Sitting of 14 May 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 May.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Crime, North Yorkshire
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe what action he proposes to take to combat crime in North Yorkshire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The North Yorkshire police have the resources to maintain a strong and effective police service. We have also encouraged the development of effective crime prevention schemes.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that, according to the North Yorkshire chief constable's annual reports, the number of offences in the county in 1979 was 20,000, and falling, and that last year the number of recorded offences was 50,000, and rising? Is he aware that, under the last Labour Government, in five years Labour Home Secretaries gave North Yorkshire 151 additional police officers, whereas in the 13 years of Conservative Government the county has received only 46 additional police officers? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any other part of the police service that has had to deal with a 150 per cent. increase in workload with only a 4 per cent. increase in the number of officers? Finally, can he tell me when North Yorkshire will get the additional police officers that it so badly needs to prevent crime?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman should beware of making comparisons on the basis of 1979. The average annual increase in reported offences in North Yorkshire was higher in the five years prior to 1979 than it has been since then. The number of police officers in North Yorkshire has risen to 1,391 and there are 447 civilians in post. Nationally, spending on the police has increased since 1979 by 74 per cent., net of inflation. What matters in combating crime is the way in which the police are deployed. That is a matter for the chief constable and the effectiveness of our crime prevention. There are nearly 2,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in North Yorkshire.
    Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities and warn him that the last junior Minister I so welcomed was my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. Does he agree that if all police forces in Great Britain were run as effectively and efficiently as the North Yorkshire police, the fight against crime would be all the greater—and more efficent, too? Is he aware that this year the North Yorkshire police have concluded a three-year programme of investment in new telecommunications, computer and telephone equipment, which means that eight officers can now be released to outside duties? Will the flexibility to spend their money in the way that they wish be continued?
    Mr. Wardle: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remarks. His knowledge of police matters, for which he is widely respected, is well known. He is absolutely right in what he says about the initiatives that have been taken by the North Yorkshire police. They have taken a number of initiatives and have worked with the local community on crime prevention, to good effect.

    Prisons (Education)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning trends or plans he has for the volume of expenditure on adult education in Her Majesty's prisons.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The Government's plans are set out in the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice". Payments to local education authorities for education services in prisons in 1992–93 are expected to total £29.9 million, a real increase on last year's expenditure of 8 per cent., following a similar increase last year on the year before.
    Mr. Spearing: Although the Minister claims that there is an increase, can he comment on the authorities' reports that a decrease is also being planned? Are not prison sentences partly preventive, partly penal and partly remedial? If education contributes, as it surely will, to a constructive regime, does it not mean that repetition is avoided and further expenditure on the prison service is reduced? Therefore, would it not be better to spend a great deal more on education, if only to obtain the value for money about which the Minister is concerned?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman had to adjust his question slightly. He probably read in the press that there had been an overall cut, but my answer showed that that was not the case. There has been an increase on last year and there were increases in the year before that and the year before that. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we place education in a central position to equip prisoners for rejoining society as well as to improve the quality of their lives in prison.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the increase in expenditure on prison education. When I was a prison visitor at Lancaster prison, far and away the most popular course was the literacy course, without which people could not—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Lloyd: Because of the laughter, I did not hear the end of my hon. Friend's question. I commend her on the good work that I know that she will have done as a prison visitor. We would probably have fewer problems in Lancaster prison if she could continue to combine her role as a prison visitor with that as Member of Parliament for Lancaster.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Minister comment on the situation in Feltham young offenders institution, which I visited recently with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). I was told—it was quite clear—that, despite the low level of literacy among many of the young men there, education classes and evening classes have all been cut and that there are only about 36 vocational training courses for 800 people. Feltham does not have the staff to maintain a continuing education programme to equip those young men for any sort of job when they come out of the establishment.
    Mr. Lloyd: Feltham is one of those institutions where, although expenditure is among the highest for prisons, this year it is somewhat lower than it was last year because funds have been diverted to new prisons and other prisons which have not had a sufficient share of the allocation. I can only confirm what the hon. Lady is implying, which is that education, particularly literacy education, is
    732
    extremely important for young offenders. It is essential that those who go into prison unable to read and write should leave being able to do so.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that although the House and possibly the nation are delighted to hear about the tremendous expenditure on teaching prisoners various courses while in custody, we would all be much happier if we could be assured that at the top of the curriculum is a course to teach prisoners how to behave when they are back in society and how to be good citizens again?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is the central objective of all prison regimes and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that his constituents will be much safer if released offenders have been equipped while in prison to lead a successful and effective life with a job that they can hold down.

    Weapons
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he proposes to take to reduce the carrying and use of knives and guns in London.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: The Government have already strengthened controls on firearms and knives and we are keeping the position under close review. Enforcement of the law in London is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, will he take cognisance of the fact that robberies using firearms or pointed weapons, usually knives, have increased significantly over the past five years? In Southwark, both types of robbery have increased by more or less 80 per cent. Will the Minister seriously consider responding positively to an initiative that will be coming his way shortly from the police consultative group in Southwark for a proper campaign to persuade young people in particular that carrying firearms and knives is in neither society's nor their own interest?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been an increase in armed robbery, but it is worth pointing out that only one fifth of 1 per cent. of all recorded offences in 1990 involved firearms. Any representations will be taken seriously, and the hon. Gentleman may know that a Home Office study has been commissioned into the source of firearms used in armed raids and robberies. He will also know that the Government have taken action through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the amnesty on firearms in London that followed and have also made it an offence to carry a knife in public places without good reason.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Even quiet residential parts of outer London are now, I will not say terrorised, but certainly subject to many more incidents of armed robbery. Local residents are deeply disquieted, as I am. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that penalties for armed robbery will be dramatically increased, because deterrents are clearly not adequate?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right to say that it has been recognised that there is an increasing number of armed robberies. He should bear it in mind that the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm with intent

    733
    to endanger life or to resist arrest is life imprisonment, and it is also an offence for a person to have a bladed or sharply pointed weapon in a public place without good reason.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which created new offences for these types of crimes, is not resulting in sufficient convictions because of the difficulty of obtaining adequate evidence so that people can be stopped on the grounds of reasonable suspicion? Is he also aware that there is no possibility of ever going back to the old sus-type laws for stopping and searching? What practical steps, therefore, will the Minister take to deal with the dilemma?
    Mr. Wardle: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided stiffer penalties. The Government believe that police powers to stop and search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are adequate. They strike a balance between a constable's discretion to search and the protection of the citizen against arbitrary interference, which is extremely important.
    Mr. Gale: This is my first opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. I suggest to him that the incidents of armed crime involving knives and guns have increased dramatically year on year since the abolition of capital punishment. Will he tell the House what further measures he and the Home Office intend to take to afford proper protection to the men and women of the police force whom we require to enforce our law and every day to face men and women carrying guns and using them against them?
    Mr. Wardle: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remark. On capital punishment, he will certainly be aware that its reintroduction is a matter for a free vote in Parliament, and it will no doubt arise again in the future.
    The protection of the police was precisely the purpose of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It was also precisely the purpose of the amnesty that followed and of the initiatives about six months ago which resulted in the collection of about 1,100 dangerous knives and similar weapons. Another study is being undertaken to review policemen's protective clothing in view of possible attacks by people carrying knives or similar weapons.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss crime prevention.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The Association of Chief Police Officers is actively involved in the field of crime prevention and my right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting the association at its conference in June.
    Mr. Flynn: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his duties, I remind him of the fate of the previous Secretary of State who rightly received his just reward for a record in office which was truly criminal, having presided over record levels of crime—increases of 16 and 17 per cent? Will the new Ministers now resurrect the Morgan report, which was buried by the previous Secretary of State and which recommended that local authorities be empowered to deal with juvenile crime—to have the resources to deal
    734
    with it—and to deal with the social causes of crime? Is that not a practical and more constructive way in which to approach the problem of rising crime?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "practical". I commend to him the document that I have here—"Practical Ways to Crack Crime"—which is one example of the many methods that the Government have pioneered to deal with crime prevention. We do not need to resurrect the Morgan report; we are already aware of local authorities' role in crime prevention and are already encouraging many of them to be at the centre of local initiatives. Last week, I took part in radio interviews to support one such excellent venture in Kettering.
    Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is aware that the more the Government do to prevent crime, the more the amount of crime appears to increase. Is he yet able to demonstrate —as he soon should be able to do—that the 100 neighbourhood watch schemes both reduce crime and lead to increased detection of crimes in the areas in which they operate?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for mentioning neighbourhood watch, as that gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of people who give so generously of their spare time to that excellent initiative—such as that in Kirkholt, near Rochdale, where a study has been carried out of an intensive neighbourhood watch operation which has resulted in a 75 per cent. reduction in recorded crime. Such schemes take their place alongside initiatives such as car crime prevention year—intended to tackle one third of all recorded crime. Much work is being done, but I take my hat off to the citizens who play an active part in those efforts.
    Mr. Maginnis: When the Home Secretary next speaks to the Association of Chief Police Officers, will he concentrate everyone's thoughts on the need to rationalise the number of constabularies in Great Britain? The administrative demand on the police could then be proportionately reduced and the forces remaining would become more efficient so that they could put more police officers on the ground, where crimes occur. Might it not then be possible to reverse the dreadful decision made last week to place the gathering and collation of intelligence on terrorists in the hands of MI5 instead of maintaining police primacy, which is what ought to be done?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is here beside me, will have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. Last Friday, my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House his policies on that matter. We are committed to providing 1,000 additional police officers. Putting them on the ground in the communities in which our constituents live is an important manifesto commitment. My right hon. and learned Friend made clear in a newspaper interview today his priorities on the efficient operation of the police force.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my hon. Friend include in his discussions Chief Superintendent Jim Swingewood of Coventry city police? Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent disturbances in Coventry had much to do with drink-related and mindless vandalism and criminality? The criminals are well known to local residents, who are

    735
    heartily sick of having to tolerate them in their midst. In connection with crime prevention, and therefore with the prevention of potential copycat violence, have the press not a huge responsibility to report such incidents calmly and accurately?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of someone who knows his constituents and the problems of his area well. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Coventry police for the firm, strong, quick way in which they dealt with the incidents on the street. Those incidents are not tolerable, and involve many of the issues which the Government take seriously, especially the control of alcohol. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's perceptive comments in the development of future policies.
    Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the new Minister. He said that there was no need to resurrect the Morgan report, with the clear implication that that report was dead. In April the previous Home Secretary said that it was receiving active consideration. What is the position—has the report been abandoned or not?
    Mr. Jack: I did not know that my previous answer had administered the last rites to the Morgan report. We are still studying and giving active consideration to the report. I wanted to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends understand that we do not deprecate the role of local authorities in fighting crime. I have sought to point out that they are already playing an important part along with many other agencies. The fight against crime involves all of us and I am pleased that some local authorities are playing their part positively in that respect.

    Voting
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered electors did not vote in the recent general election; and what percentage this represents of the total number of registered electors.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a report on the state of electoral registration at the 1992 general election; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: There are more than 43.7 million people on the 1992 electoral register—the highest number of people ever registered in the United Kingdom, and representing over 95 per cent. of the estimated eligible population. Preliminary figures show that the total number of votes cast at the general election was about 33.6 million, so about 23 per cent. of electors on the register did not vote.
    Mr. Atkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion. Was it his impression of the general election that many more of our constituents failed to meet the deadline for applications for postal and proxy votes and were thus unable to vote on polling day because they were away on holiday? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the deadline was 16 days before polling day? Will he now enter discussions with the appropriate authorities to seek a more convenient arrangement under which electors can exercise their democratic rights?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend knows that the rules for postal votes were simplified some years ago. It is my
    736
    impression that the new procedures were more frequently used in this election than before in that more people voted by post. I am well aware that in my constituency and, I am sure, in others there were complaints that people did not realise that they had to get their applications in on time. The deadline was 23 March, which was 13 or 17 days before the election, depending on whether one counts weekends. We were informed that that time was needed by the local authorities to process the applications, to check them, to send out the ballot papers, to have them back and to ensure that they could be included in the count.
    We will have discussions with the local authorities and with the political parties on the lessons to be learnt from the election. I have no doubt that postal votes will be a significant part of those discussions.
    Mr. Barnes: I object to the fact that two questions were linked together and that my question was not given an answer. An answer was given merely to the first question. My question asked whether the Home Office would be involved in a report about the state of the electoral register in the 1992 election. I should like an answer to that as well as to the supplementary question that I am about to put.
    There is a sense in which most hon. Members represent rotten boroughs. At the previous election, 1–5 million people were missing from the electoral register, according to the Registrar-General and to reports by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. That is a huge democratic deficit. What are the Government and Home Office going to do to correct that? Shall I have to use a private Member's Bill to deal with the matter myself?
    Mr. Lloyd: I expect that the hon. Gentleman—I know that he takes an interest in the subject—knows that the OPCS is undertaking special research on the accuracy of the registers. It will have at its disposal the results of the 1991 census, so it is an especially good time to carry out such research. When we have the results, we shall decide what steps, if any, need to be taken. Our discussions about keeping up the register will, no doubt, be part of the inquest which, as I said earlier, we shall hold with the local authorities and with the political parties later this year. The methods used to get people on to the register are advertising and publicity, and there is also the research on and review of the practices of local authorities. Like the hon. Gentleman, we want everyone who is eligible to be on the register.
    Mrs. Peacock: What directions are given to electoral registration officers to enable them to compile a fairly comprehensive and factually correct electoral register?
    Mr. Lloyd: We provide a considerable amount of advice, but under the law it is up to the officers to do it. The main way is the form to be filled in that is delivered to every household. As there may be another supplementary question from the Opposition Benches, I must say that the community charge register has been very useful in some constituencies as an extra source of information for the electoral registration officer to discover where people may not have put themselves on the electoral register. For example, in the eight constituencies in Leeds, the local authority, using those means to update the register, added 26,000 to the electoral register last year.
    Mr. Darling: I congratulate the Minister on managing to remain in the Home Office in the recent reshuffle and I welcome his undertaking to consider postal votes. Many

    737
    hon. Members believe that more time should be allowed for people to get postal votes. Is the Minister aware that the registers in some constituencies are grossly inaccurate? There were some cases of people being on the poll tax register, having paid their poll tax, but not on the electoral register. Does he accept that the Government must do far more to advertise the fact that the electoral register is compiled each autumn and encourage people to ensure that their names are on the electoral register so that they are not disenfranchised? Will he undertake to put a little more effort into advertising, in contrast to the half-hearted effort pursued by his predecessors?
    Mr. Lloyd: We advertise every year; that amounted to some half a million pounds last year and it will be at least that sum this year. The most important task lies with the electoral registration officer to devise all means locally to ensure that everyone who should be on the register is on it and that those who should not be on it come off it.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are reports that many disabled people found that polling stations were still inaccessible? Will he consider carefully the suggestion that disabled people should be able to vote at a polling station that is accessible to them and not be unable to vote, as is the case at the moment?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure whether we would want necessarily to adopt my hon. Friend's solution. However, he raises a very important issue which must form part of the discussions that I have said are being carried out. A disabled person who is likely to find it difficult to gain access to a polling station is exactly the type of person who should apply for a postal vote.

    Remand Prisoners
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve transport conditions and journey times for remand prisoners travelling from remand centres to courts in north Wales.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have no plans to make changes to the current arrangements for the conveyance of prisoners to courts in north Wales, which are broadly similar to those in operation in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Llwyd: As I have had numerous complaints from constituents and their families about seven-hour journeys to courts, often in inhumane conditions, will the Minister confirm that a remand centre is to be established in north Wales and that in the meantime decent transport facilities will be afforded to remand prisoners?
    Mr. Lloyd: I cannot confirm or promise a remand centre, at least not at this point. However, the arrangements for transporting prisoners are well organised. If the hon. Gentleman has particular complaints and would like to see me about them, I should be glad to see him. There are long journeys in north Wales. However, on long journeys the rule is that there must be a stop at least every two hours so that prisoners can get out—[Laughter.]—together with their escorts, so that both may use the lavatory, have a drink and, if it is the appropriate time of the day, have a meal.
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to end the remanding of juveniles into prison department establishments.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government are committed to ending juvenile prison remands as soon as enough local authority secure accommodation is available. We shall ensure that the extra places needed are provided as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is almost two years since Phillip Knight from my constituency committed suicide in Swansea gaol at the age of 15 and that the Secretary of State's reply offers no hope to many juveniles currently on remand or in prison? Will he encourage his Department to introduce a scheme whereby we shall no longer see juvenile suicides in our prisons?
    Mr. Clarke: I well remember that tragic case. Obviously, we must do everything possible to reduce the risk of repetitions of such cases when young people are held on remand. My answer referred to a specific scheme on which we have already embarked. Specific grants are available for local authorities to provide the necessary secure accommodation. We have already had discussions with the Department of Health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I will ensure, if we possibly can, that buildings are designed and constructed. The money is provided specifically so that we can replace remand into prison for juveniles by 1995 at the latest.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear it in mind that many crimes are committed by juveniles and that many reoffend while on remand? Will he bear in mind the importance of protecting law-abiding citizens from such offences, as well as taking into account the welfare of juveniles who need to be remanded in custody?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is an unfortunate necessity to remand in custody a comparatively small number of juvenile offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 made it clear that the ground for such remand should be that there was a threat to the public. There are more than 1,000 such cases each year. We need to provide some additional local authority secure accommodation before we can bring to an end the unsuitable practice of remanding people to adult prisons.

    Police Efficiency
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the efficiency of the police force; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I propose to keep the police service subject to a process of continuous review in order to ensure that it delivers an efficient and effective service.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Home Secretary aware that any plans that he has for extracting value for money from our police will be widely welcomed by people of all political persuasions? To start the ball rolling, may I draw his attention to a little racket that has been going on for some years whereby detectives employed by more than half the nation's police forces tour the nation's gaols persuading convicted felons to own up to offences on the unsolved book? They use that as a way of diminishing the crime rate. In Merseyside it accounts for 44 per cent. of all clear-ups.

    739
    The House will not be surprised to hear that the West Midlands is not far behind, with about 34 per cent. In my area, the figure stood at 29 per cent. until the new chief constable abolished it. Can the Secretary of State put a stop to this and use the funds that become available to put more policemen on the streets?
    Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to hear that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in seeking value for money from the police force. I expected to have the support of most people involved and I have recently been rather startled to read accounts by journalists who have not met me and to be criticised by officials of the Police Federation who have not met me either about some of the things that I am supposed to be doing.
    I will consider the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I well remember such rumours in the courts many years ago, but I am not sure that they were substantiated in practice. It is always wise to treat clear-up figures and figures of recorded crime with a certain amount of scepticism. What matters is that security is given to the public by an efficient, effective and sympathetic police force.
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that substantial resources have been invested in our police system in the past 13 years. Will he give thought to improving the inspection arrangements for the constabularies, perhaps through the medium of an entirely new inspectorate arrangement under which reports are published on both efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources and the deployment of police officers?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to resources. The Government cannot be faulted on the level of resources that we have provided to the police force over the past 13 years. Obviously we must continue to provide the resources that are necessary to support the service in its important work. The inspectorate is an important element in ensuring that efficiency is sustained everywhere. I have already had discussions with the chief inspector of constabulary about ways in which the inspectorate might be strengthened. I shall certainly take on board my hon. Friend's helpful suggestions.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does the Home Secretary realise that the Opposition have been calling for a more efficient police force for many years and that he will have our support if he tackles some of the real problems of the police force? Rather than blaming the police for the appalling rise in crime rates over the past 13 years, will he work with the progressive forces within the police force to bring about real change? May I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few suggestions for an agenda for change?
    Madam Speaker: Order. This presents me with a golden opportunity of informing Members that this is Question Time, not a debate. There must be direct questions to the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary put on the agenda for change stopping secret societies in all police authorities, decentralisation of management and real change in the inspection process?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of sustaining the efficiency of the police force and that it will be such a non-controversial process,
    740
    bearing in mind that it is so widely welcomed on both sides of the House. I should regard it as an extraordinary claim if anybody tried to suggest that the police have been responsible for the increase in the crime rate in recent years. Our job is to support the police in their efforts to provide effective protection to the public against the increase in crime. I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), strengthening the inspectorate could be, among other things, a quite important way of proceeding.

    Parents' Accountability
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposals to make parents more accountable for the behaviour of their children.
    Mr. Jack: The Criminal Justice Act 1991 significantly strengthens courts' powers to involve parents when their children offend. These provisions will come into force on 1 October 1992.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a person offends, responsibility for that offending lies not with the Government or society but with the criminal? Is it not entirely right that parents should be responsible for their children's misdeeds? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the proposals set out in the Criminal Justice Act will ensure that parents are far more aware of their children's misdeeds?
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which highlights one of the most important parts of the Criminal Justice Act. The courts will have powers to order parents to come into court both to support their children at that time and to listen to and learn of some of their misdemeanours. They will ultimately be subjected to the courts' power of binding over, which means that they will be fully involved in ensuring that their children do not recommit offences.

    Victim Support
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of statutory funding for the expansion of Victim Support schemes.
    Mr. Jack: Home Office funding for the national voluntary body which supports local schemes, Victim Support, has increased from £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7.25 million in the current financial year. These resources will enable Victim Support to extend the existing work of local schemes and develop further new services for victims who are witnesses in Crown courts.
    Ms. Primarolo: As the Minister rightly said, this is funding for volunteers, although the funding co-ordinates the central administration. It is an area which needs considerable expansion at a time of rising crime. Even though the Government's funding has risen, many schemes are losing money because of capping and other financial restraints that confront local authorities, which are unable to make payments.
    There is a desperate need to fund the support of victims in the Crown courts. The Government, and especially the

    741
    Prime Minister, go on about citizens charters, and perhaps they should include in them adequate funding of citizens who are victims and witnesses in court so that they can receive the support that they need.
    Mr. Jack: I have some good news for the hon. Lady on two counts. First, the Government's policies that will bear down on the efficiency of local authorities should enable them all to be more generous to victim support schemes in future. Secondly, in the next financial year we are committed to raising resources for the Victim Support scheme to £8.3 million. That should help them in the expansion of the work to which the hon. Lady referred. One of the inhibiting factors that have been identified in extending this work has been the availability of suitable people. That is an area in which, perhaps, the hon. Lady could give encouragement.
    Mr. Corbett: May I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities? Will he confirm that a reason why there has had to be an increase in funding for Victim Support is that in the past 13 years the number of victims of crime has more than doubled? Is not the planned increase for the next few years inadequate for the job? Will he confirm that Victim Support must run from its grant the victim services in 83 Crown courts? Does he not believe that that bill should be more properly picked up by the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. Jack: We take our responsibilities in this area seriously. The hon. Gentleman did not refer, for example, to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which has a budget just short of £150 million. That means that we provide substantial help to those who are the victims of crime. If he had listened throughout Question Time he would have heard my right hon. and learned Friend and hon. Friends talking about how we shall combat crime, especially violent crime.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to have an easy flow of goods and people between countries, it is essential to maintain effective national border controls, not only as part of our fight against international crime and drug trafficking, but to preserve that extra security which we as an island nation have come to expect?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits that we see from the freedom of movement could easily be lost if we could not protect ourselves against terrorism, smuggling and illegal immigration. On border controls, the Government do not agree that article 8A requires the abolition of all controls on people at the Community's internal frontiers. It is our policy to control
    742
    the entry of nationals at the point of arrival. That is the most effective way of control for an island nation, and our European partners must understand that.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that today's rise in unemployment is the 24th consecutive monthly increase? Is he aware that during the past year unemployment has increased by over half a million and that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has increased by more than 200,000? Against that background, does he think it right to continue cutting Government funding for training?
    The Prime Minister: Any increase in unemployment is one too many. I accept that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about it. The only way we shall create permanent jobs that will be sustained and will provide proper career opportunities is to have the return of confidence, the right levels of investment and the right economic background. That is what we are seeking to achieve. That is the right way to deal with unemployment in the short term, the medium term and the long term. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most substantial training schemes that this country has ever seen or any other country has ever seen.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister yet accept that a critical part of any policy for future employment is a good, strong, continuing policy on training? The figures in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure —[Interruption.] The figures in the Government's own White Paper show that there is to be a continuing cut in employment training and youth training. There are 800,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 who are unemployed now. Is it not clear that the Government's message to them is no jobs, no training, no hope?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is remotely accurate. On the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, training is improving all the time. More workers are qualified—up to 73 per cent.—more people are staying on at school for more skills and more firms are investing in training, the figure for which is now £20 billion. This Government have created 300,000 training places whereas the Labour Government created 700. Just a few weeks ago the British people were well aware of which party would put the nation back to work and they made their choice decisively.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister wishes to refer to it, the fact is that under the last Labour Government unemployment reached a maximum of 1.25 million. It is now well over double that. This Government have never managed to get unemployment down to that level. Why will he not face up to the problem of unemployment, accept his own figures and understand that the Conservatives have not only sabotaged employment in this country and lost 1 million jobs in the last two years, but are not providing employment training in the way that should be provided in any modern country, let alone one with 2.7 million unemployed people?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should sometimes recollect that there never have been a Labour Government who did not push unemployment up dramatically. A higher proportion of our nation—70 per cent., a higher proportion than anywhere else—is in work. Our job creation record throughout the 1980s was better

    743
    than that of most European Community countries, providing over 2 million more jobs than in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman takes a selective view of the rest of the world. He ignores it when he talks of recession. He accepts it when he talks of unemployment. He might need a more consistent line if he becomes leader of the Socialist International.
    Mr. David Evans: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stunning victory at the general election. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Welwyn Hatfield on getting rid of a Labour administration after 13 years? Will he assure me that we shall not hold the next Conservative party conference in Sheffield and that we shall not close the conference in total darkness with fireworks going off? [Interruption.] They might all turn out to be damp squibs, as happened to the Labour party.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own distinctive points in his own distinctive way, and I have no doubt that the voters of Welwyn Hatfield, in returning him, have seen him do precisely what they expected of him. In response to his direct question, I can certainly confirm that the next Conservative party conference will not be held in Sheffield.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his predecessor first entered the House, it was five months before she made her maiden speech and that, when she did, she introduced a Bill which opened up local authority meetings to the press and public? In view of the secrecy that presently surrounds the meetings of hospital trusts, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation under which all management committee meetings are open to the press and public?
    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy is examining areas of government where it is possible to remove levels of secrecy. That has begun and will continue. We shall make the outcome known to Parliament in due course.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend is carrying out his review, and is taking stock of the situation, of Scotland, will he bear it in mind that his leadership and the firm stand taken by him and the Secretary of State for Scotland against assemblies and parliaments in Edinburgh resulted in the splendid general election result and the subsequent splendid result at the district elections, in which Perth and Kinross district council was restored handsomely to Conservative control?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the Union has ensured that Scotland plays a full part in the most stable political entity to be found anywhere in Europe. It has served the whole of the United Kingdom well. It has certainly served Scotland and England well. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said recently, Scotland is alive and flourishing. Indeed it is. We welcome that. It is alive and flourishing within the Union.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, despite his attacks on our proposals for a carbon tax
    744
    during the election campaign, we now greatly welcome his conversion to the case for a carbon tax to tackle global warming? Does he accept that the European Commission's proposals are too timid and too conditional to attack that problem effectively, that the next response must come from the Americans and that he has a role in persuading the Americans to make that response?
    The Prime Minister: There are many ways to deal with the problem of CO2 and we still await the Commission's formal proposals. We cannot yet be certain what it will do. It is absolutely clear that it would make sense to adopt such a tax only if our major competitors in the world also did so, both for environmental reasons and because acting alone would harm competitiveness in this country and across Europe. I shall discuss with Japan and the United States what action might be taken, but I have no intention of prejudging what that action might be.
    Mr. Brandreth: Did my right hon. Friend happen to see the punch-up in the Italian Parliament yesterday, when it was attempting to elect a new President? Does he see that as an example of the benefits of proportional representation or merely a dress rehearsal for the election of a new loser—so sorry—new leader of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I did not see that particular report, but I am aware of Italy's present difficulties as it tries to determine a new Government after an election that has split the political parties through using proportional representation.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the midst of a viciously high level of crime, the Leicestershire police force has been forced to cut its budget for the current year by more than £1 million? Will he, therefore, please take this opportunity to deny reports that the Government are placing pressure on his right hon. and learned and reticent Friend the Home Secretary to cut central funding for police forces, because to do so would be irresponsible, dangerous and totally unacceptable?
    The Prime Minister: Those who know my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not suggest that he is readily susceptible to pressure. He will be as concerned as the Government have been in recent years to ensure that the police force is equipped for its battle against crime.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Some pensioners and other people on low incomes in Fulham often struggle to pay their heating bills. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, join me in warmly welcoming the 3 per cent. reduction in gas prices announced today? Does not that show that privatisation, if properly and effectively regulated, is to the benefit of everyone?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the 3 per cent. cut in prices that has been announced. It adds to the reductions in recent years since privatisation took effect and illustrates clearly the benefits of competition.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree that even if every single empty property in local authority and private sector control were used for families, there would still be a huge shortage of affordable, rented housing? Will the Prime Minister tell the House simply how many affordable, rented homes he plans to build in the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: It would be a great improvement if all those empty properties, largely in the ownership of Labour authorities, were made available for letting. It would also make a tremendous difference to the availability of property if the Labour party would remove its long-standing prejudices against the private sector, which discourage so many people from bringing private property into the market for letting.
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's report that, in line with the patients charter, the General Medical Council is to propose the biggest changes in the regulation of doctors for 150 years? Will he also welcome yesterday's statement by the British Medical Association that, from now on, it wishes to work with the Government in implementing health reforms? Is not the increasing acceptance of the Government's health policies by the medical profession a vindication at last of the work that has been done in the past few years to ensure that the health service today is better funded, better managed and provides a better service to its patients than ever before?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the statement made by the chairman of the British Medical Association. We now have a far better working relationship. As a party, we are looking ahead. Indeed, it is only the Labour party which fails to look ahead to see the changes, improvements and benefits taking place in the health service as a result of our funding and our reforms.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 18 MAY—Second Reading of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill.

TUESDAY 19 MAY—Motion for the Spring Adjournment.

Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Motion on the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 7) Order.

WEDNESDAY 20 MAY and THURSDAY 21 MAY—Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

FRIDAY 22 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.

Dr. Cunningham: When we debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill next week, will the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the Government? Is it the Government's intention to seek the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule on the first day of debate? When Second Reading is concluded, I urge the Leader of the House to agree that the Bill should be considered in Committee of the whole House.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early statement from the Secretary of State for Employment, not only because of the appalling further and very sad increases in unemployment announced today, but because of the apparent threat, highlighted in the Financial Times today, to the future of the training and enterprise councils throughout the United Kingdom? Is it not really tragic that, in view of the level of unemployment and the already inadequate provision of training facilities, the future of the TECs seems so heavily at risk?
Mr. Newton: First, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will open the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill next Wednesday. Secondly, it is proposed to move a motion to allow the debate to continue after 10 o'clock on the first day. Thirdly, I can confirm that it will be proposed that the Committee stage of the Bill be taken on the Floor of the House. I am sure that that will have the general assent of the House.
On the hon. Gentleman's second set of questions, he will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only a few minutes ago on training and on the unemployment figures. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. It might be of assistance to the House if I said something at this stage about the conduct of business questions, about which I have been concerned for some time.
The purpose of these questions is not to make the speech that hon. Members might hope to make later, or to obtain an instant ministerial reply. That is not the purpose of business questions. The purpose is to ask for a debate and to state briefly why that debate should be granted. The
748
Leader of the House should not be asked questions about House matters; those should be put to him during his own question time.
I feel very firmly that, in fairness to others, only one subject should be raised per question, so that I can call as many hon. Members as possible. In that way, I hope that both questions and answers will be briefer than they have been in the past. I hope, too, that the House will trust my judgment when I believe that it is time to move on to our next business.
Mr. Frank Field: As Maxwell pensioners have lost, and are losing, their pensions, will the Leader of the House make room next week for a debate so that the Government can make their position clear?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity, as he will well recall, to raise these matters during the recent debate on the Loyal Address, and he received a response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He will have many opportunities next week, with debates on the Whitsun Adjournment and in other ways, to raise all sorts of matters.
Mr. William Cash: In the debate on Maastricht, how will we be able adequately to debate foreign policy questions? Does my right hon. Friend know when the treaty on foreign policy will be ratified under the Ponsonby rule? Is it the usual 21 days after it has been deposited on the Table of the House? If so, when does that period expire, and will we have a full debate at the same time as the opportunity to discuss the other contents of the Bill?
Mr. Newton: In response both to that question and to a point raised with you, Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), let me say that I have taken steps to examine the availability of relevant documents. My understanding is that all are available in the Vote Office, and I am taking further steps to ensure that adequate stocks are available to hon. Members.
Mr. Peter Hain: I refer the Leader of the House to early day motions 44 and 55.
[That this House, noting that the following 23 honourable and Right honourable Members for Torbay, Wanstead and Woodford, Dorset North, Harrogate, North West Norfolk, Holland with Boston, Upminster, Davyhulme, Romsey and Waterside, Epsom and Ewell, North Norfolk, Stroud, Fareham, Mid Bedfordshire, West Gloucestershire, Arundel, North Wiltshire, Colne Valley, Aldridge-Brownhills, Bosworth, Reading East, Westminster North, and Weston super Mare, are Lloyds names who have been in membership of syndicates which have suffered catastrophic losses totalling hundreds of millions of pounds, and could therefore face individual bankruptcy and disqualification, calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to institute a full public inquiry into insider dealing, financial mismanagement and corruption in Lloyds and to demand wholesale reform and independent regulation, bearing in mind that if even half these 23 colleagues of his are indeed declared bankrupt, the Government could lose its majority.]
Can he make time next week for an urgent debate on the crisis in the Lloyd's London insurance market? There is now clear evidence of insider dealing, fraud and financial mismanagement in Lloyd's. There is additional evidence that the council of Lloyd's, in discussion with the

749
Department of Trade and Industry, is involved in an attempt, using institutional finance, to bail out Lloyd's names, including those who are Members of Parliament. Why will not the Government have a proper public inquiry and a proper Government statement for debate in the House, or are you involved in a cover-up to protect your own majority?
Madam Speaker: Order. I deprecate some of the language used in the House by hon. Members. Questions can be couched in far better terms than that.
Mr. Newton: Your deprecation, Madam Speaker, enables me to avoid deprecating that suggestion myself. I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion entirely. As he knows, there are a number of inquiries going on, and it would not help to institute yet another one.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have an early debate on armed forces matters? I am sure that the House knows very well that, arising from the "Options for Change" exercise, large numbers of changes are to be looked at, including the possibility that operational sea training in my constituency will be moved to another base. It would be helpful if we could have an early debate on these matters before the summer recess.
Mr. Newton: I will draw that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence but I might also, on this occasion, fall back on something on which I may fall back again in the course of business questions today. It is that, next week, there is to be a three-hour debate on the motion for the Whitsun Adjournment, and a number of timed debates on the Friday, and that will give hon. Members on both sides of the House many opportunities to raise matters.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that, in the week after next, there is a week's recess, can the Leader of the House tell us when, I hope in Government time, we shall have an important and necessary debate on the United Nations conference in Rio, the earth summit, which is starting at the beginning of June? Time for such a debate is running out. It should be held in Government time, but it is one that would be widely supported on both sides of the House.
Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given, but, furthermore, we have just had a six-day debate on the Loyal Address with a one-day debate on the environment.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for an urgent debate on the scandalous decision by the Eastern health board to close 70 beds in the Bangor, Ards and Ulster hospitals, in addition to massive and drastic cuts imposed on those hospitals in the past 18 months? This decision will be detrimental to the people of North Down and cause massive unemployment among nurses and other staff. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a full and lengthy debate.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a full and lengthy debate on that, in addition to the business already arranged for next week. I shall, however, ensure that my
750
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Leader of the House appreciate the critical and urgent nature of the problems facing contributors to the Maxwell pension schemes? Having contributed throughout their lives, some of those people have been told that their cheques will be stopped, and other schemes are to be wound up. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government must make a statement next week, and tell us what lifeline they will offer people who are entirely blameless following a sorry and sordid episode?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I am more than aware of the concerns and difficulties involved, having been Secretary of State for Social Security until about six weeks ago. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, given the deadline in respect of commission interest in the proposed takeover of the Midland bank, the House urgently needs to know the Government's thinking? The matter affects not only trade and employment but, perhaps critically, many aspects of foreign policy and our relations with Hong Kong.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's views. He will be aware, however, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is advised on such matters by the Office of Fair Trading. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House has said that documentation is already available for the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that is to take place on Wednesday and Thursday. I believe that we all have copies of the Maastricht treaty, which runs to 130-odd pages; but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, most of its contents take the form of amendments to the earlier treaties, and it is therefore extremely difficult to follow. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he has accepted the suggestion that was taken up yesterday by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—and, I believe, subscribed to by you, Madam Speaker—and ensure that a document of analysis, with legal interpretation, is also available?
Mr. Newton: I have already undertaken to ensure that all the relevant documents are available. I have a list of the available documents, and I shall try to ensure that it is appended to Hansard's report of the business statement. I did not read it out to the House because it would have taken rather a long time.
Sir James Spicer: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the unhappiness felt by most people about the bunching of spring bank holidays. Easter Monday is followed by the May bank holiday, and then almost immediately by Whitsun. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to discuss the matter, and perhaps to consider moving the wretched May day bank holiday to October?
Mr. Newton: Let me start by observing wrily that, in my experience, many people welcome all these bank holidays. Leaving that aside, however, I think that I have enough problems at present without staging a debate on bank holidays.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I thank the Leader of the House for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Can he assure us, however, that the list to which he referred will include a copy of the treaty of Rome as it will be if the treaty of union is approved? Is he aware that, in a reply given to me on 11 May—it can be found in column 25 of Hansard—his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, implied that he had a copy of the treaty of Rome as it would be? So far, however, it has not been published. Surely it is a very relevant and necessary document.
Mr. Newton: For most normal purposes of debate in any forum of which I have been part, when a document has been subject to amendment we have examined both the document concerned and the amendments; but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I shall try to establish the position with him.
Mr. Paul Marland: Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me remind the House that I am a name at Lloyd's. In a more sober mood, I too wish to ask for a debate on Lloyd's. It is becoming clearer every day that there is evidence of Lloyd's having breached the Lloyd's Act 1982, and, in so doing, ruining many investors in the Lloyd's market. Will my right hon. Friend reflect soberly on the matter, and consider the possibility of a full-scale debate?
Mr. Newton: I thought that my hon. Friend put his point in an entirely serious and responsible way. I shall respond similarly by saying that I shall reflect upon what he said and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 40.
[That this House welcomes the book, To Encourage the Others, by David A. Yallop, calling for an independent public inquiry into the hanging of Derek Bentley in 1952; requests the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up the inquiry as a matter of urgency; hopes that such a request will lead to a posthumous pardon; and feels that this will end a grave miscarriage of justice which leaves a permanent blot on the British judicial system—the hanging of an innocent man.]
It has been signed by 174 Members of all parties. This is the fourth Session in which I have tabled this motion. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make an early statement in the House in order to explain why the Home Office appears to be dragging its feet on this matter?
Mr. Newton: The Home Secretary has just been answering questions, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman did not get the chance to ask him this one. My right hon. and learned Friend is giving this case very careful consideration, and he will reach a decision as soon as possible on whether he thinks that any action on his part is called for.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is concern throughout the House about the appalling plight of those people who are going to inherit the poisonous legacy of that dreadful crook Maxwell? Can we please have a statement next week before the House rises?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 20 and the amendment?
[That this House calls for the immediate establishment of the departmental select committees so that Parliament can exercise its constitutional duty to hold Government to account and scrutinise its activities; and calls upon the House to ensure that in the future the establishment of select committees within one month of an election should become the duty of the Speaker under standing orders.]
I urge the Leader of the House to work with the usual channels to have those Select Committees set up so that we can start working when we return here after the spring Adjournment.
Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and the contents of the letter that he wrote to me recently about the self-same matter. I think that he will understand that at this moment I cannot add to what I said in the debate on the Gracious Speech last night.
Mr. Robert Adley: Regarding Monday's business, does my right hon. Friend agree that a politically driven timetable for the future of British Rail could have damaging consequences? As a matter of fact, can he tell me whether in parliamentary history there has ever been a case of a paving Bill for an industry being produced by a Government before the White Paper on the future of that industry had itself been produced?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend was kind enough to intimate that he might ask a question along these lines. In the intervening three quarters of an hour, I have been unable to discover an answer to his question. If there is no precedent, all that I can say is that there has to be a first time for everything.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the confusion over the Maastricht debate, will the Leader of the House consider postponing it and having a debate instead on the three reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which have now been published—in one case over six months ago? As the Leader of the House knows, they concern the financial involvement of Select Committee chairmen and chairwomen and the new registration rules for Members which are recommended to this House, including the declaration of Lloyd's syndicates.
If those reports are allowed to gather dust for much longer without being debated, the suspicion will inevitably be engendered that the Tory Government are allowing Tory Members of Parliament to line their pockets through moonlighting, by ignoring recommendations from an all-party Committee that the rules should be tightened up to stop that moonlighting and pocket lining.
Mr. Newton: I sometimes think that, whatever we debated and did, the hon. Gentleman would still think that

753
suspicion was being engendered. As for his question, I do not think that he will expect me to undertake to put off the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I shall obviously consider the rest of what he said with a view to deciding whether there is any response that. I can make—but certainly not next week.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I know that the Government share the concern of many hon. Members that some of the powers in the treaty of union they would not wish the European institutions to have. However, the Government say that we are protected by the principle of subsidiarity, which is in the treaty of union. This is a very important issue. Would it be possible for the Attorney-General to make a full statement to the House, before we debate the treaty, on the effect of the principle of subsidiarity and what it means? Furthermore, would it be possible for him to bring with him an opinion from a judge of the European Court of Justice, just to see whether he would have the same thing to say as the Attorney-General?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the rising levels of crime in, I think, every hon. Member's constituency? If he finds time for that debate, will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to explain why, when I have raised the issue in the House before, I have been assured by Ministers that there was access to inner-city initiatives to fight crime and to the urban fund, yet my constituency has been excluded from both?
Mr. Newton: I will take note of those comments and pass on appropriately the hon. Lady's wish to see Halifax included in the safer cities programme, which is helping a considerable number of places. Apart from that, I am beginning to feel as if I am being treated by the frustrated as an extension of Home Office Question Time.
Mr. John Townend: When will proposals be brought before us to implement the recommendations of the Jopling Committee on the future workings of the House?
Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend knows—he certainly will if he was able to listen to my remarks last night in the debate on the Address—that we think that the first step is a debate in the new Parliament on the report as a whole. I hope to arrange time for that not too long after the recess.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on early-day motion 17 which relates to lady Kurdish hunger strikers?
[That this House recognises the right of those fleeing political persecution to safety; further recognises their right to family re-union; notes that 62 Kurdish-Alevi asylum seekers who arrived in Britain in 1989 from Turkey have been on hunger strike since 1st May for the right of family re-union after the determination of their application; and accordingly calls upon the Home Secretary urgently to review these cases and bring an end to the misery of these divided families.]
They are at present on hunger strike around London demanding the right of family reunion. They want their
754
families to come from Turkey where they are suffering great danger. If this issue is not dealt with quickly, further suffering will occur. It is an urgent matter and I ask the Leader of the House to make some appropriate arrangements for the issue to be debated and to ask the Home Secretary to examine the cases urgently so that those poor people can come to this country and live in safety.
Mr. Newton: We are, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, willing to consider representations in the cases of the 62 hunger strikers referred to. I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the growing practice of hospitals charging for parking by visitors and others? That now includes Ealing hospital, where a charge of £10 for over six hours is to be levied. Could the debate be arranged so that I can ask a question about Ealing and ensure that there and elsewhere there is special free parking for those visiting people in intensive care and other vital categories, while not defending those who park in hospital car parks for their own purposes?
Mr. Newton: I imagine that my hon. Friend has taken up this matter with Ealing health authority. I shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend may wish to raise this matter during one of the opportunities next week.
Mr. David Winnick: When the Leader of the House sees his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, will he press upon him the necessity for an early statement next week on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, bearing in mind that, in one Maxwell-owned company, 70 per cent. of the pension is being lost? There is desperate hardship and anxiety among those adversely affected by the dishonesty and crooked behaviour of Maxwell. I hope that it will be possible for such a statement to be made before the House rises for the recess because of the continuing hardship and anxiety of those to whom I have referred.
Mr. Newton: Once again, I cannot add to what I said earlier. However, I shall add the hon. Gentleman to the list of those whose representations I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Sir Anthony Grant: Would it be possible, perhaps next week, or now if necessary, to place on record the appreciation of hon. Members on both sides of the House of the great service rendered to the House by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) as Chairman of Ways and Means? His work has been appreciated by all hon. Members.
Mr. Newton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I should perhaps say that I sought to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman last night at the beginning of my speech on the Address and I was struck by the warmth with which my remarks in that respect—although not in all others —were treated by the House.
Mr. Clive Betts: May I request the Leader of the House—following his previous reply—to

755
ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House on the proposed takeover of Midland bank by either Lloyds or the Hongkong and Shanghai bank? It is important not only to the bank's ordinary high street customers but to small businesses which want competition in loans and lending. It is also very important to many of my constituents who work at Midland bank's headquarters in Sheffield and who are unsure about their futures.
Mr. Newton: I shall indeed draw those remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), could the Leader of the House make a statement next week about the reappointment of the Select Committees? It is outrageous that rumours are going around that the Select Committees will not be established until October. They cost about £50,000 a week, and it would therefore cost the House more than £1 million if they were not re-established until October. They do very important work on the House's behalf.
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, I adverted to the matter in my speech last night in the debate on the Address, as did my opposite number, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). We both made it absolutely clear that we hope that the Select Committees will be set up without undue delay.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House tell the President of the Board of Trade that it is high time he came here to the Dispatch Box to explain his conduct regarding Olympia and York and his dealings with it? That firm, which is £12 billion in debt, is just like the Maxwell empire of yesteryear, running from bank to bank to keep its head above water. Through the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government are bailing it out. Instead of using £100 million to bail out a squalid company, they should be using the money to build houses for the homeless.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall talk to my right hon. Friend in precisely those terms, but I shall draw his attention to what has been said.
Mr. David Harris: Just in case my right hon. Friend has not got the mood of the House, may I underline all the pleas for a statement on the Maxwell affair? He himself came before the Select Committee to give evidence several weeks ago and he knows the questions that are uppermost in the minds of those of us who serve on the Committee. One of those questions involves the plight of a particular group of pensioners, those who worked for, and in some cases still work, for British International Helicopters, which was sold into the clutches of Maxwell when the Government refused to endorse a management buy-out of the British Airways helicopter division. Therefore, the Government have a special responsibility to those pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that and do something about it?
Mr. Newton: Noted, of course. That enables me to add one word on the matter, which is that the Government will —rightly—be responding to the Select Committee's report in due course.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week on the future organisation and funding of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service? As the Leader of the House will know, UKIAS provides advice and representation for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities—including divided families—and it also employs a number of people in offices throughout the country. Will he ensure that no final decisions are taken on funding by the Home Office unless and until the Home Secretary has consulted the House?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's views as expressed in the last moment or two.
[The following documents relating to the Treaty on European Union should be available in the Vote Office for the Second Reading debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:

Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act (Cm 455);

Treaty on European Union (Cm 1934);

Foreign Affairs Committee Report on "Europe After Maastricht", Volumes I and II (Report and Evidence: HC 223);

Observations by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the FAC Report "Europe After Maastricht" (Cm 1965);

White Paper on Developments in the European Community, July-December 1991 (Cm 1857);

White Paper on Development in the European Community, January-June 1991 (Cm 1657);

Report by House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation on the 1991–1992 Session, including an analysis of the Treaty on European Union by the Committee's Legal Adviser ( to be published by HMSO on 14 May: HC 24-xv).

Third Report from the Health Committee on the European Community and Health Policy. ( HC 180 );

Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 5, 12 and 26 February 1992 on Migration Control at the External Borders of the European Community. (HC 215);

Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Economic and Monetary Union. (HC 285);

Fourth Special Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on European Community Finances. (HC 334);

European Communities Act, 1972;

European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1986;

European Parliamentary Elections Act, 1978.]

Adjournment Debates
Madam Speaker: I need to remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 22 May, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should

757
reach my office by 10pm on Monday next. The ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the results made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Local Government Finance (England)
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local government finance and community charge capping in England.
Local authorities have now set their budgets and charges for 1992–93. The vast majority of budgets are at sensible levels reflecting what charge payers and the country can afford.
More than 400 authorities have budgeted within or very close to the limits implied by the provisional capping criteria announced last autumn by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). This outcome clearly demonstrates that my right hon. Friend was more than justified in his belief that authorities would find his provisional criteria manageable.
In overall terms, the total of local authority budgets is about 1 per cent. over the amount for which we made provision in our settlement, and the average headline charge is £282, with the average amount of charge actually met by charge payers being less than £200. This result is in no small part a tribute to the good sense and responsibility of local government.
I have carefully considered authorities' budgets. In the light of these budgets and all other relevant considerations, I have now decided my capping principles—that is, the criteria in accordance with which I must designate authorities for capping.
The principles I have today adopted give effect, with one modification, to the provisional criteria announced last autumn. This modification is that I have included a de minimis proviso. This will avoid designation in cases where the reduction which could be secured by capping would be less than £1.50 per adult.
I have decided that the de minimis principle will be appropriate this year, having regard to a number of considerations. Those considerations include the provisional criteria, the budgets which all authorities have in the event set—bearing in mind that in the great majority of cases they reflect what charge payers and the country can afford—the scale of reductions in budgets, and the costs of rebilling and associated expenses which, but for this principle, would be required. It should not be assumed that in any future year we would judge such a de minimis principle to be appropriate.
On the basis of those principles, 10 authorities are to be designated: Basildon, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, Greenwich, Hillingdon, Lambeth, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough and Warwickshire.
For each of those 10 authorities I also propose caps —that is, the level to which we propose authorities should reduce their budgets. I have made available in the Vote Office, and shall be printing in the Official Report, a table setting out my principles and showing for each designated authority the cap that I propose and the budget reductions implied by it. In each case, on the basis of all the information currently available to me, I am satisfied that my proposals are reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the individual authorities concerned, and that my proposed reductions are achievable this year. The reductions in charge range from £58 for Basildon to £3 for Gloucester.

759
Authorities now have 28 days in which to tell me whether they accept the amount proposed. They can also challenge my proposal, suggesting an alternative figure together with reasons for it. In such circumstances, it is open to me to set the final cap at a higher, lower or, indeed, the same level as the one I originally proposed. If an authority does not accept my proposed cap I have to set the final cap by order, a draft of which must be approved by the House.
Within 21 days of the final caps having been set, the authorities must set new lower budgets reflecting their caps which feed through to lower charges. How long the

Community charge capping 1992–93 Table of designated authorities and proposed caps

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7

Authority

1992–93 budget

Proposed cap for 1992–93

Proposed reduction

proposed cap change on 1991–92 budget

Original average community charges for 1992–93

Community charge reduction implied by proposed cap £

(£ million)

(£ million)

(£ million)

(Per cent)

(Per cent)

(£)

(£)

Absolute Excessiveness

Basildon

27.01

20.15

6.86

25.4

-8.8

361

58

Langbaurgh

18.50

16.50

2.00

10.8

5.8

376

18

Middlesbrough

21.60

20.20

1.40

6.5

0.0

353

14

Excessive Increase

Cheltenham

10.84

9.91

0.93

8.6

6.6

330

12

Gloucester

10.34

10.15

0.19

1.9

10.3

310

3

Gloucestershire

327.80

317.91

9.89

3.0

6.5

279–347

25

Greenwich

228.81

220.04

8.77

3.8

3.3

287

56

Hillingdon

167.14

166.27

0.87

0.5

10.3

295

5

Lambeth

333.20

328.79

4.41

1.3

5.7

449

23

Warwickshire

299.76

292.99

6.77

2.3

6.5

290–353

19

Notes:
A. Designation is on the basis of the following criteria:
1. any increase of more than 6½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over SSA;
2. any increase of more than 4½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 5 per cent. above SSA;
3. any increase of more than 12½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 10 per cent. above SSA;
4. any budget more than 12½ per cent. above SSA is excessive save that an authority will not be designated if:
(a) its budget is 30 per cent. or less above SSA and is a cash freeze or reduction on its 1991–92 budget
(b) its budget is 60 per cent. or less above SSA and at least 5 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget
(c) its budget is at least 10 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget
5. if the excess in an authority's budget over the above criteria is less than the equivalent of £1.50 per adult that authority is not designated.
That criteria for inner London boroughs are the same as for other classes of authority save that for the purposes of comparison the amount of inner London education grant is deducted from budgets.
B. Column 1 of the table lists those authorities designated since their budgets are excessive (criterion 4 above) or represent an excessive increase over the previous year (criteria 1 to 3 above).
C. Column 2 shows 1992–93 budgets set by the designated authorities.
D. Column 3 shows the proposed caps for 1992–93.
E. Column 4 sets out the reductions in budgets implied by the proposed caps both in terms of cash and percentage.
F. Column 5 shows the percentage change from the 1991–92 budget to the proposed cap.
G. Column 6 lists the original average community charge or charges in the area of each designated authority for 1992–93.
H. Column 7 shows the reductions in community charges implied by each proposed cap.
Mr. David Blunkett: This sorry statement is an admission of failure and a capitulation to those who believe that centralised Government should take precedence over democracy. The delay in delivering this sorry statement has already meant confusion and financial loss, and it makes it very difficult for councils to exercise their rights in appealing in the way that the Secretary of State spelled out this afternoon.
process takes depends in part on how authorities respond to my proposals, but I expect that by the end of June or early July all authorities will have set new budgets leading to reduced charges.
We and local government generally can rightly find satisfaction in the sensible and prudent way in which the vast majority of authorities have budgeted. But a few authorities are still failing to act responsibly. Parliament has given me powers that enable me both to secure as necessary the expenditure restraint by local authorities needed to meet our wider economic goals and to protect all charge payers against excessive budgeting. My decisions today reinforce our strategy of expenditure control, and will benefit about 1.8 million charge payers.
Following is the table:
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that not one of his predecessors agreed with capping as a solution to the future relationship between local and central Government? Will he acknowledge that his immediate predecessor condemned capping as
"an act of centralised power outside our experience … On those grounds alone, it should be resisted"?

