed, too much is often left to the Prime Minister. He is left to decide what should be the organisation of the whole public service, to suit his own particular ideas about how government should be run. Noble Lords may recall some of the big mistakes that have been made in the past in that direction. I hope that we can have a more understanding and liberal regime.
Finally, I shall say what I have said many times before. The people with whom we are dealing under the VAT system are press-ganged tax collectors. They get no pay for it. They are pursued by the salaried staff of the Civil Service. They are prosecuted if they seriously fail in what they do. The harshness of the regime entitles bureaucracy to give them a very rough time. The threshold should be double what it is. Many more of those people should be outside the regime of the tax.
This is not a conclusive speech: indeed, I should like to call it a continuation sheet. Your Lordships may hear the remaining chapters in the next Parliament, in which, incidentally, I expect to serve.
12.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always a most agreeable experience to listen to and follow my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. There are not many ways in which I can beat his record: indeed, he is a record holder of all time in so many respects. However, at least I beat my noble friend in one thing: I was elected to the other place 47 years ago and not 43. Therefore, I beat him slightly on that count.
I very much agreed with what the noble Lord said about the respective roles of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. It is of course the duty of those who enforce the law in respect of the legislation to deal effectively with their tasks, always subject to the laws on such matters, which are presumably considered in detail by another place and yet are not considered, as the noble Lord indicated, in this place.
In my professional experience, I have found that the officials of the Inland Revenue have a good deal more discretion than those in HM Customs and Excise. The inspectors and collectors of taxes are, after all, responsible to the nation for the assessment and collection of taxes that are probably due, and it is their prime duty to ensure that that is effective. Yet, in cases of exceptional difficulty—and I could name many of them—in my experience it has always been possible to come to a reasonable arrangement with the officials of the Inland Revenue. It is not always so, but it is very often so. However, as the noble Lord said, when it comes to HM Customs and Excise, the contrary is often the case. There is a rigidity and a lack of give and reasonableness which, I am bound to say, on occasions is characteristic of the officials of the Inland Revenue.
1590
I shall deal with the value added tax aspects of what the noble Lord said a little later in my remarks. But before moving on to that subject, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on the contribution that he made today. I found his speech to be most thoughtful, even though it was not entirely politically agreeable. Nevertheless, it should give us cause for some thought. The noble Lord does not really think very much of academic economists. That view was shared in the column entitled "Men and Matters" in the Financial Times a short while ago. The article referred to academic economists and laconically remarked that, "economists know how it works, but it doesn't" and that, "businessmen don't know how it works but it does". I believe that that is a reflection of the state of the so-called "economic science" in this country at present.
All economics—and I stand to be corrected by those whose professional function it is to instruct others in the subject—are based upon expectations. The fundamental thing is expectation. But of course there is the further qualitative factor inserted in that: namely, rational expectations. If noble Lords and academic economists consider that the British public by and large have, first, sufficient and accurate data upon which to make any subjective judgments, I venture to suggest that they are probably a little mistaken. Moreover, in a country where the bulk of the press media is in the hands of organised capital and the political party that supports it, it is not surprising that the facts are very often distorted. Therefore, in the final analysis, any question of rational expectations probably goes out of the window.
We are then left with Treasury and university models. We are left with the whole computerised section of information which depends fundamentally on the nature of the equations and the information that is fed into them. So far as concerns the Treasury model—and I will not answer for the London School of Economics—it must have had some phony data shoved into it at some point to produce the grossly inaccurate forecasts which have been made over the past few years. Of course, the saying is "rubbish in, rubbish out". A fair amount of something bordering on rubbish must have been fed in to the Treasury model ab initio to produce some of the results that we have recently seen.
I return to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who, as I said, made a most thoughtful speech. There was a time when, towards the end of my remarks, I would have expected him to explode but, alas, on this occasion he did not. It is not in his nature to explode: it is in his nature patiently to explain on the basis of one of the most magnificent memories which it has been my pleasure to witness over many years. He will doubtless remember the speech he made in your Lordships' House on 19th June 1979 when we were dealing with the Budget—that is, the first Budget brought forward by his Administration.
The noble Lord made our blood curdle by saying that we faced one of the gravest crises for many years. He said that the balance of payments was £1,000 million in the red. When the adverse balance of

1591
payments figures reached levels of £11 billion, £12 billion, £13 billion, £9 billion and £6 billion, I was expecting him to explode at any moment, but I imagine that those considerations no longer have the same significance as they had in June 1979. The noble Lord has passed into a more reflective economic mood, which I welcome. In future, I shall pay very great attention to his further prognostications on the effects of those fiscal controls that remain in the hands of the United Kingdom.
That brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with whom I have exchanged arguments many times. Following the somewhat placid opening speech of my noble friend Lord Peston, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, worked himself up, venturing to bring an air of controversy into our proceedings. Of course that it not entirely unknown when both he and I are present at the same time. The noble Lord referred to "violent nonsense" on the part of all those who have had the temerity to suggest that the depression from which we are suffering is not due to the depression overseas. Those were strong terms, even for the noble Lord.
However, the noble Lord must make up his mind. In one part of his speech he referred to the fact—it is a fact to him —that we must not lose the gains that we have made. On the one hand, he refers to the economic miracle, but he does not then accredit that economic miracle to our competitors overseas. However, if the depression exists—and he does not admit that it does —he says that it is due to what is happening overseas. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. We either have an economic miracle, which one part of him says that we have, or we have a depression. It is a lawyer's rolled-up plea. The noble Lord is saying, "We have an economic miracle" but he is also saying, "If we have a depression, it is not our fault." One cannot get away from that argument.
The main purpose of my speech is to explode one myth for all time. I refer to the myth that the Conservative Party is not the party of higher taxation. The Conservatives always take the attack into our camp, saying that whenever the Labour Party comes to office, it raises taxes because it is the party of high taxation. They say that Labour will also be the party of high taxation in the future and that voting Labour means voting for higher taxes.
That has been absorbed into what is now almost a myth: that there is only one kind of tax—income tax. For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, value added tax is a tax. If one wants to calculate the total burden of taxation, one includes both value added tax and income tax. The fact of the matter is—the noble Lord may check this if he wishes—that the amount of total taxation that has been raised by Tory governments in relation to gross domestic product has been consistently higher in the past few years than when the Conservatives took office. Leaving out the oil considerations and taking the total GDP, 34.25 per cent. of GDP was raised in taxation when the Conservatives took office, but for 1991–92 the proportion will be 37 per cent. Therefore, can the media once and for all kill the proposition that
1592
the Tory Party is essentially the party that reduces taxation and that, as a matter of course, Labour increases it? That is completely the reverse of the truth.
In fact, what has happened is that the burden of taxation has shifted. In 1979 the total proportion of revenue raised by income tax was 34.4 per cent.: it has now been reduced to 27 per cent. However, VAT accounted for 9.6 per cent. of total revenue in the last year of the Labour Government, but for 18.3 per cent. in 1989—and the proportion is now much higher. The burden has shifted away from taxes upon income to taxes upon expenditure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will remember because he initiated the debate in this House on 19th June 1979. I reminded him then of what Sir Geoffrey Howe said in another place when he introduced his Budget. Incidentally, that Budget meant that the very wealthy were relieved of a considerable amount of their taxation burden, but there was very little in that Budget for the rest. Let us remember that, in that first Conservative Budget, a low-paid family on £55 per week lost £21 per year, whereas a person earning £40,000 a year gained £4,705 per annum. The noble Lord will be aware that when Sir Geoffrey Howe was taxed on that in another place he said:
"I shall he leaving people with more money in their pockets with which to pay the increased VAT".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/79: col. 251.]
Precisely—and that is exactly what happened when the poll tax was abolished. I did not include that in my other categories of taxation. It was not the income tax payers who had to pay for the abolition of the poll tax because, once again, VAT was hiked up. Noble Lords will recall that one of the biggest increases in taxation ever to take place in the United Kingdom occurred in 1979 when the VAT rate of 8 per cent., which the Conservatives inherited, was nearly doubled by them to 15 per cent. Only recently, it has been shoved up to 17.5 per cent.
So, I advise noble Lords, editors of the Tory press and the rest of media that the Tory Party is the party of increased taxation, as the figures prove abundantly, and that that has had an effect. It has meant that whereas, when the Conservatives took office, the bottom one fifth of the population had 10 per cent. of the national income and the top one fifth had 37 per cent., by 1989 the bottom one fifth of the population had 7 per cent. of the national income whereas the top one fifth had increased its share of the national income to 44 per cent. That effect is reflected in the distribution of wealth in exactly the same way.
It would not be possible for me, using hallowed words, to anticipate the Budget statement that I understand my right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor is making today, but of this much I am sure. When elected to office, not only in terms of taxation but in terms of the other public expenditure measures that they propose to introduce within the public sector borrowing requirement that has been laid down by the Tory Party, a Labour Government will be able to accomplish a far more just, far fairer and far more decent society.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to say a few words in what is called the gap. I want to say something about the assumptions underlying the Finance Bill. First, I shall take up a point upon which I agree, at least partially, with the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter: that is, on the suggestion, which might be being made now by the Shadow Chancellor, that NI contributions should go up by 9 per cent. on incomes above £20,000, approximately. I hope both noble Lords will accept equally, as I do, that the present profile of tax and national insurance is a nonsense. It has been agreed that national insurance and income tax—there is no national insurance fund —amount to 34 per cent. but at incomes of £20,000 they drop to 25 per cent. Equally, on £200,000 of income, national insurance is 1 per cent., and at £10,000 it is 9 per cent. That kind of profile is a nonsense. While I agree with both noble Lords, I hope that they will agree with me that there is something crazy about our tax and national insurance profile.
I should prefer the Shadow Chancellor to look at that profile rather than merely to take a step leap at 9 per cent. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, agreeing, or at least nodding, which, for me, is a huge improvement on almost anything else I have ever had from the noble Lord.
I come now to the assumptions underlying the Finance Bill. The main assumption is that in 1992–93 there will he a borrowing requirement of £28 billion. In fact, as we are all aware, if it were not the creative accounting that is used generally by the Treasury—that privatisation proceeds do not count as borrowing —it would be £36 billion. By any normal accounting procedures, that is what it is—£36 billion of borrowing. I do not normally make forecasts, but I shall make one for 1992–93. It would apply also to almost any other year. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and myself, who have both served in the Treasury, would be inclined to agree on this. This is no criticism of the forecasters, I hasten to add. The plain fact is—I forecast it now—that the borrowing requirement for 1992–93 will turn out to be wrong to the tune of £1 billion, £2 billion or £3 billion, more or less: and the total GDP for 1992–93 of £621 billion will be wrong to the tune of £1 billion, £2 billion or £3 billion, or maybe even more, because I find it hard to believe—I think that it was my noble friend Lord Peston who said this —that the growth in the economy in 1992–93 will be as has been forecast. I find that hard to accept, given where we are. But let us leave that aside. I believe that the forecasts are likely to turn out to be wrong.
So my criticism is not of the Government, officials, the Opposition or the forecasters: to some extent it is a criticism of the City which believes all those forecasters and which works out everything that is going to happen, on the basis of tiny figures, in relation to the whole of GDP. We have a GDP of about £600 billion. The Chancellor adds, on present assumptions, £2 billion. It might have been £3 billion or £4 billion or £1 billion or none. I do not see why the City should have been alarmed, or otherwise. The City
1594
could perhaps have been alarmed at £26 billion, if it wanted to be, but why on earth it should be alarmed by an extra £2 billion in relation to a GDP of £621 billion, as forecast, I frankly do not understand.
Of course, there is the cost of a level of borrowing of that size: of that there is no doubt. We have to pay to borrow. Whether as an individual or a government, we as taxpayers—the Government do not because they are only borrowing on our behalf—have to pay. There is no difficulty in financing a borrowing of £28 billion. There is a cost, but there is no difficulty. What astonishes me is that the Government still stick to the idea that they will balance the budget over a cycle. First, I cannot see why they should bother and, secondly, they do not do so even on the assumptions contained in the Red Book. They still arrive at about £6 billion in four years' time. As I said, I would not like to forecast next year, never mind what it will be in four years' time.
To get excited about needing to balance the borrowing requirement over the cycle when the Maastricht situation requires us only to be within 3 per cent.—make no mistake about it, there will be many countries within the EC which will not be within 3 per cent.—strikes me as a nonsense. I hope that the Government will quietly drop it. I certainly hope that the Opposition will not look for a balancing of the PSBR under a cycle.
The trouble with all those false, or unlikely, assumptions is that they detract from a serious consideration of the real questions. I shall not raise many, but there are two serious questions that I want to mention. First, will the Budget—or this Finance Bill—take us out of the recession? Secondly, is the balance between tax and expenditure right for now and the future?
On the first question, the Budget £2 billion, as I say, is neither here nor there. It will not take us out of the recession. If we are to come out of the recession it will not be because of that £2 billion. One must hope that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were right when they said that everything is in place to bring us out of the recession and nothing further needs to be done. They are saying that the £2 billion in the Budget —the Finance Bill that we are debating—does not matter. I agree with them. It does not matter. But we are not debating whether anything more needs to he done. That is it. We are assuming—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will presumably assume—that we shall be brought out of the recession by foreigners. They will come out of recession and drag us willy-nilly with them. All I can say at this stage is that I hope that he, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are right.
I come to my second question: is the balance of tax and expenditure right? The honest answer in economic terms is almost certainly that we do not know. We do not know whether the balance is right. The reason we do not know is that we have never properly studied borrowing as between capital and current expenditure. We do not know in sufficient detail. I referred in a Question in the House a week or so ago to a report by Arthur Andersen (a large international firm of accountants) which had studied that aspect of our problem as a nation. I must say that there was much

