Sitting of 11 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Homelessness
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to announce any new measures to reduce the number of homeless people sleeping rough this coming winter in towns and cities outside London.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The Government are providing more than £6 million in grants this year to voluntary organisations throughout England which give direct practical help to homeless people. The primary responsibility for help to people sleeping rough in severe weather rests with local authorities, and the local authority associations have accepted that responsibility in the context of the "Winter Watch" guidelines published recently by Crisis and Shelter.
    Mr. Bayley: Will the Secretary of State consider increasing his grants to voluntary bodies? I have just received a copy of the annual report of the Peasholme centre, a York charity which provides a hostel for single homeless people. In the past 12 months, its number of clients in York has increased by 60 per cent. to 445. Of those, three out of five—some 267 clients—were found to have slept rough at some time in the previous year. The number of young clients aged 24 or under has more than doubled in 12 months, increasing from 60 to 130, of whom 33 are aged 16 and 17.
    The figures are increasing sharply, and I urge the Secretary of State to do considerably more than he is doing at present to deal with the plight of single homeless people.
    Mr. Howard: According to the census taken on the night of 21 to 22 April 1991, only six people were sleeping rough in York on that night. I believe that the assistance that we are providing is effective, and is helping to provide a solution to the problems, but I shall look with interest at the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that families face housing difficulties not only in the larger towns outside London, but in smaller towns and
    860
    rural areas such as my constituency. Will he and his colleagues continue to press the Treasury—I am sure that they have been doing so—for assistance with the construction of low-cost housing, especially through greater flexibility in the release of capital receipts from council house sales? Such an initiative will not only meet certain social needs but will revive the construction industry, which is greatly in need of revival.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has put his points with great force. He knows that what he says is always taken extremely seriously.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that 5,000 homeless people are now being dealt with by the Cyrenians in Coventry—a 32 per cent. increase over the past two years? Does he realise that the Cyrenians' entire evening service depends on a temporary grant from his Department which is due to run out in March? Will he take the necessary measures to ensure that the service continues beyond that date?
    Mr. Howard: First, I pay tribute to voluntary bodies such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned which are doing such admirable work in partnership with my Department. We take our responsibilities very seriously, and I believe that the resources that we provide are being used effectively, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about next year.

    Local Government
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for giving local people more say in the structure of local government in their areas.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I have asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which is reviewing the structure in shire England, to pay special attention to the views of local people and where they feel that they belong. The commission will be using a variety of techniques from radio phone-ins through use of the local press and opinion surveys. It will invite a wide range of representation of local opinion.
    Mr. Deva: When my hon. Friend announces the commission's decision on Heathrow airport, will he take into account the strongly held views of local people?
    Mr. Redwood: I can reassure my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take into account all the evidence—including local opinion—relating to that crucial boundary issue in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that at the time of the abolition of the Greater London council two thirds of Londoners expressed a wish for the retention of a strategic authority in the capital city? A recent opinion poll in the Evening Standard shows that two thirds of Londoners still want a strategic authority. If people's views are to be taken into account, why cannot Londoners' views be taken into account in terms of local government structure?
    Mr. Redwood: Londoners do not want extra costs and extra bureaucracy. They remember how bad the GLC was.

    861
    I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have the effrontery to suggest that London needs that kind of burden again after the absurdly high expenditure on unnecessary causes which was the hallmark on the GLC. Strategic issues for London are dealt with by the boroughs coming together and by the Cabinet Committee on London which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State chairs. Of course there is a strategic vision for London: it is co-ordinated by the Government.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Can my hon. Friend confirm that following the passage of the Local Government Bill earlier this year my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, will have the opportunity to apply for unitary authority status? Will he encourage my constituents in Southport to take advantage of that excellent piece of legislation and press the Local Government Commission to allow my constituency of Southport to recapture the unitary status that it lost in 1974 so that it may get out of Merseyside and return to Lancashire, where it rightly belongs?
    Mr. Redwood: I am aware of my hon. Friend's keen concern about this matter. We have set out the parameters for the review. My hon. Friend knows that the areas specified have been made clear by the Secretary of State and that they will be reviewed in the series set out for the Local Government Boundary Commission. If the commission thinks that there is a big boundary issue or a big council management issue which overruns the boundary and spills into an area not under review, it can put that point to the Secretary of State who, on reflection, could modify his request if he thinks appropriate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend's comments and will give due consideration to them, should recommendations come forward from the Local Government Boundary Commission.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that people are as much concerned about the financial structure of local government as about its physical structure? Is he aware that the citizens of St. Helens are appalled at the unjust and corrupt standard spending assessments which effectively rob St. Helens of millions of pounds in rate support grant, which is translated into reduced services and increased council tax demands? Will the Minister agree to meet representatives of St. Helens and the Webber Craig authorities to discuss their standard spending assessments?
    Mr. Redwood: The grant allocations and standard spending assessments are based on objective criteria. They take into account how many people and what kind of needs there are in the area. There is a clear method that we set out each year for hon. Members to review. The SSAs are not corrupt. That is a dreadful calumny to cast upon the officials who compiled them and upon Ministers who bring them to the House for debate. In the normal course of business we shall, of course, consider representations when the time arises.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend please give an absolute guarantee that the integrity of the present boundaries of the county of Kent will be maintained at all costs and against all odds and that there is no question at all of part of my constituency being hived off into the former Greater London council area?
    Mr. Redwood: I can give no absolute guarantees, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is also a Member of Parliament for a Kent constituency and I am sure that he is a keen defender of Kent as a county. However, the issues will be reviewed in the usual way. The Local Government Commission only has power to recommend changes in boundaries between the areas that it is reviewing. My hon. Friend may take considerable comfort from that.

    Darwin Initiative
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his official visit to the royal botanic gardens in Edinburgh to discuss the Darwin initiative.
    Mr. Howard: I visited the royal botanic gardens in Edinburgh on 18 September at the invitation of Professor Ingram, the Regis Keeper, to look at the excellent and very important research work being carried out particularly in plant systematics, biodiversity and conservation. I visited the living collections, the herbarium collections and the library collections and saw evidence of the extensive scientific and educational programmes undertaken there. I was extremely impressed by the valuable work being carried out there.
    Mr. Dalyell: But how much new money will there be for Darwin?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looks forward with the same pleasurable anticipation as I do to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement tomorrow.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1991 is already making a contribution to areas covered by the Darwin initiative?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. We make a distinguished contribution to the cause of biodiversity, but the Darwin initiative will mark a new stage in our contribution to that cause. I look forward to being able to make announcements before too long which will take the initiative forward.

    Rio Agreement
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what he intends to do consequent upon the Rio agreement and as President of the EC Council of Environment Ministers to improve the implementation of EC law on environmental matters in all member states.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): The need for more effective enforcement of environmental laws is one of the central themes of our presidency. I am pleased to say that the Commission has now agreed to my right hon. and learned Friend's request to prepare regular reports on implementation for discussion by the Environment Council, starting in December.
    Dr. Twinn: Britain has one of the best records of compliance with European environmental laws, but is it not ridiculous for us to be firm and good supporters of the European Community but to allow our partners to put us

    863
    at a disadvantage due to the increased costs of compliance which result from their not keeping the European laws? Will my hon. Friend make it a matter of priority for the Government to use their presidency to ensure compliance by other member states?
    Mr. Maclean: I assure my hon. Friend that we have an excellent record on compliance, and we are determined to see enforcement evened up throughout the Community.
    I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that only last week in Chester, at the invitation of the British, we had the first meeting of all the environmental inspectorates from around the Community. Excellent progress was made in the network of inspectors. The inspectors have agreed unanimously to maintain and continue the network with a rotating presidency. Even now they are working on measures to ensure even-handed compliance and a high level playing field throughout the whole Community.
    Mr. Denham: The Government will have no credibility in their discussions with their European partners if they continue to promote the destruction of the environment through measures such as the M3 motorway through Twyford Down. Are there no limits on how far the Government will sink in the promotion of environmental destruction, including the hiring of a private detective agency, Bray's detective agency of Southampton, to photograph peaceful protesters at Twyford Down? Does the Minister have any limits as to how far the Government will go in destroying the environment and suspending the basic civil liberties of Her Majesty's subjects?
    Mr. Maclean: I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes a tone which drags Britain down unfairly. He should concentrate on this country's record of compliance with environmental legislation in the past few years. Since the United Kingdom joined the Community, the European Court of Justice has not delivered one adverse judgment against it on environmental matters. If the hon. Gentleman compares the records of all countries in the Community he will find that 11 judgments have been made against Italy, 10 against Belgium, seven against Germany, five against France, three against the Netherlands, one each against Denmark, Greece, Spain and Luxembourg, and none against Britain. Why does the hon. Gentleman not speak for Britain for a change?
    Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the National Rivers Authority on its wonderful job of cleaning up the River Thames? The River Thames is now a beautiful river—[Interruption.] particularly in the Reading area. Will he continue to support the actions of the National Rivers Authority?
    Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to support the excellent work that the NRA has carried out in recent years with a continually increasing budget. Last night I was delighted to attend a joint venture with the Countryside Commission which was sponsored by the Financial Times. With considerable funding from my Department, and with the help of the NRA, the Countryside Commission is taking forward a national trail along the side of the Thames. We shall have a national trail of about 200 miles alongside this excellent river. I look forward to walking part of that trail, probably near Reading.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that some environmental policies within the United Kingdom have
    864
    an impact on the rest of the European Community while others have no impact? In connection with the latter, does he agree that the European Community should keep its nose out?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course, some policies need to be implemented at a European or international level. That is essential for many environmental policies. However, national Governments can perfectly adequately implement other policies. The House ought to be aware that the European Council of Ministers has decided that work needs to be carried forward in conjunction with the Commission on the principle of subsidiarity. We are working on the general plans and criteria for applying the principle. It would be wrong to assume that the environment has been singled out for special treatment. It has not. However, there is no reason why certain environmental matters should not be covered by the principle of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: I welcome the Chester conference, which was an important initiative. Is not one of the keys to implementation on a European scale the establishment of the European Environment Agency? Is it not hypocritical of the French to lecture us on being uncommunautaire while they are using every power at their disposal to block a Community decision on the location of that important establishment, which should of course be in Britain?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course, it is terribly important that we get the European Environment Agency up and running. At the last meeting of the Council of Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made strenuous efforts to make progress on the matter. It is unfortunate that some member states could not agree to come to a conclusion on the matter. They considered that other agencies should be included in the package and that agreement could not be reached solely on an environment agency. We shall consider the matter again at our next Council meeting in December, but the British Government are determined that the agency should be up and running as soon as possible in Europe. It is essential if we are to achieve the proper environmental protection and enforcement that we want throughout the Community.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Government's apparent problem with ratifying treaties spread to the Department of the Environment? At the Rio summit in June, our Government were keen that everyone should sign the climate change treaty. Indeed, the Government persuaded reluctant countries such as the United States to do so. The United States has now ratified the treaty. Denmark is about to ratify it. The Department of the Environment says that the treaty will be ratified by the end of the year, but the Treasury says that we shall have to wait for all 150 countries to do so ahead of us. What is the truth? Shall we be last yet again?
    Mr. Maclean: That is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman has been Liberal Democrat environment spokesman for some time and he should know better. We made it crystal clear that we considered the ratification of the climate change and biodiversity conventions to be important. We have always made it clear that we hope and intend to complete our ratification by the end of next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "This year."] Important work needs to be carried out in the European Community to achieve

    865
    agreement on a host of measures to make ratification mean something. It is easy to ratify a treaty, but if we do not have all the clauses in place to ensure that we cut our carbon dioxide emissions, there is no point in ratification. We shall ratify the convention on time and take the necessary steps to ensure that we comply with it.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to make haste slowly on implementation of some of the conditions because scientific evidence is constantly emerging which introduces a new aspect on some of this stuff, and especially on carbon dioxide emissions? Many scientists now say that carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas and that the amount in the atmosphere is not a danger and does not cause global warming.
    Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to disagree with my hon. Friend on too many occasions, but I do not accept that we should go very slowly on this. We should proceed sensibly. There is a clear body of scientific evidence that increased carbon dioxide emissions are damaging the atmosphere and the planet on which we live. That is unacceptable. We believe in the precautionary principle. I intend to make progress as quickly as is practicable in the circumstances, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister of State appears to take too lightly Britain's responsibilities to fulfil the commitments that we made both to the European Community and at Rio. Chief among the Rio commitments was the drawing up of a national sustainability plan. Will the Minister tell us whether he stands by that commitment? Will the plan be a forward-looking document, setting out objectives and targets? If so, when will it appear, and how will he go about drawing it up?
    Mr. Maclean: First, I am delighted formally to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position—although I have already welcomed him in another debate a couple of weeks ago. I tell him—and I may chastise him slightly, as I did last time—that he ought to pay more attention to what we have been doing. We intend to produce our own report to the Sustainable Development Commission. Even now, we are working on its design and we shall consult a range of organisations on what they believe should go into the plan. We shall publish the consultation document shortly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be one of those who respond to it. We want as many ideas as possible—even, no doubt, impractical ones—about what should go into the report. We are working to ensure that in the United Nations the Sustainable Development Commission is as high powered and efficient as possible.

    Renovation Grants
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the funding arrangements and operating regulations of the mandatory renovation grants system.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We continue to keep the grant system under review.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister accept that the new £50,000 limit which will apply next year will affect only a small number of grants, leaving local authorities such as North Devon having to cough up so much that they will
    866
    not be able to meet their other housing responsibilities? Will the Minister clamp down on professional grant-getters who have more than one house, and will he make the awards discretionary after local authorities have met their targets and budgets?
    Mr. Baldry: North Devon council was awarded £835,000 this year towards renovation grant spending. We also have a reserve of supplementary credit approvals to help authorities such as North Devon cope with the pressures. I hope to announce the extra allocations shortly.
    Sir Michael Neubert: If, as I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides tomorrow to relax the 25 per cent. limit on local councils' use of receipts from council house sales, may I even at this 11th hour urge that consideration be given to predicating that money for the renovation and refurbishment of property already in council ownership, such as houses, schools and other buildings? That would both provide a boost to the local construction industry and maintain the value of public assets.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and it has been noted.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that the means testing applied to renovation grants acts as a disincentive, especially for people on low incomes, to carry out much-needed improvements? Does he also accept that relaxing the regulations and allowing people living in appalling conditions to have a full grant to carry out improvements would be a quick way of boosting the construction industry?
    Mr. Baldry: The means testing is straightforward. It is designed to ensure that the money goes to those in the greatest need, thus ensuring that the money available is put to the best possible use. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will agree that the provision of good local services does not necessarily involve high public expenditure. Will he join me and my constituents in congratulating St. Edmundsbury borough council on working so hard to achieve debt-free status?
    Mr. Baldry: I am sure that every local authority must seek to spend its resources properly and effectively. The way in which authorities use their money to help with private sector renewal is as important as their other responsibilities.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister gave a cautious first answer to the question. Do the Government intend to carry on with the mandatory grant system for dealing with unfit housing? If so, will the Minister guarantee that local authorities will have the full measure of Government support and the financial commitment, including the 25 per cent. currently required from their own resources, which is necessary to enable them to meet the need without having to abandon the rest of their capital programme?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman knows that we keep the system continually under review. We had a review earlier this year, as a consequence of which we have now managed to target resources even better at those who have the greatest need. We are also giving extra help to those just above income support levels. We maintain a close

    867
    review of the system. We see the need to maintain a good renewal of private sector stock and we shall continue to carry forward that policy.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on opencast mining.
    Mr. Howard: The Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—announced on 15 July the Government's intention to review the current planning guidelines on opencast coal which are contained in minerals planning guidance note 3. That review is under way and revised guidance will be published for consultation in due course.
    Mr. Jones: Why should the Government propose 80 million tonnes per annum of opencast coal mining while proposing the closure of 31 deep mines, with the loss of 100,000 jobs? Why should my constituency, especially the township of Buckley, have fairly extensive opencast mining while it is proposed that the Point of Ayr colliery, 10 miles away, will be closed? I warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his Government should not plan to destroy more trees, more hedges and more meadows when he could keep open many of our mines and prevent the march towards mass unemployment in the colliery areas.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that most aspects of his question are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The land use planning aspects of opencast mining are taken into account before permission is given. As I said in my original answer, we are reviewing the planning guidelines.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that opencast mining in my constituency is of tremendous benefit, not only because we can thereby obtain coal at one quarter of the cost of deep-mined coal—which makes it the cheapest mineral available to us in the world—but because we can thereby clear hundreds of acres of derelict land and return it to a use and a purpose that will generate more jobs in future than the pits underneath the ground have ever done?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right in drawing attention to the environmental advantages that can frequently follow opencast mining. She makes an important point.
    Mr. Skinner: Can we be assured from what the Secretary of State said about redrawing minerals planning guidance note 3 that fewer opencast applications will be accepted? Is the Secretary of State aware that the amount of opencast coal has gone up to about 18·5 million tonnes, which is equivalent to the production of 17 to 18 pits? That equates to about 17,000 to 18,000 miners. If the review of the pits is to mean anything, surely opencast production must be severely reduced.
    Mr. Howard: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has already made it clear that opencast mining is on a downward trend. I cannot anticipate the results of our
    868
    revision of planning policy guidance. We shall take all the land use aspects of opencast mining carefully into account in the review that is under way.
    Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Canvey island in my constituency is threatened with coal dust from the transshipment of coal from the proposed jetty? In such a sensitive environment as Canvey island, where we already have problems with oil, with gas storage and with being below sea level, that additional environmental hazard is unacceptable.
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend and many of his constituents have drawn that point to the attention of the local authority which has powers to deal with such matters. I am sure that he will want to pursue it with the local authority.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Council for the Protection of Rural England that opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes carried out in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that, contrary to the impression that he has just given to the House, there has been a doubling of opencast mining in Britain since 1979 and that there are currently many applications from British Coal and from private companies? Will he give an undertaking that the review of planning law will produce more stringent conditions so that opencast mining is not allowed unless it is beneficial to the local community and is not environmentally destructive and unless the site will be restored to a decent condition? If that is not achieved, we will see the loss of our coal industry, the despoliation of our economy and the destruction of our countryside.
    Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new responsibilities. I hope that they prove rather more long lasting than her previous responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench.
    As for the hon. Lady's three questions, the future course of opencast mining is on a downward trend, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has made clear. The hon. Lady is right to assert that in many cases opencast mining has environmental disadvantages. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out a moment ago, in many cases it can have environmental advantages. The land use aspects are carefully taken into account in the planning process and the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot anticipate this afternoon the outcome of our review of the planning policy guidance note.

    Council Housing (Competitive Tendering)
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to extend compulsory competitive tendering to the management of council housing.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The Government's proposals for extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management were set out in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing".
    Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that many tenants in London cannot wait to be free of local authority control, particularly in

    869
    areas where there are Labour local authorities whose management of council housing has been so poor? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will act to prevent local authorities avoiding putting housing management out to tender? Many Conservative Members are very concerned about that issue.
    Sir George Young: Our view is that local authority tenants are entitled to the best possible service within the available resources. We do not believe that that is happening at the moment. We believe that our proposals for CCT for housing management will enhance and improve the standard of service that many tenants receive and that they have the most to gain from our proposals.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister confirm that, in preparation for the consultation paper to which he referred, the consultants hired by his Department talked to approximately 30 local authorities and 30 private contractors but did not talk to a single tenant or tenants' organisation? Having failed entirely to consult tenants before producing his proposals, will he confirm that the tenants have reacted by rejecting them decisively? Will he guarantee the House that, before taking any further action, he will listen to and heed the views of council tenants?
    Sir George Young: The House should know that more than 100 tenants' organisations responded to the consultation document. It is not the case that their views have been overlooked. Many of them look forward to higher standards of management on their estates. For the first time, tenants will have a statutory right to take over the management of their estates. Many of them cannot wait to take over management of their estates from their local authorities.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend reassure the very large number of council tenants in my constituency of Norwich, North, many of whom face serious housing difficulties, that the proposals really are to their advantage? If that is the case, will he condemn those members of the Labour party in Norwich who are issuing leaflets and trying to scare people—as is their usual practice?
    Sir George Young: I am disturbed to hear that my hon. Friend's local authority is raising needless anxiety among tenants. We have already invited seven local authorities to pilot the arrangements for us in advance of the legislation. One of the local authorities is Labour controlled. There is considerable enthusiasm among many local authorities to use the new facilities to drive up the standards that they are receiving at present from their work forces. We have tried that in other local authority areas and have secured welcome improvements in quality and welcome reductions in costs. We see no reason why local authority tenants should not benefit from this extension of a principle which is already well established.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the boon that has been suggested for council tenants be extended to tenants of housing associations or quangos, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive?
    Sir George Young: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have heard or will quite soon hear that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an answer very soon.

    Home Ownership (Flats)
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for improving opportunities for home ownership for those living in flats.
    Sir George Young: The Housing and Urban Development Bill will give most long leaseholders in flats either the right to purchase collectively the freehold of their blocks or the right to an extended lease. It will also enable secure tenants to buy their homes on rent-to-mortgage terms.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome the measures on leasehold enfranchisement and the rent-to-mortgage scheme, but will my hon. Friend consider further measures to encourage local authorities that have been very reluctant to do so to sell more flats?
    Sir George Young: The Government are anxious to continue to diversify tenure on local authority estates, particularly local authority flats. The rent-to-mortgage scheme, which comes under the Bill to which I referred, will offer a new low-risk route into home ownership with a minimum increase in outgoings. That will be attractive to many people who live in flats. As interest rates come down, the right-to-buy option becomes equally attractive. I hope that we shall be able to make further progress in diversifying tenure on local authority estates.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the total cost will be of transitional relief for the operation of the first year of the council tax in 1993–94.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): It is too early to say. We shall be announcing our proposals for next year's revenue support grant settlement shortly, including details of the proposals for transitional relief.
    Mr. Leighton: Bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment was the Minister who introduced the poll tax, will the introduction of the council tax be as big as fiasco as that or a bigger one?
    Mr. Squire: The House might determine that that was not a question which gained its full impact on delivery. The council tax will be a fair tax. Apart from the banding, which has been well stressed, many people will receive deserved discounts. Above all else, there will be rebates of up to 100 per cent. for those who are in most need. The Government are certain that the council tax will be welcomed by most people as an improvement.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with me, as someone who was perhaps one of the biggest poll tax losers in this country, with the Ribble Valley by-election—which certainly cost me the seat at the time—that the vast majority of people in my constituency would welcome the fact that the poll tax is being abolished and that the council tax will take its place? We shall get greater discounts for people on low incomes, students will have 100 per cent. rebates and people living alone will benefit because, for the first time ever with a household tax, they will gain with a 25 per cent. discount.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes his points admirably and I fully endorse them.
    Mr. Vaz: Is it not the case that, whatever transitional relief the Secretary of State has been able to get out of the Treasury, it will not cover up the basic and profound unfairness of the council tax? Will the Minister confirm that millions on below-average incomes will not be eligible for any council tax benefit? They will be forced to pay a proportionately much greater amount of their income than the best-off, whose tax has been capped at twice the average. Does the Minister agree that, rather than the council tax becoming a fiasco, it will be a shambles? What is he prepared to do about that?
    Mr. Squire: May I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench and, as is the usual custom, wishing him a long sojourn there. On his central question, I completely reject his charges. The ability of all those on income support to receive 100 per cent. rebate is an important part of the new system. It is buttressed, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), by a rebate system that will reach and assist many people, including those who are less well off.

    Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Sir George Young: There has been a reduction of 17 per cent. over the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm that it costs twice as much to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as it does to pay, on average, the cost of a loan for building a new house? Is that not madness? Will the Minister introduce a scheme to encourage building societies to lease homes to local authorities for the accommodation of homeless people? If that is not practicable, why not build more public housing?
    Sir George Young: The numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are coming down because there is greater use of private sector leasing along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Everyone agrees that bed and breakfast is a wholly inappropriate form of accommodation for families. We have been working out much better alternatives which are also cheaper.
    Mr. Paice: Is not one way of dealing with the problem to allow housing associations to build many more homes? In that context, is my hon. Friend aware that East Cambridgeshire district council in my constituency, having achieved debt-free status beforehand, transferred its housing stock to a housing association and is now in the position of being able to make annual massive contributions to that association to build new homes?
    Sir George Young: I pay tribute to the enlightened view of my hon. Friend's local authority. There are many gains from the policy that he described, not least for those who live in the new homes that are funded out of capital receipts. Housing associations have a role to play in tackling the problem. Completions have gone up from 27,000 two years ago to 53,000 next year, on current plans.
    Mr. Clelland: We all await with bated breath the Chancellor's autumn statement on Thursday. Notwithstanding that, can the Minister tell us what representations he or the Secretary of State have made to the Chancellor with a view to allowing local authorities to use capital receipts from council house sales to build, renew or lease properties, to put an end to the appalling housing record of the Government over the past 13 years?
    Sir George Young: Certainly not.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend, when looking at the problems of homelessness, consider what can be done to bring into use the tens of millions of square feet of empty office space whose owners and developers would be happy to see it used on a short-term basis to house homeless people or students? That could make a significant contribution towards tackling the problem.
    Sir George Young: I very much welcome using the lateral thinking in which my hon. Friend engaged to see whether one could convert empty office space, particularly in London, into accommodation which is clearly needed. Studies are going on in which my Department is very interested. Where it is feasible, practicable and possible, I shall do what I can to support such a transition.
    Mr. Battle: Of course, it is welcome that the numbers of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are starting to come down, but is not the reason the fact that there is now the highest ever number of families in temporary accommodation? Do not some 63,000 families want to know how temporary is temporary? Rather than further cut local authority housing, change pledges to housing associations and cut their budgets, is it not time for the Government to let local authorities make use of the £5 billion of capital receipts to provide desperately needed housing to rent and at the same time provide work for the severely depressed construction industry?
    Sir George Young: The figures for acceptances on the homeless side have started to fall, so it is not the case that there is an inexorable increase in the families being accepted by local authorities. Total acceptances in London in the current year were 40,700—that is a reduction. On the capital receipts point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that is a debate which I have had many times. He well knows that if one wants to make the best use of capital receipts, one has to examine the incidence of where they arise and where the need is greatest. One cannot spend the same capital receipts twice.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour boroughs of London were to bring back into use the empty properties that they own and properties that are currently squatted, tomorrow there would be no one in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. For the last date for which we have figures, there were 74,200 voids in local authority ownership. That is more than the number in bed and breakfast, so my hon. Friend is right.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's most recent estimate of the average level of council tax per household; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: We have made no predictions of the level of council taxes and have no intention of doing so. The council tax is a local tax and bills will be set locally.
    Mr. Salmond: Does that change of approach follow the remarkable success of the forecasting team at the Secretary of State's Department when estimating the poll tax? Can the Secretary of State explain why all the speculation about the introduction of the council tax has centred on how much money he might get out of the Treasury to cushion the blow of the incidence of the tax in the south of England? Does no one else need cushioning? Has the Secretary of State noticed that every potential candidate for Tory leadership is colliding with a political disaster? Is the Secretary of State about to collide with his?
    Mr. Howard: I am thoroughly at a loss to know where to begin to deal with the remarkable foolishness contained in the hon. Gentleman's questions. I am confident that the council tax will be seen to be a fair replacement for the community charge, and I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will heed the urgings of the labour leaders of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, who told the leader of the Opposition to soft-pedal his opposition to the council tax so that we could introduce it, to put the arguments of the past behind us and to ensure that we work together. I invite Opposition Members to co-operate with us to ensure the smooth introduction of the council tax next spring.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will seek to keep down the level of the council tax, by making widespread use of his capping powers to restrict the high-spending proclivities of Labour-controlled local authorities?
    Mr. Howard: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that capping powers will be available, will be used and will play an important part in the restraint of public spending, which is so crucial to the success of national economic policies.
    Mr. Straw: Just now, the Secretary of State said that he was not making predictions about the level of the council tax. He will recall that yesterday, at the annual conference of the Association of County Councils, he went further and said:
    "The Government has never made any predictions of the level of the council tax."
    How can those two statements be true, when I have here 28 pages of tables of predictions for the council tax, issued by his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in April 1991? The calculations show, district by district and band by band, what the Tory party pretended to be the level of the tax in a run-up to the election, and give an average figure of £400. Is it not the truth that those figures were entirely bogus and an effort to defraud the electorate in the run-up to the election? The reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to pretend that no predictions were made is that he will be profoundly embarrassed when the figures come out this week or next.
    Mr. Howard: No predictions were made. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's incomprehension. He knows full well that the caveats attached to those figures were clearly spelt out at the time and that they never were
    874
    forecasts. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do better than that cheap misrepresentation when dealing with the problem, he ought to start again.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress in transferring local authority housing stock into housing associations.
    Sir George Young: Since 1988, 18 local authorities have transferred the ownership of their housing stock to housing associations with the agreement of their tenants. Those completed transfers have taken more than 94,000 tenanted houses and flats out of local authority ownership; they have generated capital receipts of more than £820 million and have brought more than £1·2 billion of private funds into social housing.
    Mr. Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that Swale borough council in my constituency was one of the pioneers in transferring its total housing stock of more than 7,000 houses to housing associations? Is he aware also that that policy has been a tremendous success, has all-party support, that the council is debt free and that there is an excellent record of tenant relations? What is my hon. Friend doing to trumpet the success of that policy, so that councils throughout the land break up, as rapidly as possible, the bureaucratic empires that so many have sought to defend?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. It so happens that only this morning I was reading Swale housing association's business plan. I was interested to see that it was ahead of its targets, that it had honoured its commitments to its tenants and that its performance had improved. The Government remain committed to a continuing programme of large-scale voluntary transfers. I hope that the advertisement that my hon. Friend just made on behalf of that programme will be picked up by many councillors and tenants throughout the country so that they, too, can avail themselves of the advantages that he mentioned.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister will be aware that, on a number of occasions, the tenants of the Boot houses on the Saffron Lane estate in my constituency have always expressed opposition to development by housing associations. What progress is being made in providing additional funds to ensure that those properties can be redeveloped?
    Sir George Young: Speaking from memory, I think that the tenants were offered an option for taking forward development of that estate and they rejected it because they were not entirely happy with some aspects. I hope that the discussions continue between the tenants and the local authority. If they can come up with an agreed solution, I shall see whether my Department has a role to play in bringing forward a satisfactory long-term solution for that estate, the background of which I am familiar with.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Newbury district council, which is part of my constituency, has gone into that matter on a big scale and has been highly successful? Regrettably, Reading borough

    875
    council scared tenants in the area against voting for it by putting out an iniquitous leaflet at the last general election, saying that if tenants voted Conservative, their houses would be stolen.
    Sir George Young: In a recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency, that leaflet was drawn to my attention. The Labour councillors with whom I was speaking had the grace to admit that they had gone slightly over the top in their predictions of what might happen in the event of a Conservative victory. There was a Conservative victory and none of the awful things that they said would happen has happened. I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue in his local newspaper the points that he just made and explain that tenants should not always believe what they are told by Labour councillors in Reading.

    Hazardous Waste
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with local authorities concerning future policy on the disposal of hazardous waste.
    Mr. Maclean: I have had no recent discussions with local authorities on hazardous waste policy issues, but my officials have regular meetings with representatives of the local authority associations on waste issues.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the EC directive prohibiting the importation of hazardous waste will not come into operation until May 1994 at the earliest? What is to happen in the meantime? Will he ensure that local authorities are not overruled when they refuse to grant permission for those waste disposal plants? Does he appreciate that, in Newport at present, an appeal is outstanding from the American concern, Browning Ferris? It is generally recognised locally that Newport needs Browning Ferris like it needs a hole in the head.
    Mr. Maclean: I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his remarkable success at the last Council of Ministers meeting. For many months, we had not reached agreement and, at the first meeting that he chaired, he managed to get the waste shipments regulation agreed. We shall have the benefit of that regulation when it comes into force in 1994. We were keen to get it because
    876
    we had no effective means of cutting off the importation of overseas hazardous waste without that international agreement.
    Planning matters must be decided according to planning rules and it would be wrong to try to manipulate the planning system to deal with importation and exportation of waste. We now have the new directive and we want to ensure that we can bring forward our national self-sufficiency plans so that we can implement them when the directive takes effect. In that way, we shall begin to turn off the taps on the importation of waste from developed countries that should deal with it themselves.

    National Rivers Authority (Funding)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much funding the National Rivers Authority received in 1990–91 and 1991–92.
    Mr. Maclean: The National Rivers Authority's grant in aid from my Department was £103·9 million in 1990–91 and £83·85 million in 1991–92 towards total expenditure on grant-aided functions of £168 million in the first year and £197 million in the second.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Those figures mean that the administrative costs of the National Rivers Authority will progressively have to be borne by agricultural and industrial users. That will impact severely on fish farmers, who are large upstream and downstream volume users of water. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister had a meeting with the British Trout Association yesterday. Will he give a resume of the discussions and state whether any concessions were made?
    Mr. Maclean: I must point out that the NRA is receiving substantial grant in aid from my Department, but I am concerned about the proposed NRA charges as they impact on trout farmers and met the British Trout Association yesterday. I think that we would all agree that although all those who take water from rivers must pay for it, there should be an equitable regime. I see no environmental benefit in unfairly putting 400 small trout farmers out of business. I have undertaken to look again at the NRA's proposed charges to see whether we can devise an equitable regime for all involved, including trout farmers.