761
Will the Secretary of State confirm his own words when he spoke as Minister with responsibility for local government when the capping regime was introduced for the poll tax? When introducing the legislation he said:
"We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see the capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure … It is important that there should be such a reserve power … to protect the charge payers of an area against extreme cases of extravagant and irresponsible local authorities.—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm to us this afternoon that he believes that the criteria of extravagance and irresponsibility can be applied to Conservative-controlled Warwickshire, to Conservative-controlled Hillingdon, to the people of Gloucestershire or to the city of Gloucester whose residents will save a staggering £3 a year as a result of the actions of central Government? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he agrees with himself, whether he agrees with his predecessor or whether he agrees with the unknown Secretary of State who believes that authorities such as Warwickshire and Hillingdon are profligate and extravagant?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that this is the eighth year of capping and that the Government are still abusing local authorities as though they and not the Government were responsible for high bills and reduced services? Will he explain to the House why the people of Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Greenwich and Hillingdon should not choose the level and range of education provision for their children and of the social services provided for the elderly and for disabled people in their area?
Why should people not be left to exercise their own responsibility, to determine the opportunities available to them and to have a real chance of partnership between governed and governing—a partnership between local and central Government based on diversity, pluralism and respect for democracy? We in the Labour party accept the verdict of the people. Why will the Conservative party and the Government not do the same at local level?
On what criteria has the Secretary of State the right to determine what should happen at local level when the standard spending assessments are universally acknowledged to be flawed, when the national non-domestic rate is determined centrally, when 86 per cent. of spending is directed by central Government and when the remaining 14 per cent., as we can see this afternoon, is fixed through the capping process by a Government heady with victory and contemptuous of dissent?
Why should district councils across the country have been allocated an increase of 50 per cent. in their standard spending assessments when a council such as Middlesbrough, which has been capped this afternoon, has had a standstill budget over the past two years? No wonder people regard this capping regime and this afternoon's announcement as a discredited act by a Government who have no other means than central power to determine what they do for the people of this country.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that this is another bad day for democracy and another example of intolerance, of elective dictatorship and of the Government determined to have their own way over the wishes of local people? The losers are not the councils to be capped this afternoon, but the communities whose services will be cut.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman engaged in the usual ritualistic condemnation of capping that we always hear from the Opposition. However, that carries no conviction. If capping is anathema to Opposition Members, why did they propose during the general election campaign a cap on the revenue-raising powers of the Scottish Assembly about which they were so keen? Where is the logic in proposing a cap on the Scottish Assembly but no cap on local authorities? If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) or any other Opposition Members want to attack our proposals, perhaps they will explain that incomprehensible inconsistency in the Labour party's attitude.
The only consistent theme to emerge from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brightside—a consistent theme also in the remarks of all Opposition Members—was that the Opposition display no concern about the need to control public spending. Local authorities spend about £60 billion a year. Any Government worthy of the name must be concerned that local profligacy is curbed. That message was clearly endorsed by the electorate on 9 April.
Basildon's proposed budget for 1992–93 is 114 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. Langbaurgh's is 52 per cent. above. Cheltenham proposed an increase of 16.6 per cent. over last year and Gloucester a 12.4 per cent. increase. Those budgets were excessive by any standard.
Two things are crystal clear: first, almost all local authorities have responded sensibly and responsibly to our guidelines; secondly, Conservative councils continue to deliver far better value for money than Labour or Liberal Democrat controlled councils. The average community charge in Conservative-controlled London boroughs was £86 lower than in Labour-controlled boroughs. In the metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts the average difference was £54. Those figures speak for themselves. That is why the Labour party suffered such a crushing defeat on 7 May and that is why the words of the hon. Member for Brightside sound so hollow.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Hillingdon is £1 million over the cappling limit because it has had to spend £936,000 this year caring for unaccompanied child refugees from Eritrea, Angola, Uganda and elsewhere? Those children come into Heathrow, are abandoned there and fall into the care of Hillingdon. The cost of that operation is not met by the standard spending assessment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that Hillingdon has reduced expenditure by £30 million since May 1990 and has reduced the number of staff by 1,400? Will he kindly tell the House on what basis Hillingdon can appeal and over what period? Will he assure me that he will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to a very difficult human problem?
Mr. Howard: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concerns. We have sought to take into account all relevant circumstances in dealing with Hillingdon's budget. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks and will consider very carefully any representations made to me by Hillingdon. The council has 28 days in which to make representations to me and I will give any such representations the most careful consideration.
Mr. Bill Olner: Has the Secretary of State taken into account the views of independent accountants and auditors who described my county as one of the most

763
efficient in Britain? Why has he not taken into account the thousands of constituents who have written to him expressing concern about education, social services and all the other services that Warwickshire provides, including fire and rescue and the police services, which are under great threat? They are underfunded and have been told so by the Home Office. Why has he not taken those views into account? Why does not he agree that Warwickshire's standard spending assessment and the capping formula are flawed and work to Warwickshire's disadvantage? Warwickshire is a Tory-controlled authority, guaranteed to be one of the meanest in the country, yet it is still being capped. Why?
Mr. Howard: I have sought to take into account all the relevant factors affecting Warwickshire. Indeed, we changed the SSA for Warwickshire for this year to reflect some of the points that were put to us by the county council. The county council benefited from the changes which we made to the methodology. The effect of the cap that I propose will be to reduce the average community charge for the residents of Warwickshire by £19 a year. If the hon. Gentleman cared about the interests of his constituents, I should have thought that he would pay some attention to that proposed reduction. I shall, of course, carefully consider any representations made to me by Warwickshire. It has 28 days in which to decide how it wishes to respond to my proposals. I shall listen to what it has to say with great interest.
Mr. Olner: But what about services? Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if he did not bring in a cap, each charge payer in Greenwich would have to pay virtually 25 per cent. more? Is he aware that only one council in the country has been capped every single time since Greenwich put its rate up by 59 per cent. in one year in 1983? Would my right hon. and learned Friend be willing to consider meeting a deputation from all parties to discuss the standard spending assessment, which is an outstanding problem for Greenwich? Will he also accept that most charge payers will welcome this news and wish that Greenwich would get on and make those who are not paying the community charge pay up so that those who pay do not have to pay for those who do not?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. My proposals for this year would produce a £56 saving on the average community charge paid by the residents of Greenwich. That would be over and above the total of £74 which capping has saved the average charge payer in Greenwich in the past two years. I can certainly confirm that I shall consider carefully any representations made to me on behalf of Greenwich. I shall be happy to meet the deputation proposed by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that local authority leaders of all political persuasions now complain that they are no longer able fully to discharge their legal duties to disabled persons under sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and
764
Disabled Persons Act 1972? Is not this a deeply serious matter both legally and in social policy terms? What does this afternoon's statement do to meet that complaint?.
Mr. Howard: This is a matter for the priorities which local authorities attach to the relevant demands which they have to meet from their budgets. That is something with which they are familiar and anyone who has been elected to office is familiar. Any responsible office holder has to make difficult decisions of that nature. I am satisfied that the proposals that I have made today are appropriate, reasonable and achievable, but, as I have said, I am prepared to consider any representations that are made to me by any of the affected authorities.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the huge overspending of Gloucestershire county council is as a result of the profligacy of the Liberal and Labour coalition? Whenever—
Mr. Simon Hughes: But the Conservatives run Gloucestershire.
Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The overspending was historic when the Liberals were in charge with Labour party back-up. They gave the Labour party a slush fund with which to back its special projects. It is as a result of that profligacy that Gloucestershire county council finds itself in serious difficulties. When the Liberal leader of Gloucestershire county council was warned by Mr. Cockcroft, the treasurer of the county council, of the overspending, he waved it aside. In effect, he said, "We are not interested in this. We shall go ahead with this spending anyhow."
May I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's determination to cap Gloucestershire? During the election campaign many of my constituents were begging me to ensure that the county council was charge-capped.
Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is absolutely right in his description of the way in which my proposals are likely to be greeted in Gloucestershire. The effect of my proposals would be to reduce the average community charge for the residents of Gloucestershire by £25, which I believe they will warmly welcome. I believe also that they are convinced that they can have adequate services and good value for money at the lower levels that I propose.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Bearing in mind that Warwickshire has one of the lowest expenditures per pupil on education of all the counties and that Her Majesty's inspectors of both the fire service and the police force have expressed their concern about the low expenditure on those services, how would the Secretary of State advise Conservative county councillors to deal with the problems of underfunding? He has virtually disowned them as overspenders and said that he will cut the amount of money that they have. Has he not brought into ridicule the policy of poll tax capping which was brought forward by the Government?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's points are entirely misconceived. No doubt the first reaction that he would have if I tried to tell the leaders of Warwickshire county council how to spend their money would be to claim that I was interfering with local government and taking over their responsibilities. That is what would be said. I am

765
announcing the appropriate discharge of the responsibilities of central Government. Central Government's role in these matters is to control overall public expenditure and to protect the community charge payer. That is the purpose of the proposals that I am putting forward. As I have said, I shall be prepared to listen to anything that Warwickshire county council may put to me over the next 28 days or beyond, and to take into account in making my final decisions any further factors that it thinks are relevant.
Mr. Terry Dicks: In support of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must say that the Secretary of State's approach to Hillingdon is disgraceful to say the least. When he suggests that the authority is acting irresponsibly, along with the others, that is an insult to my Conservative colleagues on the council, who have made substantial savings over a period. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to withdraw that comment, a blanket comment which included my friends on the council. Does he not realise that with Heathrow in Hillingdon, and in my constituency, there is no choice but to pick up these children? During the election campaign many people suggested on their doorsteps that we should send the children back or leave them there. My right hon. and learned Friend must understand that unless he takes an understanding view of a problem that is not Hillingdon's but which involves it because of the airport—it is a national problem—he will have a fight on his hands with myself and my colleagues on the Hillingdon council.
Mr. Howard: I understand the seriousness of the concerns which my hon. Friend has expressed, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). We have sought to take into account all relevant factors that affect Hillingdon. I shall listen with great care to anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) or Hillingdon council may say, and ensure that we give proper weight to all the relevant circumstances. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, set out some clear criteria, which were known to all local authorities when they came to set their budgets for 1992–93. The criteria were known to Hillingdon as they were known to other local authorities. I regret that Hillingdon was not able to comply with the criteria and I shall pay careful attention to any representations that it wishes to make.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement affects councils across the political spectrum, takes away local accountability and imposes central diktat? Does he recognise the arbitrary nature of the formula, which has brought low-spending authorities such as Gloucestershire into capping? That is illustrated, for example, by the fact that boundary changes made to Cheltenham last year have not been taken into account. Will he promise the House that he will be genuinely open to persuasion over the next four weeks by all the councils that are affected, and that any formula for next year will only be one that has been agreed by him and the local authority associations?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I shall be genuinely open-minded about representations made to me on these
766
matters. He is wrong to suggest that the boundary changes that affected Cheltenham were not taken into account in my decision. We made full allowance for the boundary change in our calculations. It was my duty to protect community charge payers in Cheltenham, as in Gloucestershire generally, but I shall listen to any representations that Cheltenham or Gloucestershire wish to put to me in the next few weeks.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that in Warwickshire we have full regard for the need for economy in public finances and that Warwickshire county council has run its affairs stringently? Does he accept that any formula designed to apply across the country as a whole is bound to be broad-brush and will throw up anomalies? Will he, therefore, on appeal look carefully and, indeed, sympathetically at the case for relaxing the cap on Warwickshire? Will he also look at the application of the formula and, in particular, the area cost factor and the additional educational needs element in it, which have operated powerfully to the detriment of Warwickshire?
Mr. Howard: Again, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The whole purpose of the process that this statement puts in train is to enable the affected authorities to bring to my attention any factor that they think I may have overlooked or to which they think I may have given insufficient weight. Last year, we made a number of changes from the original proposals in response to representations of that kind. I shall listen carefully to all the representations that are made to me, including representations from Warwickshire in particular.
Mr. John Fraser: Before the Secretary of State smiles like a busy undertaker, may I remind him that in Lambeth it was the Tory party which had a resounding defeat? Although it is the second most deprived borough and has the highest poll tax bills in the country, does he realise that the effect of capping for the sake of about 50p a week will be only to throw many poll tax payers into confusion, because they have received their payment books already, and make it much more difficult to collect the poll tax, thereby creating greater financial problems for the future? It is bound to lead to a cut in services, particularly worryingly in education. Is it not, therefore, better to leave matters as they are, because the long-term costs of this capping will be to increase costs and make it much more difficult to get money in to spend on council services?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned that Lambeth receives from central funding £1,628 per adult towards the cost of local services—the sixth highest in the country and £200 per adult more than neighbouring Wandsworth. If Lambeth could manage its affairs efficiently and collected the money it was owed, there would be no need for charge payers to be faced yet again with the highest community charge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman dismisses the reduction of £23 in the average community charge in Lambeth, which would be the result of these proposals. Community charge payers in Lambeth will regard it as a significant advantage.
Mr. David Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sensational local election results in Basildon, with swings of between 20 and 50 per cent. towards the Conservatives, showed that the residents

767
were sick and tired of a rotten, high-spending, inefficient, socialist council and wanted sensible services and a low community charge? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my gratitude that that is what my constituents will now get?
Mr. Howard: I am delighted to have this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend and the councillors in the area that he represents on their astounding and spectacular victory on 7 May. I have put forward proposals for Basildon's budget for this year. I am confident that in future years, the new council of Basildon will adopt a very different and much more responsible attitude to these matters than its predecessor has done.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is all-party agreement on Greenwich council that the standard spending assessment formula treats Greenwich most unfairly? Will he comment on the situation in relation to the allocation per child on the children's services which gives Greenwich £39 per child and Wandsworth £209 per child? Will he also comment on the reduction that would come to Greenwich poll tax payers if they received grant in the generous way that it is received in Wandsworth? Would he and the Secretary of State for Education be prepared to come to Greenwich to meet parents and other residents and ask them directly whether they feel that Greenwich council spends too much on schools and adult education?
Mr. Howard: Greenwich is receiving £1,433 per adult from central funding in 1992–93, which is a rise of 5.1 per cent. on the previous year's figure. As for the SSA, the hon. Gentleman will have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I am prepared to consider, in the context put forward by my hon. Friend, representations that may be made to me about the SSA for Greenwich.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the great care and consideration he has shown before reaching decisions on these complex matters. Is he aware that in Gloucestershire, Conservative councillors and council officers produced a detailed budget showing that they could manage well within the existing record budget, and that only Liberal and Labour councillors there wanted to spend £10 million more? What effect would that have had on those on lower and fixed incomes?
Mr. Howard: I confess that I was not aware of what my hon. Friend just said, though it does not surprise me. It is a characteristic of the difference between Conservative local government and local government controlled by the other parties. I cannot give a figure in answer to the question that my hon. Friend asked, but the proposals that I have put forward today would reduce the average community charge in Gloucestershire by £25. I am sure that that would be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents.
Ms. Kate Hoey: I and other hon. Members representing Lambeth are disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken into consideration any of the remarkable improvements that have occurred in the borough's administration and in the delivery of services
768
during the past year. It is indeed sad that no recognition has been given to those improvements. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an all-community delegation will be anxious to come and see him to put Lambeth's case? Will he give a commitment now that he will see not just the leader and members of the council but a grouping of various people, including the churches and local police, who wish to see him to put Lambeth's case?
Mr. Howard: The representations that we shall be examining carefully will not in any way be limited to those from local authorities or councillors. If other interested bodies and groups wish to put points to us, we shall look at them with great care, give them full account and take them fully into consideration before reaching our final conclusion.
Mr. Douglas French: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by my constituents in the city of Gloucester, in so far as it relates to overspending by Gloucestershire county council? In the general election they voted decisively against Labour and Liberal policies, of which the overspending on Gloucestershire county council is a prime example. May I reserve judgment on his decision relating to Gloucester city council, in relation to which there may be some special factors which he should take into consideration?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about Gloucestershire. I understand that he wishes to reflect on the position in Gloucester. If he can convince me that there are special considerations which fall properly to be taken into account, I shall listen carefully to what he says.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister accept that a central problem facing Langbaurgh council over the years has been the way in which the SSA has been worked out, in that it has worked to the detriment of the council, to the point at which we no longer have any reserves left? He has assured the House that, on appeal, he will look at the way in which the SSA is worked out. If that is not the case, will he explain what will be the position? If he willing to look at how the standard spending assessment is worked out for specific councils, will he explain why he is suddenly prepared to do so when all-party delegations have approached his predecessors on the matter for the past six years and been refused?
Mr. Howard: I repeat that I shall take into account all relevant considerations in deciding whether I should modify the proposals that I have made today. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Lady and Langbaurgh council on the matters that they consider relevant. I understand the concern in many areas about aspects of those matters, which is why it is important that we have, as part of our process, a procedure that enables those representations to be made and requires them to be taken fully into account. That is what I shall be doing.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that Gloucestershire county council's budget will be reduced by the huge figure of £10 million. Does he agree that the charge reduction of £25

769
will lift a huge, unnecessary burden from my constituents in Cirencester and Tewkesbury, particularly those on fixed and low incomes?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the functions of central Government is to intervene where necessary to protect charge payers. That is why we have kept a capping power and why I have put forward those proposals today. My hon. Friend's remarks truly speak for his constituents.
Mr. Clive Betts: First, I presume that the Secretary of State is aware that the standard spending assessments that form part of his capping criteria are based on 1981 census data. Is he really telling the House that it is the act of a rational Government to determine the services to be provided to people in those 10 authorities on the basis of data collected 11 years ago?
Secondly, bearing in mind that two of the poll tax reductions are £3 and £5 a head, can the Secretary of State assure us that in all cases the savings to those councils and their poll tax payers will be greater than the cost of rebilling?
Mr. Howard: It is the act of a rational Government to make such decisions on the best information available to them. That is what we have done, but if any local authority or other interested party has better or more up-to-date information which they wish to draw to our attention, we shall look at it. That is the purpose of the process that begins with today's statement. Naturally, we have sought to take into account all relevant and up-to-date information leading up to my announcement today. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the cost of rebilling in the authorities to which he referred will not exceed the reduction in the size of the budget resulting from my proposals. That is one of the factors which we have considered and which has entered our decision-making process. The hon. Gentleman's assertion is not borne out by the facts.
Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Will he confirm that Warwickshire is being kept at £293 million, which represents a £6 million shortfall on the budget? Is he aware that if the cap is not lifted, it will have a strong adverse effect on the services offered by Warwickshire county council? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the real problem in Warwickshire is not a spendthrift local authority, because Warwickshire is careful, but the way in which the SSA operates? Can he assure the House that we can look forward to a reform of the SSA?
Mr. Howard: The proposed cap for Warwickshire is a fraction under £293 million. We keep the standard spending assessment constantly under review. We reviewed it last year and made certain changes to the methodology, from which Warwickshire benefited. We shall continue to keep it under review and I look forward to hearing any representations that my hon. Friend may wish to make on those problems.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If votes were to follow voices, the Government's overall majority would be down to about three. That is obvious from listening to the comments of the Conservative Members from Warwickshire. The capping system will never fit in
770
any circumstances because of the fiddled formula for standard spending assessments. One of the greatest fiddles is the provision for enhanced population, which in some cases is a reduced population. If an area is a seaside resort, if there is a racecourse there, or if there is any other reason why people move there, the funding is increased because of the way that the formula is operated.
In north-east Derbyshire, where people have to move I o Sheffield, Chesterfield or the Markham pit area to find work, the formula used means that the central Government grant is cut. We should stop the fiddle that affects Derbyshire county council, North-East Derbyshire council and other district councils in Derbyshire. I hope that some Conservative Member will speak on behalf of them.
Mr. Howard: There is no question of any fiddling in the standard spending assessment. It is a realistic attempt to reflect the different circumstances of different local authorities for the purpose of assessing Government grant. Labour Members always used to criticise the Government for reducing the proportion of spending on local government services that came from central Government. We have now substantially increased that provision, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) this afternoon criticised us for doing that. Labour Members really need to sort themselves out and introduce an element of consistency into their approach to these matters.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is it not true that not a single Derbyshire council, whether county or district, has taken the risk of being capped this year? They have learnt the lesson of two years ago when the county was capped by the then Secretary of State and the council had its fingers burnt.
What advice would my right hon. and learned Friend give to the teachers of Derbyshire who once again face redundancies in large numbers because of the county council's policy to keep the price of school meals at the same level as it was 11 years ago?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on her first point. The very fact that the number of authorities to be capped under our proposals is as few as 10 shows the extent to which our policies have succeeded. We set out the clear criteria in advance and the vast majority of authorities took careful note and ensured that their budgets complied with them.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I well understand the grievances that many residents of Derbyshire rightly have about the behaviour of Derbyshire county council. Their remedy lies in the ballot box and it will not be very long before they have an opportunity to make their views clearly known in that way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On many occasions since 1981, the people of Derbyshire have had the opportunity to use the ballot box. In 1981, they ousted the Tory group in Matlock. At the following election, the Labour party increased its majority, and at the following election it had another massive majority. At the last election, the two Tory Members of Parliament who are always calling for the sacking of teachers, home helps and everybody in sight who has to work for a living had their majorities cut—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is capable of asking questions and I am sure that he is going to do so straight away.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Conservative hon. Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who are always spouting in here, had their majorities cut by 4,000 and 8,000 votes?
Mr. Howard: For the second time in two days, I must refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory. I seem to recall—and I am sure that he remembers—the confident predictions that were made by Labour Members before the last election that neither of my hon. Friends would be with us after the general election. They are both here, they are both well, and they will both continue to speak for the people of Derbyshire for many, many years to come.
Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the only people whom we want sacked in Derbyshire are the Labour hangers-on, such as the chairman of Derbyshire Labour party and a bunch of ex-Labour councillors who have been given well-paid jobs on the county council by the Labour leader? On the two occasions on which the former Labour leader of the county council stood for election in Amber Valley —which was supposed to be a safe Labour seat—he was trounced, once by a majority of 9,500.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Derbyshire county council persists in wasting more than £15,000 a year with its policy of pegging school meals at 1981 price levels? That does not even help the children of the poorest families because they get free school meals. Is he further aware that, if capped, the council could make reasonable savings? The people of Derbyshire, with the exception of a few diehards in the Labour party, would welcome capping. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give extra special consideration to capping Derbyshire—that is, if it is not abolished in the meantime?
Mr. Howard: I understand the force that lies behind my hon. Friend's remarks. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) are the authentic voices of Derbyshire and they are sitting here today on behalf of the people of Derbyshire. Their voices will be recognised over the next few months and in the county council elections next year, which we await with confident expectation.
Mr. William O'Brien: I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the sincere appeals made to him by some Conservative Members about the capping announced in his appalling statement. Will he also
772
note that there is no such thing as standard assessment of spending in local government? Each local authority has its own problems, so to say that there is a standard spending assessment for each authority is misleading and wrong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should accept that standard spending assessments do not work. He should note what has been said by his colleagues this afternoon and cancel his statement.
Mr. Howard: I am not aware that any of my hon. Friends have asked me to cancel my statement; nor am I aware that any of them attacked the concept of capping. I shall take careful note of what they said and, indeed, of what Labour Members said. I shall certainly give careful consideration to all representations made to me on this matter.
In criticising standard spending assessments, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that as long as we accept that it is appropriate for central Government to make a substantial contribution to the costs of local government services—and I understand that that is common ground across the House—there will have to be a system by which that central Government contribution is allocated. We are never likely to arrive at a system that gains universal acclaim and enthusiasm in all quarters. That is impossible because of the nature of the process.
We shall continue to keep SSAs under review. I shall listen carefully to all representations, but I believe that my statement and the proposals that I put before the House will be widely welcomed as a serious contribution to the objectives of keeping general public spending under control and of protecting community charge payers in the areas that I propose to designate.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  That the draft Building Societies (Member States) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  NATIONAL CURRICULUM
  That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood]
  Question agreed to.

Ways and Means
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 10212/91 and COR2, the Commission's Annual Economic Report 1991–92.]
Madam Speaker: It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that the debate will take place on the first motion—amendment of the law. The remaining motions will be put at the end of the debate and they will be decided forthwith.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you clarify the position on the first resolution, which affects the provision of zero rating of tax and refunding of tax? Those subjects are covered in the Maastricht agreement, the treaty on which is being debated, as you know, next Wednesday and Thursday. In view of the provisions in the Maastricht agreement, if, by some unfortunate chance, the Bill is passed, will amending legislation have to be incorporated in the Bill to effect the provisions that we are discussing today?
Madam Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question. In due course, it will become a matter for Ministers, but the provisions in front of us are in order, and we must now proceed with them.
4.49 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move,

Ways and Means

  1. Amendment of the law
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

  It is nice to hear that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is confident that we shall secure our resolutions and that the Bill about which he is so worried will be passed.
  I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Francis Maude. This is the season of maiden speeches and, in that tradition, it is right to record the considerable achievements of my predecessor not only in tax, which is the interest of the House in this debate, but in a much wider range of responsibilities that he had in his time in the Treasury. He was the Minister responsible for the management of the citizens charter programme and for the introduction of the principles of better government which were enshrined in the White Paper "Competing for Quality". The themes for which he was responsible as Financial Secretary are themes to which we shall return repeatedly during this Parliament and during the rest of the decade. I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that I very much hope that Francis will soon be back among us playing his distinguished part in our debates.
  The resolutions before the House represent the practical demonstration and putting into effect of another of the major themes of the 1990s. They are not new: they are a continuation of the Budget debate, because almost all of them were on the Order Paper during the Budget debate
  774
  before the general election campaign and were resolutions on which that debate took place. The debate did not stop when Parliament was dissolved. Rather, it moved into the country. No one can doubt that the debates in the general election campaign were a continuation of the Budget debate that had started in the House.
  Furthermore, the issues on which the Budget debate centred were at the heart of the election campaign. The electorate were given a clear choice between the resolutions set down after my right hon. Friend's Budget, based on his commitment to a continued programme of reduction and rationalisation of the tax burden, and the programme espoused and articulated by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). They represented an increase in the tax burden of £7 billion, and that was only the first instalment of what he hoped to introduce.
  Given that clear choice, the decision of the electorate was decisive. The best news for my right hon. and hon. Friends would be if the Labour party elected the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East as its leader, because we are already preparing the ground for a rerun of that debate in four or five years time. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends look forward with keen anticipation to continuing that debate in the country.
  I thought that the House might find it helpful if I took some time to explain how the resolutions fit with the measures announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget on 10 March. The principal purpose of the resolutions is to complete the implementation of my right hon. Friend's Budget measures. If the House approves them, we shall publish a Finance Bill containing the necessary provisions on 20 May.
  In the Finance Act passed before the general election, the House approved many of my right hon. Friend's most important Budget measures. That Act confirmed the Budget changes in the rates of excise duties, VAT penalties and the halving of car tax. It cut income tax from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. on the first £2,000 of taxable income. It also overrode statutory indexation to keep unchanged the levels of the married couples allowance for under-65s and the basic rate limit. The Act also introduced monthly payments on account for the largest VAT payers.
  A number of other Budget measures did not require Finance Bill legislation. For example, the income tax personal and age-related allowances rose in line with inflation under the statutory indexation provisions. Indexation of the income tax car scale charges and the VAT registration threshold were implemented by Treasury orders. So too were changes to the VAT treatment of cars, and extensions of VAT reliefs for charities.
  Thus, many of the most significant Budget measures are, I am pleased to say, already law. We are now proceeding with all the remaining tax changes announced in the Budget and before.
  Perhaps the most important of the Budget measures left to be implemented are the changes to business rates. These will be worth £480 million in 1992–93 and £590 million in 1993–94 to businesses throughout the United Kingdom. They will be implemented by the Local Government (Finance) Bill announced in the Gracious Speech.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that in Scotland there is continuing dissatisfaction among businesses about the fact that business rates paid by Scottish-based businesses and those

  775
  paid by businesses based in England differ to the tune of £450 million a year. The Government have said that they intend to close that gap. When will that be achieved? How long will it take? When can businesses in Scotland be expected to compete on an equal footing with comparable businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Dorrell: When the Government give commitments to change the tax system, we implement them in good order and in reasonable time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a clear end date to the process that he is probing, but I am sure that, if a commitment has been given, it will be carried out.
  Of the Budget measures left to the Finance Bill, perhaps the most significant are changes to inheritance tax. Although resolutions are not required, the Bill will, as my right hon. Friend promised on Budget day, raise the threshold for inheritance tax to £150,000, backdated to 10 March. It will also free most business assets from inheritance tax altogether, fulfilling another promise made by my right hon. Friend in his Budget.
  So much for the provisions of the forthcoming Finance Bill that do not require resolutions. The resolutions that are the subject of today's debate fall into four categories. First, some prepare the way for the implementation of those Budget measures that have not yet become law. Secondly, some provide the changes to the indirect tax system consequent on the completion of the European single market on 1 January 1993. Thirdly, some address a number of technical issues designed to improve the working of the tax system. Fourthly, some provide for two new measures, which were announced last week.
  In the first group, resolutions 11 and 12 set the main and small companies rates of corporation tax at 33 and 25 per cent. in the financial year 1992. We have the lowest headline rates within the European Community and the G7 countries. As a result of this and of other measures introduced last year, companies will pay £1 billion less in corporation tax in 1992–93 than otherwise would have been the case. The United Kingdom corporation tax regime for smaller companies is one of the most generous in the industrialised world. Over 80 per cent. of United Kingdom tax-paying companies are liable at the small companies rate of 25 per cent., which is applied when profits do not exceed £250,000.
  Another provision of importance to many businesses that was announced by my right hon. Friend concerned capital allowances for computer software. Resolution 21 paves the way for the changes that he announced. At present, most business expenditure on computer software is allowable for tax purposes either as a deduction for revenue expenditure or, if it is capital expenditure, under the capital allowances regime.
  However, capital expenditure on the right to use software, including expenditure on licences, does not qualify for relief because capital allowances are available only where the taxpayer has outright ownership of the asset concerned. Similarly, capital expenditure on software which has, for example, been transferred by electronic transmission does not qualify for any form of tax relief because the taxpayer has not acquired a tangible asset. The new rules will ensure that all capital expenditure on computer software qualifies for capital allowances on the same basis as plant and machinery used by a business.
  776
  As for income tax, the Bill will implement my right hon. Friend's proposal to give couples more choice over the allocation of the married couple's allowance. The new arrangements will allow married couples to transfer the whole allowance from husband to wife or to split it equally, and will come into force next year. They extend choice, and give fairer treatment in the tax system to women—a process that started with the introduction of independent taxation in the last Parliament.
  Resolution 22 will modify the tax rules for maintenance payments following the introduction of the new Child Support Agency. At present, maintenance payments made under a court order to a divorced or separated spouse qualify for tax relief. The change will ensure that maintenance that has been assessed by the Child Support Agency will also qualify for tax relief in the same way. In addition, maintenance collected by the agency on behalf of a divorced or separated person will qualify for tax relief in the same way as it would if it had been paid directly to that person. The changes will begin when the Child Support Agency starts to operate, probably in April 1993.
  The Bill will also contain provisions to bring to an end tax relief under the business expansion scheme at the end of 1993, while in the interim allowing the BES to be used for mortgage rescue schemes. The business expansion scheme for assured tenancies—which now accounts for the overwhelming majority of BES funds—was due to expire then in any case. Both that and the BES generally have given a valuable boost to equity investment, and to investment in private rented housing. They were always intended as time-limited pump primers. They have served their purpose, and, as my right hon. Friend said in his Budget, the time has come to end them.
  The second group of resolutions—resolutions 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9—deal with the consequences of the European single market for the indirect tax system. The single market will involve the abolition of tax and duty controls at internal EC frontiers from 1 January 1993. That will bring great benefits and cost savings to business, to add to all the benefits that flow from other aspects of the single market programme. I regret to inform the House, however, that the programme also involves a substantial quantity of legislation.
  In negotiations within the Community, and in drafting the necessary legislation, we have sought to consult business, for it is business that will have to operate the new systems. Throughout the negotiations, the United Kingdom has insisted that the burdens on business should be kept to a minimum. All the VAT and excise legislation on the single market has also been issued in the form of draft clauses for consultation. Therefore, not only will it receive detailed scrutiny in the House, but it has already been exposed to those who will have to operate it.
  Let me briefly explain the key elements of the changes. First, there is VAT. At present, exports are zero-rated for VAT, and VAT is charged on imports. Control of the system is linked to physical controls at frontiers, and the necessary paper work is separate from the normal VAT return. With the single market, those physical controls, and much of the paper work that went with them, will be swept away. Liability to VAT will in future arise as a result not of importation, but of acquisition by the purchaser.
  Sales to VAT-registered traders in other member states will continue to be zero-rated. VAT will be payable when goods or services are acquired from another member state. In such cases, VAT will be collected through the normal

  777
  VAT return, not separately as at present. Resolution 8 paves the way for that change, which will be implemented by Finance Bill clauses that were issued in draft at the end of February.
  Secondly, there will have to be changes to excise duties. The principle will be that duty is paid at the rate that applies in the country of consumption. Excise goods will continue to move within the Community, under duty suspension, between bonded warehouses. To cater for traders who wish to place goods on the market immediately, provision has been made for goods to move from a bonded warehouse in one member state to a registered trader in another and then directly into the market place.
  In the United Kingdom, those registered traders will be called REDS—whatever their political complexion. Their designation under last year's Finance Act as registered excise dealers and shippers—REDS for short—is a welcome sign that someone either in Brussels or in Customs and Excise has a sense of humour. Resolution 6 paves the way for provisions to complete the changes that were initiated last year.
  As the House already knows, the single market legislation provides that goods on which tax and duty have been paid elsewhere in the Community can be brought back by travellers for their personal use; but United Kingdom tax and duty must be paid on any goods brought in by travellers for resale. That is like an acquisition for VAT. Compliance can be controlled through traders' accounts as well as through the use of declarations at ports. The existing "travellers' allowances" for those arriving from other EC countries will be abolished, but, to help Customs to distinguish between commercial transactions and private importation for personal use, the Council of Ministers has agreed minimum "indicative levels" for alcohol and tobacco. Above those levels, goods will be deemed to be for commercial use unless the traveller can satisfy the Customs authorities that they are indeed for personal use.
  The House has considered all that in another form, but legislation will be needed to enact the new levels, to enable Customs to check compliance with them and to support the new excise arrangements generally. Again, Customs has consulted the trade on draft clauses for the Finance Bill, and resolution 7 paves the way for their inclusion in the Bill. I remind the House that duty-free shopping will remain until July 1999, as a result of successful negotiations led last year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The third group of resolutions address a number of technical issues designed to improve the working of the tax system. Most tax legislation works in the way in which the House and Parliament intend it to work, and people end up paying the right amount of tax. Sometimes, however, tax rules are found to be either more or less stringent than expected, with perverse results. That usually comes to light in the day-to-day dealings that taxpayers or their advisers have with Revenue departments, or when their interpretation is challenged in the courts. The Finance Bill will deal with a number of such cases.
  Resolutions 13 and 14 reflect measures announced last November, well before the Budget. Both seek to correct defects in the rules governing the tax treatment of groups of companies. One covers the capital gains tax rules for assets leaving groups, while the other covers group relief share arrangements. Drafts of the clauses covering both
  778
  measures were issued earlier this year, and a number of points made in the consultations will be reflected in the final Finance Bill clauses.
  Both company group measures are meant to ensure that tax reliefs are available only as Parliament originally intended, and are not expanded in any way unintended by Parliament. But another measure, which corrects a defect in the law on enterprise zones, relaxes the rules where they are currently being interpreted more harshly than was intended. Our intention to legislate on that was announced last December, when we spoke of our intention to introduce changes to the legislation on capital allowances available on enterprise zone buildings.
  The provisions included in the Finance Bill will correct a defect in the law, and will relax the rules for purchasers of used buildings. They will also curtail the open-ended nature of the relief, and target it better towards its original aim of short to medium-term regeneration in rundown areas. The balance of the three measures demonstrates that improving the working of the tax system does not always work to the advantage of the tax gatherer. All three will apply from the date of their announcement.
  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced proposals to close another loophole. Companies were manipulating the business tax rules to defer tax when rent was paid between connected persons. That loophole will be closed with effect from Budget day, and it is covered by resolution 15.
  Resolution 19 deals with a tax that has now been abolished, composite rate tax, which was levied on bank and building society interest. Its abolition by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his 1990 Budget means that non-taxpayers can now enjoy their bank and building society savings free of tax. The House will recall that, during debates on last year's Finance Bill, there were extensive discussions about the transitional arrangements in 1985–86 to accommodate a change in the way in which composite rate tax was collected from building societies. The result was that last year's Finance Act confirmed Parliament's original intention.
  The new provision, which I announced in a written answer last week, is related to the composite rates set for the four subsequent years. It results from a legal challenge initiated by the Leeds Permanent building society, which argues that the composite rates set for those years have been inadvertently rendered invalid by last year's legislation. Whatever the technical merits of that case—I have to say that the Government are convinced that the rates were legally and validly set—the consequence could be a loss of composite rate tax for four full years. Huge sums of up to £15 billion could be involved. This is tax that has been paid and that has been reflected in the interest paid to investors.
  The normal course would be for the Government to wait for the Leeds to test the validity of its actions in the courts, but that could take several years to resolve. In the meantime, there would be doubt and uncertainty over the Government's legal claim to a huge sum of revenue. No one can seriously suggest that it was Parliament's intention that no tax at all should be collected on bank and building society interest for those four years. We have therefore decided to put the matter beyond doubt now by confirming Parliament's original intention in setting the composite rates for the four financial years 1986–87 to

  779
  1989–90. As I announced last week, the provision will be retrospective to all composite rate taxpayers, without exception.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I confirm what the Financial Secretary said: that it was Parliament's intention that the composite rate tax should be calculated as it was calculated. What has changed, however, is that retroactive legislation has been passed by this House, without regard to its effect on the composite rate tax. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that what is at issue is not the £15 billion, which the Government collected and virtually all of which they need to keep, but, at the most, 1 per cent. of that, which is £150 million, and probably only half or even a smaller proportion than that?I do not want to anticipate the Finance Bill debates, but I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would confirm that.
  Mr. Dorrell: I suspect that we may return to this matter during the passage of the Finance Bill, but I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right to say that the motivation of the Leeds Permanent building society is to draw attention to what it believes to have been an injustice at the time that the transitional arrangements were made. However, what I cannot confirm is that that is the effect of the action that the Leeds Permanent building society has brought. The effect of the action that it has brought, if its arguments were upheld, would be to render invalid the basis upon which composite rate tax was collected for four years. It is a matter of history that, during the four years in question, the yield from composite rate tax was £15 billion.
  Finally, among these technical measures, I come to two further proposals that I am announcing today. The first concerns the special tax regime for life assurance companies that goes back to 1915. That regime reflects the fact that most of a life office's investment income will ultimately go to its policyholders. It has always been accepted that the income attributable to policyholders could quite properly be taxed while the company itself made a trading loss.
  That view has recently been challenged by two companies. We are advised that the legal underpinning for that long-standing, established practice is less robust than was generally thought. We shall therefore be introducing clauses to correct the law and ensure that it does indeed reflect established and long-standing practice. As it often take some years finally to settle the accounts of insurance companies, the change will be made retrospective, with application to all life assurance companies. Anything less than full retrospection on this point would, I believe, confer unjustifiable and capricious windfall gains on some companies whose accounts remain open, and could cost the Exchequer several hundred million pounds.
  The second proposal that I am announcing today arises from a recent decision of the special commissioners. They ruled that payments made under equity notes—which are a form of perpetual debt instrument—were interest for tax purposes. The effect of that ruling is to allow multinational companies to exploit asymmetries between different countries' tax regimes. I am advised that, if no action were taken, there could be a loss to the Exchequer of up to £150 million, a year. The Government therefore propose to bring forward legislation in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
  780
  The legislation will have two components. First, it will restore the general understanding of the thin capitalisation provisions of certain double taxation agreements to what it was before the special commissioners' decision. Secondly, it will establish the relevant domestic law to include payments under equity notes in the definition of distributions. The legislation will apply to all payments made from midnight tonight. We believe that some aspects of the special commissioners' ruling are bound to be a departure from previously established practice. Accordingly, the Inland Revenue is seriously considering an appeal against that ruling.
  Most of the resolutions before the House today appeared immediately after the Budget, but were withdrawn once the election was announced; but there is one resolution that reflects a new measure announced since the Budget. This is resolution No. 4. It paves the way for changes to the vehicle excise duty exemption for disabled people. These are being made as a result of changes to disability allowances that came into force on 6 April. As announced last week, in future the VED exemption for disabled drivers will be linked to the higher level of the mobility component of the new disability living allowance. That is in line with the previous entitlement, which was linked to mobility allowance.
  The Government, however, have decided that it is no longer possible to continue to operate the exemption for disabled passengers. The Bill will therefore repeal it. This is necessary, because the old scheme for disabled passengers has become virtually impossible to administer, given that disability living allowance and attendance allowance are now self-assessed benefits. However, transitional arrangements will ensure that no individual who currently receives it loses the exemption.
  The Finance Bill will also contain provisions that will give effect to the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget to improve tax reliefs for charitable giving. My right hon. Friend proposed to reduce the minimum donation qualifying for tax relief under the gift aid scheme from £600 to £400. He announced that the reduced limit would take effect from 1 July. To speed the benefit to charities and to donors, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced recently that we have decided to bring forward the starting date for these measures to 7 May. I believe that this change will be widely welcomed by charities.
  Before concluding, may I take this opportunity to inform the House of developments on one item included in the Budget that will not appear in the Bill, as published, but about which new clauses will be tabled during the passage of the Bill? My right hon. Friend announced his intention to bring forward two measures designed to alleviate the cash flow problems of the film industry. The first would allow film makers relief for pre-production expenditure as it is incurred. The second would allow production expenditure to be written off for tax purposes at a rate of 331/3; per cent. per annum, starting on the completion of the film.
  In drafting the details of the legislation it has been necessary to draw on film industry definitions of, for example, pre-production expenses. We have consulted representatives of the industry on the relevant definitions and have received helpful input from them. In addition, I have received representations from the industry on certain aspects of the proposals which I shall want to consider

  781
  fully in formulating the legislation. In the circumstances, it has not been possible to complete the drafting of the necessary clauses to appear in the Bill when it is published, but we shall introduce new clauses dealing with those issues during the passage of the Bill.
  The resolutions are largely technical but, although some of the material and content may appear dry, the purpose behind them is clear and addresses the real concerns of many millions of people. The Finance Bill that rests on the resolutions will take a stage further the Government's commitment to reduce the tax burden and sharpen incentives and rewards for wealth creation. That is the promise that we made to the electorate on 9 April, and it is a promise that we shall keep. I commend the resolutions to the House.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: This is the first opportunity that I have had, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to welcome you to the Chair and to congratulate you on your appointment. I also congratulate you on your astuteness in arranging to chair part of what is to be a long Finance Bill, but which is at least limited by time.
  It is not easy to present these measures as evidence of a renewed and invigorated Government coming to the House with big ideas for the 1990s; and, to his credit, the new Financial Secretary did not try to do that. As ever with the Conservative party, it is not really possible to defend these measures on the ground of social justice; and, to his credit, he did not try to do that either. It is not easy to present these measures as evidence of competent public administration, but, because it is his job to do so, the Financial Secretary did try to do that. I congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the Front Bench during the first of what will be many Treasury debates. In the traditional spirit—at least for me—of what are still, regrettably, the Opposition, I want to be as helpful to him as I can. I shall draw his attention to what I think are some of the potentially difficult areas. However, having heard his speech, I think that he has discovered the principal one for himself—resolution 19.
  Resolution 19 paves the way for a repeat of last year's composite rate debate. The new Financial Secretary may wonder why it is necessary. He may wonder why the primary legislation of 1985 was not comprehensive enough to cover the areas in dispute. He may wonder why the Inland Revenue got it wrong, at least according to the courts, in the regulations that it issued in 1986. He may wonder why the Government did not deal with the uncertainty by amending legislation, possibly in 1987 or, at the latest, in 1988. He may ask why the legislation that we passed last year was incapable of dealing with certainty with the issue that it was supposed to be addressing, leaving us to address the whole business again this year.
  As the Financial Secretary will probably have appreciated by now, the Government could have got the legislation right last year. Had they done so, it would surely be possible for them to rely on the courts to decide the issue safely. I cannot believe that the Minister is telling the House that he has no faith in the British courts or the House of Lords, which gave us the original Woolwich building society judgment. Apart from the rather obvious point about there being £15 billion at stake, the Financial Secretary may well be wondering, quite reasonably, why
  782
  and who is responsible. My advice was to be, "Don't ask." However, I see that he has already discovered who told the House:
  "The attraction of composite rate has always been that it allows small amounts of tax to be collected with ease from very large numbers of people. It is very convenient and very cost-effective".—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1025].
  The same person then went on to abolish composite rate tax.
  As I have said, the Financial Secretary has wisely discovered who it was and my advice is not to emphasise that aspect of the problem. However, perhaps when he is discussing these matters with senior colleagues he could persuade the Prime Minister to revisit his old home on the Committee Corridor when these matters are before the Finance Bill Committee. He could look in on the debate on building society composite rate tax and, feigning surprise, could say "It is still there; it is." Perhaps he could say that with the same amount of conviction he displayed in the first Tory party political broadcast before the election.
  I must alert the Financial Secretary to the possibility that the Government could be back next year with a clause to remove these matters from the competence of the courts. The clause could say that the Inland Revenue's interpretation of the legislation is final and has the force of law. The Financial Secretary seems a nice enough person and I hope that he is not the one who has to persuade the House that we should legislate in that way. That is the direction in which this shambles seems to be moving. It is a pathetic and incompetent episode. I fully accept that it is not of the present Financial Secretary's making; he will have his opportunities soon enough.
  Resolution 9 paves the way for harmonising—in Britain's case that means reducing—car tax rates across the European Community. The choices before the Government are to forgo the revenue, raise the revenue elsewhere or introduce a new car levy that is not strictly an excise duty to replace the lost revenue. The cut in car tax to 5 per cent. in the Budget may give a clue about the Government's thinking. If that is so, in the reply to the debate, will the Financial Secretary tell us whether we can expect extra taxation elsewhere in the economy or is the effect of this allowed for in the future estimates of the public sector borrowing requirement?
  It may be that resolution 5 reveals the way in which the Government intend to recoup the loss implied by resolution 9. Here, the Government's big idea is the sale of personalised car number plates. No doubt grateful junior Ministers have already clubbed together to purchase MAJOR as a present for their boss. Selling registration marks directly is not a bad idea, but it is not a big idea. It is the product of the sort of minds that can come up with the national lottery and a Secretary of State for National Heritage to run it—not the Treasury—but cannot come up with ideas about unemployment, economic growth, manufacturing industry output, the balance of payments deficit and the increasing poverty and homelessness.
  The increase in poverty leads me to resolution 10, which paves the way for the consequential provisions following the new 20 per cent. tax band. When abolishing the lower rate band in 1980, Sir Geoffrey Howe told the House that the case for the lower rate band was never clear. Of course, that was after an election, not before.
  The Government's claim is that an average single-earner family gains £2.64 per week from the measure. The

  783
  fact is that 72p of that £2.64 is due entirely to annual indexation in line with inflation. The 250,000 families who pay tax but also receive family credit lose 70p in benefit for every £1 that they gain in the tax cut. The increases in excise duties that were announced in the same Budget cost the same average single-earner family £1.56 per week. All that leaves a net loss for the low paid of 76p per week.
  Nobody can seriously believe that the Conservative party intends to assist the least-well-off; there is too much evidence to the contrary. The Select Committee on Social Services told the House that between 1979 and 1988 the poorest 10 per cent. of households endured a cut of 6.2 per cent. in real terms in their living standards. The study by Professor Townsend of Bristol university found that over the decade between 1979 and 1989 the real annual disposable income of the poorest fifth of households fell by £160. Over the same period the figure for the richest fifth rose by an astonishing £8,000.
  The Prime Minister said that he wants a classless society, yet, as Chief Secretary and Chancellor, he presided over the most regressive shift in the tax burden of modern times. In 1979 the poorest 20 per cent. of our fellow citizens paid 30.5 per cent. of their total income in taxes, both direct and indirect. By 1988 the Conservative Government had moved the total tax take from the poorest 20 per cent. of the population from 30.5 per cent. to an obscene 397 per cent. Did they realise the error of their ways in 1988? Did the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now the Prime Minister—say that that was not the way to create a classless society? No, he did not. Like the rest of the Cabinet, he supported the poll tax which gave a further twist to the regressive direction of our tax system.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Could not the explanation of the problem be that the Prime Minister does not accept that the problem exists? On "Election Call" on 31 March when that information was put to him, he answered:
  "I don't accept your statistics"
  and went on to say that he did not believe that the gap had widened. If the Prime Minister does not accept the facts, is there any chance that the Government will deal with the problem?
  Mr. Brown: There is a dislocation between saying that one believes in a classless society and then doing nothing to bring it about. The facts are absolutely overwhelming and many of those to which I am referring are drawn from the Government's own answers to parliamentary questions. It is difficult for the Prime Minister, who is presiding over the Government, to say convincingly that he does not accept the facts that his Ministers are providing for the House.
  When we challenged the Government on these issues, they did not defend what they were trying to do in the light of the available evidence. The Treasury ducked, weaved, evaded and did everything but answer parliamentary questions on the distributive effect of the poll tax, but the real effects of a decade and a halls redistribution of the tax burden are clear enough to any Member of Parliament with an inner city constituency. Real cuts in the income of the poorest, combined with long-term withdrawal of
  784
  employment opportunities, create the circumstances that we saw on Tyneside last summer. This Finance Bill offers no hope or even change for this summer.
  What of the better-off? In 1979, the wealthiest 20 per cent. of our fellow citizens paid 37.6 per cent. of their total income in all taxes, direct and indirect. By 1988, the Conservative party had got that figure down to 34.5 per cent. and was introducing the poll tax to reduce that burden still further by shifting it from the wealthiest 20 per cent. to the rest. Even without the poll tax, by 1988 the wealthiest 20 per cent. of our society were paying less tax as a proportion of their total income than the poorest 20 per cent.—34.5 per cent. for the wealthiest compared with 39.7 per cent. for the poorest. From 1988, the position of the poorest deteriorated further, largely due to the regressive effect of the poll tax.
  By 1991, a two-child family on 75 per cent. of average earnings was paying 34.9 per cent. of its income in direct and indirect taxes. There was an increase in the rates and the community charge element from 3.5 per cent. in 1979 to 6.2 per cent. in 1991. No wonder the Treasury was shy at the time and for a substantial period after about releasing those figures.
  This Budget and the motions fall to be considered at the end of more than a decade of regressive redistribution of the tax burden. Given that the Government have had two sets of Budget resolutions and two Finance Bills for one Budget and that a parade of Treasury Ministers—old and new—has fought for this Budget in the House, one would have thought that there might be something in it, that there might be an important stepping stone towards a classless society. Not a bit of it. There is nothing for the unemployed, nothing for training, nothing for industry and pitifully little even for small businesses about which the Conservatives say that they care. Most importantly, the financial resolutions offer no comfort to the millions of people whom the Government have pushed into poverty in the past decade.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on the way in which he delivered his speech. It was all the more enjoyable to hear because he has an engaging style involving understatement. Had the same style been used during the general election by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks for Treasury matters on behalf of the Labour party, the Labour party might not have done so badly. Clearly, one style works within the Labour party and another works across the country.
  It might also be a good thing if the Labour party chose its leaders according to what they said and how they said it rather than according to their looks or their forensic debating skills—it might find that more of the country identified with it.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is good looking.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Lady starts to make a speech, I might make the same remarks about her, but for the moment I shall concentrate on her hon. Friend.
  The resolutions raise a number of issues. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for

  785
  Newcastle upon Tyne, East referred to the £15 billion covered in—I think—resolution No. 19 which was foreshadowed in a parliamentary answer on 7 May to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Before dealing with that, I refer to one or two other issues.
  It is worth noting that the casualties of the election included not only Francis Maude but John Maples, whom I hope we shall see back in the House. Although he and I were unable to agree on resolution No. 19, I think that the whole House will recognise that he made a valuable contribution and would be able to do so again if he were to be re-elected. Of course, we may see the same happening with the many members of the Labour party who have returned as retreads. I am sure that many of them will join their party's Front Bench soon, although perhaps not as quickly as one of the Liberal Democrats who seemed to be speaking for his party at Question Time this afternoon in his first week in Parliament.
  One important issue to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East did not refer was confidence. There is no doubt that there will be a greater air of confidence within the economy and among ordinary households—of whatever level of income—now that the uncertainty of the general election is out of the way. It would be possible for the Conservatives to argue that a Conservative victory will lead to more confidence sooner and that people will put their efforts and talents into new small businesses and into extra education and training in the hope that the rewards will stick with them and with their families.
  I do not wish to make too much of a partisan point because I think that, in its review of the consequences of the general election, the new model Labour party will adopt most of the social democratic policies against which it fought—some rather more successfully in the past few weeks than in previous years. In view of the change in the Labour party's constitution and its change in approach, I believe that more Labour hon. Members will speak more clearly on behalf of those who set up their own businesses.
  I do not exclude the importance of the industrial and manufacturing sector, but it is in the service sector—whether in retail or other services—that more people take risks with their family prosperity. I believe that the Labour party will speak more clearly for them, and I hope that the Government will also recognise more clearly what an immense burden has been carried in the past three years by people in small business, in the service sector and in retail.
  For people whose businesses were built over generations, it was a personal tragedy to have them wiped out as a result of the massive recession. I pay tribute to those who have pulled themselves out of bankruptcy or liquidation and who are willing to have another go. We need to create circumstances in which the rewards for success appear to balance properly the risks of failure. That is where lower levels of taxation, an understanding of the risks that people are bearing and the ways in which taxes are imposed matter. However, with regard to the national insurance and tax system, we should be well advised to continue to ensure that people who owe money pay regularly.
  Often, when people get behind, they find that the money that they should have paid to the public authorities has gone elsewhere; when businesses crash, it is even worse. Thus, as with the payment of rent, the community charge, the rates we had or the council tax as it will be, it
  786
  is important to have a system whereby people accept their obligations on time. I recommend that the brain boxes at the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise find a way to impose a tax penalty on big businesses which do not pay their bills to sub-contractors on time. An element of self-discipline would be greatly welcomed and would add to the velocity of circulation of money. I am sure that people considering expenditure and inflation will say that we would need to compensate for that, but it would be appreciated by contractors and sub-contractors.
  I shall deal with some details, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will forgive me if I do not stick to all the resolutions before us but deal with some of those which might be thought of. One resolution deals with high earners from overseas.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to some help to be given to the film industry. There are two problems in the performing arts in that respect. One is that some very high earners—whether stars or producers—are reluctant to make films in this country because of the way in which the tax system works. Without asking for a detailed response from him today, may I suggest that my hon. Friend or some of his colleagues get together with those who are trying to put together projects in order to ascertain the impact.
  As a middle income earner, I hesitate to say this, but sometimes, if we give some of the very high earners who are resident or normally work overseas, an apparent or actual better deal to come and perform here or create productions, whether on film or in the theatre, here, we find that more of our people are employed as technicians and in supporting those activities in other ways. If we did that in future, we would again become a centre of production and a centre of excellence for the performing arts—that would be important. Some people in the profession would be able to talk with some authority on the subject, and discussing it with them would be useful.
  At the other end of the scale, we have not yet solved the problem of the difficulty and expense caused by the intermittent working patterns when people first come into the performing arts. People trying to earn a living as professional musicians or actors or something similar find themselves moving in and out of their desired employment, which involves expenses not fully recognised by the Inland Revenue. I am not sure whether a problem with VAT would arise, because people would not reach the threshold early. Will consideration be given to that, perhaps in consultation with some of the leaders of the acting profession, especially those involved in the Actors Benevolent Fund, who often have to pick up the pieces? It may be possible to find ways, at relatively low cost, to help people on to the first or second step of the ladder and allow them to carry on in their chosen profession.
  If the national lottery and the Department of National Heritage can refurbish many more of the buildings in which people perform, we could find that more people are employed in entertainment, too. Help at the early stages would, of course, help people to become successful and go on paying more tax—which most people are happy to do at the rates that we are now introducing.
  I know that the House will have other opportunities to consider the national lottery Bill when it is introduced, but I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary now whether there will be an explanation of where the mythical £1,000 million will come from. We keep hearing that £1,000 million a year in extra money will be available for the arts,

  787
  heritage, sport and many other good causes. I do not believe that it is possible for more than one third of the stake money to emerge as good cause money. There will be friction costs, and some return to the prizewinners. I do not see the prizewinners settling for less than one third of what is staked, nor the other elements in the friction costs, such as retail distribution, amounting to less than one third, so we are talking about £3,000 million.
  A reasonably high proportion of the money staked on horse racing comes back each time it is staked, so although there may be a turnover of, say, £3,000 million, there is only about £1,000 million of new money each year—at least, there is a multiplication factor; I probably have not got the figures quite right.
  In contrast, most of the money won on the national lottery will not be recycled into it but will be used for other purposes. The money which goes to good causes will not be recycled into the national lottery; nor will the friction costs. In effect, if the result is to be £1,000 million, we are talking about an extra £3,000 million being used for this form of spending—to use a neutral word.
  We know nothing about the taxation proposals, but most other forms of gaming and gambling carry heavy taxation—the taxation that would have been a feature of a Ways and Means resolution in the past. While the details of the national lottery Bill are being considered, people should come out into the open. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary whether there will be a clear statement on whether the deadline of 1 June in the White Paper is firm, or whether it is a target and there can be more discussion.
  I believe that no one outside the House, and very few people inside, have given serious consideration to the idea of an extra £3,000 million in new gambling. That is roughly equivalent to all current gambling. My fear is not only that shared in Liverpool, with Vernons, Littlewoods and the other football pools people, with their genuine interests and staff interests; it is that we shall see unrestrained gambling and gaming.
  There are restrictions on current gambling. For example, the football pools companies cannot use shops or television promotions. I believe that there have been four or five gambling and gaming Acts, all based on the assumption that those activities should satisfy a demand that is there, but should not stimulate more demand. I do not believe that it will be possible to keep the national lottery draw off the television. How can we allow that—and probably advertising for it, too—if we do not allow other forms of gambling and gaming the same facility?
  I do not want this country to be seen as the gaming and gambling capital of the world. I do not want to sound too puritan, or Calvinist, but there is common sense in our present approach, which is to make provision for gambling and gaming tables, but not to allow those activities to be stimulated. Too many people would risk too much. I do not wish to go into too much detail now, but there is a series of questions that the Government should answer over the next few weeks.
  In passing, I understand that the Home Office gambling and gaming team has not moved to the Department of National Heritage. It is difficult to see a proper distinction or differentiation being made between the responsibilities
  788
  of the Home Office team and the team which I am sure is now being created in the Department of National Heritage.
  I hope that the Churches and others concerned with social conditions will pay attention to the issues—not because it is necessarily right or proper to block the national lottery Bill, but to try to ensure that issues are considered in advance, rather than our simply finding ourselves with the benefit of the money, but with the "disbenefit" that many people's lives will be wrecked by the temptation of instant success.
  I pay tribute to the pools industry for the fact that people in general do not stake large sums on the pools. A very few may win large sums but they do not stake too much. Very few people's lives are made difficult because of the money that they have put on the football pools.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Churches while he was talking about the national lottery. Perhaps he would encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends in government to take notice of the views of the Churches in the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard that remark. We should retain a focus on the experience of the Republic of Ireland. Some of the promises made there did not turn out to be accurate.
  Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend is taking an unusually Cromwellian and gloomy view of people. As we already have a national lottery, called the premium bonds, can he tell us how many people have gone bankrupt as a result of buying those?
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The stake money on premium bonds is available to be paid back. It may be affected by inflation, but as we are now aiming at stable prices, premium bonds may become an even better deal.
  Several changes have been made affecting charitable giving. Most have been welcome, and I am sure that others will be suggested. The gift aid schemes and give-as-you-earn schemes need more publicity rather than all those changes in the legislation.
  I pay tribute to Mr. Russell Twisk, the editor of the Reader's Digest, who has taken positive action with his colleagues at work, as a result of which a level of giving has been reached under the give-as-you-earn scheme which I doubt can be matched by any other organisation. If more of us were willing to find out how people can come together and give successfully, and to gain charitable donations in new ways, using the tax break system, more of us would give more cheerfully and more often. That would be a good thing.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would be disappointed if I did not say something about resolution No. 19. As a stepping stone to that, may I say how important it is for us to pay serious attention to social politics. Social conditions need to be improved; people need greater opportunities in their lives. Often it is those whom we do not see in our ordinary lives who need those opportunities most. People need the opportunity to earn —too many people are out of work—and the opportunity for their needs over the family life cycle to be better recognised. People need the chance of better housing.

  789
  The building society movement has done as much as local authorities and housing associations over the past 40 years to increase the number of homes available and to improve their condition. We should recognise the role of those who founded the building societies in helping people to create new homes. I hope that now the building societies will turn more of their time and talent towards helping to create more new homes again, rather than simply helping people to buy and sell clean secondhand houses.
  It is worth remembering that the way in which the building societies managed to help so much was by getting the savings of so many people. There are between four and 10 savers for every person who borrows. The taxation arrangements made it possible for the societies to expand without there being too much bureaucracy or form-filling for the depositors—the members of the societies.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East gave us a good potted history of the events that have led to resolution No. 19, one of the few resolutions to be introduced since the general election. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is clearly a consequence of the Leeds Permanent judicial review. That review has been joined by at least three other building societies that are adversely affected.
  That conjoint judicial review is a bad precedent. On tax appeals, it is perfectly reasonable to say that if someone wins an appeal against the intention of the Government or of the Inland Revenue, he should necessarily get the benefit only if he appealed along with the person whose case was heard.
  It is a very bad precedent to follow what has happened in the Woolwich case. The Woolwich went ahead with a judicial review. Others did not join in, although the Leeds Permanent, to mention just one, was the first to complain strongly about the use of the 1985 legislation in 1986. The societies shared the same lawyers.
  If the Government were going to say, "We are not willing to accept the risk of the Woolwich winning", they should have introduced a resolution similar to resolution No. 19. They should have said, "We are going to knock out your judicial review by primary legislation". I would not have advised that, but I believe that that would have been a more open approach.
  To have drawn a distinction between the Woolwich, the Leeds Permanent, the Greenwich and the other societies affected was a mistake which should be reviewed by the Law Officers, and by the legal advisers to the Treasury and to the Inland Revenue. There should be an open statement that from now on, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, those who gain by judicial review should be treated on all fours with each other. If not, we shall find that there is the extra cost of many people going for conjoint judicial reviews, which would be a waste of money and would give too much money to the lawyers.
  One per cent. of the £15 billion will be at stake if the Leeds Permanent is successful in the judicial review. Whatever the outcome of resolution No. 19 and whatever the outcome of the Finance Bill, it would be sensible for the Inland Revenue or the Treasury to have discussions with the building societies that are adversely affected to see whether it is possible to draft a resolution which does not put £15 billion at risk and which could tidy away the issue.
  Following the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, no matter how often the Government bring retroactive legislation to the House this is the third time—they cannot achieve the same object
  790
  at the higher Court of Appeal. There is a good case for taking the issue to Europe where people can put their experience of extra taxation for a period for which they have already paid tax that satisfied the Revenue.
  We had a merry-go-round of legislation and I doubt whether it will stop here. I seriously advise the Government to see whether it is possible to find a way out which will resolve the issue with reasonable rough justice.
  5.52 pm
  Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join other hon. Members in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I have been elected to represent Dulwich, a constituency in south London a few miles from here. Within it are extremes of prosperity and poverty which mirror the country as a whole.
  Dulwich is principally a residential area. What industry there was has mostly long since gone. Employment, being mainly service-based, has been heavily hit by the recession, and unemployment has increased locally by 99 per cent. since March 1990. One person in six is now out of work, and the fear of unemployment is a fact of life.
  Action to end recession, to combat poverty and to see improvements in health care, raise standards in our local schools, the development of nursery education and nursery care, and the regeneration of our inner cities are all policies for which people in Dulwich voted and which led them to elect me as their Labour Member of Parliament and to displace my Conservative predecessor.
  I take the opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to Gerald Bowden, who was the Conservative Member for Dulwich until the election. He served my constituents well and conducted the election campaign with dignity and integrity. He earned widespread respect for his active lobby against the rail link, an issue that 1 will continue to pursue along with local groups such as Peckham Against the Rail Link on the sure foundation that he laid.
  I also record the debt that Dulwich owes to its previous Labour Member, Sam Silkin, the former Attorney-General, who represented the seat for 19 years until 1979. Local people say about him, "Sam was Dulwich". There was nothing more important to him than the attentive and conscientious care with which he addressed the problems and issues affecting his constituents. That is a fine tradition which I will do my best to follow in my work as the new Member for Dulwich.
  I used to work at the Maudsley hospital in Dulwich, where my brief was to re-establish and resettle in the local community people with long-term and chronic mental illness. I want to talk about a very big question for my constituents—how we care for our elderly people, for people with mental illness and for people with disabilities, and how we get the best from community care.
  In Dulwich, one person in five is over 65. The number of very elderly people living alone is on the increase. Serious problems are emerging in the local health service on the care of elderly people which arise partly from the loss over the past three years of 52 beds previously provided for elderly people. The closure of those beds has increased pressure for elderly people to be admitted to other beds, generally acute and surgical. The evidence of that pressure exists in the notorious and scandalous queues of people waiting on trolleys in the casualty department of King's College hospital until a bed in the hospital becomes free.