1595
in that report that made a great deal of sense. If we knew what the commercial borrowing was for—whether it was for capital expenditure—and treated it differently from current expenditure we might achieve a better understanding of how we should be moving our economy forward.
I hope that at some point whoever forms the next government will look more carefully, and not seek to make party political points, at whether money left with local authorities from sales of council houses should be treated as capital or allowed to be added to the PSBR. In current accounting terms, it does add to the PSBR. I would not dispute that. In current Treasury accounting terms it does: but why? Why on earth should it? Why do we not look at it more carefully to see whether that money is spent on capital expenditure rather than current? It would be a better way of dealing with it than just leaving it there.
We should have a better look at the form of creative accounting that we have in this country. Perhaps we should take lessons in creative accounting from some people in industry, some of whom may no longer be with us. I do not pretend that that would provide an overnight miracle, but it would make for a more sensible and accurate view of our economic performance in the years ahead.
I do not dispute that it would have to be financed —of course it would—but there is no difficulty in the context of an economy with a GDP of £600 billion and growing. If the cost has to be an extra 1 per cent., I would regret it from the view of mortgage payers and others. However, it is a better way of taking us forward into real growth in the economy than is suggested in either the Finance Bill or the Budget.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak without having earlier put my name down, but I wish to enlarge on the most pertinent observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his speech on the Bill this morning.
Your Lordships will be aware that in his Budget speech six days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the threshold for inheritance tax was to rise from £140,000 to £150,000. Moreover, it was to do so not from the beginning of the new tax year but from Budget Day itself. Two days later there was the announcement of the general election which appeared to throw everything into the melting pot.
However, two or three days ago the BBC reported that the Labour Party, the official Opposition, was sympathetic to the proposed inheritance tax changes, and that it had no objection to them. Despite that, the Chancellor and the Treasury have inexplicably omitted to include the proposals in the Bill before us today. Whether that is a sheer oversight, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, or for other reasons, we do not know.
Where does this leave the families of the unfortunate people who die between 10th March and 9th or 10th April this year? From the BBC report, assuming it is accurate—and its reports usually are —and from the sympathetic tone of the noble Lord,
1596
Lord Peston, in his intervention today, one can readily conclude that if the Labour Party is returned to power next month, it would probably agree to backdate the concession to Budget Day.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, can of course only speak for the Government and for the Conservative Party. Can he assure the House in his winding up speech that, if the Conservatives are returned to power, they too will agree to backdate the concession to Budget Day?
1.22 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when I came in this morning I was under the impression that we were going to debate the Finance Bill as it stands. That was the lead given by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Since then, we have wandered widely. I do not intend to go over the whole of the economy, but I will take a little time to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is, alas, not in his seat. Far be it from me to waste your Lordships' time defending economists, but the fact remains that today we are all either professional or amateur economists. Despite the innumerable mistakes made by the professionals, I prefer them to the amateurs. Surely that is a more rational position to take.
I also wish to turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about combining national insurance and income tax. As several noble Lords said, surely it is now crystal clear that to do so will ensure that the contribution is a tax. From the very day it was introduced, because we paid pensions straightaway for which there was no insurance base, it ceased to be anything but a tax. It has never been anything but a tax, so we should treat it as though it were part of a tax. Whether or not the way in which the Labour Party proposes to treat it is right is not the point. It is a tax and my own party has for a long time taken that line.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she aware that the 9 per cent. is a tax from which at present pensioners are exempt? If the 9 per cent. national insurance contribution is combined with the 25 per cent. tax, pensioners will immediately have their tax bracket on virtually all their income raised to 34 per cent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, although the intervention takes us away from today's debate. If he will read the literature—though that is rather an exaggerated term for it—the publications of my party, he will find that we have expressly arranged for that. When the two items are combined, pensioners will be excluded from paying the addition. The noble Lord is right but I assure him that the point has not been overlooked.
On the Finance Bill, the point which I feel needs to be emphasised first and foremost is that we are looking for assistance for industry at all levels. The criticism of the Budget itself and of the Finance Bill in particular is that they do not give sufficient encouragement to industry for the recovery which we all know we urgently need. The Finance Bill must be

1597
short, but why have the changes to the business rate not been included in it? The position of the small trader and the small business is, as we all know, extremely difficult. One of the encouraging points in the Budget was the assistance to be given in the adjustment of the business rate. It is surprising to find that it is not included in the Finance Bill. I know that the Government are optimistic that they will return to office and will be able to introduce the provision, but it would be encouraging if it were included. It is difficult to see why it should not be.
Another item in the Budget which would be of the greatest assistance to small businesses is the decision that there should be a right to claim interest on overdue bills. That may seem a detail in terms of the national economy, but it is by no means a detail for small businesses. If the Government wish to give assistance—and far be it from me to encourage them to put in electioneering sweeteners—it would be both a genuine contribution and undoubtedly an electioneering sweetener. Will they reconsider the point to see whether they can do for small businesses straightaway what they promised in the Budget that they would do ultimately?
I wish to concentrate on the use to which the money is to be put. Perhaps not surprisingly, we are taking a somewhat Gladstonian view about the Budget. The need is not to increase expenditure for consumption but to increase it for capital investment in industry. That is where we feel both the Budget itself and the Finance Bill are lacking.
We do not agree with the Labour Party by any means about all the lines they take, but together with them we have rejected the idea of the cut to 20 per cent. We believe that all resources ought to be focused on giving the assistance that industry needs. It is because that is not being done sufficiently that we feel it is wrong to give an extra £100 per person—and that is what it amounts to—to those who qualify for it. As has been pointed out, if we are determined to deal with the problems of poverty, some of the people who are worst off will not benefit by the reduction to 20 per cent. because in any case they are not in a position to pay it.
We support the borrowing requirement. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that it is not something of which to be frightened if it is used in the right way. To borrow for consumption is frivolous and dangerous, but to borrow for capital investment is not. We need to get this much clearer. That is why I entirely endorse what was said and I am glad that the point was made. We hope that whichever government are in power next time, we shall be able to take the matter up and have the issue made far clearer than at present. To borrow for capital investment in the infrastructure, in education and training can only be a good investment. To encourage greater spending by any form of concession to taxpayers, except for the mere indexing of tax levels, is neither wise nor safe in the present state of the economy.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Budget was at first scrutinised for its election content, hunting for bribes. Inevitably, there was not room for many in this truncated version of the Finance Bill. The most significant and most alarming revelation of the Budget was the statistical framework of the economy. The City's alarm was revealed by the fact that the Stock Exchange fell 100 points in the 48 hours after the Budget was announced. The Chancellor commented on the past year's economic performance and made forecasts for next year. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, I shall discuss those performances as they are intrinsic to the Finance Bill and they define what it is possible or not possible to do within the Finance Bill.
The Chancellor gave the growth figure for 1991–92 as minus 2.5 per cent. However, many people believe that that will be revised to minus 3 per cent. That is the worst performance in a calendar year since the 1930s. The Government are looking to a rise of 1 per cent. in growth in the coming year. However, in manufacturing the Government expect a growth rate of only 0.5 per cent.
In the current year the Government's public sector borrowing requirement will be £14 billion; next year the Government will borrow £28 billion. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, says. One should discount the receipts from privatisations when considering the Government's public sector borrowing requirements. If privatisation receipts are discounted, one realises that the Government will have to borrow £36 billion. Some leading companies in the City such as Phillips and Drew and a few others who are supportive of this Government are talking of a borrowing requirement higher than £50 billion in the year after this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, claims that the Government are good at managing the public sector borrowing requirement. On the basis of the figures I have just referred to, I can only say that I hope the Government do not become bad at managing the PSBR. We should reflect on those figures. The borrowing figures, when taken over two years, account for an average 6 per cent. of GDP. That percentage is about as bad as the borrowing position was believed to be at the time we entered the IMF. That action was subject to a great deal of attack from noble Lords on the Benches opposite. The figures I have just referred to were subsequently adjusted downwards. For some years ahead the British people will have to pay for what the Chancellor rather openly admitted was a process of borrowing to pay for borrowing. I am not sure that that is a good way to go about one's business.
As regards public sector debt, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Desai for drawing my attention to page 14 of the Treasury financial statement. I am sure that the document is good bedtime reading for all noble Lords. A graph on page 14 shows that from 1974 to 1979 Labour cut net public sector debt as a percentage of GDP by a greater amount than the present Government are doing, although that was done from a higher inherited level of public sector