Political Talks (Northern Ireland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the political talks concerning Northern Ireland. The talks were built on those which were held last year. Like them, they took as ground rules my predecessor's statement to the House on 26 March 1991.
The first strand of the new talks began in Belfast under my predecessor's chairmanship on 9 March this year, and they resumed on 29 April under my chairmanship, to consider political arrangements within Northern Ireland itself. By the beginning of July I thought that it was appropriate to propose that the other two strands be launched. Accordingly, on 6 July, the second strand, involving both the Irish and British Governments and concerning relationships in the whole island of Ireland, was begun. We met initially in London, and subsequently in Belfast and Dublin. That strand has taken place under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ninian Stephen. To him, and to the Australian Government who permitted him to be available, we all owe an enormous amount of gratitude, particularly since in the latter stages he readily accepted an invitation to help us in our proceedings across all three strands.
On 28 July in Dublin the two Governments held the opening meeting of the third strand concerning future relationships between them.
Throughout the talks I have received wise and indefatigable support from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). In particular, he chaired a most fruitful series of strand 1 committee sessions, and has often deputised for me in the other strands.
The present talks, like those last year, were stipulated to be held during a specified gap between meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference, provided for under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Before the talks resumed after our own general election, the two Governments announced that the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference would not be before the end of July. Since then the gap has been twice extended. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach announced on 25 September, in a final extension, that the next meeting of the conference would be held on 16 November. More than six months have accordingly been available for these talks.
We have not yet succeeded in the ambitious task of securing an overall settlement, that is to say,
"a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands."
Since the talks were held on the basis that
"nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole and that confidentiality will be maintained",
the question of a partial settlement did not arise. All the same, the talks have seen substantive and detailed engagement on issues of the first importance.
In strand 1 the Northern Ireland parties, together with the British Government, identified common themes and principles which should underlie any new political institutions in Northern Ireland, and examined possible structures which might reflect these.
878
In strand 2, in which of course the Irish Government have also been a participant, delegations discussed fundamental aspects of relationships within the island of Ireland, and of the realities underlying them, including constitutional issues and questions of identity and allegiance. We examined the scope for enhanced co-operation within the island of Ireland, in the social, economic, and security fields, among others. We considered the nature of the structures which might best serve such co-operation.
In strand 3 the two Governments, as co-signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, addressed, in liaison with the other participants, possible principles for a new and more broadly based agreement, and possible intergovernmental arrangements.
Much has been done to identify and enlarge the common ground, and to increase understanding and respect for the participants' respective positions. The process has involved hard work and commitment from all the participants. The talks participants have collectively reaffirmed their total abhorrence of, and unqualified opposition to, all forms of terrorism, from whatever source they may come. Nothing has taken place to alter my firm view that it was right to bring together the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments to address, in a single process, a comprehensive agenda. It remains my judgment that, with good will and application, a comprehensive settlement can yet be secured. Those qualities are not lacking.
Yesterday the talks participants agreed and issued a statement, copies of which have been placed in the Library. In it they recognised that
"while at this time there is no basis to agree a settlement, they have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement; they have developed a clear understanding of each other's positions; and established constructive dialogue on ways in which an accommodation might be reached on some of the key issues which divide them".
All recognised the great value of that dialogue. The two Governments expressed their view yesterday that further dialogue was both necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed with that, and accordingly undertook to
"enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward."
The House, although doubtless disappointed that we have not been able to achieve fuller agreement, will welcome that commitment. The objectives of the talks process remain valid and achievable. That is the expressed opinion of the independent chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, and it is my opinion. The objectives are realistic. We have a duty therefore to build on what has been begun, however slow that process has been, and not to give up. We have a duty not to lose patience with what is a deeply historic problem; not to give way to exasperation; and not to recriminate.
Her Majesty's Government for their part, therefore, will steadily persevere. We shall maintain our line of approach to these objectives and continue also our commitment to resolute, fair and just government in Northern Ireland. Not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the rest of these islands—let us not forget them—deserve that of us.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his fairly full and comprehensive statement and take this opportunity to join

879
him and associate the Opposition in thanking Sir Ninian Stephen for his work. We share what must be his regret that it has not been possible to reach heads of agreement.
The Labour party welcomes the progress that has been made, and the understanding reached as a result of the talks process. For the first time, an agenda was reached that recognised the three primary relationships upon which any future settlement must be based in Ireland. The fact that this agenda was acceded to by all the parties has to be seen as a major breakthrough which should he built upon. The Labour party welcomes the undertakings given by the parties to maintain bilateral talks and discussions to maintain the dialogue.
In November 1990, the Secretary of State's predecessor declared:
"The British Government has no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland."
May we assume that this is still the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?
While it would have been useful, after nearly two years of talks, for the Government to have published a paper outlining the current position, as the four main constitutional parties have undertaken to continue negotiating, and some have already published their latest positions, it is probably better for the Government to hold back so as not to prejudice any future possible agreement. However, there will come a time when such a document will be necessary. In any event, if the Irish parties can reach an agreement amongst themselves, no British Government will seek to undermine it.
Some voices will call on the Secretary of State to impose a solution. I hope that he will resist such blandishments. Will he give an undertaking that there will be no alteration in the status quo in Northern Ireland or in the House while the dialogue is taking place, without the agreement of all the parties? The basic problem throughout the process of the talks has been that, although the parties have used the same language in their attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they have meant entirely different things. This is a contradiction which must still be addressed.
While the talks are in abeyance, the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force, and indeed it should be widened and deepened. If it becomes apparent that there is little chance of the parties securing agreement, then we must move further towards a greater sharing of the responsibility between the two Governments in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of what I said about Sir Ninian Stephen. I am grateful also for his welcome to the agreement by all the participants that these talks should continue the process of consultation. He asked whether the British Government stood by the assertion, made by my predecessor, that we have
"no selfish economic or strategic interest"
in the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland. That is certainly the case. There is no qualification to that, nor to the undertaking that my predecessor gave on 26 March 1991 that so long as it remains the wish of most of those living in Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom, so it shall. There will be no change of status, save if there is a change in the wish of the majority.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about possible publication at this stage of an account of these negotiations. It was wise of him to recognise that, in the
880
light of the parties' willingness and wish to continue to consult, it might be damaging if an account of who said what and when were published, particularly in the light of the understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
There is no question of an imposed solution. The British Government are doing all in their power to seek a settlement of this deeply rooted historic problem that is arrived at by agreement with all those who are concerned with it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking that there would be no alteration of the status quo in Northern Ireland while the dialogue is continuing. I give him that undertaking without any qualification.
It remains the case, as is evidenced by the fact that the intergovernmental conference is to take place next Monday 16 November, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I deeply regret that the process has not resulted in positive conclusions, but will my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate that the chances of future agreements might be increased if the Irish Government showed more flexibility with regard to articles 2 and 3? I also draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the public statements of the leader of the Alliance party, who expressed the belief that greater flexibility on the part of the Social Democratic and Labour party would greatly help future talks.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I share my hon. Friend's regret that we have not achieved a greater degree of convergence—of agreement. It would be unwise of me to be drawn into—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Convergence—it is a joke.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is not one that the hon. Gentleman understands.
A discussion of individual ingredients in the conversations that have taken place throughout the process during the past six months. It is fairly well known among the parties where the sticking points have been and where there has been what has amounted to quite a wide area of agreement. I do not wish to be drawn today into commenting on what one party may have said about another or anything of that kind. Recrimination will not be helpful to us, but a welcome to the parties' agreement to continue consultation will usefully come out of the House.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I join in paying tribute to Sir Ninian Stephen, as we did at Stormont yesterday, and, on behalf of my party, I express our appreciation and thanks to the Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who, as the Secretary of State said, chaired one of the most vital strands, strand 1, at which there was considerable agreement and progress.
As the Secretary of State has said, the climate definitely has improved. I am sure that he did not wish to place undue emphasis on that little phrase that he used, perhaps accidentally implying that progress had not been made on a beginning for new relationships within Northern Ireland, because we have moved forward to some extent.

881
In view of that, will the Secretary of State facilitate the Northern Ireland parties in further developing the degree of co-operation that they have shown so often in the past on, for example, the economy and social matters, and a whole host of issues of vital importance to the people of Northern Ireland, and do that around the table in a way which, apparently, the other party leaders in the House representing constituencies in Great Britain seem to find abhorrent?
Has the Secretary of State taken note of the advice given by the Opposition spokesman that the Secretary of State should not seek to impose a solution; but on behalf of the Labour party the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would impose a solution without regard to the wishes of anybody?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Sir Ninian Stephen, which I am sure will be much appreciated, and I am also grateful for what he said about the Government team and about my predecessor.
I entirely agree that the climate has definitely improved. Sitting round the table for six months has led to a marked increase in the understanding of the parties for the positions taken by others and a respect for them, and all of us who have taken part in that recognise it. It has been very marked.
Progress has been made towards a new beginning in relationships both north-south, within Northern Ireland, and east-west. Progress has been made; it is not enough. It has taken six months, but six months in the history of Ireland is but an evening gone. We shall come back to it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would facilitate progress on specific subjects in round-table conversations between the Northern Ireland parties. The British Government are anxious to facilitate any convergence—any area of agreement—in Northern Ireland, but we do not wish to lose sight of our objective of progress towards a new beginning in the totality of relationships. That objective has occupied us over the past six months.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me associate myself with what has already been said about Sir Ninian Stephen and his colleague George Thompson, who has assisted him lately. I also echo what has been said about the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, his predecessor and his deputy, who made such a valuable contribution to the talks in the conference and at stage 1.
Will the Secretary of State bear in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was imposed on the people of Northern Ireland? It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing should be imposed, and then to say that the Dublin Government should have more say in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that, if the southern Government had not asked for the conference, the talks could have continued in spite of the election? We needed to revert to stage 1, for there was still business to be done, but the southern Government had no place in that.
Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that, although the other Government said that articles 2 and 3 were on the table, the Taoiseach kept repeating outside the
882
conference that there would be no change? Last weekend, the SDLP spokesman exhorted his supporters to stand firm. The House should face up to the fact that no progress can be made until the Irish Republic gives up its illegal, immoral and criminal claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is true that the Irish Government asked for a meeting of the intergovernmental conference, as it was quite entitled to do. The last conference met on 27 April; this one will bring the total to four this year. Normally, there are eight on average. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Irish Government were perfectly entitled to ask for such a conference, and I make no complaint about that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with the Taoiseach that it should take place. I think that it had a beneficial effect, in that it brought us under the whip for the past couple of weeks. Good progress was made.
Articles 2 and 3 have featured in our discussions, as it was apparent that they would. I welcome the fact that they have been recognised by the Irish Government as being on the table for discussion, along with other constitutional matters. I shall not go into the business of what weight is to be put on which ingredient in the talks, because I do not think that that will help the process of carrying forward the consultations—which, I trust, will begin very soon. I shall merely say that all the participants have, in their various ways, put their backs into this business, and much progress has been made as a result. Many historical watersheds have been encountered, and have been left behind us as we have moved onwards.
Mr. John Hume: I join other hon. Members in expressing deep appreciation of Sir Ninian Stephen and Mr. George Thompson, who have put incredible effort, energy and dedication into the talks. On behalf of my party, let me also express appreciation of the effort put in by the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—and by the Dublin Ministers, who came here on a regular basis during strand 2. Six months is a short time in the history of a problem like Ireland. As I said to Sir Ninian Stephen yesterday, the Irish problem existed before his country came into existence. Six months, therefore, is a short time. During that time, I believe that the discussions had very many areas of constructive dialogue and very many areas of agreement, as well as areas of disagreement, but that, in terms of the depth of the divisions in our society, is progress.
I look forward to building on that progress by maintaining contact with the other parties, by dialogue, because dialogue is the only road to the future, and also by working with the other parties on matters of common concern, such as the economy, in order to build up trust and to break down the distrust and prejudice that goes to the heart of our problem.
I ask the Secretary of State to agree that, in summing up the approach of my party to this dialogue, we said that the task which faced us was the accommodation of two sets of legitimate rights: the rights of the Unionist people to the full expression of their identity and way of life and the rights of the nationalist people to precisely the same —the accommodation of both, not the defeat of one by the other?

883
While that principle is self-evident, and while the Secretary of State can agree that everyone can accept the principle and the reality, when one translates the reality into institutional expression both identities transcend the confines of Northern Ireland. While the three Unionist parties seem to have no difficulty in transcending the confines in the direction of London for the expression of what they describe as their Britishness, they seem to find difficulty in moving in the other direction to allow the nationalist community to have an equal expression of their identity.
The Secretary of State knows that we regard that as the major area of disagreement, but we look forward to continuing to discuss that area of disagreement, with a view to coming to an ultimate agreement, because dialogue —no matter what anyone says, and there is no point in recriminations—is the only route to a lasting settlement of our deep-seated problem.
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to respond, may I remind the House that we are dealing with a statement? Therefore, hon. Members should be questioning that statement, not making their own comments. That is essential if we are to make progress within the parliamentary framework.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I neglected to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for what he said as to both Sir Ninian Stephen and myself.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said at the beginning of his remarks, and I welcome the thrust of what he said. It is right that the parties have come to acknowledge that one of the principal issues is the question of accommodating differing identities and differing allegiances in Northern Ireland. It is one of the achievements of the process that there has been a widening understanding of a point that he has always regarded as of crucial importance.
Equally, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been a widening understanding of the position, anxieties and fundamental beliefs of the Unionist side in the process. All that is to the good. The question is not so much whether one acknowledges these differences but how one applies the principle of accommodating them in real, practical reality. That is the question for continuing consultation, based upon what we have built in the last few months. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to that further process.
Sir James Kilfedder: May I join in the expression of praise and thanks to Sir Ninian Stephen for his patience, tact and skill? He was a distinguished chairman of the talks.
Does not the Secretary of State's opinion, that the objective of the talks remains both valid and achievable, fully justify the Government's commitment to continue with the process of informal discussions? Perhaps he might widen the discussions to include all Northern Ireland's parliamentary parties. Does he realise that the overwhelming majority of the Ulster people, regardless of their religion or politics, and in particular the younger generation, are anxious that Ulster should shake off the shackles of fear, prejudice and hatred and make way for political progress?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I endorse his final remark,
884
but the people of Northern Ireland across the spectrum wish that the past no longer dominates the present and dictates the future. The hon. Gentleman has much more experience of democratic politics in Northern Ireland than I have. Walking about in the streets and going about my business in the Province has brought home to me time and time again that there is a demand from the people of Northern Ireland that we should leave the past behind us. People say, "There are legitimate grievances on each side, but we are fed up with having them recited. We are looking to the future." Of course, that is particularly true of the young. So I stand by what the hon. Gentleman said.
I look forward to the continuation of the discussions. they will need to continue with the same participants with which they were begun. I know that all the participants will benefit from informal advice from the hon. Gentleman, as I have unfailingly done.
Mr. David Alton: In recognising the common ground as well as the difficulties in Northern Ireland, the talks have been welcomed, and will be welcomed, by all parties and all hon. Members. All hon. Members wish the Secretary of State and others well in the future.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland will need to be addressed by people not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the islands? A way of extending the discussion would be, not a Hansard such as that suggested earlier, but the publication of a Green Paper setting out the various options that now lie before us. The publication of a Green Paper would enable people to have a proper discussion about the alternatives and the concessions which would have to be made by each of the participants.
Does the Secretary of State agree that he must move from the role of umpire to that of a protagonist and, perhaps, reach further to the ordinary people both north and south of the border in Ireland and put a series of propositions in a referendum in due course to all the people, above the heads of politicians?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his comments. I agree with his comments about a democratic deficit.
Part of my purpose is to bring back to Northern Ireland democratically answerable government which is exercised by the people, elected from the population of Northern Ireland and answerable for final decisions to them. For far too long Northern Ireland has suffered the indignity of being ruled from this House on matters which would normally be within the jurisdiction of a borough or district council. But we must secure the abolition of the democratic deficit on a fair and workable basis. The abolition of that deficit must attract the suport of the community. That, in part, is what the discussions are about.
I would rather publish a Green Paper which sets out the ways in which the agreement, once reached, can be implemented; but for the reasons that I have given, there is not much to be gained by publishing a Green Paper before we reach agreement.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the announcement that he has made to the House today is disappointing to those of us who have a keen interest in and affection for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? However, we realise

885
that a great deal has been achieved and that the parties involved deserve credit for the discussions that have already taken place. I refuse to believe that the discussions have been a waste of time.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although the election in the Republic imposes a certain interim period until a new Government are elected, the parties in this House can take advantage of the interim period to continue the informal discussions in the hope that an opportunity will present itself to carry forward an important development?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, and I thank him for his comments. There may be some advantage in the pause or intermission—whatever one may like to call it—that has now occurred in meetings of the intergovernmental conference. The interim period will give an opportunity for ordinary men and women in the street to make their opinions known and inform the political leaders in the Province and the north and south what people think and what they hope will be achieved. I believe that that will happen, and that it will be beneficial. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about how much has been achieved, and I believe that he is right.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: In a normal, ideal situation one would agree with the Secretary of State that this is not the time for recriminations. None the less, does he not agree that one party at the table was beyond the normal courtesies in terms of making a substantial contribution—lacking good will, flexibility and, one might say, common sense? That party made not one solitary compromise during the whole period of the discussions.
In so far as that party is joined with Her Majesty's Government, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, does that not prove the folly of conferring on a Government who lack responsibility the right to interfere in our affairs in Northern Ireland? Instead of listening to the contradictory gobbledegook which we have heard from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), will the Secretary of State consult elected Northern Ireland Members? In terms of their advice and their participation in remedying the democratic deficit, will he give those Members precedence over the Irish Republic, which has proved so reluctant to enter into the spirit which the rest of us tried to inject into the talks?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The elected representatives in Northern Ireland probably have precedence over everybody; they all know—at least, I hope that they do —that they can come to see me about any subject whenever they want, and many of them have done so.
I do not think that I shall follow the hon. Gentleman on his principal point, save to say that if any party has lacked flexibility and movement, no doubt it will be thought that there is all the more scope for movement in the further consultations in which we are about to take part.
Mr. Peter Robinson: May I associate myself with the tributes paid to Sir Ninian Stephen and his assistant, Mr. George Thompson? I add my thanks to the Secretary of State and his predecessor, and to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond and
886
Barnes (Mr. Hanley), for their valuable contribution during the talks, for their commitment and dedication, and for the enthusiasm that they put into the process.
Over the coming weeks and months, as the Secretary of State assesses and analyses the process which has just ended, will he consider not only where the sticking points have been but the basic structure of the talks process and the aspects of it which may have caused this degree of failure? If he concludes, as I have, that some parties at the talks were so content with the status quo—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—that they were not encouraged to move from it, will he consider introducing a level playing field by ending the marginalisation of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland which has been caused by that agreement? That would give any consultations which might take place a better chance.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. I understand his position and that of his party on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I understand what he has said about it. The hon. Gentleman believes that there may be less incentive for his political opponents to seek changes such as those we are discussing, because they have an advantage under that agreement. I understand that point. That is not, with great respect, what we are really concerned with today.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in force and I reiterate that the British Government will be loyal to it. That said, it was part of the statement of 26 March 1991 by my predecessor that the British Government would seek with the Irish Government, by direct discussion, to discover whether it was possible to agree a new and more broadly based agreement either to supplement or to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That is still very much part of our concerns in the process. It is the subject of strand 3 of the talks. I believe, therefore, that it would be a very desirable outcome and one that we shall work towards.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Tributes have been paid to the Secretary of State, to the Under-Secretary of State, to the chairman and to his assistant. I add to that my tribute to the other parties taking part in the discussions—even those that wish to involve themselves in recrimination today. I sat through every session of the talks except one, so I realise that an enormous amount of effort went into the talks from every party. Some people found it necessary at times to express their positions differently by not actively taking part, and I respect that.
I do not want to answer the recriminations or to involve myself in them except to ask the Secretary of State one question when he considers and ponders the results. Did we not all know when we responded jointly to the invitation from the British Government and from the Irish Government that there would be difficult questions and that there would be issues that we should not be able to resolve easily? Did we not know that one of those would be that Unionists would not become nationalists and nationalists would not become Unionists overnight? May we now take the opportunity in the informal discussions, which I hope will lead to a resumption of formal discussions, to face those problems and difficulties, because they will not be wished away, ignored away or talked away? Sooner or later we must face them.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is an unearthly unanimity in the way in which right hon. and hon. Members begin their contributions. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.
If we are sensible, we all recognise that the enormously deep-rooted problem will not be solved overnight. It must be solved by the people of Northern Ireland and it must be solved by all those with legitimate interests in the problems of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is right about that; I do not think that there is any disagreement about it. I am not depressed, although I am disappointed, that we have not got further and that in a mere six months we have not reached heads of agreement. We have plenty of time and no lack of determination.
Mr. Barry Porter: The longer I am in the House, the more glad I am that I come from the north of England where we tend to use words that mean what they say. If the purpose of the talks was to get an agreement between the parties of Northern Ireland, then I must say that they have failed. It is about time that someone used that word. There is nothing wrong with saying that. I do not believe in political alchemy and I know of no geometrician who has yet squared the circle, as was being attempted. I am glad to know that people will carry on talking. However, they always did, so there is nothing new in that.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a formal body in existence, which can be and has shown itself to be an appropriate debating chamber—the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body? I repeat my plea to the Unionists in the Chamber to take their seats on that body. Surely that must be a way forward.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Anglo-Irish parliamentary body is extremely valuable and I do not doubt it benefits from the plain speaking of my hon. Friend. I always find that Yorkshiremen and those who come from other less favoured counties—
Mr. Porter: I am from Lancashire.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Well, Yorkshiremen in particular and people from other counties which regard themselves as being in the north, never fail to remind us how bluntly they speak. That is also very much appreciated. The AIPB is a very good thing and I wish that the Unionists would take their seats in it. I value the body's reports and hope that it will continue its work.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The failure of the talks comes as no surprise to most people in Northern Ireland. The failure was inevitable because of the Dublin Government's refusal to change articles 2 and 3 and because of the clear refusal of the SDLP to agree to any form of devolved government based on elections in Northern Ireland.
In view of the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement five years ago—and I am glad to hear, five years too late, that the Labour party spokesman is now against imposed solutions in Northern Ireland—and the stalemate which it has created in Northern Ireland for five years and the fool's errand that devolution now is, will the Secretary of State consider the alternative of giving the people of Northern Ireland the same rights and responsibilities as those enjoyed by their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand that there is a desire for much more answerable democratic government of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland. I have already said that I share that objective. However, I very much share the objective that underlay the whole process, that whatever structures are set up, they shall have the widest possible degree of acceptance across the community. That is very important.
I will not be drawn into a discussion of the merits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is there, it remains in force, and the British Government are loyal to it. Many advances have been made in the past few years in the way in which Northern Ireland is governed. I want to see those advances retained and built upon, but on a basis of restored democratic government locally in the Province.
Mr. James Couchman: I want to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and invite the Unionists to take their place on the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body. They would make a most valuable contribution to our discussions.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any idea when he might reconvene the talks between all parties? Will he assure the House that it will be a reconvening and that process will not start again from square one?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: What was agreed by the parties yesterday was that, bilaterally, discussions will resume on the basis that they have been going on over the past three or four weeks. We have got away from the strands which were convened. In the first instance, those informal discussions will take place on bilateral initiatives. After that, we must consider how we bring the matter to a conclusion. While I welcome what my hon. Friend says about getting on with it now as quickly as possible, it will not be for me to convene a formal process. It will happen more informally, and I hope as quickly as possible.
Mr. David Trimble: The way in which the talks have ended clearly demonstrates that the diktat imposed on us by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has been only a stumbling block which will cured by no supplement and merits only oblivion.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said, there was considerable progress in the talks within strand 1. However, is it not the case that, once we got into the other strands, the talks rapidly deadlocked on a number of issues with the result that strand 3 never really got off the ground? As there is no likelihood of those deadlocks being resolved, is not the only rational course to go back to the issues addressed in strand I and bring them to fruition, thus ending the democratic deficit?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Certainly there was a lot of progress in strand 1, as has been said. However, there was a lot of convergence also in strand 2. Strand 2 comprises those institutions which will be put in place to affect relationships north-south. A lot of progress was made there, but that has to be a matter primarily for those who are going to work them—political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. I do not agree that there was no progress there. In strand 3, we certainly held meetings, but it is difficult to make progress on strand 3 until the first two have got a good deal further.
I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I agree that there has been no merit in the Anglo-Irish

889
Agreement. There has been much recognition in recent years that there is a legitimate interest from outside Northern Ireland in some of the affairs that affect nationalists in Northern Ireland. That recognition has grown and it derives from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Whether it does or does not, that recognition is a very good thing. It is something that has been reflected by all parties in the talks. I do not think that we should allow ourselves to be deflected from the really important business by a discussion of matters that took place a few years ago, let alone discussions of matters that took place perhaps 20, 30 or more years ago.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that many Conservative Members will be disappointed but not surprised at the failure of the talks. Few of us believed that they would succeed, but we wished them well. Whatever decisions are arrived at in the talks in the future—I welcome the fact that the parties are continuing to talk—at the end of the day, as long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to say that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, this House and this Parliament will determine what happens. We should never ever walk away from that. It is our responsibility—our duty—somehow to find the answer to the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. In fact, the rest of the United Kingdom will suffer as long as that deficit remains.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course it is the responsibility of the House to govern the affairs of Northern Ireland as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. That is expressly recognised in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Most hon. Members will feel warmed when they hear from the Secretary of State that progress has been made, but people outside the House want to know what progress has been made. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State whether the intransigence of the Irish Government and the insurmountability of the Ango-Irish Agreement have prevented real progress in the talks to date.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have tried to make it clear, and I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the record, he will see the areas in which I consider that there has been agreement. Perhaps rather more important is the opinion of the independent chairman that quite substantial agreement has been made—not enough, but quite a lot. I do not think that I will help the hon. Gentleman by going over it. I am not going to follow him into recriminations of one party or another in the talks; that will not help us. I believe that we should be getting on, and I hope that he believes that we should be getting on. I do not think that we shall get on if we start pointing the finger at one participant or another.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are great opportunities at this time for all those who live on the island of Ireland with the Single European Act coming into force on 1 January, the prospects of enhanced trade and the prospects of enhanced employment?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the consensus in the House that the British-Irish
890
inter-parliamentary body represents a forum of dialogue, co-operation and consultation that helps to unite people north and south, east and west, of these islands? May I make an appeal to Unionist Members? There are seats available for them. They would take their seats with a great welcome from the House because it would be fully in line with the traditions of democracy and freedom in Northern Ireland and the consultation and co-operation that they are seeking with the Parliament of the Republic and the Parliament of Westminster.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Single European Act. That Act opens up prospects for much greater trade, north-south; it is surprising how little there has been until very recently. Trade and a strong economy lead to the kind of stability which is the best insurance against toleration for terrorism. That is the relevance of what has been said, just as the business that we have been engaged in over the last six months is relevant to the defeat of terrorism, which is the Government's overriding objective. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The only agreement that appears to have been reached throughout the talks is the unanimity of view that the talks were chaired well by officials or politicians.
Moving to the substance of the Secretary of State's report to the House, first, will he confirm that any overall agreement can be attained only with the consent of the Government in Dublin? Secondly, he said that he would not like to see published a blow-by-blow account of the talks. I agree, because it would make public the divisions which clearly exist. But the Secretary of State says in his statement that the participants
"have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement".
If that is so, does not he agree that those elements should be made public so that there could be a wider public discussion of them? That would not itself prejudice any future talks between the internal parties in Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members seem to recognise only one area of agreement—that the process was chaired well. I am happy to accept that. We have to begin somewhere. He asked whether we should publish the areas where we say that there has been discussion of the basic elements. The point is that everybody agreed at the beginning that nothing should be agreed until all was agreed. It may be that people at the preliminary stage said, "We could agree with this or that, provided the other." I do not think that that process would be brought to crystallisation and agreement if there were to be publication now of what has taken place. I know that it is disappointing for those who take great interest in these matters, but that I believe to be the view of all who participated in the talks.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that it was the existence and the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which were the conduit which brought the otherwise distant parties together around the table? Does he further agree that the talks would be continuing to this very day if certain parties, for very good

891
reasons of their own, had not withdrawn from the process? We could have been talking next week if that had not happened.
I share the Secretary of State's optimism and confidence for the future. I should like to think that, notwithstanding what I hope will be a short recess, the mechanisms of getting together would be facilitated by him and by the parties in order to bring all three strands, which are so intertwined, to a successful conclusion.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very anxious, as I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, to do anything I can to get this thing going and moving in the right direction. Nobody is less inclined to stand upon formality than me, so he has that assurance.
I will not take up what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. I was described by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) as an umpire. I do not think I am an umpire, but certainly an umpire does not get drawn into supporting one side or the other in a conflict, and I do not propose to do so.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was approved in the House by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides`? The Unionist parties, of course, recognise the sovereignty of Parliament as regards Northern Ireland. As to the parliamentary body, there has been a remarkable breakthrough in that British and Irish parliamentarians have sat down together in the full body and in sub-committees over the past two years.
In view of the interest of a number of European countries, and now the United States, in the talks or in what may take place in Northern Ireland in future, is the Secretary of State willing, on behalf of the Government, for those Governments which are so interested, including the new Administration in the United States, to come to Northern Ireland so that they may see for themselves that we have absolutely nothing to hide?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree warmly with the hon. Gentleman. I encourage visits from all over the world, and when visitors come there is an almost uniform result. They say, "We had no idea that the media image was so wide of the mark." The Southern Legislative Conference of American States—senators and congressmen from the southern states—is the most recent example. They spent the thick end of a week in Northern Ireland, and at the end of their stay they said, "We are going back to America to do our best to correct the image, which we regard as unrecognisable." That is so. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to go to Northern Ireland, from whatever quarter and with whatever prejudice, is welcome. I shall see to it that they have a fair view of Northern Ireland, and that they are free to go wherever they like and to talk to whoever they like, and they will come away wiser and, I trust, happier people.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Were the talks exclusively concerned with constitutional, political and security matters or were economic and social affairs discussed, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seemed to suggest? One way to tackle the situation in Northern Ireland and to undermine sectarianism is to make progress in dealing with the unemployment, deprivation and poverty which exist there and throughout the island of Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I assure the hon. Gentleman that they were included. During those six months there were times when I thought that nothing under the sun was excluded. The extremely important matters that he mentioned were certainly included, for the reason that he identified. Economic strength and the elimination of deprivation and disadvantage, wherever they may be found, are important in their own right, and to inculcate stability. That is why the British Government are so anxious to target areas of social need—as we do—and to target areas such as Belfast and Londonderry, where financial help can get businesses and employment going. That is why the MacBride principles, which are espoused in certain areas of the United States, are so deeply damaging because they are destructive of jobs, and that is why they are opposed by every constitutional party in Northern Ireland and supported only by Sinn Fein.
Ms. Kate Hoey: I am sure that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would agree with what the Secretary of State said about looking to the future and not to the past and not recriminating about what has gone on. Does he agree that in the foreseeable future Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom and that during that time the people there should be treated in the same way as the rest of the citizens in the kingdom? Why does he not agree to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland immediately?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Lady is right to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future—as long as the majority of people living there wish to do so. If they change their minds, it will cease to be a part of the United Kingdom. That has been made perfectly clear for many years.
The hon. Lady asks about a Select Committee. I remind her that, in their response to the report of the Procedure Committee, the Government said that they had no objection to such a Select Committee—provided that setting it up met with the approval of the House—but that it would have to have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not rather strange that along comes the ex-Attorney General, Mr. Smoothie, who could have said all he needed to say in a few sentences? The Government's policies have failed. They have gone down the pan, but he is trying to kid us along that somehow everything remains the same. The truth is that we need a new political initiative in Ireland, and that is to get the troops out. I intervened when the Secretary of State talked about convergence because he could not get convergence between two nation states. What chance has he got in Maastricht with 12 nation states?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has lost his form since I used to see him off over Attorney-General's questions; he is out of practice. The British Government do not adopt what he calls the "troops out" policy because we have more concern for the real interests of ordinary people in Northern Ireland than he could ever begin to understand.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It may be of little moment, but some hon. Members believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should have been entitled the British-Irish Agreement.

893
Although it is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government hold to the view that there can be no agreement other than a comprehensive agreement by all the parties and that therefore the Government will never seek to impose a change on Northern Ireland, will he assure me that that message will be conveyed to Washington? Will he further assure me that President-elect Clinton will be most carefully apprised of the current circumstances surrounding those talks? Surely the days of the American interventionist role in Europe are coming to an end.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have been rather grateful, as have most people in this country, for the concern which the Americans have shown in the past 45 years for our affairs here in Europe. However, we must distinguish between what is said in the heat of a hotly contested election campaign and what is likely to be the considered policy of a great ally of this country and a great nation. As I have said, the more people come to see what Northern Ireland is really like, the better. But it is important that they should realise that we need not so much a peace envoy as agreement in the process of constitutional talks now engaging us, which the whole House supports.