  791
  The risks to elderly people are especially great. If they are confused, they may become even more so. There are attendant risks of dehydration, and pressure sores may develop even after a relatively short time lying on a trolley. A wait on a casualty trolley may set back the time of recovery. A longer hospital stay may be caused by the difficulties of the hospital's admission procedure.
  Some of the elderly people seeking admission to hospital could be looked after at home if the community services were still available. I spoke recently to an elderly lady who had been waiting for six hours to be admitted to King's and who had been lying on a casualty trolley. She had broken her arm, but she did not really need to be in hospital. However, there was no one to put her to bed at home, so hospital was the only safe alternative. Until a year ago, it would have been possible to get a district nurse to put her to bed, but the service has been cut.
  Two Government policies are clashing headlong, and that elderly lady is the victim. The hospital needs to reduce its costs as it prepares to become a trust. That clashes with the other Government policy to provide responsive and individually appropriate care to elderly people in their own homes wherever possible.
  If the community care policy is to work properly, elderly people must also have immediate access to the medical treatment they need. That is important if they are to have a real chance of being able to cope in their own homes, even with support. An elderly man is, for example, today waiting in a Dulwich hospital for a hip replacement. He cannot manage at home until his hip is repaired. However, by the time that he has his operation, it is likely that he will be so dependent that he will be unable to manage in his own home. Residential care will be the only alternative.
  "Going into a home" and "arranging a residential placement" are bureaucratic carespeak which obscures the personal tragedy which the loss of a home invariably represents. Let us pause for a moment and consider what it means to leave one's home for ever and enter a residential or nursing home, however good the care, however much safer and however unavoidable. It means the loss of freedom to run one's life in the way that one chooses; to make a cup of tea when one wants; to wear the clothes that one wants to wear; to cook one's own choice of food and watch the television programmes that one prefers. Those are the freedoms which we properly take for granted and which define us as individuals. That is why it is so important to make the community care policy work and to understand the impediments to its success.
  We will hear a lot during this Session about the need to measure the performance of our public services and about the role of the citizens charter. However, we should not be carried away by the creation of a new science to help us to recognise a good service. The delivery of health and community care should be measured against a simple question: hon. Members, as they take decisions about the care of vulnerable elderly people, should ask themselves whether what they are deciding is what they would want for themselves or for their families. If the answer is that it is not, the policy is unacceptable. That simple test should set our standards for the judgment of effective community care.
  6.1 pm
  Sir Michael Grylls: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) on her first-class maiden speech, which she delivered with great confidence and fluency. We were much impressed by what she said. Her handsome tribute to Gerald Bowden, the former Member for Dulwich who was a much loved and respected Member of this House, struck a chord with all of us. I hope that she will not take it amiss when I say that I am sure that we all hope to see Gerald Bowden back in this place in the very near future. However, I wish the hon. Lady success in her career, and the House looks forward to hearing from her in future.
  There are many excellent measures in the Budget resolutions, and I want to concentrate on the changes in the inheritance tax for private businesses. Although Conservative Governments over the past 10 years have greatly reduced the impact of inheritance tax on privately owned businesses, it was still a penal burden which all too often could result in a business having to be sold or taken over by a larger firm. In such circumstances, that independent small business would cease to exist.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be congratulated on seizing that point and opting for outright abolition. From now on, firms can be passed on intact from one generation to another so that they can grow from one generation to another. When defending the continuation of any form of inheritance tax on privately owned businesses, previous Chancellors, including some Conservative Chancellors, have said that, with proper advice and planning, it was possible to avoid that tax. If the business was handed over within seven years, that tax could be avoided. However, that is the wrong way to consider the issue.
  Business decisions that are tax-driven are all too often wrong business decisions. It is wrong to tell entrepreneurs that they can avoid tax if they hire professional tax advisers. It is wonderful that the House is about to abolish that tax and so tell that splendid breed of people from the 1980s—and I am sure from the 1990s as well—who have risked their own capital and effort in building up businesses, employing people and creating wealth, that, when they decide to retire or if they die, the Government will not take a large lump from them in inheritance tax. Those businesses can be continued by future generations of the family or by future generations of the management. They can carry on and expand those businesses.
  The alteration to inheritance tax in respect of small businesses is a momentous part of the Budget. Strangely, in the excitement of the general election, it was not a central issue. I guess that a Labour Government would not have pursued that tax change. However, when the Budget is examined in years to come, the abolition of inheritance tax for private firms will, in the context of British entrepreneurship, be seen as an important and historic decision. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be encouraged by that.
  I want to jump a wide gap from referring to the interests of small firms in relation to the Budget to an issue that affects many of our largest companies and international businesses. I must first declare an interest of which the House is aware.
  Nearly seven years ago, during the passage of the 1985 Finance Bill, I tried to describe the efforts of the United Kingdom to eliminate the use by certain states in the

  793
  United States of unitary taxation as it affected British firms. That involved taxing companies not just on their profits within a particular state, but including that company's worldwide profits and other statistics.
  That form of taxation still exists in California. It is internationally criticised and is agreed to be a barrier to trade. We want to remove as many barriers to trade as we possibly can. That form of taxation is also a severe irritant to good international relations. The use of unitary taxation has been condemned internationally by the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Community, Japan, Australia, Switzerland and Canada. They have all said that that form of taxation is the wrong way to deal with international business. Even the United States Administration has agreed with that.
  The strongest opponent of unitary taxation has been the United Kingdom. Although the House had been patient to a fault, I said in 1985 that it could no longer continue to wring its hands about the issue and hope that something would be done. I said that the time for action had arrived.
  As you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House decided in 1985 to adopt retaliatory legislation in section 54 of the Finance Act 1985, which is now section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. I raise the matter today because, seven years after I raised the matter in 1985, I have bad and disappointing news. On Monday, the California supreme court issued an opinion in the Barclays bank case reversing victories obtained in the lower and middle courts. The opinion declared that unitary taxation is constitutional in California.
  That news will be a shock to the House and to the Government. Many will say that it is an outrage, and I would agree. It is apparently a very perverse judgment. The House may be surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that the United States Congress had approved unitary taxation because, although when the Senate originally considered article 9(4) of the United Kingdom/United States double taxation treaty, it failed to pass it by a majority of two thirds, it nevertheless received a clear majority.
  The House may be surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that, when the United States Administration assured Her Majesty's Government that they would use their best endeavours to eliminate the international application of unitary taxation, Congress had already acted to approve the tax. The House may be equally surprised to learn that the California supreme court believes that Congress, by failing to bar the use of unitary taxation, approved the use of such a tax.
  I believe that the House will say, of course, that such arguments are nonsense. The California supreme court also believes that only the states of the United States and United States business have an interest in the outcome of the unitary taxation issue. That is profoundly wrong. The court has ignored the real interests of British international firms, which are welcomed in California and other places and are highly successful. It has ignored the real interests of the British Parliament and Her Majesty's Government by refusing to eliminate a method of taxation that is contrary to all internationally accepted principles of taxing profits where a company or group of companies operates internationally.
  We can no longer wring our hands and hope that something will happen. I am sure that, with the agreement
  794
  of Her Majesty's Opposition, the House will want to urge the Government and the United States Administration to seek an urgent review of the Barclays decision in the United States Supreme Court with no further delay.
  You will recall, with your excellent memory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, during the 1985 retaliatory debate, the then Financial Secretary, the predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the right honourable John Moore, asked rhetorically:
  "have we done enough to impress our friends in the United States the importance which we attach to the unitary issue?" Sadly, tonight the House will say, "Apparently not."
  We should send a clear message today that we shall wait no longer, that our patience has finally run out. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to convey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the wish of the House that he introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the retaliatory clauses contained in section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Only such action, and no lesser action, will convince the diehards in the United States who wish to cling to such an improper use of taxation, which is so damaging to investment and international trade. It is also damaging to Britain's relations with our great friend and ally the United States.
  The role of Her Majesty's Government in taking retaliatory action must be finally to convince the United States Administration that Britain will not tolerate one day longer the continuation of this abominable form of taxation which, as I have said, is so damaging. I believe that the House will agree that it is damaging to international trade and investment and to British business in general.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: May I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the first occasion on which you have called me, but I certainly hope that it will not be the last, in view of the length of the Parliament that stretches ahead of us. The whole House is pleased to see you in the Chair.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) on an excellent maiden speech. It struck a definite chord with me, because my maiden speech nine years ago was on health and community care. The House will welcome her clear expertise on the subject and her obvious commitment to it. Tomorrow I shall have a meeting at one of my psychiatric hospitals which is about to become a trust. I shall be able to report that another Member of Parliament is well able to argue the case. I congratulate her and look forward to many more speeches from her.
  I support what the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) said. I have signed numerous motions on the issue that he raised. I wholly agree that it has gone on for far too long. The one word that he did not use was "unfair". Unitary taxation is downright unfair. Indeed, if everyone operated that system, world trade and business could grind to a halt. It is preposterous that people should tax the benefits of activities that have taken place halfway round the world and have no connection whatever with the receivers of that tax benefit. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to press for urgent action on that matter.
  By its nature, this is an esoteric debate. I do not even pretend to be qualified in the technical details of some of the resolutions on the Order Paper, but I want to address

  795
  several general and specific points. The first resolution is a catch-all to stop us from trying to change the Budget in any fundamental way. But one or two points arise. It is worth going back to the Queen's Speech and asking the Financial Secretary a question. The Queen's Speech says that the Government
  "will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector and balance the budget over the medium term, reducing taxes when it is prudent to do so."
  How the hell will the Government do that?
  Mr. Dorrell: In exactly the same way as we did it through the 1980s.
  Mr. Bruce: That does not seem to me to be very likely.
  Mr. Dorrell: We did it.
  Mr. Bruce: Yes, but in different circumstances from those which the Government now face. The question that I was about to ask—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: Give me a minute.
  The Government have produced forecasts for the medium-term strategy. Already, over the period 1990 to 1993, forecast repayments of £10 billion, £6 billion and £3 billion have become deficits of £0.5 billion, £14 billion and £28 billion. So over three years, the Government are just £61.5 billion down on their short-term forecast, to say nothing of their long-term forecast.
  Indeed, at no time on the horizon can one see the Government achieving a balanced budget in anything that would normally be described as the medium term.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary's intervention was revealing. The total tax take from the British economy went up during the 1980s, not down. So the Financial Secretary is effectively announcing further tax increases this evening.
  Mr. Bruce: That is a point to which I intend to refer. I freely admit that my speech is somewhat fluid and unstructured, so I can pick a piece out which I intended to come to later.
  During the election, I was canvassing in one village in my constituency when I was asked a direct question by a gentleman who said, "I am on disability benefit. That is my only source of income. All this talk about tax cuts—what good is it to me? I do not pay income tax. But I do pay the increase in VAT, poll tax and all the other taxes imposed on me by this Government, who continually claim to cut taxes." For people like that constituent, taxes have done nothing but increase steadily under the Conservative Administration.
  Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, the disparity between the tax burden on the better-off and that on the less-well-off has widened. The Government should consider how they can address that. A simple political comment is making many of us think, and I hope that it will make the Government think, too. A Government who can be continually re-elected with 42 per cent. of the vote can afford perhaps to ignore the poor and underprivileged, because such people do not have enough votes to defeat the Government.
  796
  I hope that the Government will not ignore the poor and will not allow the imbalance to continue. If they do, they will be setting up Britain to become a South American country, where the poor become very much poorer and the rich become very much richer.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bruce: The Financial Secretary is shaking his head. I do not suggest that that is the intention of the Government, but they are setting objectives in terms of political promises to the people who elect them which can be paid for only by squeezing the people who do not. It is high time that we sought to secure some cross-party consensus to address the problem of people such as my constituent and ensure that they do not face continuing reductions in their real standard of living, given that it is much lower than the average across the country.
  It is unfortunate, perhaps, that resolution 1 will prevent us from introducing one or two pieces of "mischief" that might discipline the Government. They have failed to predict and manage the public sector borrowing requirement, and £60.5 billion is a monumental discrepancy. Perhaps we should set a target for what the Government think the PSBR is and introduce a requirement that, if they overshoot it, they undertake to raise the difference by increasing taxation or cutting services. That would impose a sharp discipline on all Government Departments to be more accurate in their forecasting and more close in their management and acceptance of responsibility for the state of the economy.
  Businesses in Scotland, and especially small ones, feel that it is unjust that they have to pay £450 million more in business rates than they would pay if they were taxed on the same basis as businesses in England and Wales. I have already raised this matter with the Minister in an intervention, and I shall certainly take it up with Scottish Office Ministers. The Government have said that they are prepared to eliminate the discrepancy, but they have not said how long that will take. The measures that they have introduced suggest that the process is more likely to take 15 years than the lifetime of this Parliament. I ask the Government to give themselves a much shorter and sharper target and provide Scottish business with the chance to compete on an equal footing with businesses in England and Wales.
  I shall raise a legitimate and important issue that I take up in all Budget debates. I shall continue pressing it until there is a response from the Government. I make what I consider to be a legitimate plea on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association. The unique character of Scotch whisky is that it has, by law, to be matured for three years before it can be marketed as Scotch. I have been told on numerous occasions that this piece of legislation was requested by the industry because it wanted to secure the quality of Scotch and its distinctive character and maturity. It was requested, however, in 1913, and those who requested it are probably all now dead. The industry should be given the chance to engage in a reassessment.
  Scotch whisky constitutes one of our major export industries. It is an important employer, especially in the more remote rural areas of Scotland. It is important also, of course, in some urban areas, where there are substantial bottling plants. The industry is at a definite disadvantage compared with its counterparts which produce other spirits in the United Kingdom or, more importantly,

  797
  produce them elsewhere in Europe. Its request is that it should be able to have tax relief on the statutory requirement to stock whole for three years.
  The problem arose with the abolition of stock relief some years ago. Governments never admit publicly to mistakes of this sort, but I am assured that, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished stock relief, he did not realise the implications for the Scotch whisky industry. Ministers must know now, because the message is brought home to them every year. There are serious implications, and it is a matter of genuine concern. I believe that it is a legitimate interest, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board. Were it not for resolution 1, I would he motivated to table an amendment to the Finance Bill.
  Do the Government have real control over the direction of the economy? Is the rather spurious accuracy of Budget figures anything more than a fantasy or fairy tale that reflects what the Government hope will happen rather than a solid belief? The figures are based on the presumption that there will be a 3.5 per cent. growth rate per annum, and I do not know many independent commentators who have the confidence to believe that that is likely to be achieved. I hope, of course, that it is achieved. I have no desire to see anything other than success for the recovery of the economy. At the moment, however, ministerial speeches do not create wealth, and the wealth-creation process suggests that the target, which is necessary for the fulfilment of the Government's budget, is not being reached.
  There is a relationship with the unemployment figures. Unemployment has increased by 29,000, and the total is 2.7 million. I have been my party's employment spokesman in the past, and today I went the round of the studios with the shadow employment spokesman. We tried to find some new adjectives to describe the situation but it is difficult to make interesting and original comments on the monthly figures. It is clear that unemployment of 2.7 million is causing a great deal of misery for many families. It is not good enough to ignore those people because they are not part of the 42 per cent. who voted for the Conservative party. I know that some of them did vote Conservative, but heaven knows why.
  Mr. Dorrell: They did so because they want jobs.
  Mr. Bruce: They want jobs, but they have not been successful in obtaining them. In a way, that is neither here nor there. People are entitled to vote for any party according to their own judgment.
  Unemployment is a tragedy and a waste for those who find themselves in that position. More to the point, it is a tragedy and a waste for the entire community. Those who are employed should be outraged at having to carry the burden of the many who are not. It is estimated that each unemployed worker costs the Exchequer £8,900 a year. If it were possible to reduce unemployment by I million—at 1.7 million, it would still be high—we would be able to generate £9 billion of revenue. Far be it from me to cross the Floor and determine the Government's priorities, but I would point out that the Government's objective is a standard rate of income tax of 20 per cent. If 1 million fewer people were unemployed, they would be able to achieve that at a stroke. Yet there is no evidence that the Government have the necessary will or imagination to set the necessary target.
  798
  I would have liked to see measures in the Budget designed to stimulate real jobs in new areas and new industries. We heard this morning that a royal ordnance factory in Lancashire is to shed 450 employees. We all accept that the peace dividend means substantial cuts in defence spending with consequential job losses, but it must be borne in mind that it is an employment area of high skill and high technology, and that traditionally it has a high export value. If we no longer have a need for its specific products, we surely have a need for the skills and capabilities of its employees and for the revenue that they could produce. We must find ways of reorienting and retraining them.
  It is a matter of beating swords into ploughshares in modern, high-tech terms. We must try to ensure that the technical capabilities of the defence industry are introduced into new areas, so that skills are not lost and wasted and export opportunities are made secure. I would like to believe that the Government would accept that they have some responsibility to do that. The tax mechanism may be a useful component for introducing imaginative ways of stimulating special investment, long-term investment, research and export opportunities in areas where there is new growth. Perhaps there could be training support for those who have skills but need to be reoriented.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Perhaps I should not intervene, having only just resumed my place, but 1 wish to say that the hon. Gentleman is on to an important point. As he has said, it is essential that firms in the defence industry switch to civil work. If the hon. Gentleman studies the record of the past two years, he will learn that this is beginning to happen. Much more of the turnover of British Aerospace, Lucas and other large companies is in civil work.
  I part company with the hon. Gentleman when he says that there is an active role or pro-active role for Government. It would be better to keep corporation tax as low as possible and leave it to the brains, skill and entrepreneurial expertise of those who are responsible for firms in the defence industry to seek out new markets in the civilian sector. When Governments have tried to intervene, they have not been very successful.
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that I do not disagree with anything that he has said. I was not suggesting that the Government should step in and act; I was suggesting that the Government should consider ways of ensuring that the private sector effort is given an extra spin by giving it some short-term additional tax incentive, tax relief or training boost to enable it to pick up the opportunities and make the switch more quickly than would otherwise be the case. I was not suggesting that the Government should say what the switch should be or second-guess the markets. We are at one on that issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened to give me a chance to explain that.
  I have tried to link my points to my concern that the Government are not in control and do not know what is happening. They are on a wing and a prayer, and are well out of touch with their own forecasts. I have suggested how they might achieve their targets.
  I remain puzzled by the argument for the reduced 20 per cent. rate band. I will not dig out the papers now, but I have here endless speeches from Conservative Ministers saying that it was a daft idea, which was why it was

  799
  abolished in 1981. It is not efficient at delivering its objective, which is to help the low-paid. [Interruption.] If the Minister is saying that that was a Liberal idea, I accept that, too. Every party has tried and opposed the suggestion on different occasions. I make no virtue of that. This is not suddenly a bright and consistent idea.
  The reduced 20 per cent. rate band is not the most efficient way of simplifying the tax system, which is one of the Government's objectives. It adds complexity. Some people estimate that it would mean 800 extra staff; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury estimates 300 extra staff. It is not as effective as raising thresholds and targeting benefits, which would help to narrow the differentials that the Government have succeeded in widening over the years.
  I accept that to some extent the Government are committed to the band. We have had an election, they have won and they must go ahead with it. However, I hope that they will give real thought to how they can simplify and structure the tax system in a way which provides incentives, but not at the expense of the very poor and the low-paid. I hope that the Government try to strike a balance between stimulating business and achieving social justice.
  That should be the aspiration of the entire House, regardless of one's political base. It would be best if we got out of this ideological conflict and genuinely tried to find ways of achieving that more balanced result. Clearly, this Budget will not do that because of the Government's commitments, but I hope that the next one will.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I, too, congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to your office.
  My immediate predecessor had a reputation in the constituency as a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament. I hope to follow in that tradition as the representative for Woolwich.
  As the new Member for Woolwich, it is impossible for me to stand in this Chamber without a sense of history. When I first moved to Woolwich in 1966, Plumstead school was at the bottom of my garden, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). On the wall there was a plaque which said that on that spot Mr. William Ewart Gladstone had made his last speech to his Greenwich constituents. I doubt whether many Members of the House can claim to have had a speech made by a Prime Minister at the bottom of their garden.
  Outside the Chamber there is a bust of another of my predecessors. Younger residents of Woolwich may know of Ernest Bevin only as the name on one of the Woolwich ferries. Parliamentarians will probably remember him as one of our great Foreign Secretaries. I prefer to remember him for his origins and trade unionism: born into poverty, often hungry and admitting that he sometimes had to steal for food as a young boy, he permanently identified with those whose experience had been the same as his. It has been said of him that
  "unlike many self-made men of the Victorian age he never had any wish to climb out of his own class. He preferred, instead, to help it to rise and to rise with it."
  800
  In 1908 Ernie Bevin led the Right to Work movement. Given the absence of any reference in the Gracious Speech to the problems of unemployment, perhaps now is the appropriate time to relaunch that movement.
  Unemployment in Woolwich and Eltham has risen 170 per cent. over the past year and more than 400 per cent. since 1979, with an overall unemployment rate for the constituency of Woolwich approaching 25 per cent. Around the town centre the level of adult male unemployment is 40 per cent. and in the Arsenal ward it is a staggering 60 per cent., the highest in London. The lack of any measures to redress that situation in the Government's programme is deeply distressing both for those already unemployed and for the many more in Woolwich who fear for their jobs and security.
  Young people face the most difficulty and poorest prospects. The unemployment figures reveal the complete failure of the Government's training policies. Although the Government claim to give the highest priority to helping young people who have been out of work for more than six months, it is precisely in that group where the rise in unemployment has been highest. In the borough of Greenwich 790 people under 18 are registered, available and looking for a training place. There are currently 12 vacancies. Unemployment is costing the country more than £20 billion a year—money which could and should be invested in our schools, hospitals, public transport and training.
  Woolwich has been particularly hard hit by the decline in jobs in manufacturing industries and the lack of training and skills opportunities for young people. London has the lowest percentage of apprenticeships in the country and the skills shortage will soon become apparent, if and when the recovery begins. Figures for economic performance published in January by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) show that Woolwich and Newham, North-East are the hardest hit constituencies in London. Woolwich needs policies that recognise the need to rebuild our manufacturing base and offer opportunities for young people in training and education.
  Of the 10 most deprived wards in Greater London, three are in and around Woolwich town centre. For 300 years the area was the home of and provided labour for the Royal Arsenal. At one time the arsenal employed 80,000 people and was the largest single factory in the United Kingdom. If ever there were an example of where the skills of people in the defence industry have been lost because of a lack of provision for retraining, it is Woolwich. The number employed in the arsenal today is down to 1,300 and those jobs are shortly to go.
  The 300-year-old role of the arsenal as a huge primary industrial production centre has come to an end, but tremendous opportunities can be realised with Government help. The closure of the last remnants of the arsenal will release 75 acres of development land in the town centre. The arsenal site contains an extraordinary heritage of buildings of international significance, at least one by Vanbrugh. Yet the Ministry of Defence has allowed many to fall into such a state of dilapidation and decay that an estimated £60 million may be needed for basic restoration of those historic buildings which have lain hidden from public view behind the arsenal wall. That any property owner could allow such a heritage to fall into disrepair is a tragedy; for the Government to have done so is a crime. I invite the Secretaries of State for Defence, for

  801
  the Environment and for National Heritage to visit the site as a matter of urgency and to accept responsibility for the restoration and refurbishment of those buildings.
  I welcome the commitment in the Queen's Speech to combat crime, but any attempt to combat crime must start from an understanding of its causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in his eloquent speech on Thursday, warned of the grave risk of a social explosion. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) reinforced that point today in his opening speech. Poverty and deprivation, alienation and hopelessness are the breeding ground for crime and provide an environment in which racism can thrive.
  The Woolwich constituency includes most of Thamesmead, which is shared with the constituency of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Thamesmead shot into national prominence a year ago, following a brutal racist murder. Just over the boundary in the neighbouring borough of Bexley are the national headquarters of the British National party, masquerading as a book shop and in contravention of planning regulations. Bexley council, however, chooses to give comfort to racists by ignoring its presence and refusing to use its enforcement powers. The British National party churns out its racist literature and occasionally the police seize some of it, but the Attorney-General has so far failed to act.
  Some people ask why we should make such a fuss about a small and insignificant bunch of freaks. But they are not so small and insignificant if one is black and lives in Woolwich, Plumstead, Erith, Belvedere or Thamesmead and is subjected daily to harassment, abuse, attacks on one's property and sometimes physical violence. I shall continue to draw the attention of the House to that threat, not only to the black citizens in my constituency but to our democracy and the freedom of us all.
  If we are to tackle racism seriously, the law must be strengthened and racial harassment made a specific offence. More needs to be done to reform the procedures, systems and structures that perpetuate indirect discrimination and institutional racism. In employment, we need tighter and more effective legislation along the lines of the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland.
  Health care is another area of concern in Woolwich. The Brook hospital serves Woolwich. Its emergency unit is threatened with closure and the hospital's long-term future is in doubt. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) spoke eloquently about community care. As a former chair of the Association of Community Health Councils and a past chair of Greenwich MIND, I share her concern about the quality of community care. We need high-quality care, not services on the cheap provided often with reliance on low-paid or unpaid carers.
  Increasingly, the burden of community care is being carried by relatives, usually women, often with no financial or emotional support. For those without relatives, being discharged from institutions often means the exchange of one institution for another—out of hospital and into the institution of poverty and isolation.
  As chair of the all-party London Ecology Committee, I am disappointed by the Government's lack of commitment to environmental protection. The Prime Minister has expressed concern about tropical forests, yet his Government are prepared to drive an urban motorway, the east London river crossing, through Oxleas Wood in Woolwich, an 8,000-year-old ancient woodland and site of
  802
  special scientific interest. In so doing, they are prepared to ignore the European environmental protection legislation to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
  I have spoken of the need for full employment to be at the top of the political agenda. Those employment policies must include a commitment to equal opportunities. I fully support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that free or affordable child care is an essential pre-requisite for equal opportunities in employment. I refer not only to care for the under-fives; the absence of child care beyond the age of five is also a barrier to many women seeking employment.
  Regarding equal opportunity, I was pleased to be here on that historic occasion when we elected the first woman to hold the office of Speaker. That came about because of the past struggle of many women, with the support of a few men. One of those few men was another of my predecessors, Will Crooks, who was elected the Member for Woolwich in 1903. He campaigned for equal rights and first moved a Bill in the House in 1903 for the enfranchisement of women.
  Will Crooks went from the workhouse to Westminster, but never deserted the ranks from which he came. In the words of his biographer, he continued to stand four square with the working classes against monopoly and privilege. He achieved a spectacular victory in Woolwich in the 1903 by-election, a result described by the Speaker of the day as the greatest by-election victory of modern times. His victory was followed by the election of Labour candidates in several parts of the country in the election of 1906, when it was said:
  "This is the party that was born in Woolwich."
  I have a proud history to follow.
  In his maiden speech, Will Crooks asked to be forgiven for being controversial. He spoke out, in that 1903 speech, against the privatisation of defence contracts and criticised the unfair way in which contracting procedures favoured private contractors over the Government's own services. In the same way today, local authority direct service organisations are at a disadvantage compared with private contractors under the current compulsory competitive tendering arrangements.
  Will Crooks apologised to the House for breaking with precedent by speaking out on an issue of concern to his constituents. I make no such apology. If I had failed to speak out on the very issues that are concerning my constituents, I would have had to apologise to them. I thank the House for its tolerance, but I assure hon. Members that, although the needs of Woolwich may have been overlooked by the Government, its voice will not go unheard in this Chamber.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: It is my pleasure to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on an excellent maiden speech. He demonstrated tremendous experience and knowledge, qualities that will enable him to make many more valued contributions to the House in the future. I only hope that I am able to acquit myself as ably as he has done.
  In representing Hartlepool, I have the honour of succeeding Ted Leadbitter, who was as popular in the House as he was admired in his constituency. Ted Leadbitter was first elected in 1964. Supported by his wife

  803
  Irene and his indomitable agent, Mrs. Elsie Reed, he lost no time in demonstrating his diligence and, equally, his independence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was Postmaster-General at the time, describes in his ministerial diaries for 10 February 1965—when the Labour Government had a majority of only three—how a new hon. Member, Ted Leadbitter from West Hartlepool, had written to complain about a telegraph pole being put up in front of a constituent's home. Refusing to be fobbed off with some bureaucratic response, the MP of three months' standing rang up my right hon. Friend's office with the message:
  "Mr. Leadbitter regards the Postmaster-General's reply as so rude and evasive that he does not propose to come to the House or to accept the Labour whip until the answer is withdrawn and the pole is removed."
  The pole was duly removed. I am sure that hon. Members can agree that in such important matters—to parody Edmund Burke—I, too, should be a representative of my constituents, not a delegate of my party. I can reassure the Whips, however, that I am not aware—at present at any rate—of any misplaced telephone poles in Hartlepool.
  Ted Leadbitter's predecessor, the first Labour Member to be elected for the constituency, in 1945, was David Jones. A man who knew poverty and unemployment at first hand, Mr. Jones dedicated himself to freeing his constituents from the appalling social conditions of the time, "the evil days", as he called them, of ill-health, poor housing and insecurity in old age. David Jones' memory is particularly special to me because he was a friend of my grandfather when he was a Member of this House, and he spoke for David Jones at several elections.
  When they took their seats, my predecessors took pride in representing the two Hartlepools. While I represent only one in name, I am conscious of the fierce community loyalties in both Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. Even before the two Hartlepools were each denied their own borough status, music hall references celebrated the local demand for home rule. In the review of local government to which the Conservative party is committed, the minimum that would be acceptable to current residents is the restoration of full unitary authority status to Hartlepool. I shall continue the work of my predecessor in supporting that change.
  Hartlepool's great strength is that it rightly sees itself as a community, with shared needs, strongly felt local loyalties and a sense of common purpose and civic pride. That pride is especially strong now. Our football team, Hartlepool United, is at its highest ever league position in the history of the club; the West Hartlepool Rugby Football Club has gained promotion this season to national division one; and first-class cricket has arrived in the town, with the selection of the town's club as a venue for Durham county cricket.
  However, there are serious challenges to be faced by my town. Fifty years ago, Hartlepool, like other towns, even with its social problems, was at least more industrially secure because of the success of its shipyards, engineering, steel-making and manufacturing. The task of the coming decade, as we approach the 21st century, is to transform a now industrially poorer and less confident Hartlepool into the thriving industrial community of the future that it can
  804
  become. That is why the people of Hartlepool are now embarking on an era of change. They do so in the knowledge that it is not possible for any community or town—or, indeed, political party—to try to recreate the future in the image of the past.
  For the first time, in the general election, the Labour party in Hartlepool received more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. It was a vote to embrace change but it is still change for the same purpose now as it was 50 years ago: to use the power of the community, acting together, to improve the individual circumstances of all. Central to that process is a modern economic policy; new ways of revitalising industry; innovative solutions to the problems created by social change; and sustaining economic growth in ways that are friendly to the environment.
  My aim is to see new opportunities created for my constituents so that the confidence and optimism experienced in former times can be enjoyed once again by old and young alike. New opportunities do not mean opt-out schools and opt-out hospitals. When the services of thousands of patients opt out and the local hospital ceases to feel like the local community hospital, when thousands opt out of schools and the local schools cease to be like local community schools, the foundation on which the community is based is being removed.
  What is true for our public services is also true, although in a different way, for industry. We cannot rebuild the industrial strength of our nation when manufacturing investment fell by 13 per cent. last year and is still falling now. When apprenticeships are axed and young school leavers fail to find training places, when firms are denied the chance to adapt to new skills and technology, we are eliminating the means by which depleted communities can become strong again.
  The local training and enterprise council has seen a 20 per cent. Government cut in its training budget this year. At a time of rising unemployment, is that any way to restore industrial strength to our country? The result of that short-termism is both to deprive our young people of the opportunity that they need to get on in life and to deprive the nation of talent and ability of its people, which is critical to its future success.
  When the Conservative party changed its leader and softened its rhetoric, the promise was of a classless society, a nation at ease with itself and opportunity for all. But what hope is there for the young person without a job due to the recession, without training due to cuts in funding, and without benefit due to the actions of a Social Security Minister who is now Prime Minister?
  What opportunity is there for the thousands in my constituency and the millions in this country, struggling in poverty and living on the margins of our society? What ease is there in the mind of anyone, in or out of work, if our industrial base, and, therefore, our economic future, lies untended and in neglect?
  In truth, there cannot be hope, or opportunity or ease unless we all accept our responsibility to help create them and, in doing so, realise that this benefits us all. Yet when we examine the Government's economic policy we find that urgency and responsibility absent. In large part, that is because the Government cannot break free from their past. The days of reliance on some invisible hand of the market are as discredited as those of centralised planning and the command economy. We need a new partnership between the public sector, the business community and the Government, based not on dogma but on co-operation to

  805
  secure objectives in the interests of the economy as a whole. The principle of co-operation is more relevant than ever, even if we must look to different ways and new methods to fulfill that principle.
  Let me stress that the townspeople whom I represent are looking for neither handouts nor subsidies from Government. They have never deluded themselves that the man in Whitehall knows best. In the absence of a Government willing to back the scale of investment in new skills and technology which we need in Hartlepool, the town has not sat back. Over the past decade, the local authority has worked tirelessly to bring in new employment, in both the service and industrial sectors. Indeed, even with the drastically reduced help available from central Government, the partnership between public and private sector has achieved much.
  The new marina, being built with the backing of Teesside development corporation and the borough council, is a symbol of the town's efforts at recovery, even if it has not brought the employment that many hoped for. It has, however, helped to draw to the town the new Imperial War Museum located in the north, and I hope that that exciting project will receive the Government's full support. The marina will also enable the town to play host to the Round Britain yacht race this summer.
  Hartlepool has made a powerful bid for the Department of the Environment's city challenge programme, and if it is successful, as I earnestly hope it will be, it will further help to transform the appearance and economic potential of Hartlepool's central locations.
  All those initiatives show how willing we and similar communities are to work with any opportunities opened up to us. But imagine how much more successful the industrious people of Hartlepool would be with a Government committed to re-skilling the work force and actively supporting our local industrial effort. That co-operation is needed now.
  Hartlepool and the whole of the north face immense competitive challenges: the savage nature of the current recession; the creation this year of the single European market; and the completion, in a few years, of the channel tunnel. If we fail to invest now, we cannot meet those future challenges.
  In rhetoric, the Government accept that case. But they should also realise that to will the ends without willing the means is, as Tawney said, akin to inviting unwelcome guests to dinner in the certain knowledge that circumstances will prevent them from being able to attend. What Hartlepool and the north-east desperately need is not another cynical invitation to share in the nation's fortune, only to find that no place is set for it at the table. In the 1990s we need a decade of regeneration—in industry, our public services and our social cohesion. We can achieve that, but only if we recognise the size of the task to be done and the utter necessity of working together as a nation to achieve it.
  Those values of partnership, co-operation and social justice represent all that is best in the Labour party, as true today as ever. It will be my privilege to advance those values on behalf of my constituents and my party throughout my time in this House.
  7 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your elevation to office.
  There have been three absolutely first-rate maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell), for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). Each had something warm to say about his or her immediate and previous predecessors. Each of them—and it cannot be mere coincidence—had something to say about unemployment and its attendant problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich emphasised the importance of community care issues. Of course, her remarks struck a chord with Labour Members, and I hope that they also struck a chord with Conservative Members. I have never heard the case put as well and as effectively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich also struck a chord with Labour Members when he spoke about unemployment in the defence industries. It especially struck a chord with me because Newcastle upon Tyne, East has similar problems with the decline of an employment base that is very much related to defence industries. It is tragic to see a major employer, which once employed 80,000 people, being steadily diminished, without the Government intervening to help to provide new jobs. As a public representative, I find it hard to preside over that. It is clear that the electorate of Woolwich realised the need to put into office someone who cared about the problem and who had a solution to it. I am confident that that is why they elected my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool made a point that is well known throughout the northern region —that no other region has done more to help itself through the difficulties of the 1980s. My hon. Friend rightly praised the efforts of local people and institutions.
  My hon. Friend quoted what I thought to be a rather dangerous anecdote about his predecessor, Ted Leadbitter. Indeed, I even thought that he was quoting it with approval. I am not sure that it is right for an hon. Member to quote with approval the behaviour of a predecessor who, when he was a new Member, held the Government—who had a majority of only three—to ransom just to get a telegraph pole removed. If in future there are more telegraph poles that need removing, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to arrange that through gentle persuasion rather than through the blunt methods of his predecessor.
  I and many other Members of the northern group of Labour Members often used to join Ted Leadbitter for a drink in the bar. Without casting any aspersions on his willingness to get in his round, I hope that it is one area in which my hon. Friend will not emulate his predecessor.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) raised an important matter about unitary tax, although it was slightly wide of the motion. It is right that I say on behalf of the Labour party that the outcome of Monday's court case in California is very serious indeed. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no distinction between the view of the Government and that of the Opposition on this matter. We are at one. I realise that the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor will need time to reflect on how best to proceed, but it is clear that

  807
  the only way to get a resolution of this issue is to get the whole case in front of the Supreme Court in the United States.
  If the Californian judgment means that to do that will be difficult or will be unduly or even substantially delayed, as I suspect it means, after reflecting on the matter the Government will need to make representations to our friends in the federal Administration of the United States. The double taxation treaty is supposed to exist between our two countries and we cannot continue to allow it effectively to be flouted by the Californian state government. It is sad that the Californian court system appears to be backing its state government because of domestic pressures rather than upholding international law.
  The motions before us relate to the tax regime for this financial year. I regret that there is nothing in them to deal with the essentially regressive nature of the present tax system; nor is there any acknowledgement of the plight of the poor. Every Labour speaker tonight has called for such an acknowledgement. The poorest 10 per cent. of households spend 45 per cent. of their gross income on tax. The richest 10 per cent. of households spend 32.7 per cent. of their gross income on tax.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about the percentage of income spent on tax by the poorest households. I can give him the figures. The average household income for the poorest 10 per cent. is £4,081 a year. The total tax take from that sum is £1,835. Very little of that, just £40, is income tax. That is not because those people are all members of the royal family or that they are all too rich to pay income tax because they are professionally advised; it is because they are too poor to pay income tax. However, they are not so poor that they did not have to pay the rates and the successor poll tax. They are not so poor that they can get out of paying Excise duties, VAT or television licence fees. All those sums of money are part of the tax burden and they bear down more heavily on the poor than they do on the better off.
  Those households also have to pay their gas bills—to help pay Mr. Robert Evans his 21.4 per cent. salary increase, which takes him to an annual salary of £340,000. That one person receives the equivalent of the income of 83 households drawn from the poorest 10 per cent. of our citizens. Not for nothing have gas charges risen by 167.7 per cent. between 1979 and 1991, compared with a retail prices index rise of 135.4 per cent. Today's truculent announcement of a price cut hardly makes amends for that obscenity in the gas industry.
  It is because of those issues of injustice that people look to the Government—a Government who proclaim a commitment to the classless society—for help. If they look to the Government for deeds, what is reflected in these financial motions—rather than their words—proves that they look in vain.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Dorrell: I echo the congratulations of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to his three hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. They were all good and interesting speeches. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) for her kind words about her predecessor,
  808
  Gerald Bowden, who is a longstanding friend of mine. I understand that one of the Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretaries was his constituency chairman before being elected, so I hope that there will be a continuing relationship between the Treasury and Gerald. I also hope that he will find his way back to this House in the not-too-distant future.
  The hon. Lady spoke of the importance of community reprovision at the Maudsley hospital. She will know that until only a month ago I was the Minister with responsibility for mental health services. I endorse every word that she said about the importance of an effective reprovision programme out of traditional mental illness institutions. She is quite right to place stress, in the successful discharge of that policy, on properly planned and managed community health care and social care services. I have said many times that I think that it is one of the great challenges facing health service managers. While I do not endorse everything that she said, I warmly endorse what she said about the importance of a proper community-based reprovision programme for people suffering from mental illness and learning disability and for the elderly.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) paid a tribute, at least in passing, to John Cartwright. Not all Conservative Members would number him among our close friends, but we always listened with respect to what he had to say. The hon. Gentleman then gave us a Cook's tour of what he saw as the problems in his constituency, which he alleged that the Government were not interested in. He listed jobs, crime, the health service and the environment. I waited for the issue on which he would be able to demonstrate lack of interest by those on the Treasury Bench. Although he will not agree with me, in my view he did not discharge the burden of proof in the way that he needed to in order to support his assertions.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was recounting the story of the exploits of Ted Leadbitter when he first arrived in the House. However, as a former Whip—a member of the Broederbond—I shall ensure that the remarks of the hon. Member for Hartlepool are drawn to the attention of the hon. Member for Jarrow. As I was speaking earlier in the debate, I was conscious of the hon. Member for Hartlepool as a brooding presence under the Gallery. I wondered whether he would offer me some sartorial advice, or suggestions on how to improve the presentation of my case. I also wondered whether, if he had sat on the Government Benches, I would have survived at all.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool said—I think that I quote him accurately—that one should not
  "try to recreate the future in the image of the past."
  I entirely agree. I wish that in what he went on to say about schools, hospitals and businesses in his Hartlepool constituency he had followed his own advice. Perhaps the best advice that I can give him is to have the courage of his convictions and ensure that we do not
  "try to recreate the future in the image of the past."
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asked about resolution 9. The changes envisaged in the resolution are about the system for collecting car taxes, not the tax rate, and there are, I am advised, no Community proposals for the harmonisation of car tax.
  The hon. Gentleman twitted me about composite rate tax and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr.

  809
  Bottomley) came back to the subject, as I thought that he might. I can only repeat what I said in an intervention in my hon. Friend's speech. The key point about the Leeds case is that, whatever the motivation of the managers in bringing the case, if their arguments were sustained in court, the effect would not be to reopen the transitional arrangements argument which we conducted and concluded in the House last year. Instead, it would render invalid the basis on which composite rate tax was collected for four financial years, to the tune of £15 billion. It was to put that question beyond doubt that I announced last week that we intend to introduce certain clauses in the Finance Bill.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham about the importance of building society managers seeking opportunities to finance not merely the purchase of houses but the development and building of imaginative housing schemes. I think that he will agree that building societies already play a part in that, and it is a part which is to be welcomed.
  My hon. Friend suggested that we should take action to bring into line the payment patterns of big companies when they meet their obligations to their creditors. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to say on that subject in his Budget speech. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were proposing a three-pronged attack on the timely payment of bills. He said:
  "First, the Government propose to require larger companies to state in their annual report and accounts how quickly they pay. Second, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be proposing simpler procedures in small claims and debt recovery cases.
  Third, I want to see the Government's good record on the payment of bills extended to firms which win Government contracts. From next month, those successfully negotiating a contract with a Government Department will be required to include clauses in their own contracts with subcontractors which provide for the prompt payment of bills".—[Official Report, 10 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 753.]
  I hope that that goes some way to answering my hon. Friend's point.
  My hon. Friend also stressed the importance that he places on ensuring that the tax regime is benign towards internationally mobile high earners. I also attach importance to that perspective of the tax system. While I am not sure whether, in my time as Financial Secretary, I shall be able to meet every one of his expectations, I am not blind to the point that he makes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) stressed the importance for entrepreneurs of the Budget proposals substantially to release business assets from the effects of inheritance tax, and I entirely endorse everything that he said. He then went on to a theme about which, as he said, he had spoken many times in the House—the effect of American unitary tax practice, particularly in California.
  If my hon. Friend searches the records, he will find that I am a signatory of at least one and perhaps more than one early-day motion that he has promoted as he has argued this case in the House. Unlike some of the early-day motions that Back Benchers sign and come to regret when they later have to explain the strength of the Government's case from the Dispatch Box, that is not a signature that I regret. I am pleased to have signed the early-day motion and to have this opportunity now to carry through the policy that lies behind it.
  810
  My hon. Friend is right to express disappointment at the ruling of the Californian supreme court. The Government agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the basis on which the Californian legal system seeks to collect tax does not fit in with the international taxation of business. That has been the Government's view for some years. I am pleased that it is also the Opposition's view. It is also, as my hon. Friend will know, the view of the United States Government. Both the British and the American Governments have made clear their support for litigation in the American system to overturn those provisions. The American Government have submitted an opinion to the court setting out their opposition to the provisions that are operated in California.
  My hon. Friend asked for early implementation of the penal provisions put into legislation in 1985. The time is not right for me to announce today that we shall use those provisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do not regard them merely as an ornament on our statute book.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) put to the House a question posed to him by a man who asked, "What good is an income tax cut to me, on disability allowance?" That question goes to the heart of the strategy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A similar question was posed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East who asked, "What is the big idea'?" My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham answered both questions when he reminded the House of the importance of low marginal rates of direct tax, given that the first priority is the promotion of wealth creation.
  It is by stressing the importance of sharp incentives and an effective system of rewards for those who take risks and commit themselves to extra effort that Governments get a free economy moving. That is the strategy which the Government have pursued consistently, and it has delivered results.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not disagree with the point that the Financial Secretary is making, but he is deliberately trying to combine two issues. Yes, taxation can be used to stimulate investment and provide incentives; but that does not answer another question. Why must those on the lowest incomes be further squeezed to finance such incentives?
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to develop my argument for a moment? He asked what the man on disablility allowance had to gain from a system that stressed low marginal rates of direct tax. The answer is this. If, by establishing a tax system that is friendly to incentives and therefore friendly to wealth creation, we build a more successful economy, we have a better economic base from which to draw the resources that are necessary for the welfare state that we all want.
  In stressing the existence of a gap, the Opposition constantly pick up the wrong issue. The real issue is the question of the living standards of everyone in the country, including those at the bottom of the income scale. Opposition Members should consider the effect of the policies that we pursued during the 1980s on the man on average earnings, rather than the activities of the bond dealers—essential though they no doubt are in terms of fancy commissions in the City. After 13 years of Conservative government, the man on average earnings was 39 per cent. better off in regard to real-terms take-home pay than he was in 1979. Between 1974 and

  811
  1979, the man's take-home pay rose by 1 per cent. in real terms. Between 1979 and 1992, it rose by 39 per cent.—by £78 a week, for the benefit of those who prefer real today-money figures.
  That is the quantum of the success of the Government's approach to managing the economy: a success measured not in terms of fancy commissions for well-paid people, but in terms of the man on average earnings living in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hartlepool, that of the hon. Member for Dulwich or that of the hon. Member for Woolwich. That is the principle which we sought to follow throughout the 1980s, and we shall follow it again in the 1990s. It delivered results before, and it will deliver them again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (b) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.

  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50 ( Ways and Means Motions), to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions, which were made by Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  2. TOBACCO PRODUCTS (RETAIL PRICE OF CIGARETTES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made amending section 5 of the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979.
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 25.

  Division No. 5]

  [7.24 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coe, Sebastian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Congdon, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Conway, Derek

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

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

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bright, Graham

  Deva, Niranjan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Devlin, Tim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Burns, Simon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Burt, Alistair

  Dover, Den

  812

  Duncan, Alan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lightbown, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Maclean, David

  Evennett, David

  Madel, David

  Faber, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mans, Keith

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Marland, Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forth, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Merchant, Piers

  Freeman, Roger

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gallie, Philip

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gorst, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hannam, Sir John

  Redwood, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Harris, David

  Richards, Rod

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howell, Ralph (Worth Norfolk)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunter, Andrew

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Steen, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Streeter, Gary

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sykes, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  813

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Waterson, Nigel

  NOES

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Allen, Graham

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Anderson, Ms Janet

  Pike, Peter L.

  Austin-Walker, John

  Pope, Greg

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Cambell-Savours, D. N.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cummings, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Spellar, John

  Dixon, Don

  Wareing, Robert N

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  3. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (GOODS VEHICLES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made in relation to vehicles excise duty in respect of goods vehicles:—
  The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 17.

  Division No. 6]

  [7.35 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clappison, James

  Ashby, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Niranjan

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Eggar, Tim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Elletson, Harold

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Butler, Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butterfill, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Evennett, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Faber, David

  814

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marland, Paul

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forth, Eric

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Merchant, Piers

  Freeman, Roger

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gallie, Philip

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gorst, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pawsey, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hannam, Sir John

  Redwood, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Harris, David

  Richards, Rod

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Hunter, Andrew

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

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

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Steen, Anthony

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

  Stephen, Michael

  Knox, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sykes, John

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thomason, Roy

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Trend, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Luff, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Maclean, David

  Waller, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Malone, Gerald

  Waterson, Nigel

  815

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dixon, Don

  Spellar, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  4. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (DISABLED PERSONS)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That section 7 of the Finance Act 1971, and section 7(2C) and (2D) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, may be repealed.
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 15.

  Division No. 7]

  [7.46 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Niranjan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bowis, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Colvin, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Congdon, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Conway, Derek

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Harris, David

  816

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Richards, Rod

  Heald, Oliver

  Riddick, Graham

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jack, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shersby, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sims, Roger

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (Worscs)

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

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Steen, Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Stephen, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stewart, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Streeter, Gary

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lidington, David

  Sykes, John

  Lightbown, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lord, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend)

  Luff, Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Maclean, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Mans, Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon Williaim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Walden, George

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Merchant, Piers

  Waller, Gary

  Milligan, Stephen

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Willetts, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wilshire, David

  Norris, Steve

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Page, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Austin-Walker, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Wicks, Malcolm H

  Dixon, Don

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  5. VEHICLES EXCISE DUTY (REGISTRATION MARKS)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made—

  (a) with respect to the fees and other sums payable in connection with the grant or acquisition of a right under section 11 or 12 of the Finance Act 1989; and

  (b) for the payment of fees, payable into the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the extension of the period for any such right.

  The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 17.

  Division No. 8]

  [7.57 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Philip

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burns, Simon

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Niranjan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  818

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Ms Rachel (D'mline W)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Merchant, Piers

  Sykes, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Walden, George

  Pickles, Eric

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Redwood, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Spellar, John

  Dixon, Don

  Wicks, Malcolm H

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hutton, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  6. EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made, in relation to duties of excise on goods, for fixing the time at which a requirement to pay duty is to take effect and the time as at which the rate of duty is to be determined and for specifying the persons on whom the liability to pay duty is to fall.

  7. PERSONAL RELIEFS FOR PERSONS ENTERING THE UNITED KINGDOM
  Resolved,

  819
  That provision may be made amending section 13 of the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979 with respect to the conditions subject to which reliefs may be conferred under that section.

  8. VALUE ADDED TAX (ABOLITION OF FISCAL FRONTIERS ETC.)
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of giving effect to requirements of the directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 17th May 1977 No. 77/388/EEC and to the amendments of that directive by the directive of that Council dated 16th December 1991 No. 91/680/EEC—

  (a) provision may be made for value added tax to cease to be charged on the importation of goods from other member States and to be charged, instead, on the acquisition in the United Kingdom of goods from another member State; and

  (b) provision may be made amending enactments relating to value added tax on supplies or importations.

  9. CAR TAX (ABOLITION OF FISCAL FRONTIERS)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending the Car Tax Act 1983 in connection with the abolition of fiscal frontiers between member States of the European Communities.

  10. INCOME TAX (LOWER RATE: CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made for the year 1992–93 and subsequent years of assessment in consequence of the introduction of the lower rate of income tax.
  The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 19.

  Division No 9]

  [8–08pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Deva, Niranjan

  Bates, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Duncan, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Booth, Hartley

  Dunn, Bob

  Boswell, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowis, John

  Eggar, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butterfill, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Cash, William

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Freeman, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gale, Roger

  Clappison, James

  Gallie, Philip

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gardiner, Sir George

  820

  Garnier, Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Gill, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Page, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Pawsey, James

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Redwood, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Richards, Rod

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Harris, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Sackville, Tom

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Jack, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Steen, Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Stephen, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stewart, Allan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Streeter, Gary

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

  Sweeney, Walter

  Knox, David

  Sykes, John

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Legg, Barry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lightbown, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Walden, George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Maclean, David

  Waller, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Malone, Gerald

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Whittingdale, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Wilkinson, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Willetts, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Wilshire, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cox, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  821

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  11. CORPORATION TAX

    (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1992)
    Resolved,
    That corporation tax shall he charged for the financial year 1992 at the rate of 33 per cent.

  12. CORPORATION TAX (SMALL COMPANIES: 1992)
  Resolved,
  That for the financial year 1992—

  (a) the small companies' rate shall be 25 per cent., and

  (b) the fraction mentioned in section 13(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall he one fiftieth.

  13. GROUP RELIEF ETC.
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 18 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  14. COMPANIES CEASING TO BE MEMBERS OF GROUPS
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies ceasing to be members of groups.
  The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 16.

  Division No. 10]

  [8–20 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Ancram, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Deva, Niranjan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dover, Den

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dykes, Hugh

  Booth, Hartley

  Eggar, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Elletson, Harold

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burns, Simon

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gale, Roger

  Clappison, James

  Gallie. Philip

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Coe, Sebastian

  Garnier, Edward

  822

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Page, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pickles, Eric

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Redwood, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Richards, Rod

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Riddick, Graham

  Hannam, Sir John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Harris, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Hendry, Charles

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jack, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Steen, Anthony

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

  Stephen, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Stewart, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Streeter, Gary

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sweeney, Walter

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

  Sykes, John

  Knox, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Legg, Barry

  Thomason, Roy

  Leigh, Edward

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lidington, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Lightbown, David

  Trend, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Walden, George

  Luff, Peter

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wallace, James

  MacKay, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malone, Gerald

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Marland, Paul

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Willetts, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wilshire, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Mandelson, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Pike, Peter L.

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  823

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  15. RENTS OR RECEIPTS BETWEEN CONNECTED PERSONS
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about rents or receipts payable to a person who is connected either with the person by whom they are payable or with another person who makes payments in respect of the same land.
  The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 15.

  Division No. 11]

  [8.30 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evennett, David

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Philip

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Niranjan

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  824

  Legg, Barry

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thomason, Roy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, John

  Willetts, David

  Richards, Rod

  Wilshire, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Sackville, Tom

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Prescott, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Wise, Audrey

  Dixon, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Hutton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  16. EMPLOYEE SHARE SCHEMES (SPECIAL BENEFITS)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending section 80 of the Finance Act 1988.
  The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 14.

  Division No. 12]

  [8.41 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  825

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heald, Oliver

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bowis, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bright, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Jack, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cash, William

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knox, David

  Clappison, James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Coe, Sebastian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Congdon, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lidington, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lightbown, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lord, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Luff, Peter

  Deva, Niranjan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Maclean, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Malone, Gerald

  Dover, Den

  Mans, Keith

  Duncan, Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Dunn, Bob

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Eggar, Tim

  Merchant, Piers

  Elletson, Harold

  Milligan, Stephen

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evennett, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Faber, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Norris, Steve

  Forman, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Freeman, Roger

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Gale, Roger

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gallie, Philip

  Redwood, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Richards, Rod

  Garnier, Edward

  Riddick, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gorst, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Harris, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  826

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wilkinson, John

  Sykes, John

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Viggers, Peter

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Barnes, Harry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Wise, Audrey

  Dixon, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Hutton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  17. DEEP GAIN SECURITIES
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 11 to the Finance Act 1989.

  18. RIGHTS IN PURSUANCE OF DEPOSITS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about arrangements relating to rights in pursuance of deposits.

  19. REDUCED AND COMPOSITE RATE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That provision may be made about the reduced rate for building societies and the composite rate for deposit-takers for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90.
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 13.

  Division No. 13)

  [8.52 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cash, William

  Bates, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Congdon, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bowis, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bright, Graham

  Cran, James

  827

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lord, Michael

  Deva, Niranjan

  Luff, Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Maclean, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marland, Paul

  Eggar, Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Elletson, Harold

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Evennett, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Faber, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Forth, Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Pawsey, James

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Gallie, Philip

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, John

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Richards, Rod

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Riddick, Graham

  Gorst, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Harris, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Shersby, Michael

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Hawksley, Warren

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Heald, Oliver

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Hendry, Charles

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Spring, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

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

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Stephen, Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Stewart, Alan

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sykes, John

  Jack, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Thomason, Roy

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

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Trend, Michael

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

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knox, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Walden, George

  Lait, Ms Jacqui

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Waller, Gary

  Legg, Barry

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Leigh, Edward

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Lightbown, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  828

  Willetts, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Wise, Audrey

  Dixon, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Hutton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  20. BANKS ETC. IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about companies that are or have been carrying on a deposit-taking business and are in compulsory liquidation.

  21. CAPITAL ALLOWANCES (COMPUTER SOFTWARE)
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about capital allowances in respect of computer software.

  22. CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PERIODICAL PAYMENTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made with respect to periodical payments under the Child Support Act 1991 or section 106 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or under any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland.

  23. PAYING AND COLLECTING AGENTS ETC.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the payment of income tax in respect of dividends or coupons by persons who are chargeable persons for the purposes of Part III of Schedule 3 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  24. OIL LANDED OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax, provision may be made about the valuation of oil which is, or could reasonably be expected to be, first landed in a country other than the United Kingdom.

  25. RELIEF FROM TAX

    (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

    PROCEDURE (PUBLICATION OR RATES OF INTEREST)
    Resolved,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision removing the requirement imposed by section 5(8) of the National Loans Act 1968 to publish certain rates of interest.

    PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be

    829
    included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

    (a) provision in relation to the married couple's allowance,

    (b) provision in relation to the business expansion scheme, and

    (c) provision in relation to capital allowances in respect of buildings and structures in enterprise zones.

    The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 13.

    Division No. 14]

    [9.03 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Alexander, Richard

    Dunn, Bob

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Amess, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Ancram, Michael

    Elletson, Harold

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Faber, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forth, Eric

    Body, Sir Richard

    Foster, Donald (Bath)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Booth, Hartley

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Bowis, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gale, Roger

    Brazier, Julian

    Gallie, Philip

    Bright, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gillan, Ms Cheryl

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Burns, Simon

    Gorst, John

    Burt, Alistair

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Butterfill, John

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chaplin, Mrs Judith

    Hannam, Sir John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Harris, David

    Clappison, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawkins, Nicholas

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawksley, Warren

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Conway, Derek

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cran, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Deva, Niranjan

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Dover, Den

    Hunter, Andrew

    Duncan, Alan

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    830

    Jack, Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Robert B. (W H'frdshire)

    Sackville, Tom

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knox, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lait, Ms Jacqui

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Legg, Barry

    Spring, Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lidington, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Lightbown, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Stewart, Allan

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Streeter, Gary

    Lord, Michael

    Sweeney, Walter

    Luff, Peter

    Sykes, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maclean, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mans, Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Marland, Paul

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'xl'yh'ath)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Trend, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Milligan, Stephen

    Viggers, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Walden, George

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waller, Gary

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whittingdale, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Page, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Willetts, David

    Pawsey, James

    Wilshire, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Redwood, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Richards, Rod

    Yeo, Tim

    Riddick, Graham

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Mr. Tim Boswell.

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Cox, Tom

    Spearing, Nigel

    Cryer, Bob

    Wise, Audrey

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Worthington, Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hutton, John

    Mr. Harry Barnes and

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Pike. Peter L.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

FINANCE BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums payable by virtue of any provision of that Act enabling provision to be made under section 128 of the Finance Act 1990 about the repayment of sums paid to the Secretary of State in connection with the retention, sale or assignment of a vehicle registration mark.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mrs. Secretary Shephard, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope, and Mr. Anthony Nelson do prepare and bring it in.