1599
debt. I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, should not always believe what appears in the Tory press but rather should read what the Treasury says. That is the sad tale of the public sector borrowing requirement.
The Budget forecasts a decline in investment next year. A deficit is forecast in the balance of payments of around £9 billion. It is taken for granted that unemployment will rise, sadly, to 3 million. As has been pointed out, those forecasts should be studied against the background of events over the past two years. That was the period leading up to an expected election and a period during which all Treasury forecasts were amazingly overoptimistic. Therefore it is quite possible that the reality will be even worse than what has been forecast. My noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Barnett mentioned that. I believe that the City's worries were well founded. It sensed that any variations on forecasts would almost certainly be detrimental to the economy. I cannot imagine at what rate of interest gilts will have to be sold for the City to cover its losses. I repeat that the reality may be even worse than the appalling forecasts.
We have had depressing forecasts for the future and a depressing recent history. Since 1979 growth has averaged 1.7 per cent. That is the worst percentage figure since the war. Since March 1990 1 million jobs have been lost. Last year 50,000 businesses went bankrupt and 75,000 homes were repossessed. I note that the Policy Studies Institute estimates that 2.5 million people are currently in deep trouble with personal debt.
I wish to refer to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the world recession. Currently the Government seek to blame everything on the world recession. They try to duck the blame and also the facts of the situation. My noble friends Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Bruce of Donington mentioned that. The facts are that we entered the world recession earlier than the rest of the advanced world because of the deregulation of the monetary system in 1986. Monetary and fiscal slackness existed until 1988. A consumer and housing credit boom then followed which subsequently required a prolonged monetary squeeze. Those events caused the recession. Britain has the fastest growing unemployment of all the countries affected by the recession and we have been in the recession longer than any other country.
I accept that the world recession makes it difficult for Britain to recover. However, the main blame for the present situation lies in Downing Street. I should refer to what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said. The noble Lord is not my noble friend, but I am happy to have him as a noble friend. His comments were much praised by my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Bruce. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, appeared to announce the end of monetarism, Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism. I should appreciate hearing what would replace those systems. If monetarism were to come to an end, it would have
1600
had the briefest run of any "ism" that I know of. I wonder whether the Bundesbank is aware of that situation.
I certainly accept that the Budget was not monetarist and not Keynesian. Indeed, I cannot detect any philosophical basis in it whatever. I believe that that aspect troubles some noble Lords opposite. Monetary targets were introduced by a Labour government, as were medium term financial strategies. However, those have disappeared. It appears that they have been replaced by a kind of fine tuning—one might call it crude tuning—that involves real interest rates going up while nominal interest rates come down. However, I am not sure how that works as a monetary policy when we are in the depths of a recession. Some opportunist tax cuts have been offered before the election but they will undoubtedly be followed by a rise in VAT after the election, as was the case in 1979–80. I am not sure that that process constitutes a fiscal policy.
There seems to be no theme behind the Budget and this Finance Act. In former years there have been Budgets for savers. We have been promised Budgets for jobs and this was said to be a Budget for the election. However, it has clearly failed to win the support of the electorate. This Budget is without philosophy, theme or coherent direction. It illustrates how this Government have lost their way since Mrs. Thatcher was deposed. There now seems to be an intellectual vacuum filled by a hotchpotch of unrelated measures.
I shall briefly discuss those unrelated measures as my noble friend Lord Peston covered them in his brilliant and succinct speech. The Government have offered a hotchpotch of small offerings. Several of the offerings are perfectly reasonable and we would not oppose them. Some of the offerings meet the cries for help that some damaged lobbies have uttered. Some of those lobbies are deserving, such as the motor car industry and the racing industry. I was delighted to see some help offered to the latter industry. However, I am troubled that tax on company cars now appears to favour large cars rather than small ones and encourages companies to buy large cars for their employees.
I take the Budget's general fiscal stance to be mildly reflationary, which appears perfectly reasonable against the background of recession. Against the background of a PSBR of £28 billion the amount of fiscal stimulus in a tax sense is dwarfed.
Finally, I should like to look at what is not in the Budget, because of the terrible constraints created and imposed by economic failure. There is nothing for investment; there are no increases in capital allowances for investment. Therefore there is nothing for the construction industry and nothing for the unemployed. There is nothing for training: the Budget has not restored the savage cuts in training. There is nothing for the homeless: the Budget has not allowed local authorities to use capital receipts to build low-cost housing.
Even the lower rate tax band of 20 per cent., as has been said, was something introduced under my noble friend Lord Callaghan in 1978 and abolished, with

1601
devastating contempt, by the first Conservative Chancellor. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that that is not the best way to help the poor. For the same £1.8 billion, personal allowances could be raised by nearly £400, helping far more people.
In conclusion, looking at the Budget and what happened previously, it seems to me that recent Conservative Chancellors have been at their best when reforming taxation technically and at their worst when mismanaging the economy. This Finance Bill and the economic numbers which it encompasses and which constrain it reflect too little of the former and too much of the latter. It is a balance sheet of mismanagement, and the shareholders in Great Britain Limited, who used to be referred to often, are about to vote on that. The Government are right to be nervous.
1.41 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, but one which was slightly more extensive than I had expected. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we had a debate on the economy only the week before last. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that he did not wish to bore the House with another debate on the economy today. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that he would not have bored the House because we are always interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say. However, I was very glad, as I am sure were other noble Lords, that he chose not to do so.
Also, we have the prospect of the Labour Party's alternative budget being issued today, as the noble Lord mentioned. I do not know whether that has yet happened while we have been debating the Finance Bill. I am jolly glad that it did not happen earlier because I can only think that that would have meant that our debate would have lasted twice as long.
I have found today somewhat unreal. As I said, we had a debate on the economy only the week before last. I have a certain feeling that during the next three and a half weeks the economy may be debated outside this Chamber. Of course none of us is standing for election and none of us has a vote, so perhaps it is right that we should have the opportunity to debate the matter today.
I shall not attempt to reply to general economic points which have been raised today. I shall deal merely with points of criticism or approval which have been raised in relation to the Finance Bill which is before us today. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have supported a number of the measures in the Bill. I refer particularly to the changes in car taxation, which I believe will be of benefit to the motor industry and to the economy in general. I refer, of course, to the halving of car tax from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would have liked that to have been abolished altogether, or at least he drew attention to what he described as the anomaly of VAT being charged on the price of a car inclusive of car tax. That is not unique. VAT is charged on the duty-inclusive price of all goods such as cigarettes and
1602
alcoholic drinks which are subject to excise duty. Although my noble friend may not like that, it is not unique in this particular case.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford was the only noble Lord who did not welcome the change in car tax. He suggested that in order to reduce the number of cars on the roads vehicle excise duty should be increased substantially. I point out to my noble friend that the freezing of vehicle excise duty in recent years and the relatively modest increase this year have been more than matched by the increase in duty on petrol. That is a better way of going about it: one pays as one uses one's car rather than paying to own a car.
I turn now to the 20 per cent. lower rate tax proposal in the Finance Bill, which has attracted a good deal of debate today. Noble Lords opposite, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, criticised the reduction in income tax to 20 pence on the first £2,000 of taxable income. However, noble Lords will recall that we have long been committed to a basic rate of 20 pence for everyone and this measure marks a significant first step towards that objective. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, it is a step which will particularly benefit those on low incomes. Some 4 million taxpayers will find that they keep 5 pence more out of every pound which they earn. It will, of course, benefit all taxpayers as well. So would the suggestion made by noble Lords opposite that personal allowances should have been raised by more than the rate of inflation. That would have given greater benefit to higher rate taxpayers, a strange suggestion for noble Lords opposite to make.
There is a clear division between us on the issue and the electorate will judge. I believe that the electorate will note that the party opposite wants to raise the marginal rate of tax by 25 per cent. for some 4 million people on low incomes. That is scarcely consistent with not raising taxes for Mr. Average.
I turn now to national insurance contributions, which are, of course, not a matter for the Finance Bill. They are a matter for the Social Security Bill. That reminds us, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, that those are contributions which are linked in some respects with entitlement to contributions. All I would observe is that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, proposes that employees earning more than £21,000 should pay an extra 9 per cent. of that out of each extra pound which they earn. That is scarcely in line with the claim that the party opposite will not raise taxes for Mr. Average.
The question of inheritance tax was also raised in the debate although it is not included in the Bill. Noble Lords asked why it was not included in the Bill when it had been announced by my right honourable friend that most business assets would be exempted from inheritance tax and the threshold would be raised by more than indexation to £150,000 and that both measures would have effect from Budget Day. Both changes require Finance Act legislation. Normally such measures would not become law until the Finance Act received Royal Assent in mid July but they would be backdated so as to have effect from Budget Day. That applies to many Budget measures.

1603
The short Finance Bill for approval before the election deals with Budget measures which cannot safely be left until after the election. People started paying more excise duty or less car tax from 11th March so those changes had to be confirmed before the election. However, inheritance tax is paid well in arrears so the tax will not be collected on transfers after Budget Day for some months. There is nothing to prevent a Finance Bill in a future Parliament implementing those measures with effect from Budget Day as proposed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget. It is this Government's firm intention, if re-elected, to introduce provisions giving effect to all the Budget measures in a second Finance Bill. They will have effect from the dates announced by the Chancellor in his Budget and the associated press releases. In the meantime statutory indexation will raise the inheritance tax threshold to £147,000. That is automatic and can be overridden by subsequent Finance Act legislation. There is no confusion or mistake. Which Budget measures will become law before the election and which will not were set out in a Treasury press release on 12th March. I hope that that explanation clarifies the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, among other points, asked why we had frozen the married couple's allowance for two years running. The married couple's allowance was introduced as part of independent taxation of husband and wife. It provides recognition of marriage in the tax system. This year we felt that it was right to release resources for those on low incomes by freezing the allowance. No one will pay more tax as a result of the married couple's allowance remaining unchanged because of the benefits of the 20 per cent. rate band and increases in other allowances. However, we shall review that every year.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was critical of our proposals for tobacco taxation, although they were warmly supported from both sides of the House by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Peston. In fact, my noble friend argued that it should have been even higher. I am not certain whether I would go along with that.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was that there was already a large difference in cigarette prices between ourselves and our EC neighbours and that cigarettes are roughly twice as expensive in the United Kingdom as they are in France. The duty increase in this year's Finance Bill will not significantly alter the attractiveness of buying cigarettes duty-paid from other countries. The Government are working hard in Europe to persuade our Community partners to follow our lead in taxing tobacco at a high level for health reasons as well as for fiscal reasons. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury is discussing these issues at a meeting of the ECOFIN Council in Brussels today.
In case that is not successful, we are prepared to combat increased smuggling of tobacco products after the abolition of tax controls at frontiers between Community countries on 1st January 1993. Customs
1604
and Excise are planning a range of anti-smuggling measures to deal with the challenges that will come with the single market. These will be intelligence based, allowing additional resources to be targeted inland from the UK borders both to detect and deter any growth in illicit trade. At the moment imports represent a relatively small proportion of the UK cigarette market—about 11 per cent. Indeed, the level of cigarette imports has fallen by about 10 per cent. since last year's Budget. There is no reason to suppose that the duty increases in this year's Budget will cause that trend to be reversed. I hope that the noble Lord's fears about increased imports and particularly those of high tar cigarettes, will prove groundless.
I have several more points to cover. My noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as well as other noble Lords raised points about the procedure of this House in relation to Finance Bills. I entirely agree with my noble friend that this House has a reservoir of financial expertise that we should do well to tap. I can tell the House that on this perhaps unusual occasion your Lordships have spent almost the same time considering this Bill as did another place. I do not think that that can normally be said to be the case. Also, as I have just said on the inheritance tax point, I can tell the House that there will be a second Finance Bill. In addition, we shall want to implement in a second Budget those budget measures which do not appear in this Bill. Our commitment to those measures remains firm.
Finally on that point, there has been a warm welcome from all sides for my right honourable friend's proposals on budgetary reform. The proposal to bring tax and expenditure decisions together in a December Budget from December 1993 is sensible. That was a point endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It will also have implications for the consideration of the Finance Bill in this House. As my right honourable friend said, we shall welcome any comments on the mechanics of that important reform of budgetary procedures.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on his anniversary of having been elected to another place 43 years ago today. The noble Lord referred to the VAT penalty regime and the changes proposed in it. I welcome his support for the reductions in the VAT serious misdeclaration penalty and the default surcharge. The noble Lord may feel that the Government should have gone further in modifying the penalty regime, but there is still a need for a deterrent rate of penalty for the most serious errors made by businesses. In their visits to traders, Customs and Excise have identified in each of the past two financial years over £1 billion in undeclared VAT. That is clearly unacceptable. However, the Government recognise the need to meet the most pressing concerns of business over the VAT penalty regime and it is for those reasons that the measures have been included in the Bill.
In addition, the review of the serious misdeclaration penalty announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in last year's Budget has confirmed the need for radical reform of the system. But it would be