Points of Order
4.37 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assume that you will shortly be holding a ballot for notices of motions for 27 November. I know that you are busy and must give a tremendous amount of thought to all the processes in the House. May I remind you, however, that last Wednesday you announced the names of those who were successful in the ballot for Friday 20 November. Last Wednesday we debated further the European Communities Bill. I expect that most hon. Members will remember that day. My name appeared in column 280 of the Official Report of 4 November as the first to be selected in the ballot for 20 November. In recent months, some Opposition Members have accused me of ballot rigging. I should not like anyone to suggest or imply that I have been responsible for rigging this ballot in any way.
In the blue pages of the Order Paper for 4 November, page 1179 reads:
"Mr. Ray Powell … To call attention to a subject and to move a resolution".
On 5 November, I received a letter from the Table Office informing me that I had been drawn first in the ballot of 4 November for Private Members' Notices of Motions and that, to have priority under Standing Order No. 13, I was requested to give notice of the subject before the rising of the House on Wednesday 11 November—today. Yesterday afternoon, I took the opportunity to give notice of the subject that I intend to move on 20 November. The subject was "the fear, plight and poverty of pensioners".
When I put that to the Table Office, there was no suggestion that there had been any change or mistake about who had come first in the ballot for 20 November. Then, at near to midnight when I was in my room, the Clerk from the Table Office called to inform me that I did not have the number one spot for notice of motions for Friday 20 November, but that the hon. Member for Norfolk. North (Mr. Ralph Howell) did.
My point of order to you, Madam Speaker, is that six clear days elapsed between when I was informed of the change and when you announced from the Chair, and all Opposition Members believed, that I was first in the ballot for 20 November. I had been assured that the maximum publicity would centre on the important subject that I had chosen, especially this year. The local and national—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Powell: But it is for you, Madam Speaker, to rule on the matter. There is no one else whom I can approach, My office has sent out publicity to pensioners' organisations throughout the country highlighting the problems and difficulties for pensioners, particularly now just before the onset of winter. Many pensioners are worried and fear that they will not be able to pay their bills, and are concerned about what will happen if they become homeless. As a result of the strong-arm tactics of the Whips Office last week that we read about—
Madam Speaker: Order. I want to hear no more about the Whips Office from a man who was himself a Whip. I can rule on the matter as the hon. Gentleman is now addressing the subject rather than speaking about technical matters.
Mr. Powell: I was informed of the change last night, and protested that six days had elapsed. Madam Speaker, you know that we have only one or two days in which to notify the Official Report when we want anything altered. Its staff tell us that they will not alter any part of the report after two or three days. Why does the Table Office have a licence to alter the decision recorded in Hansard when preparations have already been made for my debate on 20 November? Why does the Table Office have the right to make alterations when hon. Members do not have a similar right? I want you, Madam Speaker, to rule that the announcement that you made a week ago today still stands and I can go ahead with my debate on 20 November.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I doubt that I need any further points of order after such a long explanation from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
I remember the day very well. The House was excited about a forthcoming debate. There is no question but that the successful candidate in the ballot was Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell. The mistake has been made, which is to be greatly regretted. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Ogmore, who has done much to inform his constituents about the subject that he wished to raise only to find that it is not to be debated, which is also to be regretted. There is no doubt that Mr. Ralph Howell, not Mr. Ray Powell, was successful in the ballot. If the hon. Member for Ogmore looks at the Ballot Book, he will see that the number drawn out was clearly that of Mr. Ralph Howell. A mistake was subsequently made, for which there has been an apology. I do not know how lucky the hon. Gentleman is in ballots—I have never been successful—but if he waits a while he can see whether he is successful today.
Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to be said on that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether your in-tray has, like mine, been burdened with a glossy piece of paper known as a baby Maastricht. The Foreign Office has called the document "Britain in Europe—the European Community and Your Future". If you have yet to receive a copy, you will be pleased to know that you can get one free through Freepost. However, if you were to scan its pages, I believe that you would be less than pleased as it is not objective, but blatant propaganda. I shall not weary the House with several examples of propaganda; I will give just one. It states:
"Aren't we on a slippery slope to federalism?"
896
The Government say, "No", but we know that Martin Bangemann says, "Yes"—
Mr. Bob Cryer: And he was speaking the truth.
Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman says—
Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order must be directed to me. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has raised points of order hundreds of times and knows the procedure.
Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Although I have been a Member for a long time, I am distracted from time to time, for which I apologise.
The leaflet is propaganda. I have obtained from the Library the background on the Governments information service which sets out the rules under which they must operate. It states that some conventions have been established and
"Government publicity should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical"—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the time of the House. I am patient when listening to points of order, but the hon. Gentleman has not yet come to his. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case with me, but he is not in a position to do that. If he has a point of order for me, he must come directly to it or I shall ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Marlow: Madam Speaker, have you been asked by the Foreign Secretary whether he can give a statement on why the guidelines have been abused and why taxpayers' money is being provided to produce propaganda for circulation to taxpayers? If the Foreign Secretary has not requested a statement, what action is available to the House to stop the abuse?
Madam Speaker: The latter question must be put to the Foreign Secretary, not the Chair. The answer to the earlier question is no—the Foreign Secretary has not informed me of a statement. No Minister asks me about a statement; I am informed when a statement is to be made. I have not been so informed.
We shall now move on to the ballot for notices of motions to see whether the hon. Member for Ogmore can be lucky this time.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER 1992
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Tam Dalyell
Mr. Roger Knapman
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

General Election Expenses Reform
4.46 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; and for connected purposes.
Many hon. Members have travelled worldwide to observe the electoral processes of many of the newly democratised countries. We have rarely found anything to complain about in their newly minted democratic systems. But I wonder what the verdict of observers from Romania, Estonia and Hungary might be on our electoral system, had they been here in April. I believe that they would have said that the system was basically sound, but long overdue for care and maintenance, especially in its weakest sector—its failure to control national spending.
We have just witnessed in the United States the power that money deployed in prodigious quantities can have to persuade one voter in five to vote for a previously little known candidate. In Britain we are in an extremely foolish position. For more than 100 years we have rigidly controlled local spending by individual candidates. That reform was introduced to end the practice then known as bribing and treating, which dishonoured the electoral process in the last century. Since 1974 an aberration in the law has allowed parties to spend unlimited sums of money on so-called national spending, which means that spending is allowed on publicity which mentions the party's name, but not the candidate's name.
Not surprisingly, since that time national spending has increased and local spending has decreased. At the last two elections, for every £1 spent locally £8 was spent nationally. The law frets and worries about the minnows while the great fat salmon sail by unhindered. The most authoritative calculation that I can find on the comparative spending of the three main parties in the last two general elections is that for every £1 spent by the Liberal Democrats, Labour spent £4 and the Conservative party spent £9—more that all other parties combined.
At an election the incumbent party already has enormous advantages. Earlier, there was a point of order about the possible use of Government money for propaganda. A great avalanche of Government so-called advertising precedes a general election. The Government have an obedient press and control of their own advertising in a friendly poster industry. The advantage of the richest party is magnified to an even greater extent because the so-called national advertising is concentrated in the 100-plus key marginal constituencies which determine the election result.
I have searched for some scientific analysis of how persuasive were the "double whammy" and "tax bombshell" posters in April. There is none, but subjective evidence shows that that message was repeated on many billboards and, although it was dishonest, it had an enormous effect in influencing people's voting choice. However, there is an even greater threat to the integrity of our system—the way in which the poster sites were distributed. Three huge blocks of valuable poster sites were booked in the name of commercial companies before the date of the general election was announced, and many of them were booked without the knowledge or consent of those companies.
898
The most significant feature was that 2,000 poster sites were booked in the name of the Imperial Tobacco Company which immediately handed over those sites to be used by the Conservative party. In a frank statement, Mr. Peter Middleton, the marketing manager of that company said that as Labour and the Liberal democrats had said that they would support a ban on tobacco advertising, the company would like to see the Conservatives re-elected because it believed that they would continue to oppose the advertising ban.
The refusal to support a ban on advertising is one of the promises that the Government have honoured, and they continue—quite disgracefully and against all the evidence and public opinion—to oppose such a ban. The greatest threat is that there is nothing to prevent an individual, a company or even a country with enormous amounts of money, however malign their intentions or anti-social their views, to enter the British electoral system and spend millions£there is no limit whatever—to persuade voters. Our system, if it is not yet corrupted, is wide open and inviting corruption to come in. Vote buying is returning to British elections.
The remedy that the Bill provides is the establishment of a national registration system for political parties. So out of touch is the law that at present it does not even recognise the existence of political parties. The Bill seeks an electoral commission to oversee all national expenditure limits. Each party would appoint a national agent to be legally responsible for ensuring that limits are not exceeded. Those controls would be based on the number of candidates fielded by each party. The Bill's general sentiments have been publicly supported over and over again by all main British parties except one£the party which gains most from the present system.
Last week in my constituency, we commemorated the 153rd anniversary of the martyrdom of 20 Chartists who died when they demonstrated outside the Westgate hotel. That commemoration of those brave men and women who gave their lives for what they said was a noble cause is held every year. They died in the cause of protecting and strengthening the dishonoured democracy of their day. Democracy is a fragile organism and it needs the constant care and renewal that the Bill will provide.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mr. Flynn: Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, shades of the Newport Chartists, John Frost, Henry Vincent, George Shell and Zephaniah Williams—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must start again, giving the names of hon. Members who will bring in the Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

GENERAL ELECTION EXPENSES REFORM
Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to control general election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; and for connected purposes; And the

899
same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 81].

Orders of the Day

  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a modest and technical measure and, if I may presume to say so, it is narrow. It will amend the court procedures for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders by magistrates courts. It will enable orders for maintenance to be enforced where one party is resident in the United Kingdom and the other party is resident in a country with which the United Kingdom has a reciprocal agreement. Until this amendment is made, a number of people will be unable to obtain the maintenance for themselves and their children to which they are entitled.
  The Bill consists of four clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 will bring into effect the substantive amendments contained in schedule 1. Clause 2 will bring into effect the consequential amendments to other legislation set out in schedule 2. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for commencement and the short title of the Bill respectively. Schedule 1 contains the substantive changes to be brought into effect by the Bill. Part I amends the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and part II amends the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. Schedule 3 is a schedule of consequential repeals. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Minister explain how that rather sorry state of affairs came about?
  Mr. Taylor: Certainly. That state of affairs, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, was debated in the other place. As the House wants a candid answer, I must say that it was an oversight made in good faith.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: We are grateful to the Minister for his candour. What occurred was a legislative cock-up of the most monumental proportions. [Interruption.] I see one of the silent ones telling me to calm down. I am not getting over-excited, at least not yet, but it is a bit rich for the Government to present only now, almost a year after the Children Act 1989 came into force on 14 October 1990, a Bill that addresses an issue that should have been addressed when the Children Act was considered both here and in the other House. Had it been so addressed, we should not have needed this Bill.
  As the Minister said, we are here because of an oversight in the drafting of legislation that ought not to have happened. We do not blame the Minister personally, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is someone to blame. Since 14 October last, it has not been possible to make a claim for maintenance under the reciprocal enforcement legislation because any such claim could not be processed as a result of someone's oversight in drafting.

  901
  It has not been possible to initiate proceedings under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 because they refer expressly to a complaints procedure that, as a result of the passing of the Children Act, no longer exists. Under that Act, all procedures have to be initiated by application. Therefore, in the past year or so, about 1,000 applicants have been adversely affected. There ought to be some parliamentary draftsman or Minister, past or present, whose ears are burning because of that oversight.
  The Minister said that the oversight might have occurred as a result of the speed with which the Children Act was dealt with, and the necessity to get it through. The Lord Chancellor said of the Children Act:
  "It was a very important stage and one which I would certainly not have liked to have forgone for the sake of ensuring that it was absolutely complete."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1992; Vol. 1538, c. 349.]
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I seek some information from the hon. Gentleman. Will the 1,000 people who have been disadvantaged get back the money that they have lost?
  Mr. Boateng: No, they will not. The hon. Lady puts her finger on the point. For the past year, such people have been without remedy, and that is a cause for concern that I know she will share. Rather than being a party matter, that is one of those oversights that both Houses have a duty, when we are considering legislation, to ensure simply does not happen.
  It is no excuse for us to be told that the other place was in a hurry and had to get the Bill through. The whole point about starting Bills in the other place is that their Lordships are supposed not to be in a hurry. They are supposed to be at that wonderful stage in life when they can relax, take it easy and use their considerable endeavours in the unheated and uncontroversial atmosphere that is cultivated in the other place to give measures such as the Children Act the mature and reflective consideration that is required. In this instance, that clearly did not happen.
  Not surprisingly, the Opposition welcome the Bill, as the whole House will no doubt welcome it. As the Minister said, it is a modest measure, but it is worth while looking briefly at the context in which it is being introduced. Sadly, matrimonial breakdowns are all too common, resulting in more and more lone parents, whose plight is very real. It is the duty of the House to ensure that the arrangements for initiation of maintenance proceedings and the enforcement of resulting orders are effective.
  It is important not only that orders are effective in ensuring that those against whom they are made obey them and respect the order of the court but that the proceedings are brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, with the minimum delay, fuss and inconvenience. In so doing, one ensures not only that the parents or parties making the applications receive a rapid remedy to address the financial constraints in which they often find themselves, but that the cost to the public purse through the court system is minimised.
  At the moment, only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive regular payments of maintenance. Some research carried out in 1990 showed
  902
  that less than 10 per cent. of lone parents' income arises from maintenance, compared with 45 per cent. from income support and 23 per cent. from net earnings. The problem of family poverty as it is associated with the receipt and payment of maintenance to lone parents is a real one. To the extent to which this modest measure addresses that problem, it is welcome.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has put his finger on the problem—errant fathers in particular manage to leave the matrimonial home, abandon their children and expect the state to pick up the tab. I should like to address the House —shortly, as always—not on the subject of the Bill's extremely narrow purpose but on the way in which it will work—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the hon. Member goes down that path, let me point out that this is a Second Reading debate on a specific and narrow Bill. I hope that we shall not have a long and wide-ranging debate on matrimonial matters. I urge the hon. Member to stick to the Bill.
  Mr. Steen: Your rulings are always extremely helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have great foresight in their application. I took the liberty and, you may feel, the prudent step of checking with the Public Bill Office first about whether the speech that I hope that I shall be allowed to make would be permissible. I was advised that, as this is a Second Reading debate, the modest matters that I wish to raise would be in order. I have no doubt that if you feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in any way abusing the time of the House, you will mention it in your normal courteous way.
  At the outset, I said that this is a narrow Bill, dealing with a specific point which, as has been said, should have been dealt with before. None the less, it relies on magistrates courts for the execution of justice for those men and women who have been abandoned by their partner and whose children need maintenance and help from that partner. My concern is whether magistrates courts, the subject matter of this and the earlier Bill, can and should deal with such cases.
  I do not know whether other hon. Members have a similar problem, but three out of every 12 cases at my advice centres every fortnight involve women who have been abandoned by men who take no responsibility for their children, expecting the wife to look after them and the state to provide the maintenance for them.
  Two particular cases in the past couple of weeks clearly illustrate that point. Both concern the failure of magistrates courts to deal with serious matters of child maintenance. Magistrates seem to be inexperienced and to be advised by clerks who may not have the knowledge to deal with these matters. The result is that women who have been abandoned by men have been abandoned by the courts. The courts have not come to the aid of the abandoned women or their children but have supported the husbands, even though they have produced virtually no, or little, evidence to show that they cannot afford to look after their own children.
  A constituent of mine in Dartmouth was abandoned with three children, aged nine, seven and two and a half, by her husband who has paid nothing at all and who, at the

  903
  hearing, expected the magistrates court to take up the problem and turn to the state to help the lady with her children.
  Even worse is a case, which was drawn to my attention by Cornish and Company, a well-established firm of solicitors in Totnes, of a lady with one son whose husband has never paid any money for his son since he left the matrimonial home. He now owes hundreds of pounds, but the court wiped off the maintenance simply because it believed the husband's story, although there was virtually no evidence to support his claim that he could not afford to pay even £5 a week for his son. As a result, the mother has to work nights at the local hospital so that her son can have the little extras arid obtain the extra help that he needs for his education.
  I am trying to point out that women are being abandoned by men and that the state is allowing, that to happen and colluding with it by paying for the abandoned children. Husbands leave the matrimonial home and remarry and the magistrates court, because of its lack of experience, tends to say that the state should pay for the children of the first marriage, allowing the husband to get off scot free. That is a national problem.
  Rather than introducing this narrow Bill to provide for reciprocal arrangements around Europe and elsewhere, the Minister should show a particular interest—I know his concern in the matter because we have corresponded on it —in ensuring that magistrates courts are equipped to deal with such cases and do not allow their eyes to be closed when husbands come to court and avoid their responsibilities. That is what is happening in my area and probably in many other parts of the country.
  Three or four years ago, the former Prime Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put before the House a distressing case, but it is out side the bounds of the Bill, so I shall have to urge the Minister to continue the correspondence rather than to deal with the points from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Steen: I have the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you feel that I have made my point well enough and that the House wishes to move on to other things.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House does not want to move on to other things; it wants to stick to the Bill.
  Mr. Steen: I understand the point you make so tellingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I rest my case by saying that I do not believe that a magistrates court can deal with those matters. The Bill will not help it to deal with them. I am worried stiff about the increasing number of women who are being abandoned by husbands who expect the state to pick up the tab for their children.
  I urge the Minister to see what can be done to ensure that husbands who desert their wives and children take responsibility and pay for those children rather than expecting the state and the taxpayer to take on that responsibility.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is true that the Bill does not deal with some matters that are of great importance in respect of maintenance on which one would be interested to hear the Government's view
  904
  —for example, what they propose to do to tackle the problem of the high incidence of default which particularly affects those on low incomes and those with low awards.
  I rise not to seek to widen the debate but out of curiosity to know what lessons the Government have learnt from this rather unusual legislative episode. It is extraordinary to have an afternoon devoted to considering, in prime time, the defects of a Bill so recently before us that appears not to have thrown up any awareness of the need that the Bill addresses. It suggests that there is something wrong with the way in which the Children Act 1989 was considered.
  It is a matter of satisfaction that the Lord Chancellor's junior Minister, who is now a Member of this House, has introduced the debate and has some departmental responsibility for the Bill. That marks a considerable step forward, perhaps even to the avoidance of the kind of difficulty in which the House now finds itself. However, it raises other questions.
  We are clearly not debating simply a slip of drafting. A whole circumstance has been overlooked. It suggests that the Children Act was drafted in too much of a hurry and was not subjected to the usual kind of— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) will have an opportunity to intervene if he wishes and the Minister may feel it appropriate to answer the point.
  Consideration has been given to whether Bills, particularly technical Bills, should, as a matter of course, be considered by Select Committees before they are brought to the House for Second Reading, or after Second Reading, in order for evidence to be taken. Such a procedure might be suitable in a case of this kind to avoid the difficulty that has been experienced here. However, it occurs so rarely that the Minister may have some more mundane explanation.
  I am genuinely puzzled: it strikes me as extraordinary that such an obvious requirement was not spotted earlier, given the history of our procedures. We should try to learn from the omission and to devise scrutiny procedures that will prevent the time of the House from being taken up in this way. After all, we do not have a superfluity of time for primary legislation; many matters that others may consider more important are waiting in the queue, and no doubt some of those matters pertain to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  The Department may wish to consider the appropriateness of referring Bills of this kind—Bills that involve consequential changes to existing legislation—to the scrutiny of the Law Commission. It has the capacity—although not, perhaps, the resources—to give further consideration to whether the form of the legislation is appropriate. It is not entirely reasonable to expect us to pick up certain technical matters in Standing Committee; such matters require the technical advice of a body such as the Law Commission.
  That prompts me to ask whether the Lord Chancellor's Department is considering a better method of scrutinising what might be described as law reform measures. As was suggested in the other place by Lord Hailsham, this kind of piecemeal approach makes the statute book extrernely difficult for the practitioner to manage. We now have two Acts where one would have done, and the second introduces most of its substantial modifications very obscurely by means of schedules. That is a far from ideal way of legislating, but it exemplifies a practice that—alas —is becoming too common.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described the Bill as a modest measure. To acquaint myself with it, I consulted the report of the Second Reading debate in the other place. I observed that it took up five columns of Hansard. The report was followed by a report of their lordships' debate on court practice—the wearing of wigs and gowns—which took up not five but 25 columns.
  Although that may support the claim that it is a modest measure, the Bill raises issues which are far from modest and whose importance is likely to increase, both in this country and throughout Europe. I feel that the reciprocal arrangements may not be adequate, and may need to be complimented in the near future by legislation above national level—possibly Europewide legislation. The demography of our times will make measures such as this far more important. It is not just a British concern; I understand that the courts are also concerned with foreign nationals who may come to Britain—often from other EC countries—and against whom their spouses or ex-spouses in those countries may make orders.
  Between 1960 and 1985—no more up-to-date figures are available—the divorce rate quadrupled throughout the EC countries. In the EC countries as a whole, one in 10 families with children is now a one-parent family. Of course, the rate is far higher in this country. One of the reasons why I welcome the Bill—despite the circumstances in which we are debating it—is its importance to family life in Britain and in Europe as a whole. It also deals with what, sadly, will become an increasingly important aspect of family law.
  By a sad coincidence, the increase in family breakdowns is occurring at a time of greater labour mobility across Europe. One of the features of the internal market, and of current European policy, is the way in which British people are encouraged to work in other European countries—and, indeed, other Europeans are encouraged to work in Britain. Because of that, there will be more opportunities for men, in particular, to leave their families behind and to escape maintenance obligations.
  A more complicated scenario may also arise. Let us suppose that a British family follows the father's work to Brussels or Milan, and the marriage breaks up in that foreign city. The father may go on to another European country, leaving a family who may wish to return to Britain. The issues raised in the Bill are more important than we assume. As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) pointed out, it is difficult enough to enforce the relevant obligations in this country; how much more difficult will it be when families are scattered across Europe, and questions of jurisdiction arise relating to access, custody and maintenance? Those are substantial issues, and it does not surprise me to learn that the European Commission is beginning to commission studies of them.
  A social revolution involving family change is happening in Europe at approximately the same time as the revolution in labour and family mobility. That will make legislation such as this increasingly important. When the Child Support Act comes into force next April, fathers —the absent parent is usually the father—may find that, far from escaping their maintenance obligations as they often do now, they are asked by the new agency to pay £20, £30 or £40 a week, and rightly so. The chance of a job in
  906
  another part of Europe—or in Australia, New Zealand, or the United States—may then become very attractive financially. The current changes make the Bill more important than the House may assume, and it may need to be complemented by more far-reaching legislation in the future.
  The Bill is important for another reason. Throughout the world we are becoming increasingly concerned about children's welfare, and about the child poverty which has already been described. That is not a uniquely British phenomenon, but 70 per cent. of British children in one-parent families depend on income support, and—as has already been said—most do not receive maintenance. The legislation on child support and maintenance that has been introduced in some American states, in New Zealand, in Australia and in other parts of Europe demonstrates increasing awareness about children's welfare. We need to recognise the obligations of the state in regard to social security and employment training; we also need to recognise the duties and responsibilities of parents.
  Mr. Steen: On the wages paid to the average person in this country, a man who abandons his children and then remarries often cannot pay for the maintenance of both families. Another problem is that the magistrates courts are not necessarily the right people to pursue husbands who can afford to pay maintenance. The hon. Gentleman has raised some even more complicated issues, and he was right to do so. Answers need to be given.
  Mr. Wicks: I agreed with the hon. Gentleman's first point. On any wages which are other than fabulous, it is particularly difficult to support two families at a time of economic recession. The Child Support Act contains a necessarily complicated formula to try to deal with the dual obligations of such parents, which we shall no doubt discuss when the Act is implemented. My judgment, however, and the judgment of the legislation, is that that should not enable him—or, sometimes, her—to escape duties towards the first children.
  Some people might adopt a harsher tone and say that if legislation such as this makes it difficult for a father to father a second group of children, it may be right and proper that he should think twice before doing so. We are dealing, however, with very complex matters and my argument is that they will grow more complex and become more of a challenge for the House.
  Britain is not alone in facing these issues. Throughout the world, Governments are trying to get to grips with them. At the heart of it, there has to be a new definition of what a parent's rights and responsibilities are. I for one £faced with the appalling evidence of child poverty, which could grow worse, given the family changes that I have mentioned£think that we have to be tough-minded about enforcing parental obligations. Therefore, I welcome this admittedly modest measure.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: This measure has been introduced as a small technical measure although, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said, it touches on a wide range of issues which go beyond the merely technical. I listened to his speech with considerable interest and considerable agreement.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department told us that this issue should have been

  907
  addressed in the Children Act 1989 and that the oversight stems from its omission. I cannot forbear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from remarking that Northern Ireland is at least fortunate in having no equivalent to the Children Act, even though we have been pressing in Northern Ireland for some time for equivalent legislation, but that is a passing complaint.
  I noted with particular interest the comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) regarding the style of the legislation and the manner of its enactment. I endorse entirely what he said about the drafting style. The modern legislative drafting style is getting worse and worse. In places, the Bill is almost unintelligible. I see no reason why its substantive provisions cannot be placed in the clauses. I do not know why so many of them are buried in schedules, in a way that is particularly difficult to follow.
  I noted also the hon. Gentleman's comment that technical measures such as this ought to be considered by a Select Committee, or referred to other bodies. It reminds me of a comment that was made, I believe, by the Foreign Secretary at a fringe meeting of his party's conference the year before last, when he suggested that there was a case for referring a number of measures to Special Standing Committees of this House instead of having the Standing Committee procedure which mirrors the normal Second Reading style of debate. It would be well worth looking into that suggestion.
  I rise to speak on the Bill for, I regret to say, entirely parochial reasons. This measure also extends to Northern Ireland. Admittedly, it does so only with regard to the provisions for variation and revocation of maintenance orders, the substance of which I welcome. The fact that this primary legislation will go through its normal stages of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and so on and contain within it provisions which apply to Northern Ireland is very welcome. For many years, those of us who sit on this Bench have complained about the iniquitous system of legislating for Northern Ireland by means of Orders in Council which are only perfunctorily debated and cannot be amended.
  When we complain, one of the reasons given for needing Orders in Council for Northern Ireland is that that procedure maintains the integrity of the statute book in Northern Ireland—in other words, that the Northern Ireland statutes contain Orders in Council and that there will be no interference with Northern Ireland legislation by United Kingdom legislation. The Bill, however, extends to Northern Ireland and amends Orders in Council. Consequently, it interferes with the so-called integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book.
  I do not complain about that—I commend it. It demonstrates what we on this Bench have said time and time again—that there is absolutely no reason why legislation for Northern Ireland cannot be made in the normal way. We welcome in particular that aspect of this measure and hope that it will increasingly be a model for other measures.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Boateng: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been a short, although important, debate. As it developed, it demonstrated to the wider world one of the advantages that we have in this place —we are able to draw on the experience that hon.
  908
  Members gain in their constituency surgeries. We are also able to draw on their clearly displayed—I refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks)—knowledge, which is deep and detailed, of a subject that has led to legislation such as this. It has been a good debate.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) called into question, rightly so with respect to the history of this legislation, our having any complacency about the efficacy of our procedures for checking and overseeing the stages of the legislative process, in order to ensure that drafting and content oversights such as this—it goes as deep as that—are not repeated.
  One of the odd features about the passage of the Bill is that, even when this matter was brought before the other House to deal with the oversight in the Children Act, it was necessary for their Lordships to consider on Report no fewer than 15 amendments to the Bill as it was after Second Reading in the other place. It is incredible that it was found necessary to amend it 15 times after its Second Reading.
  Hon. Members will have read the proceedings on Second Reading and Report in the other place and seen that their Lordships proceeded at a fast pace—at considerably more than a gallop on the part of the Lord Chancellor. Such a speed would have done credit to a participant in the Derby. The way in which their Lordships went through those amendments was incredible.
  I make no complaint about that, provided that we can be absolutely sure that their Lordships got it right and that we shall not find next year, or the year after, that again we have to go through that which we seek to achieve on this occasion. I anticipate—for it requires no great foresight—that we shall not spend all that much time on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
  When the Minister responds to the points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I hope that he will state clearly that he and his Department are satisfied that the matter has now been dealt with, that the Bill is in its final state and that we shall not have to come back here, years hence, to deal with it again.
  I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. He was absolutely right to set the debate about reciprocal arrangements in a European context. In July this year., a report was published by the Family and Policy Studies Centre entitled "Lone Parents in the European Community", of which my hon. Friend is aware. The evidence is that report makes it clear that lone parenting is likely to become an even more important issue in Europe in the next few decades as a result of rising divorce rates and an increased number of births outside marriage.
  The evidence suggests that the southern European countries are following the north. An examination of the figures for lone parents in Europe shows that there is a marked distinction between Greece, Spain and Italy, and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom heads the list, with 17 per cent. of families with children under 18 headed by a lone parent. The figures for Greece, Spain, Italy and southern Europe fall as low as 5 and 6 per cent. It is clear that the position is changing. The issue will not go away.
  It is important that we examine the reciprocal arrangements carefully and that we have the means to do so. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Lord Chancellor's Department will take on board the points made this afternoon in the debate and that this

  909
  important issue will be addressed effectively in the interests, above all, of the children and the deserted spouses.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the debate. Perhaps I should deal with the last point first. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked whether the Lord Chancellor's Department would take seriously the comments made in the debate this afternoon. I tell him and the other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to attend the debate that the answer is an emphatic yes. I am here to take careful note of some valuable points that have been made in the debate.
  I hope that the House will not consider it discourteous if I say that many of the matters raised in the debate—for perfectly understandable reasons—may fall just outside a strict interpretation of the Bill's narrow purposes, but I shall try to reply as best I can.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) addressed the issue constructively. He commenced his remarks by addressing the matter of default. I say to him with the seriousness that his comments merit that he knows as well as I do—it is a humbling thing to come to terms with—that, sadly, no amount of legislation and rejigging even of the jurisdiction and practices of magistrates can stop marriages breaking down or people behaving thoroughly unpleasantly towards each other and defaulting and welshing on their obligations to members of their families. That is part of the original sin of the subject, and we all know it.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks about the job that I have been asked to do and the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Department is for the first time directly represented in the House of Commons. I always thought that it was important for the Lord Chancellor's Department to be represented in this House, but I did not know that I would be given the job.
  I accept what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said about scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were about the complexity of the statute book and were similar to those made by the Lord Hailsham in another place. As the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished law practitioner, he might follow me if I said that most practitioners in this subject, who are probably specialists, would be more inclined to use "Stone's Justices' Manual" than the statute book.
  I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on his excellent and thoughtful speech. Clearly, he knows the subject well. As he developed his remarks into wider jurisdictions, he may be interested to know that the present score is that the United Kingdom has reciprocity with 100 jurisdictions. But that position will develop. We will need to examine the position closely and take the new opportunities where they arise.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West may also be reassured, as will the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, that in the other place the Lord Chancellor undertook to examine the possibility of consolidating this law. Meanwhile, I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West for his thoughtful contribution.
  910
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) correctly distinguished the position in Northern Ireland. As he rightly pointed out, apart from the provisions on variation and revocation of orders which also apply in Northern Ireland, the amendments in the Bill affect only proceedings in magistrates courts in England and Wales. I noted the pleasure with which the hon. Gentleman welcomed the references to Northern Ireland in the primary legislation. That point was not lost on us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is, to his eternal credit, persistently concerned about matrimonial welfare—I do not think that he will mind if I say persistently. I cannot comment on his individual cases. But if he would like to write to me, as he regularly does, I shall gladly examine them. He wondered whether magistrates courts were the right forum. Since 1920 magistrates courts have been dealing with the narrow range of cases that we are discussing today.
  The Bill aims not to change policy but to deal with procedural changes—that is a rather negative remark. I shall tell my hon. Friend something more encouraging. The child support agency, which will deal with domestic maintenance claims in the future and seek to improve the enforcement of them, will be set up with effect from 5 April 1993. I am sure that my hon. Friend would prefer the agency to be set up at the end of next week. The agency will have a valuable role. None of us are relaxed in the slightest about the degree of default and the difficulties of enforcement.
  The Government's White Paper entitled "A New Framework for Local Justice" says much about improving best practice in magistrates courts and bringing all of them up to somewhere near the best, with an inspectorate to follow through.
  Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is not in her place. However, I shall answer her intervention about maintenance and the position of those who may have been put in difficulty by the legislative need of repair. Maintenance is payable for the period for which it is claimed. It is therefore payable in respect of the periods both before and after the commencement of the Bill.
  I interpret that rather cryptic advice to mean that people will not lose in the circumstances described. I hope that that is true, but I shall certainly research the matter.
  I end my speech as I began it, by responding to the hon. Member for Brent, South. At the risk of saying this twice, I tell him that Parliament overlooked the deficiency to which I referred in my opening speech and which I dealt with candidly. I do not seek to step aside in any way from that reality. There was an oversight, but it was committed in good faith, and we have brought the remedy before the House as fast as we could. With the good will of the House, we shall secure that remedy today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made—[Mr. John M. Taylor]—and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  5.52pm
  Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being so candid with the House and for the generous things that he said he would do as a result of the many contributions that have been made from both sides of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

  Registered Homes (Northern Ireland)
  5.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
  My noble Friend Lord Arran, who now has responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, will introduce this order in another place, but it is my pleasure to introduce it to the House this evening. It covers a narrow and specific field—that of the regulation of standards of care in registered homes.
  It strengthens, updates and replaces the existing Northern Ireland legislation on the registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes in the private and voluntary sectors. Those homes provide accommodation and care for a wide range of people who are unable to continue living independently in their own homes because of old age and infirmity, illness or disabilities.
  It may be helpful to the House if I take a few minutes to outline the background to the order and say a few words about those new provisions that will strengthen the powers of registering authorities in Northern Ireland—the four health and social services boards—to register and inspect private and voluntary homes.
  In late 1988 and early 1989, the Department of Health and Social Services conducted a review of existing Northern Ireland legislation relating to the registration and inspection of private and voluntary sector homes. The review was prompted at the time by two main factors. The first of these was the very substantial increase in recent years in the number of such homes in Northern Ireland, which led to growing pressure on the boards to ensure that satisfactory standards of care were being maintained. The second main factor was the more up-to-date legislative provisions made in England and Wales through the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated subordinate legislation compared with the legislation in Northern Ireland dating from the early 1970s.
  As part of that review, the Department issued a comprehensive consultative paper which invited comment from a wide range of interested statutory, voluntary and private sector organisations and individuals. About 100 responses were received. Although the responses revealed differences of opinion and emphasis on individual matters of detail, it was clear that there was widespread support for the view that the existing legislation needed to be strengthened and brought broadly into line with the 1984 Act.
  The order includes a number of new provisions that strengthen the boards' ability to ensure that private and voluntary sector homes deliver satisfactory standards of care to their residents or patients. It provides for the registration of both the person or organisation in control of a home and, where different, the manager. It also enables the Department by regulation to require notice to be given during prolonged absence of the registered person or persons.
  The order also provides for dual registration of a home as both a residential care home and a nursing home, so that, for example, elderly clients who become ill or more frail and therefore in need of nursing care do not have to

  913
  move out of what could be called their home. It introduces a procedure for the urgent cancellation of a registration in cases where a justice of the peace is satisfied that the residents are at serious risk. It also gives inspectors authorised by the Department a right of entry at all times to private and voluntary sector residential care and nursing homes.
  The order enables the Department of Health and Social Services, for the first time, to prescribe by regulation registration fees and annual fees for residential care homes and annual fees for nursing homes. Current legislation provides only for the charging of registration fees for nursing homes. The introduction of fees will help, as far as is practicable, to make the boards' work of regulating the homes self-financing. The order also establishes a registered homes tribunal to hear appeals from proprietors of private and voluntary homes against decisions of the boards.
  The order will, for the most part, bring Northern Ireland into line with the legislation on the regulation of similar homes in England and Wales—the Registered Homes Act 1984, to which I have already referred. It also takes account of the provisions of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain to the House the basic difference between the regulation before the House and those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he inform the House what all the talk concerning appointing a key worker for each individual in the homes is about? How much will it cost, and will the homes have to pay for it?
  Mr. Hanley: I shall take advice on the matter and reply to the hon. Gentleman during the evening.
  The equivalent provisions in the order are intended to provide the minimum controls necessary to prevent unsuitable people from operating small residential care homes for fewer than four people. Under existing legislation in Northern Ireland, such small homes have always had to be registered.
  The provisions are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from any unscrupulous owners of small homes, without subjecting families who are participating in such worthwhile schemes as the stay-a-while scheme for elderly people and adult placement schemes for mentally handicapped people to the full rigours of registration applied to the owners of larger homes.
  The order re-enacts the existing powers of the Department to make regulations in relation to the conduct of homes. Although the primary legislation provides, therefore, the legislative framework for the monitoring of standards of care and accommodation in private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes, it will nevertheless, like the 1984 Act, need to be underpinned by detailed regulations to be made by the Department on matters such as the records to be kept in homes, the registers, consultation with fire authorities, the provision of services and facilities, religious observance, the notification of death, serious accident or illness of residents or patients, complaints procedures and the frequency of inspections.
  The order also provides a convenient vehicle for an amendment to the Health and Personal Social Services
  914
  (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which is required to ensure that the Department and health and social services boards have unequivocal powers to contract for the provision of health and personal social services with private and voluntary sector providers.
  This amendment is contained in paragraph 2(1) and (2) of schedule 1 to the order. Although this amendment can only be related loosely to the other provisions of the order, it is required as a matter of urgency following legal advice that the existing contractual powers in the 1972 order are open to challenge.
  The proposal for a draft order was published for comment on 30 January 1992. There were only 13 replies. All welcomed the general content of the draft order, but there were some comments and suggestions about individual provisions.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: My point is not directly relevant to the order, but this debate is an opportunity to make a point about a nursing home in my constituency which does a tremendous job in serving many people. It is 300 yards from the main road, and for years the Department of the Environment has refused to salt the road from the main road to the entrance to the nursing home. Throughout the year, doctors have to call, ambulances have to call and nurses have to travel to the home at all times of the day and night, yet the Department has made this stupid decision. Will the Minister take that point on board in relation to all nursing homes and not only in relation to the one I have talked about?
  Mr. John D. Taylor: What is salt for the goose is salt for the gander.
  Mr. Mallon: What is salt for the goose is salt for all ganders. The point is worth considering and this is an opportunity to enlist the Minister's help in dealing with it.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I assure him that, if he writes to me, I shall ensure that the matter is dealt with by my Lord Arran in its health and social services aspects and by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in its Department of the Environment aspects. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall ensure that answers are given to his questions.
  I was saying that when the draft order was published for comment earlier this year, only 13 replies were received, which were generally supportive. I am most grateful to those who examined the proposals scrupulously in the interests of some of our most vulnerable citizens. I am grateful for those representations, because a few minor amendments were required as a result of the consultations. That has helped to improve the order.
  It may seem surprising that the proposed legislation—
  Mr. Taylor: It is interesting that the Minister agreed to make some amendments to the order as a result of representations from 13 parties. Is he prepared to make any changes to the order as a result of representations from elected Members this evening?
  Mr. Hanley: Of the 13 representations we received on the order, not one came from a Member of this House.
  Mr. Taylor: I must push the Minister to answer the people of Northern Ireland honestly because he has avoided answering the question. Will the Minister agree to