FINANCE BILL [Money]
  FINANCE BILL
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, to amend the law relating to the national debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

Orimulsion
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
9.14 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am delighted to be able to make this, my first speech in this new Parliament, with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new post. I know that you will fill it with distinction.
I should express my appreciation to Madam Speaker, who has given me the opportunity to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate so early in the new Parliament. We are debating an issue of considerable importance. I have restricted the terms of the debate to the burning of orimulsion at Padiham power station, although I recognise that the matter is of wider concern, because when I submitted my application just over a week ago I envisaged the debate lasting for the traditional half an hour. Instead, we have more time to debate the important issues that this subject raises. It is right that we should do so.
I know that several of my hon. Friends have already expressed wider concerns. Indeed, while Padiham power station is within the constituency and borough boundary of Burnley, the pollution that it may emit will drift and cause considerable problems in a much wider area, depending on the direction in which the wind happens to be blowing. Therefore, this is not just a local issue of concern; it affects a much wider area.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would have liked to be with us tonight but, unfortunately, in the past 24 hours, major redundancies in the royal ordnance factory in his constituency have been announced. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate why my hon. Friend has found it impossible to be here for the debate. But for that constituency problem, of great importance and urgency, he would have been here to show his concern.
There is concern among both Labour and Conservative Members about the burning of orimulsion at Padiham power station. I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked a question about this yesterday and has issued a statement today. He has chosen not to speak in the debate tonight because he has not made his maiden speech and wishes to do so in a debate that is less restrictive than this one. His statement says that he has stressed to Ministers his
"concern that the burning of orimulsion would lead to an increase in the current sulphur level over Read and Simonstone",
which are parts of the Ribble valley that are adjacent to the Padiham power station. The statement continued:
"because of this, he would not be prepared to support the burning of orimulsion at Padiham Power Station."
That shows the widespread concern about the burning of orimulsion.
I would never read The Sun, but some time ago I saw on television a report of an article in that newspaper entitled "Black rain eats cars". It said that the rain ate through the paint on more than £6 million worth of cars because it had been affected by emissions from a PowerGen station in another part of the country. I know that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak about this as well. That was my first hearing of the word

833
"orimulsion". I did not know what it meant. The Observer ran articles on the subject, one of which identified orimulsion as a front-runner for the title of filthiest fuel in the world. Not long after that, I received a message telling me of a proposal to burn orimulsion at Padiham power station, in my constituency. I was extremely worried by that.
In fairness to National Power, let me say that it has kept me informed throughout. Indeed, I received some information about orimulsion from National Power yesterday: the company considers that it is a beautiful fuel that will solve many problems. BP-Bitor, the company that wants to sell the fuel, also sent me some literature yesterday.
Throughout the exercise, the company has supplied information to the local authorities and to me and has tried to allay our fears. None the less, given that the only available information comes from those who want either to sell or to burn the fuel. I am beginning to wonder whether that information is genuine and can be accepted without doubts.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is still examining the exercise. Ultimately, it will lay down certain conditions, and will say either yes or no to the proposal. If any questions remain in my mind in regard to safety, however, and if I think that those questions cannot be answered, I shall feel that we must say no to the fuel. Safety is crucial.
Mine is not the only constituency involved. The wind may blow the pollution towards Pendle, and, when it blows from the north-east, it may drift over Hyndburn. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is very concerned about that.
Mr. Greg Pope: This is indeed a matter of major concern to the people of Hyndburn. Padiham power station is less than a mile from the boundary of my constituency. Is this not another example of the use of a cheap and dangerous fuel by a privatised industry that will put profits before people?
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As he said, the power station is fairly near the boundary of his constituency; it is also on the edge of my constituency and the constituency of Ribble Valley. Part of the Hyndburn constituency is clearly visible just across the road, and parts of Pendle are not far away. The wind is not constant, and may blow at different speeds and in different directions.
In the previous two Parliaments I was a member of the Environment Select Committee and was involved in early reports that the Committee put out about acid rain. Those reports condemned the "tall chimneys" approach to dispersing emissions from power stations, but the proposals were initially rubbished: it was said that there were no problems with acid rain. Over the years views have changed, and I believe that it is now recognised that the Committee identified a real danger. Now we must be satisfied that we shall not increase the existing problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made a valid point when he referred to the financial considerations. I was told by the press that they had been told that the Minister who would reply to the debate would be from the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government
834
have done away with the Department of Energy: energy now forms just a section of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to his new position on the Treasury Bench. I am glad that a Department of the Environment Minister is to reply to this debate. If a Department of Trade and Industry Minister had been sent here, it would have increased people's fears that environment problems would not come first and would not be looked at as closely as other aspects of the matter. I repeat that I welcome the Minister to his new post. I had dealings with him on a number of other issues in the last Parliament when he had ministerial responsibilities in another Department. I am glad that the Government have chosen to recognise that this debate is concerned with environmental problems.
The Opposition are concerned, however, that the Government do not intend to introduce a new green Bill. We were told before the election that there would be a new environmental Bill. We believe that they have chosen not to introduce such a Bill because their view is that green issues have a lower priority than cash.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): No.
Mr. Pike: The Minister says, "No." The Government have to prove their case. I believe that over the four or five-year term of this Parliament our fears will prove to have been justified. If, however, we can accept in good faith what has just been said by the Minister, we shall be happy. It would be good to know that green issues are important to the Government.
The Government still have a 40 per cent. stake in National Power. If they chose to do so, they could, by means of their shareholding in National Power, direct policy. However, they choose not to do so, and that is extremely worrying. National Power is in competition with PowerGen, which has already obtained permission to use orimulsion at certain power stations. Therefore, National Power quite rightly says that if PowerGen is allowed to use this cheap fuel on an experimental basis, it, too, should be able to do so. The point, however, is that PowerGen carried out those experiments before the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was passed. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. The Environmental Protection Act represents a tremendous move in the right direction. It did not go as far as the Opposition would have wished, but I repeat that it represents a major move in the right direction.
The question is whether the provisions of that Act will be applied to the Padiham power station and Pembroke power station proposals. The new competition within the industry means that the privatised companies have to compete with each other. That worries many of us. The use of natural gas for the generation of electricity at peak times in, say, January may be sensible, but one has to question its use at other times of the year. National Power argues that natural gas is a good fuel to use for the generation of electricity because it is clean, not a polluter. However, it then goes right to the opposite extreme of opting for a cheap fuel that would cause major pollution problems.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows that today I received an answer to a question about the Pembroke power station that dealt with this issue. It reveals the confusion to which the hon.

835
Gentleman just alluded. If the change of use proposed for the power station in Burnley is the same as that proposed for Pembroke, two approvals will be required from the Department of Trade and Industry—one for planning permission to extend the building and the other from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to authorise the burning of orimulsion. It is possible that then there would be a planning public inquiry which, this answer tells me, would be set up and decided upon by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That was a bit of a surprise to me. There is to be no proper consideration of fuel in any form of inquiry, and presumably that is what the people of Lancashire and south-west Wales would want. An inquiry would mean that the entire matter would be raised in one debate. That would alleviate many fears in Wales and the north-west.
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. The issues involved in the use of this fuel are too important to allow proposals to be considered in such a bits-and-pieces manner, in different parts of the country and not necessarily in the same way. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a planning inquiry. I do not know whether matters would be dealt with differently in Wales, but the fact that this point is to be decided by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raises fears about whether environmental issues or money will be the main factors. That is extremely worrying.
Whether energy provision is publicly or privately owned, I believe that the Government have a right to determine what fuel sources should be used and in what percentages. Energy is so crucial to our everyday lives in industry, commerce and at home that it should not be left to a competitive private sector and free market forces. There is a fundamental difference of view on that aspect.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that when Britain is suffering severely from a trade deficit it seems extraordinary that, as a result of Government policies, we are now importing 15 million tonnes of natural gas, 20 million tonnes of coal and, if the orimulsion proposals are allowed to go ahead, God knows how many million tonnes of orimulsion? All that will damage the balance of trade and cause disaster to the coalfield communities.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend must have been reading my mind, because I was about to deal with that. When we have our own resources, it seems crazy that we should import orimulsion, coal and perhaps increasing quantities of natural gas, all of which imports worsen our balance of payments. The Government say that they can manage our economy; yet even though we have had our own massive resources of oil and gas over the past few years, we still have a huge trade deficit.
The environmental issues are crucial. Far too many questions are unanswered. Many people are worried about whether we know all the questions that we should be asking. That may seem a strange thing to say, but we are talking about a brand new fuel and we do not know the long-term implications of its use. It may be that, although we are currently focusing our attention on important environmental matters, they may not be the most important matters. I am concerned that, even though we may use the fuel on an experimental basis, there may be a
836
problem. What do we do if, in 10 years, a Minister has to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "I'm sorry, but because we have been allowing that fuel to be burnt at Padiham power station, we have a terrible disaster in Rossendale and Darwen"? I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) is present.
Ms. Janet Anderson: This issue is of great concern to my constituents. They have —and have had for many years—a deep interest in environmental matters. The proposal will worry them deeply if it proceeds, which is why the Labour-controlled Rossendale borough council voiced its strong opposition to it. I fully support that stance.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend underlines the point that I am making. There is concern now but in 10 years' time, if a Minister from whichever party had to say, "We are sorry, but there is a disaster in Rossendale or Pendle", or wherever it may be, what on earth would we do? It would be no good saying that the authorities acted in good faith but had no idea of the implications. Therefore, unless the Minister can say that we are absolutely certain that using the fuel is 100 per cent. safe and that there can be no problems at all, we must say that we are not prepared to allow it.
Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to what he said a few minutes ago about chimney emissions causing acid rain and about that finally being acknowledged? I recall the very dim and distant days when I first started work at the generating board. I recently checked its annual report—and the Minister should listen to this if he is also listening to experts.
Mr. Maclean: I am listening.
Mr. Dobson: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was not. The generating board's annual report for 1962 or 1963, annnouncing the new single stack chimneys under the heading "Clean air", said that as its new contribution to cleaning the air it would use one chimney per power station with one flue. It believed that the chimney emissions would hurtle out at such a temperature and speed that they would rise into the upper atmosphere and do no harm at all. That was what the chimney emission experts said in the 1960s but they were, in fact, announcing the invention of acid rain.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right. In all the time that I served on the Select Committee on the Environment—which was an excellent Committee under a Conservative Chairman, Sir Hugh Rossi, who is no longer with us—it produced some extremely good reports on long sea outfalls, chlorofluorocarbons and other issues. All those reports were initially rubbished and thrown into the waste bin, but a few years later people saw some truth in them and realised that they contained issues of which they should take note. There is a parallel to tonight's debate because, at the moment, we do not know all the facts about orimulsion.
Orimulsion is a fuel based on the bitumen from the Orinoco delta in Venezuela. BP Bitor is a joint company involving Venezuela and BP in this country. The bitumen comes from the ground in massive quantities and is mixed with water to make it transportable. The fact that it is mixed with water and is an emulsion causes particular

837
problems when it is burnt in the combustion process to create energy. If the combustion process is not right and if there is a large amount of water with the emissions, will it return to earth more quickly? What other problems could be caused? That is one example of the problems that we face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned her local authority in relation to the proposal for Padiham. Local authorities such as Burnley. Hyndburn, Pendle and Ribble Valley, Rossendale borough council, Lancashire county council and others in the immediate area are all working together and expressing similar concern to HMIP. They are all unable to find experts independent of BP or of National Power to give them advice on what they should suggest objectively to HMIP. That has been the difficulty for them and for anyone trying to make constructive proposals to deal with the request to burn orimulsion at Padiham power station.
Friends of the Earth say that the burning of orimulsion could fail to meet EC directive 80/779 and they believe that it could fail to meet the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Orimulsion produces 20 per cent. more sulphur dioxide and a higher percentage of respirable dust than residual fuel oil.
Padiham power station was considered for burning orimulsion because it was built as a coal-fired station, and then became oil-fired, then one generator was returned to coal and the other was hardly used; so, relative to the age of the power station, the second generator set is fairly new.
A difficulty emerges. Of course sulphur emissions can be reduced if action is taken, and if HMIP insists on measures to deal with the emissions and all the problems with other emissions, whatever those happen to be. The problem that arises is that National Power—or, in the case of the other proposals, PowerGen—may say that the measures are too expensive, and the companies are not prepared to carry them out.
Knowing how the Government work, I suspect that they may say to National Power, "Okay, we will bend the rules and allow you to go ahead anyway." They will consider the Environmental Protection Act in terms of BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive costs—and agree that the costs are excessive, and allow the companies to go ahead. That is a grave worry, so we shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about it.
Friends of the Earth are worried about the percentage of heavy metals—which is higher than that in residual fuel oil—such as vanadium, and the carcinogenic metal, nickel. Some of those metals will be destroyed during the combustion process, but the evidence is clear that a larger percentage than with oil or other fuels will be emitted into the atmosphere. Such emissions can have implications even more serious than those of sulphur. I know that National Power says that that is not true, but I do not believe that the company has yet proved its case sufficiently to convince other people. There are more worries about the heavy metal emissions than about the sulphur because of their long life and the gradual, cumulative effect over the years.
I asked earlier how much National Power would invest in Padiham. That sum must, of course, be considered relative to its life span. The power station may have another 10 years left—12 years at the most. How much more money are people prepared to invest in it? That question does not mean that I am not concerned about the
838
jobs at the power station. I fought to keep it, and I want to see it survive—but not as a safety hazard to the people who work in it and the wider public.
I know that several other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so although there are many other items that I could raise, it would be wrong for me to prevent other people from making a contribution. It is important to show the wide concern about the proposal. I shall say only a little more, and then allow other people to speak. We certainly want the Minister to have adequate time to respond.
To quote an item from English Nature, Dr. Farmer said:
"The burning of Orimulsion planned by National Power can only increase ecological damage caused by acid rain".
The World Wildlife Fund and the Countryside Commission have written to HMIP objecting to the proposals to burn the fuel. That shows the concern of a wide spread of people and organisations involved in environmental and ecological matters. They are concerned about acid emissions, the implications for soil and water, for plant and water life—and, of course, ultimately, for human life as well. We all hope that HMIP is carrying out its duties towards the public under the Act, but there are some question marks, because what happens is not seen out in the open.
The Minister could answer the questions tonight by saying that the Government will not allow the proposal to go ahead unless they are 100 per cent. certain that the fuel can be burnt safely and that there are no unanswered questions. The Minister may say tonight that he believes that the best way forward in considering the burning of the fuel is to allow a public inquiry at which all the many important issues and the other issues that will be brought out in this debate can be properly aired and properly considered. Everyone will then have the full facts. That is why this debate is so important.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I will call the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) next. Although I fully understand that he may want to make remarks about his predecessor and that he may want to express other pleasantries, I must point out that it will be necessary for him to stick to the main subject of the Adjournment debate.
9.45 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I wish you well in your office as, I am sure, do all other hon. Members.
I am the first Labour candidate to be elected to the House for Pembroke since 1966. I am also the first Labour Member for the reorganised Pembroke constituency which was established after the 1979 election. I will try to keep my traditional comments brief, because we are debating an important issue and I do not want to take up valuable time.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, who was undoubtedly a hard-working Member of Parliament. That was recognised by the Prime Minister in his first reshuffle when he appointed Nicholas Bennett the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I wish Mr. Bennett well. I understand that he is determined to return to this place. All I say to him is that I wish him well as long as he is elected in a safe Tory seat and not in a Labour seat. He inherited a majority of almost 10,000 from his

839
predecessor, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, who is now Lord Crickhowell. He was a distinguished Member of the House and served well as Secretary of State for Wales for a long period in the 1980s. Lord Crickhowell is now the chairman of the National Rivers Authority.
I will go briefly through the problems that Pembroke faces which are apposite to our debate. Pembroke has many wonderful things going for it, especially its coastline and its national park. Generally, it is a most beautiful constituency and I have been lucky to live there for 21 years. I intend to stay there as Member of Parliament and certainly as a resident. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) knows the area well because he is a regular walker in the unique Pembroke national park.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is enough of that.
Mr. Ainger: That is enough of that.
Although we have many benefits, we have serious economic problems. The Milford Haven estuary has one of the largest petrochemical installations in Britain. It has three oil refineries and an oil-fired power station and is a major port in any terms. However, Esso decided to close its refinery in the early 1980s. The Milford fishing industry has been in decline and has now gone into receivership. I understand that the vessels have recently been sold to Irish interests.
We have had major closures in the defence industry, which is a major employer, and we now face the possibility of RAF Brawdy and RNAD Trecwn closing with massive unemployment consequences involving between 1,200 and 1,500 people which in a rural constituency is rather like major cities having 5,000 or 10,000 redundancies at once.
Against that background, I will describe how carefully the local authorities have considered the application by National Power to burn orimulsion at the Pembroke power station. With the greatest respect, I have to say that Pembroke power station is a giant in comparison to Padiham power station, which is more a minnow in terms of size of combustion plant. Pembroke is a 2,000 MW station.
National Power plans to import up to 3 million tonnes of orimulsion and burn it in Pembroke power station. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, not only does orimulsion have a high sulphur content per unit, but it has a 30 per cent. water content and therefore a much lower calorific value than ordinary heavy or residual fuel oil. In other words, one must burn half as much again to obtain the same amount of energy and, in doing so, one creates half as much again of sulphur dioxide emissions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said, sulphur dioxide is a major cause of acid rain. He referred to the problems in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. However, with regard to Pembroke, we are not simply talking about a local, regional or national problem; we are talking about an international problem.
If National Power receives the go-ahead without installing flue gas desulphurisation, which would virtually eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions, the Germans and the
840
Scandinavians will be on our backs complaining, quite rightly, that Pembroke power station is massively increasing acid rain problems in their countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has already raised the issue of acid rain deposition in his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has explained that the National Rivers Authority is expressing grave concern about the catchment areas in the Cambrian mountains, in the Elan valley reservoir area and in tiny pools. The N RA fears that if orimulsion is burnt in Pembroke power station without flue gas desulphurisation, the sulphur dioxide deposits will greatly acidify the streams and rivers that currently support salmon and trout fisheries. That is a major problem for north Lancashire, south-west Wales and Pembrokeshire, and it spreads throughout Europe.
My constituency has the highest level of unemployment in Wales. The current figure is 5,200. I am sensitive to statements or practical implications that could affect unemployment in my constituency. I should love to see unemployment plummet in my constituency, but I am a realist. We have a major problem and a dim future when we consider what is on the horizon, particularly in relation to the defence industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, in his capacity as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on energy, have spoken to the workers at Pembroke power station. The workers recognise that there will be a serious environmental problem if orimulsion is burnt in the power station without the proper pollution controls.
I have referred to sulphur dioxide and the problems that it is already causing in Europe. Unfortunately, the Black forest is literally black at the moment as a result of acid fall-out. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley also explained that, while orimulsion contains sulphur, it also contains heavy metals such as vanadium and mercury. A planning application was originally before the Department of Energy and is now before the Department of Trade and Industry. It was made because National Power plans to install four large dust precipitators to remove the particulate material from the flue.
I have here a document produced on behalf of Dyfed county council by Gibbs Environment, an independent consultancy. It states clearly that, even with the so-called state-of-the-art filters which National Power plans to put on the stack, there will still be a significant increase in the amount of dust emitted from the stack. As it is such fine material, part of that dust will be heavy metals such as vanadium and mercury. In certain concentrations they are carcinogens and they undoubtedly cause asthma and the like. There are great fears among the local populace, because the dust would be a local rather than regional, national or international fall-out.
The document was produced by scientists, not politicians. It also says that because the fuel has a large water content it is possible that local clouds of not sulphuric but hydrochloric acid could fall, given the right climatic conditions or, for Pembroke and the surrounding areas, the wrong climatic conditions. There could be local acid rain fall-out within the national park and the towns of Pembroke, Haverfordwest, Milford and so on.
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the proposal. The scientists are saying not only to the county

841
council, the Pembrokeshire Coast national park and South Pembrokeshire district council but to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the National Rivers Authority and the Countryside Council for Wales, all of which have registered objections, that there should be a proper public inquiry and investigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley has said. This is a new fuel. We must look differently at the way in which we treat the flue gas emissions from the stacks. In Germany, Denmark, Japan, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States, Governments insist on full flue gas desulphurisation and state-of-the-art filtration systems before orimulsion can be burned neat.
The problem for National Power is simply, as was said earlier, that its competitor PowerGen took over the Ince B power station on Merseyside. The Central Electricity Generating Board had been running an experimental burn of orimulsion at that power station when the takeover took place. PowerGen has been allowed to continue it. In that respect, I have a great deal of sympathy with National Power; its competitor has been allowed to burn orimulsion without flue gas desulphurisation, special filters or anything else, because it started burning the fuel before the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came in, along with the various controls and reviews involved in that legislation.
PowerGen is in the same market as National Power, yet National Power is faced with the possibility—I hope that it is a distinct probability—that if it is ever given permission to burn orimulsion it will be only with full FGD and proper state-of-the-art filtration. Let us be honest: National Power is competing not only with PowerGen but with coal and gas. Surely Conservative Members appreciate the concept of the level playing field. If flue gas desulphurisation is not fitted at Pembroke power station, at Padiham or anywhere else, there will be no level playing field. Cheap fuel is being brought in and it will produce massive amounts of acid rain. There are distinct possibilities of heavy metal fall-out and local acid rain because National Power is not willing to make the investment—I admit that it would be large—to put in FGD.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Mr. Ainger: I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall try to be brief.
National Power is, understandably, looking towards burning orimulsion full time at Pembroke power station. Following the hike in crude oil prices in the early 1970s, the station has never been able to run in the way for which it was designed, which was as a base-load station burning heavy fuel oil supplied by the adjacent oil refineries. National Power wishes now to turn the power station into a base-load station burning orimulsion. It says that if Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, or the Government, do not impose what are in my opinion the necessary pollution controls, it will wish to run the station—all the four units—to produce up to 2,000 MW of electricity. It says that it is unwilling to make the investment in flue gas desulphurisation, purely for commercial reasons.
I suggest that if it is commercially viable in the United States, Canada and Germany, where orimulsion is being burnt by private generators, to make the investment. it is
842
similarly viable in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that National Power is trying to get away with burning orimulsion on the cheap.
I want to see employment continue at Pembroke power station. If orimulsion is to be burnt in the United Kingdom, there must be all the necessary pollution protection that is now available. There should be a level playing field for National Power and PowerGen. There should be a level playing field also throughout Europe, which will extend to our German competitors or colleagues, call them what you will.
At Pembroke power station there are 300 employees, but a cut is planned for March, 1993. The management has said that if orimulsion goes ahead 80 or 90 jobs will be lost instead of 150. Even if permission is granted by HMIP, the present 300 jobs will not be secure.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for raising an important issue and giving me the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the grave problems that Pembroke faces.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister would wish to reply at 10.10 pm.
10.4 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on making his maiden speech in the difficult circumstances, on this occasion, of trying to be non-controversial. I congratulate him on his fair and well justified comments in paying tribute to the previous Member for Pembroke, Nick Bennett. We all know that elections are won or lost; we know also that many colleagues work very hard as Members of this place, and Nick Bennett certainly worked very hard for his constituency. I look forward as undoubtedly other hon. Members do to hearing from the hon. Gentleman in future.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing this debate which is of considerable interest across the party Benches. There is concern about the use of orimulsion whether in his constituency power station or other power stations. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is here beside me taking considerable interest in the proceedings on behalf of his constituents.
Orimulsion at Padiham has considerable interest for my constituents. As the hon. Member for Burnley said, some time last year there was a major incident with orimulsion at Richborough power station in Thanet, South which is close to the major town of Deal in my constituency. Some £6 million worth of motor cars were damaged with the result that there is considerable interest wherever orimulsion is burned.
The problem was first raised with me in my constituency last year. Since then I have raised the issue with Ministers, PowerGen and British Petroleum, and I have visited the BP chemicals operation at Sunbury where there is a very good video, which I commend to hon. Members, that explains a great deal about orimulsion. It would relieve many Members of their anxieties, some of which are unfounded when considered against the details. I am concerned that much of the detailed information about orimulsion has not come into the open. Many

843
aspects need to be explained to Members of Parliament and members of the public. I hope that the Minister can reassure us with information in his speech.
Last year I wrote both to the Minister and to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution about orimulsion, hoping to secure a meeting with HMIP and believing that by now it might be an independent agency with some of the openness and benefits that such an arrangement brings. I was saddened that after considerable delay the reply came from the Minister's office, not HMIP. I hoped that the reply would fix a time and date for a meeting, but I am still waiting. I believe that it will be a ministerial meeting with HMIP present. I am not too fussed about the arrangements, but I want to have the benefit of questioning Ministers and HMIP at a meeting. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley would like to be present as, I am sure, would other hon. Members to get at the facts.
I shall try to be as brief as I can. So far my research has shown that, although orimulsion has many plus factors, it has negative ones, too. The plus factors are that the fuel burns efficiently in small, nearly perfectly formed droplets. Because of that, the dust emissions appear to be considerably less and safer than those of other fuels, such as coal or oil A further advantage is that orimulsion results from British technology. I do not want to be particularly controversial, but I should chastise the Labour party a little. Labour Members often go on about the need for research and development, and one of the benefits of orimulsion is that it is the result of British research and development. BP has been successful in using its research and development with the Venezuelan Government and oil company to produce a fuel that has many benefits, although possible disadvantages. A further benefit is that large quantities of orimulsion are available at an acceptable price. Therefore, orimulsion brings benefits in terms of price and availability to the British economy.
The negative factor is that sulphur dioxide emissions can be considerable and that if inefficient procedures operate in the burning process, as happened at Richborough, there can be large amounts of sulphur trioxide. When mixed with water in the atmosphere, sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide produce sulphurous and sulphuric acids. A combination of those apparently produced the smut that landed on cars in Richborough. We must be concerned about those smuts in respect of the health of constituents.
I hope that, when replying, the Minister will mention the problems of HMIP and the aspects of commercial confidentiality that have been cited in letters to me and about which I am concerned. Much of the secrecy that normally operates in respect of commercially confidential information should be swept aside in this case and the files, including those of HMIP, should be opened up. Hon. Members should have the opportunity, on behalf of their constituents, to examine the matter fully.
I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak and I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley on raising the subject.
10.11 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): This is one of those rare parliamentary occasions. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that he was surprised that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry would not be replying to the debate. I am from the Department of the Environment. I am glad that on this occasion a Minister of State is able to answer, because we are discussing an important subject. I am also happy to note that, a new hon. Member having made his maiden speech, the most senior Minister available in the House is able to congratulate him. I fulsomely congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, many of us were good friends of Nick Bennett, who was an outstanding Member and a very good ministerial colleague. So I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke pay a warm tribute to him. I was also pleased with his remarks about his constituency. It is customary to say that one looks forward to hearing much more from a maiden speaker. On this occasion, I began to realise as he was speaking that he really knows the subject, whereas I have come to it new and have had to swot it up in recent weeks. The hon. Gentleman therefore will not take it amiss when I say that I hope that I shall not have to reply to him in future debates, considering that he is such a master of the subject. Others who do not have to reply to him will be pleased to hear his contributions. I congratulate him.
Mr. Pike: I intervene at this stage simply because none of my hon. Friends will have an opportunity in this debate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on his maiden speech. We echo the Minister's comments. My hon. Friend made a fluent and well informed speech. At the same time, I commiserate with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has been present throughout the debate but has not had an opportunity to speak. He was the only one of my hon. Friends present to whom I did not refer. I thought that he would have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Maclean: I, too, regret that the hon. Gentleman did not have a chance to take part in the debate. It is clear from the number of hon. Members present for an Adjournment debate how much interest there is in the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) tackled me on the subject outside the Chamber, before the debate commenced. I appreciate that there is much concern about the issue.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley for raising the matter, although I suspect that many people outside, like me until a few days ago, would have said, if asked to give an opinion about orimulsion, that it was the latest home decorating product. For many others, particularly those living near power stations where the fuel is burnt, or where it is proposed to be burnt, it is a serious matter of deep current concern. So I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the debate.
We live in a world where the market for fuels is constantly changing. Since the oil crisis of the mid-1970s and the increases in oil prices and generally greater volatility of the oil markets that followed it, the choice of oil as a fuel for power generation has become increasingly unattractive, as hon. Members pointed out. That is especially significant because, unlike, say, road transport,

845
there are several other competing sources of energy which power generators can use. We have therefore seen a progressive decline in the utilisation of oil-fired power stations, such as Pembroke and Padlham, although they still play a part in the generation of our electricity.
Against that background, it is easy to understand the appeal of a new fuel, competitively priced against other fuels, available in large quantities and capable of being burned in oil-fired power stations with relatively minor modifications. Such, we gather, is the situation with orimulsion, a bitumen in water emulsion produced in Venezuela, where huge reserves are said to exist. That fuel is now being marketed around the world—in Europe under a joint venture with British Petroleum—with, as hon. Members said, some success.
However, if the world today is characterised by a lively, ever-changing energy market, it is also witnessing an upsurge of concern for the environment. Significantly, we are now less than a month away from one of the most important environmental events ever held, the Earth summit in Rio. We are seeing a welcome growth in environmental awareness and concern here and abroad, which is affecting more and more areas of our daily lives. It is quite right that that is the case.
Energy production is one such area. The days when we could produce power by burning whatever fuel was most easily and most cheaply available, with little regard to environmental effects, are mercifully long gone. But now, more than ever before, the environmental aspects of power generation are a central concern in the energy industry. It is therefore right that any proposal radically to change an aspect of the industry, especially one involving a new fuel source, should receive careful, thorough scrutiny from an environmental perspective. It is no accident that this debate is being answered tonight by an Environment Minister: it is a sign, 1 assure hon. Members, of the importance that the environment is playing in the consideration of this new fuel.
May I digress for a moment? I also assure hon. Gentlemen that we are proceeding with drafting our Environmental Agency Bill. It has not been put on the back burner, and we shall seek the earliest legislative opportunity to push ahead with it.
As a general rule, the electricity generators should be left to decide which fuels to burn and in what quantities. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with that philosophy, but subject to compliance with the non-fossil fuel orders, it is an operational matter for the companies. We now have a competitive electricity market with a number of new players. We also have a powerful regulator which oversees the operation of the market and safeguards the interests of consumers.
However, like all other large-scale industrial processes, power generation is a source of pollution. For example, power stations account for about 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's major sources of sulphur dioxide, one of the main causes of acid rain. Another reason why I am pleased to answer this debate is that I represent Penrith and The Border in the Lake district, where we, too, know a bit about acid rain. It is vital to exert proper control over the industry, given its implications for the wider environment. Thanks to the actions of my predecessors, that is exactly what we now have.
The electricity generators, like other polluting industries, are subject to the rigorous system of integrated pollution control introduced under the Environmental
846
Protection Act 1990 which is a unique first in Europe. It is no exaggeration to describe this as one of the toughest pollution control regimes in the world. It puts the United Kingdom at the forefront of environmental protection.
For example, we are playing a crucial part in the European Community's efforts to extend the principle of integrated pollution control throughout the EC. Pollution control knows no national boundaries. It cannot be artificially compartmentalised, especially when a single process may release pollutants into more than one medium. It therefore needs a broad, integrated approach, and that is exactly what we now have.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend spoke of the possible harmful effects of the burning of orimulsion. Even if I were able to, I am sure that the House would not thank me for going into a complex, technical explanation of the results of orimulsion combustion. I think that 1 could match the hon. Member for Pembroke on that. Thankfully, we have experts far better equipped to do so. However, I can confirm that, while on some counts orimulsion compares favourably with other fuels, it does give cause for concern on environmental grounds. In particular, the emission levels of some heavy metals, especially vanadium and nickel, are significantly higher than other fuels, and orimulsion does release more sulphur dioxide than other fuels per unit of energy produced.
It is therefore vital to ensure that any proposal to burn that fuel is carefully considered from the environmental perspective. I am happy to confirm that that is exactly what is happening. The combustion of fuels in power stations is one of the processes controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, under integrated pollution control, and no orimulsion—or, indeed, any other fuel —can be burned in any power station without its authority.
I am pleased to note that, despite the concerns voiced tonight, no one has questioned the integrity or the rigour of HMIP. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said about a meeting, and I will consider that possibility. However, I want jealously to guard the independence of HMIP. If that means that I have to refuse meetings with Members of Parliament, I hope that the House will understand the valid reason for doing so.
The inspectorate has received applications from National Power to burn orimulsion at its Padiham and Pembroke power stations, and from PowerGen to continue to burn orimulsion at its Ince and Richborough power stations. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pembroke for mentioning electrostatic precipitators. At Richborough, the requirement to use electrostatic precipitators means that particulate emissions are exactly half what they would be if the station were burning coal. Furthermore, HMIP has required total sulphur dioxide emissions from both Ince and Richborough to be no higher than they would have been if the power stations had been burning fuel oil at full load.
All those applications are currently under consideration. I cannot predict the outcome of the inspectorate's deliberations; indeed, it would be wrong of me to try. I have heard what has been said in the House tonight. I heard the comments about flue gas desulphurisation, but that is a matter for HMIP to determine. I am sure that the House will appreciate that, as any appeal would fall to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it would be wrong of me to comment on the merits of the applications.
Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend has made a valid point about the independence of HMIP. However, I am still concerned to clarify with him the extent to which Members of Parliament can actually question and become involved, as some hon. Members have, in the technical details. 1 sense that on both sides of the House there is a desire by Members of Parliament, who may not be technically trained but who have some limited technical understanding, to get down to the details. Do we have access to HMIP or do we have to go through a Minister? How can we actually get at the details?
Mr. Maclean: Perhaps the best thing would be if I produced a note showing the status of HMIP. That might satisfy all hon. Members. All the data sent to the HMIP go into the public domain and its decisions go on to the public registers. Anyone is entitled to send information to it for consideration and deliberation before it comes to a decision. It might also be helpful if I describe in that note the relationship that Members of Parliament could have with HMIP.
Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if HMIP says that orimulsion cannot be burnt unless certain conditions are met and National Power, or PowerGen, says that it cannot afford to meet those conditions, it will not be overridden?
Mr. Maclean: There is an appeal system, which I cannot prejudice by giving any guarantee about whether something will or will not be burnt. I am certain that HMIP will not hesitate to stipulate the provisions of whatever pollution abatement equipment it considers necessary as one of the conditions of any authorisation it grants. In reaching this decision, HMIP has a duty to ensure that, for example, any statutory air quality standards are not exceeded.
Concern has particularly been expressed at the possible damage burning orimulsion might do to the environment, regardless of any abatement measures which HMIP may require. Indeed, the hon. Member for Burnley has argued that its importation and use by the power industry should simply not be allowed. As I have said, I cannot accept the imposition of blanket restrictions of this kind. Provided the protection of the environment is properly taken into account, the Government consider that the generators should be granted the freedom to operate in the marketplace, without such unnecessary interference. We take the dangers of polluting emissions very seriously indeed, and those who doubt this should examine our record on acid rain.
For various geographical and historical reasons, acid deposition and its harmful effects were not always recognised as a major problem in the United Kingdom. If we go back far enough in time, of course, the scientific understanding that we now have of such matters simply did not exist. We should take that point on board. Our island status and the measures, such as tall chimneys,
848
taken to protect our main population centres meant that we did not always view this problem in quite the same way as some of our neighbours.
I am happy to report that those days are long gone. The United Kingdom is now playing a full part in international efforts to reduce the emissions which contribute to acid deposition. We have already made great progress. For example, our emissions of sulphur dioxide, one of the two main acid rain-causing gases, are down by almost 40 per cent. from 1970 levels. But we are not resting there—we agree that we need to do more.
We are therefore implementing fully the European Community's large combustion plants directive, under which we are committed to reducing our 1980 levels of emissions of sulphur dioxide by 60 per cent. by 2003 and of nitrogen oxides by 30 per cent. by 1998. The United Kingdom's national plan for implementation of the directive sets out specific annual emission limits for both National Power and PowerGen. I must stress that there is no question of the use of a new fuel such as orimulsion at a particular plant being allowed to cause the limits to be broken. Greenpeace's concerns are wrong.
Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maclean: No, I must get on.
We have spoken about the public concern about proposals to burn orimulsion. I hope that what I have said this evening will offer some reassurance to those concerned about this issue. These applications will not go through on the nod. Under our new legislation, the applicants will have to conform to requirements that are tougher and more detailed than any that we have seen before. I can also confirm that public participation is another crucial element in our pollution control apparatus. National Power's applications for Pembroke and Padiham have been advertised to the public and put on public display.
A substantial number of representations have been received and the inspectorate will take these carefully into account in reaching decisions on the applications before it. If an authorisation is issued, it will be placed in the public registers—held by HMIP and the relevant local authority —as will key documents relating to the operation of the plant such as any monitoring data on releases to the environment which are required to be supplied to HMIP as a condition of authorisation.
I recognise that the proposal to burn orimulsion at Padiham—and elsewhere—is a cause of genuine concern in many quarters. I hope that what I have said will reassure some people. The electricity generators must be free to make operational decisions, but at the same time they must also meet rigorous environmental standards. Our pollution watchdog is scrutinising these applications and will insist—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Cars
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to eliminate favourable tax treatment of company cars.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's policy is that, so far as possible, there should be broad neutrality in the tax treatment of remuneration paid in cash and in kind. In keeping with that policy, the aim has been to ensure that the statutory income tax scale charges realistically reflect the value to an employee of the benefit of the availability of a car for private use. That has involved substantial increases in the level of the scales since 1979.

  With a view to further improvements in the neutrality and fairness of the car scales, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that he proposes to introduce price-based scale charges for company cars as soon as practicable. The Inland Revenue will be publishing a consultative document on this in the summer.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been both the revenue produced by capital gains tax and the cost of raising that tax in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  The most recent published figures of capital gains tax yield and the cost of administration for years up to 1990–91 are set out in the table.

  £Million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  11990–91

  Cost of administration2

  25·1

  26·6

  34·3

  39·0

  Yield

  1,379·0

  2,323·0

  1,854·0

  1,852·0

  1 Manpower usage and costs of administration for 198–0 have been adjusted to reflect a new basis of costing. Direct comparison of these and later figures with those of earlier years may be misleading. More detail regarding this adjustment is given in the board's report for the year ending 31 March 1991.

  2 Costs are based on total departmental expenditure.

  Notes:

  Capital gains tax receipts in 1991–92 are provisionally estimated at £1,140 million.

  The receipts figures quoted exclude tax on gains made by companies included in corporation tax.

  Electronic Aids (VAT)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had in respect of the removal of VAT from all electronic aids for blind and visually disabled people; and what plans he has to remove VAT from such aids.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers receive occasional individual representations about the liability to VAT of a164
  variety of electronic aids for blind and visually disabled people. There is already relief from VAT for goods designed solely for use by the blind, but there are no plans to extend this relief.

  Life Assurance (Tax Rules)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the tax rules for life assurance companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A few life assurance companies are contesting the long-standing interpretation of the law which allows the Inland Revenue to tax the investment return accruing for the benefit of policy holders when the company makes a trading loss. Income and capital gains taxed in this way are reflected in benefits which are received, by most policy holders, without any further tax charge.

  If the challenge were successful, the Exchequer cost in the current year would be around £450 million because tax liabilities for a number of past years have not been finalised. The ongoing Exchequer cost would be up to £100 million a year.

  Recent reforms of the taxation of life assurance have been designed to remove distortions and differential distributions of the tax burden between companies. The Government believe that the interpretation put forward by the life assurance companies concerned would lead to an uneven incidence of taxation between companies and in the benefits going to policy holders; and awaiting the outcome of the companies' challenge would result in considerable uncertainty, possibly over a period of years.

  The Chancellor therefore proposes to bring forward in the forthcoming Finance Bill legislation which will have retrospective effect to confirm the existing long-standing basis of taxing proprietary life assurance companies. It is the Government's intention to introduce a new clause in Committee together with any necessary Ways and Means resolution.

  Multinational Companies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any changes are proposed to the tax treatment of multinational companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A recent decision of the special commissioners ruled that certain payments made under equity notes—perpetual debt instruments where the loan is not repaid—were interest for tax purposes.

  The two main grounds on which the special commissioners gave their decision were that the particular wording of the relevant double taxation agreement did not prevent such payments being interest for the purposes of that agreement and that section 209 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 did not treat such payments as distributions.

  If no action were taken there could be a loss to the Exchequer of up to £150 million a year. The Government therefore propose to bring forward legislation in the forthcoming Finance Bill.

  The legislation will have two components. First, it will restore the general understanding of certain of the United Kingdom's double taxation agreements to what it was before the decision. Second, it will establish the relevant

  165
  domestic law to include payments made under equity notes in the definition of distributions. The legislation will apply to all payments made from midnight tonight.

  Treaty of European Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what examination his Department has made of the treaty of European union signed at Maastricht for incompatibility with existing EEC law; and what discrepancies have been discovered.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 May 1992]: My Department examined the treaty on European union very thoroughly throughout the negotiations leading to its signature, but since the purpose of the treaty is to add to or amend the provisions of the treaty of Rome, which is the basis of all Community law, the issue of incompatibility with existing EC law does not arise.

  Parliamentary electors registered in each constituency in Greater Manchester, 1983 to 1987

  Parliamentary constituency

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Altrincham and Sale BC

  66,838

  67,330

  67,591

  67,775

  68,407

  68,531

  68,284

  67,838

  67,135

  66,985

  Ashton under Lyne BC

  59,568

  59,611

  59,217

  59,140

  59,019

  59,168

  59,071

  59,320

  59,221

  59,170

  Bolton North East BC

  59,719

  60,286

  60,340

  59,939

  60,149

  59,841

  59,490

  59,782

  59,997

  59,209

  Botlton South East BC

  68,394

  67,676

  67,170

  66,879

  66,803

  66,564

  66,117

  66,471

  66,671

  66,245

  Bolton West CC

  68,221

  69,081

  69,739

  70,208

  70,722

  70,699

  71,448

  72,526

  72,820

  72,067

  Bury North BC

  66,960

  67,553

  67,899

  68,170

  68,830

  69,390

  69,612

  70,411

  70,172

  70,313

  Bury South BC

  65,642

  65,607

  65,681

  65,672

  65,785

  66,154

  65,641

  66,157

  66,122

  66,456

  Cheadle BC

  67,334

  67,810

  68,456

  68,876

  69,137

  69,434

  68,995

  68,085

  67,276

  66,934

  Davyhulme BC

  65,790

  66,153

  66,060

  66,227

  66,331

  66,017

  65,221

  64,449

  63,695

  63,279

  Denton and Reddish BC

  69,430

  69,612

  69,457

  69,735

  70,218

  70,586

  70,303

  70,041

  69,462

  69,048

  Eccles BC

  68,016

  67,977

  67,502

  67,639

  67,529

  67,179

  66,466

  66,334

  65,760

  65,326

  Hazel Grove CC

  64,348

  64,896

  65,046

  65,499

  66,506

  66,635

  66,309

  66,003

  65,344

  65,034

  Heywood and Middleton CC

  60,348

  60,973

  61,204

  61,008

  60,111

  59,451

  58,175

  58,112

  57,697

  57,796

  Leigh BC

  68,764

  69,056

  68,954

  69,407

  69,925

  70,236

  70,257

  70,708

  70,492

  70,706

  Littleborough and Saddleworth CC

  64,660

  65,490

  66,257

  66,597

  66,795

  66,446

  66,134

  66,564

  66,316

  66,304

  Makerfield CC

  69,935

  70,308

  70,850

  71,289

  71,549

  71,637

  71,316

  71,798

  71,803

  72,034

  Manchester, Blackley BC

  60,861

  60,814

  60,769

  60,482

  59,799

  58,521

  56,100

  55,669

  55,902

  55,701

  Manchester, Central BC

  70,088

  68,637

  66,903

  65,767

  64,000

  61,374

  57,296

  56,319

  57,176

  56,907

  Manchester, Gorton BC

  65,394

  65,183

  64,991

  65,023

  65,221

  64,613

  62,290

  62,380

  62,710

  62,848

  Manchester, Withington BC

  65,354

  65,407

  65,297

  66,178

  66,295

  65,846

  64,103

  64,054

  64,138

  64,313

  Manchester, Wythenshawe BC

  61,876

  61,234

  60,646

  60,314

  59,403

  57,982

  55,903

  55,061

  54,807

  54,045

  Oldham Central and Royton BC

  67,818

  67,309

  67,214

  66,630

  65,845

  64,041

  62,960

  62,840

  62,177

  61,902

  Oldham West BC

  58,077

  58,428

  58,507

  58,228

  57,698

  56,694

  55,474

  55,252

  54,779

  54,519

  Rochdale BC

  67,456

  68,158

  69,169

  69,019

  69,477

  69,309

  69,875

  70,127

  70,301

  70,297

  Salford East BC

  64,649

  63,506

  61,089

  59,687

  58,518

  56,925

  55,007

  54,271

  53,199

  52,928

  Stalybridge and Hyde CC

  68,654

  68,679

  68,405

  68,638

  68,720

  68,452

  68,177

  68,491

  68,739

  68,772

  Stockport BC

  59,389

  59,904

  59,806

  60,292

  60,618

  60,654

  60,219

  59,920

  58,997

  58,558

  Stretford BC

  58,108

  58,593

  58,432

  58,419

  58,246

  57,188

  55,567

  55,013

  54,903

  54,874

  Wigan BC

  73,100

  72,888

  72,584

  72,472

  72,842

  72,989

  73,274

  73,680

  73,506

  73,381

  Worsley CC

  72,941

  73,616

  73,608

  73,721

  73,918

  74,062

  73,660

  73,917

  72,974

  72,841

  Total

  1,967,731

  1,971,775

  1,968,843

  1,968,929

  1,968,416

  1,956,618

  1,932,744

  1,931,593

  1,924,291

  1,918,792

  Note:

  BC =Borough constituency.

  CC =County constituency.

  Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients were waiting for a first out-patient appointment on 31 March in each individual health authority in England.

HEALTH

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of overseas voters registered for each constituency on the electoral register currently in force.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. It will be included in the publication "1992 Electoral Statistics", series EL No. 19, in the summer.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of electors registered in each constituency in Greater Manchester(a) on the current electoral register and (b) on the registers in force for each of the years 1983–84 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, I understand that arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 26 June.

  Agencies
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has identified any further candidates for agency status under the next steps initiative within her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Following a detailed feasibility study, we have identified the Department's NHS superannuation branch as a candidate for executive agency status.

  We are confident that the move to agency status will be beneficial, enabling the agency to operate with greater freedom and clearer responsibility within an agreed framework of objectives, performance targets and resources, thus improving the service provided to the pension scheme members.

  Detailed discussions on an agency framework document have been set in hand with a view to establishing NHS Pensions as an executive agency in the second half of 1992.

  Shigella Sonnei
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures her Department is taking to control the current epidemic of shigella sonnei infection in schools; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reports of shigella sonnei have recently shown a marked increase in some localities, as previously occurred in 1977 and 1984. Action for dealing with local outbreaks of such diseases is the responsibility of both the environmental health department and the district health authority's consultant in communicable disease control. An environmental health officer will normally visit the school or other establishment affected and provide on the spot advice.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service also provides advice and assistance for the control of outbreaks of shigella sonnei via its 52 area and regional public health laboratories. A working group has been established by the PHLS to determine whether further steps might be taken.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she now expects to table a motion to the House on the proposed ban on tobacco advertising in EC document 6748/91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The House's scrutiny of this document was not completed before the Dissolution. It will be for the Select Committee on European Legislation, when established, to decide what further scrutiny is required in this Parliament.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Mates
  The home civil service is fully committed to ensuring equality of opportunity for all applicants, including any from ethnic minorities. The Northern Ireland Office is an equal opportunity employer and this is emphasised in all our recruiting campaigns and advertising. If direct recruitment for certain senior posts in the Northern Ireland Office were to be necessary, it would be conducted with guidance from the Civil Service Commission. The Northern Ireland civil service has not taken any specific action to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment. All recruitment is on the basis of merit in fair and open competition.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applicants are on the priority waiting list for homes in the boroughs of(a) Ards and (b) Castlereagh; and how many new homes are planned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the boroughs in 1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose chief executive has advised me that at 30 April 1992 there were 140 applicants in the priority category on the executive's waiting list in the borough of Ards and 109 in Castlereagh. The number of new homes planned by the executive is as follows:

  Ards borough

  Castlereagh borough

  1992–93

  146

  30

  1993–94

  133

  25

  1994–95

  129

  5

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Seekers Estate Agencies
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry into the Seekers estate agency franchise business.

  Mr. Leigh
  I cannot comment on the affairs of individual companies or persons. I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide which might warrant an inquiry.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Voluntary surveys were last conducted in 1988 (DTI) and 1990 (Department of Energy). The resulting databases have been continuously updated with
  169
  information on new staff and leavers. As part of departmental initiatives for action on race, an exercise aimed at improving the positive response rate was conducted in both Departments during 1991–92. A total of 88 per cent. of staff currently employed by the Department —including its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy—have declared their ethnic origin.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the Department, including its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy, as at 1 January 1992 are—from an 88 per cent. positive response rate to ethnic survey:

  Grade level

  Number of respondents

  Percentage of staff

  Grade 1–4

  Nil

  —

  Grade 5

  2

  1

  Grade 6

  6

  3

  Grade 7

  25

  2

  All respondents, including industrial grades

  1,287

  9

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to set a target to ensure that 10 per cent. of total electricity supply stems from renewable sources by the year 2000 within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy are under consideration as part of the current review of the Government's renewable energy programmes.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year from 1982 to 1992 what financial contribution has been made by industrial sources to the research, development and demonstration programmes for renewable energy run by the energy technology support unit; and if he will break down these figures for each of biofuels, wind power, solar power, small scale hydro, geothermal, tidal power and wave power.

  Mr. Eggar
  Annual external contributions to the renewable energy research, development and demonstration programme from the private sector, generating boards and the European Commission are listed. A breakdown of the figures by technology is not available.

  Per cent.

  1981–82

  1·9

  1982–83

  3·2

  1983–84

  2·0

  1984–85

  3·3

  1985–86

  2·1

  1986–87

  3·1

  1987–88

  3·9

  1988–89

  4·7

  1989–90

  5·3

  1990–91

  7·0

  A figure for 1991–92 will be available shortly.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives he intends to make to increase the public access to information on radioactive substances.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is the Government's policy to assist Parliament and the public by being as open as practicable in relation to information about civil radioactive substances, subject to considerations of security, commercial confidentiality and the costs of preparing the information.

  Berkeley Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the defuelling of the Berkeley nuclear power station will be complete; what additional radiation exposures to the work force were incurred during the defuelling; how many fuel rods remain in the spent fuel cooling ponds at the Berkeley site; and what plans exist for the decommissioning of the spent fuel cooling ponds at the site.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is an operational matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Nuclear Research and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the future of the consultation process begun in August 1991 by the Department of Energy, on the review of nuclear research and development programmes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The consultation process on the review of the nuclear research and development programmes of the Department of Energy—now the Department of Trade and Industry—was completed in October 1991. I intend to publish a strategy for these programmes in due course.

  Radioactive Contamination
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to make an agreement with the Russian Federation to help clean up radioactive contamination at nuclear facilities along the lines of the co-operation agreement signed by his German and Russian counterparts in mid-March.

  Mr. Eggar
  During a visit to Russia in March, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal put in hand negotiations with the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation for a framework agreement to encourage technical cooperation on civil nuclear energy. The exact scope has yet to be decided.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of development of new technologies in coal burning power stations, including combined heat and power, in reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next 10 years;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the contribution of renewable energy over the next seven years towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the contribution of gas fired power stations towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next 10 years.
  171
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the background paper concerning the revised forecast of carbon dioxide emission in the United Kingdom for the years 2000 and 2005.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answers 13 May 1992]: On 6 December 1991 the then Secretary of State for Energy provided the House with the results of further work on scenarios for United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions. This took account of helpful developments such as proposals for more efficient gas-fired electricity generation and improvements in energy efficiency. Details of these scenarios, including their underlying assumptions, will be published in the near future.

PRIME MINISTER

  Whaling Ban
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to support a ban on whaling for commercial purposes on a permanent basis at the forthcoming Earth summit.

  The Prime Minister
  The Earth summit has a full agenda on a range of environmental issues; it will not be the place for detailed consideration of whaling. The United Kingdom has taken a lead in protecting whales and strongly supports the moratorium on commercial whaling, agreed by the International Whaling Commission, which has operated since 1985. The IWC is the proper place to consider the future of the moratorium; it will be discussing the matter at its next meeting in June.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Ministers in each Department responsible for considering the environmental implications of his or her Department's policies and spending programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  An updated list is currently being prepared and will be published as soon as possible.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence he has received from Mr. Frank Machon regarding the alleged breach of export control restrictions over the sale of military sensitive materials to Iraq by British companies; and what response he has made.

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, the last correspondence from Mr. Machon was February 1991 and a reply was made on 26 February.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now give the names and composition of all Cabinet committees and sub-committees.

  The Prime Minister
  A full list of ministerial Cabinet committees, with their terms of reference and membership, will be published shortly.

  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Lloyd's sixth and final report, covering 1991, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work since 1986 in reviewing the issue of warrants. I note in particular his observations that the Secretaries of State take great care to satisfy themselves that the warrants are necessary for the purposes stated in the Act, and that the system for the issue of warrants is working as intended by Parliament.

  Careful consideration is being given to both parts of the commissioner's report.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Community Radio Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans his Department has as to the issue of new community radio station licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 created a framework for the development of a wide range of types and sizes of new independent radio services. Licences are awarded by the Radio Authority.

  I am pleased to see that so far the authority has awarded 14 local radio licences and aims to continue to advertise about two further licences each month. During 1991 the authority also issued 178 short-term restricted radio licences, which a number of community groups used for special local events and to gain experience and assess audience reaction to their programmes.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will meet representatives of pensioners' organisations to discuss free television licences.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I consider that no useful purpose would be served by a meeting with representatives of pensioners' organisations to discuss free television licences. Our policy is clear and well-known to the hon. Member. We have no plans to change the present concessionary arrangements.

  Free licences for pensioners, irrespective of ability to pay, would deprive the BBC of over £500 million a year.

  173
  If the remaining licence holders had to make this up, they would face an increase of over 50 per cent. to more than £120 per annum for a standard licence.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the proposed restructuring of the Sports Council to form a United Kingdom sports commission and sports council for England, and on the chairmanships of these bodies.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the policy statement "Sport and Active Recreation", published on 19 December 1991, the Government announced their intention to replace the Sports Council of Great Britain with a United Kingdom sports commission and a sports council for England, subject to the approval, by the Queen in Council, of the royal charters for the two new bodies.

  Following the transfer of responsibility for sport and recreation to the Department of National Heritage, the Government remain fully committed to this restructuring. I intend to appoint Peter Yarranton as chairman of the United Kingdom sports commission, and Ian Beer as chairman of the sports council for England. Mr. Yarranton is presently chairman of the Sports Council of Great Britain and will continue in that capacity until the transition to the new arrangements has been effected.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science Strategy
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to outline his strategy for science; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The creation of the Office of Science and Technology by the Prime Minister underlines the Government's commitment to a strong science and technology—S and T—base in the United Kingdom. Its establishment will enable me to take an overview of S and T policy from the heart of government. I look forward to taking stock of the United Kingdom's fine record of scientific and technological achievement and of how we might best sustain and develop that in the future.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received the interim report from the Institute of Psychiatry about the fatigue aspects of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 12 May 1992]: I have received no such report. The Medical Research Council is funding this research. It is not its normal practice to request interim reports from project grant holders and I understand that it has not done so in this case.

DEFENCE

  Green Rover
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review his decision to sell the former Royal Fleet Auxilliary supply ship, the Green Rover, to Indonesia.
  174
  Mr. Aitken
  The RFA Green Rover is a replenishment ship for fresh water, fuel and refrigerated goods. She has no offensive capability. There are no grounds for reviewing the decision to sell the ship.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will close the Defence Export Services Organisation in Indonesia.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  United Nations Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British service personnel have been deployed with the United Nations peace-keeping force in Yugoslavia; and what other units have been deployed with this force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At the United Nations' request, the United Kingdom is providing three military observers and a field ambulance unit of some 260 personnel for the United Nations peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia. Of these, 41 personnel, including the three military observers, are already in theatre; the main United Kingdom contingent is expected to be deployed by the first week in June. Additionally a platoon of some 40 Royal Engineers may deploy with the field ambulance for about the first two months, to prepare accommodation and services. The total United Nations force of around 14,000 should comprise 12 infantry battalions, 100 military observers, 500 civilian police monitors and service and civilian support personnel.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional pay or allowances service personnel deployed on United Nations duties in(a) Yugoslavia and (b) Cambodia will receive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Military personnel deployed in support of the United Nations do not receive additional pay and allowances other than the standard daily separation payment for those married unaccompanied personnel who qualify under normal service regulations. It is normal practice for the United Nations to meet service men's in-country costs direct but where this cannot be done, a United Nations mission subsistence allowance is paid either to the unit or, as in the case of Cambodia, direct to the individual to meet the extra cost of living in-theatre. The daily United Nations subsistence rate for Cambodia is US$110 per man.

  Ceremonial Duties and Uniforms
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to acquire further information about the costs of(a) ceremonial duties and (b) ceremonial uniforms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Equipment Orders
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy relating to the release of information on in-service dates for equipment currently on order.

  Mr. Aitken
  The forecast in-service date of equipment will normally be unclassified. Although it is my
  175
  Department's policy to be as open as possible about these matters, there are two categories of exception to this rule. The first is when the release of a forecast in-service date may constitute an intelligence advantage to a potential enemy. The second is when the release of the in-service date of equipment procured collaboratively is the subject of an international agreement with our partners.

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterpart regarding the strengthening of the European contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend met his United States counterpart in Washington on 11 and 12 May. They discussed a wide range of current defence topics.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's review of the policy relating to ethnic monitoring within the armed forces has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces are equal opportunity employers under the Race Relations Act 1976 and have undertaken a range of measures to increase recruitment from ethnic minority communities. To underline our commitment to equal opportunities for all ethnic groups, we have now decided to extend to serving personnel our present practice of monitoring the ethnic origins of applicants to join the armed forces. The information gathered will be used solely for monitoring our equal opportunity policy and individual's ethnic records will be guaranteed confidentiality. We have set further work in hand to draw up detailed proposals for a monitoring scheme. We intend that this will be implemented as soon as practicable.

EDUCATION

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response he has made to the report of the Engineering Council on technology within the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I welcome the Engineering Council's report as a useful contribution to the monitoring and review of the implementation of the national curriculum order on technology.

  The National Curriculum Council keeps all the national curriculum subjects orders—including that for technology—under review and advises the Secretary of State accordingly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider any such advice and make a statement in due course.

  School Cleaning
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps his Department is taking to ensure that school cleaning is not compromised by the local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.
  176
  Mr. Forth
  I see no reason why school cleaning should be compromised by local management of schools. Local education authorities are required to delegate funds for cleaning by April 1993 or as initial contracts expire, using a formula which is clear and objective. It will then be for governors to decide the level of cleaning they wish to have at their school. Some LEAs have already delegated those funds to schools and I am aware of no evidence to suggest that the quality of school cleaning is being adversely affected.

SCOTLAND

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to tighten the laws preventing the exploitation of the natural assets and wildlife of the seashore by private extraction companies.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The general principles which the Government pursue in relation to environmental issues are set out in the White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200). The Government memorandum to the Environment Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1991–92, sets out the comprehensive nature of the present arrangements for protection of the coast.

  The second report of the Environment Committee on coastal zone protection and planning (No. 17) is still under consideration and the Government response will be made in due course.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made over the last decade of the damage to estuaries, its implications for estuarial flora and fauna, as well as adherence to international wildlife conventions; and whether he has any proposals for the protection and improvement of estuaries.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The general principles which the Government pursue in relation to environmental issues laid down out in the White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200). The Government memorandum to the Environment Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1991–92, sets out the comprehensive nature of the present arrangements for protection of the coast.

  The second report of the Environment Committee on Coastal Zone Protection and Planning (No. 17) is still under consideration and the Government response will be made in due course.

  In 1991, the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), the Government's adviser on nature conservation issues, published a major report "Nature Conservation and Estuaries in Great Britain". Scottish Natural Heritage—the successor organisation to the NCC in Scotland with effect from 1 April 1992—is taking forward the report's findings and proposals at local level to identify priority estuaries and action required. It is for Scottish Natural Heritage to consider which estuarial sites require to be notified as sites of special scientific interest and to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend for the designation of sites in fulfilment of the United Kingdom's international nature conservation obligations.
  177
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to improve the protection of the coastline and offshore waters; and when he expects to implement them.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The general principles which the Government pursue in relation to environmental issues are set out in the White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200). The Government memorandum to the Environment Committee of the House of Commons, Session 1991–92, sets out the comprehensive nature of the present arrangements for protection of the coast.