1605
wrong to rush into fundamental changes without consulting further those affected on the options for reform. Customs issued a consultation paper on Budget Day on those further issues. The noble Lord also suggested that the VAT registration threshold should have been increased by considerably more than the rate of inflation. He referred to the increase to £36,000. However, a larger increase could invoke infraction proceedings by the European Commission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked why the cuts in the unified business rate were not in the Bill. They cannot be amended in the Finance Bill. They require a local government finance Bill. I know that it is a very welcome measure. It will cut business rates by almost half a billion pounds in the coming year. Again, we are committed to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Parliament. As for paying bills on time, the Government will do that straightaway for their own bills, as my right honourable friend made clear. I hope that other businesses will follow suit shortly.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but this is a point of considerable interest to some people. Do the Government not intend to legislate in any way to ensure that non-governmental debts are paid? Is there to be no legislative intervention so that people have a right to claim interest on overdue bills?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, if there is to be legislative intervention, it would have to be in the next Parliament. I refer the noble Baroness to the remarks of my right honourable friend on that subject in his Budget speech last week.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for the relaxation of betting duty. It will take effect in time for the Grand National which is one of the major betting days of the year. It will also be in time for the general election which may be another quite considerable betting day. The noble Lord made one serious mistake in his speech when he said that VAT would have to rise after the election. My right honourable friend made quite clear in his Budget speech that he had no intention of raising or indeed extending the scope of VAT after the election.
In conclusion, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, this is a Finance Bill to stimulate the economy. As he and my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, it is also one in which we do not wish to forfeit the great gains that we have made in dealing with inflation. 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.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
1.58 p.m.
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.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; read a third time and passed.

Army Bill
2.1 p.m.
Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this short Army Bill is a simple one. Its provisions are solely designed to enable the merger of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment to take place on 1st July.
We believe that the merger is very much in the interests of both the regiments concerned. In particular, it should greatly assist the efforts of the security forces to protect all the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland against terrorism from either side of the community.
Planning is now going ahead for the merger to take place on 1st July, which is of course the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. Both regiments will welcome the enactment of this Bill in good time for the merger to proceed, and for new terms of service and other important matters to be settled.
For more than 20 years now members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have made a most courageous and distinguished contribution to the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland. All of them join the UDR at considerable personal risk, and the risks are ever-present—continuing, indeed, after they leave the regiment. Over 240 of them have been killed, and many more have sustained terrible injuries. We pay tribute to the dedication and bravery that the UDR displays day in and day out and often in ways which do not receive public attention.
Since its creation in 1970, the UDR has developed to become a much better trained and professional force than it was in the early days. It is currently about 6,000 strong, with about equal numbers of full-time and part-time members. The main aim in merging the UDR with a regular regiment—the Royal Irish Rangers—is to achieve an even more effective, professional and flexible security force, operating in support of the RUC and serving the whole of the community in Northern Ireland.
The new regiment, with the recommended title of the Royal Irish Regiment, will comprise two main elements. The so-called general service battalions—two initially, but reducing to one next year—will have the same worldwide role as other infantry battalions. The home service element, initially the seven existing UDR battalions, will undertake the same duties as the UDR performs in support of the RUC at present, their role limited to Northern Ireland.

1607
We believe that the UDR in particular will benefit from the mutual exchange of experience and personnel which the new regiment will be able to offer. There will be opportunities for full-time home service personnel to volunteer for general service tours and training. This will help to enhance career prospects and general professionalism. At the same time, we intend to maintain a substantial part-time service cadre, very much as in the UDR at present.
It is because the UDR is based in statute law, currently the Reserve Forces Act 1980, that we need primary legislation to effect the merger. The Bill before your Lordships provides in Clause I that membership of the UDR will cease at the end of June. All current members of the UDR will remain members of the armed forces and, in the same way as members of the regular forces, may be transferred to another corps or regiment.
I should explain to your Lordships that a Royal Warrant and administrative action will then be required actually to transfer all ex-members of the UDR, and of course the Royal Irish Rangers, to the new Royal Irish Regiment. Such action is required for any regimental merger.
Clause 1 also provides that all members of the UDR may continue to serve in the new regiment on their existing terms and conditions until the expiry of their current terms of engagement, with one exception. We are removing the existing legal restriction whereby members of the UDR may not be required to train outside Northern Ireland, other than voluntarily. This in effect removes an anomaly since members of the UDR are happy to volunteer when such training is arranged.
We are planning that new terms of service for members of the home service battalions will be introduced progressively from 1st July of this year. Some changes to existing regular army terms of service are required. Clause 2 provides for the Defence Council to draw up such terms for soldiers. Under the new terms, their service obligation may be limited to Northern Ireland and may be further limited to service on a part-time basis, subject to call-out, as in the UDR at present. We are now working on the details of those new terms of service and they will be laid before Parliament in due course. Similar changes will also be made in respect of officers, by a Royal Warrant.
The new terms of service for the full-time element of the home service battalions—what is now the permanent Cadre of the UDR—will thus be more closely aligned with those of the rest of the Army. They will offer 22-year engagements, as elsewhere in the Army. Previous service will count towards the 22 years. I should perhaps explain that home service on those terms will not attract the compensatory allowances that are appropriate to worldwide service. However, those volunteers who are selected for periods of duty or training with the general service battalion or other units from time to time will of course be entitled to the normal "general service" allowances for the duration of such tours.
Terms of service for part-timers will be substantially unchanged, but we believe that they will also
1608
benefit from full integration with a regular regiment, with better access to training and professional skills. Part-time service, subject to call out, makes a vital, cost-effective and flexible contribution to our security effort. It will continue to do so.
Clause 3 is largely concerned with consequential amendments to existing legislation. I think I need not detain your Lordships over the remaining clauses, which are self-explanatory.
In summary, this Bill provides the statutory framework to enable us to proceed with the regimental merger on the planned date of 1st July, thus bringing the UDR more fully into the regular Army. The Royal Irish Rangers will bring to the new regiment the proud record of service over 300 years of several predecessor Irish regiments. Although much younger, the UDR has developed its own distinctive tradition of local service to the community. This will also be retained, and enhanced, in the new regiment.
We believe that the Royal Irish Regiment, with its dual home and general service responsibilities will command the respect of people of both traditions throughout Northern Ireland. I am inviting your Lordships' House to agree the legal framework to establish that new regiment. I beg to move.
Moved that, the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Arran.)
2.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the Bill. It is a Bill that we on this side welcome without reservation. We endorse the view of the noble Earl that defeat of terrorism is of fundamental importance to the future of the United Kingdom and that it is a necessary solution—not a sufficient solution—if the Northern Ireland problem is to be solved.
We join the noble Earl in paying tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment. Its members have acted with great bravery, and at considerable personal risk, in extremely difficult operating conditions. We on these Benches wish to be party to the tribute which the noble Earl paid. Equally the Royal Irish Rangers has a distinguished record in the British Army. It was an amalgamation of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Ulster Rifles and the Irish Fusiliers. All those regiments had their proud battle honours which they thoroughly deserved. Therefore, we hope that when the Royal Irish Regiment comes into being in the mainstream of the British Army it will preserve the fine traditions of the Royal Irish Rangers and the bravery and distinction of the individual in the Ulster Defence Regiment.
In addition we welcome the move because we hope that it will begin to solve the problem of recruitment across the religious divide in Northern Ireland. I understand that only 3 per cent. of members of the UDR are from the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, those Catholic members have been persecuted savagely by the IRA. It is greatly to the benefit of us all that at least 3 per cent. have stayed on.
I understand that the Royal Irish Rangers have a recruitment of some 30 per cent. from the Catholic community. We hope that the amalgamation of the