  915
  any amendments to the order expressed by any elected Member this evening, whether on the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Democratic Unionist or Ulster Unionist Benches?
  Mr. Hanley: I have given the right hon. Gentleman my answer. Representations have been made. The time scale for representations has now ended and the order is before the House tonight. The right hon. Gentleman knows the procedure of legislation, so he knows exactly what will happen tonight. If he wishes to press for a Division on an order that has been amended thanks to representations, I need say no more.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I do not want the Minister to be led into putting incorrect information on the record. I know that he has a problem because he is speaking today on behalf of a Minister in another place. I for one have made representations to the Department on many issues in the order.
  Mr. Hanley: With respect, that is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of being most constructive in his advice. His brother, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), also has a long record of giving advice to the Department on these matters —I readily admit that. However, of the 13 representations that related solely to the order, not one came from an elected Member. If my information is wrong, I shall willingly apologise to the hon. Gentleman in writing.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am not attempting to catch the Minister on the hop because I know that the matter is not his direct responsibility, although he answers in this House for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), as I understand it, and I wrote to the Department on the issue and asked for the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association to be permitted to have a meeting with the Minister in another place. All three of us wrote asking for such a meeting, but to this day Lord Arran has refused to give us a meeting.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. As he readily admitted, I am not aware of that set of circumstances. I can only inquire. Naturally, I apologise to the House. I do not have responsibility for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, although I answer for those matters here. I shall use any provisions available to me to answer questions during the evening. I certainly need to seek advice from those who deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister makes inquiries, will he ask Lord Arran to hand over to him the large file which I presented to him? Will Lord Arran hand over to the Minister the correspondence about that file? Will he hand over his reply to the Minister so that the Minister can study it and see how the people concerned have been treated?
  I am sure that the Minister agrees that the order is intended to help all people who want to help the elderly and to run homes up to standard. I do not want to hear any Minister saying that we are pleading for special cases or that we are pleading that there should not be the right standards. That is not our business here tonight. We want
  916
  the highest possible standards, but we also want the people who have been engaged in the matter to be consulted and helped.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and I should like to answer a question that he raised earlier. He wanted to know the main difference between the order and the Registered Homes Act 1984. The order attempts to put the registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes on as much the same basis as possible. Unlike the 1984 Act, the order requires the manager of both types of home to be registered together with the persons who own or control the home.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wanted to know whether home owners would have to pay for the key workers required to be appointed by the board. Key workers will be appointed by boards under the new community care reforms from next April. They will be board employees who will have to keep under review the care needs of all vulnerable people, including those placed in homes. The hon. Member for Antrim, North was interested in the costs. The cost of case management and key worker provision will not be borne by proprietors of homes. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North also wanted to know why my noble Friend Lord Arran did not receive a delegation from the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. The association's representations were riot about the registered homes proposal. They were about allegations of how boards were treating home proprietors at the moment. That is different from the subject that we are concentrating on tonight. I shall willingly look into the statements made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and let him know about the other matter in due course.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There were representations on that very subject from 160 home owners controlling 3,600 beds. They were aware of the draft order but wanted their current problems to be addressed. Those homes have already been registered and the owners control 3,600 beds, but they cannot get to the Minister to make representations. That is the issue.
  Mr. Hanley: Knowing how willing my noble Friend Lord Arran is to meet people throughout the Province, I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's statement. I shall readily take up the hon. Gentleman's point with my noble Friend and I am sure that we can arrange a meeting in due course. The representations that we received were not about the registered homes proposal, so they were not specific to the legislation that we are considering tonight.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association is operating in the field covered by the order? It recognised deficiencies in the existing regime. It had some knowledge of the changes that were to be made and it wanted to make representations that would have affected the order. The association would like to address the Minister on many issues now and it would still like to meet the Minister. Many issues will be more dependent on the regulations that will ultimately appear as a result of the order. May lye have an undertaking that the Minister will meet the association, which represents 60 per cent. of the beds in their care in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Hanley: I shall certainly pass the comments of the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to my noble Friend Lord Arran and suggest that he does what the hon. Member for Belfast, East asked. As I said, I am surprised that that meeting has not taken place. However, we must remember that the health boards also deserve a meeting with the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. I hope that they will continue to talk to that association, because that is obviously the way to resolve grievances.
  The order will make a significant contribution towards safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable people living in private and voluntary sector homes in Northern Ireland. I believe that the order should be welcomed and I commend it to the House.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The order brings registered care homes in Northern Ireland into line with the legislation which applies throughout Great Britain. The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992, which began its passage in the other place and which was considered in Standing Committee in this place in June, laid down future plans for community care throughout the United Kingdom. The Government intend the community care reforms to be implemented in full on the same day throughout the United Kingdom next April.
  As the Minister said, private care homes have mushroomed throughout Northern Ireland as they have elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As the number of homes has increased, so have the problems. I want to refer to some of those problems and difficulties later.
  As I have said, Standing Committee E considered the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill in June and significant and important issues arose from those deliberations which apply to Northern Ireland through the order. They are important and significant because accountability in Northern Ireland in respect of registered homes is almost non-existent.
  The need for more accountability is clear from the questions that were put to the Minister. There were references to requests for meetings and observations. The Minister applied the rules and regulations about the consultation period having passed. Therefore, it is a matter of this order or nothing. The Minister made it clear that our only alternative in the House tonight is to vote against the order if we do not accept its terms and conditions.
  Paragraph 6 of the order states that the health boards must keep a register and specifies that it is the health boards' responsibility to maintain that register and keep it up to date. The local authorities in England and Wales are the registration authority for sheltered schemes.
  Paragraph 29 refers to inspections. It is the health boards' duty to ensure that inspections are carried out and that standards are maintained and, where necessary, improved. In addition to registering and inspecting residential care homes, health boards are also responsible for ensuring that people who do not require medical treatment in hospitals are discharged into nursing homes or residential care homes or into their own homes.
  The Minister said that the order also provides that people who can no longer maintain themselves in their own homes would be covered when they move into a registered home, whether in the voluntary sector or otherwise. Therefore, health boards have considerable
  918
  interest in the order. It is laid down in the order that health boards can also purchase residential care facilities on behalf of people whom they discharge from hospital.
  Health boards have authority to close hospital beds, including geriatric beds, and to discharge patients into the community, some to be cared for by relatives or friends and others to be cared for in private or voluntary residential or nursing homes. The Minister explained that that is part of the function of health boards. It is accepted also by the Minister that health boards purchase care from residential and nursing homes and that they also accept residential and nursing homes for registration. Therefore, to a large extent health boards set the standards which apply in private and voluntary residential and nursing homes. Health boards are responsible for inspecting homes. The Minister pointed out that one of the responsibilities of health boards is to appoint inspectors to monitor conditions in registered homes and the way in which they operate.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying—the health board will be the boss —but what will happen when a health board objects to a care home employing a certain person? We have very strict employment regulations in Northern Ireland, but if a health board says, "You cannot employ that person," and refuses to tell the owner or manager the reasons for that, the manager will be liable if the applicant takes out a case against him under the fair employment legislation.
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the board should take responsibility for refusing to allow the manager to employ a certain applicant? It should not be the responsibility of the home manager to face up to the fair employment legislation; it should be the responsibility of the board which refuses to allow him to employ that person.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter to which I intend to refer, because employment in such homes is significant and important. I hope to reveal that health boards are accountable only to the Minister and will direct operations in registered homes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue.
  The Minister mentioned inspections to be carried out by people who are appointed by health boards. Health boards will monitor the quality of services. That is part of their function. They will consider the state of a building and ask, "Is it clean, attractive and well heated?" Families will consider those issues when an elderly parent or a disabled relative seeks residential care. They will ask, "Is the building in a good state of repair? Is it decorated? Is it heated well? Are the rooms single or do people have to double up? Are private toilet facilities available in the bedrooms?" Many issues must be considered.
  People will ask, "Are the staff qualified? Are the employment regulations written down and made clear?" I have personal experience of this. Unqualified staff are employed in some homes because lower rates of pay apply to them. There are problems because of the shortage of qualified staff, particularly at night when there is a greater need for the surveillance and care of elderly and chronically sick people.
  Health boards are responsible for every aspect of registered homes. They create the need for private homes because they are closing hospital beds, particularly geriatric beds, and they then purchase care from those

  919
  homes. They are responsible for the registration and inspection of homes and for the standards of service in them. To a large extent, health boards are responsible for the charges that are set. Therefore, if a home closes because of substandard service or lack of staff, the health board could be responsible for taking care of the people who are discharged.
  It is accepted by the Minister that, because of the circumstances in a registered home, a health board might have to take steps to close it down. If it does that, those who are discharged could become the responsibility of the health board. Therefore, health boards will ensure that homes remain open, regardless of the standard of service or the standard of the home. The reason for that is accountability.
  In Northern Ireland there is no independent watchdog similar to the health councils in Great Britain, and no local authority committees exercise a watchdog role to supervise the provision of services and the condition of a home and to consider whether residents are happy there, whether they are receiving proper care and attention, and so on. Such accountability does not exist in the draft statutory instrument.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is absolutely no accountability in Northern Ireland in respect of the control and administration of our nursing homes and residential homes. The health boards are, of course, quangos. The personnel are appointed by the Minister and are answerable to him only. In no way are they answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. We have no say whatever in the health boards or in the way in which they carry out their affairs. I was glad to hear the spokesman for the official Opposition pinpoint that deficiency in public life in Northern Ireland. Should there ever be a Labour Government, will he be prepared to restore to the people of Northern Ireland participation in health boards?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the policies on which the Labour party campaigned earlier this year and at other elections, he will see that we believe that there should be accountability and that that accountability should be to the people who are employed in the service and to those who rely on the service. I refer to trade unions and to people who use the services. Accountability is very important if standards are to be maintained and if people are to have the care and protection that the homes should provide. When one authority is the agent for creating the homes, the agent for registering the homes, the agent for maintaining standards, the agent in many instances for setting the fees, and the agent for keeping the homes open, that is a serious problem which the Minister should address.
  Mr. Hanley: It would be wrong if we did not recognise that each health and social services board, as part of its "People First" community care changes, has established the registration and inspection unit at arm's length. I must stress that the unit is at arm's length. Therefore, it is totally separated from the management of the board's own homes as well as from the board's contracting departments. There is a Chinese wall, as it were, between the arm's length inspection unit and any of the other departments in the health boards, just as we find in a local council in England.
  920
  It would be wrong for anyone to give the impression that the inspection unit will be somehow tainted because of the board's other interests.
  There has been talk of there being no accountability. Health and social services councils are doing excellent work in the Province. No doubt they will take a deep interest, as they have traditionally over the years, in the activities of all sorts of home—board homes, voluntary homes and private homes. Therefore, the refusal of some people to recognise that health and social services councils exist and play a valuable role is less than fair.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Obviously questions arise from it. Who nominates the people in the arm's length organisation? Who nominates the people who sit on the care councils to which the Minister referred? How many are elected and how many are nominated? Will the Minister give some indication as to how the bodies are set up and to whom they are responsible?
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman puts a question which I believe I can answer because for the past six months I have been trying to find a way of devolving those responsibilities to the elected representatives within Northern Ireland. We are trying to devolve those responsibilities by agreement with all the parties in Northern Ireland. Until that time, we shall administer fairly the government of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Minister is now admitting that for six months he has been trying to get representation on these boards—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I am sure that the spokesman For Her Majesty's Opposition, who is developing the theme in a way which will appeal to us in Northern Ireland, Will agree with me that not only are the health boards appointed by the Minister but that it is dishonest of the Minister to try to give the impression that the health and social services councils are distinct, independent and separate from his administration. Does the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) agree that it is the Minister who appoints also all the members of the health and social services councils and that they are also quangos whose members are yes-men and not answerable to the people of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Hanley rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I will allow the Minister to answer that point in a moment. First, I want to put another question to him. Is it a fact that over the past few months some members of health boards and of the various councils have been removed because of their views on some issues? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in addition to the point made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. Hanley: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that all the members of the health and social services councils are yes-men. That is deeply insulting to the dedicated people, many of them district councillors, who work on the health and social services councils. It is extremely unfair to speak in that way of those who carry out that task.

  921
  In regard to inspection units, I am intervening to answer points now rather than leave them to the end when some hon. Members may have departed. Standards are governed by subordinate legislation and by guidelines prepared by responsible professional bodies. I am talking about guidelines such as "Home Life" and "Homes are for Living In", which have been published. In addition, the work of the arm's-length inspection units will be monitored. Indeed, they are being monitored by the Department's social services inspectorate and also by the nursing advisory group which I met not long ago. Also, each board has had to establish an advisory committee to provide a link between the units and the public interest.
  It would be wrong to try to give the impression that somehow the inspection units are tainted. They are doing and will do valuable work. I should not like confidence in their work to be tainted by any deficiencies which may be commented on in the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Interventions have been very long. I have allowed them to go on because I thought that it was helpful to the debate. However, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that interventions are not supposed to be as long as those that we have heard.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that we have a further five hours available for debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.
  Mr. O'Brien: The significance of that must be that hon. Members have a great deal to contribute to the debate and that much will be said on the points made by the Minister, particularly about the arm's-length inspectorate. I assure the Minister that no hon. Member would seek to taint the work of the people who are employed by the inspectorate. We are concerned about their terms of reference and the fact that they are responsible to the Department or to the health boards. Obviously they have to work within the terms of reference set by the Department or by the health boards.
  It is against that backcloth that I make the point that there should be more accountability and some local input into how the homes are supervised, maintained and inspected. However much the Minister intervenes and tries to explain how the quangos work, every road goes back to the Department or to the health boards. I should like to see that changed and more democracy and accountability introduced. I sense from the issues raised as a result of the Minister's interventions that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want some accountability for the way in which the order is applied.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me, as an elected representative from Northern Ireland, that I am alarmed at what has happened to a delegation I met? If they raise matters with the board, they and their homes are harassed. One man, who was on the executive of the body, always had a clean bill of health. Immediately he took part in making representations to his Member of Parliament, the board came down on him. Inspectors were sent in and he was told that he was doing everything wrong. One person told me that he was taking no further part because it would place
  922
  his home and his livelihood in jeopardy, which demonstrates the massive power of the board. That power must be limited.
  Mr. O'Brien: If trade unions representing people employed in homes and services provided by the health boards were allowed to give evidence and to make representations without the fears outlined by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), we would have a different picture of the case that the Minister has presented for supporting the order.
  The Minister should widen the representations. There should be consultation and meetings. We were told that only 13 representations were made during the consultation period. This legislation is important and it will apply to all private and voluntary registered nursing homes in Northern Ireland. Yet when people were asked to make representations there was a lack of response. One reason is that people were afraid of the repercussions, because of their employment or their involvement with the various boards.
  Mr. Hanley: I hesitate to intervene again, but I must make it clear that the new legislation will make it easier for home owners to appeal against decisions taken by boards' registration and inspection units, because it will set up a registered homes appeals tribunal, which will benefit from a panel of professional experts who will doubtless build up a body of useful case law. We are establishing a system which will be fairer to home owners.
  Lastly—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman mentioned 13 representations. There were 13 on the draft order, but there were more than 100 replies to the broad consultations carried out before the order was drafted. There have been wider consultations and responses.
  Mr. O'Brien: What will be the make-up of the appeals tribunals? How will the panel be chosen and what will be the deciding factors? Will the Department or the health boards decide on the arrangements for setting up tribunals? Further accountability is necessary in all the matters that we have mentioned.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that once an order is published in draft form, there is widespread recognition throughout Northern Ireland that any consultation is a farce and that no further meaningful changes will be made to it? That is why such a small number made further contributions.
  Mr. O'Brien: I must bow to the experience and knowledge of local people, because they are nearer to the situation than I. There has been a lack of interest and of co-operation because the people of Northern Ireland fear that when an order is drafted and the purpose of the order is implemented, everything changes. The Minister has outlined certain principles, but it appears that there is a lack of spirit and principle in the Province. I shall allow the Minister to intervene to say that that is not correct. If it is, the Minister ought to join us to demand increased accountability.
  The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to better facilities and services. The health boards are accountable to the Minister or to the Department of Health and Social Services, and if changes are to be made or there are any criticisms of the health boards, the Minister should be answerable.

  923
  Relatives and friends of people in the homes and the residents have little or no say or influence in services or in the way in which homes are run. In many cases, organisations have been set up within homes to try to improve services and to maintain facilities.
  I should like to think that the greater involvement of relatives, friends and residents would result from the legislation. If the Minister believes that that is one way in which services should be provided, perhaps he will assure us that such a facility will be made available.
  Hon. Members present in the Chamber who are worried by the lack of support and accountability want the Minister to say that he will take back the statutory instrument and write greater accountability into it.
  Sir James Kilfedder: As I have expressed hostility to the Eastern health and social services board in my area on many occasions, and although there has been a friction between me and the Earl of Arran—the Minister responsible for health in another place—I may speak with an independent voice. I would not ask the Minister to take the order back. He said that the elderly are among the most vulnerable in our community and I agree. Their welfare is paramount. If the statutory instrument in any way protects them from unscrupulous owners of residential care homes, I welcome it. It is an improvement on existing legislation. I have made many representations to the Department of Health and Social Services and to the board about homes. I am concerned about the standards imposed in some homes. The order is not perfect, but let us pass it, operate it and then try to get something more perfect still.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have no reason to doubt the hon. Member's sincerity about maintaining care accommodation for the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled. If he thinks that the order will improve facilities, I hope that my contribution has pointed out the dangers inherent in the instrument—dangers which could result in a deterioration in facilities and services. Because we have the interests of the most vulnerable people at heart, I ask the Minister to look at the order in detail.
  If the hon. Member for North Down (Sir James Kilfedder) has read the order, he will see that paragraph 29 gives almighty power to the health boards. I fear that tomorrow, together with other public expenditure bodies in Northern Ireland, the health boards will find that they have to trim their expenditure. If so, the order will do nothing to improve the services—and hence the lot—of the elderly, sick and disabled in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman believes otherwise, he is misled, but that is up to him.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I fully concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I should make it abundantly clear that a corpus of law relating to the registration, carrying on and inspection of homes in Northern Ireland is already on the statute book. If we are to make changes, it is far better to get it right and to ensure that orders which we pass in the House have real meaning and effect and do not exacerbate the problems.
  Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister said, the order will amend certain laws which now apply to inspections of and applications for homes and how homes are run. It brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom and the legislation passed in the House of Lords,
  924
  which has gone through the Committee stage of this House. We are now providing facilities for community care in Northern Ireland in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is that local authorities have an input into community care in the rest of the United Kingdom which they do not have in Northern Ireland. Against that background, I stress that there are dangers in what we are discussing tonight.
  A group called Disability Action, which is an alliance of all the groups in Northern Ireland interested in promoting the rights of disabled people, whom the order covers, has published a commentary on a report drawn up by the policy, planning and research unit—an in-house Government research body set up by various Departments in 1988. Its first report on the prevalence of disability among adults in Northern Ireland says:
  "The evidence now being published from this Study"—
  a study carried out by a body set up by the Government—
  "commissioned by Government, is a landmark in the development of policies which will address the real issues faced by disabled people in Northern Ireland … The essential message is that the rate of disability among the adult population is 20 per cent. higher than in Britain, between one fifth and one sixth of adults are disabled and that by virtue of living in Northern Ireland a person has a 56 per cent. greater chance of being disabled than someone living in Britain. It argues that these facts put disability at the heart of social and economic policy debate in Northern Ireland. Disability is in a real sense, an essential measure of the state of Northern Irish Society and should be treated as such."
  I do not know whether Disability Action was on the list of those who contributed to the consultation procedure. If not, the document should be given careful consideration. It says:
  "There is a very close link between disability and ageing; the older someone is, the more likely they are to be disabled." Therefore, the crux of what we are discussing today is covered by that document, published by a voluntary body which cares for disabled people in Northern Ireland. The fact that it cares for the disabled means that it also cares for the elderly.
  Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the high incidence of disability in Northern Ireland, any Government proposal to tax disability living allowance would have disastrous effects in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. O'Brien: We must accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The observations that I have made are not mine but those of people from Northern Ireland who have their finger on the pulse when it comes to disabled and old people. The order will cater for the disabled and elderly, so if we do not get it right, those vulnerable people will suffer most. It is accepted that people in Northern Ireland need such an order more than those in the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that the debate should highlight those issues and that the Minister should note that the order needs to be looked at further.
  The report goes on to say:
  "there are proportionately more disabled people in Northern Ireland than in Britain and this holds true for every age group and every severity category."
  Although we speak of homes for the elderly and disabled, people in every age group should be considered in this debate. The report says:

  925
  "The only conclusion which can be reached from this evidence is that a substantially higher proportion of adults under pensionable age are disabled than might be expected if experience in Britain is taken as the norm."
  It is accepted in Northern Ireland that that is a fact, so the order should deal with that. The document also says:
  "There is growing concern that while there is legislation to divert money from Social Security to the Health Boards to help pay for services for people who might otherwise end up in an institution, no decisions have been made yet on how much money will be available or how it will be calculated. This is despite the fact that the new system should be in place by next April, only 10 months away"—
  it was only 10 months away when this document was published—
  "With this level of uncertainty over money, planning becomes a virtual impossibility."
  Not only are elected Members saying that the matter should be watched carefully, but organisations which cater for the most vulnerable in Northern Ireland are saying that we need more information about how and where resources will be applied once a decision has been taken. I hope that I am wrong to predict that, tomorrow, that document will be intensified by the Chancellor's autumn statement. Because of what I have outlined in my contribution and the lack of accountability, we intend to oppose the order today.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I shall not attempt to take advantage of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who has a semi-detached relationship with the Department for which he speaks and for which he is answering today. However, having listened to the apologia that he was asked to present to the House, I found it refreshing to listen to the studied consideration of the order presented by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). He made a most helpful contribution, and I shall attempt to avoid simply endorsing and duplicating the issues that he raised. Instead, I shall try to deal with some of the other matters dealt with in the order.
  It is fortuitous that the forces that came into play in unforeseen circumstances earlier today have allowed the order to be given considerable attention when it might otherwise have received only scant consideration of about 90 minutes after 10 pm. I am not sure whether the Minister is as pleased about that prospect as hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I think that he is finding it difficult to keep up the show of delight on his face. However, circumstances have given us an opportunity to debate the order in greater detail.
  The Department received 13 communications during the consultation process. The association to which a number of colleagues and I have referred, and which represents 60 per cent. of the care beds in Northern Ireland, did not exist in its present form when the letters seeking consultations were sent out. One of the 13 communications that the Minister received was from someone who is now that association's executive officer. Although 13 replies may not seem very many, they represent the substantial majority of carers in private sector nursing homes in Northern Ireland. The Minister will appreciate that there is a need to allow small, private and voluntary homes in Northern Ireland to have the same opportunities as both statutory homes and the one or two major private nursing homes.
  926
  The most unusual and perhaps most dangerous part of the order is contained in schedule 1, which seeks to introduce a new article—article 14A—into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. That appears to be a radical departure from normal Government procedures and practices.
  Section 14A(2) allows the Department to
  "assist any body or person carrying out any arrangements under paragraph (1)",
  which states:
  "The Department may make arrangements for the provision by any other body or person of any of the health services on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and that other body or person."
  It is not clear from the drafting—perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he replies—whether that provision will operate on a commercial, voluntary, gift or preferential basis. I do not know, and cannot determine from the legislation, whether open tendering is to be the order of the day. I believe that many in Northern Ireland will suspect that the Department may have made arrangements with large care providers, of which there are two in Northern Ireland, to give them some form of preferential treatment. Alternatively, the Department may have already entered into arrangements with those major carers in Northern Ireland to give them some care provision.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the order give power to the board to hand over properties to its chosen people? In fact, does it not give the board power to hand over the properties without asking for payment?
  Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct. I think that it is article 14 of the order that allows the Department to give away its own premises. It does not state the basis on which that might occur. It also allows the Department to make available to anybody the vehicles, equipment and materials as well as the services of any of the staff employed at the premises.
  The order needs further clarification by the Minister, and I am delighted that he will have an opportunity to do so. However, it is suspected that the order will allow unfair commercial advantage to anyone who receives favourable treatment from a Government Department. Such treatment may well be in contravention of the European economic treaty and may show that, within the context of Northern Ireland, the Government are prepared to give preferential treatment to national or local organisations. When he responds, will the Minister assure us that the Department will make commercial open tendering an important aspect of care provision in Northern Ireland?
  Article 15 of the order follows on from the main provisions contained in article 14. It appears that the Government may even dispense with public property—certainly its use—for nothing, a negligible amount or whatever charge they think fit without reference to the considerations of either the public or the Exchequer. How much accountability will there be within that process? What overall controls will be applied on the execution of the order?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman raised an issue that I want to refer to later. Is not article 15 of the order a sneaky way of overcoming the legal difficulties in which the Government found themselves in relation to social services? If article 15 is read in conjunction with the 1972 order, the Government will be able to create social service trusts. The order, which

  927
  refers to registered homes, appears to be a misnomer as it relates to the setting up of trusts, despite the fact that Lord Arran promised separate legislation to set up trusts.
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall listen to his contribution with great interest if he is called to speak later. The matter is of particular concern to those in Northern Ireland, which does not have the degree of control and accountability that exists elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  The new article 50 increases the inspection powers of the Department's inspection unit. May I make it abundantly clear that no hon. Member is suggesting that the standard of inspection or care should be reduced, or that the degree of accountability in the system should be removed. Everyone wants the highest standards in Northern Ireland, and I shall later outline the distinctions and comparisons between the inspection levels in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Nobody is suggesting that we should stop inspections or make it easier for unscrupulous people to get away with an unsatisfactory standard of care.
  The Department has set up an inspection system, and proposed another one. The association to which I referred has a natural desire to ensure that it admits only those who provide the best care and attention. Article 50 increases inspection powers and 50(2)(a) states that an inspector may
  "make such examination into the state and management of the premises and the services provided therein as he thinks fit;".
  Inspections should be limited to matters that are relevant to the health and welfare of patients. The legislation should not be drafted in wide terms that will allow the examination of accounts, business practices and confidential information. That may well be an invasion of privacy even under the Data Protection Act 1988.
  Article 50(2)(b) gives the power to
  "inspect any records (in whatever form they are held) relating to the premises, or any person for whom services have been or are to be provided there;".
  That is also an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of residents in those homes. Medical and personal records are private and should not be made available to any person who is not medically competent or qualified or properly authorised to inspect them.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I have many residential care homes in my constituency, but I have not received any of the criticisms mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. From whom did he get those criticisms, and has he expressed them to the Secretary of State for Health?
  Mr. Robinson: If we were to have a competition—
  Sir James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about dangers in the order. I heard at the weekend from a friend who owns a residential care home, but I have not heard from anyone else or from the association to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Has the hon. Gentleman made representations to the Secretary of State for Health? When did he receive representations from the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association?
  Mr. Robinson: I would be delighted to respond to all those questions. If there were a competition to see which Northern Ireland constituency has the most nursing and residential home beds, my constituency by far would take
  928
  the prize. Over many months I have spoken to the owners of those homes who are greatly concerned about how the Department is currently operating.
  As I said earlier, the association to which I refer was not formed when the Department called for various issues to be clarified and for presentations. Representatives of the association came to the House today and it is only within the past few hours that a number of hon. Members were alerted to the concerns. I assure the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) that if many of us had had the details that we now have we would have been pounding on the door of the elusive and noble Lord who has refused thus far to meet representatives of that association.
  Article 50(2)(c) states that an inspector may
  "require the owner of, or any person employed in, the premises to furnish him with such information as he may request."
  That is another wide provision. The Minister should say that it must be construed that the information can only be that which is "reasonably required" that is covered by such a provision.
  Article 16 defines a nursing home. Why are children's homes, which are covered by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, not to be included? It is improper and unfair to exclude either voluntary homes or homes covered by that Act. Children and young people have every right to live in premises that are every bit as comfortable and well maintained as a private sector home. The best way to do that is to keep those children and young people within the same inspection and regulation system that governs the private sector.
  Article 16(2)(b) states that exemption from the legislation will apply to
  "any premises managed or provided by a government department, a Board, an HSS trust, or by any other body constituted by a statutory provision or incorporated by Royal Charter".
  There is no logical reason for that: they should be treated in exactly the same way as private sector premises.
  Under the order, any property owned by the board does not have to be inspected or registered. That will lead to a rapid deterioration in all the services therein. Refusing to grant the children and young people of Northern Ireland the benefits and protection of an independent inspectorate and placing them in a regime where they will not be adequately and properly inspected means that they will not be adequately protected. The order should be changed o take account of that.
  Article 25 covers representations to the tribunals about which the Minister spoke in such glowing terms. I think that article 14 covers the tribunals. The wording may give a false impression and perhaps the Minister can allay any fears. Owners of homes are worried that they will have to make oral or written representation in person. Will they have the right to be represented legally or in some other way at the tribunals?
  Article 25 allows the board to give a home owner the opportunity to state his case. The Minister will appreciate that many owners will think that they are not the best people to present a case. They should have every opportunity within the law to be represented by solicitors or barristers. As the regulations are not available to us, we cannot determine the basis upon which the tribunal may sit and the procedures that it may adopt.
  I said earlier that I would comment upon the comparison between inspections in Northern Ireland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There seems to be

  929
  a feeling that in some way inspections in Northern Ireland are of a lower standard than those that pertain elsewhere. That is not true. I shall provide some figures for the House which will help our consideration and allay any worries, and, when the Minister is persuaded, as I have no doubt he will be, not to press the order but to take it away there will be adequate inspection in Northern Ireland.
  I understand that the inspectorate in Northern Ireland is three or four times the size of the inspectorate in Great Britain. One inspector in Great Britain with whom the association has had discussions looks after about 63 homes and works part-time for two days a week. The Southern board has about 84 homes, four inspectors, a unit manager and a secretariat. As one might imagine, homes in Northern Ireland are closer together and much easier to reach. I do not know exactly how many homes are in the Eastern board area—there are probably about 200—and that board has about 12 inspectors. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a much higher inspection rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Perhaps the Minister will confirm that much of the legislation is directed at making the provision self-financing and that, consequently, the cost of the inspectorate will be passed to the home owners. If that is the case, there will be a substantial difference between the cost applied in Great Britain and that applied in Northern Ireland. Because it will be significantly greater in Northern Ireland, it could make a difference when it comes to the viability of homes, and therefore make the situation even worse.
  I am grateful for the patience of the Minister and the House, and I trust that the Minister will be able to respond to those points. I hope that the many other matters that will relate directly to the regulations that will flow from this legislation will be matters that the Minister and the Department will be prepared to go into in great detail with the association representing the majority of the homes in Northern Ireland so that they can deal with any misunderstandings and take into consideration any changes that the association might wish to be made.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The matter before the House is the care of the elderly in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) hit the nail on the head when he said that there was little that was more important than that. We have many facilities for caring for the elderly in Northern Ireland, including private homes, the residential nursing homes that are the subject of the order, homes provided by public authorities such as the Eastern health and social services board and private homes such as the Sandown homes, which provide an excellent service across the Province.
  We also have homes provided by the Churches—I am thinking here of the excellent residential unit, appropriately named Taylor court, run by the Baptist church in Belvoir in my constituency. Other homes are organised by local authorities—for example, Mount Alexander at Comber, Loch Cuan house in Newtonards and Northfield house in Donaghadee. Housing associations also provide excellent facilities for the elderly.
  Whether it is through the public service, the Churches, the voluntary organisations, private enterprise or local
  930
  authorities, Northern Ireland provides well for the elderly. However, there is a growing problem, because, as with the rest of the United Kingdom, the demographic trend means that there will be a greater need, year by year, to provide for the ever-increasing section of our community that can be described as "elderly".
  Normally, debates on Orders in Council last for 90 minutes. The Minister is lucky this evening because he has managed to get five or six hours for the debate. That is an unusual experience for Members representing Northern Ireland because, for once, we have time to speak about something that affects our people. However, the Minister looked like a guilty man—he had guilt written from one ear to the other. I rather suspected that he was upset that he was not able to push through the order in 90 minutes. He was horrified that he had to take on board and present a proposal which would be debated for five hours and to which there would be opposition from all parts of the House.
  The Minister has mentioned various organisations, which have already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whose speech I commend because he articulated the concerns of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, concerns with which the Minister could not identify. The Minister simply identified himself with a system of government that is repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland and that we reject.
  The Minister spoke about health boards and the health and social services councils. At one stage, he said that the role of the boards was similar to that of councils in England. That is nonsense. The councils in England are elected by the people of England. The boards in Northern Ireland are appointed by the Minister and are not responsible to the people of Northern Ireland. That is the difference between the administration of health and social services in Northern Ireland and in England. That is why the Minister is guilty.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Anglo-Irish conference in Dublin can put forward names of people to serve on the boards? Therefore, people are nominated to the boards by the Minister and by Dublin, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which the Secretary of State was trying to tell us is a good thing.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is another reason why the Minister is a guilty man.
  The boards are hand-picked by the Minister, after consultation with the Dublin Government, but with no consultation of the people of Northern Ireland. They are quangos. They are part of a dictatorship in which we have no say. The Minister unashamedly declared that only 13 representations had been made during the consultation period, but that is only the result of the evil system of government in Northern Ireland, which the Minister represents. People did not make representations to the Minister, because they knew that, apart from a few minor recommendations, they would be ignored and the Minister would come to the House with an Order in Council, which would be pushed through in 90 minutes.
  Earlier, when asked a question, the Minister spoke in reply but did not answer. The question was whether Members representing constituencies in England, Scotland, Wales or even Northern Ireland—more so Northern Ireland in the context of tonight's debate—could amend an Order in Council. The answer is that they