  The second report of the Environment Committee on coastal zone protection and planning (No. 17) is still under consideration and the Government response will be made in due course.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards the release of official information relating to the Lockerbie air explosion investigation in cases where the information has already become public.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is generally for the Lord Advocate to determine, after consultation with any relevant Minister in the case of official information, whether information from the criminal investigation relating to the Lockerbie disaster should be released. The question whether public interest immunity restrains the giving of evidence when material relating to the Lockerbie investigation has become public or has apparently become public is one which is expected to be considered in proceedings currently before the High Court of Justice arising from the civil litigation in the United States in the Lockerbie case.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the police inquiring into the Lockerbie bombing incident have taken to seek information on the lie detecting tests undertaken by Kilin Tuzcu and Roland O'Neill at Frankfurt airport in January 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The circumstances of this matter were investigated by the German and United States authorities in consultation with the police and Crown Office. It would not be proper for any comment to be made on behalf of the Lord Advocate on the outcome of these inquiries, in particular while criminal proceedings are active. However, it has been established judicially in Scotland that the results of so-called lie detector tests are wholly inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

  Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the criteria on which his office and the Lord Advocate will base a decision to issue a public interest immunity certificate in relation to proceedings before the courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Public interest immunity is claimed where the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate considers that it would be injurious to the public interest for particular matters to be the subject of evidence. The particular interest to be protected will vary according to the particular circumstances of the case.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to take capping action against any Scottish local authority in the current year.

  Mr. Lang
  I have now analysed the 1992–93 budget estimates of all Scottish local authorities. All authorities have budgeted at or below the expenditure limits implied by the provisional capping principles which I announced on 14 October 1991. In these circumstances, I do not propose to take capping action against any Scottish local authority this year.

  Overall, authorities plan to increase their expenditure in 1992–93—as compared with the budget estimates for 1991–92—by 5·6 per cent. and the excess of budgets over grant-aided expenditure (GAE) has been reduced from 2·1 per cent. in 1991–92 to 1·2 per cent. this year. This outcome demonstrates the effectiveness of my strengthened capping powers in constraining the growth in local authority expenditure and it is my intention to issue later this year provisional capping principles for 1993–94.

  Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are for improving the environmental representation on the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee (HGTAC) is the principal statutory body responsible for advising the Forestry Commissioners on forestry matters in Great Britain. The HGTAC already has two members representing environmental interests, and I am pleased to announce that it has now decided to set up a sub-committee to provide a wider forum for informed and constructive consideration of the environmental aspects of forestry. The HGTAC has invited leading representatives from environmental organisations and the forestry industry to become members of the sub-committee. We greatly welcome this initiative, which should further improve understanding between the interests concerned and assist the Forestry Commissioners in fulfilling their statutory duty to balance the needs of productive forestry with those of the environment.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many environmental impact assessments have been presented with planning applications in each of the last three years; and what assessment has been made of their compliance with the European Community directive on environmental impact assessment.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The number of environmental statements which have been notified to the Scottish Office is as follows:

  Number

  15 July 1988 to 14 July 1989

  7

  15 July 1989 to 14 July 1990

  17

  15 July 1990 to 14 July 1991

  26

  The planning authority to which the planning application is made is the competent authority for the purposes of European Community directive 85/337/EC on

  179
  environmental assessment. It is the responsibility of that authority to ensure that an environmental statement meets all relevent requirements as part of the process of considering the associated planning application. Where an application is the subject of an appeal, or is called-in, the responsibility transfers to my right hon. Friend.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Recruitment to senior grades is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency on behalf of the Civil Service Commissioners. Recruitment to all posts in the Civil Service is conditioned by the principle of fair and open competition. Steps have been taken in publicising opportunities and through making recruitment rules more flexible to help tap the ethnic minority work force.

  Forestry Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received proposals from Wildlife Link on environmentally based forestry policy for the 1990s.

  Mr. Curry
  I received a copy of Wildlife Link's report "Future Forestry: A New Direction for Forest Policy" at the end of April.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what standards he will press the EC to adopt in relation to(a) keeping of battery hens, particularly with respect to size of cage and (b) care of animals in transit, particularly with respect to feeding and watering intervals for such animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government believe that the current Community minimum standards for battery cages are unacceptable. We shall be arguing for a substantial increase in space allowances for each hen and other improvements to the cages together with the highest possible standards for alternative systems. We are now awaiting the report and conclusions of the Commission's review of egg-laying systems.

  On transport of animals, we will be pressing for the excellent rules which apply in the United Kingdom to be reflected in the further decisions to be taken by the Community.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to press for the amendment of the common fisheries policy to ensure that all decisions taken under the policy take into account the prevention of effects of ecosystems and marine wildlife.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are most concerned to seek the avoidance of incidental catches of marine 180
  mammals. In the context of the new agreement under the Bonn convention, we shall be seeking to monitor further the small cetacean populations in the North sea and the Baltic and the impact of fisheries.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the length of time that will have to pass before there will be no restriction on the movement of farm animals arising from high levels of radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  While it is not possible to say when all restrictions on sheep from the parts of Cumbria affected by the Chernobyl accident will finally be lifted, considerable progress has been made since 1986. Only 138 of the 1,670 holdings originally subject to controls remain under restriction. We are continuing our monitoring and research efforts with the aim of releasing the remaining area at the earliest opportunity consistent with the need to ensure that the food chain remains fully protected.

  I will be reviewing the results later this year and considering the possibility of further relaxation of restrictions. In the meantime, we shall continue with our "mark and release" and compensation arrangements which allow normal farming practices with minimum disruption.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  High Court Proceedings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will outline the provisions relating to the circumstances in which proceedings in the High Court may be held in camera.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hearing of civil or family proceedings to which the public would normally be admitted may be held in camera only where, in the opinion of the court, a public hearing would defeat the ends of justice. In criminal proceedings, a prosecutor or a defendant may apply to the court for all or part of a trial to be held in camera for reasons of national security or the protection of a witness or other person.

  "On the Trail of Terror"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration the Lord Chancellor has given to the book "On the Trail of Terror," a copy of which has been sent to him; and what assessment he has now made of the Adjournment debate of 20 January,Official Report, column 153, initiated by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, in respect of the references to the documents referred to in the book.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has not yet received a copy of the book "On the Trail of Terror", and has not therefore had an opportunity to consider it. The Adjournment debate, to which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, replied, does not appear to raise issues within the Lord Chancellor's responsibility.

  Social Security Commissioner
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will take steps towards the appointment of a social security commissioner resident in Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. The Cardiff office of the social security commissioner was closed in 1986 as there were insufficient hearings to justify its full-time status. The present arrangements for regular hearings in Cardiff by a visiting commissioner adequately meet present demands.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will restore the income support entitlement of young people aged 16 and 17 years.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government's policy of providing a guarantee of a youth training (YT) place to all young people who want one, instead of their depending on social security benefits, is the most effective way of encouraging young people to make the most of their opportunities. However, income support is available to those vulnerable groups of young people who are unable to participate in YT and to those seeking a YT place who would otherwise be at risk of severe hardship. We have no plans to restore general entitlement to income support, but we are monitoring closely the operation of these rules with a view to streamlining their administration where possible.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the disability living allowance have been received by his Department; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage that were refused and (c) the number and percentage refused by grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Scott
  The total number of new claims received by 30 April 1992 was 130,262.

  (i) Number

  (ii) As percentage of new claims decided per cent.

  Number of new claims decided1

  29,453

  Awards and refusals made on new claims

  Awards

  17,562

  59·6

  Refusals

  11,891

  40·4

  Grounds for refusal

  Disability conditions not satisfied

  3,853

  13·08

  Other2

  8,033

  27·27

  1 Excluding claims from people already in receipt of mobility allowance or attendance allowance.

  2 Includes age and residence and presence conditions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been received for the disability working allowance; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) the number and percentage of these
  182
  that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage that were refused and (c) the number and percentage refused by grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability working allowance is a new benefit introduced in April for some disabled people who work but have limited earning capacity. Up to 8 May, 9,017 claims had been received. Of these, 588, or 6·5 per cent. resulted in an award and 7,188, or 79.7 per cent. were unsuccessful. The grounds for refusing benefit in the unsuccessful cases were as follows:

  Number

  Per cent.

  Claimant not in remunerative work

  4,230

  58·8

  Earnings above limit

  471

  6·6

  No "qualifying" benefit

  2,000

  27·8

  Claimant receiving family credit

  173

  2·4

  Other reasons

  314

  4·4

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by(a) average hourly earnings, (b) average hours worked, (c) average age, (d) sex, (e) type of disability and (f) qualifying benefit of (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful applications received for disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Not all the information is available. Such information as is available is in the table and is derived from a provisional analysis of the claims received up to 12 May.

  Recipients

  Unsuccessful claims

  Average number of hours worked

  29

  Not available

  Average age

  35

  42

  Sex-men

  332

  4,658

  women

  276

  2,774

  Qualifying benefits:

  Not available

  Invalidity benefit

  60

  Severe disablement allowance

  32

  Income support with disability premium

  88

  Housing benefit with disability premium

  52

  Disability living allowance

  64

  Mobility allowance, attendance Allowance and other benefits

  492

  Note: Customers may have more than one qualifying benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and outcome of applications received for(a) the lower rate care component or (b) the lower rate mobility component of the disability living allowance broken down by (i) people previously in receipt of either attendance allowance or mobility allowance and (ii) people not previously in receipt of either of these two benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  In general, claims for disability living allowance are made for the benefit as a whole, rather than for individual rates of components—although customers may choose to supply details about only one of the two components if they wish. An adjudication officer then determines whether there is entitlement to the benefit and, if so, at which rate or rates.

  Initial statistics show that by 30 April 1992 the number of people who were not previously in receipt of either mobility allowance or attendance allowance and had been awarded either one or both of the new lower rate components was 10,392. In addition, there were

  183
  respectively 4,786 lower rate mobility awards and 1,406 lower rate care awards made to people previously in receipt of attendance allowance and mobility allowance.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the mobility component of the disability living allowance were received in February, March and April 1992(a) from people aged 66 years or over and (b) in respect of children under five years of age; and how many applications for the mobility allowance were received in February, March and April 1991 (i) from people aged 66 years or over and (ii) in respect of children under five years of age.

  Mr. Scott
  The requested information about the number of applications received for the mobility component of disability living allowance is not available.

  The number of claims for mobility allowance received in February, March and April 1991 from people aged 66 and over and in respect of children under five is in the table:

  Month

  Number of claims

  February 1991

  967

  March 1991

  1,084

  April 1991

  1,256

  Total

  3,307

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the care component of the disability living allowance have been received from people aged 66 years or over.

  Mr. Scott
  In general, claims for disability living allowance are made for the benefit as a whole, rather than for individual components—although customers may choose to supply details about only one of the two components if they wish. An adjudication officer then determines whether there is entitlement to the benefit and, if so, at which rate or rates. The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of all applications for the disability living allowance were either(a) from a claimant who has requested a medical examination in preference to completing the self-assessment claim form or (b) where the adjudication officer has required a claimant to undergo a medical examination.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, as at 1 May 1992, out of a total of 29,453 disability living allowance claims decided, 1,305, or 4 per cent., included, as part of the evidence before the adjudication officer, a report by an examining medical practitioner.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to replace the independent living fund after June 1993; and if applications to the fund will continue to be accepted up to and including June 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund will continue to make new awards until the end of the current financial year. From April 1993 local authorities, which are best 184
  placed to assess need and allocate local resources, will be responsible—in conjunction with users, carers and other interested agencies—for assessing individual needs and arranging flexible and innovative care packages under the community care arrangements. We are, however, committed to maintaining after that date a fund which supports the most severely disabled people. Details of these arrangements will be announced in due course.

  Appeal Tribunals (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average waiting time for appeals to the social security appeal tribunal in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991;

  (2) what was the average waiting time for appeals from (a) Orkney claimants and (b) Shetland claimants to the social security appeals tribunal in (i) 1989, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals are not available for areas smaller than a former social security region. The relevant information for the former Scotland region and Great Britain is in the table. For both, the latest information available is for the first six months of 1991.

  Average waiting time from lodgement of an appeal to the date of hearing for all appeals to social security appeal tribunals:

  Year

  Great Britain weeks

  Scotland weeks

  1989

  25·4

  28·4

  1990

  23·1

  20·4

  January to June 1991

  23·6

  22·3

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the frequency of sittings of the social security appeal tribunal in(a) Kirkwall and (h) Lerwick in (i) 1989, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Responsibility for the administration of social security appeal tribunals lies with the president of the independent tribunal service, His Honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increases are to be paid to pensioners annually.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are committed to uprating retirement pensions annually in line with price increases. Additionally, pensioners in receipt of income support and some other benefits will find these reviewed annually.

WALES

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department carried out a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees in May 1988. The
  185
  ethnic origin of all new entrants and leavers is monitored and there is no need for another survey. Since 1990, my Department has concentrated on the implementation of a programme of action to consolidate the equality of opportunity offered to people of ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, acting on behalf of the civil service commissioners, is responsible for most recruitment into senior grades in my Department. It has taken a number of steps to encourage applications from and aid recruitment of members of ethnic minorities. Those include increasing contacts with minority communities; extending links with polytechnics, universities and tertiary colleges to attract a wider range of applicants generally, and specifically from ethnic minority communities; increasing ethnic minority representation among careers liaison staff and on selection panels; ensuring that relevant recruitment literature reflects a multiracial work force; equal opportunities training for those involved in selection; and using validated selection procedures to ensure that selection is fair and non-discriminatory.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The details, based on staff in post figures at 31 March 1992, are given in the table:

  Number

  Per cent

  Grades 1–6

  —

  —

  Grade 7 (1)

  2

  1·2

  Department Total (2)

  32

  1·3

  (1) Includes equivalent professional grades

  (2) Includes agency and industrial staff. Part-time staff each count as one unit.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what emergency provisions exist for south Wales in the event of a total breach of containment taking place at(a) reactors and (b) spent fuel cooling ponds at (i) Berkeley, (ii) Oldbury and (iii) Hinkley Point nuclear plants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The rigorous safety arrangements at United Kingdom nuclear sites render extremely unlikely the kind of nuclear emergency postulated. Co-ordinated plans based on the worst case scenario which can reasonably be predicted have been devised by the operators of the nuclear sites on Severnside in consultation with the police, local authorities and other emergency services, and also involve liaison with central Government Departments, including the Welsh Office. Those procedures, which are regularly tested in simulated exercises, entail measures to safeguard public health and to protect food and water supplies on both sides of the Severn estuary.

  Development Area Status (Pembrokeshire)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will support appeals by Preseli Pembrokeshire district council and Dyfed county council to give Fishguard and Haverfordwest travel-to-work areas development area status.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government announced before the election that a review of the assisted area map would be conducted in this Parliament. We are now considering how to take that forward. The needs and problems of all areas will be fully taken into account during the course of the review.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that the application form and all information concerning student loans are available in the Welsh language.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for student support matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I am in touch with him about producing more of the literature on student support matters, including student loans, in the Welsh language.

  Countryside
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any new proposals for protecting the countryside.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Any new proposals for protecting the countryside will be announced at the appropriate time. "The Rural Initiative", which was published by my right hon. Friend last December, included a number of relevant proposals, including plans for a countryside stewardship scheme "Tir Cymen", being developed by the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new youth training places he is providing and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The numbers of youth training places provided are the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils. Under the terms of their operating agreements and contracts TECs are obliged to offer a training place to every 16 and 17-year-old not in full-time education who seeks one.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to meet the target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste by the end of the century; and if he will make a statement outlining the present percentage of household waste that is recycled in Wales and by how much it has changed since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The measures being taken nationally to promote recycling are outlined in the first year report on the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1655).

  In Wales the action taken comprises
  guidance to local authorities on devising and implementing recycling
  187
  strategies in the form of waste management paper No. 28; a request to authorities to submit recycling plans by 1 August in accordance with section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; the introduction of a system of recycling credits under section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 together with associated advice and guidance to authorities on the scheme in the form of Welsh Office circular 10/92.

  Reliable estimates of the percentage of household waste that is recycled in Wales are not available, but steps are being taken nationally to obtain more accurate data.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new policies he intends to adopt to ensure that school leavers without a job obtain employment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The careers service and the employment service offer help to school leavers who wish to take up employment. School leavers need the opportunity to acquire skills and qualifications if they are to take their place successfully in the labour market, and all 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education are entitled to a youth training place. By 1996, all such 16 and 17-year-old leavers will be able to claim a training credit, and the value of the training credit will be an incentive to employers to engage them.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects his detailed radiotherapy facilities appraisal for north Wales to report; who are the members of the appraisal committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The investment appraisal of the options available for the establishment of a dedicated cancer treatment centre, including radiotherapy facilities, in north Wales is to be conducted by independent consultants. I expect them to report their conclusions by the end of 1992.

  INMOS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to recover from the INMOS company, Newport sums of money paid to them by the Welsh Office or the Welsh development agency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Such information must be treated as commercial in confidence.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the length of time that will have to pass before there will be no restriction on the movement of farm animals arising from the high levels of radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not possible to estimate how long radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident will require the maintaining of controls on the sale of and movement of sheep from the restricted area of Wales. However, our "mark and release" arrangements and associated compensation payments are designed to ensure the minimum disruption to normal farming practices while controls remain in force.
  188
  Following intensive monitoring and assessment programmes, I was able to lift controls from two small areas in Gwynedd and Clwyd last year. We are continuing with those types of programmes with a view to lifting controls in further parts of the remaining restricted area as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising food safety.

  Pembroke Power Station
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will order a full public inquiry into the proposals to change from the burning of oil at Pembroke power station to the burning of orimulsion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  National Power requires two separate approvals in order to proceed with its plans—from the Department of Trade and Industry for planning permission to extend the power station, and from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for authorisation to burn orimulsion fuel. Those applications are under consideration. The planning procedures allow for the holding of a public inquiry and this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rod Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to charge-cap any Welsh authorities for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have carefully scrutinised all Welsh local authority budgets for 1992–93. I have decided in all the circumstances not to exercise my capping powers.

  Most authorities have repaid the confidence which I placed in them by budgeting in line with the settlement. A few authorities could have done better. I therefore intend to announce provisional capping criteria in the autumn, in advance of the 1993–94 local government budgetary round. This will assist authorities as they take their budgetary decisions next year.

TRANSPORT

  Runway Capacity
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by the working group, chaired by his Department, which is taking forward the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on south-east runway capacity in the longer term.

  Mr. Norris
  The working group is making good progress. It was established to consider the wider implications of runway development at 10 airports which had been identified by the Civil Aviation Authority, in its report CAP 570 published in July 1990, as potentially able in air traffic control terms to handle growth in south-east air traffic forecast after 2005, and to consider the regional airport contribution. It draws its membership widely from industry, environmental, local authority and consumer interests, as well as from central Government.

  The working group has carried out a substantial volume of work but has a considerable amount remaining and does not expect to be in a position to offer advice before the end of this year. Its report will be published. Runway Capacity to Serve the South-East—RUCATSE

  189
  —is not a decision-making body or an alternative to the normal planning processes, and it is not preparing actual development proposals. Before there could be a major runway development at any airport, a promoter would need to work up a specific detailed proposal and apply for planning permission in the usual way, with opportunity for anyone wishing to comment to do so.

  By July the group expects to have taken a view on which options should be taken forward for detailed study in its further work. At that point it proposes to undertake further consultation on the notional runway alignments which would appear most suitable for those sites.

  Irradiated Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the resolution passed on the sea transport of irradiated nuclear fuel at the marine safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation at its 60th annual conference in London in April.

  Mr. Norris
  The maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation did not pass a resolution on the sea transport of irradiated nuclear fuel at its 60th session. The draft code on the carriage of INF is subject to consultation between the IMO and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Foreign Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the numbers of(a) Spanish and (b) Dutch vessels registered as British and the ports of registration.

  Mr. Norris
  For ships and large pleasure craft the information requested is as follows:

  (a) Three, at Yarmouth, London and Poole;

  (b) Four, at London (2), Harwich and Southampton.

  Some 46 Spanish and about 15 Dutch owned fishing vessels have been registered since the European Court judgment referred to in my answer to the hon. Member on 11 May, Official Report, column 17. The majority of these vessels are registered in the south-west ports, Lowestoft and Grimsby, and Aberdeen in Scotland.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign fishing boats are registered as nationals in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Denmark, (d) Holland and (e) France.

  Mr. Norris
  Some 65 since the European Court judgment; seven in Scotland, the remainder in England and Wales.

  I have no information on registration in other EC countries.

  London Bus Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation he has received from the London tourist board concerning his proposals to privatise and deregulate London bus services.

  Mr. Norris
  Like many other bodies, the London tourist board responded to the consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London" last year. I am not aware of any subsequent representations from it.

  Radioactive Aggregate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any radioactively contaminated rubble or spoil has been used as aggregate for the construction of roads in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The disposal of radioactive waste or material of any kind contaminated with radioactivity in England and Wales is subject to authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. There have been no cases where this authorisation process has permitted disposal of such waste for use as road building materials. The control of radioactive material and waste in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the respective Secretaries of State.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means he intends to notify the appropriate authorities of the ratification of titles I-VII of the draft treaty on economic union; and if he will list the relevant means and authority in respect of each of those draft titles and the subsequent protocols and declarations.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Provided that Parliament has passed the necessary legislation, I shall deposit with the Italian Government an instrument of ratification in accordance with article R of the treaty of European union. The ratification will relate to the treaty documents signed on 7 February, namely, the treaty and the protocols. The declarations are not part of the treaty. There is no procedure for ratifying different parts of the treaty.

  Macedonia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Republic of Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European Community partners have not yet recognised the Republic of Macedonia. We hope that a common position can soon be found so that recognition can go ahead. We fully support President Gligorov's moderate Government.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken at the European Foreign Affairs Council held in Guimares on 1 and 2 May.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The main subjects discussed by EC Foreign Ministers at the informal Foreign Ministers meeting in Guimares on 1 to 2 May were the situation in Yugoslavia, the evolution of the middle east peace process, preparations for the implementation of the common foreign and security policy provided for in the Maastricht treaty, the situation in South Africa and the EC's relations with Turkey. EC Ministers also agreed the solemn declaration on the protocol on the right to life of the unborn in Ireland and had a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

  World Commission on Culture and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he intends to make to the World Commission on Culture and Development under the chairpersonship of Mr. Perez de Cuellar when it opens its three-year inquiry in the summer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the appointment of Mr. Perez de Cuellar as chairman of the World Commission on Culture and Development, but we have no plans to make a contribution at this stage.

  Cyprus
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the United Nations regarding future British contributions to United Nations operations in Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in regular contact with the United Nations secretariat and other contributors about the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. It plays a valuable role in preserving the peace, thereby assisting the Secretary-General's efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement. The size of the force remains under review.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to reduce the British contribution to United Nations operations in Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in regular contact with the United Kingdom secretariat and other contributors about the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. It plays a valuable role in preserving the peace, thereby assisting the Secretary-General's efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement. The size of the force remains under review.

  UN Economic Commission for Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom has made to the forty-seventh session of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe since it opened in Geneva on 7 April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom was represented at the 47th session of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by the ambassador and permanent representative of the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations at Geneva, supported by others in the United Kingdom mission and a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Those representatives participated in the plenary and sessional committee proceedings of the 47th session and in concurrent informal negotiations on the drafting of decisions sponsored by the European Community and by non-EC member countries of UNECE. They also played and active part in the drafting of statements made by the Portuguese presidency, on behalf of the European Community and its member states.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the range of weapons in Iraq in each category which have now been 192
  destroyed arising from resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; what weapons are now left to be destroyed; when this will occur; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Inspectors have so far supervised the destruction of:

  Ballistic Missiles

  62 ballistic missiles

  10 ballistic missiles

  18 fixed scud launch pads

  32 ballistic missile warheads

  127 missile storage support vehicles

  Tons of rocket fuel

  Assembled 350 mm supergun

  Components for 350 mm and 1000 mm superguns

  1 tonne of supergun propellant

  54 items of ballistic missile production equipment

  10 buildings related to ballistic missile production

  Chemical Weapons

  11 800 unfilled chemical munitions

  463 unstable 122 mm rockets, some filled with chemical agent

  Nuclear Programme

  29 items of equipment connected to the nuclear weaponisation programme

  8 buildings used in the nuclear programme

  Iraq claims to have unilaterally destroyed equipment covered by SCR687 during the summer of 1991. The special commission is verifying these claims.

  The special commission plans to continue the destruction of nuclear facilities and ballistic missile production equipment in the course of upcoming inspections. The large scale destruction of chemicals will begin in June.

  Until Iraq complies with its obligation to provide a full, final and complete disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction, there can be no final list of items for destruction.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what latest warnings have been given to the Iraqi regime over any future aggression or armed action against its own citizens within the borders of Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 14 April, coalition Governments told the Iraq Government that they should cease repressive actions against the people of Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

  In a further démarche on 7 May we reminded the Iraqis that we had not received and still expected a full and effective response to our demarche of 14 April. We shall continue to press them to respect the basic human and political rights of the Iraqi people.

  Iran
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of current relations between Iran and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We hope that relations with Iran will evolve in a positive direction. But as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)"There will be no dramatic or immediate change"— [Official Report, 18 December 1991: Vol 201, c. 259.]

  193
  in the relationship. In our contacts with the Iranian authorities we continue to make clear that the death sentence on Salman Rushdie is an unacceptable infringement of his rights as a British citizen.

  Security
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the workers employed at the Regalian building site at Vauxhall Cross, which will be occupied by his Department, have been security vetted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not usual or sensible to comment on security measures taken at Government buildings.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the Abu Dhabi Government's proposals for the settlement of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government recognise the difficulties and hardship the BCCI crisis has created for depositors. The Government have stated that they would like to see the depositors get back as much of their money as possible. We have repeatedly made it clear that the Government are not a party to the proposed settlement. It is for the creditors and courts to judge the merits of the proposals put forward by the liquidators and majority shareholders.

  Teheran
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken following the execution in Evin prison in Teheran on 18 March of the leading Baha'i, Mr. Bahman Samandari; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned by reports about the execution of Mr. Samandari. We hope that the EC presidency will soon make a démarche, on behalf of the Twelve, to the Iranians. Actions like that will only reinforce international concern at the human rights situation in Iran.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for information and documents relating to the Lockerbie bombing have been put to, or referred to Her Majesty's Government or its agencies in connection with the legal case in the USA involving Pan Am and relatives of persons killed in the bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Requests, both formal and informal, have been received for a number of Crown servants, a former Crown servant and police officers to be made available as witnesses in connection with the civil case in the United States. Those persons have been made available for giving evidence in the United Kingdom, subject to restrictions and conditions designed to ensure that national security and the criminal investigation and proceedings are not prejudiced. A request for the examination of a journalist and for an order for him to 194
  produce documents is presently the subject of proceedings before the High Court and it would not be proper for further comment to be made on that matter.

  European Union Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reference to"the desire for modulation of the levels of Community participation in programmes and projects"
  referred to in the protocol on economic and social cohesion to the treaty on European union; what was the original French text for this; and which body was responsible for the translation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  The reference relates to an agreement among member states, recorded later in the protocol to allow higher rates of structural funds grant in the less prosperous member states "with a view to avoiding excessive increases in [their] budgetary expenditure". I expect precise provisions to be included in the new regulations on the funds due to take effect in 1994, but discussion of these has not yet begun.

  The original French text of the reference was
  "le souhait d'une modulation des niveaux de la participation communautaire aux programmes et aux projets".
  The translation into English was made by the Council secretariat.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will specify the nature and outcome of recent hearings in the High Court to which Her Majesty's Government have been a party initiated by representatives of the Pan Am company relating to the deposition of forensic experts and the supply of technical advice relating to the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Her Majesty's Government have recently intervened in two matters brought before the English courts which have arisen from civil proceedings in the United States in connection with the Lockerbie disaster. One concerns a request for the examination of a former Crown servant involved in the investigation into the disaster; the other concerns a request for the examination of a journalist. Questions of law relating to the former request are the subject of an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, whose formal judgment is expected shortly. Questions of law relating to the latter request are still to be determined by the High Court. Both cases are therefore sub judice and it would not be appropriate for me to make further comment.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Howard
  Following is the information as at 1 February 1992:
  195

  Grade

  Number of Ethnic Minorities

  Percentage of Ethnic Minorities

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  2

  1·3

  6

  2

  0·7

  7

  5

  0·6

  Total

  9

  0·8

  All grades

  471

  7·0

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  As part of the Department's implementation of the 1990 Office of the Minister for the Civil Service programme for action on race, a survey of staff whose ethnic origin was then unrecorded was carried out in 1991. A further survey is about to be launched.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  When the Department needs to fill a senior post requiring a special combination of experience and qualifications it runs an open recruitment supervised by the civil service commissioners. The recruitment literature states that the civil service is an equal opportunity employer. Selection is based on suitability for the post.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he adopts when determining planning applications referred to him, or for decision by him following an appeal, that relate to the excavation of pits for the extraction of aggregates and other minerals.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each called-in application and planning appeal is determined on its merits, having regard to the provisions of the approved development plan and any other material considerations.

  Recycling
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will require the implementation of waste collection authorities' recycling plans after 1 August; and if he will make a statement on the timetable.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, my right hon. Friend does not have the power to require waste collection authorities to implement their recycling plans. However, the authorities are required to publicise them, which will mean that they are subject to public pressure for implementation.

  Supplementary credit approvals of £12 million were distributed to local authorities for 1991–92 and £15 million have been allocated for 1992–93 to help the capital costs of establishing recycling schemes.
  196
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance is available to national parks to set up recycling programmes.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities with responsibilities for the collection of waste, including those who serve national parks, have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prepare recycling plans. The plans should be submitted in draft to my right hon. Friend by 1 August this year. To assist them in implementing the plans we have made available a programme of supplementary credit approvals worth £60 million over four years. Authorities are also able to claim recycling credits from waste disposal authorities in respect of household waste recycling operation in their areas; the credits are equivalent to the net savings of disposal costs and will help to finance the running costs of recycling projects.

  We are investigating whether any other economic measures are necessary in order to reach our target of recycling 50 per cent. of household waste by the end of the century.

  Many recycling industries are looking for ways of developing their existing operations. There is likely to be scope for them to approach the national park authorities with a view to establishing jointly collection facilities for, for example, glass and cans, in the areas most used by the public.

  A recent research project was carried out for the Department on recycling in rural areas; the study area covered part of the North Yorkshire Moors national park. The report is available to any interested parties.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to tighten the laws preventing the exploitation of the natural assets and wildlife of the seashore by private extraction companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State has no plans to ammend the current legislation, but will be considering whether further advice should be given in the draft planning policy and guidance notes on coastal planning.

  Reptile Conservation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what conclusions his scientific advisers have reached concerning evidence from the Indonesian authorities relating to the conservation and population status of lizards and pythons in that country; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the next meeting of the EC Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) committee will take place; if the United Kingdom delegation will seek a reservation in respect of the trade of those lizard and python species whose import into the EC has been temporarily banned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The question of the temporary ban on the import into the EC of certain species from Indonesia was discussed at a meeting of EC member states at the conference of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species parties in Kyoto in March. The Indonesian delegation to the conference had agreed that arrangements should be made urgently for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources to work with them to assess the sustainable yield of indigenous
  197
  species in trade, and draw up quotas based on the results of this work. No such quotas have yet been produced for the United Kingdom scientific authority to consider.

  The next meeting of the EC CITES committee is taking place today. Until the Community decides that the ban may be lifted, there is no question of the United Kingdom taking unilateral action to resume trade with Indonesia in the species concerned.

  Small Cetaceans
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is currently spent by his Department on research into small cetaceans in the coastal waters around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The sum of £86,396 has been allocated in this financial year for United Kingdom cetacean research.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to promote the protection of small cetaceans at the forthcoming Earth summit.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government support international and regional efforts to promote the conservation of small cetaceans. They recently signed, and will finance the interim secretariat to, the agreement for the conservation of small cetaceans of the North and Baltic seas under the Bonn convention. I expect the Earth summit to recognise the importance of such measures.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a body within Government responsible for developing a co-ordinated approach to the regulation of activities in the coastal and maritime environment around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have noted the recent recommendation of the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment on coastal zone protection and planning that a national coastal zone unit be set up within Government to provide an overview of coastal policy. We will be responding to this recommendation, and the others made by the Committee, in due course.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and matters decided at the Environment Council ministerial meeting in Brussels on 5 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  The joint Environment and Development Council ministerial meeting on 5 May considered specific elements of the Community's strategy for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The conclusions of this meeting record the agreements reached on the Rio declaration, the agenda 21 action programme, financial resources, technology co-operation, institutions, atmosphere, forests, desertification, biodiversity and biotechnology. Some of those issues were previously addressed in the conclusions of the Environment Council held on 12 December 1991.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes there have been in the commitments set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in regard to publication of the registers of information on contaminated land sites.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 created a requirement for local authorities to compile and publish public registers of land which is or has been subject to contaminative use. Regulations would define the uses of land to be covered and other statutory requirements for registers.

  It was originally proposed that the duty for local authorities to compile registers would commence in April 1992. Regulations were to have been published early in 1992, together with other guidance on aspects of registers. Implementation of section 143 has however been delayed to enable further consideration to be given to the detail of the proposals and further consultation to be undertaken.

  East London Thames Corridor
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for strategic planning of the area he designated as the east London Thames corridor.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter),Official Report, column 610.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps by planning restrictions or other measures to end the destruction of any hedgerows pending the introduction of legislation to implement the proposed hedgerow protection scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Most hedgerow loss is the consequence of poor maintenance rather than deliberate removal. In advance of wider legislation on protection, the Government plan to introduce a new hedgerow incentive scheme to promote the improved care and management of that important landscape feature.

  Pollution Agency
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for a single environmental agency to control pollution in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones),Official Report, column 125.

  Household Waste (Recycling)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to meet the target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste by the end of the century; and if he will make a statement outlining the present percentage of household waste that is recycled and by how much this has changed since 1990.
  199
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are taking a wide range of measures to promote recycling, many of which are outlined in the first year report on the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1655).

  In particular, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides a legislative framework to encourage recycling. Waste collection authorities now have a duty to prepare recycling plans. Draft plans should be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by 1 August. To help authorities in England to implement their recycling strategies there is a programme of supplementary credit approvals worth £60 million over four years. I announced allocations for £15 million in 1992–93 on 27 April. Authorities and other recycling collectors may also claim recycling credits from waste disposal authorities for household waste recycling operations; the credits are equivalent to the net savings of disposal costs and will help to finance the running costs of recycling projects.

  The Advisory Committee on Business arid the Environment has recommended a number of measures to increase recycling, including raising landfill prices further and the introduction of capital allowances on recycling equipment. We are currently conducting studies on landfill pricing and the use of economic instruments to promote the recovery of waste.

  The Government have identified a need for better waste statistics. We have therefore established a national household waste analysis project, the first results from which are expected later this year. We are also working with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to revise its statistical returns on waste collection and disposal. A new survey will start in the middle of 1992. Until the results of those initiatives are available, precise information about the proportion of household waste which is recycled will not be available. Studies indicate that overall no more than 5 per cent. of household waste is recycled. The advances since 1990 in, for example, plastics and aluminium recycling have yet to be shown in the national statistics.

  Countryside
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any new proposals for protecting the countryside.

  Mr. Maclean
  In February the Government issued "Action for the Countryside", a comprehensive statement of our policies for the English countryside. It gave a clear statement of our policies for supporting the rural economy and protecting the countryside. It introduced a number of new initiatives and extended existing ones designed to encourage action to stimulate the rural economy, protect wildlife, protect and enhance landscapes and promote access and public enjoyment of the countryside. I am fully committed to this initiative. The initiatives will be introduced throughout this year and beyond to carry forward and further develop the policies announced in "Action for the Countryside".

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for publishing United Kingdom production figures of ozone-depleting substances.
  200
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: Figures for United Kingdom production of these chemicals are supplied to the Government and the EC on a confidential basis. Consumption figures are collected for the European Community but are not broken down between member states. However, a 1990 study for the Department of Trade and Industry indicated that United Kingdom consumption fell by 50 per cent. between 1986 and 1989, a rate faster than that claimed by any other developed country.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners there are currently in police cells in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Today, 260 prisoners are being held in police cells in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Wednesday 13 May 1992, the prison population stood at 45,805. In addition, 1,598 prisoners, who should have been accommodated in prison service establishments, were held in police cells.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent progress on his policy to combat drug trafficking.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Police and customs continue to undertake very successful operations against drug trafficking, with growing quantities of drugs seized and drugs traffickers brought to justice. We plan to bring forward a Bill, later this year, to strengthen the powers of the courts to confiscate the assets of drug traffickers. I propose to give high priority to strengthening still further our efforts in this field.

  Travellers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the recent actions taken by his Department concerning changes to the law regarding the illegal occupation of private and public land by traveller families; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  After a thorough public review of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 which deals with aggravated trespass on land, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary concluded in May 1991 that no change to the law on public order was appropriate.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently undertaking a thorough review of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to amend the War Crimes Act 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of Victim Support.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government attach high importance to the work of those who provide emotional support, practical help and advice to victims of crime. There are currently about 385 local branches and schemes, with some 7,500 volunteer visitors, covering about 97 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. They handle over 600,000 cases a year. Home Office support for this activity, by way of grant to the national voluntary organisation, Victim Support, has risen by 85 per cent. over the past three years to £7.3 million in the current year.

  Convictions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of males aged 15, 20 and 30 years have been convicted of at least one indictable offence.

  Mr. Jack
  Based on information from the offenders' index, a study of a cohort of males born in 1953 has shown that 11 per cent. aged 15, 23 per cent. aged 20, and 33 per cent. aged 30 had received at least one conviction for "standard list" offences, which include all indictable offences.

  Traffic Pollution
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he intends to have with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the problems of pollution and congestion caused by traffic.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The problem of pollution caused by traffic is not primarily one for the Commissioner or for my Department, although the police are aware that technological developments may be able to help them to detect unlawful exhaust emissions.

  Metropolitan Police
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to visit the Metropolitan police to discuss its establishment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend had an introductory discussion with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on 14 April and met him again at the launch of EU ROW, in aid of Save the Children, on Tuesday 5 May. He also plans to visit the command and control suite at New Scotland Yard.

  Police (Civilianisation)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of police officers returned to operational duties by the policy of civilianisation since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since records were first started in 1983, some 5,700 police officers have been freed for operational duties by civilianising posts which do not require the powers or skills of a police officer. This represents an efficiency saving of some £110 million a year at 1991–92 prices.

  Rape Within Marriage
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include in legislation a measure to make rape within marriage illegal.

  Mr. Jack
  The House of Lords confirmed in October 1991, in the case of R v. R, that a husband can be convicted under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for the rape of his wife. In January 1992, the Law Commission published a report proposing that this position should be consolidated and amplifed in new legislation. Its recommendations are being carefully considered.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of illegal immigrants attempting entry through Dover port during the last 15 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Comprehensive figures covering the last 15 years are not available. So far this year up to 7 May, 44 clandestine illegal entrants have been detected at the port of Dover, compared with 20 detected during the whole of 1991.

  Operation Bumblebee
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preliminary report he has received on Operation Bumblebee.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Operation Bumblebee was set up on 1 June 1991 in the No. 1 area of the Metropolitan police service. During the period 1 June 1991 to 10 April 1992, 2,397 people, including 445 juveniles in the area were charged with burglary or related offences. Since the start of this operation, the increase in the burglary rate in the No. 1 area has slowed dramatically to 2 per cent.

  Operation Bumblebee was extended to the No. 5 area of the Metropolitan police on 6 January 1992.

  Police Specials
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many specials his Department recruited in the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Special constables are recruited locally by police forces. Recruitment figures are collected annually and are not available for the period requested. I understand that nearly 1,000 applications to join the special constabulary were received in the first three months of this year. There was an overall rise in numbers of special constables during 1991 of nearly 2,200, to a total of just over 18,000.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage the extension and greater co-ordination of the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Jack
  The voluntary services unit in my Department will be continuing its task in 1992 of supporting those bodies whose role it is to both encourage and extend the work of the voluntary sector.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to ensure sufficient places are available to those given custodial sentences by the courts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The existing prison building programme is intended to provide sufficient places for those sent to prison. It was begun in the early 1980s and will have delivered in excess of 11,000 new prison places when it reaches completion in 1994. Fifteen new prisons have opened so far. Three more will be opening later this year.

  School-age Crime
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the level of crime committed by young people of school age.

  Mr. Jack
  We pursue a wide range of policies against crime. Most are relevant to offenders of school age, including action to reduce the opportunities for crime. Local initiatives aim to prevent offending, and include police schemes for activities for school children during the holidays, projects funded through the safer cities programme, and approximately 350 youth crime prevention panels. The Government are examining the effectiveness of local schemes, in order to pull together experience from all over the country and help local people to translate it into good practice.

  Polish Nationals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the review of visa requirements for Polish citizens wishing to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend will review the need for the visa requirement later this year by which time the impact on other member states of the Community of abolishing the visa requirement may have become more apparent.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will end the requirement for Polish nationals to have visas to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I shall review the need for the visa requirement later this year by which time the impact on other member states of the Community of abolishing the visa requirement may have become more apparent.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles were remanded in custody in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many people under 21 years of age were remanded in custody in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table:
  204

  Persons1 aged under 21 received into prison service establishments in England and Wales as unsentenced prisoners in 1991: by age on reception and type of reception.

  Numbers of persons

  Age on reception

  Type of reception

  Under 17

  17 and under 21

  Total under 21

  Untried

  1,073

  16,841

  17,914

  Convicted unsentenced2

  124

  3,839

  3,963

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Including persons initially received as untried prisoners

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles received a custodial sentence after being remanded in custody in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) how many young people under 21 years of age received a custodial sentence after being remanded in custody in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information relates only to those aged under 17 or 17 and under 21 years on initial remand into a prison service establishment in England and Wales. Provisional figures for 1990 were published in table 2.6 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1990" (Cm 1800), a copy of which is in the Library. Final data for 1990 and provisional data for 1991 are not yet available.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police force operating at the privatised port of Tilbury will be subject to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This will be a matter, in the first instance, for agreement between the Police Complaints Authority and the authority maintaining the police force concerned.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria have been applied in deciding which non-Home Office forces shall be included within the jurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority; and how those criteria have been applied in the case of(a) Dover Harbour police and (b) the Royal Parks Constabulary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It would be, in the first instance, for the Police Complaints Authority and the authority maintaining the police forces concerned to reach agreement, with the approval of the Home Secretary, for the establishment of procedures corresponding to those set out in part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Such an agreement has been approved in the case of the Royal Parks Constabulary. Whether it would be appropriate for the PCA to make an agreement with the smaller Dover harbour police is a matter which is still being explored.

  Police Officers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of(a) men and (b) women from ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom serving as police officers in each police force in England and Wales.
  205
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the end of February 1992 there were 1,631 officers from ethnic minorities. The information requested for each force in England and Wales is set out in the table:

  Ethnic Minorities

  Force

  Men

  Women

  As at 28 February 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  6

  Bedfordshire

  27

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  18

  8

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  10

  2

  Cumbria

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  20

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  —

  Dorset

  3

  —

  Durham

  3

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  Essex

  20

  2

  Gloucestershire

  10

  2

  Greater Manchester

  104

  21

  Gwent

  7

  —

  Hampshire

  13

  2

  Hertfordshire

  13

  5

  Humberside

  5

  1

  Kent

  9

  2

  Lancashire

  25

  5

  Leicestershire

  49

  5

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  Merseyside

  48

  9

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  17

  2

  Northumbria

  12

  2

  North Wales

  1

  —

  North Yorkshire

  4

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  41

  11

  South Wales

  20

  1

  South Yorkshire

  24

  4

  Staffordshire

  14

  5

  Suffolk

  4

  2

  Surrey

  12

  1

  Sussex

  12

  3

  Thames Valley

  43

  10

  Warwickshire

  7

  2

  West Mercia

  14

  4

  West Midlands

  144

  47

  West Yorkshire

  72

  17

  Wiltshire

  11

  2

  City of London

  6

  2

  Metropolitan

  431

  130

  Total

  1,297

  334

  Lollipop People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to expand the number and improve the pay of lollipop people in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at 30 April the number of school crossing patrol people which had risen by 22 since 11 February stood at 1,164, against an establishment of 1,350. School crossing patrol pay is based on rates agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Services and is reviewed annually.

  Immigration Cases (Members' Interventions)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the arrangements currently in force concerning the intervention of Members of the House of Commons in immigration cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Treaty on European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new legislative, regulatory or administrative actions, or similar steps based on existing statutory authority, he expects to be necessary in order to implement the agreed objectives of the proposed European union, consequent on title VI, articles K and K1–9 of the draft treaty agreed at Maastricht, relating to home and judicial affairs.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Title VI of the Maastricht treaty establishes a framework for future co-operation between the member states of the EC in the areas listed in article KI. Where conventions are drawn up to give effect to action between the member states, they will need to be ratified individually by Parliament in the usual way.

  South Africa (Electors)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people resident in the Republic of South Africa were registered as electors for the United Kingdom Parliament for the recent general election; how many actually voted; and how their votes were distributed between the 651 constituencies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not held centrally on the number of overseas electors living in particular countries abroad, or on the number of proxies who voted on behalf of overseas electors in the recent general election.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to increase the current strength of his inspectorate with responsibility for enforcing the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are currently 21 members of the Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate which is now at full strength. There are no plans to increase the size of the inspectorate as I am satisfied that its present strength is adequate.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to extend greater animal welfare and independent representation within the membership of the animal procedures committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In making appointments to the animal procedures committee, I am required by section 19 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the interests of animal welfare are adequately represented. The current composition of the committee is in line with that requirement, and I know from its good work that the committee as a whole has proper regard for animal welfare in carrying out its deliberations and in advising me.

  Forensic Science Agency
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the Forensic Science Agency for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The 1992–93 targets expect that the FSS will improve its effectiveness and efficiency maintaining its high standard of scientific work. The financial targets are recovery of full costs, a unit cost of £482, with a unit cost productivity gain of 4.3 per cent. The service level targets include improved turnround times to secure an average reduction of the 11 per cent. in casework delivery dates compared with those achieved last year.

  Passport Agency
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance targets he has set for the United Kingdom Passport Agency in 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  During 1992–93 I shall expect the Passport Agency to continue to seek improvements in the standard of service it provides to customers, and in achieving value for money.

  I have set the agency the following key targets:

  (i) to process properly completed, straightforward applications within a maximum of 20 working days in the periods of peak demand between January and June, 15 working days in July and August, and 10 working days at other times,

  (ii) to process such applications within an overall average of 9 working days for the year as a whole,

  208

  (iii) to reduce unit costs by a further 1·6 per cent. in real terms over the previous year's target.

  The chief executive will remain directly accountable to me for the performance of the Passport Agency. An advisory board, including two private sector members with experience of delivering services to the public, will continue to help me in assessing the agency's performance.

  Football
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the implementation of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for sports ground safety, including the implementation of all-seating, is to be transferred from the Home Department to the Department of National Heritage.

  Since the beginning of 1992, the Home Secretary has received 47 letters from hon. Members and 68 letters from members of the public. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has received 12 letters from hon. Members and 18 letters from members of the public. In addition, the Football Supporters Association wrote on 1 February to the Home Secretary and on 24 April to the Secretary of State for National Heritage enclosing a copy of its document "The Preservation of Standing Accommodation at Football Grounds".

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Stamp Lord Stamp— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords Several Lords— Took the Oath.

EC: Brussels Staff
3.4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total staff of the EC in Brussels; and what is the total salary bill in the current year.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the total number of statutory staff posts in the Commission is currently set at 13,975. The appropriations entered in the amended 1992 budget for salaries and allowances total 923.5 mecu (around £644 million). There are also statutory staff based in Brussels in the other Community institutions. The Council, including the Economic and Social Committee, has 2,725 staff, with a budget for salaries and allowances totalling 173 mecu (about £120 million). In addition, some of the 3,641 statutory posts in the European Parliament are based at Brussels.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting Answer. In the second half of this year, when Her Majesty's Government will be in the lead on the Commission, will action be taken to restrain growth both in expense and in numbers of staff in Brussels?
The Earl of Caithness; My Lords, yes, As usual we shall continue to look at the budget with very great care. Our primary task will be to adopt a budget in December which represents budget discipline and does not prejudice decisions on future finance.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the figures he has given are alarming. Are we getting value for money?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we continue to look for value for money. The noble Lord will be aware that one of the great benefits of the Maastricht Treaty was that for the first time it has written down that there should be sound financial management in the Commission.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the members of staff of the European Community do an immense amount of work and that in the Commission in Brussels, which deals with about 370 million people, the number of staff employed is about the same as for Lambeth Borough Council?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that many in the House would not have known the information in the second part of my noble friend's question. It is very revealing. Yes, there are many people in the Commission who work extremely hard.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, am I correct in understanding that, in relation to the British Civil Service, it is the Government's promise to put many functions out to tender? During their presidency will the British Government propose the same arrangements for the civil service in Brussels and elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, because it is the Commission in the first instance which has to decide that. The budget and the work that people will do in the Commission are then checked by the Council and the European Parliament.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, during our presidency will Ministers not confine their activities to restraining numbers? Will they also seek to restrain some of their activities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we consider priorities and urge the Commission also to look at priorities, as does the Court of Auditors.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, do the numbers that my noble friend has given include interpreters and those responsible for translation? Having regard to a memorandum from the Foreign Office that has been published to the Select Committee, am I not right in thinking that two-thirds of the Commission staff are engaged in translation and interpretation? Therefore we can expect the total figures to be large and to increase as enlargement gets under way.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the answer to my noble friend's question. I shall write to him on the subject.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl give an undertaking that when Ministers examine the Commission's budget they will pay more personal attention to the details comprised within it? Will he take steps to ensure that the current practice of allowing the bulk of the Commission budget to go through on the nod on the advice of COREPER will stop, and that we take direct ministerial responsibility for our approval of the Commission's budget?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the budget process is complicated. However, where we can take action we do. But the noble Lord has a good point about getting greater transparency within the Commission funds.
Baroness Young: My Lords, given that there will inevitably be civil servants in Brussels, and that the number needs to be restrained, are we doing all that we can to ensure that a correct proportion of those civil servants comes from Britain so that we can use our influence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is very important for this

447
country and for the good functioning of the Community that we have good British civil servants in Brussels.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, made a good point when she stated that the number of staff was equivalent to the number running a large borough. Will the noble Earl tell us how the total number of staff compares with the number of civil servants in Scotland?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, that is a different question. However, if the noble Lord cares to put a question down I shall try to answer it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is not a different question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, it is a different question. The Question on the Order Paper is about staff in the EC in Brussels, not Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend say what proportion of civil servants in the EC are engaged on activities which are intended to direct the people of Europe to do things that they already do very well such as making sausages, cutting flowers and smoking smokies?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is difficult to give a precise answer to my noble friend's question. It is important that we continue to ensure that only those matters best done in Europe are undertaken in Europe and that the principles of subsidiarity now enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty are followed carefully.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was not clear from the noble Earl's Answer whether he considered that the figures he gave regarding the number of people and the amount of money were a little or a lot. Despite the reference to Lambeth, the number of people and the amount of money sound enormous to me. Those of us who occasionally visit Brussels see a vast amount of people —many more than those in offices in Whitehall —who have incredible facilities compared with those in your Lordships' House. I do not speak as a Euro-sceptic. But if those people are working hard it is not obvious what they do.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to have a word with my noble friend Lady Elles, who has considerably more experience than I have of the work of the officials in Brussels, although I have seen quite a lot of it, it might help to solve his problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, comparing the EC staff with those of the Lambeth borough is a damaging association, and will he seek to protect the staff of the EC from imputations of that kind?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take careful note of my noble friend's remark.

TV Programmes During Election Campaign: Balance
3.12 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that during the general election campaign the television authorities honoured the terms of their charter and licences to provide entertainment as well as provide political and current affairs programmes.
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords. The balance of programmes and their content are the responsibility of the broadcasters and broadcasting authorities.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that short Answer. I congratulate him on appearing for the first time for the Department of National Heritage. We welcome that department, which is picking up the responsibility for broadcasting and its structure and, presumably, the regulatory authority. I wish to make two points—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am sorry. Am I right that broadcasts which went on and on and on morning, noon and night with a mixture of news and current affairs bored many people stiff and were not at all in accordance with the charter? Secondly, was it not an error to have 47 different polls broadcast, again morning, noon and night, not only in this country but all over the world? They totally deceived us because they were utterly and completely inaccurate.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, viewers and listeners have a greater choice of news and entertainment channels than ever before and they can pick and choose among them. I must emphasise that programme content and scheduling is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the broadcasters and broadcasting authorities.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Viscount on his appointment to office. I also congratulate him on the firmness of his Answer. Is it not the case that Members on all sides of the House will always wish to ensure that broadcasters are responsible through their own organisations and are not to be dictated to by government or by Parliament?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. It is important that the Government set the criteria by which the broadcasting authorities operate and that they then get on with the job.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the Minister's Answer. Can we have an assurance that the Government will not interfere with the independence of the broadcasting authorities in spite of the continual and relentless attacks by the noble Lord opposite? Incidentally, he had rehearsed today's Question by sending almost identical letters to the press during the week of the election. Is the Minister aware that each week during the election campaign

449
BBC Television broadcast approximately 45 hours of election programmes and approximately 195 hours of non-election programmes? Is it also correct that ITV reported little disruption to the usual entertainment programme schedule? Is the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, aware that during an election—in particular during an important election which is fought mainly on television—people expect to hear and to see a lot and that that is what they want?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that during the election coverage news and current affairs programmes on ITV increased by only 2 per cent. from 17 to 19 per cent. On Channel 4 they increased by 4 per cent. from 14 per cent. The BBC's coverage rose from 35 to 45 hours per week. Little of the BBC's regular output was displaced, nor was there displacement on other channels. However, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has particular views on these matters.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for giving us that useful information. However, is it not correct that prime time went because at 9 o'clock every evening time was given over to news and current affairs, which were muddled up incidentally?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, an important point of the election coverage was that it gave the British public an opportunity to hear what politicians were saying and to make up their minds, which they did correctly.

Training and Enterprise Councils
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they are taking to improve the working of the Training and Enterprise Councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government are continually working with TECs to improve their effectiveness across a wide range of areas. This work is being done both with individual TECs and through the group of 10 TEC chairmen.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are not meeting their guarantee of providing a training place for all those under the age of 18? In that connection will he give the total budget for TECs last year and this year? In addition, what is being done about the complaint made as recently as yesterday in a letter written on behalf of all the chairmen of the 82 TECs to the Secretary of State saying that their work is being seriously hampered by bureaucracy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I will not confirm what the noble Lord stated. The YT guarantee is being fulfilled. The noble Lord asked about the budget. This year's £851 million budget for
450
YT and credits is higher than previously published plans and more than was spent last year. That is on the understanding that there are fewer young people coming out of TECs and more going into further education.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures published today show an increase of 42,600 and that the total number is now more than 2,700,000, emphasising the increasing need for the TECs? Does the Minister dispute that the business leaders of the TECs have informed the department that the structure of the 82 TECs is on knife edge because of too much government interference and that the TECs will die unless there is a major reform? What is the answer to that charge and is not what the leaders of business have said true?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I regret the further increase in unemployment. However, the TECs exist to deal with only a part of the range of facilities that the Government have available to help those who are unemployed. They deliver employment training and employment action, which they are doing extraordinarily well. I do not believe that the TECs are on a knife edge. The contracts are all but signed with every TEC and there is satisfaction in that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been strong criticism of the Government because there appears to be a lack of resources to provide for the investment in people scheme, which has the support of the CBI? What is being done to assist TECs in that direction?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the important point is that the resources allocated to the TECs look after not only youth and employment training but the most important part, the block 3. That will assist the TECs to assess what is required in their locality and to provide money for them to develop the opportunities which exist for training, including investment in people, and they are doing so most successfully.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Viscount able to say categorically that there will be no further cuts in the money available for training through the TECs? We are constantly hearing rumours, or even statements, that the amount of money is being reduced and there is a fear that it will be reduced even further.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think it would be wrong for any Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will not be any further cuts or increases. Every government department must look at its spending on a year-by-year basis depending on what is required in the nature of training and the level of unemployment from year to year.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 820 businessmen who represent the business sector on the boards of the training and enterprise councils have been, for the greater part, involved with the Government for an average of only 18 months? Could it be that this is their first brush

451
with bureaucracy and that their view has been coloured somewhat by the complexities of dealing with various Whitehall departments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stockton raises an extremely important point. I believe that 1,200 high-level businessmen are involved in the TEC movement. Having secured their services, it is only natural that they should look very closely at the contracts and negotiate very hard. If the negotiations only took five minutes, probably we should not have the right people.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it is essential that we get our education and training system right, bearing in mind that it is still inferior to that of our foreign competitors? Will he agree also that often the training offered to young people is not satisfactory to them in that they believe that they are being undervalued and, indeed, in many cases underpaid?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the present success of the TECs is demonstrated by the strong local partnerships being developed between business, education and a wide range of other groups. I am thinking in particular of the education business partnerships and compacts. It is extremely important that business should be able to offer support for curriculum enhancement by providing resources and should also accept quality placements for pupils and teachers. It is very important that there should be that two-way traffic.
I have met many young people who have been extremely pleased with what they received from YT. I do not believe it right that the YT programme has the reputation which the noble Lord imports to it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister explain the contribution made by the trade unions to the working of those councils?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the councils are led by employers. It is on that basis that I believe that they are extraordinarily successful. I am sorry to say that when they were first announced, they were not well received by the trade unions.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the "enterprise" part of the training and enterprise councils' work is almost non-existent? That is an extremely important part of the work. What are the Government doing to encourage greater results and greater activity in that part of the work?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to say how much I appreciate that enterprise is very important. Part of it is delivering government programmes; that is, ET and YT. However, as I said in an earlier answer, just as important is the block 3 money which helps to pay for business start-ups and management training for owner managers. That is extremely important and that is being done.
Indeed, in the noble Lord's area, the business
452
advice centres have been set up across the county to help support local businesses, the objective being to create a single point of entry for access, advice, training and financial support. That is being done by the County Durham TEC.