1609
two regiments will allow a more balanced recruitment for the Royal Irish Regiment. That would be a political event of the utmost importance and we hope that it can be achieved.
Perhaps the noble Earl will confirm that there may be a number of redundancies, particularly among support personnel. A figure of 750 has been mentioned and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would comment on that. If there are to be redundancies on any scale the severe unemployment in Northern Ireland must be taken into account. We hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards those who are made redundant as a result of the amalgamation and will treat them in the way they deserve.
We welcome the Bill. The noble Earl rightly pointed out that the merger will take place on the anniversary of the first day of Battle of the Somme during the First World War. The predecessor regiments of the Royal Irish Rangers distinguished themselves in that battle with great and heavy losses. We wish the Royal Irish Regiment every success, and we join with the noble Earl in commending the Bill to the House.
2.11 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friends and I also warmly support the Bill. Some years ago I had the privilege of visiting the UDR. I spoke to many of its members about the priceless contribution that they were making to the security of both communities in Northern Ireland. I also spoke of the unique dangers that they were running. Perhaps if I were a military historian I might find some precedent for soldiers who face death not only in operations but equally in their homes and who are at risk not only when they are serving but also after they have retired. The most vulnerable are the gallant 3 per cent. of Catholic members of the UDR. They are especially targeted by the murderers in the IRA.
The Minister said that the strength of the regiment is 6,000 men and women and that more than 100 members have been killed. I imagine that hundreds have been wounded since the regiment was founded in 1970. That is a heavy rate of casualties in what is supposed to be peacetime. We are all deeply indebted to the regiment and greatly respect the courage it has shown during those years.
Due substantially to the effort of the IRA murderers in targeting Catholic members, the regiment is now unbalanced in terms of tradition and religion. That is a political weakness. We hope that the merger will go a long way towards reducing that weakness. However, for obvious reasons that I shall not spell out, it will be difficult to achieve and maintain a better religious balance. We entirely support the Government in their efforts to try to achieve that.
The Government's proposals for the merger come at a time when they are merging other regiments. That may or may not be a coincidence. I do not expect the noble Earl to tell us. However, there is certainly military as well as political justification for bringing together the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers. The merger can provide new professional opportunities for
1610
the officers and men of the UDR. It will provide better training and exchange of experience, as the noble Lord said, and the possibility, if it is so wished, of service outside Northern Ireland. Those new opportunities will be welcome to many members of the UDR.
On these Benches we see both political and military advantages in the merger and we have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.
2.14 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation of the Bill and I thank him and the Government for bringing it forward before the dissolution of Parliament. It is important because of the date; namely, 1st July.
I very much welcome the Bill in itself as it converts the Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers into Regular Army soldiers. It is about time too, after 21 years of fighting terrorism, the longest continuous service by any regiment in the British Army for at least 100 years, and after 197 of its soldiers have been killed. That does not take into account the number of ex-soldiers who have been killed. It is important that the soldiers should be recognised for being what they are.
The regiment started 21 years ago with a sort of "Dad's Army" image. From that it has become a very professional body. Therefore, I welcome this Bill as it makes those soldiers into Regular Army soldiers.
It consists of two parts. On the permanent cadre side at present, the regiment is considered to be as professional as the Regular Army and has the added advantage of much local knowledge. There is no doubt that the Regular Army could not continue to do as well as it does within Northern Ireland without the help of the UDR soldiers. When part-timers are mentioned on this side of the water one suspects that they are considered to be in the mould of "Dad's Army". That is not so. They are very highly trained. There was a recent incident in County Fermanagh in which a council dog warden was taken on by four IRA gunmen. He managed to stay cool, to reload his weapon after he had been wounded six times and to save his own life. That is an example of what those people have to go through. Therefore, it is right that we should recognise them for being what they are—soldiers.
There is one other point to emphasise the danger in which they live. When we send soldiers from this side to serve in Northern Ireland, the most dangerous and vulnerable time is spent in uniform on patrol. For the Ulster Defence Regiment that is, statistically, the safest time. Therefore, it is significant that they are in much greater danger when they are out of uniform.
This Bill, quite rightly, makes the UDR soldiers into regular soldiers. However, that then makes it possible for the regiment to be amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment. Nobody is very keen on Options for Change. I was a 17/21st lancer and I am not very keen on my regiment amalgamating with the 16/5th. That is not because I dislike the people involved. It is purely that no regiment likes to amalgamate with another. Within Northern Ireland there is strong feeling that

1611
the UDR does not wish to amalgamate with the Royal Irish Rangers or anybody else, and that is understandable.
There is extremely strong feeling in certain quarters about the name. I know that the way in which the matter has been portrayed in the press has meant that people in this country feel that that is a provincial attitude and is the wrong attitude. However, if I stood here and suggested that on amalgamation the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards should be called the Royal British Dragoon Guards and the Royal Welch Fusiliers should be called the Royal British Fusiliers, there would be a justifiable outcry. Therefore, the feeling about the change of name is not just because it affects Northern Ireland but a genuine feeling that people would like to have seen "Ulster" included in the name. I go along with that. However, the name is to be the Royal Irish Regiment and I am sure it will be a success.
I should like to ask my noble friend for clarification and reassurance on several points. First, the Ulster Defence Regiment is unique for many reasons but one reason is that it has ladies as regular soldiers in the regiment—the Greenfinches. It is interesting that it led the way to women becoming operational in the British forces. They have been operational for a number of years and there are cases in the Regular Army where women are now being permitted to be in the so-called front line. Those Greenfinches are Northern Ireland based. There is a strong feeling that they should not be included in the new Adjutant-General's Corps when the other ladies of the British Army are put into that corps after Options for Change. I should like to be reassured that that will not happen.
The Ulster Defence Regiment Benevolent Fund was set up to look after those people in the Ulster Defence Regiment who became injured or, as a result of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, needed help. It is not only for injuries. There are cases where people may need to move house because of threats, and various other situations that arise in Northern Ireland which do not arise elsewhere. It is therefore an important fund.
Around two weeks ago I saw an article in the Today newspaper. Unless I read it incorrectly it spoke of the Gulf Fund and various RAF widows who had been unable to obtain money from it. The point was made that the Gulf Fund had been swallowed up by another service's fund. That is how I read it. If I am wrong, so be it. However, I, and I am sure other people in Northern Ireland, would like reassurance that there is no chance of the Ulster Defence Regiment Benevolent Fund being swallowed up by any other service fund. The money is raised, largely by people in Northern Ireland although some people in this country have been generous, for the specific purpose of helping those suffering through terrorist action. Terrorism has not stopped; people continue to be injured and it is important that the fund remains as it is, where it is, for the use of the people for whom it was meant. I fully understand that one day it will become the Royal Irish
1612
Regiment Fund, whether or not it retains its old name. Obviously it should be used for any member of that regiment who may be injured as a result of terrorism.
The GOC had an advisory committee in regard to the Ulster Defence Regiment. That will cease to be so after amalgamation. I should like to pay tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment Advisory Committee which was formed from all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. It has done a tremendous job. As yet I have not heard much credit given to it by anybody. It advised the GOC on a number of occasions regarding what to do, but will be disbanded after amalgamation.
A regimental council will be formed, as with any other regiment in the British Army. However, we are talking of the largest regiment in the British Army —after Options for Change it will be the largest by a long way. It will need a regimental council, which I know is to be formed, but that council may need to be slightly larger than one appropriate to a two or three battalion regiment. In addition, because of the part-time role played by people in Northern Ireland within that regiment, it should perhaps include a few civilians. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify that matter or at least indicate that he will mention it to the powers that be.
I want to say a word with regard to battalion titles. We have the regimental title, the Royal Irish Regiment. There are seven battalions on home service within Northern Ireland. They could be numbered one to seven—excepting the General Service Battalion. However, it would be a pity, when those battalions are statically based in the areas from which they recruit and from where they carry out operations, if they were not called, for instance, the Fifth County Londonderry Battalion. That is important. It does not cost anybody anything to allow those battalions to be named with their county titles. To leave them as numbers is an anonymous way, especially when there is no intention to post them anywhere else. I hope that they will have the counties mentioned in their titles.
For a moment I should like to look at the permanent cadre and the people who have been involved in it. The Ulster Defence Regiment has not been in being for that long and people are reaching pensionable age when they have not quite served for the full pensionable time. Because the Regular Army conditions will be brought into force, and people will have to retire at a certain age within certain ranks, there will be examples of people who could not join any other regiment—the Ulster Defence Regiment did not exist prior to 1971—but who joined in good faith and will now be told at short notice that their service may be terminated. That will leave them short of pension. Perhaps my noble friend can reassure us that where there are two or three years left those people will be allowed to serve on, or that something can be done such as giving them a portion of their pensions.
The part-timers, shortly to be Regular Army soldiers, do what they can when they can. They carry out an invaluable amount of service. Although we have heard a certain amount verbally that they will not be persuaded to leave or reduced in numbers, there needs to be reassurance that the conditions attached to

1613
them, once they become Regular Army part-time soldiers, will not be such that it makes it impossible or very inconvenient for them to continue to serve by adding what might at present be Regular Army requirements; namely, fitness, the amount of training and training outside Northern Ireland and so forth. It will be very important that the part-timers are not reduced in number at all. However, I accept that the number of part-timers has gradually declined in the past few years. That is partly because they have transferred to full-time service and partly because it has been difficult to recruit them in certain areas.
For one moment perhaps I may look at the practical side of converting the Ulster Defence Regiment into the Regular Army. The Government, including the Northern Ireland Office and the military, have all said that there are better career opportunities and that the benefits will equal those in the Regular Army units and so forth. However, a few anomalies are appearing. For instance, we have 4 and 6 UDR amalgamating. Within the Regular Army it is generally accepted that a battalion is about 600 strong because that is the size that a headquarters can deal with, that the commanding officer can get to know, and so forth. However, in 4 and 6 UDR they have amalgamated so that we now have over 1,200 people. Therefore, the commanding officer has a tremendous problem in getting to know the people involved. Half of that battalion (600 of them) is being put under the command of six-month tour battalions, which means that commanders most certainly cannot get to know them. Those working conditions are not exactly conducive to people really wanting to join something which it is fun and easy to work with.
As regards the home service and general service terms of service, I am a little worried about what happens when someone transfers from one to the other. I accept that some of the privileges or benefits which at present are enjoyed by Regular Army soldiers will not necessarily be available to the home service. However, what happens when someone transfers to the general service for a time and gets, for example, a boarding school allowance for his children and then returns to the home service? Is that allowance to be taken away from him with the words "I am sorry, the children have had two years of boarding school and they can now go back to perhaps a grammar school or a comprehensive school"?
I believe that many of those who join this new regiment, as my noble friend has suggested, will be better trained and there will be a better regiment with people of higher quality. They will be career people. They will be looking for the opportunity to serve abroad. They will not be looking simply to stay in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is important that they are looked after properly.
There is an anomaly as regards the pay of part-time officers whereby, on the one hand, within the Ulster Defence Regiment —and it will remain so with the Royal Irish Regiment—full-time officers get annual increments in pay and the soldiers get banded and scaled pay. On the other hand, part-time soldiers get banded and scaled pay but the officers remain on the
1614
pay that they received when they first achieved that rank. Perhaps now is a chance to get that anomaly out of the way.
There was recently (again in the newspapers) a scheme put forward, or mentioned, which was designed to help Regular Army officers should they be made redundant. It was a scheme whereby they could buy their own houses. For every £200 that they saved the Army, the MoD or the Government would add perhaps 30 per cent. to their savings. I hope that that scheme will be available to the Royal Irish Regiment permanent cadre home serve soldiers because when they leave they have even more reason to buy a house in a safe or a different place because of the dangers under which they have lived for the past 20 or 30 years. I should like to see that provision introduced.
As regards the number of persons serving in the regiment, the Government have given an assurance that that number will not decrease. Here I foresee a small problem. During the past 10 years the number has stayed roughly static. It is now 50–50 full/part-time. Although the number of part-time soldiers has gradually declined, some have transferred to the full-time service. Because of the recession and various other factors the full-time service has been able to recruit a great many people. Therefore, the numbers within the regiment have stayed steady.
However, I believe that the present situation is now coming up against a full-time establishment figure. We are talking about people who cost less to be soldiers than the Regular Army soldiers. If that establishment figure is not permitted to rise so that people who wish to fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland can do so we shall see an inevitable slight reduction in the total number within the Royal Irish Regiment. That will be very sad, especially when the Government have reiterated on numerous occasions that there is no hidden agenda and that they wish the number within the Ulster Defence Regiment, when it becomes the Royal Irish Regiment, to remain static. I believe that this establishment will have to be increased.
I know that there is a lot of argument going on regarding the location of regimental HQ, whether it should be in Ballykinler or Ballymena. If it is to be Ballymena where there are no ranges and shooting cannot take place, there will have to be travel—a long way. I ask my noble friend to consider for one moment that the decision on the location of the HQ should not be made on purely financial grounds. The transport and travelling of soldiers in Northern Ireland —as we saw at the time of the Ballygawley bomb—is critical. If it means a few pennies more, that base should be in the right place to carry out the most efficient and the safest training.
The points that I have raised do not affect only a few people. Without the right job description at the time—pay, perks, benefits and whatever else—there will be discrimination and it will be seen as such and the quality and quantity of recruits will not be as it should be. People may not join up but will go and do something else. The Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the Army have said that they will be Regular Army soldiers; that they will be no different and considered as such. In your Lordships' House and