  931
  cannot. Because we cannot amend the Order in Council, people do not take part in the consultation process. They know that, even if they make representations, they will be automatically ignored by a dictatorial Minister, who will then introduce an Order in Council that cannot be amended and that goes through on the nod.
  The Minister spoke of the wonderful part played by the health and social services boards. Throughout Northern Ireland, they are known as a joke. Members of boards are hand-picked by the Minister. They are his stooges. They have no respect in the community. Anyone who stands up against the Minister and the Department has his knuckles rapped and he then resigns, as happened with a constituent of mine. Sir Edward Archdale had to resign because he did not want to be a yes-man for this Northern Ireland administration, which operates as a dictatorship through the health and social services boards.
  As the hon. Member for Normanton said, the Government are not answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. This is the seventh anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was signed in 1985. We have had that deadlock for seven years, and the Minister represents that evil system of government in which we are ruled by quangos and which the people deeply resent.
  The quango in my area, the Eastern health and social services board, which operates in the council area of North Down, Ards and Castlereagh, is intent on closing most of the hospitals. North Down and Ards together cover the most rapidly growing population in Northern Ireland. The Minister praised that board, so I must respond to him. It operates in an area where 80 per cent. of the people are Protestant, but 65 per cent. of its employees are Roman Catholic. The Minister refuses to hear anything about the underemployment of Protestants and the discrimination against them by that board. I must raise those subjects, because the Minister referred to the health boards and their role in the supervision of homes.
  I am sorry to have to make those points, but it is important that the nonsense of Orders in Council being presented to the House is exposed and that the British people should know that we in Northern Ireland are coming to the end of our tether and will not accept democracy as it is presented by the Minister. We rebel against it. We reject it. The time has come for a change in Northern Ireland, where, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has said, in matters of health and social services the administration should he answerable to the people. That is what we must have. Only when we do can we approve orders of this nature. That is why we shall join Her Majesty's Opposition in opposing the motion tonight.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in tonight's debate. In the interests of the inhabitants of residential homes, be they care or nursing homes, and given the problems and concerns of home owners, I intend to deal exclusively with the order. I do not intend to make political points.
  The Minister referred to consultation, and it may be that he did not have to hand the information to deal adequately with the questions that were put to him about the number of responses received. However, if he would care to look at it, I have with me ministerial
  932
  correspondence regarding the draft order. The inflection in the Minister's voice when he referred to the 13 responses suggested criticism.
  That contradicts the Minister's explanatory document, item 4(c) of which stated that the recent consultative exercise in Northern Ireland invoked widespread support for the new legislation. That widespread support is not particularly evident tonight, nor is it particularly evident among those to whom I speak in Northern Ireland. However, the document might be referring to a different set of people altogether, with whom we are not acquainted. The consultation was early and adequate, but little cognisance was taken of the recommendations and suggestions that would have improved the order.
  None of us can pretend that our contribution tonight will change the order one iota. Therefore, we must bend the Minister's mind to its consequences. I emphasise that we are all aware that of paramount importance is the quality of life for the inhabitants of the residential care and nursing homes—the old, the sick, the infirm, the mentally disabled, alcoholics and drug addicts. Those are the people with whom we must all be primarily concerned. What I say must be taken in the context of that overriding consideration. Nothing that I say tonight must in any way detract from or diminish the quality of provision and care that the less fortunate in our community, those who are disabled in the ways that I described, should have.
  The order is important, because of the current transition in Northern Ireland from the statutory provision of residential care to its provision by the private and voluntary sector. That is endemic in my constituency, and I note the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) in the same context.
  Within a small area, three statutory homes have recently been closed. When I pointed out to the Minister responsible that one of them, Morne house in Newcastle, had been closed, he was shocked and surprised. Such homes cannot be closed without his authority and imprimatur, but he did not know that it had been closed. That is the extent of the Eastern board's authority, and the same is true of the Northern, Southern and Western boards.
  They all have an almost dictatorial attitude towards closing homes by stealth. They create the atmosphere that something will be closed and, before a month is out, people who cannot fend properly for themselves cannot obtain the right advice or seek accommodation elsewhere, the residential role diminishes and it becomes a self-fulfilling activity. I have seen it, I despise it and I hope that the Minister will intervene and stop such action by not only the Eastern health and social services board but the Northern, Southern and Western boards.
  I am in favour of the principle of patient choice in private and statutory accommodation. However, we are in a transitional period—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman knows something about the closing of the homes. He will be aware that board members told residents in the homes that were to be closed and their relations that, if the residents did not go into a certain home quickly, it might fill up and they would have to move perhaps 20 miles away. Therefore, instead of a proper choice, there was no choice at all because only one home was available. Surely that does away with an individual's personal choice.
  Mr. McCrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is the very point that I was trying to bring out. The very activity that he describes has occurred on several occasions. I have described it as an unacceptable way for any board to act. As a consequence of that activity, choice is diminishing week by week and month by month. It is the consequence not so much of board policy as of departmental policy —the so-called care in the community regime. More importantly, it is the consequence of the shortfall in funding which has befallen the health boards and which they are about to experience even more drastically. The Eastern health and social services board, to which the right hon. Member for Strangford referred, faces a shortfall of £20 million in the next tranche.
  Those of us who are familiar with the new private homes in our constituencies will readily accept that they have a high standard of provision. As far as a lay person can see, they provide a high standard of care and nursing. According to rumour, many of those private and voluntary homes, which are superior to the statutory homes but were built 10, 15 or 20 years ago, will be required under new regulations to make considerable improvements to bring them up to the standards required by the new regime. That is acceptable on the basis that there is full consultation and that financial assistance is available to assist the transition.
  The subject of consultation has been much discussed this evening. Would it not have been more appropriate for the Department, rather than sitting in the ivory tower of Stormont, to write asking the registered homes for their opinion of the order? After all, Government Departments are very good at writing letters, or at least sending out circulars: I receive a good many, most of which are consigned to the waste paper basket. Surely that would be more positive than sitting back and saying, "No one told us what they wanted."
  One of the order's main defects is not what is contained in it but what it empowers the Department and the Minister to do following its passing. Built into almost every part of it are virtually open-ended powers to make further regulation in regard to inspection, registration or tribunals. The Minister spoke in his opening speech of a requirement for detailed and substantial regulations to be made; but they have not been made, so we cannot debate them tonight. Moreover, once they have been formulated and published, we shall have very little control over them.
  Let me sum up my point about consultation. I think that the Government should ask the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association—and the voluntary and private sector homes that do not belong to that association—to help in the preparation of rules and regulations that will benefit both residents and owners. That, surely, is the best way forward.
  The order has some extraordinary features. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the exclusion of children's and young persons' homes. Given recent history both in this country and in Northern Ireland, I feel that that sector should be brought within the scope of the order. The Minister may say that it is dealt with in other legislation; if so, I hope that he will undertake to review and update that legislation, because it clearly is not working properly.
  As others have pointed out, it is inexplicable that health and social services trust homes and homes governed by chartered bodies or statutory boards have been excluded from the inspection provisions. According to a one-liner in
  934
  article 3(2)(g), the board can exclude any establishment that it wishes to exclude. That drives a horse and cart through the legislation. Under article 4(4), small homes are excluded in certain circumstances; but no one seems to have decided how a small home should be defined. Certainly, the Minister did not do so in his opening speech. How small is small, and how big is big? The conditions governing registration, refusal to register and the cancellation of registration are not at all clear. Moreover, they are subject to further rules and regulations which I understand are to be published a month after the order comes into effect.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Could that not betray a slip on the part of the Department? Effectively, the order is a charter for the boards to give away all their homes; the Department, and the boards, may well intend to end up with no homes at all, so that they need not include them in legislation. They may intend to give them away, either to the big operators or to someone else.
  Mr. McGrady: Indeed. I think that the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to that possibility earlier when he referred to the provision in article 14A under schedule I, which empowers the Department to hand over premises, property, fixtures and fittings to another person's custody and usage. If the boards were to use that vehicle, they could rapidly denude themselves of all their homes—and, given the budgetary restraints that will have been imposed on them, that is very likely. The intention is for homes affected by the provision to be transferred to more or less recognised charities such as Help the Aged, but that will not necessarily happen. It could be argued that such organisations are not equipped to deal with the administration involved.
  The implementation of the inspection provisions is also in doubt. The order tells us nothing about how inspections will be carried out. It mentions self-financing, but I do not know whether that phrase is used in the context of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland or the boards. Standards are not mentioned either. Presumably, they will he the subject of yet another series of regulations, to be published after the order has been passed. Nevertheless, the question of standards of medical care, staffing, buildings, equipment and the general ambience of homes is problematic. Both the boards and home owners should be consulted, so that common standards can be agreed and applied to everyone's benefit, not least that of residents.
  I am bothered by what is not in the order, rather than by what it contains. We know the mechanics: the motion will be passed, and no passage, phrase or word in the order will be changed. It is a fait accompli. Let me make a special plea to the Minister: that he will not publish a series of regulations about registration, inspection and tribunals until he has engaged in full consultation with the people and the boards concerned in what, for want of a better word, we must call an industry—an industry that cares for the aged, the sick, the mentally ill, the infirm and the addicted. That is the proper way in which to protect the interests of the less able and favoured members of society —interests which we should have most at heart—and also to protect those who provide the premises in which such people are cared for.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Let me begin—as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—by complimenting the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on his speech. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber now, but his useful contribution dealt with a number of serious issues.
  Before I deal with the details of the order, I must, as always, register a protest at the way in which the legislation is being introduced. As is usual with Northern Ireland legislation, this is being done by Order in Council. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier, Orders in Council are usually debated for 90 minutes. Tonight, because of the collapse of business earlier in the day, we have more time. Had we been proceeding according to the normal amount of time allotted to orders, the debate would have ended nearly half an hour ago, in which case I should have been unable to speak. There is some small mercy, therefore, in the collapse of the earlier proceedings. However, the collapse of the earlier proceedings and the fact that the order is being debated earlier than expected has caused embarrassment to at least one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: He is in very good company.
  Mr. Trimble: He is indeed.
  As other hon. Members have mentioned, the collapse of the previous business means that we have five and a half hours in which to debate the order, but it does not matter whether we take five minutes, five hours or 50 hours, because nothing that we say tonight will have any effect. The order is unamendable: whatever the Minister may say in his wind-up speech, the order will go through virtually on the nod. It is a form of law-making that is indefensible.
  Mr. Beggs: And offensive.
  Mr. Trimble: And offensive, as my hon. Friend says.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, according to the Order Paper today, the business managers of the House thought that the first business would go beyond 10 o'clock, for there is a 10 o'clock motion on the Order Paper, so we should have had one and a half hours—perhaps from 11.30 onwards, because the first business could have gone on for another hour and a half at least. The point is that this issue, which is so vital and which needed time, might not have been debated at all tonight due to lack of time.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is correct. When I saw the 10 o'clock motion on the Order Paper this morning, my heart sank. I thought that it meant that our business would not come on until the small hours of the morning. Instead, it has come on a little earlier than expected.
  The Minister was on the Treasury Bench when we discussed the first business on the Order Paper. I think that he heard me comment that the Bill that we were then debating extended to Northern Ireland and contained substantive Northern Ireland provisions in primary legislation. I notice that the explanatory document relating to the order states that this order brings Northern Ireland legislation into line with legislation in this matter in England and Wales—the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991.
  936
  It ought surely to have been possible, at least with regard to the 1991 Act, to take the same course as was taken earlier today on the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill—that is, to have included the equivalent legislation in the 1991 Bill when it was going through the House. We could then have had it a year earlier. We have had to wait at least a year—perhaps longer when it comes to some aspects—for this order. There is no reason why Northern Ireland legislation should not be included in the English equivalent when it is going through the House. There is no technical reason why that cannot be done. It would have the added advantage of enabling a more serious and more purposeful debate to take place. Moreover, more interest might be taken in the legislative process if things were done that way.
  In reply to an intervention during his speech, the Minister said that only 13 representations had been made during the consultation period and that none of them was made by political parties. The Minister shot himself in the foot in a massive way by saying that, because the interventions of other hon. Members made it clear that considerable representations had been made by various parties and that the Minister involved, who is represented tonight by the Minister on the Treasury Bench, had on occasions declined to see people.
  As the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Normanton, said tonight, there is a tremendous absence of accountability in Northern Ireland: it is non-existent there. That is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford has made the point absolutely clear with regard to boards and councils appointed by the Minister. All the new health and social services boards are appointed by the Minister. The health and social services councils are also appointed by him. There may be the odd elected representative on a council, but that person owes his place to the Minister's favour. He is swamped by the Minister's nominees, who are drawn from a remarkably narrow segment of social and public opinion within Northern Ireland.
  It may be a little better with quangos. Quangos are objectionable in themselves, but things would be a little better if the appointments made by Ministers to quangos in some way represented the community as a whole, instead of taking people from a narrow social band—largely from the hangers-on to the Stormont castle system: persons who generally have no roots in that society and who cannot be regarded as representing the community at large, let alone identified political groupings.
  It is extremely rare for any person who is in any way connected with the political party that I represent ever to be apointed to a quango. If one or two slip through and are appointed, it is usually a sign that that person suffers from some moral or other defect.
  Mr. Beggs: I am aware of an elected Unionist councillor who serves on one of the most recently established quangos. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that councillor's observation—that the chairman was tame and had been selected purely and simply because he would never vote or allow members of that council to raise any controversial matter.
  Mr. Trimble: That is right. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It echoes the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford who referred to the experience of one of his councillors, Sir

  937
  Edward Archdale, who found the situation so intolerable that he resigned. I did not intend my earlier comments to be interpreted as meaning that the limited number of councillors who are appointed to the boards are persons who are not struggling against the system. Some of the councillors who have been appointed were appointed because they were malleable. Others are not so malleable. Lest there be any misunderstanding about this, my comments were directed towards the non-elected representatives—the vast number of persons who are appointed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his speech, I should say that although I am trying to follow his argument as best I can, it seems to be straying rather far from the subject of registered homes.
  Mr. Trimble: Registered homes are supervised, Madam Deputy Speaker, by health and social services boards, to which health and social services councillors are supposed to give advice. Consequently, the constitution of the health and social services boards is, I suggest, a matter that one can touch on, since it relates also to the greater problem of the complete absence of accountability within the public service in Northern Ireland. That is a matter of great and general importance.
  As the explanatory document says, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of residential and nursing homes in Northern Ireland in recent years. Many of those residential and nursing homes are admirable and provide a good service. However, there have been exceptions. Some have given cause for concern. On a number of occasions I have had communications with the Minister regarding homes. In some cases, I have even had to ask for inspections to be carried out.
  In general, I would welcome a measure which provided for registration and greater regulation. In broad principle, we welcome registration, regulation and inspection. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said that because of the way in which the legislation is being enacted we shall vote against the order, but that should not be interpreted as rejection of a system which would lead to better regulation and control of this sector. We welcome the principle of greater control and supervision.
  I am worried about the extent of that control. The grounds for refusal of registration relate to the character of the applicant and the nature of the premises—their physical condition, equipment, and so on. Another ground for refusal is
  "that the way in which it is intended to carry on the home is such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required."
  The grounds for refusal are set out in article 8(1). The refusal of registration provides a degree of control.
  The order contains nothing further about the way in which it is intended to carry on the home being such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required. It would have been helpful if regulations had been provided. Under article 28, the Department is given the power to make regulations on several matters. Some of the matters with which the regulations may deal are set out in the Bill. They include facilities, numbers of staff, the number of
  938
  staff to be on duty at any time, the information given to residents about complaints procedures, and notification of events which occur in the home.
  I am worried about the range of matters that will be covered by the regulations. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the matters covered by regulations will provide the basis for detailed control through inspection, refusal or withdrawal, or registration. If the regulations do not cover a certain matter, it may slip out of the net. I am thinking of simple complaints such as those that I have received from persons in homes that they were deprived of pocket money. Will it be possible to take such matters into account in an inspection? The order does not refer to small matters of that nature. We should like to know what matters the regulations will cover.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) complained about the extent of the power to make regulations. That reminds me of a debate that we had last week on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Important asylum and immigration matters were to be covered in regulations. For that debate, the Home Office made available draft regulations so that, when we discussed that Bill, we had the draft regulations in front of us and hon. Members were able to talk about them. That resulted in a sensible debate on the Bill. Where are the draft regulations to be made under the order? Why is the procedure followed last week not adopted for Northern Ireland legislation? Why do we not have the regulations before us when so much of the meat of the legislation will be in the form of regulations?
  I suggest that, in future proceedings, the Minister and his officials take account of the need to ensure that the House has sufficient information before it in the debate to make an effective judgment. If we had draft regulations on the conduct of residential care and nursing homes, we would be able to comment more about the extent of regulation and the Department's control which may be exercised.
  It has been said that the regulations will be published shortly. However, when the regulations are published they will not be subject to any effective parliamentary control; they do not come before the House. There is no practical way in which such regulations can be brought before the House. That is another defect of the procedure for Northern Ireland legislation.
  Linked to the power to carry out inspections are the regulations which lay down the conduct for residential homes. That is a key matter. I welcome a power of inspection. It is necessary. Again, important matters in article 29, which provides for inspection, will be dealt with in regulations. I deprecate that. Reference has been made to some of the provisions in schedule 1 and a new article 50, which is to be inserted by schedule 1(7) into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. That new article 50 provides powers of inspection. The article says:
  "Any person authorised by the Department may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any premises (other than premises in respect of which any person is registered under the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992)".
  That relates to premises which are not registered. There is a need for such a power to ensure that a home which should be registered is covered by the legislation and the regulations so that it may be inspected. That is a good provision.

  939
  The new article 50(4) refers to the way in which the inspection is carried out. It caught my attention as a good provision. New article 50(4) says:
  "Any person inspecting any premises under this Article—(a) may interview any person residing there in private"—
  There must be an express power to speak to residents in private. Elderly people in residential homes are sometimes nervous about their circumstances and feel vulnerable to the management of the home. They may feel worried and afraid. Perhaps their fears are groundless. It is easy for elderly people to be worried about the future. When homes are perhaps not run as well as they could be, the residents may be afraid to complain. I have had experience of that when complaints have reached me in my capacity as Member of Parliament.
  I would be delighted if a similar provision for the inspection of registered homes were inserted in new article 50(4). It is a small point, but effective inspection is necessary and important. The power to inspect may be abused. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a way in which the power to inspect had been abused. Such abuse is not a reflection on the regulatory system provided; it is a reflection on the character of the boards and the way in which they have developed, free from any accountability, parliamentary control or supervision.
  I shall mention a few other matters. The legislation provides an emergency procedure. That is good, but I wish to query one aspect. Under the emergency procedure a board may apply to a justice of the peace for an order cancelling registration. If the justice of the peace thinks that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the residents, he may make the order.
  The order also contains an appeal provision. Presumably, the appeal provision is intended to be a hurdle or filter to ensure that a board does not act capriciously, that it has some grounds and that those grounds are examined by another person. That provision may appear reasonable to a person who is not from Northern Ireland. Here in England, justices of the peace have judicial functions. They are magistrates. They appear on magistrates' benches and discharge an important range of civil and criminal business, so they are persons accustomed to acting in a judicial manner and having an important judicial function to discharge. That has not been the case in Northern Ireland since 1935. Ever since then, all the functions that people think of as being discharged by magistrates have been discharged by a professional judiciary—people who in England and Wales would be stipendiary magistrates.
  The post of justice of the peace continues in Northern Ireland, but it is an honorific title, given to worthy chaps, and their function is simply to sign warrants occasionally—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: And passport applications.
  Mr. Trimble: Yes, passport applications and other such matters.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: And election returns.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Except in West Belfast.
  Mr. Trimble: The comments being made underline the fact that a justice of the peace in Northern Ireland has no significant judicial functions. It is eccentric to put our justices of the peace in the position of having to decide
  940
  whether to close a residential or nursing home immediately, with all the implications involved for the person carrying on the business and the people employed in it. Why was it not thought proper, or possible, for the applications to be made to resident magistrates? That would be the equivalent—the sensible thing to do. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he deal with that question? Yes, let us have an emergency procedure, but let us have a sensible procedure.
  Mr. William Ross:: As the order is supposed to apply the 1984 Act to Northern Ireland, does my hon. Friend not consider it highly possible that the draftsmen did a straight lift, without realising that the provision was not applicable in Northern Ireland conditions?
  Mr. Trimble: When it comes to the origins of the drafting of legislation, anything is possible, especially in view of the fact that the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill, which went through all its parliamentary stages so rapidly earlier today, was needed to correct an error made in earlier legislation. The order before us may not be a similar slip, or error, but I believe it to be a misjudgment of a different kind.
  The order does not apply the equivalent provisions in the English legislation with regard to mental nursing homes. The explanatory document says:
  "The Department believes that the registration and inspection powers proposed for Boards in respect of all nursing homes should enable Boards adequately to safeguard the welfare of all residents whatever their individual disabilities and needs."
  The Minister touched on the point briefly, but I did not get a clear picture of the thinking behind the decision not to include the category of mental nursing homes. I should like him to deal with the matter in more detail in his wind-up speech. Is it envisaged that persons with mental disabilities should be in ordinary nursing homes, or that there may be homes catering specifically for such people? Is it thought that the existing regulations are sufficient?
  It is important that we know what the Government think, because we can see the way in which their policies are evolving, so that much provision in residential and other homes will move into the private sector. It is important that the Minister should give us a clear picture of the sort of private sector provision that is intended for persons with mental disabilities. It may be thought that there will be no private sector provision. I should like more detail on that.
  Other hon. Members have raised another matter in connection with facilities and services moving into the private sector. The amendments being made to the 1972 order by schedule 1(2), which inserts the new article 14A—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have a document before me issued by the Southern health and social services board, which includes reference to private nursing and residential care for persons with mental handicaps. it contains a whole series of proposed regulations for the private sector, so the Government must have it in mind to include provisions for such persons.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information; it underlines the need for a more detailed and open approach from the Minister, to explain what will happen.

  941
  I shall not go in detail into the new article 14A and 15 to be inserted into the 1972 order, because I believe that another hon. Member, who I suspect is better informed than I, wishes to deal with the subject.
  The provisions permitting property and equipment to be used by private sector bodies say that such use is to be
  "on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and the body or person".
  I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to ensure that there is a level playing field and that certain organisations are not treated more favourably. If there is to be a degree of private sector involvement and competition in the provision of services, let it at least be introduced on a proper commercial basis.
  Significant services are moving out of the state sector and into the private sector. My hon. Friends have explained earlier the consequences involving the closure of hospitals, nursing homes and residential homes in some areas. The Minister gives me a brief wintry smile. He may recall the correspondence that I had with him when he was also responsible for Spelga house, in Banbridge in my constituency; it was part of Banbridge hospital, and involved state provision of long-term continuing care for elderly persons.
  For years there have been proposals implying that Spelga house will be run down and closed. In his opening speech, the Minister talked about lack of representations on such matters. Yet he will recall the occasions on which we made representations to him, and the occasions on which he refused to meet us, saying that we should have the opportunity to meet him only when the official closure procedure, was brought into operation. Spelga house has been effectively closed: no new admissions have been made for a long time, and as the elderly residents age and die their number is diminishing. So there is no state provision of continuing care for elderly people in the Banbridge area; people now have to go further afield, because Spelga house is effectively closed.
  The closure procedures have not been operated, and still no provision is made for effective consultation. Yet with the new-fangled boards without elected representatives, and the councils with elected representatives being effectively smothered, there is no way in which local people can make their voices heard.
  All that highlights our concern—especially in view of the fact that, as the Minister knows, in the case of Spelga house there has been a trail of broken promises under both the previous board and the current board. That increases our concern about the way in which the new semi-privatised and private provision has been introduced into the health service—the order facilitates that process. Although we welcome in principle the prospect of regulation, inspection and control of nursing homes, the context in which they are being introduced causes us nothing but concern.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: My desire to intervene, albeit briefly, in the debate is prompted by two considerations. The first is that I like to think that, in a small way, I represent the interests of trade unionists in the House. A number of trade unionists have made representations to me about the draft order because they are legitimately concerned about its implications not only
  942
  for their livelihoods but for the service to which they are dedicated, and which they think could be prejudiced by its implementation. Their anxiety is prompted by the effect that the order will have on the clients and patients whom they serve.
  The second reason why I am pleased to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that I take seriously our role in Parliament of endeavouring to check the Executive. In the brief time in which I have been here, I have noticed that measures whose debates have the least attendance often justify the maximum scrutiny. That is true of this order.
  When the Minister took us through the draft order in his opening speech, he was clever when he came to article 37, which relates to schedule 1. He said that the purpose of article 37 and of schedule 1 was to overcome some minor legal difficulty, but he did not amplify what that legal difficulty was. If I can do nothing else, I invite the Minister to amplify the point. I am greatly concerned that what will be slipped through in the guise of schedule 1 is a major change in the administration, not only of health care, but of social services in the Province of Northern Ireland.
  A little while ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, you drew to an hon. Member's attention the fact that the order is called the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. That was a legitimate point for the Chair to make. It crossed my mind that you, might not have had an opportunity to study the order in detail. Using schedule 1, the Government intend, under the misnomer of an order on registered homes, to introduce a major change in the administration of health and social services which transcends the narrrow issue of registered homes.
  The proposed change deeply concerns people who work in health and social services in the Province. I invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members to examine the new article 14A in schedule 1, which says:
  "The Department may make arrangements for the provision by any other body or person of any of the health services on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Department and that other body or person."
  That provision is drawn widely and has caused some concern. The Minister should have given far more amplification of what was intended by its inclusion in the schedule.
  My fear and that of Northern Ireland trade unionists who have expressed their worries to me is that the Minister intends to overcome the Government's difficulty in trying to implement health and social services trusts within the Province. The Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 has run into difficulty in that the Government are unable, because health and social services are integrated in the Province, to create a trust for social services under previous legislation. If the order goes through tonight, article 14A will be added to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, coupled with article 15, which is also included in the schedule. The Government will be able to effect trusts without any further debate or consultation within the Province. It is disgraceful that a provision that will greatly affect the administration of health and social services in any part of the United Kingdom should be dealt with in this way.
  I draw attention to one immediate flaw of this method of legislation. Bills applying to England and Wales and to Scotland have a long title. That acts as a useful check list for legislators and for the Chair who can see whether hon.

  943
  Members are keeping to the subject. However, there are no long titles in Northern Ireland orders. If there were, the Government and the Minister would have been rumbled when introducing, in the guise of the order, a major change in the administration of health and social services. I hope that consideration can be given to incorporating a long title in Northern Ireland orders so that hon. Members and the Speaker can see exactly what is involved.
  The explanatory note accompanying the order buttresses my concern. It says:
  "Schedule 1 lists minor amendments to existing legislation mainly required as a consequence of the Order."
  If one reads the schedule again and again, one finds that the explanatory document is wholly misleading. These are not minor amendments to Northern Ireland legislation; they are major amendments. To suggest that they are mainly required as a consequence of the order is demonstrably untrue.
  If the Minister believes that my charge is unfair and unfounded, I hope that he will take it from me that others, especially in Northern Ireland public sector trade unions, will read reports of our debate and will want a categorical assurance that the order will not be the measure by which the Government remedy what they consider to be a flaw in or lack of legislation so that they can promote their desire of creating trusts in health and social services in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Arran, who is the appropriate Minister in the other place, has promised that there will be separate legislation relating to the trusts, especially in relation to dealing with the services administered by the health boards, which in England and Wales would be local authority social services. Lord Arran has promised separate legislation, but the fear tonight is that, under the darkness of the evening, the power for the creation of social services trusts has been slipped into the order. I hope that there will be no equivocation. I trust that the Minister will either come clean and admit that the order will affect the trusts or say that the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong.
  8.27 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As a Northern Ireland Member, I welcome the free exchange across the House tonight. I wonder what any hon. Member, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would think if he or she had to say to a constituent, "Oh, you should have written about Bill. You should have written about your opposition and about what amendments you wanted. My hands are tied. If you have not written in, when I stand up in the House, the Government will say that there was no real representation." That is the mess we are in tonight.
  People in Northern Ireland expect their elected Members to deal with issues after they have lobbied them, not after they have written letters. I am amazed that the explanatory document on the order states:
  "the recent consultative exercise in Northern Ireland … evoked widespread support for new legislation."
  Only one Member from Northern Ireland supports the legislation. All the other Members who represent Northern Ireland oppose it.
  I am told that the Minister will answer every question that he has been asked, so I want to ask him some questions. Are the 100 people who wrote in in respect of
  944
  the first proposal to lay a draft the "widespread support" for new legislation? If 100 people write in, is that widespread support for legislation?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Or opposition.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On whose authority was the issue included in the background and scope of the draft? When and how was it decided that the matter should be included?
  No hon. Member who has spoken tonight is for the irresponsibles. I am against the irresponsibles involved in the care of the elderly. I have taken up cases in that regard and I shall continue to do that. The irresponsibles in Northern Ireland must be dealt with. However, there are no people more irresponsible than those on the boards and they flout the law.
  The Minister should consult Lord Arran about the home in Broughshane. The board gave me a categorical assurance that the home would not be closed until a deputation of the citizens and I met the Minister. However, the board proceeded immediately to pressure the people in that home. They were told that, if they did not pick another home close by, they would be sent 20 miles away. Those elderly people collapsed under that intimidation. How can the board officials love the elderly and care for them when they stoop to that level after having promised an hon. Member that no action would be taken?
  Lord Arran can confirm that I raised that issue with him. I told him that his office had told us that the home would not be closed, but that that had already happened and the people had been shifted under severe pressure. The irresponsibles in Northern Ireland are on the boards.
  It is terrible that the people comprising 60 per cent. of the representation of the homes cannot make representations to the Minister. When those people came to me, I advised them to become organised, because they were not organised. They were individual people who were running homes and they found that the board was exercising a heavy hand. I told them that, if they were not organised, they would not be able to speak with one voice. However, they found that, once they were organised, they ran foul of the board and its officials.
  It is no laughing matter when board officials use threats on the telephone. I have raised such matters with Lord Arran. I presented him with a dossier of complaints and I had correspondence with him about those serious matters. I hope that the Minister will take them seriously. No one who makes a legitimate complaint should be intimidated for making that complaint. After all, the trade unions fought for the right to organist: Everyone has the right to organise and state the issues clearly before people whom they believe are dealing with the issues in a legal way.
  I hope that the Minister will say that the people who run 160 homes and supply 3,600 beds will at least be listened to. It is amazing that I have to make that plea tonight. Those people should be consulted and the Minister must contact those homes. It is no good saying that, if we place a statement in the press, representations can be made and everything will be well.
  Sir James Kilfedder: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association or its predecessor was totally unaware of the order? That is not true. I understand that they had consultations with officials. The order does not come as a surprise to them tonight.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, who said that no representations had been made to him, to learn that those people met him in June. He gave them 12 minutes of his time and did not reply to their representations.
  Sir James Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman need not get excited.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I am not getting excited; it is the hon. Gentleman who is getting excited.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not getting excited. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that the 160 homes that supply 3,600 beds are run by people who are not to be depended on. Those people are open and they come to hon. Members openly. They declare who they are. If they were not responsible people, they would not want to reveal themselves. If they were a body of people with black marks against them which could be proved, they would not deal with the matter openly.
  I remind the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) that he said that no such representations had been made to him—only representations from one. However, tonight I received a note to the effect that those people met the hon. Member for North Down in June. The hon. Gentleman gave them 12 minutes of his time and after they left there was no further comment or response to their representations.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I utterly refute the allegation that the hon. Gentleman just made, and I treat it with the utmost contempt. It is contemptuous of him to make that allegation in the House tonight without consulting me beforehand and taking my word for it that I do not dismiss any complaint from a constituent in the manner that he described. I was the one who informed an owner of a residential home at the weekend that the order was to come before the House this week. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) were then informed. They were surprised because they did not know that the order was to come before the House today.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Rubbish.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: All I shall say to the hon. Member for North Down is that the gentlemen concerned are in the Strangers Gallery. Let him meet me immediately after the debate and meet them face to face. It was utterly despicable of the hon. Gentleman to try to attack the character of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not make, and have never made, charges without dealing with them. So we will meet those gentlemen after the debate. The hon. Gentleman will be face to face with one of his constituents and he can answer to him.
  This is a most serious matter. It is regrettable that any charge should be made against anyone who runs a home in Northern Ireland who is trying publicly to do something to canvass support for his point of view. If people are irresponsible, they must be dealt with. I would not support any proposal that would not deal adequately with the care of people in nursing homes and I would not tolerate any derogation from the proper standards and I am known for that. If anybody derogates from the proper standards, it is the boards.
  946
  A lady died in Waveney hospital, in the heart of my constituency, at the weekend. When I telephoned Lord Arran, he confessed to me that the board had not even told him. Her body was found at a rubbish tip. That should have been reported immediately to the Minister. The first man to tell the Minister's office was myself. The board members did not even think it worth while to tell the responsible Minister. Those are the people who are to have power under the order. It is time Ministers took those people in hand and dealt with them in the way that they need to be dealt with.
  I have been a minister of the gospel for 46 years. I visit hospitals and I have pastoral concern for people. I will not cover up for anybody who runs a nursing home wrongly, but the people who have come to me are respectable people who run decent, honourable nursing homes. I object to any form of intimidation from board members because they do not like what is happening.
  The whole board system is absolutely ridiculous. As we sit in the House tonight, a board of faceless individuals is making decisions. The hon. Member for North Down knows the position in his area. We know what is happening in County Down at present. It is already happening in my area. We will have more cuts tomorrow. What will happen to the elderly, the aged and the infirm? A country that cannot look after its elderly does not deserve anything. We all should have concern for such matters, and that is why I speak on this issue tonight.
  It is essential for the Minister to get the message. He should consult the Secretary of State now, withdraw the order and let us all sit around the table together. Speaking about getting around tables, what better subject could motivate every party in Northern Ireland than care for the elderly and care for those who need our help? The Minister should take the order back. What difference will it make if he takes it back for a month? The difference will be an order that will be better, more substantial and more helpful—
  Mr. Peter Robinson: And more acceptable.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: And more acceptable to all the people concerned.
  The tragedy is that, no matter what we say, we cannot alter a dot or stroke a T in the order. No hon. Member from outside Northern Ireland would like to have that system of government. It is utterly detestable that that is how we legislate for Northern Ireland. As I often say when I speak outside Northern Ireland to people who want to know what is happening, "It is interesting that, as a Member from Northern Ireland, I can help to amend legislation for Scotland, England and Wales, but I cannot amend legislation for the people who sent me to the House of Commons". That system needs to come to an end as quickly as possible. We are now reaping what the sowing has been. If we sow the wind, we reap the whirlwind. Why should the elderly, the aged and the people who need help have to reap the whirlwind? I appeal to the Minister to take action.
  Will the Minister help us and say, "Before the regulations are finally drafted and laid, we will have proper discussions about them so that they will be made as acceptable as they can be to all the interests concerned"? Surely that would be a step forward. We have never before been able even to glance at regulations. They just rode on the back of an order and that was it.