HMS "Polar Circle": Future Name
3.24 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a decision has yet been taken about the future name of HMS "Polar Circle"
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Royal Navy's new ice patrol ship will be renamed HMS "Endurance". HMS "Polar Circle", as she is at present called, will return to Portsmouth on 15th May, after a successful first deployment to the Antarctic. The change of name will take place before she commences her next deployment in the autumn. I hope that this decision will give much satisfaction to Members of this House who argued so eloquently before I was privileged to arrive here for retaining a name with distinguished associations with the South Atlantic. It gives me particular pleasure to think that the father of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be commemorated by naming the vessel HMS "Endurance", after the ship which he adorned so much in the past.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I express my appreciation of the actions of the Government, and express also my thanks to your Lordships because this is very much a triumph of the House of Lords which pressed hard on this matter. In particular, the previous Leader of the House and the present Government Chief Whip rallied very hard for this and this is a House of Lords occasion. I am very much appreciative of that I believe that all the former captains of HMS "Endurance" were in favour of this action. I believe that HMS "Polar Circle" is coming into Plymouth at the moment. If so, would it be possible in due course, when she is having her refit and new equipment, for her to come up the Thames? Some noble Lords have been on board the "Polar Circle"; but I am sure that other noble Lords would like to see that magnificent ship which has already done a fine job in the Antarctic.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It is a very good example of the respect with which government Ministers view the expressions of opinion voiced in your Lordships' House, and is further evidence that the Ministry of Defence listens carefully to what is said in your Lordships' House. I hope that that situation will continue. As regards the possibility of HMS "Endurance" paying a visit to London by sailing up the Thames, the noble Lord will be aware that she has a very busy programme this summer. However, I should like to keep the noble Lord's suggestion in mind, knowing what pleasure it would give not only to the noble Lord but also to me.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the very sensible decision which he has just announced is largely due to the determined action of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton? Would he think it appropriate to congratulate the noble Lord on this extremely sensible and worthwhile achievement?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, as so often before, has repaired an omission on my part. I certainly owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to congratulate him on his persistence and on his extraordinary knowledge of the subject. We are grateful to him.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister answer a question on the pleasant naval custom of having a lady sponsor for naval vessels? Is he aware that the lady sponsor of the old HMS "Endurance" has very close associations with that ship? Will he give an indication or an assurance that she will be invited to continue to be the sponsor of the new HMS "Endurance"?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am ashamed to say that I did not know that. I shall look into the matter at once and I shall write to the noble Lord—I hope sympathetically—in answer to his question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I listened very carefully to his words about Ministers listening to what is said in your Lordships' House? Is he aware also that my noble friend Lord Shackleton conducted a campaign over several months on this subject supported from all sides of the House; for example, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and noble Lords on this Front Bench? I join with the noble Viscount in expressing my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Shackleton on the outcome.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may feel that the wheels of government grind exceeding slow. However, my predecessor told the House as short a time ago as 23rd January that the decision would be taken before the "Polar Circle" returned to the United Kingdom. My announcement today meets that commitment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, while I welcome the clearly historical and indeed poetic sensibilities of Her Majesty's Government in renaming "Polar Circle", HMS "Endurance", such unstinted praise of government makes me extremely nervous. Can my noble friend say when the unseemly and totally counterproductive to the national interest interdepartmental wrangling over who bears the current account costs of HMS "Endurance" will finally end?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is perfectly clear that there is no interdepartmental wrangling on this subject. It is clear where the costs lie and a proportion of those costs, I regret to say in one sense, lies with the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I appreciate the various remarks, including those of the noble Lord,
454
Lord Chalfont. However, I should like to make clear that it was Peter Scott and I who started this campaign while he was alive. While I appreciate the suggestion that the family might also take part in the naming of the ship, the important point is to have the ship, and have it with a name that is also well known in the Antarctic.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. However, I should like the House to take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the debate on the EC Regional Development Policy and before the Unstarred Question on "New Age travellers", my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Charge Capping: England.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the maximum period for which an order under Section 3 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 may remain in force. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time— (Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Mauritius Republic Bill [H.L.] through all its remaining stages on 19th May and the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.] through all its remaining stages on 21st May. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

455
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey set down for debate on Wednesday 20th May shall be limited to five hours. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC Regional Development Policy: ECC Report
3.35 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Regional Development Policy (4th Report, Session 1991–92, HL Paper 20).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a full and lengthy report and I shall do my best not to keep your Lordships for too long. The report is based on evidence taken between 4th June and 22nd October last year. Our conclusions were reached before the Maastricht summit though there is no disharmony between what we say and what was then decided. The inquiry and our report arose from the Commission's fourth periodic report on regional development.
Before coming to the substance of the report I have some preface points. First, I should like to congratulate, as she was congratulated yesterday, my noble friend Lady Denton on her new appointment. We look forward to hearing her speech at the end of the debate. It is her second speech in two successive days—a good baptism if I may say so. Secondly, I wish to pay tribute once again to my colleagues on Sub-Committee A, whose knowledge and wisdom never surprises me but whose tolerance of, and helpfulness to, their chairman surprises him more every day. Thirdly, I should like to remind your Lordships that the House is much blessed with the qualities, skills and devotion of its Clerks. The report is another example of how much is owed to them.
The new technology in the Committee Office has added further to its effectiveness. I should add a special tribute to the new word processing equipment and the well trained operators whose product—most easy to read—goes straight to the Stationery Office and thence on to the printed pages, thus saving much time and money in the publishing process. Your Lordships will also notice that the report has broken new ground by including coloured maps and tables.
Our specialist adviser, Professor Mayes, is to be specially thanked for bringing into play not only his professional skills in economics but also a specific understanding of the European regional development scene. As usual, I am sure that the House will join the Committee in thanking all who gave evidence, particularly Commissioner Millan who came specially from Brussels for the purpose and the former Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley.
I wish to say a word about the timing of the debate. I have indicated that our conclusions were reached before the turn of the year. In other circumstances it would have been right and expected that the House should debate our report, which was published on 21st January, in the latter part of March. We all know why
456
that became impossible. However, we were fortunate to receive a reply from the Government within the agreed two months of publication. I am grateful to them for that and also for the substance of the reply. As your Lordships will know, it is rare for me to be the chairman of a committee responsible for a report to the House which commands the almost complete agreement of Her Majesty's Government.
The report seeks to tackle longish term issues and questions of principle which will still be relevant when enlargement of the Community produces different problems—for different they will be—facing the Commissioner in Brussels. I look forward to hearing your Lordships' comments. Part 3 of the report sets out the opinion of the Committee. Without in any way detracting from the importance of the rest of that opinion I shall confine myself to some points relating to the aims of Community policy, the roles of the Commission and related to that role the role of the member state governments and the regional authorities. I shall refer also to the procedures, administrative problems and the scope for increasing the effectiveness of Community help to the poorer regions including that provided through other Community policies.
The strengthening of the Community's economic and social cohesion is firmly entrenched in the treaty as one of the Community's principal tasks, with member states committed to conduct their economic policies in such a way as to attain that general object and the specific aim of reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of less favoured regions. Regional disparities in incomes per head in the Community were, in 1990, at least twice those in the United States of America. In 1990 unemployment rates in the Community varied between an average of 2½ per cent. in the best 10 regions and 22 per cent. in the worst 10 regions, which were in Spain and southern Italy.
While in the earlier part of the 1980s the disparities had increased slightly, in the latter part there was some improvement. But in Greece the disparities widened. That does not mean that there was no improvement in absolute terms in the position of the poorest region; I am talking of relativity. Therefore it seemed to many that the doubling of the structural funds in 1989 was necessary and welcome. But of course that had not had time to be reflected in the figures before us. With the doubling of the funds there were changes in the Commission's policies, some of which were advocated in the Select Committee report to your Lordships of 1988.
Our report lays emphasis on the roles of member state governments as having the principal responsibility under the treaty for implementing the cohesion policies. It is their national income and economic policies which determine the ability of their regions to improve their creation of wealth in a fully competitive way. Trade within the single market regime, which will begin to be fully effective next year, is of course the Community's main wealth creator, but free trade with its disciplines makes the problems facing backward regions more difficult in the first place before its fruits mature. The shrinking and eventual abandonment of

457
most subsidies and state aid add to the initial difficulties for most of them. That problem affects Eastern Europe as well as the Community regions.
The role of the Commission is quite simply to support the achievement in member states of the agreed Community objectives. It gives that support through the structural funds and through special Community programmes of which RECHAR, STRIDE and others are examples. Quite rightly, there has to be full involvement of, and full co-operation with, authorities and administrations in the regions. Nevertheless it is the national governments which have the responsibility for economic policies within their countries and for deciding the priorities and political preferences. The totals of public expenditure are, as we surely well know, a vital element in the success of national economic policy. I stress that because of tendencies, not to be found in the Commission itself but in some regions, to expect the writ of Brussels to override national wills. There is nothing peculiar to Britain about that point. Neither is it wrong for the British or other governments to want to ensure that similarly sound economic policies are followed by other countries which receive Community funds. It was made clear to us by Commissioner Millan that he accepts the principal role of national governments.
Administrative responsibilities as between the regions and national governments differ significantly —I might say very significantly—among member states, and so does administrative competence, particularly in some of the regions. The Commission has to recognise that and I believe it does. The size of funds available to the Commission depends in part on the economic growth of the Community and in part on the other demands on the Community's resources, particularly the common agricultural policy which, in 1990, took 59 per cent. of the budget. Even by 1993, after the completion of the process of doubling the structural funds, only 25 per cent. of the Community budget will be used in the structural funds. That means that even then, 75 per cent. of the budget will be used for other purposes, not much of which helps cohesion, and some of which, particularly in the CAP, pulls in exactly the opposite direction. It is that factor which produces the extraordinary result illustrated in Table 3 of our report on page 32, where some member states with a higher than Community average of GDP per head received in 1989 more from the Community than they contributed. On the other hand, Spain, with a GDP per head well below the Community average, was apparently a net contributor.
I shall not describe to your Lordships the differing objectives established by the Community for the implementation of its policies. The United Kingdom is mainly concerned with Objective 2, which is for revitalising regions affected by serious industrial decline, and with Objective 5a, which is designed to develop rural areas. Objective 1, which is the most important and which takes the majority of the funds, is for regions where development is lagging. It is applied to Northern Ireland alone in the United Kingdom.
The report sets out the particular problems affecting the regions in the United Kingdom. Some of my colleagues may refer to them; I shall not. I believe that our peripheral regions, particularly the Highlands and Islands, should have more support from the Community and that it should alter its rules for that purpose. I believe the Commission will find that it has to when it is confronted with the northern states of EFTA joining the Community.
The regions told us of the difficulties facing them because of the burdensome procedures attending Commission grants. We have suggested some simpler procedures as advocated by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Commission will respond. Mr. Milian is well aware that his procedures need review. It is, however, wise to remember that the Commission will always have to ensure that the moneys it grants to member states are used for the purposes of the grant and for nothing else. The joint settling of programmes through the Community support frameworks and the monitoring of their progress should achieve that quite simply provided that there are sound financial control systems in place in each member state. I emphasis that proviso. That is an important principle for the United Kingdom which is both a recipient and a contributor.
There is one Commission rule, as many of your Lordships will know, which has caused trouble. In the past it has caused trouble not only in the United Kingdom. That is the additionality rule. Additionality in the regional development context means,
"that anything that the Commission does by way of financial assistance should be additional to what would be officially provided in the eligible areas concerned without that assistance".
That seems a sensible rule, particularly for a country like the United Kingdom which is a net contributor to Community funds. However, it would not be sensible if that rule were to be applied to individual programmes so that the recipient of the grant had to show that that programme would not have been carried out without the grant. Such a procedure would mean that Community-supported programmes were the least important in each member state's programmes. It should surely be satisfactory to show that the total regional development effort each year in each recipient country was larger by the amount of the expected grant than it would have been without it and that the grant from the Commission went to the programmes and areas for which approval had been given. That is what we suggested should be made transparent by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission. We were very pleased that, after that transparency had been achieved, the dispute between our Government and the Commission over RECHAR was settled.
I want to touch on the important question: how can the Community's assistance be more effective in reducing disparities and advancing cohesion? It is very difficult to measure the effectiveness of development programmes. The success of some can be seen quite soon. Parts of Britain have clearly gained from British regional development policy. But in the main regional development matures over a longish term. However,

459
the Committee was able to see examples of successes in central Italy and Spain. We also learnt of what still remains to be done—a gigantic task in some places.
We advocated that the Commission should be flexible in the measures which it supports and should encourage the interchange between regions of good ideas. We were told of the value of innovation and training help and we advocated the use of know-how support for administrations as well as for businesses. The encouragement of joint action by the private and public sectors, which has proved so successful in parts of British regional policy, should be fostered. All this is clearly in the minds of the Commission and the British Government.
There was no doubt in our minds—there should be no doubt in anyone's mind—about the importance to development in the past and in the future of sound national economic policies and sound administration. Without them, Community resources will not have their full effect and may be wasted. Without them, private investment will not be attracted to those regions so that sound economic growth can proceed.
The demand for another substantial increase in the structural funds is understandable. There is so much to be done, but there is also a limit to the amount of money that can be effectively absorbed in the lagging regions and in regions of weak administration. We felt it right also to issue a reminder that the future wellbeing of the Community and its ability to secure cohesion depends on sustained growth in the more developed areas, and that that growth must not be jeopardised by forcing too large a transfer of resources from those areas to the weaker areas.
The discussions over what is known as the Delors II proposals will settle how large an increase there is to be in the Community's total resources, from which the structural funds will gain at least a part. But even without any change in the contribution limit—and it is that proposed change which has attracted so much controversy —there is no doubt that there will be an increase, partly from normal economic growth and partly from the new accessions, which are likely to be from net contributor countries. Further savings from a reformed CAP could lead to an even larger increase. We did not think it wise to recommend the extension of the scope of structural fund support to education generally or to anything else. That would weaken the effect, diffuse the available funds, and we think—or at least, I think—offend the principle of subsidiarity.
It was suggested to us that part or all of the Community's support could be given better by direct fiscal transfer rather than through the support of specified programmes. We did not so recommend. The present arrangements ensure that Community money can be spent only on programmes approved by the Community. Similar assurances need establishing for the new cohesion fund, which I welcome. It would not help the cohesion or the economic betterment of the Community's peoples if Community resources were to be used for purposes not approved by the Community.
It will be several years before the statistics give us evidence of the success or failure of present policies in terms of improving income per head and employment
460
opportunities. It is right that the Community should not try to fix any level of disparity as a target for reductions from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of Community averages, and so on. What is wanted is a steady improvement in the wealth of backward regions, and in their competitiveness and output. In addition, as far as possible, the rate of growth should be faster in the backward areas than in the richer areas without slowing the rate of growth in those richer areas. To achieve that is a task of enormous size. The Community must do more to ensure that all its policies pull in the direction of cohesion—or, at worst, do not pull against it. That is another urgent reason for reviewing and reforming the CAP.
But the full purpose of cohesion includes a political purpose as well as an economic purpose. It depends also on the more psychological feeling in the lagging regions that the Community has both a purpose and a benefit for them. The grants from the structural funds encourage that feeling and the Commission is wise to tell the public of its involvement. It was a wise decision of Her Majesty's Government in 1972 to emphasise the value to the Community and its members of regional development policy. Like other member states, the United Kingdom will gain over the years by the greater prosperity and cohesion of all the regions in the Community, just as she has long sought to gain by improving conditions in all the regions of the United Kingdom.
The means used to achieve a reduction in the stark disparities between regions will evolve over the years. The Commission must be and, I think, will be flexible. It must not be bound by the particular funds or particular means that are now in use, promising as they are. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Regional Development Policy (4th Report, Session 1991–92, HL Paper 20).—(Lord Aldington.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his Committee on this worthwhile and illuminating report that deals with the EC's regional development policy. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that it is not out of date. Indeed, it is very relevant to today. It conveys a picture of bureaucratic bungling and constant squabbling over the use of regional development funds. It reveals the different attitudes taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission on definitions of EC terminology, and the unending frustrations of those local authorities and enterprises that have prepared projects, submitted them for European regional development funds or for European social funds, and which have waited interminably for the cash.
The report has certainly brought to the attention of major government departments, the Common Market Commission and local authorities the difficulties and frustrations of carrying out the five objectives of the use of structural funds. As a result of the ridiculous squabbles between the DTI and Commissioner Millan over the allocation of RECHAR monies destined for

461
the coalfield communities, £121 million has still not been paid. The report also illustrates the degrees of obstinacy of both parties concerning not only the determination of RECHAR, but also the question of additionality—that is, moneys allocated to us by the Commission in addition to national regional funding.
All this has resulted in Common Market cash being bogged down in Brussels; projects earmarked for development in our most needy areas being held up —some are already out of date; in reassessments having to be made and in needless and endless extra work by planning and project departments. What a shambles—and at what extra cost! That squabbling must cease. Too many of our people, including thousands of the unemployed in our old traditional steel and coal areas, are suffering as a result. Their elected representatives, officers and members of bodies representing industry and commerce in those regions must be in deep despair.
Commissioner Millan said that there had been a difference of opinion between the Commission and the United Kingdom Government over the co-financing of local authority schemes for support for small and medium-sized enterprises. There is no doubt about that. On the RECHAR programme, he said:
"We do not have problems with other governments in the way we have had problems with the United Kingdom Government".
Even on the question of additionality, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will remember that the Committee stated:
"although the reform of the Structural Funds seems to have eased the difficulties over the principle of additionality in most Member States, in the United Kingdom these difficulties still persist."
The Committee's report continued:
"Whilst the difference between the Commission and the United Kingdom Government on this issue remains unresolved important programmes are delayed, applicants and enterprises involved are hindered and valuable time of officials at all levels of government and in the Commission is wasted."
Well, that is condemnation indeed and it requires an answer from the Minister at the conclusion of this debate.
Let me now draw the attention of the House to paragraph 82 of the Committee's report. It reveals that:
"The Association of British Chambers of Commerce (ABCC) said that from the business point of view … additionality referred to an investment programme aimed at supporting regional developments for which funds were not available through local or national public expenditure … They had received a number of examples from around the country where efforts being made to tackle acute economic, environmental and social problems were being held up by lack of funds, due to the continuing impasse on the additionality question. A notable example was the case of the bid from the South Yorkshire Chambers of Commerce"—
—which covers Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield—
"for RECHAR funding".
It was a Business Plan for Business Development Services 1991. Those areas had the support of the European Commission and with the release of the RECHAR funding could provide an immediate and positive injection into the regeneration of the business community in South Yorkshire. Without it, the process would be slow and far less effective.
462
Of course, as noble Lords may be aware, nothing has happened. The plan for 1991, if it is finally financed, may be a plan for 1993 or 1994. After 18 months of wrangling between the DTI and Commissioner Millan, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in another place on 17th February this year, conveniently a fortnight or so before the announcement of the general election, that he had come to an agreement with the commissioner and the RECHAR moneys of £121 million would now be released. He concluded his Statement by saying:
"The implementation of the RECHAR programmes can now proceed immediately".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/92; col. 22.]
Where is it? The coalfield communities have been waiting 21 months for their allocation of Community cash and already three months have elapsed since the programme was going to be implemented "immediately". One can readily recognise the frustrations that build up due to this vacillation and procrastination by the DTI. Therefore I ask in this regard for the Minister to state whether all the projects in the programme will be going ahead as planned when we get the money; or will they all have to be reassessed?
The interviews conducted by the committee reveal that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, whom I am pleased to see in his place, questioned Mr. Corley of the DTI. The noble Lord said:
"What I still do not understand is this. Some years ago I was involved in trying to get more money out of Brussels for things like business initiatives, technical education, enterprise initiatives and so forth, and every time I got something, one thought, promised, my bitter experience was that we never actually got it because we never fulfilled our own requirements back here. I am thinking of the town of Barnsley … for which we got some promise from Brussels conditional upon British sources also being put in. Because the British sources were not put in we never got the money, and we had not when I finished with it. Had we put in our share of the additionality we would have got more money from Brussels. I simply do not understand".
Mr. Corley replied:
"I am pleased to say … on the question of Barnsley that they have actually got the money".
In sheer exasperation the noble Lord, Lord Carr, retorted:
"Good—it took years!"
He was referring to the start of the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre, of which I am the chairman—unpaid of course. Due to high unemployment in our region and long-term unemployment, and seriously suffering from the virtual death of the traditional steel and coal industries, we qualify both for European Regional Development Fund support and European Social Fund support. As a consequence British Coal Enterprise, which is doing a remarkably good job in the run down coal areas, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, and local banks and businesses banded together and decided to build a business and innovation centre—a specially built complex, housing incubator units, in which companies could develop and market high technology based products and innovative projects, and, having developed their high tech products, then move out into the region and establish production units—new technologies in a depressed area. Indeed a new technology culture is being born. There are nine such BICs in the United Kingdom, all of which should be

463
encouraged. But we need more help from the DTI, and it is true of many small businesses too. The regional office is helpful, but the frustration always is at national level and especially in obtaining EC funds which we have been allocated. The report refers to these frustrations. Our experience shows that long delays in decision-making by bureaucrats in London and Brussels create enormous frustration.
Like other businesses, we are constantly presented with new systems from the Commission. ERDF15 becomes Community support framework. Then we have the integrated development plan (IDOP) followed by the eastern England plan. Then there is RESIDER followed by RECHAR—a non-stop series of schemes which are baffling to all those enterprises which for one reason or another are entitled to some of the financial benefits. The Commission does not fare well in this regard because it gives the impression of a bureaucratic shambles. One scheme has hardly started before another scheme is brought forward.
At home we spend time and effort trying to get our allocated EC funds—for example, trying to obtain our ERDF15 revenue support for the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre. After months of frustration with the DTI I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Young, then Secretary of State at the DTI, on 9th June 1988. I led a deputation to see him on 27th September 1988. Peter Corley of the DTI visited us on 18th October. A claim form was provided and cash was paid at the end of March 1989—but for one year's operations only when our agreement with the Commission was for three years. I had to start the operation all over again. I sent a letter to the new Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley, on 22nd November 1989. I led a deputation again to the Secretary of State on 29th January 1990. He offered me two years' cash. An application form was received on 8th May 1990 and cash was paid in October 1990. All that time and effort and all those delays add up to a substantial and increasing loss to enterprises like the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre. The lack of early revenue funding slowed the rate of client-seeking and selection. Subsequent delays in building funding resulted in there being no accommodation available for more than a year. Overall this must have cost us an unrecoverable £100,000 of rental income. How many times must this saga be repeated in our regions?
From personal experience and consultations with local authorities may I say that, although the DTI suggests that EC structural funds make only a minuscule contribution to regional spending, the sums from ERDF, ESF and IDOP help considerably with industrial estate extensions, road improvements, factory units and support for enterprises like the Barnsley BIC. The structural funds are under review yet again and the new regimes are likely to take effect from January 1994. I only hope that the DTI will bear in mind that Objective 2 of the structural funds—to revitalise regions affected by serious industrial decline —is of the utmost importance to the badly hit coal and steel communities of our country.
On the positive side, the local authorities in South Yorkshire and the business innovation centre have a
464
good working relationship with the regional office in Leeds, especially where it advises the local authorities on developing and implementing programmes and likewise giving support to the Barnsley BIC's revenue schemes. It would appear that decisions for the local authorities generally are being speeded up. On the other hand, it is self-evident that the RECHAR and additionality arguments speak for themselves—they have been most depressing. Unfortunately, the Government give the impression that they are reluctant to embrace the spirit of the structural funds, and there is limited co-operation and discussion between the DTI nationally and local authorities. Consequently, they are excluded from having any influence on programmes.
Matters can be improved with better administration by the Commission, including simplifying the bureaucracy for planning and implementing programmes. Also, let the Government speedily allow EC funds to go to the regions where they are intended. I believe that a positive attitude is necessary by the DTI to effect a closer working partnership between the Commission and the Government and that they should not be jealous or envious of the EC's regional programmes.
Under this Government, the sad fact is that local authorities have only EC regional policy to fall back on when it comes to public sector regional regeneration. I believe that the Government sell their poorer regions short by their current policies. They ought to be changed. Perhaps the new president of the DTI will act accordingly.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee on their work and on their report. I largely agree with the opinion expressed in Part 3 of the report, but with two important reservations and one lesser. Clearly it was a very high-powered committee. I found the report to be a valuable and instructive contribution to the greater debate. Many of the questions asked by members of the committee, especially the reflections of wisdom and experience in them, were very illuminating, as were some, but not all, of the answers that they elicited. In particular, members of the committee did not have much success in trying to find out whether there is any degree of additionality provided for in the United Kingdom's utilisation of these European Commission funds, or, if there is any—which I doubt —it is a matter of degree.
As a fairly practised questioner in our courts for four decades, I was quite amazed at the skilful and delicate footwork—if I may use such a term—of the Treasury witnesses in dancing around the probing questions on the issue of additionality. That brings me to my major reservation on the opinion of the committee. I feel that members of the committee were excessively kind in dealing with the matter of additionality; that is, whether the Government actually fulfil their obligation to use those additional funds from the European Community to make an additional impact over and above what would

465
normally be done in those parts of the country which alone are eligible for that form of assistance. Reference has already been made to the definition in the report at paragraph 74 of the word "additionality":
"Additionality means that anything that the Commission does by way of financial assistance should be additional to what would be officially provided in the eligible areas concerned without that assistance".
There is clearly a very important dispute as to whether the UK is fulfilling its obligation on additionality. It was actually spelt out by Commissioner Bruce Milian in his evidence in response to an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I refer especially to the questions and answers (489 to 495) at pages 90 to 92 of the report.
The committee's last word in its opinion at paragraph 135 on additionality ends with a pious hope which I think that I should quote:
"It seems to the Committee that the Government should redouble their efforts to satisfy the Commission by the transparency of their procedures that the additionality principle is being followed in the United Kingdom, that anticipated grants from the Commission were included in expenditure plans to add to what would have been spent in regional development without the grant, and grants approved by the Commission within the CSFs reach the agreed areas. The Committee hope that their Report will help towards a very early resolution of this dispute and they stress that there is a real urgency for this".
Clearly, the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, illustrates the urgency of the point.
I do not believe that the United Kingdom is fulfilling its obligation. That is a belief that I know is shared by many others. I should like to set out some of my reasons for that belief. First, if one accepts that there is a general understanding that additionality applies, why go out of one's way, as the Government did here, to emphasise that there is no legal obligation? The comment of members of the committee on that in paragraph 135 was that they agreed that there was no legal obligation but noted,
"the acceptance by the Government that there is a general understanding that additionality applies to receipts from the Structural Funds"—
adding the qualifying words—
"which did not appear to them to be the case at the start of their enquiry".
It seems to me that the Government are saying, "Our first defence is that we have no legal obligation". When that defence fails, they will then say, "The transparency of procedures is a sufficient defence".
Returning again to the report, members of the committee also said in their opinion:
"In looking for a way out of the seeming impasse of this dispute, the Committee have been helped by the distinction made by the Treasury in their evidence (Q558) between the additionality issue and transparency procedures".
I am bound to say that I fail to follow the meaning of that sentence. I fail to see how it benefited the committee. Perhaps someone will be able to illuminate the point for me before the end of the debate.
It is instructive to remember that Commissioner Milian, who was Secretary of State for Scotland for many years, has considerable experience and knowledge of local government financial procedures in the country. It was suggested that that might be a difficulty. He plainly expressed his view at the end of his answer to question 496. He said that it was the
466
transparency of our procedures that enabled him to say that he was not satisfied and in fact did not believe that additionality was being employed in this country.
We then come to the evidence as regards how the money is actually spent. Because I come from Wales, I refer in particular to the answers given by Miss Davies of the Welsh Office when she dealt with the priorities and so on. She gave examples which I know members of the committee probed. They were surprised. There was, for example, the question of the money spent on the railway signalling systems and the money spent on Manweb, the company that produces electricity in North Wales. There was also the probing by the committee of the sponsors to the effect that they were waiting for people to make suggestions. Altogether it did not appear to me that the evidence available—from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, although I thought that the answers from Wales were the least satisfactory—showed that additionality was being applied here.
I turn now to my second serious reservation; namely, the effectiveness of the help that we are receiving. To a degree that hinges upon the question of additionality, but it is also a matter of priorities as regards how the money is spent. The committee set out its findings in paragraphs 117 to 119 at pages 34 to 35 of the report. In particular, paragraph 117 states:
"A complete judgment on effectiveness would need to include an estimate of what would have happened without any Community with arrangements to support cohesion-aimed programmes".
Oddly enough, by far the most effective support for rural areas in the EC, comes from the common agricultural policy. It has many critics and there is great scope for reforms in its methods of support. But I do not think that it has been fully appreciated, either on these Benches or any other Benches, what would happen if the common agricultural policy were scrapped. If the GATT negotiations were 100 per cent. successful and we had total free trade, one would have enormous agricultural, economic and social problems in many of the regions of the United Kingdom and total devastation in Europe. We should have millions of people looking for jobs in industry. I do not think that anybody has fully faced up to the implications of that.
In the area in which I live, in Mid-Wales, we have considerable help from the Common Market funds —I think there was £79 million in the latest plan. That is chicken-feed compared with the support that is given by the common agricultural policy. So when one talks of scrapping it one should face up to this point. One suddenly has great scope for reforming it but I simply point out the devastation that would occur.
We should not underestimate the value of the agricultural economy in supporting the infrastructure of social and economic life in areas such as my own, as well as in Spain and Denmark and Holland, which are net beneficiaries because of the common agricultural policy. Without it, their standards of living and earnings would be nothing like they are today. So we face a dilemma there.
The United Kingdom preference for infrastructure use of these funds seems to me to be wrong. It

467
accentuates one's suspicion that the funds are used in fact in substitution for central funds and not additional to them.
Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 118 of the report:
"The Committee wish to point to the enterprise initiatives taken in the United Kingdom by the business community and other non-governmental bodies in partnership with local authorities and central government, which have enabled a relatively small injection of public money to produce a major stimulus to the small business sector as an important source of new jobs and local wealth creation. They were impressed with evidence that showed the value of regional support through innovation services in the central part of Italy, to help small businesses".
That statement is made in contrast with the emphasis by the Government in their various departments on the importance of using this money for infrastructure benefits.
Perhaps I may go back to my experience in Mid-Wales. When I first became a Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire in 1962 our area was a net exporter of population. There was an acute drift of population away and the area was still suffering from this acute de-population which resulted in an age structure which was a great cause for concern. I shall not describe the self-help elements, but they came to my mind when I noted some of the questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Carr and Lord Boardman, in particular. There was a progression from a voluntary Mid-Wales development association to the new town development corporation and eventually to the Development Board for Rural Wales.
The committee refers to the relatively modest help that sometimes can be given to private enterprise. This results in very beneficial development. I asked the former development officer of the Rural Development Board for Wales, Mr. Peter Garbett Edwards, who was by far its most effective officer ever, whether he could give me some examples; he gave me four. First, there was Presco in Newtown which makes portable buildings for export. It is very much a national company now. The company started with 20 employees and had regional help—this was before Common Market funds were available. It now employs at least 240. For our part of the world that is a considerable business. Next there was Control Techniques, which is now an international high-tech company in Newtown. The company started with an employment force of six and now employs over 100 in Mid-Wales and many others in many parts of the world. As I have said, it has become an international company. Then there was Laura Ashley, which started off 30 years ago with virtually a man and his wife coming to the area and receiving some support from regional grants.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, a wife and her man.
Lord Hooson: My noble friend Lady Seear corrects me and says "A wife and her man". I am not sure that I would entirely agree with that. Nevertheless, they started off 30 years ago and now it is an international company. I happen to be a director so I must declare an interest. The company employs between 600 and 1,000 in Mid-Wales as well as those it employs
468
elsewhere. Then there was Durward at Llandrindod Wells—a national firm now for office filing equipment. It started with 15 employees and now employs over 300. All that was achieved in the early 1960s and early 1970s.
What has happened since that time is that, according to the evidence of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and I refer to paragraph 38 on page 19, it still has the lowest level of pay in the United Kingdom. So the disparity between our area and other parts of the United Kingdom is still as great as it was when those companies started.
I think that there is need for many more innovative ideas of the kind suggested by some of the probing questions asked by the committee. The Development Board for Rural Wales needs new ideas. It needs to develop some of its home industries, to encourage innovation, to bring about those technological changes to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred and to have less concern with publicity-seeking prestigious schemes. We should go for the people who produce the growth and not so much the subsidiary factories of much larger factories elsewhere, which are the first to close in any recession.
I would challenge the effectiveness of the use of the money. A great deal of the blame for this lies in the Government's insistence that most of this money is used for infrastructure work such as for Manweb, for the railway signalling scheme and so on instead of encouraging local industries and people who come in to develop industries.
I should like to conclude with a reference to paragraphs 136 to 138—The Need for Partnership. I very much agree with the general sentiments expressed in particular in paragraph 136, where the committee points out the clear advantage that West Germany has, with its highly developed regional government, in ensuring that the funds that are available go to the regions for which they are intended and are additional to any other expenditure there. I would make this plea for England. At the least a well-focused regional administration is needed. For example, there is a reference by the committee to the Abruzzo region in Italy where this exists. I agree with the appreciation that the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh Offices express in paragraph 138 and share the concern that England may have difficulty in reaping benefits because it does not have a regional administrative system.
Perhaps a member of the committee could enlighten me as to what the last sentence of paragraph 138 of its opinion means. It states:
"The Commission are associated with regional and local authorities in the CSFs and the Committee do not see the need for any discrimination by the Commission against United Kingdom regions, nor have they any evidence that there is any wish to discriminate, which would, indeed, be very wrong".
That is one of the most obscure sentences I have ever read. What does it mean? Against what evil is it aimed? What is the hidden meaning there? I do not know.
I shall conclude by expressing my appreciation to the committee for its work and diligence. I found reading the report and evidence rewarding. I should have thought that it has given food for thought to a

469
much wider audience. In relation to our country, I challenge the manner of dealing with those funds. The funds are supposed to remove disparities between poorer and richer regions. The eligible regions—the poorer regions—have just cause for complaint, as has the European Commission, against the way we use those funds in this country.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, before turning to some of the points that have been raised, perhaps I may express my appreciation for having been able to participate in the inquiry and pay the warmest possible tribute to our chairman, who works with incredible diligence and skill. I endorse his tribute to our Clerks.
It was natural for noble Lords who preceded me to emphasise the issue of additionality. If I had been in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, surveying through the years the dreary arguments over RECHAR and the failure of the money to come through, I am sure that my feelings would have been equally strong. As I came to the inquiry with a completely unfurnished mind, I found the labyrinthine maze of the procedures for the administration of the regional policies which have grown up over many years to be bewildering.
To return to additionality, I hope and believe—I think partly as a result of the committee's recommendations—that we have now emerged into a new era in which we can forget the dreary wrangles of the past. I believe that we are in sight of a smooth passage over additionality in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the term of art "transparency". I shall not try to explain the complicated metaphysics that lie behind some of the terms. Transparency is a key matter. I believe that we shall now have transparency; that the moneys that have been held up are about to be paid; and that we shall not have a repetition of that kind of unedifying inability of competing bureaucracies to agree.
One of the difficulties from the United Kingdom angle in coming to grips with what the regional policies and structure funds amount to is the paradox that some of the countries—ours in particular—are both donors and recipients. In the past that has given some of our loyal officials ammunition to take the line, "Well, when all is said and done, we are not talking about money from Brussels; it is British money that goes to Brussels which is recycled back again under approved procedures". To simple-minded former officials like myself there is a certain Alice in Wonderland look about that.
In reply to a question I put, one of the extremely able officials who came to enlighten us said that if we were starting from scratch we would not have wished to have set up administrative arrangements of the kind that have grown up over the years. But we are not in that position. We have never been in that position. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, constantly reminds us, we were late to join the club; we accepted the acquis; and we accepted the rules and practices that
470
the Commission had developed over the years. We do not regard them all as ideal, but we go along with them and do our best to improve and refine them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the rules about the regional development fund and the whole question of regional development policy were established after we entered the Community? They were not established before.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble Lord, who has great experience as a result of his previous membership of the European Parliament and otherwise. Nevertheless, the Commission's practices and general administrative patterns were to some extent set in stone before we arrived upon the scene. We are determined to continue to do our best to help our fellow member states to continue to improve the arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred to a number of our recommendations which are directed to those objects. I should like to mention one or two more because we sought to submit a report that was constructive, and not negative, in tone. One of our important recommendations—I am sure this will please the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Mason —is that the Commission's role in the structural funds should be limited as far as possible in the future to Community-wide co-ordination; to monitoring; to evaluating; and to financial control.
Under the principles of subsidiarity which we hope will now be observed increasingly, it is unnecessary for the Commission to involve itself in the detail of matters which local authorities, regional authorities and Whitehall have gone over and over and in many ways to duplicate that work. We look forward to a simplification there.
Again, we believe that there is scope for streamlining the administration when relatively small sums of money are involved. Relatively small sums in a local area may often relate to something that is important and significant. Nevertheless, in the view of our report there is scope for streamlining in the lower tiers of magnitude.
We considered that the processes of approving programmes could be changed. There are possibilities for making these processes much less burdensome to all those who have been involved in the past. We have recommended that through Community funds planning assistance, under a know-how scheme, should in future be given to strengthen the administrative capacity of some of the weaker regions. In our own overseas aid practices over the years, we have always attached the utmost importance to technical assistance, know-how and the transmission of skills. This is an area where our committee considered that the administration of regional policies could be improved and refined.
There is another possibility for improving matters, which noble Lords who have already spoken will welcome. We recommended that there should be more consultation in the processes of working out planning and approval. There should be more consultation with

471
non-governmental bodies like the CBI, the TUC and many others which have a real interest in regional proposals and have contributions to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, thought that the weight of Brussels support under the regional development policies should be attached to infrastructure. Our committee warmly endorses that and it has always been the view of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, thought that perhaps there was a conflict between that and the obvious need to do everything we can to promote and facilitate innovative schemes, such as those he mentioned. They interested me very much and they have been important and helpful in central Italy, as well as in many parts of this country. A comparatively new form of governmental assistance is the facilitation or the providing of facilities for small businesses to work together more easily and draw on more centralised technologies. However, this is not so much in conflict with the main emphasis on infrastructure rather than support projects as a matter for reasonable flexibility.
No one wants the arrangements of the Commission to be inflexible and rigid, but, that being said, our Committee strongly endorsed the view that Her Majesty's Government have always held that the most rewarding field for Community support schemes is in the area of infrastructure. We have all learnt how easy it is for official funds to be sucked into specious and, on the face of it, attractive projects for helping lame ducks or giving a boost to promising industrial enterprises. But experience in this country and elsewhere suggests that this is not the best way of deploying limited government funds.
While we endorsed the general aims of the regional development policies and also the choice of areas, in our view they had no implication for accepting any particular targets for the scale of reduction of disparities between the richer and the poorer nor for the amounts of funds that have to be put, in total, into commissioned programmes. We have to be pragmatic. No amount of money within conceivable sight could ever do more than make a marginal difference to disparities in any of the recipient countries.
That does not, of course, apply in relation to regions which benefit enormously from comparatively small sums. Generally speaking, the regional development policy of the European Community is not the main means by which the disparities will be reduced. The main means is by following sound economic and financial policies in each of the countries and by the freeing up of markets. Within the Community itself, we hope and believe that over the years the single market will do far more than anything else to enable the weaker countries, the lagging countries, to rise.
I wish to mention in passing the important point which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, made in his introduction. It was that the effect of the common agricultural policy at present distorts the whole process of cohesion. He quoted the absurdity of the case of the Netherlands and Denmark as net recipients. This is an indirect effect of the past and
472
somehow it must be corrected. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government will battle hard to have it put right.
Two days ago, upstairs in a committee room, M. Attali expounded his vision for the ultimate enlargement of the Community to stretch, not in General de Gaulle's vision from the Atlantic to the Urals, but from Wales to Vladivostok. This opens up a wide perspective, and it will be many years and there will have to be many developments before anyone can see whether that vision will be realised. We hope and believe that the Community will be enlarged to incorporate three EFTA members and then perhaps the rest of EFTA. Then, in 10 or more years' time, the Baltic States will wish to join. The Eastern Europeans will be knocking at the door, and no doubt the successor countries of what was Yugoslavia will also be knocking at the door. Therefore the problem of the structural funds and the regional development policies is of growing importance. It is all the more important that the principles and the practice of administration should be got right.
We are building a foundation for an edifice which is likely to include more and more weak economies. Therefore we have to get the matter right. We must avoid the temptation of putting money into schemes that may not last. In general I hope that your Lordships will endorse the committee's view and approve the report.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee which conducted this inquiry I wish to reinforce the tributes already paid to the work of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and to the work of our Clerk. The whole House needs to be grateful to those of our colleagues who are prepared to take on the extremely arduous task of chairing inquiries of this kind. I am delighted to be a member of such a committee of inquiry and I feel highly privileged to be part of that committee. However, I am not sure that to be chairman of such a committee is anything other than a sentence of hard labour. However, our chairman has produced good results.
There can be no doubt that a growing feeling of cohesion among the member states of the Community and among their populations is extremely important. There has to be developed an increasing feeling of belonging and a feeling that member countries and their populations will become enriched by being members of the Community. I agree strongly therefore with the first sentence of the second paragraph of the committee's conclusions, that is paragraph 108. I agree that the task of the Community is to strengthen cohesion. I endorse particularly warmly the final sentence of that paragraph which states:
"Cohesion for the future depends in our view on the understanding by all the peoples of the EC that steps are being taken within the Community and will continue to be taken to reduce the disparities between regions and to improve the prosperity of the less developed, whilst time is given for macro-economic policies to work".

473
That is an objective that we must never forget and never neglect if the Community is to flourish and to have a long and vital life and if it is not to deteriorate as the years go by.
While a regional development policy is certainly not the only means by which cohesion can be encouraged it is the most obvious and visible symbol of the Community's commitment to the objective which I have just described. Here in Britain we have a long experience of regional development policy over more than half a century. We know how difficult it is to make such a policy successful. I suggest that for many decades we have had many more disappointments than successes. We have found that vast capital expenditure projects tend to produce relatively few genuinely new jobs.
We have found that subsidising satellite factories at great cost in places where the companies or industries concerned would prefer not to have gone has limited and shortlived results. Such satellite factories tend to be the first to close when a recession is threatened. However, —this I believe is most important and good news—in this current deep and long recession there has been clear evidence that the old depressed areas of Britain have stood up better than many others which have hitherto been thought to be resistant to such problems. Perhaps that shows that over the 50 or 60 years we have worked at this problem we have learnt from experience. I think that we have done so and that by trial and error we have found out a lot about what works and what does not work.
We have also learnt that even the best regional development policies are slow working and that to go for quick results is usually self defeating. I wish to dwell for a few moments on the matter of applying these lessons throughout the Community. In my career I have had considerable personal involvement in regional policy problems. I have had two spells as a Minister at the Department of Employment. I was chairman of the CBI's special programmes unit for some three or four years and I was chairman of Business in the Community for three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, reminded me, I was the UK representative on the board of an organisation called the European Business Network whose main object in life—although not its sole object—was to help to establish in difficult regions in all the countries throughout the Community organisations known as business initiative centres or BICs. We certainly had our share of frustrations in trying to make that policy successful in this country. That was notably the case in Barnsley although it was not the only place where we suffered frustrations in implementing the policy. However, something happens in the end and it is a case of better late than never.
On the basis of that personal experience I wish to pick out and slightly elaborate upon a few points from the report which I believe to be particularly important. First I wish to quote from paragraph 116 on page 34 of the report. The paragraph concludes:
"If the objective of furthering cohesion within the European Community is to be achieved, however, it is essential that the large sums of money made available to the poorest regions by the European Community should be well spent".
474
I am sure we can all say "hear, hear" to that. I wish to consider some of the conditions that must be laid down for ensuring that the money is well spent. While I do not wish to belittle the need for detailed auditing control, I believe the essence of good spending is to get the strategy and the policy right. If the strategy and the policy are wrong, however much one counts up every penny of the money that is spent one will not achieve results that reflect value for money. Therefore we need to look at the basic objective of this matter. That basic objective is well defined in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 119 of the committee's report on page 35 which states:
"In the end the effectiveness of regional development will be proven by the extent to which regions now unattractive to private investment are made attractive to those whose activities lead to real economic growth".
That, I believe, is the key objective. We shall only spend funds well if the primary—not the sole—purpose of the spending is to try to bring about that objective. That is not to say that public initiative and public services are not important, but that is the prime basis on which one can make a region, or a small locality within a region, self-generating and self-supporting providing not only a good economic standard of life for the people of the region but also a satisfying quality of life. That, I believe, is the test which we must apply. That objective must govern all our policies. It is fundamental.
Within that context I should like to draw attention to what, from my experience, I have come to believe to be the two essential conditions for success. The first is strong—and I emphasise "strong"—decentralisation of detailed policy making and the management of programmes. All our experience here in Britain has shown that success on the ground depends on building from the bottom up and not from the top down. It is not sufficient or helpful to go to a community, large or small, with money and outside experts to do good or to impose good on local people or communities. They do not like it; they do not appreciate it; and they do not understand what it is that one is trying to do.
What one has to do is to go in in a humbler spirit to help local people to help themselves, to find out what local people want and what they do not want, what they regard as important to their lives and what they regard as less important. One has to give local leaders the help they need to give leadership in their communities. That is the prime secret of making development, whether in inner cities or larger development areas, successful. If we forget that we shall waste a lot of money. Money will not be well spent.
The habit of decentralisation is vital, although it is a habit which does not come easily to the European Commission in Brussels or, equally, to the mandarins and Ministers who inhabit Whitehall. Perhaps I may include myself in the last category, having been a Minister and no doubt having been much more resistant then to decentralisation, although perhaps I did not realise it at the time, than I am now. We have to bite the bullet and stop believing that detailed control is the way to achieve good economy. There has

475
to be a measure of it, but it must be strongly criticised: it is the central method, policy and strategy which is the source of good, effective spending of money.
If we are to do that in our communities we have to assist the setting up of local partnerships with central government or agencies of central government. As stated in the report, it is very important that there should be strong local administration. It does not have to be, though some might wish it could be, local or regional government as strong as that in Germany, but strong, local administration is important. I am unrepentant in believing that if we had development agencies in our regions in England as we have in Scotland and in Wales we should spend our money more effectively and also use more effectively such extra help as we manage to draw from the Community in Brussels.
Therefore, there has to be partnership between central government, local government in each area, local business leaders, local professional people and locally active charitable organisations. They must all be brought in. It is not just a matter for public bodies, local government and central government. All those people have to be brought into local partnership.
In support of that point I should like to say how much I approve of the views expressed in paragraph 118 on page 35 of the committee's report, which have already been referred to. The report states:
"The Committee wish to point to the enterprise initiatives taken in the United Kingdom by the business community and other non-governmental bodies in partnership with local authorities and central government, which have enabled a relatively small injection of public money to produce a major stimulus to the small business sector as an important source of new jobs and local wealth creation".
I believe that to be profoundly true.
That movement has been going through a rough time during the recession of the past two years, but there is no doubt that that type of partnership enterprise produced a great new burst of growth in small and medium business activity in this country. It both increased the birth rate and reduced the infant mortality rate of new small businesses. That will become apparent and, when the recession fades, a new source of strength for this country. It needs to be copied throughout Europe. When we give help, whether it is to eastern Germany or the eastern states, that lesson which we have learnt ourselves should be kept very much in mind.
Decentralisation is my main theme and I wish to stress one more aspect. Just as it must apply within member states it must also apply between the European Commission and member states. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Aldington stress in his opening remarks that the prime responsibility for regional development rests with the governments of the member states and that the role of the Commission is to support and enable but not to take over responsibility for the programmes. That underlines the importance stressed in the report of simplifying and reducing drastically the bureaucracy involved in present regional development procedures, both in developing and supervising policy. If that applies to
476
bureaucracy in Brussels it applies just as much to bureaucracy here in Britain, both at central and local level.
Something else needs to be said. I come to the unpopular subject of additionality. If the Commission is to be a supporter and enabler rather than the manager of regional development programmes which it helps to finance then member governments must accept reasonable responsibility for additionality. What do I mean by that? Above all, I mean transparency, which I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Aldington stress. I believe that most of the problem in this country, which I hope has now been largely cleared up—and perhaps this report has helped to clear it up—has related not to what was actually done so much as the total lack of transparency about what was being done.
Additionality has to be regarded in a somewhat wider sense. My noble friend Lord Aldington also pointed out that European structural funds do not cover fields such as education and training. He pointed out that the report states that they should not, and I fully agree with him. Yet there will never be good regional development unless greater attention is paid to education and training. That has to be accepted as the responsibility of the government in each member country.
I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for the Commission to say, "If you are expecting us to give aid in that region we, the Commission, must be satisfied that you, the member government, are playing your part to the best of your ability in providing those elements of infrastructure such as education and training without which the development programmes we are going to support with EC money have no chance of flourishing." If we could achieve that type of general relationship in place of the present nit-picking relationship over additionality between member governments and the Commission we should make a great deal more progress.
My second central condition, about which I shall speak very briefly, is the need for concentration on infrastructure development. Here I must take issue with some of what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to say. It may be that I did not understand him fully. I believe that it must have clear priority over support for specific industrial projects, which should take very much second place. I am concerned that some of the committee's evidence seemed to suggest that the Commission in Brussels had a growing interest in supporting industrial projects and that that was beginning to overtake its previous prime interest in infrastructure. If that is so, I hope that the Government will sit heavily on it to reverse that interest. It must put infrastructure first. We must never forget that the prime objective is to help regions to become capable of self-governing growth. They will never do that unless their infrastructure is adequate. But infrastructure must be interpreted widely. It must include not only essential and vital aspects such as road and rail communications, telecommunications and so forth, but also a proper provision of education,

477
training, housing and social services. Those are factors which make an area one in which people wish to invest in many ways.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, pointed out, those factors are not covered by sectoral funds and must therefore be covered by governments of member states—if the government is a member state. I believe that the Commission is entitled to inquire in general —not in bureaucratic detail—whether governments of member states are accepting their responsibilities adequately in those respects before they commit EC funds to help in those regions.
The other essential component of infrastructure is a small, vigorous, medium-sized business activity. That requires the partnerships to which I have already referred: local enterprise agencies, business initiative centres, business and science parks and so on. We must concentrate on those two essential requirements. The objective must ultimately be to make each region self-generating, a place where people wish to come. Essential conditions are decentralisation—building from the bottom up and not from the top down—and the concentration of all the help possible on building up a complete infrastructure. That is supported by what is happening in parts of other countries. Spain has been referred to.
Paragraph 44 on page 20 of the report states:
"Professor Stuart Holland of the European University Institute in Florence outlined successful Italian examples of financial networking and pooled involvement in professional training, research and technological experimentation which had brought about a striking increase in the economic growth of the regions concerned … He believed that these kinds of services for small and medium sized firms needed to be regional and local. He recommended that the Commission should give guidelines to make it possible for the policies to be considered consistently throughout the Community".
My final word therefore is this. Let us realise what has been working well. Let us continue to concentrate on that. Let us use our influence to ensure that similar approaches are adopted throughout the Community; and then we shall indeed play our full part in the Community in this field.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on an excellent report and the opportunity that it gives us to discuss regional development in the EC.
Unlike some noble Lords, I am not against the EC. Nor do I consider that its bureaucracy is large. However, the sums of money involved are not negligible. We are talking about approximately £40 billion to £45 billion given to regional funds according to the figures in the report. UK aid to the third world is about 0.3 per cent. of our GDP, which would total about £2 billion. Those are large sums of money. While I am aware that there is much poverty in Portugal, Spain, Greece and parts of the United Kingdom, we are referring to relative underdevelopment rather than absolute underdevelopment. Therefore we must be very careful that the money is spent properly and carefully and not
478
frittered away. It is not that I do not believe that the money should be spent. But we must be careful that we spend it properly.
I do not speak as a member of the committee or as someone with a regional interest. Islington does not qualify as a region under the European definition and therefore it cannot hope to receive more money. Nor does the parish of St. Clement Danes. Therefore, I argue more as an outsider and as an economist.
If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, had been present, he would have said what rubbish this regional development fund is. All one needs to do is to establish a free market, free mobility in labour and capital and, hey presto, things will happen. It is a belief that somehow free mobility of labour and capital and a free market would accomplish what we wish to accomplish: a reduction of inequality. Historically that is not the way things happen. It is not that movements in labour and capital reduce inequalities in equal proportion. Very often inequalities persist and we have a growing divergence whereby the prosperous regions become more prosperous and the poor regions poorer.
Left to itself, a free market—to which I have only mild objections—does not accomplish that objective by itself. We have to have an enabling policy. I believe that some regional policy which counters the tendency of the market towards equilibrium is clearly necessary. However, we have to ask ourselves about the criteria on which regions are designated as needing aid and the criteria by which we judge that the policy has been effective. My point is not related specifically to the Select Committee report but more to the policy followed by the Commission: that the criteria of relative per capita income and relative unemployment are rather crude. It is not that they are wrong; they are crude. They result in a somewhat absurd idea that an entire nation qualifies under Objective 1 as a backward region. That surely cannot be true. Even in a poor region—in Portugal, Greece or wherever—there are prosperous pockets and prosperous people and poor people. If we indiscriminately designate a large region as poor we may be at risk of giving money where it does not necessarily have the best effect.
The Commission ought to consider whether it has sharp enough criteria in Objectives 1 and 2 for designating regions as needing funds. Objective 2 is more sharply defined. Are the criteria good enough for designating regions as needing aid under these funds?
I cite two reasons. First, in the current debate on development there is a greater awareness of the fact that per capita income is not a good indicator of development or under-development. It is not a good indicator either of the quality of life or of what we wish development to achieve. The United Nations development programme—I referred to the human development report in the debate in this Chamber yesterday—has moved away from mere reliance on per capita income to include a broader category of social objectives such as longevity and literacy. However, that is for a much broader range of countries.
Perhaps the time has come to have a more mixed bag of indicators going beyond per capita income and

479
including other qualities. For example, as regards Scotland the report discusses the insularity from which the region suffers. It discusses the fact that it is peripheral and sparsely populated. They are important criteria and per capita income may not capture the fact that a region needs a loan not because it has low per capita income or high unemployment but because it happens to be isolated, peripheral or insular.
I urge the Commission through our debate on the report to think about a broader set of criteria for designating regions. I believe that per capita income is a crude criterion and needs to be combined with others. If that were done there would be a better and sharper formulation of policies.
That leads me to the connected problems of the criteria of effectiveness. It is clear that regional backwardness is a long-standing problem and cannot be quickly corrected. We know from Italy that the problem can last for a century or more. The evidence from my friend Professor Stuart Holland, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, relates to the prosperity of a relatively prosperous region of northern Italy. It is there in Modena that these lovely things have happened, and I welcome that. However, by and large, it is a backward region of a relatively more developed part of Italy, the north, which is being developed rather than the backward south. It is clear therefore that not only can backwardness persist for a long time but that prosperous regions benefit from aid rather than backward regions.
Given that fact, we must ask ourselves what we can do. Literature on development policies shows that for a long time we believed that speeding up per capita income growth was the answer to everything. After about 40 years of making mistakes we know a little better. For example, we know that per capita income growth is difficult to speed up. We know that speeding it up without regard to environmental and other consequences may not be right. We also know that rather than looking at immediate criteria such as industrial development we might look at deeper criteria such as education, training, research and development and so on.
I recognise that a structural fund cannot deal with that. However, the effectiveness of the policy of giving structural funds to the regions may not be only in whether it speeds up per capita income growth but in other criteria. For example, it may be that in a sparsely populated region such as the Highlands and Islands the correct policy is not to develop it so that it will be flooded with tourists and environmentally destroyed but to keep as it is, perhaps making the citizen feel less isolated. Certainly it should not be rushed into development by some technocratic idea. We must find better notions and concepts of what development consists of other than merely per capita income. Equalising per capita income, which is a crude measure, may not necessarily be a good criteria at which to aim.
Two or three other questions arise. The first is the simplification of procedures. There is a conflict. On the one hand we should like less bureaucracy and
480
fewer tiers of decision-making but on the other hand we should like lots of participation, making sure that money is not wasted. There lies the conflict. If one wishes to ensure that money is not wasted one needs a great deal of monitoring and examination to ensure that the scheme is good, that the money is spent as it should be and that it does good. All that means a great deal of work.
There are three tiers: local regions, state governments and the EC. The question is: is one of those tiers redundant? Some noble Lords have suggested that it would be right to pass the money from the Commission to the national government and let them deal with the problem. I can see the logic of that argument, but there is another argument which will not be popular. It is to cut out the national government tier and to let the money go directly from the Commission to the regions. That would be difficult because of the co-financing problem. If there is co-financing, someone—it happens to be the national government—must fork out the remaining part of the grant, which in some cases is 25 per cent.
One way of doing that would be to say that, if a region wins a competition for the allocation of structural funds for a scheme, the national government concerned should see that as a prima facie case it is a good scheme to give co-financing to, whatever the other rules are. If it were the case that once a region had won the competition it would reasonably automatically be granted the co-financing part of the deal, one layer of bureaucracy would be cut out. It would also simplify the horrible problem of additionality.
I know that the two problems are separate, but a point about additionality is the suspicion that somehow schemes may be put forward which could win Commission support but which would not otherwise pass the approval of the UK Government. Therefore the UK Government may be argued into spending money where they do not necessarily want to spend it.
That arises from a philosophy which pertained for a large part of the past 13 years—I hope that it will no longer exist—of regarding anything which the Commission did with great suspicion and anything which local government did with even greater suspicion. We should regard additionality as having a multiplier effect. The fact that people have obtained the money from somewhere else should be thought to be a good reason for not withdrawing the money but adding to it. I hope that a change of regime at the Department of Trade and Industry means that the new Secretary of State will look again at the problem and that additionality will be less of a struggle.
I believe that the report indicates that at the Commission level rather than at the national level there is a need to think in a fairly serious and sophisticated way about the kind of criteria which are used to allocate funds to the regions, to evaluate what the funds do and to know whether we have been successful. The objective of equalising per capita income in all regions is foolish beyond measure. What we can do is not so much to arrest growing inequality but to say that people who live in different regions,

481
although their measured incomes may be unequal, should find sufficient reason to stay voluntarily in that region because their quality of life has compensations. Some kind of broader concept of quality of life rather than per capita income might he the way to achieve the goals of regional development and cohesion.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Aldington on his chairmanship of the committee. As always, he displayed the lucidity and kindness to members of the committee and witnesses which we are accustomed to receiving from him.
I join also with a number of other noble Lords in agreeing that the concept, the policy for support in the way it is designed, is right in its need to strengthen cohesion. I accept that means the transfer of some resources from the richer countries to the poorer ones. I accept too that almost inevitably transfers of cash to spend to one person from someone else leads to certain abuses and the money is not spent as it would be if it were their own money. That is perhaps particularly true when that someone else happens to be what in most people's eyes is a rather remote but also rather rich body such as the Community. I am sorry to say that there has been some evidence of such abuses within the Community.
A number of points arise from the report, but one to which I think all noble Lords who have spoken have referred is the question of additionality. That is something which has created massive confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, referred to that in connection with RECHAR, and other references have been made to it. It creates a fairly impossible situation. You must endeavour to show that there would not have been the expenditure if it had been your own money and yet when it is someone else's money, that expenditure is essential. I put it rather more crudely than did my noble friend Lord Aldington; but I think it is complete nonsense. It was put not inappropriately by one of the witnesses from the Department of Transport. In part of his reply (at page 143) he said:
"The projects which are put forward for ERDF funding are very worthwhile. I think that means automatically they are going to be pretty near the top of any list of priorities. So, I think it is hard to argue that a project would have been unlikely to have gone ahead had it not qualified for ERDF funding".
I then put a question to him as regards whether or not that conflicts with the additionality point, and he conceded immediately that it did. He went on to say that if we applied additionality as it is sometimes construed, there would be almost limitless expenditure.
Of course, it is very strangely interpreted. We have the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, of RECHAR. On the other hand, I recall a case in Italy where a subsidiary company in a development area was asked to explain how it obtained Community funds. It said that it put in all its capital budgets for some time ahead to its head office in Rome. The head office sorted out the ones it thought would get through the Community and in that way the subsidiary
482
company received its funds from the Community. That conflicts very much with my understanding of the Community's interpretation of additionality.
I move from that to another point of anxiety; that is, the potential conflict between member states and regions. There is some pressure coming from various quarters that the regions should be able to carry out negotiations directly with the Commission, by-passing the member states. Both my noble friends Lord Aldington and Lord Carr quite rightly said that that should not happen. Member states are responsible for the economic and social policies of their regions and for the economic growth of those regions. We must take great care to avoid duplicating or eroding the responsibilities of member states for their regions, which are perhaps the less fortunate parts of a particular state.
The most worrying part of the procedure—and it comes out in the report—is the evidence of bureaucracy which we had from many witnesses, including witnesses from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They gave as an example the increase in the number of committees. One witness said that what had been dealt with by one committee is now dealt with by six. What had been dealt with locally now involved constant travel between Brussels and wherever it may be in order that he could try to get some understanding and agreement on how the money was to be spent.
As regards the selection of projects, the gist of the evidence was that the projects were worthwhile but not necessarily the projects which the various officials or witnesses would have chosen had it been their money and their decision as to how that money should be spent. I do not blame people for making applications for funds if they believe that they can obtain them. But there were some farcical examples. For example, Community funds were provided, after all the procedures had been undertaken in committees and so on, for erecting public lavatories in the car parks in Cardiff. I wonder how far bureaucracy can be stretched in order for that to be achieved. I am sure that a notice was attached saying, "This facility is erected for the convenience of the public by the generosity of the European Community". However, I believe that is fairly ridiculous.
If one ignores the obligations which I accept—and I am sure noble Lords accept—that we have a duty to help the poorer nations, from the point of view of the UK alone, we should be better off spending our own money as we think best for the regions in this country which need it most. We do not need six committees to assess those. We do not have to spend twice the amount of money that we spend now. As table 3, (on page 32) shows, to which my noble friend Lord Aldington referred, nearly a quarter of the total contributions to the Community—some 10 billion ecu —is unattributable to any member-state. Presumably, it is largely used for "running the shop". However, we get back only half of everything that we contribute. Therefore, when we spend £100 from Community funds, we have already contributed £200 into the Community to get back the £100. That rather smacks of entering into some of the dangers created by the