1615
in another place we must ensure that these brave soldiers get what they have every right to have; that is, fair treatment. I hope that my noble friend will agree to ensure that the MoD clears up the anomalies before soldiers are asked to sign a blank sheet on 1st July.
2.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we welcome the general support that has been expressed this morning for the Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, and by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and the positive nature of the contributions that have been made. The date of the merger is still a little way off and there is a good deal of administrative work to be done and details to be sorted out in preparation for the merger. I am happy, therefore, to take careful note of the points that have been made in the debate and confirm that we shall bear them in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, brought up the subject of redundancies. The Royal Irish Rangers, at present, and the general service element of the Royal Irish Regiment from the 1st July, are covered by the redundancy scheme for the Army as a whole. Selection for redundancy, which will be achieved voluntarily so far as possible, will be based on the Army's need to maintain a proper structure based on age, skill and qualifications. Because of under-manning and natural wastage the numbers to be affected by redundancy are likely to be far less than the establishment of a battalion. So far as the UDR and home service battalions are concerned, total numbers will be retained at about their present level. There are no current plans for redundancies or to include the home service battalions in the Army-wide redundancy scheme.
I now turn to some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. He speaks with huge experience in these matters and with the interests of the UDR very much at heart. First, my noble friend asked about the Greenfinches. Since they were first recruited in 1973 the Greenfinches have been full members of the UDR and there are now over 700 of them. They will perform the same operational roles as at present within the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, as full members of that regiment. My noble friend then brought up the subject of the Benevolent Fund. The UDR Benevolent Fund is a registered charity providing valuable support in the form of loans and grants to current and former members of the UDR and their families. The deed of trust is a matter for the trustees of the fund, not for the Ministry of Defence. I understand that the intention is that those trustees who would normally authorise most payments to beneficiaries will continue to be locally based. However, it is entirely a matter for the trustees.
Concerning the format of the new Regimental Council, its format and composition is a regimental matter. Again, I understand that decisions have not yet been made on the membership, but it is intended to include some members drawn from the local community as well as representatives of both existing
1616
regiments. As regards battalion titles, I understand that titles for the home service battalions of the new regiment still have to be decided, including the question whether the titles should retain county affiliations. I take the point that that would certainly be desirable.
Members of the UDR are covered by the Armed Forces pension scheme and they enjoy the same pension benefits as members of the regular Army. Individual cases for extended service in order to accrue full pension rights have always been considered on their merits by UDR headquarters. This will continue under the new regimental headquarters. I can assure my noble friend that there are no plans to change the current policy on fitness testing for either the permanent cadre or part-time soldiers. They will continue to take the same tests as at present.
As regards allowances to home service officers—and soldiers—who transfer temporarily to the general service battalion for tours of duty or training, they will enjoy appropriate general service allowances for the duration of their attachments. In the case of some allowances, particularly, for example, school fees, to which my noble friend referred, it may be appropriate to continue payment after the period of attachment. Individual cases will be considered on their merits.
Decisions have not yet been made on the permanent location of the regimental headquarters or training depot. A study is in hand at the moment to consider the locations from which the home service battalions will operate most efficiently in the future. In considering the options, careful thought will be given to the advantages of co-location.
As I said in my opening speech, the present strength of the UDR is about 6,000. About half of them serve on a part-time basis. Since the UDR's creation the trend has been for a steady reduction in the proportion of part-timers. That trend may continue, but there is certainly no intention to phase out the part-time element. The Bill makes specific provision for service on this basis to continue. We do not normally discuss detailed establishment figures for Army units, but I can say that we expect to maintain the overall strength of the home service battalions at about the same level as the UDR, with the same kind of ratio between full-timers and part-timers.
Regarding rates of pay, we are not in fact proposing any immediate changes in the rates of pay or eligibility for allowances of members of the home service battalions, who will be carrying out the same tasks as the UDR performs at present. In the longer term we shall consider the desirability of closer alignment with the rest of the Army.
As regards the pay of part-time members of the UDR, the arrangements for incremental pay increases at present take account of the relative level of service commitment between the full and part-time members of the regiment, as well as the fact that part-time members receive an annual bounty. Here again, no immediate change is planned, although the matter will be reviewed in due course.
I can well understand that there may be a feeling of sadness among many members of the UDR that the new regiment will not retain "Ulster" in its title. There

1617
are bound to be feelings of this kind about any regimental merger. As for other mergers, the colonels of the two regiments considered the new title. It needs to reflect the history, traditions and composition of both regiments. Clearly, in matters of this kind, there needs to be a certain amount of give and take, but the agreed recommendation was the "Royal Irish Regiment".
The Royal Irish Regiment will be the largest infantry regiment of the Army. It will have a number of unique features. Its establishment offers, we suggest, a unique and exciting opportunity for all members of both the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. We have every confidence that they will prove equal to the challenge. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing them every success in the efforts that they will be making to keep the peace, both at home and abroad, in the interests of all. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; read a third time, and passed.

Friendly Societies Bill
2.40 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government set out their proposals for new legislation on the friendly societies in the Green Paper published in January 1990. Since then, there has been extensive consultation with the friendly societies, representatives of the actuarial and accountancy professions and other interested parties throughout all stages of preparation of the Bill. We are grateful to all those who took part in the consultation exercise. As it now stands, the Bill reflects the comments received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. It has the full support of the friendly societies movement and, I believe and hope, of noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House.
Friendly societies have been recognised in statute for nearly 200 years, though their origins are even older. They have played a valuable role in making mutual provision for their members and their relatives against loss of income through sickness or unemployment and for retirement. In recent years, however, societies have found it increasingly difficult to compete with insurance companies and others because of the restrictions on their activities imposed by the legislation, much of which dates back to the last century.
The Bill offers friendly societies a new lease of life. In the first place, it will allow them to incorporate and so establish or acquire subsidiaries thereby providing a wider range of services to their members and to the public. The new activities which they will be able to conduct through subsidiaries are set out in Schedule 7 to the Bill. They include establishing and managing unit trust schemes and PEPs; arranging for the provision of credit; carrying on long-term or general
1618
insurance business; providing insurance intermediary services; and administering estates and executing trusts of wills.
The second major element of the Bill is the establishment of a regulatory framework in line with the best current standards. A new commission will supervise the activities of friendly societies, promote their financial stability and protect members' funds. All friendly societies carrying on insurance or non-insurance business will require authorisation by the commission.
The Bill also sets out criteria of prudent management with which all friendly societies will have to comply. The commission will be able to exercise a range of prudential powers if it considers that a society is failing to comply with the criteria or that action is required to protect the interests of the members of a society for some other reason. Friendly societies will be brought within the scope of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, the statutory protection scheme covering insurance policyholders.
The Bill is a much needed piece of legislation which will allow friendly societies to compete in the modern financial world while providing them with an effective supervisory framework. Although the timing of the election has curtailed the time we have to debate the measures, as I indicated earlier there has already been extensive consultation with interested parties. The detailed provisions of the Bill are closely modelled on recent legislation dealing with companies, banks and building societies. They are in no way novel or controversial. I know that the friendly societies are fully behind the Bill. I am confident that it also enjoys widespread support on both sides of your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
2.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill which, as he rightly said, is much needed. In my last speech of this Parliament, it is a great pleasure to give my full support to the legislation. As the Minister said, it is not controversial and it brings the law up to date. One has a sense of history because the Bill is amending and repealing parts of legislation which go back 150 years.
As regards the activities listed in Schedule 2—and I refer to one not mentioned by the Minister—I noted especially that "long term business" can include,
"Effecting and carrying out tontines".
Those of us who are devoted to detective and murder stories are delighted to know that tontines will still persist as the basis for potential plots of such stories in the future.
Friendly societies are very useful bodies. They are very much in the tradition of our country. They arose in connection with prudential management of one's own affairs and self-help. I am delighted that we now have some legislation which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is supported by both the friendly society movement and your Lordships' House. I am delighted that we are introducing legislation that, I hope, will

1619
enable the friendly societies to survive for yet another century and a half. It gives me great pleasure to support the legislation.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I must begin by declaring a tangential interest in the Bill as chairman of the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society's staff-pensioners' trustee companies. My noble friends and I warmly support the Bill. My modest experience of friendly societies has helped me to understand their fine history and the tremendous help that they have given for nearly two centuries to millions of the least invulnerable of our citizens.
The Bill has taken a long time coming, but it is a long and complicated Bill. Moreover, as the Minister said, part of the reason for its long gestation has been the close and fruitful collaboration between the Government, the friendly societies and the other interested parties. That has made the societies extremely enthusiastic about the Bill. We on these Benches are glad to give it our warm support.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their kind reception of this useful Bill. 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.

Museums and Galleries Bill
2.47 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to put the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Wallace Collection on a proper statutory basis. The Bill is broadly similar in structure and provisions to the National Heritage Act 1983 which put the V&A and the Science Museum on a regular footing and which has stood the test of time. The Government have therefore chosen to follow a similar path on this occasion.
It has been recognised for some time that the present statutory basis of the four institutions is deficient. Their powers are often ill-defined, overly rigid in scope and lead to frustrating uncertainties about what may or may not be done by the trustees. The Bill is welcomed by the trustees of the four major galleries and I hope that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
The Bill falls into four main parts. The first part establishes new incorporated boards of trustees for the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Wallace Collection, and deals with their general functions, constitutions and powers,
1620
including those to form companies, and in three cases—not the Wallace—with powers to acquire and dispose of pictures and other objects and to lend and borrow such objects.
The Government take the view that the National Gallery should not be able to dispose of any work of art (other than by way of transfer to another specified collection) because the pictures in its collection are of established merit and significance. All the pictures are presently hung and it is logical to keep them together.
In keeping with the understanding entered into at the time of the Wallace Collection's passing to the nation the Government intend that the collection should not be able to acquire or dispose of works of art—that it should remain a closed collection—in the terms of the original bequest.
The Tate and National Portrait galleries are rather different in character and the Government intend that they should be given limited powers of disposal. That reflects the particular nature of their collections. The great majority of the Tate's collection (some 75 per cent.) cannot be hung at any one time. The Tate's function is to acquire modern and contemporary works, and, as the needs of the collection change over time, it may occasionally wish to dispose of works which overlap or are duplicated. It should have the right to do so. Any funds raised in that way would be used only to acquire further works of art for the collection. Any decision to dispose of objects will be a matter for the trustees, and the Government will play no part. That power does not signal a government wish to see a widespread disposal of the Tate's collections. It is a reserve power to be used occasionally and after full consideration by the trustees.
The Bill provides powers to the National Portrait Gallery to transfer objects and dispose of duplicates. The trustees have also been given, at their own request, a power to enable them to dispose of portraits when the board is satisfied that the identification of the person portrayed has been discredited. This is to assist it in the proper management of its collection. Again, any money from disposals could only be used by the board to acquire further objects for its collection.
The second part of the Bill empowers boards of trustees of specified museums, galleries and libraries to transfer objects from their collections to other similarly specified institutions. For the most part that sustains and expands the transfer provisions of the National and Tate Gallery Act 1954 which the Bill would repeal. It also provides for gifts of works of art to the nation or for the public benefit to be vested in specified institutions and enables Crown land and buildings occupied by specified national museums, galleries and libraries to be transferred to their governing bodies. The latter provision fulfils the policy of transferring ownership of their estates to trustees announced in this House in 1989 by my noble friend Lady Trumpington.
The third part of the Bill provides for the payment of grant-in-aid to certain national museums, galleries and libraries and the Museums and Galleries Commission by the appropriate Minister out of