  947
  I am particularly worried about two aspects of the order. The first is in regard to employment in homes. As far as I can gather from the order, board officials can say to the owner of a home, "You cannot employ that person," and they do not need to give any reason. The owner of the home is bound to ask, "Why can I not accept that person?" We have intimate, close, so-called fair employment legislation—my attitude to it is well known in the House—but the employer has to abide by it. An applicant can say to the employer, "All right, I am going to take you to law. You will not give me a job, but I have all the necessary qualifications." Why can he not be given the job? It is not because the owner would not employ him; it is because the board says that he cannot employ him.
  Will the Minister assure me that the board will take responsibility and that the applicant can take action against the board and not against the person who was going to employ him?
  Mr. Robinson: And that it pays the compensation.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: And that it pays the compensation that would be meted out if the man proved his case in court. That important point needs to be hammered home to the Minister. We need an answer tonight. How can people who want to run homes and run them well be put in that position by this legislation?
  The matter has not been thought out at all. What the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about justices of the peace shows that it was lifted from English legislation. Justices of the peace in Northern Ireland have very little power. Tory candidates who do not win elections usually get a JP-ship just to keep them happy. The Democratic Unionist party has a heavy slice of the vote, and among us we have three JPs. I used to have to go to an Official Unionist to ask him to sign my election returns. They were always absolutely accurate, of course, and I had no bother with him.
  I was amazed. I thought that the Government were bringing justices of the peace back into action. "Justice of the peace" in Northern Ireland is just like an honorary title that is given to people of good standing. All that JPs are asked to do is sign warrants, and many of them do not want to sign warrants. When they see the police coming, they get away because they might have to sign a warrant against their friends and they would not like their signatures to be on the warrant.
  The Minister should take care when he is lifting legislation from England into such orders. The draftsmen are not very competent. If they are drafting legislation for Northern Ireland and do not know what a justice of the peace in Northern Ireland is, how can they do the intricate work of drafting? I trust that the Minister will take that point on board.
  The Government are giving away public property. As I read the order, board members can say, "You will do that, but we will do what we like." Board members are not tied by any regulations. They can change them. They can say, "That does not apply." At any time they can change any measure that we are supposed to pass tonight. They can do exactly what they like.
  I should like a public inquiry into the many people who have been placed in certain private homes when public homes have been closed down. Why has there been discrimination? Why do some people in the private homes industry have all the beds that they want filled, and not
  948
  only filled but paid for and held in trust for the board, when other people are doing their best to make a livelihood in that sector? Those matters need to be addressed by the Minister. The boards should not be given such massive powers.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made an excellent speech in which he touched the very core of the matter. He referred to the boards' massive powers. It is amazing that in a democracy we are prepared to hand over such powers to a board. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has told us who the members of the boards are. The boards consist of defeated candidates who could not get elected and of people who were employed by the Government for years, Government pensioners. Does anyone think that they will rock the boat? If we refer to the biographies of the people who are on these quangos, we discover that many of them were in Government employment.
  The chairman of a new quango was appointed recently. Who is he? He is the former head of the civil service, Sir Ken Bloomfield. Of course, he has to get a nice little job. Does anyone think that he would rock the boat? We had experience of him from the days of Terence O'Neill. We know that he used to write Terence O'Neill's speeches, and we all know what happened to Terence O'Neill.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that no person who was employed by the Government will be on one of these tribunals? Will he give an undertaking that the tribunals will be independent bodies to which people can put their case?
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not trying to convey to the House that this system of appointments to quangos is peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is peculiar to the Conservative Government, as we have seen in Wales, with the viceroys who operate as Secretaries of State both in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mackinlay: And in Scotland.
  Mr. Rogers: And also in Scotland. With absolute impunity they appoint Tory party officials, ex-officials and the husbands and wives of Ministers even to quangos to run the affairs of our countries.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No doubt the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), speaking for the Principality, knows what he is talking about. However, the hon. Gentleman has two advantages. At least Wales has local government with some power and he can elect people as councillors. In Northern Ireland local government can only empty bins, look after cemeteries and build a few leisure centres; that is all it can do.
  Of course, local authorities are consulted. The consultative programme in Northern Ireland is immense. Councils can sit till three o'clock in the morning just to be consulted, and they do. The pay is better after a certain hour. I do not blame them. Then they are abused by their constituents because they do not make decisions—but they are not allowed to make decisions.
  In addition to having local government with some power, Welsh Members have the right to move amendments to legislation that affects them. We have no right to move any amendments tonight. This is the law of the Medes and Persians—we take it or we leave it. There

  949
  are many things in the order with which I agree but I cannot vote for one part and reject another. I must vote against the whole measure.
  The subject is so important that it would be a fine gesture on the part of the Minister if he were to consult and were to say, "This is a troublesome order, and there has been much opposition from all over the House. We will take time to reconsider it." By doing that, the Minister would be doing good service to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House. When he meets me, his boss talks to me about morale outside. The best thing that he could do for the morale of the people of Northern Ireland would be to take the order back and reconsider it; then the people might say that there is some hope of politics succeeding. I make that appeal to the Minister. He should argue his case. I should be happy for the debate to be adjourned so that he might argue his case before we come back to the matter again.
  We can do nothing now about what is in the order, but we can do something about the regulations if the Minister gives us the chance. That is not as good as having the order right, but at least it will help us to satisfy those who have the interests of the residents of homes at heart.
  I have various documents here about key workers. I have one entitled "New Key Workers", which was sent to a home. It says that everyone in the home will have a worker who will be in charge of that individual person to deal with pre-admission work, admission work, record keeping, care programmes, reviews, bathing, clothes, personal shopping, beds, hair care, appointments, liaison with relatives, liaison with other professionals and special interests. We are told in the Minister's document that all that is to cost nothing.
  I had better read it to the Minister so that he will know what his document says. By the way, this is the same document that was said to have evoked widespread support. It states:
  "What is it going to cost? The order will not lead to any significant increase in public expenditure. The introduction of fees is intended to make the board's work of registering and inspecting private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes self-financing."
  Are the homes to pay for the resident worker? We are told that the only increase in public sector staff will arise with the establishment of a registered homes tribunal, and that only a part-time secretary will be needed for that.
  The Minister should get the document which has been issued for consultation. He should not ask me how I got this document but I have got it. It is entitled "Private Nursing/Residential Care for Persons with a Mental Handicap". It is a draft document issued by the Southern health and social services board. In regard to key workers it states:
  "The board will identify a key worker for each service user. The key worker will maintain on-going links with the service user and home staff and will monitor, on behalf of the board, the well-being of the service user. The role of a board appointed key worker should be seen as distinct from the role of a primary care worker identified for an individual service user as part of a home's operational policy.

  Key workers will:

  have access to service users;

  have access to care plans and be involved in care reviews;

  be informed of any significant developments that may occur concerning the service user;

  950

  except in emergency situations be consulted regarding any change in care objectives for service users."

  Is all that to be paid for by the home?
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend take into account that not only will the key worker have to be paid for by the homes if the system is to be self-financing, but the inspectorate, which is three or four times greater in Northern Ireland and therefore three or four times more costly than in Great Britain, will also have to be paid for by the homes?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I take that into account. That will tell against people who will he able to give proper care, because finances will be cut and a major cut in the finances of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland will flow from what happens in the House tomorrow. The future is bleak. The Government seem to be saying that they will do away with the public sector and put such provision in to the private sector, but the private sector will have to finance it. The Government will not have that responsibility. The Minister must come clean with us about that tonight.
  8.58 pm
  Sir James Kilfedder: I shall speak briefly to welcome the order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) requested the Minister to withdraw the order, but I ask him not to do so.
  First, I do not like the Order-in-Council procedure and I have criticised and attacked it in the Chamber on many occasions. I find it unacceptable, but it is the way in which legislation has been introduced in Northern Ireland.
  Secondly, I do not like the Eastern health and social services board, which is the bureaucracy in charge of the health service in my area of North Down. The bureaucrats spend most of their time looking after their own welfare rather than the welfare of the people that I represent.
  I must make plain my approach to the order. One subject which concerns me deeply is the welfare of the elderly in residential homes. Within the scope of the debate, strangely enough, we have heard mention of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and of Protestantism and Catholicism, and Dublin has been dragged into it. We have heard mention of pay for councillors for sitting long hours, of the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and of a former head of the civil service there. Allegations were made about dictatorship; and a personal attack was made on the Minister. I ask him to brush such personal remarks aside. As I have said before, he is recognised as a person who has shown that he is genuinely sincere about Ulster and the Ulster people.
  I care about the welfare of elderly people in residential homes, and I welcome the order for that reason, because it requires all residential care homes to be registered and and to be inspected regularly and properly. What is wrong with that? I am concerned because many of my constituents are in such homes. I have talked to them and have visited many of the homes in my constituency. I have also talked to relatives and friends of residents in care homes for the elderly. I am worried about the way in which they may be treated by unscrupulous proprietors.
  As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), elderly people are among the most vulnerable in our community. We must do everything possible to defend them.

  951
  Certain matters have been mentioned in the debate which would give cause for consideration, but if the order is defective let us put it into effect as quickly as possible and then introduce amendments to it.
  For every day that goes by an elderly person may be left at the mercy of someone who cares more about profit than about the welfare of the people in their accommodation. There is nothing wrong with the profit motive. It acts as an incentive to encourage interested people to offer accommodation to those in need of care because of age and infirmity. The overwhelming majority of owners of residential homes look after residents properly.
  I am worried about the unscrupulous few—and it is no use saying that there are only a few. If one elderly person is ill-treated by a proprietor of a residential home and we do nothing about it, we are as guilty as the people in charge of the home. That is why I praise the Minister for introducing the order. It is not his Department, but he has brought such matters before us in the past on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for health, the Earl of Arran, who is in another place. I know from my experience that he is only anxious to do what is best for people in Northern Ireland.
  In the past five years residential care homes have mushroomed throughout the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is no exception. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a few unscrupulous owners who are not as caring about their residents as they should be. The order can deal with those few who, lamentably, have little or no regard for elderly residents. We all know what can happen to an elderly person in someone else's care. It may involve a tight budget for meals, providing food of a quality and quantity below what elderly residents should have. I have heard that accusation made against a particular home and I have relayed the complaint. It may also involve an unacceptable degree of sedation. We have read in the press—the report applied only to Britain but we must be aware that it happens elsewhere—about armchairs that were deliberately used to detain the person placed in them.
  The order is to care for people in residential homes and ensure, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, that elderly people who are placed in the care of others for payment are not treated in a manner that insults their dignity, robs them of their pride or undermines their health.
  The vast majority of residential care home owners are caring and the homes are well managed. Having seen some homes in my constituency, I have been impressed by the attentiveness of the staff and the homely atmosphere. It would be wrong of me to mention particular homes, but when one enters certain homes one feels the warmth of the staff—the matron and others—and when one talks to the elderly residents one knows that the staff really care for those in their charge. It gives me a great feeling of joy when I enter such homes, but makes me extremely concerned about other homes where things may be happening which we would not like to see happen to our elderly relatives.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: That is precisely the point that I made during the course of my remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if it is right to regulate and license those homes in the private sector, homes that are under the control of the board or any other statutory body and children's and young persons' homes should also be brought under the same inspectorate? If it is right in the
  952
  case of one, is it not right in the case of the other? If the hon. Gentleman believes that it would be right to include them under the order, why pass defective legislation?
  Sir James Kilfedder: It is a strange logic to say that, because the legislation is defective, legislation that would be beneficial to so many people should be denied to them simply because it could have incorporated something else. If I thought about it, I could probably extend the hon. Gentleman's list. The list has been put forward as an excuse for delaying the introduction of the order. It is not a justification for delay.
  Naturally, I would welcome the extension of the order to other statutory homes, but I do not think that the Minister should delay the order. He is doing his duty by the people of Northern Ireland. He knows that I would be prepared to criticise him if I felt that he was failing in his duty. He would welcome suggestions from me or any other hon. Member who wishes to see the order approved, and I have no doubt that he will take them on board in the implementation of the order.
  Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and excuse myself, as a fellow Celt, for interfering. I am in a dilemma. Earlier the hon. Gentleman said that we should accept the legislation although it might well be defective, as we could later alter it. He also said, as did other hon. Members, that the legislation cannot be altered. Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is imploring us to support defective legislation because it can later be altered, when it cannot be? Does he mean that, in order for the legislation to be amended, it has to be thrown out and completely new legislation introduced?
  If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked the Minister to take the order away for a month, look at it again and iron out the problems that have been highlighted. I know that I am making a rather lengthy intervention—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that that is an understatement, and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I am only repeating what people have said, which is that there are defects in the order. If there are, I would welcome improvements to the order.
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Sir James Kilfedder: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as we must get on.
  I would welcome improvements to the order, but we should allow it to proceed. I have not received any representations from the registered home owners stating that the order should be amended line by line. I have heard from only one lady at the weekend, who told me about one aspect of the order. I have a high regard for her; she runs a home of excellent standards. That is the only representation that I have heard.
  If the order were defective, surely the Minister would have received a stream of complaints, recommendations and amendments. I am sure that hon. Members present would have been briefed about the order's defects; I have not been briefed about any.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir James Kilfedder: Yes, I will.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) must make it snappy.
  Mr. Rogers: I can tell the hon. Gentleman of one defect in the order, having made a quick perusal of it. If the so-called justices of the peace, who are symbolic in Northern Ireland, are asked to allow an appeal, action to close down the home is taken by a board, and any appeal is made to the board. Therefore, the board acts as judge and jury in its own action. Surely that is fundamentally wrong in any legislation.
  Sir James Kilfedder: I cannot find the place now, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman studies the order he will see that there is a right of appeal to a tribunal against any of the board's decisions.
  I believe that the order will result in better protection for elderly people. The call that I issue from the House tonight is that residents in residential homes for the elderly, and their relatives and friends, should be aware of the fact that they are now provided with a more effective opportunity to lodge complaints about poor standards or ill treatment. That call must go out. It will comfort the relatives of those in care to know that there is an effective means of dealing with complaints. Good registered home owners should welcome that. The lady of whom I spoke —I do not wish to mention her name—is an excellent home owner.
  If the Care Homes Association wishes to maintain a high standard, it should support any legislation that deals with the unscrupulous few.
  There is a clear onus on all hon. Members to safeguard the person of the elderly, their dignity and their rights. Every law and every regulation that flows from it may seem irksome to many good people, whatever their sphere of activity. However, they must realise that we are legislating to root out those who have nothing but ill will for their residents. By doing so, we shall safeguard the welfare of the elderly in homes throughout Northern Ireland.
  Hon. Members have spoken about inspection. Up to now, the inspection of homes has been inadequate, and I am not sure how the new legislation will operate. However, more inspections should improve the standards of homes. I have always said that the Government should spend more money on carers—related or voluntary—who look after the elderly in their own homes with their possessions around them and a knowledge of the local shops and churches and so on.
  Perhaps, when I was replying to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I should have mentioned statutory homes. In my area, the Banks statutory residential home for the elderly is threatened with closure. There are vacancies in the home but they are not filled because officials want to kick out the residents and take over the home. The officials already have a foot in the door and want to convert the home to palatial offices for Eastern board bureaucrats. The Minister must make sure that the board does not get away with that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir James Kilfedder: No. The hon. Gentleman had his say. [Interruption] I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep quiet.
  I urge the Minister to look into that matter because it would be a grave injustice to the residents of that home if
  954
  the board suddenly closed it. Those elderly people are worried about their future. I shall shortly present a petition on behalf of the people of Bangor urging the House to save the Banks residential home and to block the door to the bureaucrats in the Eastern board.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The issues raised in the debate have general application in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) said that we should be extremely concerned about the condition and care of the elderly in the community. I agree. The Government should provide more resources so that the elderly can be looked after in their own homes rather than in hospital or residential homes where, occasionally, the standard of care is not all that we would wish.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the board is such a wicked, bad, rascally body that the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) wants the Minister to take it in hand, is it not strange that he also wants it to be given more power so that it can inspect all the homes where old people are in care?
  Mr. Rogers: I would not want to get involved in the problems of any specific board in Northern Ireland, or in any other aspect of the government of Northern Ireland, with which I disagree entirely.
  If the hon. Member for North Down is saying that there is a problem with that home, and he has to petition Parliament in an attempt to rectify the problem, then there is obviously something wrong. From my admittedly superficial perusal of the order, I should not have thought that it would put that right. As I understand it, if someone objects to what is going on in any of these homes, the right of appeal under article 27 is to a tribunal. But the tribunal is appointed by the Minister. If both the tribunal and the board are appointed by the Minister, where is the independent review of any issue about which, for example, the hon. Member for North Down wishes to complain?
  There is something fundamentally wrong with the order, and we shall vote against it. The Minister should take it away and have another look at it. It would not be the first time that that had happened, but the Government are so arrogant in the way they govern the country that that is asking an awful lot. As I said earlier, my Northern Ireland colleagues should not feel too isolated on this. Scotland and Wales have the same problem all the time, with the arrogance of the viceroys who rule in the Welsh and Scottish Offices.
  I wholeheartedly agree with Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and my own Front-Bench spokesman who have said that they will vote against the order. I am sure that I shall be told off for interfering in the debate, but as I have recently been appointed Front-Bench spokesman for foreign affairs—
  Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend will be debating Hong Kong soon.
  Mr. Rogers: I shall leave Hong Kong for another occasion, but I may have a locus in this debate, too.
  Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and it deserves the best of legislation. Therefore, we should reject the order.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will know how assiduous Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are in carrying out their duties. On occasions such as this they find it easy to fill any time that becomes unexpectedly available to them. This is my first night off after six months of the talks process and I could not have thought of a better way to spend the evening. I never expected that the evening would end early and I intend to fill it as best I can by answering the points that have been raised. The extra time is a blessing.
  I was interested in the little vignette of a speech made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Roberts) a few moments ago. I note that it is the first time that the Labour party has said that it will vote against such legislation. I had a cursory glance in the Library earlier and I noted that the legislation on which the order is based, the Registered Homes Act 1984, was apparently not voted upon in the House. The Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, the other Act upon which the order is based, was also not voted upon and went through almost formally.
  It is interesting, therefore, that the Opposition intend to vote against the order tonight. I shall return to the impact of a defeat, which I would take as a vote of —confidence[Interruption.]—in myself, of course. I want to answer as many points as possible, so I should be grateful for as few interventions as possible.
  The decision to review the existing legislation governing the regulation of private and voluntary sector residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland was, as several hon. Members have said, the result of two major influences.
  The first was the substantial growth in such homes in recent years and the growing pressure on the registering and inspecting authorities which existed at the time to ensure that there were satisfactory standards of care and accommodation and that they were maintained. The second influence was the legislation to which I have referred and its associated subordinate legislation. It is important to remember that that legislation was supported by the House without Division. The legislation gave registering authorities in England and Wales strength and powers to regulate residential care and nursing homes.
  Following a comprehensive consultative exercise with a wide range of interested statutory, voluntary and private sector organisations and indviduals, the general consensus emerged that in Northern Ireland we should, as far as possible, bring our legislation broadly in line with that of the 1984 Act.
  I mentioned earlier that there were more than 100 responses to the consultation on the draft order and then there were 13 responses. I mentioned that none of those 13 came from hon. Members. Hon. Members have explained why there were only 13, but the reason for such a small number of responses was not merely that no legislation could be altered at this stage in the House but that there was proper long-term consultation in designing that legislation. The legislation was therefore properly consulted on in advance.
  The draft order has the great merit of drawing together in one piece of legislation all the primary provisions governing the registration and inspection of both categories of homes.
  956
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked if I could give an assurance that the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association would be consulted about regulations to be prepared by the Department. That was also mentioned by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  I can give a categorical assurance that such consultation will take place. Draft regulations will be issued to a wide range of private, voluntary and statutory sector organisations within the next week, including the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. The draft regulations will go to all representative bodies and all
  I welcome the hon. Member for Normanton (M r. O'Brien) to his new post, and congratulate him on his speech. He suggested that the boards were not truly accountable, and that they would allow standards to slip. Standards will be governed both by subordinate legislation and by guidelines prepared by responsible professional bodies. I dealt with that point earlier. I do not believe that standards will be allowed to slip, nor do I accept that the boards are not truly accountable. Each board has had to establish an advisory committee to provide a link between the inspection units and the public interest. Moreover, I took pains earlier to stress the arm's-length establishment of the units. I hope that no one who reads my speech imagines that the units will be anything other than independent and reliable.
  The hon. Member for Normanton should realise that, if home owners have any genuine complaints about the way in which inspection units have treated them under existing Northern Ireland legislation, my noble Friend Lord Arran will be anxious to hear about it. I shall suggest holding a meeting with those who have specific complaints.
  The new legislation will actually make it easier for home owners to appeal against decisions made by registration and inspection units. As I explained to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, that will be done by way of the Registered Homes Tribunal, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. The tribunal will benefit from the presence of a panel of professional experts who, as I said earlier, will build up a body of useful case law.
  I must admit that the Department of Health and Social Services originally had no strong views about the need for a change from the existing courts appeal system, and doubted whether the likely number of appeals would justify the establishment of a separate tribunal system. In subsequently opting for such a system, it took account of several points.
  First and most important, the majority of those who commented on the matter during the consultation exercise —in response to the initial consultative paper—were in favour of a tribunal system. Secondly, the positive feedback from registration authorities and proprietors of homes in regard to the performance of tribunals in England and Wales seemed to suggest that a similar system would be sensible in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, it was felt that Northern Ireland would benefit from the professional expertise of the tribunals' members and, as I have said, from the accumulation of a useful body of case law

  957
  relating to a specialised aspect of health and social services activity. A fourth consideration was the speed with which cases could be dealt with, and the comparative cheapness of the process.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that tribunals might be full of "tainted" appointees. I assure them that the Lord Chancellor appoints a panel of legally qualified people to act as chairmen of tribunals. The Department appoints an independent panel of other experts, but they must have the appropriate medical, nursing and social work experience, and no officer of the Deparment can be appointed to a tribunal.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I thank the Minister for the kind remarks that he made earlier. We are told that the Lord Chancellor will nominate some tribunal members, and that the boards will nominate others. Will any of the users of the services—residents, or people who work in the homes—be able to sit on tribunals and express their views on issues that are raised?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that this debate can run until 11.30 pm?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The debate can run until 11.30 this evening.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Member for Antrim, North ticked me off earlier in the debate. He said that I was laughing during his speech. I was not laughing; I was wincing. At the moment that I winced, the volume control in some part of the House had clearly developed a fault. It was one of the speakers, I think—the speaker at the time, perhaps. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that he said was a laughing matter.
  To the hon. Member for Normanton, the answer is no. These are medically qualified people. [Interruption.] If there are any failings in the system, we shall try to address them in due course, but my feeling is that in that instance there are unlikely to be any failings.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanley: I was about to refer to the hon. Gentleman, but if he would like me to give way I am prepared to do so.
  Mr. Robinson: Yes, I should like the Minister to give way.
  Mr. Hanley: I am trying to answer the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised in his earlier interventions, but if he would like to ask a few more questions, please carry on.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for the Minister's patience. In terms of many of the Northern Ireland tribunals—for example, the unfair constructive dismissal tribunals—it is recognised that a legally competent person should chair it, that somebody might represent the interests of the employers and that somebody else might represent the interests of the employees. Can the Minister not provide the same balance in the tribunals that he intends to set up?
  Mr. Hanley: I have already answered that question. In answer to another comment, I said that we shall look at the issue. I believe that I have dealt sufficiently with that point.
  958
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to inspection units and said that they employed four times as many staff as the inspection units of local authorities in England and Wales. Arm's-length inspection units in England and Wales are provided by local authorities to inspect only residential care homes. They do not inspect nursing homes. Therefore, it is unfair to seek to compare their work load with those of arm's-length inspection units in Northern Ireland, which will be responsible for inspecting both residential care homes and nursing homes.
  Reference was made to the costs involved. It will be for the Minister concerned to set the fee levels. The boards will have to tailor their costs to fit that particular cloth.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East also referred to article 25. Was it not unfair, he said, that owners of homes should be expected to represent themselves? They will be allowed legal representation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to clarify that matter.
  The hon. Member for Normanton referred to accountability for the regulation of homes, by reference to the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association. So far as I am aware, the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association's request for a meeting with Lord Arran did not include any reference to the need to amend the draft order, nor did it say that it wished to influence its contents. I have already stated that there was considerable consultation and that, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East also mentioned, all the bodies in existence in Northern Ireland in January 1992 were asked to comment on the order. The Northern Ireland Care Homes Association is in existence now. That changes the matter greatly for the future. I shall refer again to the association in a few moments.
  The hon. Member for North Down asked whether there should be tighter regulation of standards in the interests of vulnerable people. If we stick with the existing legislation, home owners will not have to pay fees. When we examine the establishment of fees, it is right to consider whether such establishment would be fair and reasonable. I assure the professional associations that the establishment of such fees will be done carefully. We shall not try to establish levels of fees which are seen as unfair.
  That leads to the point which was raised by three or four hon. Members about the costs of key workers. I shall come back to that matter when I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  The hon. Member for Normanton referred to Disability Action's commentary on the policy and planning research unit survey. Although that may or may not have been out of order, it was nevertheless an important point. The commentary is simply the first of seven studies to be published under the policy and planning research unit survey. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being taken fully into account. Disability Action will be called to give evidence to a steering group which is overseeing the survey and considering its implications for policy. Disability Action was consulted during the drafting of the order.
  This is the first time that I have met the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) across the Floor of the House. I met him for the first time a few weeks ago in Northern Ireland. I congratulate him on the keen interest that he takes in the affairs of the Province. We are grateful

  959
  for the interest that he and his Back-Bench colleagues have shown. I hope that they benefited from their visit to Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member asked whether the order was a back-door method of creating trusts. The provisions which schedule 1(2) inserts into the 1972 order have nothing to do with any health or social service trust. They merely put the private sector on a level playing field with the voluntary sector.
  Perhaps I should explain that in more detail. The existing Northern Ireland legislation contained in article 71 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 permits health and social services boards to enter into contracts with voluntary organisations—non-profit making organisations—to provide any of the health and personal social services. Unfortunately, similar powers do not exist to permit the boards to enter into contracts with private sector organisations for the provision of such services. Therefore, the provisions in paragraphs 2(1) and (2) in schedule 1 specifically ensure that, when implemented, boards will have clear powers to enter into contracts for the provision of any health or personal social services by both voluntary and private sector organisations. I can imagine the lobbying that would have taken place if such a provision had not been included in the order.
  I should hate to see any delay in the implementation of provisions to allow local boards to enter into contracts with the private sector for the provision of health or personal social services. Such services include not only residential and nursing home care but day care, respite care and domiciliary support. If the House is saying that it does not wish the private sector to provide any of those services, I invite it to vote against the order tonight.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to new article 50 which will amend the 1972 order. Proposed article 50, as amended, does not apply to registered homes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it applies to other premises such as day centres. The rights of inspection and entry into registered homes are contained in proposed article 29. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether children's homes should be included in the order. Children's homes are already protected through the provisions for registration and inspection in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. That is probably what the hon. Member for North Down meant, too. However, I understand that my noble Friend Lord Arran intends soon to bring forward a new proposal for more up-to-date legislation based upon the children's order which operates elsewhere in the United Kingdom and to which other hon. Members have referred. That will all be taken into account shortly.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East also asked why schedule 1 discriminated against the public sector by allowing boards to sell their homes to voluntary organisations. There is no discrimination. As I have said before, schedule 1 is specifically designed to ensure that providers of services in the private sector can compete freely with voluntary organisations for contracts from health and social services boards to supply any of those services.
  Another question asked by the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Down was whether the order applied to statutory homes provided directly by health boards. No, the order refers only to private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes, but the
  960
  Government are determined that the same high standards of care should apply commonly across the statutory, the voluntary and the private sectors. With that aim in view, the four health boards created the arm's-length inspection unit, to which I have already referred.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East also said that the boards were not allowing open competition. The boards will purchase places from as wide a range of homes as possible. After all, it is their duty to offer their clients choice. It would not be in their interests to negotiate only a small number of block contracts. Boards are being encouraged to draw up clear specifications for their care requirements and to invite tenders from those interested in providing such care. That would include members of the association which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  My noble Friend will wish to ensure that the boards' contractual operations are monitored carefully, so that clients' needs come first. The boards' primary duty will be to seek tenders against very precise specifications.
  The hon. Member for South Down asked about approval for the closure of statutory homes. I can assure him that the case for the closure of any board homes must be defended by the board concerned and presented to the Minister. Then the Minister has to decide whether he prefers to approve the board's decision. That process has led certain hon. Members to say that consultation with the Minister had been refused.
  I was the Minister responsible for health and personal social services for nearly 18 months, and I remember that there were many requests for meetings and consultations on behalf of homes and other organisations. The practice is that, if there is a decision to be taken by a health and social services board, that decision must be taken first. Then, if the matter is passed to the Minister because it is major or controversial, consultations with him are welcomed, and are carried out. If we refuse to meet a delegation, that is merely because the proper time for such a meeting is after the local board has made its decision.
  Mr. McGrady: The Minister has missed the point. De facto if not de jure, the homes are closed before the Minister has an opportunity to say whether they should be closed. The action on the ground by the health board is to run down the home by whatever means possible so as to ensure that it is not viable. The board then presents a valid case for closure to the Minister. The point we made was that representation should be allowed to take place with the Minister before that process is entered into.
  Mr. Hanley: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If he wants to put specific cases to my noble Friend Lord Arran, I should be grateful if he would do so. I would certainly deprecate practices such as he has described.
  The hon. Member for South Down asked whether all homes had been consulted. As I have said, there was earlier consultation. In 1988, the consultation document was sent to every home owner and the published proposals went to every home owners' body in existence at the time. I have -already mentioned the subordinate legislation—the regulations—which will be issued next week. I have already promised hon. Members that if they want a copy of those, they can receive one.
  The hon. Member for South Down said that small homes were not defined. They are defined in paragraph 4(5) as homes providing
  "residential accommodation with both board and personal care for fewer than 4 persons".

  961
  The important point is that we do not clutter up small homes with a tremendous amount of legislation. That would be wrong. The small homes should be of the right standard and they should be subjected to some tests. However, the full rigour of the law would mean only that small groups of people helping others out would feel that they were under a weight of legislation.
  I was asked why it had taken so long for the legislation to come through from 1985. One reason, as I mentioned earlier, is that legislation already exists to regulate the registration and inspection of residential care homes in Northern Ireland and there is separate legislation to regulate the registration and inspection of nursing homes.
  Until the early 1980s, there was no significant increase in establishments. We have referred to the new establishments which have been created. The House may not know that between 1982 and 1987, the number of places in nursing homes rose from 347 to 1,564—an increase of 350 per cent. Consultation began at that stage.
  I do not deny that there have been unavoidable pressures and priorities within the Department, such as the major review of community care policy, and the need to consider and to provide at short notice for the legislative provisions required to implement the Government's other policy objectives on community care in Northern Ireland. However, the delay enabled us to gain valuable experience from the Registered Homes Act 1984, so it has helped us in providing for vulnerable people in a community setting.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, which refers to the registration of small homes, was not made directly applicable to Northern Ireland. That is a fair question. The answer is that it would not have been possible. The 1991 Act amended the 1984 Act, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. The existing Northern Ireland legislation already required small homes to be registered. The order re-enacts the existing Northern Ireland provision and states specifically what will be required of small homes as opposed to larger homes.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann also pointed out that mental nursing homes are a separate category in the 1984 Act and he wanted to know why there was no mention of such homes in the order. In providing for the registration of mental nursing homes as a separate category of nursing home, the Registered Homes Act 1984 seeks to make special provision in the case of cancellation of registration or the death of the registered person for patients in the home detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
  Replication of such a provision in Northern Ireland legislation is not required because a mentally disordered person can be compulsorily detained under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 only in a statutory hospital or institution—in practice, a psychiatric or mental handicap hospital or unit—or in a private hospital as defined in article 90 of part 7 of the 1986 order. There are currently no such private hospitals in Northern Ireland. Therefore, article 90 has not been brought into effect.
  It is not thought necessary to define a special category of mental nursing home because in Northern Ireland people with a mental illness or mental handicap may be admitted to nursing homes, but only on a voluntary basis. The registration and inspection powers accorded to boards
  962
  by this order in respect of nursing homes will enable the boards to safeguard the welfare of all patients of nursing homes whatever may be their individual health status or care needs.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Down referred to justices of the peace. The hon. Member for Antrim, North believed that there was sloppy drafting of the term "justice of the peace". I pay tribute to the noble people who take up the responsibilities of justices of the peace in Northern Ireland.
  The 1984 Act in respect of England and Wales refers to justices of the peace. We followed the term in the drafting of the order because the Northern Ireland courts service had to examine the issue. Once the issue had been examined, the service felt that it should be approved because of the need for urgent cancellation of a licence. As the hon. Member for North Down said, if an unsuitable person is running a home, that person should be put out of business as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked me to define "widespread" in terms of consultation. Clearly, that is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the home at Broughshane. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me or to my noble Friend Lord Arran. The hon. Gentleman said that my noble Friend is aware of the case, but I assure him that I shall ask for the matter to be investigated again. That applies also to the serious case involving the death to which he referred.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already contacted Lord Arran.
  Mr. Hanley: The Department has assured me that it is not aware of that. If it is meant to be aware of it, we shall certainly look into it again.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister's colleague has replied to me. I have a letter on my desk saying that he had received my message and that he had taken care of it. He was indignant that the board had done in Broughshane what it should not have done.
  Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for that information. Neither I nor the officials advising me today were aware of that and I apologise for that. However, if my noble Friend Lord Arran knows about the matter, I am sure that he is dealing with it properly.
  There are four or five other points to which I could refer. However, I hope that the House will have heard enough about the order to give it the same treatment as was given to the main legislation—that is, to allow it to go through without a Division. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for his comments. If the order is lost, however, it will not be just for a month, as some hon. Members have stated. We shall have to republish a proposal, reconsult and queue again for parliamentary time—and the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred will suffer. We would not be waiting for the Danes before enacting the legislation"it might take a lot longer than that.
  Hon. Members will agree that I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and I hope that I have dealt with the vast majority of them. I remain convinced that the provisions in the draft order will make a significant contribution to safeguarding the welfare of people in Northern Ireland who require care in private voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 147.