483
CAP. I hope that we can avoid going down that road because I read that in 1993 the Community will spend 25 per cent. of its budget on the structural fund, which is a substantial slice of money.
Again, as my noble friend Lord Aldington pointed out, if one follows the route of the CAP, we shall have the state of affairs in which rich countries like Denmark and the Netherlands receive more from the Community than they contribute. That cannot be right. If we accept the concept, as I do, that we have a duty as one of the richer nations to help some of the poorer nations, we should not pour more money into the richer nations.
I resent—and perhaps that is not too strong a word to use —the way in which the Community insists on putting up notices where they have funded particular projects. Where a bridge has been built with Community funds, one finds a notice saying, "This bridge was erected with European Community funds". I do not believe that is right or really very honest. It should go on to say, "This and another similar bridge in Europe has been built at the cost of the British taxpayer". That would be an honest statement of fact. It seems that the picture has been distorted. Somehow it gives a picture of the EC as a charity so that when people in this country see one of those bridges they say, "How charitable and kind the EC is to us". However, that is just not so. As I say, for every £2 we pay to the Community, we receive back £1 for support to the regions of this country.
As other noble Lords have said—and I shall try to condense my arguments on this—we must try to simplify the procedures. The aim which we accepted —and I certainly accept—was to secure greater cohesion among the member states of Europe.
We must ensure that the Community adequately accounts for its expenditure—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made reference. Monitoring is important, yet somehow we must achieve an effective form of monitoring without having a massive bureaucracy chasing round and counting every penny spent. It is not an easy balance to obtain. However, if we are to give respectability to the projects which are put forward and the people paying for them, we must somehow see that they are reasonably monitored and the money not wasted.
I question some of the moves in what has been referred to as the Jacques Delors Mark II, which are moves towards expansion of funds, of the role and of the scope operated by the Community, bringing in such matters as hospitals and schools. By expanding development or structural funds in that way, we are completely eroding the responsibility of member states for the provision of those things which are essentially their burden and their responsibility. I hope that we will do that. We must aim for contributing to and achieving greater cohesion among the members of the European Community. But we must do so by avoiding and resisting any bureaucracy which follows from that.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee for the report that they produced, particularly as I have been what may be called a participating spectator, possibly not always a welcome one, to the activities undertaken. At any rate, I certainly agree that the staff of the committee—the secretariat, its legal adviser and all those associated with the production of the report—are to be congratulated.
I was somewhat surprised to the point almost of glowing pleasure to find that I agreed with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, had to say. One of the difficulties in public life, and if I may say so I have been an active participant for over half a century, is to determine for oneself the difference between illusion and actuality. It seemed to me today that the noble Lord was, albeit somewhat slowly and reluctantly, coming down in favour of the actualities. I refer to the illusions, for example, about the status of the European Commission, the aura that surrounds its every utterance, nay even the saintliness of some of its members which has been the characteristic of public comment for so long. Indeed, if one ever ventures to penetrate the veil of the halo—the Holy Grail that is the European Commission—then one is regarded as somewhat of an eccentric at the most generous and at worst a rotten anti-European. The veils are beginning to drop. The noble Lord today did the House and himself a service by at last being able to appreciate the real power and significance of the Brussels bureaucracy.
The regional development policy put forward by the Commission soon after Britain's accession in 1972, partly as a result of the pressure that successive British governments exercised and particularly in the renegotiation that took place in Dublin in 1974, added a powerful impetus to the whole establishment of the redistributed apparatus that lay behind the general concept of European regional development policy. As my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, with good effect I thought, it is the essence of the operation of free market forces over any specific area of the earth that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That applies not only internally within our nation where, despite a considerable number of economic miracles, we still see a growing division between rich and poor, but it applies also in Europe and particularly in the European Community. Incidentally, it applies in the world as a whole because the richer nations of the world are getting richer and the poorer nations are still getting poorer.
It was therefore quite natural that there should be some move within the European Economic Community to correct a process that it really did not like to admit to itself. For example, although the operation of free market forces was and still is regarded as the last word in enlightened economics, both this country and every other country in the EC were careful to exempt the agricultural community from the benefits of the free market system. They were conscious of the fact that the free market system produced the inequalities to which I referred. As noble Lords will gather from the report, large sums of

485
money have been diverted to those kinds of purposes through the regional development fund and other types of structural fund. But it is necessary to bear in mind that, despite that process, which has been going on since 1974—nearly 20 years—the disparities are still growing between the richer areas of the Community and the poorer areas.
The Commission knows that well. It has been advised but has a queer way of stifling discussion on those matters. First, there was a report produced by MacDougall which the Commission never released for debate in the European Parliament. That pointed out those problems. Secondly, there was the Maldague Report produced by my friend Stuart Holland—a friend also of my noble friend Lord Desai—which showed how the operation of the multinationals in Europe produced regional disparities. The Commission declined to have that discussed by the European Parliament. Indeed, most of the reports commissioned by it, unless they agree with the views of the Commission, are rarely discussed in the European Parliament. I speak with some experience. For some two years I was president of the European Parliament's Regional and Transport Committee. Believe me, I know how the system works.
We should surely at last bear in mind and let it sink in—however sentimental we may feel about it—that the European Commission is not composed of extraordinary people who have some kind of supernatural powers. They are just ordinary people, some with experience in political life and some with none. Their political experience and expertise does not always qualify them for the positions which they occupy. Yet unless one agrees with everything that the Commission puts forward one is reckoned to be anti-European and one is below the salt. One does not belong to the really organised intelligentsia in politics. One is some kind of eccentric.
We all know perfectly well what happens as regards the European development and other structural funds. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, put it very well indeed. I have a quotation marked but since he has spoken with authority I would not even dream of producing one in support of him. He knows quite well that the money that is put into regional projects, for example, in various parts of the United Kingdom, accompanied always by a notice: "this project has been financed by the European Community", is a lot of nonsense. First, the money goes from the British taxpayer to the Community and then, wearing a Community label and in order to enhance the reputation of the Commission, purports to be provided by the Community. Of course that is a lot of nonsense.
There was a time when the only fund in the Community budget out of which Britain derived a profit—she actually got out more than she put in which was most remarkable because that does not apply to anything else—was the regional funds. Since the enlargement of the structural funds, which again was reported on by the committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and which was referred to in such glowing terms by the report itself, Britain now
486
gets less and loses. She puts into the structural funds —the noble Lord has quite correctly cited the figure of £300 million—more than she gets out.
Therefore, let us have no more nonsense about this wonderful organisation, the Commission, composed of appointed civil servants, not democratically elected by anybody, and their staff. They are not the source of any benefits received by the United Kingdom; they are merely a bureaucratic channel, which there must be, through which these things are conveyed. One cannot have a Community organising itself to follow certain common principles without having a bureaucracy to administer it. That is quite proper. However, in addition to performing those functions, which are quite legitimate and proper and which I support, all bureaucracies eventually begin to seek ever-increasing powers for themselves. That is exactly what Her Majesty's present Government are beginning to realise.
Even now there is audacity, against current fashionable opinion, in assertions that the member states really do have a role to play. It is now no longer not respectable to say that a British Government are quite capable of governing their own people. To have said such a thing five years ago and to have excluded the European Commission, would have been regarded as heresy. Possibly people have been listening to me for quite a time now and they may know differently.
As the noble Lord knows perfectly well a number of projects are quite admirable and very necessary, particularly in areas where the traditional industries have declined or where industries, by the operation of unrestricted, free market forces, have suddenly produced distressed conditions in certain localities. It is very right and proper for aid to be directed to those places and for projects to be developed. It is also right for governments themselves, in conjunction with local authorities, private interests and charities, to persist in that process in the hope not only of regeneration but of at least averting further distress. All that is quite right.
However, in selecting a project, one should not have to go through the tortuous machinery of deciding what one wants locally, involving the local inhabitants and businesses, local authorities and charitable organisations, and then to have to send the damned thing to Brussels to a bureaucracy for further approval. It does not make sense. The committee has not said so in so many words but it has hovered on the edge of being slightly supportive of the assertion that I have so far made.
Local authorities work up their projects in conjunction with chambers of commerce, trade unions, charitable associations and other organisations. They apply, after approval from the Ministry, to Brussels. Then there are the weighty deliberations by people who probably have not had any experience of local government at all. I have in mind Mr. Bangemann who is a very good friend of mine. He has no experience of local authorities. When I saw him last his principal anxiety was to inquire why it took him six months to get a Jaguar car. They do not understand the problems involved in the same way as we do. Why should the matter be referred to Brussels and then

487
brought back here in a process which has been so well described by my noble friend Lord Mason? Such a procedure passes all imagination.
We now have to ensure that these processes do not take place. While it may be necessary on a global European basis for the Commission, subject to the Council of Ministers, to lay down guidelines, this massive, but trivial intervention producing delays at local stages is nothing more than a sop to bureaucracy and should be stopped.
There are other aspects to the matter as well. One has to bear in mind that, according to the Government, this year the United Kingdom is a net contributor to Community funds, after all receipts and abatements, to the tune of £2.5 billion. That is British taxpayers' money. It is incumbent on us and on our Government, now at the heart of Europe, to pay some attention to where the money is going. Nothing is more obscene than the provision of public money not only from the United Kingdom, but from Germany and the other member states as well, by way of regional and other aid, to Italy. I quote Italy deliberately because, as the Commission well knows, the Italian Government has not yet established the position where it can actually verify to the Commission or the Court of Auditors, that the money provided out of Community funds has in fact been spent for the purposes for which it was given. We all know that the Italian Government cannot handle the Mafia or, indeed, the other corrupt institutions in Italy which are busily sucking at the teats of the money that is provided by the rest of the Community.
Those are the reasons that we have to take a rather closer look at the regional development policies. Our prime objective must always be—not only in the United Kingdom but, because we are active members of the Community, throughout Europe also—to see that the worst effects of the operation of free market forces are halted or at any rate alleviated. However, we must also see that some of the new network methods, which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Desai on the advice of Professor Stuart Holland, are given far more critical examination than hitherto. If we can do those things and, above all, if we can exert our own democracy at local and national level and successfully fight the growth of this octopus-like bureaucracy, which is ever seeking more power to itself, then we shall not only have done our nation good, but a favour to Europe itself.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the fact that, although I made arrangements a few days ago to speak in this debate, owing to an accident my name was omitted from the typewritten list of noble Lords wishing to participate.
I join all noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the members of Sub-committee A for their excellent report on European regional development policy. It is in the great tradition of the reports of the Select Committee of this House on the European Communities in
488
creating, through constructive criticism, an informed climate of opinion about EC developments, especially as they affect the United Kingdom.
The report is of particular interest to me because it shows how much the Community's regional development strategy has expanded since the days when Britain joined the community 20 years ago when I found myself the EC commissioner charged with setting up the first regional development fund. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for reminding him of that murky chapter in my past. I generally enjoy the noble Lord's polemics about the European Community and totally agree with him on one aspect—that is, that all the members of the European Commission and its senior officials are ordinary, fallible mortals and sinners like the rest of us and are not the superior people he seems to think we are.
Although I recognise the sincerity of the convictions of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about British membership of the Community, I remain a little puzzled that he and I, who belong to the left of centre tradition of British politics, and that he, who believes in the redistribution of resources to help the disadvantaged within the nation state, should apparently feel so strongly opposed to that in principle when applied at the European Community level, given that we are members of that Community.
The enlargement of the Community and the accession of Portugal, Greece and Spain, with their severe problems of underdevelopment, added a totally new dimension to the problems of regional development. That was reflected in the major reform of the structural funds in 1988, in the doubling of the resources available to them and, perhaps most important of all, in the commitment to co-ordinate the work of the three funds in a single coherent strategy, although I am sure that there is still a long way to go in that respect.
Despite that widening of the Community's regional responsibilities, the regional fund in particular remains important for many regional and industrial interests in this country, as has been made plain by a number of noble Lords today. As the report records, the United Kingdom is the biggest beneficiary from Objective 2 assistance, with almost 40 per cent. of the Community's grant under that objective. I do not deny for a moment the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that, setting that grant against our contribution, one could make a different calculation. Commissioner Bruce Milian was right in his evidence to the committee that if Her Majesty's Government wish to deal with that, they should do so in the overall context of our budgetary contributions in terms of the Fontainebleau agreement, and not by undermining or seeking to destroy the Community's regional policy.
The fact that that aspect of the regional development fund is so important to regional authorities and industrial interests in many parts of the United Kingdom makes it more depressing that the argument with Whitehall about additionality is

489
still dragging on, and has been so thoroughly aired in this debate. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is reported at paragraph 82 of the report as thinking that the United Kingdom's dispute with the Commission over additionality was "metaphysical" rather than administrative. If I may say so, that is a typical mandarin's approach to the matter. Bodies such as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Association of District Councils or the Welsh Regional Development Board take a more down to earth view of the matter. They know additional resources when they see them and, alas, even more so when they do not see them.
The Government appear to take refuge in the view that this question only began in 1988 with the Article 9 regulation relating to the doubling of the structural funds. In its evidence, the Treasury denied that there had been any objection to additionality before 1988. That is simply not true, except perhaps in the most narrow legalistic sense. As the first regional development commissioner, I can testify personally that the obligation to additionality was made clear by the Commission to all member governments from the very day that the regional development fund was set up in 1974. It was the subject of lively but, I must concede, inconclusive arguments between the Commission, Whitehall and our regions from the moment that the regional development fund began.
Of course, there are practical administrative difficulties about defining how far Community contributions are genuinely additional to national assistance, which varies from year to year as national budgets vary, but I must confess that I find it demeaning that the Committee should find:
"The evidence … received suggests that the United Kingdom is the only Member State which has problems in satisfying the Commission that it is fulfilling the additionality requirement."
I hope that the Government will genuinely seize on the tactful escape route that your Committee, in its wisdom, has offered the Government in paragraph 135 of its report.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Commission itself was responsible for bringing forward the proposal for the amendment of the regional development regulations in 1988 and for the drafting of Article 9? Is he also aware that the British Government—and I am sorry to have to support their attitude on this—were quite right in their interpretation of Article 9, which placed on them no obligation for additionality at all because, under the new structural funds, they were not receiving any more than they had been previously?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of what the noble Lord has said about the origins of Article 9 and the Commission. There is a dispute with the Commission about the legality of this. As I have said, in its report the committee tactfully decided to concede the legality, but to argue that the Government should move on from that point. My noble friend Lord Hooson felt that your Lordships' committee had been a little too kind to the Government on that point. The report notes the Government's acceptance that there is a general
490
understanding that additionality applies to receipts from the structural funds, which did not appear to the committee to be the case at the start of its inquiry. I await with interest what the Minister has to tell us in defining the Government's attitude. I hope that the committee is right in its views. If the report has achieved nothing else than this apparent change of attitude by the Government it will have been a worthwhile report. It is to be hoped that the Government will now follow the committee's advice and re-double their efforts to satisfy the Commission by the transparency of their procedures that the additionality principle is being followed in the United Kingdom just as other member states of the Community are trying to follow it.
This takes me on to the inevitable discussion about too much Brussels bureaucracy. The alliteration is irresistible to journalists and politicians alike. The familiar example in this case is the approval by Brussels of lavatories in Welsh car parks and that kind of thing. From a close reading of the evidence of the then Secretary of State I rather suspect that perhaps the bureaucracy that led to the detail of lavatories in Welsh car parks causing so much heavy weather may have lain as much in Whitehall as in Brussels. The inherent trouble about the European Commission is not that it is a bloated bureaucracy—some rather modest figures were given to us at Question Time this afternoon—but that it is a Byzantine bureaucracy. That is the difficulty about the bureaucracy at Brussels.
There is also a real problem of how much financial supervision is necessary. One has to bear in mind that the most vociferous of critics of the bureaucracy of Brussels—I look towards the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in his remarks —are sometimes the same people who complain about financial laxness and fraud. As is so often the case in these matters, one must try to get the balance right. Commissioner Millan was reassuring when he said that neither the Court of Auditors nor anyone else had serious evidence of fraudulent use of regional development fund resources. The wisest conclusion on the issue of bureaucracy was probably that of the DTI, which said that everyone thought that this bureaucracy should be reduced, and it was being reduced.
By "this bureaucracy" I assume it means the bureaucracy in Whitehall as well as the bureaucracy in Brussels. It is a constant and endless battle. That is all one can say about it. One had immense sympathy with the characteristically powerful and devastating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who described how in Barnsley he was ground between the upper and nether millstones of the bureaucracy in Brussels and the bureaucracy in the DTI.
Turning to wider Community issues, I think that the committee strikes a wise balance between the importance of Community regional policy and its limitations. On direct fiscal transfers, tempting though it is to someone like me who looks back to the MacDougall report, the committee is absolutely right to come down against this concept, certainly at this time. Regional policy, however successful, will not eliminate regional disparities, but it can mitigate them

491
and make them more tolerable. The need to do this becomes more urgent and more necessary because of the single market and the prospect of economic and monetary union.
What is vital, as the report emphasises, is to ensure that other Community policies do not work against the effect of the structural funds and lead to transfers of funds in the opposite direction to the richer regions and states. The common agricultural policy, the heart of so many of the problems of financing the Community, is a case in point. It has been a massive anti-regional policy during most of its life. As paragraph 139 of the report remarks, it has benefited the richer states more than the poorer.
The task of the structural funds is to benefit the poorer regions and states, not the richer, and through that to strengthen Community cohesion. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Bruce, I get great satisfaction now as I travel around the Community—these days as a tourist and a superannuated Eurocrat—in seeing the blue notice-boards and plaques from John O'Groats to Sicily which announce useful developments which have been assisted by the regional development fund. For millions of people in the less prosperous regions, who might otherwise feel deeply alienated from the concept of a rich and powerful single market Community, the structural funds are the acceptable and humane face of the Community. That is their real importance.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee on an excellent and, if I may say so, extremely long report. It has been rather difficult to read and has taken up a good deal of your Lordships' time. But it has been an extremely worthwhile operation, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said in his lucid introduction. It brings to the forefront of our debate several important points. I shall try not to detain your Lordships too long because we have had a long debate already and I want to give the noble Baroness proper time to reply for the Government.
First, I wish to make two rather general points before making some specific ones. My first general point is about the aim of regional policy. It is a slightly philosophical point. What is the whole object of regional policy? Here we have first of all to ask ourselves what would be the effect if we had no regional policy. Secondly, we have to ask ourselves what are our obligations. Our obligations, as the introduction to the report makes clear, are under Article 130a of the treaty which was introduced by the Single European Act. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of that article. It states:
"In particular the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least-favoured regions".
Whatever one may think of the philosophy behind that, our treaty obligations seem to be absolutely clear. There is also—my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was right about this—historically a process whereby if everything is left to market forces,
492
as sure as eggs is eggs the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. This has happened nationally and is happening internationally. The object of regional policy has to be to apply some corrective measures to that. That is the philosophy. We have an obligation under the treaty and we have a genuine philosophical requirement.
We then have to ask ourselves what is the end result of regional policy. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, quite rightly, pointed out that in the recent recession, out of which we hope we are coming, it was in fact those parts of our country which had benefited from 40 or 50 years of regional policy that did better than the South-East which had not. I join the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in believing that organisations such as Scottish Enterprise and the Welsh Development Agency—I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was rather hard on the Development Board for Rural Wales because I happen to think that it still does a rather good job —have contributed to mitigating the hardship that market forces, left to themselves, would have imposed on those communities. Regional policy has clear aims and it is clearly important.
I thought I detected in the report—I come again to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Carr—a slight difference of opinion between paragraph 119, which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said was the ultimate objective of Community regional policy, and paragraph 131. Paragraph 119 says:
"the effectiveness of regional development will be proven by the extent to which regions now unattractive to private investment are be made attractive to those whose activities lead to real economic growth".
Paragraph 131 says:
"The Committee agree with the Commission that policies designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the Community can only be lasting if 'environmental considerations are taken into account and seen as an essential part of economic and social development'".
All of us know—because the European Commissioner for the Environment said so only yesterday—that environmental considerations can be expensive and can be at the expense of economic growth and the conditions that attract it. We also know that unrestricted private economic growth can be environmentally damaging. Therefore, there seems to me to be a slight discrepancy between those two passages in the report. When the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, responds, I hope that he will be able to clarify my mind on that point.
Thirdly, I agree with remarks made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington about the necessity for efficiency in the management of whatever regional policy funds—that is, Community or national—that there may be. It is inexcusable to have the situation so graphically described by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. That really must be an area upon which the Government, the Commission and, indeed, all of us must concentrate. As in all areas of Government, I think that efficiency must be the watchword. I very much hope the noble Baroness will confirm that that will be a major objective of government policy when we take up the presidency of the Community.
I turn now to deal with the specific points. I believe that the word "additionality" has been sufficiently

493
mentioned. I have nothing to add to what was said, except to say that when a Secretary of State comes before a committee and says,
"We do try to operate it in a way which is conforming with the underlying moral principles of additionality and we think we have gone a long way to achieving that",
I get rather suspicious that he is really trying to say, "We are not doing it at all but, roughly, we think that we are moving in the right direction". I believe that the Government must now come forward and say what they are doing. Whether the transparency of procedures—or whatever it may be that the committee recommends—is the right way forward, they must come clean and say what they are doing.
The whole question of economic and monetary union and regional policy to which the committee drew attention is one which fascinates me. I believe that the Maastricht convergence criteria, which are basically financial criteria rather than a criterion of convergence in the real economy, are a mistake. We ought to have had criteria for convergence which relate to the real economy, unemployment and various other matters rather than just the rate of inflation and all the things that are in the Maastricht agreement.
My noble friend Lord Desai put forward some very interesting questions about how we should measure the results of regional policy and how we should then measure convergence so that we can get a proper economic monetary union, if that is what we want. It is not simply a question of drifting into a common currency on the basis of the inflation rate. I believe that my noble friend raised the whole question of how regional policy could be evaluated in such a way as to bring us towards an economic and monetary union without serious disadvantage and dislocation. If we cannot reach a solution to my noble friend's question, I very much fear—and this would disappoint me enormously—that economic and monetary union, if and when it comes, will bring dislocation, unemployment, inefficiency and inefficient distribution of resources. That is something that we must guard against. I do not think that the Maastricht convergence criteria guard against it.
I turn next to the common agricultural policy. Yes, certainly, it has been counter regional policy. It has been a sort of social welfare programme in its own right. It generates opportunities for absolutely massive fraud—indeed, many of the benefits go to the traders rather than to the farmers—and it distorts agricultural production and consumption patterns. In almost every way it has now turned into something of a mess. I trust that the reform which we hope will be undertaken will start to eliminate those problems. But, living not far from the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I have a certain sympathy with what he said about farmers in marginal areas. If we try to do without any support system for farmers in marginal areas, such as Mid-Wales, the whole agricultural economy, and hence the whole rural economy, will break down. Therefore, let us be enthusiastic about reform of the common agricultural policy, but let us not think that market forces and agriculture can and should prevail in their entirety: there must be some kind of support system. We found that out during the Second World War and afterwards.
494
My next point is partnership. I very much agree with what the report said in paragraphs 136 to 138. I also agree with what noble Lords have said on the subject. When the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, talked about decentralisation, I thought that I was hearing an echo of the speech about decentralisation of the Department of Trade and Industry that I made yesterday from this Dispatch Box. I absolutely agree. I shall not say it again. I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry must decentralise itself. Once that happens and decisions are made in the regions themselves—that is, not treating the regions as branch economies—we shall begin to have a healthy regional policy. But, as the report says, and as other noble Lords said, there must be partnership with those people who know about the region or locality itself; for example, local government, trade unions in the area and chambers of commerce. That must happen if there is to be an effective policy.
I believe that what I have said is really all that I wanted to say on the specific points. However, I must return to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington which is of fundamental importance. Regional policies must be efficiently organised if they are to mean anything. Regional policies are necessary because of the natural action of market forces in diverting resources to the rich from the poor. Regional policies from the Community—that is, provided that they are sufficiently organised —are necessary if there is to be real convergence of the economies of the present Community, let alone of the enlarged Community which may appear within the next few years. In my view, they will also be vital during the restructuring period which will take place as the single market is completed. Without a strong regional policy, the costs of decline in some regions will significantly delay the benefits of harmonisation. I shall cite but one example: the possible potential problem of large-scale migration, with all the social and economic costs that that entails, which could easily occur if there are large and widening regional disparities within the Community.
In the future the Community that was bound together in the past by the common agricultural policy should be bound together by effective policies for balanced growth and reduction in unemployment. Those are the two priorities. The United Kingdom has a great opportunity. The election is over and we are about to take up the presidency of the Community. We have a tremendous opportunity to set such a programme on the road. That is the right way forward. If the Government take that road they will have our full and enthusiastic support.
6.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the debate augurs well for my tenure of office in the Department of Trade and Industry—a tenure which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Williams, by its length. The quality of the speeches in the debate has matched the quality of the report produced by the committee. The report was of course extremely well researched, with well balanced

495
opinions, and is, as my noble friend Lord Aldington said, in many ways in agreement with government thinking. The chairman and the members of the committee are to be highly congratulated.
I am conscious that I have become closely involved in European regional policy at a momentous time, with the current negotiations on the Delors II package, to be followed immediately by review of the structural funds regulations. I am also conscious that in this area, although exceedingly well briefed, I have an enormous amount to learn. A Select Committee report of your Lordships is no bad place to start; and I thank my noble friend for his words of welcome to a fascinating job.
As well as responding to the points raised in the debate, I shall also talk about the Government's objectives in negotiating the future of the structural funds, an issue which my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry is discussing with his EC counterparts in Lisbon tomorrow. I am sure we wish him well. If I speak at a little length I hope noble Lords will forgive me. It is important and I am among experts.
First, let me say a word or two on cohesion and the role of the structural funds. The Community confirmed its commitment to the principle of cohesion at Maastricht, and the United Kingdom accepts the need to review Community structural policies aimed at improving economic and social cohesion. But the treaty makes it clear, as many noble Lords have confirmed, that the pursuit of sound economic policies by member states is the principal means by which greater cohesion within the Community can be achieved. The role of the structural funds is to provide an important but nevertheless secondary means of support.
The present doubling of structural funds in real terms represents an investment by the Community in the economies of recipient member states comparable with the aid provided under the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the figures we are talking about are not negligible. So we are entitled, as is every other member state, to ask whether they are being put to good use. We in the UK are the second largest net contributor to the Community budget, of which the structural funds now take over a quarter. Even more, we are entitled to demand a proper evaluation of spending so far, in view of the huge increase, almost a further doubling, proposed as part of the Delors II package. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, drew attention to the fact that sometimes at the moment the best that can be said is that no evidence of fraud can be seen.
We have been extremely disappointed with the Commission's long delayed mid-term review, or "assessment and outlook" as it now calls it. The Commission simply has not demonstrated adequately the impact of spending from the structural funds to date. We agree with the committee that existing policy instruments should be evaluated before the Community agrees to any further increase in structural funds.
496
That is not to say that the expenditure of the funds in the United Kingdom has not been of value. The committee itself acknowledged the success of the Sheffield Meadowhall Roads project. I agree with noble Lords about the important role that infrastructure plays in such regional growth. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, on this subject.
Probably the most significant ERDF project in the United Kingdom will be the construction of a gas pipeline from Scotland to Northern Ireland costing an estimated £170 million, with an ERDF grant of 35 per cent. In view of Northern Ireland's lack of indigenous energy sources and its distance from the larger energy networks of Great Britain and mainland Europe, this project will clearly have a substantial economic impact on the area.
On a more modest scale is a project to improve Caerphilly town centre which received 50 per cent. ERDF support. I believe that it covered streetscape improvements in a project designed to improve the poor image of the town centre and to improve the attractiveness of the area as a location for investment and to generate tourism. But I regret that I cannot assure my noble friend Lord Boardman that it did not also include toilets.
The Barnsley Business Innovation Centre, with which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, to its great benefit, is so closely associated, is an example of a different type of project. As the noble Lord can tell your Lordships better than I, the centre seeks out entrepreneurs or small technologically based companies who need business advice. The centre also provides incubator units for new enterprises. I understand that the occupancy rates have been high. Some 50 new jobs have been created. In addition to the grants from the European Social Fund, ERDF support of over £1 million has been provided. It is that type of activity for the help of small businesses which as small firms Minister I hope I will be able to encourage elsewhere. I hope also that I shall be able to count on the help of the noble Lord in support of that. I also thank the noble Lord for the compliment he paid to the regional office of the department.
The ERDF has played a strong role in securing the upgrading of ferries for the islands of Scotland, providing some £6 million of grants over the past two years and making a considerable contribution to easing the geographical problems. I note the noble Lord's pleas for greater support for periphery areas in the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, on 17th February—and he drew attention to the closeness of the date to the election, but I would be supportive of my right honourable friend in hoping that he was trying to resolve the matter as quickly as possible—new arrangements within the UK public expenditure system for ensuring that the additionality of ERDF is fully transparent were announced. With effect from the financial year 1993–94 full public expenditure cover will automatically be made available for all forecast receipts and be transparently identified in departmental expenditure programmes, as has been requested. I hope that the frustrations of the noble

497
Lord, Lord Mason, will be less in future years and that other noble Lords who have raised this matter will be more satisfied.
It may be the moment to comment on the many remarks we have heard on the issue of additionality. Until I read your Lordships' report I had not quite realised the metaphysical nature of some of these issues. I have a feeling that with additionality it is a question of "Now you see it, now you don't". The Department of Transport was quoted as to the difficulty of identifying how one defined a project. I shall quote Mr. Lilley, who said to the committee:
"So you are simultaneously required to argue to the Community that you need to do these things and you need the money, but you do not need to do them so very much that you would have done them left to your own devices".
It is a difficult role and I think that the Department of Transport staff were perhaps clearer on that issue.
I also thank the noble Lord for coming to the defence of the Government in drawing attention to the fact that, although the committee's report states that we were very much out of line, Commissioner Millan said in his own statement that he was still involved in discussions with virtually all member states on additionality. He said that it was a difficulty they faced in every single member state.
But I hear a request for a clear view from the Government's position now. We have not changed our view of the legal obligation on us as to additionality. But the changes being introduced will ensure that it can be shown that local authorities in respect of the ERDF grants will acquire the spending power to use them.
I return now to the question of the RECHAR grants with which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is concerned. I hope that noble Lords will understand that when these changes were agreed it was too late for them to be fully implemented into the financial year which began last month. However, for the intervening period there will be a special transitional arrangement for ERDF grants under the RECHAR programmes to ensure that commensurate public expenditure cover is available to the relevant spending authorities for that element of their expenditure financed by the ERDF. We are looking forward to announcing arrangements very soon and I understand your Lordships' impatience. But I hope we shall never be expected not to fight to protect our large investment in the Community. I find no relevance in the statement that we were the only country to contest or to question in these areas. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would agree that being alone in such a situation is not necessarily being wrong.
The total current value of the RECHAR programmes as approved is approximately £124 million. However, the Government have asked the Commission for increased funding under RECHAR to take account of job losses which have occurred in the industry since the original programmes were submitted in July 1990. If successful, that additional claim could amount to some £19.5 million. We look forward to hearing from the Commission on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, asked whether projects would have to be reassessed. That is not a
498
government matter. The projects have to go to the programme committee which has not yet met. It is, however, possible that projects will have to be updated. Those asking may well have to look again at what they want compared to what they requested in mid-1990. I confirm that "very soon" means very soon. He also claimed that local authorities were excluded from having any input. They are represented on programme committees where projects are decided and have every opportunity to comment on programme priorities.
I shall now deal with the issue of administration, an 'issue raised by many noble Lords. Much has been said and written, not least in the committee's own report, about administrative problems related to the implementation of the reformed funds. That is right in my view, bearing in mind that a key objective of the reform was to reduce bureaucracy, while the experience in the United Kingdom and in other member states has been the reverse. The committee supported the proposals of the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for administrative simplification. I can report genuine progress and hope that tomorrow in Lisbon the Commission's commitment to real simplification will be strengthened. In particular, we are looking for a firm commitment to reduce the number of stages involved in deciding structural funds assistance from three stages to two (or even one, if miracles were possible).
Another essential measure will be for the Commission's role to be more clearly defined as Community wide co-ordination, exercising broad aspects of financial control but without direct involvement in programme detail or project selection, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, requested. To the extent that the Commission has a role in member states its involvement should be differentiated according to the importance of the Community's contribution. Obviously there is more interest in ensuring effective monitoring of huge Objective 1 programmes than small Objective 2 programmes, but of course we would not, indeed, could not, countenance any relaxation in financial control.
Community initiatives have been roundly criticised, not least by your Lordships, for adding layers of bureaucracy to an already overloaded system because the Commission has launched too many initiatives, mostly consisting of measures which could and should be financed by general structural funds programmes. The Commission agrees there have been too many initiatives, 12 so far at a cost of 3.8 billion ecu, but that has not stopped it proceeding with a 13th, RETEX, at a cost of 500 million ecu which the Commission does not have. The Community initiatives budget should not be quadrupled, as proposed by the Commission; instead the budget should be cut.
In the next review of the funds there should be very few initiatives, and such initiatives should be confined to programmes of trans-national interest which can only be effected by community investment. Detailed proposals for initiatives should be submitted by the Commission to a management committee, not an advisory committee, for approval. A small reserve could be held back to be used, if necessary, for

499
initiatives to deal with unforeseen problems. But that should not include particular sectors of industry, such as those to be addressed by RETEX. I am sure we are all used to working with contingency funds. No one's crystal ball is perfect.
It is not the job of the funds to address problems of a sectoral nature; it is to help, as has been said time and time again this afternoon, weak regions, whatever the cause of their problems. Member states should address their own sectoral problems, with the Community's help as appropriate, from general structural funds programmes and subject to the Community's competition policy. Similarly, we agree with my noble friend Lord Aldington that it is not for the Community to subsidise the costs of sectors of industry to train and educate their own employees. As my noble friend Lord Carr says, they should be tasked to concentrate upon education and training, but the cost should not be subsidised.
Of course administrative simplification goes hand in hand with subsidiarity, that crucially important principle which we must protect and strengthen. The German Government have made a proposal in the area of the structural funds which we and several other member states support. It is that in future, subject to minimal criteria and ceilings to be determined by the Council, member states should themselves determine which areas should be eligible for support under Objectives 2 and 5b. If I have heard your Lordships correctly, I believe that you support that proposal. Not only would that be in line with subsidiarity; it will enable greater coherence with the maps of areas eligible for state aids and will allow member states themselves to respond flexibly to new sectoral problems as they arise.
I shall comment briefly upon some of the issues raised. My noble friend Lord Aldington and the report comment upon the enormous disparity within the European Community. We should of course be constantly aware of the changes in those disparities which will be brought about by the joining of the EFTA countries and the Eastern European impact. There has been a great deal of comment about the distortion caused by the CAP. I heard the Welsh plea and the support for it given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We must be aware of the needs of rural areas. Concentration on urban areas has been fashionable, although rural areas have equal needs. When looking to resolve some of the problems of rural areas we should perhaps look outside agriculture. The message has been well heard.
I heard my noble friend Lord Aldington say that the growth of the economically developed countries is a key factor. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, perhaps credits the DTI with more influence in Europe than I fear we have. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, say that we had great influence on the Treasury. I assure your Lordships that we shall attempt to look after the matters that have been discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, brought common sense and a positive approach into the discussion about what can be achieved despite bureaucracy. That
500
is something with which we have to live, but his is an attitude that I shall follow. I confirm that it is not considered that advice should come exclusively from government bodies, neither central nor local, but that others such as the CBI, enterprise agencies and so forth have much to contribute to the discussions on how to help small firms. I assure your Lordships that I shall use every source I can to ensure that the partnerships mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carr thrive.
Again, as my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said, the older depressed areas have weathered the problems better in recent years. There is some message to be found in how deep roots go. It reinforces my noble friend's argument that things which are bottom up have a strength. People rarely pull up what they have planted. It is important that projects are carried out under a national policy.
Before one can start the individual regions growing, it is important that the national strategy in which we plan activities is right. My noble friend Lord Carr must be pleased to register the formation of a new urban agency under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Walker. It will give a focus which we have seen in Wales and Scotland. Earlier this week I spent a day in Wales and I suspect that I should be a better advocate today of the work of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Those bodies have made many achievements in attracting economic growth to the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, put forward interesting comments and concepts. I suspect that he and I come from the two extremes of the great educational establishment, the London School of Economics. He concentrates on what should be done and I tend to veer towards what can be done. But I was delighted to hear, in his recognition that competition for resources had a role to play, perhaps an endorsement of our city challenge scheme. I hope so. As he rightly says, keeping people in their own region must be desirable.
My noble friend Lord Boardman drew keen attention to the operation of additionality by other nations and the fact that we must not erode the responsibility of national states. He also mentioned that it is an expensive shop to run, a concept with which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, found no difficulty in agreeing. I was pleased, as other noble Lords must have been, to witness that moment of agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Boardman.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, drew attention soundly to the fact that government money is the citizens' money which we are trusted to spend. The Community does not possess money; it is money from some countries' taxpayers. All of us in government, be it national or European, would do well to remember that.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, identified the tightrope that must be walked between industry and environmental needs. I draw attention to my maiden speech in which I said that it was no good having green

501
banks and blue skies if everyone sitting there is unemployed. The tightrope is difficult but it must be walked.
I conclude by summarising our key objectives for the forthcoming review. First, as net contributors to the EC budget, we wish to ensure that the total size of the funds, including the new cohesion fund, is no larger than necessary. The increase sought by the Commission is not justified.
Secondly, we wish to ensure that Northern Ireland remains eligible under Objective 1, and England, Scotland and Wales receive their fair shares under other objectives. Thirdly, we shall wish to ensure that spending is put to good effect with arrangements for evaluation which are in accordance with the principle of sound financial management. We wish to ensure that member states pursue sound macro-economic policies, with respect for the principle of subsidiarity.
Fourthly, we will insist on simplifying administrative procedures, particularly outside Objective 1 regions, but without detriment to, and wherever possible with benefit to, financial control and value for money.
In past years, as a less privileged member of the Community, I have always been aware of the excellent reports from your Lordships' Select Committees and of how they provided a learned view based on extensive and thorough research that few could equal. Today, I am pleased to have had the responsibility and privilege of responding on behalf of the Government to a report in exactly that mould. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the members of his committee are to be thanked for their hard work and congratulated on the results of their industry.
I was criticised when I suggested in the debate on the report by my noble friend Lord Caldecote that it should be turned into a popular bestseller. I was then told where the copyright lay. However, I continue to believe that the more people read your Lordships' reports, the more intelligent the public debate will become.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, this brings us to the end of what has been to me an interesting debate which has taught me some new points and emphasised others. First, I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Denton for her comments and for the trouble she took in her speech to deal with the points in the report and to enlighten us with interesting information about the Government's policy on these matters. She also dealt with new projects which they have in mind. As I expected, she dealt with the additionality points which had troubled some of my colleagues and Members of the House who may not have seen the departmental statement in February in such detail as it was explained by the noble Baroness.
I also wish to thank all noble Lords who have been good enough to enter into the debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Carr and Lord Boardman, who helped me so much on the committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who was rightly congratulated by the Minister for his commonsense approach. Those three noble Lords show the strength
502
of committees like ours in your Lordships' House and the wide experience and different attitudes which they bring.
I enjoyed hearing my noble friend Lord Carr whose predilections and preferences I have generally shared throughout my political work with him. I also enjoy being pulled up sharply from time to time by my noble friend Lord Boardman. He does it extremely well, but always with the same aim as both the committee and I have. The same is true of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for giving us his experience in Barnsley. It confirmed what we found and what we said because we supported his frustration.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, began by telling us what a good cross-examiner he had learned to be and what bad cross-examiners members of the subcommittee had proved to be. I admit that I have not carried out as much cross-examination as the noble Lord but I have done what few of your Lordships have done. I have been in the witness box for five days and have been subjected to cross-examination. I know precisely the kind of points the noble Lord was making about what paragraphs 135 and 138 mean. When counsel was cross-examining me and he had a really bad point on which he wished to trip me up, he said, "I don't understand what the words mean." The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quoted from paragraphs 135 and 138 but it is absolutely clear what the words mean. The truth is that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, does not really agree with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that paragraphs 119 and 131 were not quite consistent. They were indeed wholly consistent and complementary. In her reference to the environment, my noble friend Lady Denton enlightened the noble Lord. He knew perfectly well what was meant.
I welcomed the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, at the committee. He has much knowledge and sharpness of expression. However, in my humble opinion, he suffers from "Commissionophobia" in a serious way. Although out of our nine meetings the noble Lord attended seven and greatly helped us, I regret that he did not come to the meeting to challenge the commissioner himself with his strong views. I wish he would do that rather than constantly dig at the Commission without putting the points straight to the commissioner responsible. Having launched my little barb at the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who has been an adversary as well as a partner in political discussions for many years, I conclude by thanking once again all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the House will take note of this useful report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charge-Capping: England
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it may now be convenient for me to repeat

503
a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about local government finance and community charge capping in England. Local authorities have now set their budgets and charges for 1992/93. The vast majority of budgets are at sensible levels reflecting what charge payers and the country can afford.
"Over 400 authorities have budgeted within or very close to the limits implied by the provisional capping criteria announced last autumn by my right honourable friend the Member for Henley. This outcome clearly demonstrates that my right honourable friend was more than justified in his belief that authorities would find his provisional criteria manageable.
"In overall terms the total of local authority budgets is about 1 per cent. over the amount for which we made provision in our settlement, and the average headline charge is £282, with the average amount of charge actually met by charge payers being under £200. This result is in no small part a tribute to the good sense and responsibility of local government.
"I have carefully considered authorities' budgets. In the light of these budgets and all other relevant considerations I have now decided my capping principles—that is the criteria in accordance with which I must designate authorities for capping. The principles I have today adopted give effect, with one modification, to the provisional criteria announced last autumn. This modification is that I have included a de minimis proviso. This will avoid designation in cases where the reduction which could be secured by capping would be less than £1.50 per adult.
"I have decided that this de minimis principle will be appropriate this year having regard to a number of considerations. These considerations include the provisional criteria, the budgets which all authorities have in the event set bearing in mind that in the great majority of cases they reflect what charge payers and the country can afford, and the scale of reductions in budgets and the costs of rebilling and associated expenses which, but for this principle, would be required. It should not be assumed that in any future year we would judge such a de minimis principle to be appropriate. On the basis of these

Community charge capping 1992–93 Table of designated authorities and proposed caps

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7

Authority

1992–93 budget

Proposed cap for 1992–93

Proposed reduction

Proposed cap change on 1991–92 budget

Original average community charges for 1992–93

Community charge reduction implied by proposed cap

(£ million)

(£ million)

(£ million)

(Per cent.)

(Per cent.)

(£)

(£)

Absolute Excessiveness

Basildon

27·01

20·15

6·86

25·4

-8·8

361

58

Langbaurgh

18·50

16·50

2·00

10·8

5·8

376

18

Middlesbrough

21·60

20·20

1·40

6·5

0·0

353

14

principles, 10 authorities are to be designated. These are Basildon, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, Greenwich, Hillingdon, Lambeth, Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough and Warwickshire.
"For each of these 10 authorities I am also proposing caps —that is the levels to which we propose authorities should reduce their budgets. I have made available in the Vote Office, and shall be printing in the Official Report, a table setting out my principles and showing for each designated authority the cap that I am proposing and the budget reductions implied by it. In each case I am satisfied on the basis of all the information currently available to me that my proposals are reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the individual authorities concerned, and that the reductions I am proposing are achievable this year. The reductions in charge range from £58 for Basildon to £3 for Gloucester.
"Authorities now have 28 days in which to tell me whether they accept the amount proposed. They can also challenge my proposal, suggesting an alternative figure together with reasons for it. In such circumstances it is open to me to set the final cap at a higher, lower or, indeed, the same level as the one I originally proposed. If an authority does not accept my proposed cap I have to set the final cap by order, a draft of which must be approved by the House.
"Within 21 days of the final caps having been set the authorities must set new lower budgets reflecting their caps which feed through to lower charges. How long the process takes depends in part on how authorities respond to my proposals, but I expect that by the end of June or early July all authorities will have set new budgets leading to reduced charges.
"We and local government generally can rightly find satisfaction in the sensible and prudent way the vast majority of authorities have budgeted. But a few authorities are still failing to act responsibly. Parliament has given me powers which enable me both to secure as necessary the expenditure restraint by local authorities needed to meet our wider economic goals, and to protect all charge payers against excessive budgeting. My decisions today reinforce our strategy of expenditure control and will benefit about 1.8 million charge payers."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Following is the reffered to:

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7

Authority

1992–93 budget

Proposed cap for 1992–93

Proposed reduction

Proposed cap change on 1991–92 budget

Original average community charges for 1992–93

Community charge reduction implied by proposed cap

(£ million)

(£ million)

(£ million)

(Per cent.)

(Per cent.)

(£)

(£)

Excessive Increase

Cheltenham

10·84

9·91

0·93

8·6

6·6

330

12

Gloucester

10·34

10·15

0·19

1·9

10·3

310

3

Gloucestershire

327·80

317·91

9·89

3·0

6·5

279–347

25

Greenwich

228·81

220·04

8·77

3·8

3·3

287

56

Hillingdon

167·14

166·27

0·87

0·5

10·3

295

5

Lambeth

333·20

328·79

4·41

1·3

5·7

449

23

Warwickshire

299·76

292·99

6·77

2·3

6·5

290–353

19

Notes:
A. Designation is on the basis of the following criteria:
1. any increase of more than 6½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over SSA;
2. any increase of more than 4½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 5 per cent. above SSA;
3. any increase of more than 2½ per cent. over the previous year's budget is an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget of over 10 per cent. above SSA;
4. any budget more than 12½ per cent. above SSA is excessive save that an authority will not be designated if:

(a) its budget is 30 per cent. or less above SSA and is a cash freeze or reduction on its 1991–92 budget

(b) its budget is 60 per cent. or less above SSA and at least 5 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget

(c) its budget is at least 10 per cent. below its 1991–92 budget

5. if the excess in an authority's budget over the above criteria is less than the equivalent of £.1·50 per adult that authority is not designated.
That criteria for inner London boroughs are the same as for other classes of authority save that for the purposes of comparison the amount of inner London education grant is deducted from budgets.
B. Column 1 of the table lists those authorities designated since their budgets are excessive (criterion 4 above) or represent an excessive increase over the previous year (criteria 1 to 3 above).
C. Column 2 shows 1992–93 budgets set by the designated authorities.
D. Column 3 shows the proposed caps for 1992–93.
E. Column 4 sets out the reductions in budgets implied by the proposed caps both in terms of cash and percentage.
F. Column 5 shows the percentage change from the 1991–92 budget to the proposed cap.
G. Column 6 lists the original average community charge or charges in the area of each designated authority for 1992–93.
H. Column 7 shows the reductions in community charges implied by each proposed cap.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. The Statement designates some 10 local authorities for capping by virtue either of the increases on their budget over last year's spend or by the increase in their spend over their standard spending assessments, or some combination of both.
I have some questions for the Minister. As regards the budget spend, does the Minister accept that local authorities face additional government prescribed responsibilities without adequate additional government resources to pay for them? I refer for example to the responsibilities involved in the Education Reform Act, the Children Act, the new code of guidance on homelessness or the preparations for community care. Does not the Minister accept that a revenue support grant increase of less than 5 per cent. over last year, given local authority wage increases, will not even allow local authority budgets to stand still in real terms, let alone meet these additional responsibilities?
I now turn to the other part of the nutcracker squeeze on local authorities, the standard spending assessment, which assumes standard spending to meet a deemed level of provision. Does the Minister accept the view of the Audit Commission and all the local authority associations, including the Conservative-led ones, that the structure of SSA is now held to be
506
neither fair nor reasonable when Surrey is given more to spend per child on primary education than Wigan or when Brent is given more to spend on snow clearance than Cumbria? As regards two items, capital debt and population, does the Minister think it fair and reasonable that an authority should be compensated if it is attractive enough to attract tourists because it happens to be Westminster, or because it has a race course or is by the seaside while the deprivation that a district authority's population may have in terms of unemployment and homelessness is completely ignored? That system privileges Westminster and penalises Consett.
Does not the Minister understand that capping based on such SSAs is deeply resented as unfair? The Minister referred to Cheltenham and the city of Gloucester. Is it not the case that boundary changes this year have not been fully taken into account by the DoE and therefore this calculation is almost certainly flawed? The Conservative led Association of District Councils certainly argues that that is the case.
Basildon has an SSA of £12.1 million. Is it not the case that by law Basildon is required to meet its debt charges of £8.5 million and has to meet £3.8 million on poll tax and therefore the Government prescribed SSA is lower than its statutory responsibilities? That is the case before we even consider services.

507
Is it not the case also that the SSA equivalent for Middlesbrough in 1989–90 of £17 million is still the same three years later while the average SSA for district councils has doubled in that period? As regards the Conservative-run Hillingdon, does not the Minister accept that this Conservative authority claims it has overspent entirely to meet the needs of refugees as required by the new code of guidance on homelessness? Does not the Minister accept that it is unfair that that is not taken into account?
Is it not also the case that Langbaurgh has cut its spending each year and every year in the past five years but its SSAs are so low that even though it has two and a half times as many children taking free school meals and one and a half times the level of unemployment of other areas nonetheless it is at the bottom of the Audit Commission's family for SSA? Is that not unfair? The Minister will say—as he said in the Statement—that such authorities can appeal. Almost every one of the authorities needs to appeal as I would argue that almost every one of the calculations is flawed.
Given the late announcement of the Government's timetable and the timetable for appeal, is it not the case that, should authorities appeal, it will be August or September before they can send out their revised bills? Will that not mean that it will be that much harder to collect the outstanding poll tax? Is it not unreasonable to be seeking to close down the rates, collecting poll tax and sending out new bills while simultaneously trying to prepare for the new council tax? Would it not be simpler this year to set the process of capping aside in order to move, in consultation with local authorities, into the new regime of council tax in good faith and with good grace?
Looking beyond the financial argument, I should like to ask the Minister whether he accepts the democratic argument. It is clear that SSAs are widely discredited. On the democratic side, we are not opposed to capping as such but concerned with who does the capping—the electorate or the Secretary of State. Does the Minister not accept that we have just had not only a general election but local elections in which local people expressed their views? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State proposes to set aside the verdict of 1.8 million people as to the appropriate level of local expenditure and substitute the verdict of just one man, himself?
Does the Minister not agree that that sits ill with a government claiming the principle of subsidiarity when it comes to the European Community but denying the same democratic mandate to democratically elected local government?
Finally, some time ago a Minister for local government said that the people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high spending authority if they so choose. That was Mr. Michael Howard, speaking in April 1988. Does the Minister still share that view, and if so why is he bringing this Statement forward?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the
508
House and reading it nicely for, like the noble Baroness, I find that there is little in its content which I can welcome.
There were two comments in the Statement which struck me forcibly. One was that it was the belief of the Secretary of State that authorities will find the criteria manageable. One cannot assume that because almost all authorities have met those criteria they necessarily find them manageable. They have met them, but in many cases they have done so with enormous difficulty, facing increasing responsibilities in areas where, by statute, new responsibilities are placed at their door. Those are responsibilities which they would happily undertake as the local authority, knowing local needs, but which they find it difficult to undertake since they lack the resources to do so properly. That applies in areas such as the Children Act, the Environmental Protection Act, community care and so on. In addition, local authority costs are rising above the rate of inflation as a result of wage settlements. Local authorities do not find what they have to do within their constrained budgets manageable.
The final sentence of the Statement indicates that the strategy will benefit about 1.8 million charge payers. The people who are not referred to in the Statement are the recipients of council services. How do they view the results of local authority capping?
I hold no political brief for many of the authorities which are included in today's Statement. However, it is noticeable that they are councils from across the political spectrum. Indeed, in most cases the budgets set by those authorities have had all-party support within the authorities.
There are of course anomalies. The criteria for capping are such that no doubt soon it will be a suitable subject for senior academic research to trace the way the criteria have changed over the years and try to understand the mentality which has led to those changes in criteria. It has to be said that there are many in the local authority world who see no other way of approaching the matter than working out the answer that is wanted and then finding a way of achieving it. There are anomalies. A Conservative authority which is just outside the London boundary has a budget which is much further above the SSA than those of many of its neighbours, largely because of Conservative overspending on civic offices in the recent past. Presumably because its budget is close to last year's budget the authority has not fallen within this net.
It was no surprise to me to hear on the radio in the cab which I took to get here for this Statement that all the London boroughs have announced that they will appeal. The energy that will have to go into those appeals would have been better directed elsewhere.
I shall make one final comment. It strikes me that the sum involved is not merely taken off the amount to be paid by poll tax payers, in many cases it represents a substantial proportion of each authority's total budget. To find means of reducing one's budget by 25 per cent. will cause terrible upset—and, as I said, that particular authority is not one for which I hold a

509
brief. The same applies where authorities have to reduce their budgets by 11 per cent., 6 per cent. or 9 per cent.
We on these Benches do not support excessive overspending by some authorities but we do not support this method of tackling that overspending. It is a matter for the electors of those authorities. The ballot box is the way to control expenditure.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for the way in which they put their cases forward.
Perhaps I may respond first to aspects of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She asked me dozens of questions, many interrogative. I know that she does not expect me to answer every single one of them. Perhaps I can answer them in general.
The main point that I should like to make is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State studied all the relevant considerations. His proposals are reasonable and appropriate and we believe that they are achievable. Both noble Baronesses mentioned the prospect of appeal. Any authority can appeal within the next 28 days. Authorities can come forward with their own facts, figures and reasons for making their decisions. That information will be considered carefully by my right honourable friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was concerned that the appeal process would take a long time. We desire the process to be completed in all cases by the end of June or at the latest early July. We do not see any reason for the process to take longer.
Both noble Baronesses touched on the principle of capping versus the ballot box. I have a problem with the arguments they put forward. We believe that capping is necessary, for two main reasons: first, to protect the overall financial position of the economy as a whole and overall public expenditure; secondly, to protect the charge payer who, in many parts of the country is paying far more than we consider appropriate. It is also a matter of principle.
The noble Baroness will know that I spent a considerable part of the general election campaign in Scotland, where her party and the Liberal Party were proposing a Scottish parliament. That Scottish parliament would have been capped. There appears to be one principle for the Scottish parliament and an entirely different principle for the Scottish local authorities. I do not think that the noble Baroness will have an answer to that conundrum.
The noble Baroness also referred to boundary changes in Gloucester and Cheltenham. I understand that there can be some argument as to whether the right amount of money was taken into account. But I understand that the department's calculation took full account of all boundary changes.
We were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that the SSA system is widely discredited. But it is based on detailed research evidence and extensive discussions with local authority representatives. They have been reconsidered annually since their introduction. No one pretends that the SSA that is given to individual authorities will be the figure that they like most. But in generality I believe that it is a system that is successful and essentially supported by most people.
510
We had the argument that services which people had voted for would be cut. However, time and again with capping there are dire predictions which in the event have not been borne out. As I have already said, we believe that the caps are reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned.
I do not pretend for one moment that I have answered all the questions. However, I hope that the noble Baronesses believe that I have covered sufficiently the generality of the subject.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that the House is much indebted to my noble friend for repeating this very important Statement. I am sure the House feels that with a matter of such importance it is right that this House should share with another place the receipt of the information as to those important Government decisions.
Is my noble friend aware that some of us believe that in view of the very large amounts of public expenditure involved in local government work it is essential that the Government—who have the ultimate responsibility for the management of the economy—should be able to limit and control. Expenditure of that amount is significant in the management of the British economy. Unless central Government—which have responsibility for the management of that economy—can control and limit it, they are in a poor position to manage the British economy.
I for one am very glad that the Government have been prepared to take the action which my noble friend has announced—an action which involves a good deal of courage. In a way it would be easier and more pleasant to let the whole thing go. It is very much to the Government's credit that they have not taken that line but have decided quite firmly to cap those 10 authorities.
The other importance of capping is this. The capping affects 10 authorities. I do not know, none of your Lordships knows, whether on appeal any of the 10 will be able to justify the amounts that they proposed to spend. However, the fact that they have been capped, and that it has been known that the Government have the power to cap, undoubtedly has had a very salutary effect on a great many other local authorities who, in order to avoid capping, have exercised greater restraint in the expansion of their expenditure than they otherwise would. The benefit to the national economy of the Government's action is not therefore confined to the 10 authorities affected, but goes very widely over the whole scale of local government expenditure because of the knowledge that every local authority has that if it acts in a way which involves excessive expenditure it too could be capped.
Therefore I welcome not only the action of my noble friend in repeating the Statement, but the courage and resolution which the Government have shown in doing what the noble Lord has told us that they have done.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for the points that he has made. He is absolutely right. Local authorities spend a substantial proportion of national wealth—some £60 billion a year. It would be irresponsible of any government not to consider that position when making their decisions on whether or not to cap. That is why we have been brought to this decision.
The second point that my noble friend made was that only 10 authorities have been designated for capping. Last autumn when we laid out the provisional criteria for capping, we said that the criteria would be tough but manageable, and that local authorities could not be exempt from the need for expenditure restraint. The vast majority of local authorities was responsible. Those authorities realised that they had to fit their spending within the overall criteria. That demonstrates that we were right to have capped in the past so that local authorities realised what was at stake. This year it is 10 authorities. In the future it is to be hoped that we shall see a shrinking number of authorities which have to be capped.
Lord Desai: My Lords, this is much ado about nothing. A lot of macho politics is being played in the DoE. In the Autumn Statement, the Government stated that they were going to have a PSBR of £10.5 billion for 1991–92. They ended up with £14 billion. This is a Government who have spent over 35 per cent. more than they originally estimated. They make a fuss about less than £40 million compared with the billions of pounds that the Minister said authorities are spending. We are talking about fractions of fractions.
I welcome the de minimis clause relating to £1.50. It is an interesting sum; I do not know who thought of it. Let us consider 5 per cent. as a limit; that if a local authority were 5 per cent. above expenditure, perhaps one could forgive it. I assume that six out of 10 authorities are being cut by less than 5 per cent. Is it worth making all this fuss about the fact that Hillingdon is being reduced by 0.5 per cent? That will take £5 off the poll tax. Is that worth our time, their time and the poll tax payers' time?
It has been made quite clear that this fuss is based on two fallacies. First, that overspending by local authorities is inflationary. Even on a monetarist doctrine, that is not true because local authorities do not print money. Secondly, local authorities are subject to democratic control. So long as their voters approve, who cares if the local authorities do or do not overspend money?
This procedure is order to obtain political mileage. The election is over and we should stop playing these silly games. I believe that it is a lot of fuss about nothing. I am sorry that we have to go through this procedure. I do not believe that any one will thank the Minister for the position, but I thank him for repeating the Statement to us.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was an entertaining speech from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I enjoyed being called politically macho. The noble Lord did not agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, my noble friend's speech
512
deserves re-reading tomorrow. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and this side of the House essentially disagree on the issue. We do not believe that it is about fractions of fractions. We believe that important principles are at stake, substantial sums of money, and a valuable discipline for local authorities and central Government.