1621
money provided by Parliament. It provides also for the keeping of proper records and accounts and the examination and certification of those accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and for him to report on those accounts to Parliament.
Clause 10 makes improvements to the National Heritage Act 1980 in the matter of reporting indemnities and the need only to approve borrowers, and not lenders. Otherwise there is no change to the present indemnity scheme which, since its inception in 1980, has proved of inestimable benefit in encouraging museums and galleries to mount important exhibitions and to loan their own items throughout the country.
The fourth part of the Bill deals with minor and supplemental matters. They include giving company-forming powers to the board of trustees of the Armouries and to the board of trustees of the Imperial War Museum. The Bill gives those boards powers which are already enjoyed by similar bodies.
Other provisions of the Bill deal with particular Welsh institutions and certain provisions extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Astor.)
2.53 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not very nice that in the dying hours of this hard-worked Parliament we can welcome a totally non-controversial, sensible, reasonable Bill which tidies up some aspects of one of Britain's most successful industries —the museums and galleries of this country? Is it not marvellously appropriate that it should be with the Museums and Galleries Bill that we consign the activities, for good or ill, of this present Parliament to the glass case of history under optimum conditions of temperature and humidity for the education and entertainment of generations yet unborn?
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, which has many good things in it. Perhaps I may mention briefly just four. First, it is good that we shall now have four bodies corporate instead of merely four boards of trustees. They will have the additional powers to do things, such as open restaurants at times when the galleries themselves are not open—something which several of them have wanted to do. I must declare an interest here in that I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, though receiving no financial reward therefor. I know that we shall welcome the opportunity to have a little money-spinning restaurant in the centre of London, off Trafalgar Square. Similarly, it will allow us and others to open the museum late at night for purposes other than exhibiting the collection. This again extends the trustees' power to generate income, and for this they will be truly grateful. It also allows them to create companies to market their products which, again, they will be anxious to do.
Secondly, the Bill clarifies the acquisitions and disposals business, although for many of the galleries,
1622
acquisitions remain rather a theoretical matter when purchase grants have been frozen for so many years that many of us have forgotten how long it is.
Thirdly, it is good to find that in the present version of the Bill, the matter of indemnities has been cleared up. The Bill does not now include any sinister section in which indemnities might be related to institutions' annual grants.
Fourthly, it is good to know that the Natural History Museum has been recognised now as having come of age and it can go its own way. It is a remarkable institution, a national museum of the first rank plus, behind it, an international—nay, a world class—research centre which needs every bit of assistance and help that it can get.
I have only three or four brief questions on which I should like clarification from the noble Viscount, if he can provide it. First, I was pleased to hear that he feels that the Bill now deals adequately with disposal powers. I should like to hear him say, if he can, that this Government's policy for the next hour or so will never be to use disposal powers to justify cutting or freezing any museum's purchase grant. That has been a matter of anxiety to many of the museums and I am sure that they would welcome any reassurance the noble Viscount can give.
Secondly, there has been some puzzlement about why the Government felt it necessary to dig in their heels over the question of trustees being appointed for only five years. In the past it has been seven years and the directors of at least two of the galleries that I know personally have advocated that the period of seven years is most useful. The Government have heard these representations but have decided to hold the period at five years. Many people are a little puzzled and would like to know why.
Thirdly, the provision on duplicates under Clause 4(5) (b) would benefit from clarification. If, for example, the National Portrait Gallery were sufficiently fortunate to have five portraits of Shakespeare, could four of them be described as "duplicates" or is the provision meant to apply only to pulls from the same engraving? If one has two or three of those, could one dispose of one or two? Any clarification would be useful.
Finally, if the status of the National Galleries of Scotland could be clarified a little more, it would be a great help. I read in the newspaper this morning that the most talked of artistic statement of the year in Edinburgh is the huge graffito on the wall of the National Galleries of Scotland. "Go home, English!", it advises. Underneath, it adds: "That means you, Timothy Clifford". Mr. Timothy Clifford is the director of the National Galleries of Scotland and in my opinion and that of many another he is the best thing that has happened to the National Galleries of Scotland in recent years. I am sure that the Government would not want anyone or anything in Scotland to feel disturbed in any way at this delicate moment. If the Minister could clarify the question of the status of the National Galleries of Scotland under the Bill, it would be to the benefit of us all.
We welcome the Bill and propose no amendments whatever to it.
3 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the purposes of this Bill. This is the first Museums and Galleries Bill that we have had since 1954, nearly 40 years ago. I took some part in the previous Bill so I really begin to feel sometimes that this is where I came in.
The previous Bill was subjected to long scrutiny in this House. It was considerably improved in Committee. Unfortunately we were only told late on Friday afternoon that this Bill was going to be taken through all its stages today. However, as my noble friend has said, it is a good Bill and we do not want to lose it. The National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 will be repealed by this Bill.
As has been said, this Bill contains limited powers of disposal which are restricted only to the National Portrait Gallery and to the Tate. The National Gallery trustees do not want those powers. The Wallace Collection with its generous bequest is a closed collection and should remain so. The Tate can probably justify the right to dispose of some works which overlap or are duplicated. I understand that the proceeds are to be used to buy other works and not to repair the fabric of the gallery. I emphasise the fact that the proceeds are to be used to buy other works. I hope that that process will not occur at the expense of grants. I hope that the Treasury will not say to a gallery, "If you want to buy this particular work—particularly if it is an expensive Picasso or similar work—you must sell something to raise the proceeds".
However, I welcome the limited powers of the Bill which are much better than the original sweeping powers of disposal which were to be given carte blanche to all the museums and galleries in the kingdom. Those powers were widely criticised throughout the art world. Clause 10 concerns indemnities. The original clause was most unsatisfactory as it placed the responsibility for that matter onto a gallery and not onto the Treasury or the Government. That clause was changed in Committee in another place.
Clause 6 deals with transfers between the institutions which are listed in Schedule 5. There is one matter there that is still causing concern as regards the National Galleries of Scotland. Like my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris I, too, wish to pay a tribute to Mr. Timothy Clifford who is the distinguished director of those galleries.
The National Galleries of Scotland have had powers of disposal since 1985. I am not talking about transfers but powers of disposal. Unless the position is changed, that provision may have an effect on direct bequests and on transfers from other institutions listed in Schedule 5 of the Bill. There is a further cause for concern because it is proposed to make additions to the list in Schedule 5 by statutory instrument under Clause 6(6) and (7). Some of those future institutions may have even wider powers. Therefore we are going into unknown territory. There are dangers that the intentions of those making bequests may be overturned in the years ahead. We have only to consider what happened at the Rylands Library in
1624
Manchester where many rare and extremely important books were sold at auction in London. That action aroused public protest.
Sir Denis Mahon, the distinguished art historian and collector, has reservations as he is proposing to make a bequest of some of his paintings to the National Galleries of Scotland. He wishes, before doing that, to be assured that this matter will be tied up. I appreciate there are hybridity problems and that is why we do not wish to hold up the passage of this Bill. Frankly, it would have been much better if the Scottish National Gallery and the other galleries in Scotland had been dealt with in a separate Bill concerned with Scotland rather than being added to a schedule of this Bill. However, I am glad to say that the Government have given an undertaking in Standing Committee in another place. I shall not quote from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, at length but in Standing Committee A on 25th February he gave a definite undertaking that the matter would be put right in the next Parliament, either by government legislation or a Private Member's Bill.
This Bill had all-party support in another place, although the Labour shadow spokesman was concerned about the National Galleries of Scotland loophole to which I have referred. We understand the hybridity problem, although I think that that should have been foreseen by the Government. However, undertakings have been given in writing by Ministers to the Opposition and to Sir Denis Mahon that should the present Government be returned the matter would be put right in the next Parliament, and the shadow Minister for the Arts, speaking also on behalf of the shadow Scottish Minister, has also assured me today that a future Labour government would attend to the matter. It is on the understanding that the matter will be rectified that the Opposition in both Houses have co-operated and agreed to let the Bill through in all its stages on this, the final day of this Parliament. I wish it all success.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I do not intend to discuss the Bill. I wish merely to add my support to what the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Strabolgi, said. I know Mr. Tim Clifford well and I cannot think of a better director. He has great imagination, great drive and a great love of his subject and he has done tremendous work for the National Galleries of Scotland.
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which noble Lords have given to the Bill today. I should like to answer some of the points raised.
The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Strabolgi, asked whether I could give an assurance that purchase grants would not be used to reduce proceeds. The purpose of Clause 4(7) is to enable the boards of the National Portrait Gallery or the Tate Gallery to channel any funds arising from a disposal carried out

1625
in the restricted circumstances described in the Bill towards the purchase of alternative items for their collections. The Government want to encourage sensible use of those limited disposal powers in circumstances in which the boards concerned consider them applicable. It would hardly encourage such use if the Government were then to reduce purchase grants in line with the proceeds derived from disposal. I can assure both noble Lords that the Government have no plans to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also asked me about the duration of trustees' appointments. Before I address that point, I pay tribute to all those who are trustees of those bodies. They do an extremely good job with a great deal of dedication. This is a matter of judgment. It has been put to us that five years was the right balance. We felt that it was likely that a trustee would be appointed for two terms amounting to 10 years, whereas if the duration were seven years it would be unlikely that trustees would be appointed for 14 years, which is a rather long period. We have not received any representations suggesting that there is anything wrong with that approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, also asked me about duplicates, and he gave an interesting example. That is not a matter for the judgment of the Government; it is for the judgment of the boards themselves. They must decide. It is not for us to decide what may or may not be a duplicate. I am sure that trustees know rather better than we do what would be a duplicate and what would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of the National Galleries of Scotland. As the noble Lords said, there are powers of disposal for the National Galleries of Scotland. That is a matter for my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. However, we considered very closely whether we could restrict those powers of disposal by this Bill. For the reasons which noble Lords mentioned in relation to hybridisation of the Bill that was not possible. However, I can repeat the assurances which my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave in another place that we shall be considering the problem further in order to resolve it, possibly with future legislation. We shall also look closely into the possibility of a Private Member's Bill. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has written to day to Sir Denis Mahon to give him assurances and explain that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me about indemnities. We put those into the Bill originally because we understood that the directors of the national museums and galleries asked the Government to enable them to issue indemnities through legislation. However, I understand that on reflection and in the light of the excellent service provided by the Office of Arts and Libraries, they recently came to the view that they preferred the current arrangements to continue. The Government were content to amend the Bill in another place for that to happen.
1626
The noble Lord also asked me about transferees and the fact that other institutions may be added to the list in Schedule 5. That would be subject to consideration in your Lordships' House and another place. The Government would consider very carefully any relevant powers that another body may have before they decide to add anything to that list. I hope that I have answered all the questions on the Bill that have been raised.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; read a third time, and passed.