  Division No. 85]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Alexander, Richard

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Amess, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ancram, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hague, William

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Ashby, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bates, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bendall, Vivian

  Heald, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Boswell, Tim

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Jack, Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jessel, Toby

  Burns, Simon

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Butler, Peter

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Butterfill, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Knapman, Roger

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cash, William

  Knox, David

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Churchill, Mr

  Legg, Barry

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Congdon, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Couchman, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Malone, Gerald

  Day, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Marlow, Tony

  Dicks, Terry

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dover, Den

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Merchant, Piers

  Elletson, Harold

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Page, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Redwood, John

  Forth, Eric

  Richards, Rod

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Riddick, Graham

  Freeman, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  French, Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gallie, Phil

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Sackville, Tom

  964

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walden, George

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Stern, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Trend, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Allen, Graham

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Hume, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hutton, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Bayley, Hugh

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Beggs, Roy

  Jamieson, David

  Benton, Joe

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Blunkett, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bradley, Keith

  Keen, Alan

  Burden, Richard

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Byers, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lewis, Terry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Litherland, Robert

  Clapham, Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clelland, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Loyden, Eddie

  Coffey, Ann

  McAllion, John

  Connarty, Michael

  McCartney, Ian

  Cousins, Jim

  McFall, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McGrady, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McKelvey, William

  Davidson, Ian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Madden, Max

  Dowd, Jim

  Mahon, Alice

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mallon, Seamus

  Eastham, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  Enright, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Flynn, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  965

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trimble, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Walley, Joan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Martin Jones and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Spellar, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

PETITION

  Pit Closures
  10.12 pm
  Mr. David Hanson (De1yn): I rise to present a petition, which has been signed by 16,000 of my constituents and other residents of north-east Wales, in support of the Point of Ayr colliery, which is threatened with closure.
  The petition draws attention to the increasing reliance that Fiddler's Ferry power station places on imported coal, which is unacceptable, and to the fact that new mining methods have been introduced at the pit which have not been taken into account when assessing its viability.
  The petition ends by asking
  your honourable House to instruct British Coal to withdraw the proposal to close Point of Ayr colliery.
  I fully support the petition and I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who represents the area around Fiddler's Ferry power station, is here to support it.
  To lie upon the Table.

Sex Offences (Clinics)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
10.13 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: This issue is serious and difficult to talk about. It is certainly difficult for Parliament to discuss and for the children who are the victims of sexual abuse. I raise this matter with some sadness because I had an Adjournment debate on a similar issue three years ago. One of my main questions this evening is, what progress has been made on that sensitive and important matter since I first raised it in the House? It is clear that we need to do far more to help the victims of the sexual abuse of children—the children themselves—and to develop preventive measures to reduce the incidence of that horrendous crime. We must stop it before it can occur.
The problem that I highlighted in the Chamber some three years ago has not gone away. Indeed, the fact that we find it a little easier to talk about it these days means that the full extent of the phenomenon is only just becoming known. I want the Minister to lay before the House tonight the progress that has been made in the past three years and, more importantly, the Government's plans to extend the victims' ability to be assisted and society's ability to ensure that the perpetration of those crimes cannot take place.
It is customary in Adjournment debates for the time to be split between the person who raises the debate and the Minister who replies. Having spoken to the Minister, I hope to do it slightly differently this time. I spoke at great length on the subject in 1989 and I am happy to send a copy of my speech in Hansard to any hon. Members who wants further elaboration of the case. With the Minister's permission, I want to allow him a little more time to outline the Government's progress and future plans on the matter.
I say that with all due respect to the individuals and organisations that have briefed me in the past few days since I was fortunate enough to draw the Adjournment debate. Those organisations included the National Children's Home; the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Nottinghamshire county council's social services department, which has been doing an excellent job in individual cases recently; the child abuse studies unit at the university of North London; and many others. They are all deeply concerned about the debate but want to hear what the Government have to say rather than another exposition of the case from me.
I wish to make three brief points for the Minister to consider, not only tonight but also in more measured time outside the Chamber. First, there is only one private clinic for the treatment of sex offenders. It is important that, where those people are seen to need treatment, treatment should be made available for them. I have proposed in the past that there should be not just one private clinic to try to break into the problem but a clinic in each region of the United Kingdom. There should be a centre so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel whenever a horrendous case comes to the public's attention. There would then be a body of knowledge so that victims could be assisted wherever they were found.
Secondly, we need a national centre so that all the research done by the police, the social services, voluntary

967
bodies and academics can be brought together centrally. With that knowledge pooled, the best practices can be better distributed around those who need to know the information.
Thirdly, I want the Minister to consider a question which I have pursued since 1989 and which I shall pursue again this evening—the total funding for research into how victims of child sexual abuse can be helped even more than they are now. I appreciate that there are tremendous difficulties currently and I am sure that the Minister has been battling valiantly to save existing programmes, let alone extend them. However, for an investment of £1 million, £2 million or £3 million—peanuts in public expenditure terms—the sum total of human misery can be dramatically reduced by ensuring that victims of child sexual offences are properly assisted to rebuild their shattered lives. With that remark, I shall leave the remaining minutes to the Minister, who has kindly consented to take occasional interventions.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing this debate on an important subject. I know that his interest in the subject goes back over a number of years, and I read the report of his earlier Adjournment debate on the issue in 1989.
We are in complete agreement in the House on the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it needs to be considered by the House from time to time. Therefore, I am glad of the opportunity to update the hon. Gentleman on the progress that we have made in the past three years. The subject is highly sensitive, and one that, for too long, society has regarded as taboo. That fact has inhibited discussion on the subject, and the fact that there is now a greater openness in our thinking and discussion of it is itself a prerequisite, and helpful in achieving the sort of solutions that we both want. It is appropriate to take this opportunity to clarify the current position on the treatment for sexual offenders and their victims, who are all too often children. The subject obviously affects Government Departments other than my own, but I am glad to have the chance to respond to the hon. Gentleman.
In the case of convicted sex offenders, the provision of clinics or treatment centres based within the community to deal with their offending behaviour is essentially a matter for local provision. I heard with interest the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be more regional centres. It is important to recognise that, before a perpetrator of sexual offences is referred or directed to such centres, he would, of course, have been tried in the courts and a decision taken as to whether he is suitable for a sentence other than that of imprisonment. The paramount interest has to be one of public protection. In the great majority of more serious cases, the court decides that it is right for sex offenders to go to prison. Some of those men may come later into treatment as a condition of parole after serving their prison sentence.
For the small number of men who are convicted of sexual offences but do not go to prison—currently fewer than 1,500 a year—we believe that, in carefully controlled circumstances, community treatment can have an important and effective role in reducing their sexual offending behaviour. The probation service has played a
968
major part in that development in collaboration with local authorities, the national health service and the independent sector.
A recent Home Office study found that nearly all of the 55 probation areas in England and Wales has in place community-based treatment programmes for sex offenders, and those that did not have such programmes were planning them. The majority of those programmes are not residentially based but require the offender, as part of his probation order, regularly to attend a session at which, probably in a group with other sex offenders, he is confronted with his offending behaviour, and his distorted thinking about it, and its consequences for his victims. The work, which is sometimes called "victim empathy", means that, although the probation service cannot claim to "cure" sexual offending, it can aim to contain it so that sex offenders are helped to a position where they are sufficiently aware of their cycle of offending behaviour and sufficiently in control of it not to commit further offences.
In some cases, where it is not possible or appropriate for sex offenders to continue living in the home, they can as part of probation orders be housed in a probation hostel. Whilst treatment does not normally take place in those hostels, they provide a supportive but a challenging background to it; hostel staff have a part to play in encouraging offenders to continue the process of confronting their offence, begun by their colleagues in treatment.
In other cases, the probation service may have taken a decision that it would be an appropriate use of resources to place sex offenders on probation orders, and also on parole licence—for example, in the Gracewell institute. That institute combines treatment and residence, and provides more long-term supervision than can be achieved without an accommodation requirement. The decision on whether to use the institute is at the discretion of individual probation areas and will become increasingly dependent on both the resources that they have and on the sort of in-house provision that they can provide. Increasingly, that in-house provision will draw heavily on the practice developed at the Gracewell institute.
The individual needs of sex offenders do, of course, vary. So do the health and social service responses, which include a range of behaviourial and psycho-therapeutic techniques, as well as medication. There is a good deal of professional debate about the management of sex offenders, whether all or only some are amenable to treatment, and the presence or otherwise of links between sexual offending and any mental disorder.
As a result, sex offenders are assessed by psychiatrists and psychologists and other professionals in a variety of settings. Some may then attend specialised services or be seen at out-patient or day clinics; others may not be suitable for health care intervention. Some with mental health care needs may be in hospital or other mental health provision. They will include some people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who meet the criteria of that legislation relating to mental disorder. The Act makes it clear that a person may not be dealt with under its provisions by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy.
The Department of Health and the Home Office review of services for mentally disabled offenders, known as the Reed review, whose final report we shall be publishing shortly, produced a discussion paper on sex offenders with mental health needs. That was issued for consultation in

969
June and focused on the introduction by the prison service of structured programmes for sex offenders, the implications of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for health and social services, and proposals for further research. We shall be looking at the recommendations made in that paper as part of our consideration of the review.
The Criminal Justice Act is likely to increase calls on health and social services in two areas—at the point of sentence, and in support of treatment programmes. Such involvement is necessary to ensure that offenders receive a proper multidisciplinary assessment and, leading on from that, possible access to services. Health and social services will be involved in validating and monitoring programme content and in professional supervision.
At present only a small number of clinics are known to be providing specialised care for sex offenders as a specific client group. These do so mainly as part of services for a broader range of clients. Apart from the Gracewell clinic in Birmingham, probably the best known is the Portman clinic in London, which receives Government support through top-sliced funding. The allocation this year for the Portman and the adjacent Tavistock clinic is £4·5 million.
Some of the specialised mental health services that provide in part for sex offenders with a mental disorder are also supported through central capital or revenue funding. These include regional secure units, for which capital funding this year has been increased to £18 million, from £3 million last year. They also include the special hospitals, which provide psychiatric services in conditions of high security. The future of these services is being examined by a working group announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in the light of the Reed review and the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper on Ashworth hospital.
The Gracewell clinic, which is currently being evaluated, is the first residential clinic of its kind and receives a number of its referrals from health and local authorities. It provides full-time treatment programmes for sex offenders who need intensive therapy to gain control of their behaviour. It can also provide assessments of adult and young offenders, as well as risk assessment reports. Training and research are important elements. The Home Office is currently helping to fund the evaluation project, which is based on the Gracewell clinic and on several probation areas. This will be helpful in determining future service development.
I now turn to the question of child victims of sexual abuse. The Department of Health launched a centrally funded child abuse treatment initiative in 1990–91. The first stage of the initiative was the National Children's Home survey of existing treatment facilities for abused children and young perpetrators. The Department of Health is currently making grants to support a number of projects by voluntary organisations providing different types and ranges of treatment. These include a residential therapeutic centre for children, family service units working with families facing severe difficulties and children who have been abused, a child and family therapy project addressing the problems of child sexual abuse, a treatment facility for adolescent sex offenders.
Two studies, one of sexually abused children and adolescents, the other of young sex offenders, which will be evaluated to establish the characteristics of the treatments
970
which are associated with more and less successful outcomes, are also under way. Various projects undertaken by the National Children's Home include a telephone and face-to-face counselling service, a child protection system and a pilot study of projects working with young offenders. There is additionally a research project by the Institute of Child Health to evaluate the effectiveness of the various models of treatment for sexually abused children and young sex offenders.
In 1991–92, £300,000 was made available for projects undertaken under the treatment initiative. This has increased to more than £400,000 this year. The total made available over the five-year period since the inception of the initiative will be £1·8 million. Many of the more severely abused children will require treatment by the NHS. Every child suspected of having been sexually abused will need to be assessed under the child protection procedures set out in the Government's guidance "Working Together". Not all these cases will be proven. Of those who are, all will need protection, but not all will show emotional disturbance significant enough to require additional specialist therapeutic intervention.
I should like to focus briefly on another aspect of our work in relation to child sexual abuse—the importance that we attach to up-to-date, properly targeted and thoroughly evaluated training. In this respect, we have achieved a great deal through our centrally funded child abuse training initiative. This is now a well-established scheme to stimulate training of staff from different agencies in child protection, through support for selected projects and courses. Since the initiative was announced in 1986, we have given nearly £3 million in grants to a diverse range of voluntary organisations and institutions for different training materials and events.
We began the first phase of the initiative with two projects. One, which we have now supported for several years, took the form of a course designed for experienced professionals from a range of disciplines, working at the sharp end with child sexual abuse. It aims to give trainers additional skills both in training and in promoting assessment and treatment services provision for abused children and their families. The course has been administered at the department of psychological medicine based at the Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street hospital.
The second of the earliest projects was a training advisory resource based at the National Children's Bureau. We are now supporting the successor to that resource, in the shape of the child abuse training unit, also based at the bureau. As well as producing its own material, it offers an evaluation and consultancy service on training related to child abuse including child sexual abuse.
Since those early longer-term resources were established, the child abuse training initiative has enabled us to support an increasing number of specific projects with different voluntary organisations. One major partner has been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with a grant of £800,000 over three years, ending last year, towards the national training centre in Leicester. Other projects have been designed to stimulate multidisciplinary work, such as work by the English Nursing Board, to determine an effective model of teaching and learning in child protection among social services and health professionals.

971
In the crucial area of investigation of sexual abuse, we are funding the Open university to produce a training pack on interviewing in cases of suspected sexual assault on a child.
Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to members of staff of voluntary organisations and social service departments who have to deal with these offences. Those of us who have had to deal with them on a constituency basis have found them stomach-churning, and those who have to deal with them from start to finish, certainly in Nottinghamshire, are often in need of therapy to help them to come to terms with some of the horrific details. I am sure that the Minister will agree that these people are nothing less than heroic.
Mr. Yeo: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those professionals working for the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. Their work is among the most distressing that I have ever encountered, dealing with situations which are horrific to those of us who have what I would call normal instincts. Some difficult and sensitive judgements often have to be made about whether a family is capable of being rebuilt, whether relationships can be retrieved, or whether more direct intervention is needed.
The Open university work will build on and amplify the memorandum of good practice issued by my Department and the Home Office last August. The memorandum was drawn up in consultation with a number of voluntary organisations in the light of the implementation of the important child evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I shall be launching the Open university training material early next year.
Only last week, I was glad to welcome the training manual produced by the voluntary organisation Kidscape, which provides material for people directly caring in some way for children, many of whom may not think of themselves as having a child protection role at all. With the benefit of this material, first-line carers such as health visitors, child minders, foster parents, day care workers, school nurses and nursery nurses may be able to help children to protect themselves, and the carers themselves will have a greater confidence about the work that they undertake with children who have suffered sexual abuse.
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with a recent case in Nottingham, which he did not mention but which has been in all our minds recently. It was a case of alleged sexual abuse in which the local authority wanted the person concerned to leave the family home. It was not a criminal case, but it was the subject of an application to the High Court, so I do not want to make any detailed comment about it, but the example is instructive in a number of ways.
It is for the local statutory and voluntary organisations to assess the need and provision of treatment services for child sexual abusers, in co-operation with one another.
In the Nottingham case, local arrangements were eventually made to fund the person concerned at the Gracewell clinic. The Department looks for opportunities to promote best practice in suspected cases of sexual abuse of children and it is due to host a continuation of the series of annual national conferences of the chairmen of area child protection committees. Those should provide a
972
chance to raise the issue of the treatment of suspected sexual abusers and make the subject a high priority on the agenda of those committees for future action.
Mr. Allen: I hope that the Minister will take a personal interest in the way that that side of the problem develops. The question of best practice is fundamental to achieving a solution where a solution is humanly possible. The best practice was not being deployed in the case to which the Minister referred, through no malice on the part of any of the parties involved.
It is instructive that the Nottinghamshire social services department, one of the best in the country, sadly with all too much experience in dealing with such cases, did not immediately make the connection that the district health authority could, in certain circumstances, step in and pay the £15,000 cost for a year's treatment for this particular individual at Gracewell. That in itself tells us something. Even where there is awareness of the problem, best practice connections are not always made.
The Minister, from his privileged vantage point at national level, could do much to ensure that local authorities, voluntary organisations and district health authorities pull together to make sure that such a situation does not occur again.
Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a variety of sources from which funds may be available to pay for treatment at a place such as the Gracewell institute, and the health service route will certainly be the appropriate method of referral and financial support for some patients.
If we are to promote good practice around the country, it is clearly crucial to establish the closest possible relationships and the best possible collaboration between the social services and health authorities, in this context and, indeed, in others. We are keen to promote that spirit of co-operation so that alternatives are considered for each case. I hope that, in that way, we can arrive at the right solution for every offender or potential offender.
Our research initiative on child protection should be ready to publish some of its findings next year, and the subject of sexual abuse continues to be a priority on our agenda. Back in 1988, we identified five key issues—whether to remove the people concerned from the home; the co-ordination of services; parental experience of investigation; control within the family; and routine treatment and outcome. New research projects have been funded as other issues concerned with the subject have been identified.
So far, the research initiative has consisted of 13 projects, centring around three areas: patterns of abuse, the operation of a child protection system, and questions addressing intervention and outcome, especially routine intervention. In addition to spending on projects covering both physical and sexual abuse of children, the amount allocated for research into child sexual abuse has increased considerably over the equivalent sum three years ago. In the Department of Health, it is about four times greater than it was in 1989; and across my Department, the Home Office and the Scottish Office social work services group, this type of expenditure has more than tripled over the same period.
The effective dissemination of research is also vital to ensure that findings are effective in practice, and that they influence the delivery of services. In 1985, my Department

973
produced a document, "Social Work Decisions in Child Care", which provided a digest of research findings of the time. Last year it was followed by an equally successful publication, "Looking After Children: Assessing Outcomes in Child Care", produced by an independent working party. A dissemination programme, now in the discussion stage, is planned for next year with the intention of publishing the findings of the studies in their own right. That will allow the material to be more accessible to practitioners, trainers, managers and students.
Dissemination of information about child abuse is vital. I welcome the recent issue of a "Strategic Statement on Working with Abusers" from the interdepartmental group on child abuse. The group comprises representatives from several Departments, and provides a forum in which
974
relevant child protection issues can be considered. The group noted that, although the major focus of work in the field of child abuse had been concentrated on the investigation and management of abuse, there was a growing interest in the treatment of the abused child and the abuser.
To forestall piecemeal development in that regard, the group has established a sub-group on working with offenders, with the dual remit of pooling information about the range and nature of available treatment facilities and developing a strategic approach to the subject to include both research and development work. The strategic statement on working with abusers—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Citizens (Trials)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for(a) Fiji, (b) Cyprus, (c) Papua New Guinea and (d) Turkey, the number of British citizens known to his Department to be (i) detained and awaiting trial, (ii) undergoing trial and (iii) tried and in prison.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 30 September the number of British citizens known to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be:

  (a) Detained and awaiting trial are:

  Number

  (i) Fiji

  0

  (ii) Cyprus

  0

  (iii) Papua New Guinea

  0

  (iv) Turkey

  2

  (b) Undergoing trial:

  None

  (c) Tried and in prison:

  (i) Fiji

  0

  (ii) Cyprus

  5

  (iii) Papua New Guinea

  0

  (iv) Turkey

  0

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each sovereign country in(a) south America, (b) the middle east, (c) central America and Puerto Rico, (d) the Caribbean, other than Commonwealth countries and (e) Asia, other than former Soviet republics, the number of British citizens known to his Department to be (i) detained and awaiting trial, (ii) undergoing trial and (iii) tried and in prison.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As it would take a disproportionate amount of time to answer this question completely acccurately, I have arranged for the right hon. Member to receive a written reply from the consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible, with the information that it has to hand.

  Bosnia- Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Bosnian government following attacks by forces loyal to them on United Nations agencies operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore all attacks on United Nations agencies operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina., and are constantly pressing all parties to the conflict to respect the United Nation's impartiality.

  Russian Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken to investigate attempts by Iraq to purchase Russian plutonium in Bulgaria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are currently following up with all relevant authorities reports in a Sunday newspaper of alleged attempts to sell plutonium from the Commonwealth of Independent States to the Iraqi embassy in Sofia. The Bulgarian authorities have seized some material which they assess to be of no significant proliferation concern. Our own test of a sample which we have received supports this conclusion. But our investigations are continuing.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to raise at the next meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Council the clandestine smuggling of nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union to countries in the middle east.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 23 October 1992, at column 404.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the new export restrictions on military sensitive equipment and nuclear materials to be imposed under the provisions of the Council regulations on the control of exports of certain dual-use goods and technologies and of certain nuclear products and technologies (COM(92) 317 final).

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The proposed Council regulation on the control of exports of certain dual-use goods and technologies is currently the subject of negotiations between member states. The Government's aim is to ensure that there will be no weakening of this country's export controls on such goods as a result of the implementation of this regulation, and that the interests of United Kingdom exporters will be protected. The House will be informed of the outcome of the negotiations.

  Visas
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that all applicants for visas at the British high commission in Delhi are granted a formal interview.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  More than 15,000 non-settlement applications have been approved in New Dehli this year without the need for a formal interview. A further 7,000 have been approved after a short informal interview lasting less than six minutes.

  All other persons applying for visas have been granted a formal interview. However, prior to an application being formally lodged, if the entry clearance officer has reason to believe that it might not succeed, for example, if forged documentation is presented or the person has previously come to adverse attention, the applicant is given an opportunity to decide whether or not to pursue the application before paying the non-refundable visa fee. If the applicant decides to continue with the application, a formal interview is arranged.

  Kenya
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what conditions local election monitors will observe the forthcoming elections in Kenya; and what assessment has been made of how likely they are to be honoured.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the announcement by the Kenyan Electoral Commission on 2 November that the National Election Monitoring Unit (NEMU), made up of three local Kenyan organisations, will take part in the monitoring exercise. We understand that NEMU is discussing with the Electoral Commission the practical arrangements and guidelines for monitoring the election alongside international observer groups.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Politically Motivated Crime
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to combat politically motivated vandalism, arson and sabotage in Wales; if he will create a Welsh serious crime squad for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are operational matters for the chief constables of the areas concerned, who are ensuring that the police effort against such criminal acts is effectively co-ordinated.

  Police Authorities (Local Representatives)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to maintain the link between local communities and their police forces through the presence of elected representatives on police authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are considering a range of issues concerning the future of the police service, including the role and composition of police authorities. We have yet to reach firm conclusions.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 223–24, on Wolds prison, if he will list (a) the number of employees in each of the categories referred to and (b) the number of employees on each grade.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to extend the Data Protection Act 1984 to apply to manual records.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have no present plans to extend the Act to manual files.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population for each of the last 18 months for which figures are available.
  778
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 9 November, the latest date for which figures are available, the prison population was 43,787, including 465 in police cells. Figures for the last Friday in each of the last 18 months are in the table.

  Date

  Total prison population including police cells

  Police cells

  31 May 1991

  45,566

  593

  28 June 1991

  45,921

  872

  26 July 1991

  46,393

  1,190

  30 August 1991

  46,701

  1,534

  27 September 1991

  47,069

  1,665

  25 October 1991

  47,306

  1,807

  29 November 1991

  47,443

  1,667

  30 December 1991

  45,388

  969

  31 January 1992

  46,598

  1,247

  28 February 1992

  47,581

  1,626

  27 March 1992

  47,684

  1,774

  24 April 1992

  47,605

  1,632

  29 May 1992

  47,009

  1,306

  26 June 1992

  47,070

  1,301

  31 July 1992

  46,934

  1,110

  28 August 1992

  46,692

  932

  25 September 1992

  46,120

  809

  30 October 1992

  44,287

  502

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount budgeted for financial year 1992–93 for police overtime in(a) the Metropolitan police area, (b) the rest of England and Wales and (c) in each police authority in England and Wales; and what is the extent to which these figures have been revised since the commencement of the current financial year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Arrests
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing the total number of persons(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) processed during each of the last six months in (i) the Metropolitan police area, (ii) England and Wales and (iii) each police authority area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on arrests is not collected centrally. Court proceedings data for the period requested will not be available until autumn 1993.

  Parole
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were released on parole in England and Wales in each of the last 24 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for those paroled in each of the months October 1990 to September 1992 are as follows:

  Number

  1990

  October

  1,100

  November

  1,200

  December

  800

  779

  Number

  1991

  January

  1,100

  February

  800

  March

  1,000

  April

  800

  May

  900

  June

  1,000

  July

  1,000

  August

  1,000

  September

  900

  October

  1,200

  November

  1,100

  December

  800

  1992

  January

  900

  February

  1,000

  March

  1,100

  April

  1,000

  May

  800

  June

  1,200

  July

  1,300

  August

  1,100

  September

  1,100

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each local authority area in south Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant and its intended future use.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The prison service owns 48 residential properties in south Yorkshire used by prison officers and staff serving at the prison establishments of Lindholme, Moorland and Hatfield. All the properties are in the local authority area of Doncaster metropolitan borough council.

  Of these properties, 11 are at present vacant. One is a detached, four-bedroom house, which has been vacant for two weeks, and the remaining 10 houses are three-bedroom semi-detached or terraced houses which have been empty for more than 12 months. Six of these houses are retained for reallocation to incoming agricultural staff or farm managers and the remaining five houses are on the market for sale.

  Prisoners (Condoms)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by sex, and by Her Majesty's prison establishment, for the past 12 months, the number of free condoms issued to(a) inmates going on home leave and (b) inmates being released at the end of their sentence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidelines issued to governors of all establishments in November 1991 advised them to consider introducing local schemes under which prisoners about to be released or to go on home leave would have discreet access to a small supply of free condoms. It is for individual governors to decide whether and how condoms are available in such circumstances, and how they monitor the level of take-up. Comprehensive information is not held centrally.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 6 November the Home Office had 370 records, amounting to over 1,000 files and sub-files, on loan from the Public Record Office. The number of records on loan fluctuates daily and to list them all would involve disproportionate cost. The records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Electoral Administration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) of 30 October,Official Report, columns 931–32, what input political parties will have to the membership and the proceedings of the joint committee and working groups on electoral administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We held meetings with representatives of the political parties and the local authority associations in the summer as part of the process of reviewing electoral procedures. The remits for the working groups which we have set up as the next stage of that process reflect the concerns expressed by the political parties. Membership of the working groups is drawn from experienced electoral administrators and returning officers. The meetings with the representatives of the political parties and of the local authorities will be reconvened in due course to consider the findings of the working groups.

  Frontier Controls
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has held with the Kangaroo group on abolition of frontier controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no formal meetings with the Kangaroo group, but we have had opportunities to acquaint ourselves with the views of members of the group on this matter.

  Immigration (Entry Exclusions)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individuals who have been excluded since 1979 from entry into the United Kingdom by Her Majesty's Government on grounds of likelihood to incite racial hatred by their presence in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules, a person without the right of abode in the United Kingdom may be excluded on the ground that his exclusion is conducive to the public good.

  In forming a view on whether a person's exclusion would be conducive to the public good, a variety of matters may be taken into account, including the likelihood of their presence giving rise to offences under

  781
  the Public Order Act 1986 and/or the offence likely to be given to public sensitivities by racialist statements. These considerations informed the decision in respect of the following individuals excluded since 1979 on the Home Secretary's personal directions:

  Mr. Stokely Carmichael

  Mr. Louis Farrakhan

  Mr. Manfred Roeder

  Mr. Fred Leuchter

  Police (Salaries)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the commencement salary in London for each of the following in(a) 1981 and (b) 1991, (i) main grade probation officer, (ii) prison officer, (iii) police constable and (iv) police sergeant.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The information is in the table.

  Commencement Salaries including London Payments

  1981 £

  1991 £

  Probation Officer

  30 and under

  7,510

  15,402

  over 30

  7,936

  15,939

  Prison Officer

  6,139

  16,895

  Police Constable

  Under 22

  7,209

  14,070

  22 or over

  8,298

  17,121

  Police Sergeant

  10,092

  21,099

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average of remuneration in England and Wales for(a) a chief probation officer, (b) a police sergeant and (c) a police inspector in (i) 1981 and (ii) 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: The average remuneration of a chief probation officer in 1981 was £16,218 and in 1991 it was £37,738. Information is not available in the form requested for police sergeants and police inspectors and the figures in the table relate to average salaries.

  1981 £

  1991 £

  Police sergeant

  9,504

  21,039

  Police inspector

  10,755

  23,820

  Note:

  Police officers not living in provided accommodation are entitled to receive an allowance, which is paid in addition to salary. The value of the allowance varies according to individual circumstances, for example, whether an officer is married or single, and between police force areas. The range of the value of the allowance in 1981 was £567 —£2,271, and in 1991 it was £853–£4,836.

  Car Crime
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has undertaken or commissioned in relation to the theft and racing of cars in the Oxford area; and if he will outline the aspects being examined.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Although no studies have so far been undertaken or
  782
  commissioned specifically in relation to the theft and racing of cars in the Oxford area, a number of important lessons have been learned from the incidents which have occurred on the Blackbird Leys estate. In particular, they illustrated the need for the law to be strengthened in this area. The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992, which came into force on 1 April, significantly increased the courts' power to deal with the menace of car taking.

  Moreover, the Home Office has supported or carried out a number of more general research studies on issues relating to car crime, including the nature of offending. These include crime prevention unit paper 32 "Tackling Car Crime: The Nature and Extent of the Problem" and paper 34 "Preventing Car Crime in Car Parks", copies of which are in the Library.

  The results of studies completed to date are being used to help develop the car crime prevention strategy and the need for further research in this area will be closely monitored.

  Criminal Records
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to implement each of the short-term recommendations in annex M of his Department's efficiency scrutiny into the national collection of criminal records published in October 1991;.

  (2) what progress has been made in implementing the five-day limit for police notification to the national identification bureau of all pending prosecutions after arrest and the 13-day limit for all court convictions being notified after the court decisions as recommended by his Department's efficiency scrutiny into the national collection of criminal records published in October 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 10 November 1992:] The position on recommendations 63 to 68 of the "Efficiency Scrutiny of the National Collection of Criminal Records", which together constitute annex M, is as follows:

  1. It was recommended in the scrutiny report that microfiche collection of court results be stopped for post–1980 offenders. Further work revealed that this could not be done immediately without loss of information, but the conversion of all criminal records for inclusion in the computerised National Criminal Record System will ensure the provision of a more comprehensive record than is currently available on the Police National Computer (Recommendation 63).

  2. It has long been the practice for NIB to mark the manual records that any acquittal should not be cited as a conviction (Recommendation 66).

  3. Copies of the scrutiny report were sent to all chief constables and, without imposing rigid time limits, NIB will continue to encourage forces to improve the time taken to notify them of arrests (Recommendation 64).

  4. Since the scrutiny was completed, the Government has re-examined the arrangements under which court results are notified to the NIB and the police notify the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service of defendants' and prosecution witnesses' criminal records; revised proposals to improve those arrangements are being taken forward (Recommendations 65, 67, 68).

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to appoint the advisory committee to the national identification bureau at New Scotland Yard which was recommended by his Department's efficiency scrutiny into the national collection of criminal records published in October 1991.
  783
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Oversight of the national identification bureau is being considered in the context of wider changes in the management of police information services. We hope to announce new arrangements shortly.

  Foreign Workers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to ensure effective implementation of article 19(6) of the Council of Europe's European social charter, signed on 18 October 1961, requiring contracting parties to facilitate family reunion of foreign workers on their territory.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Article 19(6) of the social charter provides that contracting parties undertake to facilitate as far as possible the reunion of the family of a foreign worker permitted to establish himself in the territory. We believe that the provisions of the immigration rules and our ability to exercise discretion in exceptional cases keep us in compliance with article 19(6).

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to give effect to convention No. 143 of the International Labour Organisation, facilitating the reunification of families of migrant workers legally residing in its territory.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The United Kingdom has not ratified International Labour Organisation convention No. 143.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department how many times legal aid has been granted to enable a person convicted of a criminal offence to receive a transcript of their trial for the purposes of an appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not necessary to make a separate application for legal aid to obtain a copy of a transcript of a trial. If the appellant to the Court of Appeal is covered by a legal aid order, the costs of the transcript may be claimed as a disbursement. These claims are not separately identified, and the information requested is therefore not available.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total numbers of(a) established and (b) unestablished civil servants, including those in next steps agencies on (i) 1 January 1970, (ii) 1 January 1989, (iii) 1 January 1990 and (iv) 1 January 1992, including those on short-term contracts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of civil servants including, where appropriate, those in next steps agencies, at the respective dates, is as follows:784

  Staff in post—industrial and non-industrial civil servants1

  Number

  1 January 1970

  702,056

  1 January 1989

  571,649

  1 January 1990

  565,017

  1 January 1992

  561,770

  1 Full-time equivalents (part-time staff count as half units).

  The concept of unestablished service was abolished with effect from 1 April 1991. No breakdown between numbers of established and unestablished staff is available for earlier years in any case.

  Taxation
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue to the Exchequer from(a) income tax, (b) national insurance, (c) VAT, (d) vehicle excise duty and (e) excise duty in each of the English regions for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that information is not available on a regional basis for the taxes and duties requested.

  Double Taxation Agreement (Italy)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to negotiate a double taxation agreement with Italy which would give United Kingdom based businesses exemption from extraordinary levies on all bank balances by the Italian Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The matter is currently being discussed with the Italian authorities.

  VAT
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of value added tax on sanitary protection in each member state of the EC.

  Sir John Cope
  The rates of value added tax charged in each member state are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  19·5

  Denmark

  25·0

  France

  18·6

  Germany

  14·0

  Greece

  18·0

  Ireland

  0·0

  Italy

  19·0

  Luxembourg

  15·0

  Netherlands

  6·0

  Portugal

  16·0

  Spain

  15·0

  United Kingdom

  17·5

  Betting Duty
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he expects the horse and greyhound racing industry to receive in the current financial year as a result of the 0–25 per cent. reduction in betting duty.

  Sir John Cope
  The reduction in general betting duty in the last Budget was from 8 to 7·75 per cent. This was
  785
  expected to reduce the revenue yield by £15 million in the current financial year, and the Chancellor announced his intention that the benefit of the reduction should be channelled back to the horse racing and greyhound industries themselves. The Home Secretary took account of the duty cut in determining this year's horserace betting levy; and discussions are still in progress between the greyhound industry and the bookmakers over voluntary arrangements to be made to help greyhound racing.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the increase in the number of households who have negative equity.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations on this subject. The Government have responded by announcing two measures which will help borrowers with negative equity who wish to move house,Official Report, 20 October, column 243.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which European Community countries treat capital and revenue on the same basis within the actual public expenditure planning totals;.