"New Age Travellers"
7.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to tackle the problems caused to the public and the police and other authorities by "New Age travellers", and whether they will review their guidelines to chief constables on the operation of Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must begin by putting on record my gratitude to all noble Lords who are to speak this evening. In particular I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench and other Ministers from other departments for all the time and trouble that they have taken to address this problem during the past year. I am also grateful for the numerous letters which I have received from my noble friend explaining the problems. As a result, I more than realise that this is a difficult social matter. If some of my remarks appear to be unnecessarily critical of police and Government inaction,my reason is that it is often necessary to appear to be thoughtless and indeed ruthless to solve a problem. In an article in Tuesday's Times Janet Daly explained the dilemma better than I can.
The Government stated in their manifesto:
"Illegal camping by gypsies or other travellers can affect the lives of whole communities. We believe that this problem must be tackled".
This evening I and other noble Lords are asking my noble friend how the Government intend to tackle this problem. For while accepting that it is a difficult problem, I have to remind your Lordships that we are paying the police more in real terms than ever before, and if you pay large sums of money you expect results.
The Home Office produced guidelines to chief constables last year as to how they should deal with the problem of mass trespass. Welcome though they were, they were out of date when they appeared and they have not solved the problem—far from it. "New Age travellers", commonly nicknamed hippies or even NATS, have caused the law-abiding public much anguish each succeeding year. I therefore ask my noble friend to consider taking the following course of action. Will the government set up a meeting of interested parties consisting, among others, of police, local authorities, social services, land-owners and farmers to produce a comprehensive new guide? Powys County Council has just produced a very helpful report that could well be made the basis of the way forward. As every noble Lord here knows, there is absolutely no consistency of action in dealing with "New Age travellers". The new guideline should, among other things, explain the difference between

513
"New Age travellers", Romany gypsies and other itinerants and the different methods needed in dealing with each group.
In passing, I should state that the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which acknowledges and explains this problem, makes clear that the provision of designated sites would not solve the problem of "New Age travellers". And far as "New Age travellers" are concerned, the new guidelines should suggest that police constables should be encouraged to use their powers under Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 as a first resort. That is provided, of course, that the very stringent rules as laid down in the Act are applicable because, as your Lordships will know, Section 39 is drawn in such a way as to make sure that it cannot catch the innocent bird watcher, rambler or indeed the ordinary trespasser.
The use of Section 39 would, however, allow the police to arrest ring leaders who are often known to them. It would also allow the police to break up these convoys as they travel to their rendezvous so avoiding the dreadful problem of trying to remove thousands of trespassers off a site. Moreover, the use of Section 39 would enable the police to keep the convoy of "New Age travellers" from going to the next-door owner. The use of a court order which police seem to favour, would not prevent this happening, however well drafted it was. In addition, obtaining a court order is expensive and time consuming. Often the damage is done or the problem escalates before the people can be moved. That is a matter often misunderstood by police officers and reinforces the need for new guidelines.
However, we cannot all be perfect all the time and I fear that Section 39 is not. How could it be, bearing in mind that I had the doubtful privilege, with NFU guidance, of moving the original amendment that eventually got onto the statute book as Section 39. I ask my noble friend to consider eventually some minor amendments to that section. First, the police are doubtful whether Section 39 gives them the power to move vehicles off the land, whereas a court order does. As far as the "New Age traveller" is concerned, in hardship terms it makes no difference to him, her or their dog whether they are removed from their vehicles or site under Section 39, or a court order. Often police officers do not appreciate that. I suggest Section 39 might be altered to give it that power.
Secondly, Section 39 does not give the police power to remove travellers off green lanes. My noble friend may say the Road Traffic Acts do. With the greatest respect they do not and, if they do, it will take a metaphorical year and a day to enforce those Acts by which time much damage is done. That matter really requires attention. It would also be helpful if Section 39 were amended to stop more "New Age travellers" arriving on the land after a Section 39 order has been given.
I hope that other noble Lords will explain in detail most of the points that I have made and indeed others that I have missed. I conclude by repeating the plea, accepted in the Conservative manifesto, that the present situation is intolerable—I repeat, intolerable. I have no wish whatever to try to stop people living a
514
hippy life. I am sure that like me, many noble Lords have hippies in their family. Thank God, this country is free and they should be allowed to continue that type of life if they so wish. (There is no hippie in my immediate family—it is a cousin.) But anyone who has visited a "New Age travellers'" site will see practically every law in the country being broken; the traffic laws, the environment laws, the health laws and the drinks and drugs laws. Worse still, the public see the police turning a blind eye to it. That leads to the public losing confidence in our police force, which concerns me very greatly. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, despite the criticism, we still have the most responsible police force in the world. But, unless they do take action to solve this problem, law-abiding citizens will start taking the law into their own hands. Indeed they have already done so in certain cases and that, I am sure, must make my noble friend and noble Lords shudder, for it leads to anarchy.
7.39 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for giving us the chance to discuss the issue of "New Age travellers". I keep my fingers crossed because, although there have been some strange members of my family, there have been no hippies, but there is still time. Obviously we shall be well-prepared after this debate.
One is filled with wonder by the fact that civil servants or whoever decides the names that we shall give to certain groups of people can find names with such an optimistic ring. "New Age travellers" sounds like a clean-living rock group rather than disguising the real problem which lies behind the name.
I suggest that the problem is quite simply that there are more and more people, mostly young and often homeless, who are taking to the highways and byways with others and camping out for various periods of time in whatever place they fancy for whatever purposes happen to cross their minds. That is often connected with music and inevitably with drugs and often only in the summer months.
That is where we face a problem with the name given to them of "New Age travellers". There are many groups included in that and the noble Lord mentioned a few of them. The one that comes most readily to mind is the term "gypsy". Of course, there have been itinerant people in Europe and in this country for hundreds of years. Until 200 years ago, actors were itinerant people. They were persecuted and driven from place to place in exactly the same way as tinkers and others. They were people of the road and sometimes one thinks they were probably the better for it.
Even the name "gypsy" is misleading having sprung originally from a mistaken belief that Romanies—for that is what a true gypsy is—had migrated from Egypt. They had not. Some had come via North Africa. However, perhaps because of their dark and swarthy appearance they were thought to be Egyptian and thus given the name "gypsies". They have survived the risk of banishment and persecution for a

515
number of years. The Nazis methodically exterminated 400,000 of them. In Central Europe, communist regimes ruthlessly tried to force them into a settled way of life. Through all that has developed a culture and a tribal and family structure which has recognisable characteristics which bears absolutely no relation to the other groups which we shall discuss this evening.
I believe that that is important because the gypsy is genuinely nomadic; that is, he or she moves and migrates with a purpose in mind which has evolved with their culture, although obviously with increasing difficulty. It must be true to say that the greatest threat to the gypsy life has not been persecution in recent times but the advancing complexities of modern life and the difficulties of a life and occupations which they may follow on the move. Urbanisation and the motor car has made the wandering life increasingly difficult. It is perhaps surprising that there are still about 40,000 Romany gypsies in Great Britain.
Of course, they are up against the difficulty of competing now for a diminishing area of suitable camping space with other groups which become rivals for that space and are sometimes known as hippies, as the noble Lord said, or itinerant caravan dwellers, which is another euphemism for them. Those new arrivals have no apparent social structure or pattern of aim in their wanderings other than perhaps to go to rock concerts or to go to a particular event. They are generally composed—and this is important—of a single male majority whereas the gypsy tribal groups are composed of families with children.
Therefore, I submit that to group all those under one name such as "New Age travellers", although it may have a certain charm, is unrealistic and unhelpful to those who must deal with the problems which arise. As the noble Lord said, the people who must deal with them are the police, local authorities and the public who fall foul of them.
Under the Caravan Sites Act, which has been mentioned, well-meaning local authorities have tried to provide sites for many of these people but they do not want sites because more often than not, they hold permanent sites in exactly the same low esteem as some urban dwellers hold high-rise blocks. Furthermore, I am informed that in Telford recently one site had to close because of complaints by a combination of local people and gypsies that hippies were frequently in various states of undress and uncontrollably under the influence of drink and drugs.
We all know the problems faced by farmers and landowners, which have been admirably described by the noble Lord, and the problems for such places as Stonehenge, Glastonbury and so on. We all deplore lawlessness and destructive behaviour wherever it takes place, but unfortunately all that seems to be more of a feature in our society now than I can remember in my lifetime. Perhaps eventually it will swing the other way. I hope it does before my children decide to become hippies.
There even seems to be a certain bravura by offenders. I spoke to some police officers in Kent and was told that in parts of Kent some caravan dwellers
516
—I stress not gypsies —engaged mostly in the theft of motor vehicles, having dumped the remains of stripped carcasses of cars in pits and then decorated trees in the vicinity with the car number plates in rather the same way as North American Indian warriors used to do with the scalps of their enemies.
The problem is serious and is growing. Ultimately it may result in the possibility of a Select Committee to discuss the whole area of this trend. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that the problem exists and Section 39 of the Public Order Act has clearly proved to be ineffective.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say in answering the debate. He has no easy task. However, I hope that he will at least say that the gypsy community should not be allowed to carry the stigma where it is not appropriate and to carry on as a convenient scapegoat for the misdeeds of others. One must say that the gypsy community has taken great steps to make sure that it is not associated with many of the excesses taking place on private and public land as described by the noble Lord. There is a problem. I hope that the noble Earl will give encouragement so that we can think that at least what we are discussing this evening will be better understood in future.
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, first, I express my warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for asking this Unstarred Question and for stating the position so forcefully at the beginning of the debate. As a sprig of a political family which has unhappily not always seen eye to eye with that of the noble Lord in the past, it is a considerable pleasure to stand, as it were, side by side with him this evening on what I hope will be the first of many occasions.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I concentrate mainly upon one incident of which I have some knowledge as a magistrate member of the Hampshire police authority although I stress that the views expressed are solely my own and do not represent necessarily the views of that authority.
In extenuation of that parochialism, the events that I shall describe—as briefly as possible—serve as an example of much that is wrong with the present system of interlocking laws and highlight the inability of authority to protect adequately, at certain times of the year, those who live in, and those who use, the country.
We have heard all sorts of explanations as to what are "New Age travellers". However, I assure your Lordships that they are not traditional travelling folk but hippies or "New Age travellers". In June 1991 a convoy of "New Age travellers", some 100-strong, was expelled from an army camp at Barton Stacey where it had been trespassing. The convoy then reached Stockbridge Down which is in the ownership of the National Trust where Section 39 of the Public Order Act was again invoked. The convoy once more moved on, this time to a place called Rat's Lodge at Longstock in the Test Valley. There the farmland is bisected by a green lane, designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act as a byway open to all traffic, or BOAT as it is more familiarly known.

517
Apart from the fact that the position of the encampment in a long straggling line made policing difficult, there were other complications such as the topography of the place and the fact that Hampshire has some 3,000 miles of green lanes, sheep droves and the like. The boundaries where track ends and private land begins are often unclear and lost in the mists of antiquity. That is a fact not lost upon the travellers who are invariably well versed in legal loopholes and in their exploitation.
Accordingly the police, in what was a difficult and confused situation, were trying to establish whether the travellers were on private land—in which case Section 39 of the Public Order Act could be invoked —or were on a highway, in which case application had to be made to the courts for a conviction under Section 137 of the Highways Act. That was a process which, despite speeded up procedures, was likely to take several days. By moving a few feet backwards, a few feet sideways or a few feet forwards, the convoy could keep the sport going on indefinitely.
An added complication was that the police were aware that the county council had in the recent past applied to the courts for possession of land in a neighbouring village and the travellers had, in turn, applied for a judicial review—a review which, so far as I am aware, is still pending. In the circumstances they rightly took the view that they could not proceed any further. The upshot was that the convoy, now swollen in numbers to 1,000 or 2,000, stayed on the site for some days. The aftermath—wrecked crops, rubbish, human debris if I may put it as delicately as I can —may be imagined. Nor should one ignore the considerable expense involved for the district and county councils and therefore the charge payers, the police and the affected farmer.
As a result of that and other excursions into the county by smaller groups—I have recent reports of disquiet from the Winchester area—people are understandably saying, "Why cannot government and the authorities get their act together to prevent the physical and mental damage which such behaviour causes, and preferably before the 'season' which starts around the time of the summer solstice?"
I would suggest that one of the main obstacles to solving the problem lies in the inability of government to distinguish between traditional travelling folk, gypsies, and the "New Age travellers", hippies. The guidelines to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred, issued to police forces in May 1991, on the implementation of Section 39 of the Public Order Act, are no help in that respect. In fact, the two groups are like oil and water and just do not mix. Joint occupation of a designated site would lead to trouble with a capital "T". Accordingly, whether or not a county has achieved designated status under the Caravan Sites Act, though important in the context of the control of traditional travelling people, is totally irrelevant in this specific case.
I understand the difficulties there may be in law in making this necessary distinction but the groups and their cultures are intrinsically different and it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a formula which would withstand the assault of the most
518
professional of legal critics. Some immediate relief—and believe me, "immediate" is the operative word —might be obtained by making arrangements for such convoys and the so called "free festivals" which invariably accompany them to occupy, for a stated period, only suitable sites where they could enjoy their celebrations. For example, there must be a number of unoccupied military sites, particularly in the south of England, appropriate for that purpose.
However, I must add that whether or not the traveller would use those sites is another matter. Although it would be desirable for any police presence and interference with the proceedings to be kept to a minimum—commensurate, of course, with the maintenance of law and order—the travellers will be only too aware that such supervision is bound to be more effective on such sites compared to the unpredictable sites chosen in secrecy and often at short notice by the travellers themselves. Be that as it may, I respectfully suggest that that is an option well worth examining.
At the end of the day, despite the genuine conflict of opinion as to the efficacy of the laws which cover or, as some—myself included—would say, fail to cover this growing problem, it will not go away. Indeed, the one thing upon which we can surely all agree this evening is that it is only going to get worse and the summer solstice fast approaches.
Despite advice to the contrary I still believe that in the long term the quick and clean solution to the problems I have outlined lies in the amendment of Section 39 of the Public Order Act to include green lanes and sheep droves within its provisions. I am not persuaded that to do so would, as has been said, in some way weaken an Act the primary purpose of which is to protect private property. It is almost as though it has been claimed that the beautiful and awesome symmetry constructed by lawyers and ministerial advisers alike would be fatally flawed in consequence—rather like Mozart putting a couple of substandard bars in the Magic Flute.
In a tolerant and democratic society such as ours and living as we do in an overcrowded country, we must always keep in the front of our minds the simple fact that one man's freedom may be another man's misery. Consequently, getting it right is all about balance. I believe, and I suspect many in this House believe also, that the balance has tipped too far in one direction in order to accommodate those who would force their idea of freedom at the expense of those whose only desire is to live peacefully in their own homes and in a countryside whose best features are preserved for the benefit of others.
I ask the Minister this. Can we tonight carry a message of hope to those people that the Government will attack the problem with goodwill and expediency? Instead of relying on advisers' talk of the notional efficiency of existing laws, will the Government consult the people—police, solicitors, councillors, and farmers—who have to deal with the problems in the front line? For, as Cicero said many hundreds of years ago,
"The good of the people is the chief law".
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, along with the noble Viscount and other noble Lords I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for introducing this difficult Question now. It is a propitious time to debate this issue and question the Government upon it. As has already been said, the matter is mentioned in the Conservative manifesto. More important still, it is a growing problem.
In the countryside lawlessness has increased immeasurably over the past few years. I feel fairly certain that there is a strong connection between the so-called "New Age travellers" and that lawlessness. That has already been mentioned too. Like other noble Lords, I believe that "New Age travellers" is a complete misnomer. It builds a rather glamorous picture in people's minds which is totally undeserved. There is no harm in saying that the kind of people that I have generally encountered are abusive, aggressive and totally unhygienic. On the whole they live above or beyond the law. I should add that there is only one section of their community for whom I sometimes feel sorry and that is the young children being brought up in such circumstances and probably thereby projecting the present difficulty far into the future.
About 1986 I had to play a part in moving on about 80 caravans from a green lane. There was difficulty in those days and we had to take out an injunction against every single person who was there. They had been there for about two years. In those days too it was difficult to get the highways authority to co-operate. There were two owners involved in the land adjoining the green lane. I shall not even try to describe the filth that was left behind or the upset that there was. There was a great deal of upset. It was a much used green lane and a very pretty one, but there was no question of walking down it or of riding a horse or a bicycle along it.
Although there is a lawless problem here which may have to be put right eventually by providing yet more static sites, the first thing to be done is to apply the law as it stands and then to amend it where it is seen to be deficient. Here one must go back to the 1986 Act and say that on the whole Section 39 is deficient. I have tremendous admiration for the police. They have an extraordinarily difficult job to do here, particularly as regards the massive groups which now settle. As concerns the earlier part of that section, action by the police should probably be mandatory; in other words, when the due procedures have been accomplished by the owner, which is quite a performance in itself, the senior officer, as mentioned, should be obliged to move them on.
Whether they are moved on or whether it is practical to do so, I do not know, but I feel that that provision should be written into the law now. It would also help a great deal, if, as regards subsection 5(b) of that section, the law concerning trespass on land were extended to highways, which would cover green lanes. Both those measures should be carried out. It may be very difficult to accomplish on the ground, but they should be put into effect so that some kind of will is shown to put this wrong right.
520
I have every sympathy with the police forces. It is also very upsetting for the general public. Occasionally people are had up for misdemeanours on the road such as having bare tyres or something else of that kind. But one sees these absolutely amazing convoys travelling—they are not always static—on roads with nothing being done about them at all. I have passed quite large numbers of these vehicles and I imagine that every single one of them is probably breaking the law in some way or another. I do not believe that it is very good in our society that, just because there are so many travellers and they are so aggressive, they should be allowed to get away with that kind of thing.
One often hears that the little laws are very hard to apply. There is seldom a witness to see, for example, a Coca Cola bottle being thrown away. A great many people get away completely with minor littering. But here, with these "New Age travellers", we are talking about massive littering and a huge amount of mess of every kind. Again, I say that it is very hard on the rest of the population who try to obey the law to see this kind of thing ignored.
I have not given as much thought as the noble Viscount to what should be done in the future. If we are at a point in history where a great number of people wish to travel or live in vehicles outside, it is obviously a massive problem and consultations with many bodies will have to take place before it can be decided what should be done. But right now we should try to apply the law as it is without—following the noble Viscount—muddling the question with the Romany folk. The Romany folk do not get on at all well with the hippies. The Romany folk have wandered for ages and they have been put, not always happily, on permanent sites—which was a sensible operation—so that they were not endlessly moved on. However, they are a different kind of people altogether. I chat to one or two of them. My farm is riddled with green lanes. They keep their caravans impeccable inside. They take great pride and they are houseproud. I would not want them to be trawled in the net that we are now talking about. However, I would also like the law to be kept.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Stanley for bringing this matter to our notice this evening. I believe that he has done so because of his knowledge and anxiety but also because, as he has told us, the subject was mentioned in the Conservative Party manifesto. We were told that we were to discuss this particular worry, as we are doing tonight. It has been brought up at a particularly good time.
However, we all know that "New Age travellers", however badly they are labelled, are a fairly new breed. It is a pity that they are associated with youth, drugs and general squalor. One always hopes that in time they and their children will grow out of it. The question is opportune because it is the beginning of the season for travellers of all sorts who roam the country, principally in the Home Counties and on the South

521
coast. Some cause trouble, some are welcome, but few are properly catered for. Indeed "New Age travellers" are not catered for at all.
I live in one of the Home Counties, Buckinghamshire, where there are 10 designated sites for 127 pitches, none of them for "New Age travellers". One is in a lay-by and is near my home. It has seven pitches and it allows two vehicles in each, but there are usually at least 20 vehicles there which means probably 40 adults and perhaps 60 children. There are two water pipes only. There were toilets. Unfortunately, these were made of wood and were used for firewood on the very first night. Since then the adjacent wood has been the toilet for the past two years for up to 60 people. The rent is £16.50 per week which, surprisingly, is often paid. It is also surprising that some of them pay the poll tax, but few of the children go to school.
There are, however, in the same county an estimated five groups of many caravans usually travelling in convoy. Again, these are not "New Age travellers". One of these convoys, consisting of 57 caravans, arrived near my home in the spring of last year. They occupied a private field from Sunday night until Tuesday night when, at last, the police told them to move on. Under the 1986 Act, they were trespassing and should have been dealt with much more speedily. None of the vehicles had rear numberplates and therefore should not have been allowed on the roads. The owner of the field, which is near his home, was so frustrated and disconcerted by what had happened late at night that he hired some men to guard his house, wife and family. However, to put the field back to use for sheep, he also had to hire a team to pick up the broken glass, tins and the indescribable dirt of all sorts. That cost him just over £2,000.
I know that the problems vary with the different district and county councils and with the police authorities involved, but I feel that more effort should be made to enforce the law. With the opening of the Channel Tunnel, we are likely to be asked to receive more caravanners of all sorts from the Continent. I doubt whether we shall be able to accommodate them simply by designating a few lay-bys. Now is the time for the police and all local authorities to prepare for their reception.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, suggested that there should be larger sites which, obviously, could accommodate more caravans. I entirely agree. I hope and suggest that larger sites should be made available in the Home Counties. I know that some people will say that they will not want to be close to caravans in fairly large numbers, but surely properly organised facilities and authorities would be better than the desecration of the environment. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have spoken in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for raising this matter and for having contrived his Unstarred
522
Question and this debate. I admire him for his persistence and determination in pursuing this issue. I pay my own small tribute to him now.
In the main, these matters are disagreeable and sordid. I speak with some experience. I have now lived in south Wiltshire for 32 years where I operate a farming enterprise. I own the land. A byway, which is open to all traffic, cuts through part of the farmland. In general, the farms are criss-crossed with a pattern of footpaths, bridleways and so on. For most of the time we are very pleased to see them being used by pedestrians, ramblers, hikers and horsemen and horsewomen.
I note that three or four noble Lords who are present have farming interests and it would be possible to present this debate as being wholly of interest to farmers and landowners on the one hand and to "New Age travellers" on the other. However, we know that that is not the case. We have heard the tales and stories. We read our newspapers and we watch the television. I am not certain that it is necessary for me to say this, but I suggest that if anyone thinks that this debate is some sort of rant, drummed up by landowners and farmers, that person should talk to the people of Liskeard in Cornwall, of Glastonbury in Somerset, of Amesbury in Wiltshire, of Stockbridge in Hampshire or of Hungerford in Berkshire, or go to the place where the most recent trouble occurred, Lechlade, in Gloucestershire, where whole communities are being intimidated—I do not think that that is too strong a word—by the presence of uninvited "New Age travellers".
We try to be generous in our thoughts about these things—it is a tradition in this country—and I have tried. However, two years ago, there arrived on the byway open to all traffic which bisects the top end of one of my farms a small convoy of about eight or 10 vehicles of "New Age travellers". I was slightly perplexed because that had not happened before. My neighbour and I were uncertain about what action to take and telephoned the police, the county council, solicitors and so forth. We tried to persuade the travellers to move, but they did not wish to do so and did not. I do not know what action the police or the gypsy liaison officer took, but in a fortnight—or was it three weeks or four weeks?—the travellers moved away, but not before my neighbour had been knocked to the ground. I do not know the precise circumstances so I cannot give your Lordships the details. However, my neighbour was intimidated. He was about to struggle to his feet and retaliate when he found that a female "New Age traveller" was standing over him, jumping about and brandishing a weapon of some sort while using foul language. One tries to think generously about people, but when that sort of thing happens, it is rather difficult. Anyway, off the travellers went. I am grateful to the police authority for whatever they did to move those people on and to the solicitors who advised us.
My neighbour and I then took stock of the situation because we did not want it to recur. We did not take out an injunction because, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, civil procedures are cumbersome, take time and can be very expensive. I am told that a

523
fee of £1,000 might be involved. There is also the problem of naming the alleged malefactor or transgressor. When bringing an injunction against somebody, it is difficult to get the right name, but the name must be on the injunction. Anyway, we did not do that. We decided to take defensive action within the law, but before we had time to do so, the travellers were back again. The same procedures were entered into—and away they went.
This time we did take action. I put up a fence where previously there had not been one. It was my property —private property—and I was perfectly entitled to do it. My neighbour used the space that had been occupied by the "New Age travellers"—quite a large area—for a respectable agricultural purpose, the deposition of farmyard manure. The space to which I refer is a lay-by that abuts the public metal road at one point and the byway that is open to all traffic at another. It is private property.
What we did was within the law because we had decided that we would not take illegal action. I have heard horror stories from some of my friends in the area and from neighbours who have been engaged in fisticuffs and worse with these people because they would not move on. Fearing that delay would ensue, those friends and neighbours have taken action by hitching up their tractors to the trailers, lorries, char-a-bancs and so forth, and have removed the travellers. However, that is outside the law and should not be encouraged. Indeed, I do not think that Parliament would look very kindly on that.
But what are we to do? Various suggestions have been made. As an initial step, I very much like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, which is that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is to respond to the debate should initiate a meeting of interested parties and put certain proposals before them. I have a list of such proposals with me, most of which have been mentioned. Injunctions have already been mentioned but, as I have said, I do not think that issuing an injunction is a good suggestion because injunctions are too slow.
Bringing Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 up to date in various ways has been suggested by all those to whom I have spoken in the last few days, including the police authority in south Wiltshire, the representatives of both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association; Salisbury District Council, and most particularly by Mr. Alan Willis, who is a solicitor practising in Salisbury who advises police authorities throughout the country and who is an expert on the law of trespass. He has suggested that Section 143 of the Highways Act 1980 could well be amended. I put this forward as a suggestion. I am not saying that it should be amended because I am not a lawyer and I do not understand the technicalities and the differences between civil law and criminal law. He has suggested that Section 143 could be amended to enable vehicles on the highway to be towed away after 24 hours' notice has been served, and not, as at present, after 28 days. I have the draft amendment before me. I think it is incorporated in the
524
Powys County Council's report to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred. I support that suggestion.
We have had the difficulties explained of defining who is a "New Age traveller" and who is a gypsy. I think I know but to put it into words in a statute would defeat me. One has to meet them and then one knows. That is borne out by what a number of noble Lords have said.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968 is an old friend of mine. In 1969 or 1970 I was chairman of the Salisbury Rural District Council shortly after the Act reached the statute book. We had trouble with gypsies in those days because they were coming across the border from Dorset. We thought that that was a pretty unfriendly thing for Dorset to do to us. Dorset had taken the trouble at a very early stage to get itself designated. We set about doing just that. I am happy and proud to be able to announce to your Lordships that it was under my chairmanship that the first permanent site was put in place in south Wiltshire. That was in 1969 or 1970—I cannot remember the exact date. Since that time Wiltshire has become a designated county. So far as concerns the gypsy problem, it is now much less of a problem. I am not in touch with local authorities as much as I used to be, but I am sure that it is much less of a problem on account of the designation procedures that were followed and fulfilled. I would say to any county, 22 or 23 years after the passage of that Act, that it ought to look at the situation and get itself designated in respect of that Act.
Mention has been made of the public health hazard that these large encampments, illegally set up, must cause. It goes without saying that the sanitation angle must give rise to anxiety. The people who were parked on my patch of land used my fields as their latrine and so on. One can go into that in some depth. It seems to me that it has not been brought out in all the discussion and conversations that I have taken part in that there is a grave public health hazard. I hope that that can be addressed by the committee, if it is set up, and at meetings with interested parties.
There is a great deal more I could say but I shall not pursue everything. When I was framing my thoughts for this debate I thought that I had better ask the Government what would happen if none of the suggestions put forward today was implemented. I came to two fairly solid conclusions. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has mentioned one; that is, the situation will get worse. There will be more outbreaks of fisticuffs and so on throughout the country. The "New Age travellers" will not go away. They will increase in numbers and will continue to act out their strange and incongruous lifestyles, which they are perfectly entitled to do so long as they do not impinge on the enjoyment of life of others.
The second conclusion is a rather strange one. There is much talk these days about greater public access to the countryside. I have illustrated the point already by saying what I did and what my neighbour did to stop up the lay-by. If we are to encourage people to use the countryside for recreational and leisure purposes, how can we expect them to do so in the face of the kind of activities that these "New Age

525
travellers" are indulging in? Will it encourage landowners and farmers in general to open their gates, their fields, their woods and so on to the general public as we are being encouraged to do? The amenity societies are fully behind efforts to increase public awareness and to get the public into the countryside for leisure purposes. I suggest that the activities of the "New Age travellers" act as a deterrent to those who wish to use the countryside in the way I have tried to describe.
I was asked by the local branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England to look into what was described as the illegal stopping up of a byway open to all traffic and into one other case which occurred not so very far away. I investigated very thoroughly. I discovered that we had acted perfectly within the law. The other case was also legally respectable. I wrote my report and recommended that no action need be taken to follow this up and that complaints could be dealt with. I received a letter of thanks for my endeavours from the chairman of the local branch of the CPRE. The final paragraph reads:
"I have every sympathy with your views about the Travellers, having in the past had an 'Invasion' at Lopcombe Corner and, more recently, at Pitton".
Pitton was a disgraceful episode which lasted for four months. However, I shall not go into it now.
"The resultant destruction of rural life in all its aspects has to be experienced to be believed".
I could not have expressed it better myself.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I wonder whether the House will allow me to intervene briefly. I warned several speakers that I might do so. Perhaps I may say quickly in my defence that I put down my name to speak but I had to take it off the list because I was not sure at what time I would get here.
It is no great surprise that the House has had three farmers from the south of Wiltshire speaking in the debate—nearly half of those who have spoken so far. Like the others I speak not out of self-interest in this matter. In that part of the world we have probably had more close contact with the "New Age travellers," or whatever one wants to call them, than other parts. To borrow a phrase from the nuclear industry, I think south Wiltshire is ground zero for hippy activity thanks to Stonehenge and the attempts they make quite frequently to get there.
I should like to add a couple of points which I do not think have been raised by giving some of my experiences of dealing with "New Age travellers" or, if I may use the even worse name by which they used to be known, the peace convoy, which was the hard core of the hippy movement. A few years ago the peace convoy, so called, some 600 to 800 strong, took up their winter quarters in a wood on a piece of land close to me. It was land of which I was a trustee for a neighbour. We spent six months trying to get them out through the normal legal procedures. That was before the passing of the Act which made it slightly easier. During that time I got to know those people quite well in that I even attempted once or twice to negotiate with them over the fence. They were almost invariably pretty threatening. The negotiations never got
526
anywhere because they used to take the view that land did not belong to anyone. Therefore, the conversation did not get very far.
But, to give your Lordships some idea of the problems that such people can cause, I should point out that, while those people were occupying that piece of land, they virtually stopped the working of Salisbury racecourse and the working of Salisbury Golf Club. The golfers were too frightened to go out to that part of the golf course because they were threatened and abused every time they did so. Moreover, unmentionable things were done on the greens and in the golf holes which again made it very unpleasant for the golfers. The racecourse authorities could not run races because, apart from the 600 or 700 hippies, there were probably 100 wild dogs of various sorts that hung about the encampment which meant that people were frightened to race the horses. That made life very difficult for the estate because the racecourse authority and the golf club were only tenants. They said, "We must get rid of these people", because they could not have the peaceful enjoyment of the land.
What could we do about it? Well, eventually, the people moved on. However, during the time of their occupancy I had a number of discussions with the police in an attempt to get into the minds of those people. I wanted to ascertain who they were so that I might know who to serve writs on. The police told me on a number of occasions that it was almost impossible to obtain names. They were arresting people quite frequently from the encampment for stealing things and causing nuisances of various sorts and it often took them a week or two to establish the identity of the person involved. Such people would give silly names; for example, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and so on. They often did not appear to be on anyone's list. A number of them did not draw the dole. They seemed to be a strange class of people who could disappear off public records.
Because such people appeared to have money to buy things in the shops from time to time, I asked the police where it came from. The police acted as if I had asked a silly question. They said, "They get all their money from drug dealing". I must confess they were the real hard core of what I think are called "New Age travellers". Their method of operating was to go to pop festivals where they would set up shop in the middle of proceedings, gathering other hippies and travellers around them.
No one has spoken up for these people tonight. I do not know whether any succeeding speaker will do so. I think that the problems they cause in a community have been well covered. However, I should like to draw attention to an additional factor. During the time that such people were encamped near us, there were severe worries about the influence that they were having on impressionable young people living in the area. There was certainly an upsurge in the amount of drugs found in the district at that time. That consideration must also be taken into account.
My experience with such people on my own farm involved many of the matters which have already been mentioned. However, it goes further. I have suffered

527
wanton vandalism; for example, I have had garages and two cars burnt, woods have been absolutely wrecked and trees and small saplings cut down. People have been arrested for those offences. Orders have been issued to make restitution; but I do not think I have ever seen a penny of it. Such people, if they are the really bad sort, are a complete menace when they come into an area. I therefore fully support the calls for the law to be strengthened.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as I listened to the debate I thought of the words of G K Chesterton that men who run in packs tend to behave like wolves. That has been true of many facets of history, whether at football matches, in the French Revolution, recently in Los Angeles or Coventry or, indeed, as described by noble Lords in the House this evening. You can have perfectly well behaved individuals who individually do not behave in an anti-social way. Yet when they are en masse—especially when their feelings are accentuated sometimes by drink or drugs, or both—they behave in a totally unacceptable way.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has done a great service to the House. He has raised a problem which is important to the community. I think that it deserves the urgent attention of the Government with a view to finding a swift and effective solution. That will not be easy. My noble friend Lord Falkland raised the question, with which I have great sympathy, of the difference between gypsies and "New Age travellers"—a phrase which, I am sorry to say, was not known to me before today.
The law cannot distinguish between groups of people. If the law is amended that will apply to everyone. We must bear that factor in mind. It seems to me that the kind of incidents that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has in mind are similar to those which happened in North Wales last year. For example, at Bala and Llanbister in Powys about 3,000 people with hundreds of vehicles behaved in a totally unacceptable way. They broke all kinds of laws, they trespassed and left an awful mess behind them—indeed, it was a happening similar to others that we have heard about in other parts of the country.
Following that, it is quite obvious that some remedy is required. The county council of Powys where I live has set up a working party. The interested parties were invited to attend. I have not yet seen the report but I know that many remedies were considered, including the following.
The first remedy was injunctions. But the difficulty with injunctions is that you have to name the person involved; in other words, the person has to be identified. Although the courts have the power to award a group injunction, it is a very difficult process. Therefore, in most circumstances it is clearly not an effectual remedy. Possession orders can also be obtained, but they take a long time. Moreover, very often the travellers that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has in mind go on to common land. Sometimes they do so genuinely thinking that they are allowed to do
528
so, but often they know the true legal position perfectly well. They claim to have a right to do so and thereby ignore the rights of commoners who are greatly affected by such occupancy. One of the problems with possession orders is that commoners —that is, the owners of common rights—cannot obtain them.
There are also other problems involved; for example, under the Highways Act. The remedy under Section 143 of that Act cannot be obtained for at least 24 hours. A delay of 24 hours can make things very difficult when you have had a virtual invasion of thousands of people on your land and when all kinds of nuisances have been performed. It has also been suggested that Section 39 of the Public Order Act should be amended. But some police forces act immediately under that section, whereas others think that they have total discretion and decide not to do so.
Whatever the result of the working party of Powys and its recommendations, I suggest to the Government, through the medium of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that they take that report and consider it. It is necessary to consider all the factors involved in a broader context. However desirable it is to distinguish between the true gypsy, the Romany, and the hippy traveller, if the law is changed it will, in practice, apply to all of them indiscriminately. Similarly, the law will apply to other groups of people. When one changes the law one has to pay regard of the fact that very often the law can be used for a totally different purpose than that for which it was originally intended. Therefore, it is obvious that the Government will have carefully to consider the recommendations of the Powys working party and they must do so in a broader context. They must bring forward their own remedies. What I am certain of is this. We will see a repetition of this during the coming year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, put forward constructive proposals for large campsites for travellers of this kind. The great problem is that everybody wants large campsites but they do not want them anywhere near them. That would be my reaction. One of the problems is that, if you have large campsites, you keep people there en masse but they might be better behaved if they were split up. But those are matters to be considered.
All I am saying from these Benches is that we think that there is a real problem here which requires urgent consideration with a view to producing practical remedies that can be swiftly put into effect.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, may I from these Benches also echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for raising this Question and providing the House with an opportunity to consider a problem which is troubling increasing numbers of rural communities, our local authorities, police forces and private individuals, many of whom are dreading the approach of summer and the now annual summer travelling invasions. But I hope that when the noble Earl comes to respond on behalf of the Government this will not simply prove to have been an exercise in

529
a discussion about illegal trespass and criminal damage and how to stop them, because that would be a lost opportunity.
There are further ramifications of this problem which are the underlying causes rather than the symptoms, of which noble Lords have spoken this evening. This Question raises issues which are far more complex than simply the law of trespass and they need to be urgently addressed. We need to look, for example, at what are the rights of an individual in 1992 to choose a nomadic way of life which differs from the norm; what are the obligations which he still owes to the community if he chooses to take that course; and what are the obligations and the duties of the community through the local authorities towards him. We must also consider the position of those who do not choose to travel but have little or no choice and do so because of their age—as children taken by their parents—or because society has failed them and left them with little alternative. We must, in short, look not only at the question which most noble Lords have addressed of what steps the Government can and should take to protect law-abiding citizens and their property from attack by others but we should also be looking at what are the needs and the rights of a new nomadic group.
Nothing that I say from these Benches is intended to endorse law-breaking. The illegal trespass and criminal damage which have taken place during the summer months in the past few years, primarily in the South, the West and in Wales, and on a smaller scale up and down the country, including my own area of Buckinghamshire during this past winter, are indefensible. There will be nobody—the question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon—who will speak up in this House to defend that conduct.
The sympathies of all sides of this House must properly lie with those farmers and those local communities who have been invaded—and there is no other appropriate word for it—by groups of travellers, sometimes in large numbers, who have seen their gates and their fences broken down, seen buses and caravans pour onto their land, seen crops damaged, livestock released or killed or injured by their dogs, who have suffered nuisance and sometimes real intimidation and even violence, as we have heard, and then afterwards been left to clear away the litter and the debris. The frustration and the anger that they feel at the seeming inability or unwillingness of the authorities or the law to help them, and at the expense that they cannot hope to recover if they try to act themselves, are shared by all of us who have seen at first hand or read about the effects of such acts of trespass.
But this is not a debate about whether such illegal acts are defensible or excusable, because plainly they are not. But it is, I hope, as a result of the response of the noble Earl, going to be a debate which in part is about the best and most effective way to protect those on the receiving end. That requires not just an examination of the surface problems and how to deal with them but also a look at the underlying causes.
History has shown that, since 1987 when Section 39 of the Public Order Act came into force, and contrary
530
to the views of the Government expressed at that time, that section provided no solution to this problem. Indeed, the numbers have increased and the problems have multiplied. It is our view on these Benches that to deal with illegal trespass simply by speedier and more draconian powers of eviction, and to do no more, simply pushes the problem onto someone else's land and escalates it. That is what experience has shown since that 1986 legislation which came into force in 1987. Given that history there is no reason to suppose that tonight's call for further tightening up of the legislation would be any more effective.
The introduction of that section—which was opposed from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and by the Law Society on the basis that existing remedies, properly used, could do the job—has in fact not borne fruit in the sense that the Government put forward this section as the cure for these difficulties and it has proved not to be the cure. Indeed, the numbers of those travelling in this way and trespassing illegally have been increasing year by year. To enact legislation or to direct the police to evict such trespassers with greater efficiency or speed, without properly examining the causes of the offending or looking at the kind of people who are doing it and why they are doing it, or attempting to find a solution to those causes, simply pushes the travellers on to commit further offences elsewhere and in growing numbers.
The kind of measures that have been suggested by a number of noble Lords this evening, although they provide a quick remedy for the farmer who sees the invasion coming into his field, simply provides a headache for his neighbour down the road when he effectively evicts them from his land. So if a proper solution is to be found it is necessary to look at who these people are and why they are resorting to trespass and what the authorities can and should be doing about it.
This country has always had a nomadic population and not just an ethnic gypsy one, as at least one noble Lord has reminded us. Some people have chosen that way of life; some people have no choice. People who choose, in the words of the songs of the 1960s, not to settle for suburbia and a little plot of land, include itinerant workers—they have always done so—and also those who have rejected the traditional home and community ties. There has also always been a section of the population which has been rejected and has fallen through the net, which has not consciously chosen that way of life but has fallen into it.
I hope that all noble Lords will be in agreement that those who choose to live a nomadic lifestyle in the 1990s in this country are still fully entitled to do so. I hope that the noble Earl will make that clear in his reply. It is not something that has always been made plain by those on his side of the House.
It is right of course that those people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties as the rest of us. We look to the Government to bear that in mind and not to lose sight of that fact. However, in saying that it is their responsibility too to fulfil their obligations to other members of the community.

531
It is a responsibility that applies not only to those who are ethnic minorities with a tradition of a nomadic lifestyle like the gypsies, but also, surely, equally to those who have chosen such a lifestyle. Their civil liberties must be equally safeguarded so that they are not subject to persecution or deprivation of their rights as citizens because they have made that choice.
The two groups—those who choose to live as nomads, and those who, by circumstances, are forced to do so—have always existed. Currently, as I understand it—I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister what figures the Home Office has in that respect—it seems that that travelling community is mushrooming. The current movement of "New Age travellers" seems to have begun in the late 1970s, but it gathered momentum during the 1980s and numbers appear to be increasing annually.
All of us in the House—there are increasing numbers of us —who were the children of the 1960s, can find a romantic rapport with "travelling and living on the land" and "with no direction, home, just like a rolling stone." It was a way of life and philosophy which had an appeal and which is still appealing to many, linked, as in the 1970s and 1980s, with the growth of free summer festivals. People did it because it was fun and it was cheap. But the slow rise in unemployment and the increase in homelessness, especially among the young, and the introduction of the poll tax in the mid-1980s, have swelled the numbers of those who live permanently on the road, often with young families, whom—I stress—we must not forget. The pressure of numbers, along with the absence of provision of sites, led to illegal trespass which today has become a nightmare in the summer months.
I should be grateful to have the Minister's assistance on the figures. As I understand it, the gypsy population in this country has shown virtually no increase for some years, whereas the "New Age travellers" are increasing rapidly and now number, although estimates appear to vary, between 8,000 and 10,000. What is especially alarming is that it appears that the number is being swelled by a high proportion of children coming out of care with nowhere to go —the single young men to whom reference has been made by your Lordships. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the research done recently in that respect by the London Gypsy Traveller Unit which has identified that as a growing problem.
In addition, many of the "New Age travellers" are homeless 16 to 18 year-olds who were deprived of their rights to benefit under the previous Conservative administration. Many of them made no conscious decision to become travellers, but the previous Government's policies have, in effect, put them on the road with others in a similar position. The authorities have hitherto effectively made no provision for that substantial group in terms of sites. As a group, such people do not exist so far as the authorities are concerned, save when they are interested in trying to move them on.
532
Will the Government examine the law and, if necessary, introduce changes to make it clear to local authorities, currently often worried and confused about their obligations, that their duty to provide official sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is not confined merely to ethnic groups but extends to all travellers? It cannot logically be right, as some noble Lords have appeared to suggest during the debate, that only those who are born to a nomadic lifestyle are entitled to make use of official sites, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, appeared to suggest, only those who are clean and keep their caravans well cared for may have the use of them.
Unless there is access to official sites for people such as these, the effect of eviction in many cases can be only to drive the travellers to other areas and further trespass elsewhere. We are in effect condemning them, like Dickens' roadsweeper, to be told constantly to move on without offering them anywhere legal to go. It may be right, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, that they may not wish to use the sites, but unless sites they can legally use are available it cannot be right—I hope the Minister will reply to this point—merely to move on people for whom there is nowhere to which they can legally have recourse.
Of course local authorities will have even greater difficulty in identifying suitable sites in their areas if they have to cater for that population as well. I make it clear that I stand correctly accused of being a NIMBY myself because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, I live in Buckinghamshire and am engaged in opposition to a potential site in an area of outstanding natural beauty which is in my back yard. However, I accept that where there is a need the local authority must identify sites, possibly even in the teeth of entirely understandable opposition from local communities. I endorse the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that where particular problems arise —for example, where festivals are held —it cannot be beyond the wit of local authorities to provide, albeit temporarily, places where those people can go during their stay in the area, because as soon as that is done the police can properly issue a direction to leave at once under the present guidelines to Section 39 of the Act. That clearly is paramount.
In the light of the way in which the Question has been framed, will the Minister give some assurance that the guidelines, which require the police, as a matter of primary importance, to consider alternative places for those people to go, will reinforce the fact that that is one of the prime considerations before they give people a direction to leave under Section 39?
In summary, we on this side of the House believe that the proper way forward is to examine the reasons why so many youngsters are on the road in the first place. If it be right—a review of government policy in this area is long overdue—that the benefit position of 16 to 18 year-olds, which has proved to be disastrous for youngsters in urban areas, is part of the reason for the increase in the travelling population; and if it be right that people are leaving care without proper provision in the community so that they fall back into travelling in that way, without consciously choosing that way of life, should not the Government, as a

533
matter of urgency, review their policy in those areas? If they do not do so we are in danger of creating a permanent underclass of young people with no community ties and no respect for the law.
Is it not also right that local authorities should be given clear guidance now by the Government that the sites that they must find include provision for such people? Unless there is some alternative, it cannot be right, in justice or humanity, to order people to vacate land and therefore drive them to commit further offences elsewhere.
Above all I ask the Minister to restate—as I believe all noble Lords have done—that those who choose to travel, while they are entitled to do so, have obligations, especially to the rural community in which they choose to live, which includes a duty to respect the lives and property of others, and to respect the law. In return, I hope that the Government will acknowledge that their manifesto commitment to ensure that all sections of the community enjoy freedom, and their expression of concern for all sections of society, applies equally to those who may be unpopular, those who have no spokesman, and those who may, on occasions, break the law indefensibly. Unless the manifesto commitment to take care of all sections of our community applies also to that unpopular minority, the commitment will prove to have been hollow and selective.
9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for initiating the debate this evening. It is a subject which raises important and sensitive issues. Your Lordships have provided some sparkling and personal examples of the problems which are presented by the subject matter of the debate.
I was particularly interested to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In a typically thought-provoking and humanitarian speech, she tried to look behind the problem to see what causes it. She was right to do so. She was quite right in her concluding remarks that people have the right to lead a nomadic existence if they wish, but they also have the duty to respect the views of the people on whose property they place themselves. Trespass is always a matter which gives rise to strong feelings. A person's property is his property and the involuntary invasion of or trespass on it by others quite understandably and quite rightly incurs the wrath and indignation of the owner. So also does the collective squatting of people on an area of land, irrespective of who is the owner. I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that we must have sympathy for those whose land is invaded and despoiled by travellers.
I start by having acute sympathy with my noble friend Lord Stanley in what he said and what has been said by other noble Lords. I have to tell my noble friend that the Government have looked hard at the question of trespass on land and I myself have taken a personal interest in it. Unfortunately, there are no
534
easy answers. There are several different and often conflicting considerations which have to be brought together when we approach the problem.
I do not believe, though, that the present position is in any way satisfactory. I can tell my noble friend that we intend to try to tackle the dreadful problem which is caused by illegal camping.
In opening the debate, my noble friend demonstrated a remarkable knowledge of "New Age travellers", or "NATs" as they are somewhat derogatorily called —a knowledge which may be considered unusual in one of his maturity. But then he said that he had hippies in his family and perhaps that gave him cause to have such knowledge. He went on to suggest that your Lordships probably also had hippies in your families. I thought that was a fairly broadly encompassing point of view. Most of us have some pretty curious antecedents but not all of them were hippies.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he had none in his family, but he arrives in your Lordships' House on a motorcycle, so in the most generous of terms he might be described as a "New Age traveller". There are many groups known by various names who follow an itinerant way of life. Apart from the "New Age travellers", there are Romanies, gypsies, didicois, Irish tinkers and hippies, to name but a few. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that gypsies should not carry the stigma of the behaviour of others. Some of these groups find it convenient to park their caravans permanently. Some travel seasonally to seek employment. Some seem simply to appear, rather like bluebottles in the spring, when the sun comes out.
Whoever they are and whatever their philosophies of life may be—if they have any—there can be no excuse whatever for causing the distress which some do. I suggest that it is quite unacceptable for anyone to assume that he or she can pursue a style of life which happens to be convenient to him or her without any regard to the rights of others and the effects which they have upon others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that there are problems behind this, that people have a right to a nomadic life if that is what they want and the Government must look into it. That is perfectly true, but people must live within the law and the law must be adjusted from time to time to take into account both the needs of the people whose lives are changing and also the needs of the people whom such travellers affect.
There is something bizarre and in some ways intimidating in seeing in this country an almost Wild West-like wagon train of often decrepit vehicles, progressing with inflexible determination through the countryside, intent on invading some peaceable country town which has done nothing to invite such a visitation.
This cavalcade might be pursuing the undoubted rights of its individuals to travel, but it entirely neglects the effect which the pursuit of those rights has on the lives and property of others who involuntarily become caught up in the activities of the cavalcade.

535
It is a classic example of what may be perfectly acceptable, when performed by an individual, becoming unacceptable when performed by a collective. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quoted from G.K. Chesterton and said that when people hunt in packs they behave like wolves. This can be a typical example of what the noble Lord had in mind.
The civil and criminal law relating to trespass applies equally to everyone and it is intolerable for anyone to try to put himself or herself beyond the reach of the law. This is particularly the case when they try to do that by the advantage of mass numbers.
So how does the law seek to deal with the problem? The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to the Caravan Sites Act 1968 which places a duty on local authorities to provide adequate official sites for gypsies who are residing in, or who are resorting to, their area. For these purposes, gypsies are defined as,
"persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin".
Once a local authority has provided sufficient sites, the local authority can be designated under the 1968 Act by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The fact of designation gives the local authorities access to special criminal law powers which act quicker. Once designated a local authority can apply through a magistrates' court for permission to move gypsies off any unauthorised site which is in its area, whether the site is owned privately or by a local authority.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that there should be a different approach for dealing with "New Age travellers" as opposed to that for gypsies. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said the problem was that Her Majesty's Government did not differentiate between "New Age travellers" and gypsies. The noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said the same. However, the courts have given clear indications that the name "gypsy" means a person who is leading a nomadic life, who has no, or no fixed, employment and who has no fixed abode. The effect of this view is that gypsy status may therefore be acquired by a person who does not belong to any long-standing tradition of travelling, in other words by the "New Age travellers".
I agree that there is a difference between those who are of a naturally nomadic culture and those who are sometimes quite well off but who elect to go travelling and, in so doing, cause acute disquiet to others in whose area they settle. But the law does not differentiate between them. The 1968 Act provides a test which is based not on a person's culture or on his origin but on his way of life. Your Lordships could suggest that the test be changed, but the trouble is that this could well still give rise to more difficulties, albeit of a different nature. There is nothing particularly meritorious in swapping one set of problems for another set which may be equally intractable. This is not an easy problem to solve.
Despite the provision of a 100 per cent. Exchequer grant for official sites for gypsies, the sad fact is that the provision of sites is not keeping pace with the growth in the number of gypsy caravans in England and Wales. So, far from the problem getting easier, it
536
is actually getting worse. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that the problem will not go away. If we are not careful, I believe it will get worse. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked whether I had any figures to indicate the extent of the problem and whether it was getting worse. The figures I have indicate that there are some 12,500 gypsy caravans in England and Wales. Contrary to what the noble Baroness thought, that figure is 30 per cent. higher than the figure in 1981. Over 4,000 are on unauthorised sites. That is only 12 per cent. fewer than in 1981, despite the fact that there has been a 67 per cent. increase since then in the number of caravans stationed on authorised sites.
It is an unfortunate fact that 22 years after the implementation of the 1968 Act only 38 per cent. of district councils in England have been designated and only one district council has been designated in Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked whether all travellers could go to those sites. All travellers can go to those sites. They do not have to be the traditional, nomadic gypsies. They may go to the sites if they are travellers.
There is the added difficulty that often these "New Age travellers" do not wish to occupy authorised sites. They want to be able to roam unchecked across the countryside at their own volition and then settle like some great bumble bee on whatever flower happens to take their fancy. That is a lovely but totally selfish view which disregards entirely the rights of others and sometimes even the law. But the fact is that these people are people. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that they have to go somewhere. One cannot just hoover them out of where they are without putting them somewhere else.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve said the police, local authorities and others should now work together on this matter. I have no doubt they will. I recognise the problems and the deficiencies which exist under the Caravan Sites Act for dealing with these problems. The Act is not perfect and we are currently undertaking a thorough review of it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, asked whether we could send out a message of hope to those who are affected by this problem. He asked Her Majesty's Government not to rest upon the niceties of the present law. I believe the noble Viscount wanted the Government to consult solicitors, councillors, farmers and others on this matter. I believe we can give a message of hope. The Government intend to look at this matter afresh. There is a real problem here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked whether we would study the Powys report. We have just received it and we intend to study it. There is a real problem, and as a result a consultation paper will be issued by the Department of the Environment as soon as is practicable. The whole issue can then be debated and there will be an opportunity for all interested parties to put their views in writing and to talk to Ministers.
My noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said that they would like a conference. I see the merit of that, but I fear that that might be somewhat too cumbersome a procedure and, if we are to have all parties represented, it might not

537
be too harmonious either. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will consider the idea most carefully.
Although it may not be the answer to the philosophy which lies behind the actions of those who wish to deposit themselves where they will, there is no doubt that the failure to provide sufficient official sites for gypsies leaves a widespread problem of illegal encampments.
So, what happens if one seeks to evict gypsies—or "New Age travellers" or any other form of itinerants —who are camped illegally? The first effect may be to make them statutorily homeless, perhaps placing a burden on the local community to house and to feed them.
It has been suggested that simple trespass might be made a criminal offence. That, initially, seems attractive but it would have many disadvantages. I do not think that, as my noble friend Lord Stanley, said, anyone would wish to see the full rigour of the law descend upon those who had innocently strayed on to private land in order, for example, to go bird watching or to ramble down a quiet country path —activities in which some of your Lordships might indulge from time to time, with total rectitude.
Apart from anything else, a change in the law of that nature would require a massive diversion of police effort. That would result in their having to neglect other work—such as investigating burglaries or apprehending robbers—which your Lordships might consider should have a higher priority.
If trespass were to be made criminal, what would one do with the miscreants? Arrest them? What would one do with the caravans or the vehicles? Impound them? That might seem a virile thing to do; but it would bring a whole cascade of problems in its wake. Who would do the impounding? The local authorities or the police? Where would they put the impounded vehicles? In the Town Hall; in the municipal swimming baths; or would they clutter up the police station yard? What happens, when one has arrested the head of the household, to the wife and children? Are they arrested too; or is the wife left with the children screaming their heads off in the vehicle in the police yard; or are they taken into care?
It may be that we would have to do something of that nature. Those are some of the questions which will have to be addressed if we go down that route. Meanwhile, one has to see what remedies are available to landowners and occupiers who suffer these terrible visitations.
If the local authority does not have designation powers two courses are available. The first lies within the civil law. The vast majority of cases of trespass are resolved, as they should be, either informally or through the civil courts. As I have explained, trespass on land is essentially a civil matter. It is not a criminal offence. Landowners should therefore in most cases look to the civil courts for their remedy. I agree, though, that it is not an immediate process and it also personalises the confrontation between the offender and the landlord.
538
However, the civil procedures have been expedited. Both the High Court and the county court now have special procedures which can help landowners and occupiers to get relief more quickly.
The second remedy lies with Section 39 of the Public Order Act, about which your Lordships have spoken, usually with very little approbation. Where aggravating factors are involved in the trespass, rather than just a small group of peaceful trespassers simply declining to leave the land, the criminal law has a limited role to play.
Clause 39 was introduced during the passage of the Public Order Bill in response to the mass invasions of land in and around Stonehenge area during the summer of 1986. Section 39 gives the police a discretionary power, not a duty. It is a power, which the police may use where, in their view, the situation demands it.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that the police are seen to stand by and do nothing or that the action taken varies between police forces. All I can tell him is that it is a difficult problem for the police. Each situation has to be considered individually. That is why we have given guidance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to Hampshire. I am not fully aware of the details, but the example which he quoted seemed to show how Section 39 worked. It worked well. The travellers were moved on twice. The problem, which was the one to which the noble Baroness directed our attention, arose because they had nowhere to go to. That creates its own problem.
Section 39 is triggered only under certain specific circumstances. Two or more people have to enter land with an intent to reside there, and the owner or occupier of the land must ask them to leave. If they do not leave, Section 39 can be brought into operation if any one of three things happens as well: if any of the trespassers is threatening or offensive; or if any of the trespassers causes damage; or if the trespassers between them bring 12 or more vehicles onto the land. It is an offence for a trespasser not to leave the land after a direction has been given to him or if, having left the land, he returns as a trespasser within three months.
Section 39 is not a substitute for normal civil procedures. It provides though a limited criminal sanction to deal with aggravated trespass.
My noble friend Lord Radnor and others referred to the problem of green lanes. Some said that the scope of Section 39 should be extended to cover highways, Green lanes are effectively highways, although "green lanes" is not a legal term. The primary purpose of the section is to restore to the occupier the use of his land. It therefore seeks to protect the property rights of particular individuals. Highways were specifically excluded from the scope of Section 39 as inappropriate to this legislation. The way to correct the improper use of a highway is through highway law which is perfectly adequate for the purpose.
The Home Office has issued guidance to the police on the application of Section 39 and a leaflet has been

539
published setting out, for the benefit of landowners and members of the public, in plain English, the main provisions of the law on trespass on land.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has also said that he will continue to maintain the pressure on local authorities to meet their statutory duty to provide adequate numbers of sites for gypsies. That will please the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
It has been suggested that Section 39 should be extended to give the police power to impound caravans. As I said, we may have to do that. I have already referred to the difficulties which will accrue if we go down that route. We must remember that we are not talking about just the odd vehicle, but sometimes tens or even possibly hundreds of them. I have even heard of one case where 780 caravans collectively descended upon a place.
It is though rare, once a direction to leave has been issued, for it to be disobeyed. However unattractive these caravans may be, we must remember that to the owners they are their homes and they will not wish to lose them. Indeed, even more trouble might be caused by impounding their vehicles, as those itinerant people would obviously feel aggrieved by the taking of their homes. Far from maintaining public order impounding might actually endanger it yet further.
My noble friend Lord Stanley has said that he would wish for adjustments to be made to Section 39 and, in his question, he asks for the guidance to chief constables on the operation of Section 39 to be reviewed.
Home Office guidance to the police has been issued which aims to provide a clear understanding of the matters which the police can be expected to take into account when deciding whether to give a direction to trespassers to leave land. Those criteria include—the first was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—the consequences of giving a direction to leave. There might, for example, be further trespass nearby because of the lack of official sites. There is no
540
virtue in removing a problem from one back yard merely—as the noble Baroness said—to shift it into a neighbour's back yard.
Secondly, the consequences of not giving a direction to leave have to be taken into account. For example, further damage or threatening behaviour or disorder might occur. The public order consequences of their actions have to be taken into account by the police. Thirdly, the personal circumstances of the trespassers have to be taken into account. There might, for example, be those whose wellbeing could be affected by an immediate move. There have been complaints in the past about pregnant women and sick people being peremptorily removed.
But the guidance is only guidance. The decision whether to issue a direction to leave the land must remain an operational matter for the police. The senior officer at the scene will take his decision in the light of all the circumstances in each particular case.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Stanley that I am quite happy to look at the guidance in view of what your Lordships have said this evening. But I am bound to point out that it was only introduced in May of last year, and it really should be given time to bed in. However, I am quite happy for it to be looked at in the light of such experience as we have had and in the light of your Lordships' views, but I would just caution your Lordships not to underestimate the difficulties. Nor do I, in turn, underestimate for one minute the difficulties, the friction and the offence which arise from the unlawful occupation of land. The present position is not satisfactory and we are looking to see whether and how we can improve it further.
I do not expect that my reply will have satisfied the avaricious hunger for change of my noble friend Lord Stanley. However, I hope that at least I have demonstrated to your Lordships that the Government are conscious of and sympathetic to a distressing but nevertheless sensitive issue.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: OPERATIONAL MATTERS
  EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: OPERATIONAL MATTERS
  LONDON VACANT OFFICE SPACE
  LONDON VACANT OFFICE SPACE
  PSA PRIVATISATION: PROGRESS
  PSA PRIVATISATION: PROGRESS
  SOUTH-EAST RUNWAY CAPACITY WORKING PARTY: PROGRESS
  SOUTH-EAST RUNWAY CAPACITY WORKING PARTY: PROGRESS
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: MANDATORY RESOLUTIONS
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL: MANDATORY RESOLUTIONS
  IRAN: NUCLEAR WARHEADS
  IRAN: NUCLEAR WARHEADS
  TIRANA: UK DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  TIRANA: UK DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: AID
  BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: AID