Adjournment
3.11 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, before I move that the House do now adjourn, it would be appropriate to say a few words of thanks to those who have made possible the passage of business and the undertaking of Parliament in the period of time that has occurred since Parliament re-sat. It would be invidious to attempt to categorise and name all those in this Chamber who made our task that much easier. But I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the passage of business in this House and to the good of the nation that comes because of it.
As Government Chief Whip, I should also like to offer a small apology. It was I who contributed to producing confusion in your Lordships' House July in February, which I hope will not be of frequent occurrence. It is also true to say that the passage of business in your Lordships' House has never wanted for co-operation from all sides and the Cross-Benches of your Lordships' House.
In moving this Motion, I thank all those who have made that happen in an honourable and satisfactory way, which I believe proves the relevance and benefits of this House in the role that it carries out.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and all colleagues on this side of the Chamber, I thank the Government Chief Whip for his generous words about the usual channels, and not merely the conventional channels of the Whips' Office but the wider channels of collaboration. It is to the credit of this House that in the past few days we have been able to pass legislation so swiftly—legislation on which, on other occasions, we should want to have spent a great deal more time. That has been a matter of trust and confidence.
I believe that the collaboration and facilities provided to the Government by the Opposition parties augur well for the relationships that exist. We have always attempted to operate our business and procedure in a civilised and dignified way. As the Government Chief Whip knows, you win some and you lose some. Some of those that one wins are very sweet; and the Opposition has experienced such tastes in the latter days of this Parliament. We recognise that the Government Chief Whip has always been courteous, friendly and considerate. I say that absolutely sincerely as a colleague.

1627
Without mentioning individuals, we are of course conscious not only of the service of the officers to this House but also of the service of staff and attendants. They have made sure that this House and this Parliament will terminate not only in good order but in good spirit. Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues, I warmly endorse the commendations given by the Government Chief Whip.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too offer my thanks to the Chief Whip for the kind things that he said. I endorse everything that he said about the work of the staff of this House. Many of us will be either enjoying ourselves on beaches, racecourses and wherever, or sitting in smoke filled rooms plotting the downfall of each other. While that is going on, Black Rod and his staff will be tussling with various tasks for the opening of Parliament and other matters.
Who knows what will happen in the next few weeks? The right reverend Prelate is the only one who can be certain that he will be sitting in the same seat when we return, although many may have hopes as to where they may be sitting.
I am grateful to the Chief Whip and his staff for their assistance in the difficult process of getting through the past few weeks of this Parliament. As he rightly said, we have done so with dignity and in a way of which we, as part of Parliament, have a right to be proud. I wish all noble Lords a good break.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it is one of those occasions when a Cross-Bencher can with confidence know that he speaks on behalf of all his noble friends. I know that it would be the wish of my noble friend Lady Hylton-Foster that I should associate all my noble friends with the good wishes that have been extended to those who serve us in this House, in particular in the last difficult period during which those of us who do not live in London have had their means of transport home disrupted. The helpful advice and notices that we receive from those who serve us as to which railway stations are open and which lines are running are very much appreciated by everyone who benefits from them.
It is therefore with the greatest pleasure that I associate my noble friends with the words of the Chief Whip.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, from the security of this Bench, perhaps I may pay tribute to the sense of security that I always feel in this House. The generosity and courtesy which is always available in your Lordships' House makes us feel glad to be here.
I associate myself too with the tributes paid to the staff and assure the Members of this House that we on these Benches are glad of our membership in this place.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in drawing the sword of conflict from the stone until 6th May, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 3.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.19 to 3.45 p.m.]

Royal Commission
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty to be personally present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
Then, the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Aberdare, the Lord Waddington, the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit to be personally present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded Us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to Us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance Act,

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

Appropriation Act,

Access to Neighbouring Land Act,

Offshore Safety (Protection against Victimisation) Act,

Prison Security Act,

Tourism (Overseas Promotion)(Wales) Act,

Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act,

Medicinal Products: Prescriptions by Nurses etc. Act,

Still-Birth (Definition) Act,

Traffic Calming Act,

Firearms (Amendment) Act,

Cheques Act,

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act,

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act,

Timeshare Act,

Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act,

Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act,

1629

Education (Schools) Act,

Army Act,

Friendly Societies Act,

Charities Act,

Transport and Works Act,

Competition and Service (Utilities) Act,

Museums and Galleries Act,

London Underground Act,

Aire and Calder Navigation Act,

Avon Weir Act,

Folkestone Harbour Act,

Midland Metro Act,

Midland Metro (No. 2) Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech
Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to visit Australia in February.
"My Government have continued to make provision for the defence of the United Kingdom, including a substantial contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They ratified the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
"At the Summit meeting in Rome last November, NATO agreed a new Strategic Concept and set up the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, which at its Ministerial meeting on 10th March formally admitted republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States as members following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
"My Government welcomed President Yeltsin to London on his first official visit as President of the Russian Federation. They are contributing directly to international efforts to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and to economic reform programmes there. The European Community have agreed emergency food aid grants and credits worth over £1.5 billion.
"My Government contributed significantly to the successful outcome to the European Council at Maastricht. Negotiations were concluded in the Inter-Governmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union, and on Political Union. The Treaty was signed on 7th February. My Government have continued to work within the Community to complete the Single European Market; to promote budgetary discipline; and to reform the Common Agricultural Policy; and for the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Agreement in principle has been reached to extend the Single Market to the European Free Trade Area from 1993.
"The Community have also moved to consolidate relations with the new democracies to the East. Three Association Agreements, which were originally proposed by the United Kingdom have
1630
been signed with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, and the trade liberalisation provisions of these Agreements have now come into effect.
"In Yugoslavia, My Government have strongly supported the European Community's peace conference under Lord Carrington's chairmanship. They recognised the independence of Croatia and Slovenia. They participated fully in discussions leading to the adoption of a United Nations' Security Council Resolution to authorise the deployment of a peace-keeping force.
"As President of the Security Council, My Government convened the first Summit meeting of Council Heads of State or Government which set in hand work to strengthen the United Nations' preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping efforts.
"My Government have worked for the full implementation of Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. The United Kingdom contributes to the coalition's deterrent force in southern Turkey and has continued to provide protection and help for the Kurds.
"My Government have supported the efforts of the United States and others to bring a just and durable peace to the Middle East. They warmly welcomed the release of the remaining British hostages from Lebanon.
"Acting with the United States and France, My Government have demanded that Libya hand over the two principal suspects for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. This has received the unanimous support of the UN Security Council.
"My Government welcomed the opening in December of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa. They have been encouraged by its positive results so far.
"A substantial and effective programme of overseas aid has been maintained to contribute to good government and economic and social progress in developing countries.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the provision you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My Government have continued to pursue, within the framework of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, firm financial policies which have successfully reduced inflation. They are committed to maintaining the conditions necessary for sustained growth, the promotion of enterprise and training and the improvement of the working of the economy.
"Legislation has been enacted to achieve a substantial step towards My Government's goal of a 20 per cent. basic rate for all taxpayers and to cut car tax by half.
"As part of My Government's privatisation programme, a second tranche of shares in British Telecom has been sold to the public.
"Legislation has been passed to provide for a new council tax to replace the community charge as the means of raising local revenue to finance local government spending.
"An Act has been passed to establish a review of local government structure in England, and detailed proposals for structural reform in Wales have been published.
"Action has been taken to improve quality, choice and opportunity in education. Legislation has been enacted to reform funding of further education and sixth form colleges and to reform higher education in England and Wales. An Act has been passed to provide parents with more information about the performance of schools and to improve school inspection.
"My Government have taken forward their policies for enhancing the nation's health and for improving the effectiveness of the health and social services, and the social security system.
"My Government have continued to work for the regeneration of our cities, developing the new partnerships between local authorities, the private sector and local communities within the City Challenge framework. They have continued to promote diversity of choice in housing, and have taken steps to extend and improve the stock of social housing. Legislation has been passed to enable income support in relation to mortgage interest payments to be paid directly to lenders. An Act has been passed to increase temporarily the threshold for payment of stamp duty on house purchase.
"My Government continue to take action to protect the environment, building on the policies in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The United Kingdom has played a leading part in international action on the environment.
"A Bill has been introduced to enable applications for asylum in the United Kingdom to be dealt with quickly and effectively.
"Measures have been enacted for England and Wales to create an offence of prison mutiny, to increase the maximum penalties for aiding prisoners to escape and for harbouring escaped prisoners, and to ensure that anyone guilty of taking a vehicle without consent is liable to a more severe sentence in aggravated circumstances.
"An Act has been passed to strengthen health and safety arrangements for offshore installations.
"Legislation has been enacted to enhance competitive tendering for local authority services. Other measures to implement the Citizen's Charter
1632
White Paper have been taken including the publication of a number of charters relating to individual public services.
"For Scotland, an Act has been passed to reform further and higher education.
"In Northern Ireland, My Government have continued to take vigorous action against terrorism. They have sought to promote political dialogue. Positive relations with the Republic of Ireland have been maintained and enhanced.
"Other important measures have been enacted.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you."
After which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read we do in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 23rd day of March 1992, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Monday, the 23rd day of March 1992.

Education (Schools) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Transport and Works Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
Parliament was prorogued to Monday, 23rd March at twenty three minutes past four o'clock.
The Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation on Monday, 16th March 1992.
End of the Fifth Session of the Fiftieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the forty-first year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

  WORLD POPULATION PROGRAMMES: UK ASSISTANCE
  WORLD POPULATION PROGRAMMES: UK ASSISTANCE
  ZIMBABWE: LAND ACQUISITION BILL PROPOSAL
  ZIMBABWE: LAND ACQUISITION BILL PROPOSAL
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: FOREIGN INVESTMENT
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: FOREIGN INVESTMENT
  VIETNAM: US TRADE EMBARGO
  VIETNAM: US TRADE EMBARGO
  HO CHI MINH CITY: UK CONSULATE
  HO CHI MINH CITY: UK CONSULATE
  NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS
  NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS
  ISRAEL AND NORTH KOREA: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  ISRAEL AND NORTH KOREA: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: PUBLICATION
  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION: PUBLICATION
  TREATY OF ROME: PUBLICATION
  TREATY OF ROME: PUBLICATION
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION: CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COSTS
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION: CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COSTS
  SELF-EMPLOYED: TAXATION
  SELF-EMPLOYED: TAXATION
  TAXATION REVENUES
  TAXATION REVENUES
  MARGINAL TAX RATES
  MARGINAL TAX RATES
  PRISONS: PHYSICALLY DISABLED INMATES
  PRISONS: PHYSICALLY DISABLED INMATES
  NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS: LOCATION
  NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS: LOCATION
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS PROCEDURES: REVIEW
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS PROCEDURES: REVIEW
  POLLUTION CONTROL: COST RECOVERY
  POLLUTION CONTROL: COST RECOVERY