  (2) what plans he has to secure a common definition of public expenditure and Government borrowing between European Community countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  European Community countries use varying definitions for their own public expenditure planning and control purposes. However, these countries make returns to the statistical office of the European Communities covering general Government current expenditure, capital expenditure and the financial deficit, based on the European system of integrated economic accounts. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Growth
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual rate of economic growth of the United Kingdom and each other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Data of OECD countries' economic growth since 1979 can be found in the June 1992 edition of the OECD "Economic Outlook".

  Books (VAT)
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to extend VAT to the purchase of second-hand books.

  Sir John Cope
  We have no proposals to extend VAT to the purchase of second-hand books.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the first official estimate which was published of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1992–93 and 1993–94, respectively; what subsequent estimates were published; and if he will give the date of publication in each case.
  786
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Forecasts of the PSBR for the year ahead are published annually in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", and then updated in the subsequent "Autumn Statement". Estimates given in the FSBR for years beyond the year ahead are projections, rather than forecasts, based on illustrative assumptions about the medium-term path of the economy.

  A forecast of £28·1 billion for 1992–93 was made in the 1992 FSBR published on 10 March. A revised estimate will be given in the 1992 "Autumn Statement". No forecasts have yet been published for 1993–94.

ENVIRONMENT

  English House Condition Survey
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the English house condition survey.

  Mr. Baldry
  The results of the English house condition survey will be published next year.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of disabled facilities grants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Disabled facilities grants assist disabled people with the cost of adaptations to enable them to live more independently in their own homes. Since the new grant system was introduced in July 1990, more than 30,000 grants have been approved at a total cost of £103 million.

  House Building
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assist house builders to increase the supply of new, affordable houses.

  Sir George Young
  The Government are investing £1·7 billion this year through the Housing Corporation, nearly double the level of three years ago, and supplemented by £0·5 billion of private finance, for affordable housing provided by housing associations. A substantial proportion of the corporation's programme is devoted to new build. Recent falls in interest rates and in land prices will stimulate demand for new private housing, which is now more affordable than for many years.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total expenditure committed to public house-building programmes by housing associations, local authorities and others in this current financial year; and what percentage he estimates has been placed with(a) large volume-build contractors and (b) small- and medium-sized companies, respectively.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Gross capital expenditure by housing associations financed through the Housing Corporation in 1992–93 will be over £1·7 billion, supplemented by private loans of £0·5 billion; the large majority of this is spent on new house-building. It is estimated that local authorities will spend around £125 million on new council housing in

  787
  1992–93. In addition, authorities are estimated to spend £250 million on support for housing associations, much of which will be on new house building. No information is available centrally about the size of contractors used by associations and authorities.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take with regard to benzene levels in unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Maclean
  The benzene content of petrol, both leaded and unleaded, is already limited to a maximum of 5 per cent. by volume under EC directive 85/210/EEC. New European Community vehicle emission standards which apply from the end of this year will greatly reduce emissions of benzene from new cars.

  Renovation Grants
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities are able to make discretionary awards in respect of renovation grants for home improvements.

  Sir George Young
  All local housing authorities.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to limit the impact of opencast coal mining on the natural environment.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department announced on 15 July that the planning guidelines for opencast coal will be revised. We expect to bring forward a draft for public consultation next year following completion of the Government's coal review. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt what the revised guidelines will say.

  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue new planning guidance in relation to the development of opencast coal mining.

  Mr. Howard
  We hope to be in a position to issue draft revised guidance for public consultation following the outcome of the recently announced coal review.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the review of minerals planning guidance note 3 on opencast coal operations.

  Mr. Howard
  We received a number of representations as part of a wide-ranging consultation on the practical operation of the guidelines earlier this year. Summaries of the responses to that exercise were placed in the Library when my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced our intention to revise the guidelines on 15 July.

  Urban Regeneration Agency (Headquarters)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a decision has been reached on the location of the headquarters of the Urban Regeneration Agency.
  788
  Mr. Redwood
  It is too early to say where the headquarters of the agency will be located. We will look closely at the merits of each region before coming to a decision in consultation with Lord Walker.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss the problem of itinerant new age travellers.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will shortly be meeting representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss the Government's proposals to reduce illegal camping set out in the consultation paper, "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968". These proposals do not address the public order issues which may arise when huge numbers of new age travellers congregate. Those issues are being considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in consultation with other Government Departments and chief police officers.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with the review of local government boundaries.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Local Government Commission has begun its reviews of local government structure, boundaries and electoral arrangements in all of the areas in the first tranche of its work programme.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the total cost of transitional relief for the operation of the first year of the council tax in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave earlier this afternoon to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton).

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the expected effect on household bills of the introduction of the council tax in London.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made no predictions of the level of council taxes in London or elsewhere. Council tax is a local tax and bills will be set locally.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for changes in the standard spending assessment allocation formula when the council tax is introduced.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes shortly to announce proposals for SSAs for 1993–94, together with details of the provisional revenue support grant settlement.

  Illegal Camping
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is planning to deal with illegal camping by travelling people.

  Mr. Baldry
  We issued on 18 August a consultation paper, "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968" which contains proposals for reducing illegal camping. The closing date for responses is 13 November.

  Sustainable Development Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the process by which the United Kingdom's first sustainable development plan will be drawn up; and what provisions will be made for the involvement of Parliament in that process.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government intend to prepare a report to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development by the end of 1993. I want us to have a full national debate so that everyone with a concern for the environment can join in with views on how we can balance the need for economic activity with protection of the environment. It will be essential that this House contributes to that debate.

  Local Authority Tendering
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local authority tendering for large capital projects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authority tendering for large capital projects is governed by EC regulations and local authorities' own standing orders as well as by the compulsory competitive tendering provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Local Government Act 1988, and the Local Government Act 1992.

  Right-to-repair Scheme
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the right-to-repair scheme for council tenants.

  Sir George Young
  Provisions for a new right to repair are included in the Housing and Urban Development Bill which was introduced on 22 October.

  Property Services Agency Projects
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to offer PSA Projects for sale and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to the answer of 22 May 1992, c. 273]: A total of 860 staff of PSA Projects have chosen to transfer with the business on its sale to Tarmac Construction Ltd. I expect the sale to be completed on 1 December. A further announcement to Parliament will be made shortly giving the financial details of the sale once the implications of staff choice have been assessed.

  Norbreck Parade, London (Access)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment ( I) if he will make a statement about the outcome of the proceedings held at Ealing town hall on 14 October in connection with the appeal against the refusal by the local planning authority to grant planning permission for an access to Norbreck parade, London NW 10, from the north circular road;.

  (2) what was the advice given on 14 October by his Department to the inspector in connection with the proceedings at the Ealing town hall relating to the appeal against the refusal of the local planning authority to grant planning permission for an access to Norbreck parade, London NW10, from the north circular road.
  790
  Mr. Baldry
  This planning appeal is the responsibility of the planning inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Stephen Crow, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from H. S. Crow to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 27 October 1992:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to provide the reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions to him, as their subject matter has been delegated to the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency.You ask what advice was given to the Inspector holding the inquiry on 14 October into the planning appeal relating to access to Norbreck Parade, London NW10, from the North Circular Road, and about the outcome of the proceedings.The Inspector sought advice on a submission, made at the inquiry, that the Secretary of State had no jurisdiction in this matter. He was advised that, by reference to S.79(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State had the discretionary power to decline to determine this appeal, in view of the fact that the local planning authority had been directed [by the Secretary of State for Transport] to refuse planning permission. The Secretary of State was not however bound to exercise this power and, therefore, it was within the Inspector's discretion to allow the inquiry to continue.However, since the parties wished to consider further both the procedural issue and evidence on the merits of the case, the Inspector agreed to adjourn the inquiry until 20 November next.Following the hearing of the case at the re-convened inquiry, the Inspector will report to the Secretary of State, both on the procedural issue and on the merits of the appeal proposals.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to introduce new wildlife legislation in order to protect sites of special scientific interest for the purposes of implementing the new EC habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently considering what measures are necessary to implement the EC habitats directive and we expect to put our proposals to public consultation in the next few months.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the amendments required to sections 36 and 37 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to meet the obligations under the new EC directive on the conservation of flora, fauna and habitats relating to the marine environment;.

  (2) if he will introduce new legislative measures to guard against the degradation of sites of special scientific interest and other areas requiring special conservation measures under the EC directive on the conservation of flora, fauna and habitats.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will strengthen the marine nature reserve provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in order to meet the obligations of the new EC habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's response to the Select Committee report on coastal zone protection and planning recognises the difficulties in application of sections 36 and 37 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We shall
  791
  ensure that the proposals for implementation of the marine conservation aspects of the habitats directive fully meet the directive's requirements.

  Hazardous Substances Regulations
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for deemed consent under part 4 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 have been made since the introduction of the regulations.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available at present. However, my Department intends to seek the relevant information from local authorities next April, as part of an annual statistical return on hazardous substances consents.

  Council Houses (Windows)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys he has conducted into the replacement of metal-framed windows in council-owned housing stock and the consistency of the programme in various parts of England and Wales; and what provisions are extended to those who have already purchased a council house under government regulations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has conducted no surveys of local authority activity in this area. Private owners who are advised that work of this kind is required may be eligible for assistance under the provisions of the house renovation grant scheme.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in Britain are in arrears with their mortgages.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that 305,140 mortgages in the United Kingdom were six months or more in arrears at the end of June.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums have been spent on the clearance of derelict and contaminated land and the area covered by the Dearne valley city grant project in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The amounts spent on the clearance of derelict and contaminated land in the area covered by the Dearne Valley Partnership in each of the last five years is as follows.

  £

  1988–89

  326,401

  1989–90

  1,454,482

  1990–91

  3,244,522

  1991–92

  5,414,519

  11992–93

  4,834,158

  1 From 1 April 1992 to 5 November 1992.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land in England and Wales are vacant or derelict.
  792
  Mr. Redwood
  In England, based on the 1988 derelict land survey, there are 100,035 acres of derelict land. The 1990 national survey of vacant land in urban areas of England estimates that there are about 150,000 acres of vacant land in English towns and cities. There will, of course, be overlap between those two figures. Statistics are not available for vacant land in non-urban areas of England.

  Vacant and derelict land in Wales are matters for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the international conference for non-governmental organisations announced by the Prime Minister at the Earth summit.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government will host a three-day international conference next year to enable voluntary bodies, local government and the business community to exchange experience on the practical implementation of the Earth summit agreements. The conference will take place in Manchester in September 1993.

  The commitment and involvement of all the independent sectors are critical to the effective implementation of the agreements signed at the Earth summit. I am today issuing a consultation note on the conference and welcome views on our proposals from all interested sectors. I have invited Dr. Martin Holdgate, Director General of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, to chair an international steering group to guide the preparation for the conference.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the United Kingdom refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department commissioned a study, from the March Consulting Group, on CFC use in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry, which is published by HMSO today. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The report shows that the United Kingdom market for refrigeration and air conditioning equipment has grown from £339 million in 1986 to £632 million in 1990. The industry has cut its consumption of CFCs over this period by some 15 per cent. overall.

  The report also shows that 72 per cent. of new CFCs are used for servicing existing equipment. Users of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment must act quickly to set up leak detection systems, to monitor the refrigerant they use, and to recover and recycle. If they do not act quickly and responsibly, they could experience a severe shortage of CFCs after production has stopped, which will be at the end of 1995 at the latest.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals are still outstanding relating to bills received under the uniform business rate as at 1 November in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: At the end of September 1992, the latest date at which

  793
  information is available for England, in respect of the 1990 non-domestic rating list there were about 550,000 outstanding proposals of which around 500,000 had been passed by valuation offices to valuation tribunals as appeals. This follows the clearance of over 400,000 cases.

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals are still outstanding relating to bills received under the old domestic rating system in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: At the end of September 1992, the latest date at which information is available for England, there were about 2,500 outstanding appeals relating to the old rating system. These related to both domestic and non-domestic cases and separate figures are not available.

  Most of the outstanding appeals were awaiting decisions by the Lands Tribunal.

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emergency access arrangements are made to the water supply in properties where the supply has been disconnected for non-payment.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. However, local authorities are required to be notified of the disconnection of a supply of water to any inhabited house if the supply is not restored within 24 hours. They have powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to make such arrangements as they think fit for the supply to be restored in certain circumstances.

  Water Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions a water undertaker has been challenged in the courts under section 63 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected by my Department, or by the Office of Water Services, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library, in hard copy and on floppy disk, the data of each local authority's tax base for the council tax purposes supplied to his Department on form CTB.1.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to the answer 30 October 1992, c.863]: I have today placed in the Library of the House the information requested.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zambia and Zimbabwe
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (I) how much money is currently allocated by the Overseas Development 794
  Administration to assist drought-affected areas of Zambia and Zimbabwe; and what is the total tonnage of cereals which has been pledged to date to each country by the United Kingdom;.

  (2) what is the timetable for the delivery of pledges granted by the Overseas Development Administration to the draught-affected areas of Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have pledged and fully disbursed £10 million each to Zambia and Zimbabwe in balance of payments grants to help with the cost of additional imports, including food, for drought relief. We are also providing £804,000 for Zambia and £2·475 million for Zimbabwe to assist with emergency water schemes and food distribution.

  Apart from small amounts through these ongoing projects, we are not providing food aid directly on a bilateral basis. However, the EC has committed 100,000 tonnes for Zambia and 80,000 tonnes for Zimbabwe this year, mainly in cereal form. We expect this to be delivered over the next 10 weeks. Britain's share of the cost is about £5·5 million.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid has been given by the Overseas Development Administration to counter crop damage by swarms of locusts in Madagascar.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have committed £17,000 towards a field trial of insect growth regulators in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organisation. In addition, the ODA is currently putting together a package of items to address the specific short-term recommendations of the FAO's locust consultant: the value and extent of that package has yet to be finalised.

  Green Issues
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who, in the Overseas Development Administration, has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ODA has a well-established organisational and policy-making structure to ensure environmental and natural resources issues are taken fully into account in its work. General environmental policy and environmental research is co-ordinated by the natural resources and environment department. All ODA staff involved in the examination of project proposals are required to assess them for environmental impact, using the ODA's own "Manual of Environmental Assessment".

  The concept of sustainable development, which was promoted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and set out in "Agenda 21", is central to the ODA's policies. Co-ordinating action on "Agenda 21" is the responsibility of the aid policy department.

  We are mobilising the aid programme in further support of the goals of "Agenda 21" and we will contribute

  795
  our share of the 3 million ecu pledged by the European Community at UNCED. We shall also contribute our share to a replenishment of the global environment facility.

  Africa (Aid)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to advocate an initiative for Africa encompassing debt reductions, improved terms of trade and increased overseas aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Africa is already a priority for the United Kingdom aid programme; 40 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to African countries.

  In 1990, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the Trinidad terms debt initiative. As a result, seven countries in Africa have benefited from substantial reductions in their official debt. The Trinidad terms currently reduce eligible payments due to governments by as much as 50 per cent. None the less, we continue to press for even greater relief to be made available to poorest countries. All new United Kingdom aid to low-income African countries is on grant terms.

  We believe developing countries must be allowed to trade freely. The GATT Uruguay round is the key to this. We are pressing the European Commission to continue discussions with the USA and to work for the earliest possible resolution of outstanding difficulties on the round.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is currently offered by the Overseas Development Administration to establish and support food reserves in African countries to help prevent future food shortages.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Food reserves set up in developing countries with international food aid can be expensive to establish and maintain and difficult to protect. For this reason, we give priority to meeting food shortages with food aid, by obtaining food quickly either by purchases from donor countries or surplus-holding countries in the region; or by reallocation of food aid consignments on the high seas.

  Some African countries do have food stocks generated by surpluses from their own harvests. In these cases, we will continue to provide help on crop storage at village, district and national level.

  Mozambican Refugees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is currently granted by the Overseas Development Administration to assist the Government of Zimbabwe to deal with refugees from Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Most of our aid for Mozambican refugees is channelled through the co-ordinating offices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, from where it is allocated to relief programmes in refugee host countries, including Zimbabwe. We have made cash grants of £10·5 million in this form since 1989. We are also supporting British non-governmental organisations, including Help Age which is running a programme to address the urgent needs of elderly and disabled Mozambican refugees in Zimbabwe.

  Aid Target
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the exact date in 1974 when the Government accepted the 0·7 per cent. of the gross national product target for overseas aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The target was accepted in principle by the newly elected Government of February 1974.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hill livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the average hill livestock compensatory allowance payment to eligible farmers in Wales and the comparable figures for England; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The average payment during the 1991–92 financial year was £2,570 in Wales and £2,781 in England.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking to ensure that the civil service maintains the progress of its equal opportunities policies by appointing more women on merit to top posts.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The civil service is committed to equal opportunity. It seeks to offer staff at all levels the opportunity to develop their career successfully, combining this where they choose with family commitments. Our aim is to ensure that this opportunity is open to all women, so that those with the ability to reach the top can realise their full potential, to their benefit and that of the service and the public it serves.

  Maintaining the principle of selection and promotion on merit, we have concluded that the achievement of our equal opportunity aims will be helped by setting a benchmark, against which progress can be judged. We believe that, if our efforts are sustained, we can realistically expect at least to double the representation of women in the top three grades across the Civil Service as a whole by the year 2000. This will mean a proportion of 15 per cent. or more compared with the 7 per cent. when Opportunity 2000 was launched and under 4 per cent. in 1987. We will review progress each year.

  Charter Marks
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications for charter mark awards were rejected after their contents were subjected to verification procedures.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  This year's charter mark scheme attracted 296 applications from public sector organisations throughout the United Kingdom. Following assessment by the Prime Minister's advisory panel, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 36 charter marks were awarded.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what procedures were followed to verify the claims of the shortlisted charter mark applicants; and how many of the applications were submitted to such scrutiny.
  797
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  All organisations that submitted applications were required to provide evidence against the six charter mark standards, one of which was evidence of independent validation of performance. They had to demonstrate that they had satisfied their customers, and achieved measurable improvements in the quality of the services they provide. They also had to offer a new idea for improving their service at no additional cost to the public purse.

  The Prime Minister's citizens charter advisory panel and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were responsible for judging the charter mark applications. All applications were carefully scrutinised and shortlisted organisations were visited by members of the advisory panel of their representatives, as part of the verification procedures.

EDUCATION

  Capital Credit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state for each local education authority in England the amount of capital credit approval they have applied for, for use in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Total capital bid 1993–94

  Local education authority

  £000s

  Barking

  3,455

  Barnet

  19,479

  Bexley

  7,058

  Brent

  12,047

  Bromley

  7,614

  Croydon

  6,200

  Ealing

  34,145

  Enfield

  7,989

  Haringey

  6,296

  Harrow

  12,242

  Havering

  5,593

  Hillingdon

  13,070

  Hounslow

  12,997

  Kingston

  1,664

  Merton

  8,303

  Newham

  8,252

  Redbridge

  6,562

  Richmond

  8,151

  Sutton

  3,538

  Waltham Forest

  13,158

  City

  0

  Camden

  2,099

  Westminster

  1,618

  Greenwich

  8,229

  Hackney

  7,240

  Hammersmith

  4,157

  Islington

  10,818

  Kensington

  3,250

  Lambeth

  7,231

  Lewisham

  18,440

  Southwark

  7,080

  Wandsworth

  12,386

  Tower Hamlets

  31,542

  Birmingham

  27,337

  Coventry

  3,157

  Dudley

  8,532

  Sandwell

  8,283

  Solihull

  7,094

  Walsall

  4,676

  Wolverhampton

  14,681

  Knowsley

  6,437

  Liverpool

  9,086

  St. Helens

  5,868

  798

  Local education authority

  £000s

  Sefton

  5,049

  Wirral

  8,678

  Bolton

  3,242

  Bury

  2,668

  Manchester

  30,727

  Oldham

  4,755

  Rochdale

  16,770

  Salford

  10,142

  Stockport

  3,208

  Tameside

  9,405

  Trafford

  8,072

  Wigan

  7,498

  Barnsley

  6,472

  Doncaster

  4,714

  Rotherham

  9,807

  Sheffield

  21,985

  Bradford

  29,964

  Calderdale

  4,440

  Kirklees

  12,195

  Leeds

  36,185

  Wakefield

  25,688

  Gateshead

  5,701

  Newcastle

  24,769

  North Tyneside

  9,818

  South Tyneside

  4,489

  Sunderland

  10,699

  Isles of Scilly

  40

  Avon

  13,012

  Bedfordshire

  5,219

  Berkshire

  23,390

  Buckinghamshire

  13,360

  Cambridgeshire

  22,773

  Cheshire

  31,186

  Cleveland

  10,050

  Cornwall

  16,439

  Cumbria

  20,626

  Derbyshire

  40,570

  Devon

  22,500

  Dorset

  20,280

  Durham

  40,715

  East Sussex

  41,607

  Essex

  45,942

  Gloucester

  29,660

  Hampshire

  27,187

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,917

  Hertford

  18,824

  Humberside

  25,101

  Isle of Wight

  6,214

  Kent

  39,346

  Lancashire

  38,376

  Leicester

  16,815

  Lincoln

  22,446

  Norfolk

  9,997

  North Yorkshire

  11,547

  Northamptonshire

  9,298

  Northumberland

  4,238

  Nottinghamshire

  13,001

  Oxfordshire

  26,064

  Shropshire

  4,884

  Somerset

  15,251

  Staffordshire

  18,470

  Suffolk

  21,470

  Surrey

  26,511

  Warwickshire

  12,411

  West Sussex

  19,201

  Wiltshire

  7,519

  Total

  1,526,651

  Discretionary Awards
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many discretionary awards were made by the Inner London education authority in its last full year; and how many have been made by the successor local education authorities in inner London in 1992–93.

  Mr. Forman
  In the academic year 1989–90 there were 8,373 discretionary awards made by the ILEA. In 1990–91, the latest year for which data are available, the successor authorities—the London residuary body and the boroughs —made 6,375 discretionary awards.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many discretionary awards were made nationally in 1989 and 1992.

  Mr. Forman
  In 1990–91 academic year, the latest for which data are available, there were 157,000 discretionary awards in England and Wales—the same as in 1988–89.

  Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to instruct the higher education inspectors to produce an annual assessment on the use made of funds granted to the Higher Education Funding Council via the dual support scheme for university research.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government have asked the higher education funding councils to secure increased accountability for the use of council funds for research. It is for the councils themselves to determine how to take this forward. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has recently launched an initiative to achieve this.

  Governors
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce legislation to repeal section 15(14) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to the minimum age of governors.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  University Teachers
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the Association of University Teachers on the establishment of a salary review board for university teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The AUT has mounted two parliamentary lobbies and a letter campaign which have supported a pay review body for university teachers. The Government have consistently replied—most recently in my reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 19 October,Official Report, column 23—that they have no intention of establishing such a body.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future status of the British Transport police after the privatisation of British Rail.
  800
  Mr. MacGregor
  Paragraph 98 of the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways", Cm 2012, announced the Government's broad intentions for the British Transport police—BTP—and promised further consultation.

  The Department has today published a document, "The Future Status of the British Transport Police" which considers how the BTP may need to adapt to the proposed new structure of the railways.

  The document confirms the Government's intention to maintain the BTP as one force and seeks the views of interested parties on its future accountability; the scope for private operators to make alternative arrangements for some functions; the extent to which functions could be contracted out; and the means of controlling and allocating costs.

  I have placed copies of this document in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fishing boats are registered in the ports of Ayr, Troon and Girvan; and how many are owned by other than United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Port

  Number of registered fishing vessels

  Number Non-United Kingdom owned

  Ayr

  27

  9

  Troon

  5

  Nil

  Girvan is not a port of registry.

  Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place in the Transport Council during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers, on the application of the cohesion fund to(a) the European transport infrastructure and (b) environmental projects as proposed by draft article 130d of the treaty of Rome under the treaty of European Union.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Transport Council has not discussed the cohesion fund, but, following its Luxembourg meeting on Monday 26 October, the Council is able, subject, of course, to the views of Parliament, to agree in principle the extension of the current transport infrastructure funding programme for a maximum of two years.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates they will be returned.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport holds 21 records withdrawn temporarily from the Public Record Office for current administrative use. The policy is to return records as soon as the relevant department action is completed.

  The titles are:

  801

  Harbour Department Papers — Foreshores

  Harbour Department — North British Railways Bill

  Harbour Department — Correspondence on proposed construction Harbours and Foreshores

  Harbour Department — Wrecks and Foreshores

  Harbour Department — Wrecks: assents to structures on piers and Foreshores

  Channel Tunnel Study Group

  Channel Tunnel — Contract Details

  Channel Tunnel — Contract Details

  Channel Tunnel — Discussions with interested bodies (financial)

  Fire applicances - Richards Ltd., Aberdeen — production of unlined and rubber latex lined hoses. (3 records)

  Orders made under Town and Country Planning Acts SIs 1113–1303

  Transport Bill 1961/62, clauses 69–71

  Ministry of Transport organisation and procedures for reviewing old records

  Amendments and additions to be made to the ICE conditions of contract when used for works on classified roads

  The north of Twyning-North of Lydiate Ash special road (improvement) order. (2 records)

  Reorganisation of Civil Aviation and Common Services Groups

  Organisation and staffing, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation Directory

  Motor Vehicle: Licensing: Electrically propelled vehicles

  Road Surfaces
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the use of noise-reducing road surfaces such as porous asphalt are used in the United Kingdom; what assessment he has made of the effect of using such road surfaces on the level of road noise on the mainland of Europe; and if he will consider introducing more of this type of surface.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The use of noise-reducing surfaces in the United Kingdom has until recently been confined to full-scale road trials.

  Contacts are well established between officials of the Department and other European countries that use these surfaces selectively depending on the site conditions. Assessment of the noise reduction effect of these surfaces indicates overseas performance similar to the United Kingdom trials.

  A specification for porous asphalt which has particular noise-reducing characteristics is about to be issued by my Department. The material may now be used on trunk roads, including motorways, where it can be shown to be suitable and cost effective. At the same time other forms of surface treatment are being developed.

  It is a matter for local highway authorities to decide the particular choice of surface for use on their own roads.

  Tunnels (Lights)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the effect of relying upon motorists using their lights in tunnels rather than a high quality of public lighting on the number of accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Tunnel lighting requirements depend on a range of factors including the tunnel length and the traffic flows and vehicle speeds; they are set out fully within a British Standard code of practice. For road safety reasons, lighting provision needs to overcome the adaptation problem for drivers when entering a tunnel 802
  from bright daylight conditions, but the numbers of accidents are too small to allow reliable studies of the direct relationship between lighting levels and accident causation.

  Channel Tunnel
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the effect of rail freight traffic from the channel tunnel on south-east London on the frequency of rail journeys in that area.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the infrastructure and signalling improvements currently being undertaken on lines in Kent and London, BR believes that it will be able to operate international services without adversely affecting domestic traffic.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the environmental impact statement of the channel tunnel and rail link on south-east London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Although an environmental statement was not a requirement of the House for the Channel Tunnel Bill, a report "Channel Fixed Link: Environmental Appraisal of Alternative Proposals" was published in December 1985. Copies were placed in the Library. Eurotunnel also provided supporting documents to the Select Committee that considered the Bill. An environmental statement for the new rail link will be published in support of an application for statutory approval. The rail link is not planned to pass through south-east London.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of studies on noise and vibration with particular reference to south London carried out by the Derby railway research study centre since 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The studies requested were carried out by British Rail Research on a commercial in confidence basis. The Department cannot therefore deposit the studies in the Library.

  A40
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what works are currently being undertaken on the A40 between the start of Westway and the Target roundabout, Northolt; at what cost; when they are due to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is not currently undertaking any works along the A40 between the western end of Westway and its junction with the A312, at the Target roundabout. However, it has been necessary to close the nearside lane of the westbound carriageway of the A40 between Alperton lane and Perivale lane since 7 September to enable Southern Electric to replace a high-voltage cable. These works are expected to be completed by early December.

  Severn Bridge (Tolls)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the increase in the Severn bridge toll in January 1993 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms.
  803
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Severn bridge tolls will be increased on 1 January 1993 by 10·7 per cent. in cash terms. This will represent a year-on-year increase of 6·9 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make arrangements for regular users of the Severn bridge to he able to buy block books of tickets for use after 31 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the concessionaire, Severn River Crossing Plc. I understand that the company will be offering for sale books of tickets at the 1993 rates from 7 December onwards.

  Emergency Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 89, when he expects the assessment of emergency or standby vessels in the offshore oil and gas industry to be completed.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The new standby vessel code jointly agreed by the Department and the Health and Safety Executive includes a staged approach with the simpler requirements being completed by 1 January 1992 and 1 May 1992, and with full compliance by 31 December 1992. New vessels and new conversions are to comply before entering service. The timing of preparation and presentation of vessels is a matter for owners.

  The present situation is that: 86 fully comply with the new code; 41 have applied for and are in the process of assessment; 46 may be put forward for assessment or withdrawn from service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many papers his Department. has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Curry
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Records Acts to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for their administrative use. My Department currently has 50 records out on loan. A list of titles is being sent out to the hon. Member. Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each local authority area in South Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry owns no residential property in South Yorkshire.

  Poultry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the voltages normally used for stunning poultry in British slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Gummer
  The legislation requires that birds must be instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death. The code of practice on welfare of poultry at slaughter gives guidance on stunning currents. For broilers, it recommends a minimum, average stunning current of 105 milliamperes per bird to produce an adequate period of insensibility.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics are available to indicate the sales to developing countries by each EC country in volume, nature and value of goods produced, under the common agricultural policy in the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest statistics on the trade of EC member states with developing countries is given in "Eurostat's External Trade, Analytical Tables, 1990" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE, by county, for October.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information as requested for Great Britain from 3 October to 30 October 1992 is as follows. All these cases will have a date of clinical onset of disease and date of report before 3 October.

  County/ Region

  Confirmed cases

  England

  Avon

  37

  Bedfordshire

  10

  Berkshire

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  Cambridge

  3

  Cheshire

  165

  Cleveland

  3

  Cornwall

  222

  Cumbria

  109

  Derbyshire

  53

  Devon

  302

  Dorset

  110

  Durham

  16

  Essex

  11

  Gloucestershire

  37

  Hampshire

  31

  Hereford & Worcester

  45

  Hertfordshire

  16

  Humberside

  11

  Isle of Wight

  9

  Kent

  18

  Lancashire

  146

  Leicestershire

  41

  Lincolnshire

  9

  London

  1

  Manchester

  7

  Merseyside

  1

  Norfolk

  25

  Northamptonshire

  16

  Northumberland

  19

  805

  County/Region

  Confrmed cases

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  Oxfordshire

  22

  Shropshire

  67

  Somerset

  151

  Staffordshire

  93

  Suffolk

  15

  Surrey

  12

  Sussex East

  10

  Sussex West

  28

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Warwickshire

  16

  West Midlands

  2

  Wiltshire

  109

  Yorkshire North

  115

  Yorkshire South

  10

  Yorkshire West

  17

  Wales

  Clwyd

  54

  Dyfed

  149

  Glamorgan Mid

  0

  Glamorgan South

  8

  Glamorgan West

  0

  Gwent

  19

  Gwynedd

  13

  Powys

  41

  Scotland

  Borders

  9

  Central

  2

  Dumfries

  41

  Fife

  2

  Grampian

  23

  Highland

  6

  Lothian

  5

  Orkney

  3

  Shetland

  0

  Strathclyde

  47

  Tayside

  17

  Western Isles

  0

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Law (Breaches)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to the Exchequer since 1979 arising from United Kingdom legal representation at the European Court in cases brought against Her Majesty's Government by the European Commission for alleged breaches of European law.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet with the armaments and military equipment manufacturers to discuss options available to diversify into civil technology and engineering business.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are strongly committed to 806
  meeting and continuing a dialogue with companies from all sectors including with defence suppliers on the problems of adjustment that they currently face.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to secure an international GATT meeting to examine the implications of trading policies upon environmental concerns.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT already has a group on environmental measures and international trade, which meets regularly in Geneva. The group has met four times in 1992, most recently in October. The European Community, including the United Kingdom, plays an active role in the work of this group. Separately, the United Kingdom plays a leading role in the work of a special Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group, which brings together trade and environmental policy-makers. This group is formulating policy guidelines to help ensure the proper interaction of trade and environmental policies.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to raise import duties on tropical timber and tropical timber products imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  No. The United Kingdom applies the European Community's common external tariff, which is negotiated and agreed by all EC member states and cannot be changed on an individual national basis. If the EC were to raise its import duties, it would be obliged under the rules of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, to offer offsetting tariff reductions on items of interest to the countries affected by such increases.

  Furthermore, restricting trade in tropical timber would mean that forest dwellers who depend on such trade would be forced to seek alternative ways to exploit the forests for economic gain, possibly including using the timber for fuel or clearing the land for cultivation. The Government therefore aim rather to promote the sustainable management of tropical forests which takes into account the needs of their animal, plant and human inhabitants. In this context, the European Community will shortly begin the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the importation of tropical hardwoods.

  Mr. Needham
  Except as provided for under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, there are no restrictions on the import of tropical hardwoods into the United Kingdom. The Government pursue a coherent policy to encourage sustainable management of tropical forests and do not consider that any wider restrictions on timber imports are practicable or desirable.

  EC Single Market
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to call for the establishment of new mechanisms to monitor reports on the trade diversion effects of the single market on poorer developing countries during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Needham
  No. The Government do not consider that completion of the single market will have the effect of diverting trade away from developing countries. Removal of internal barriers within the European Community will make it easier for all traders, including developing country exporters, to do business throughout the Community. The trade policy review mechanism —TPRM—of the general agreement on tariffs and trade already provides a forum in which the effects of contracting parties' trade policies and practices on other countries and on the multilateral trading system as a whole can be examined in detail. The Community's trade policy is subject to biennial review under the TPRM.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what trade restrictions on goods made with or containing ozone-depleting substances exist with European Free Trade Association countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom does not impose any controls on trade in these products with EFTA countries. However, all EFTA countries except Switzerland have notified the EC of their intention to introduce bans on the use of these products and these will equally apply to imports from other countries.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances his Department takes action when a company's accounts are qualified by auditors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Auditors' reports on companies' accounts may be qualified for various reasons, and such qualifications do not necessarily imply financial difficulty or breaches of the law. Routine consideration of every qualified report would require resources that we do not believe could be justified. However my Department considers for appropriate action any case where a qualification is drawn to its attention as indicating a matter for concern.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the major aerospace companies;.

  (2) what plans he has to meet the employees of major aerospace companies, their trade union and professional association representatives.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no immediate plans to meet the employees or professional association representatives of the major aerospace companies. However, he and I have visited a number of companies and we have had meetings with the Society of British Aerospace Companies and with the chairmen of several companies including British Aerospace, GEC, Rolls-Royce and Westland.

  Textiles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received from the textile industry about the effect of subsidies by the Wallonian region to textile companies in Belgium; and if he will make a statement;.

  (2) what assessment he has made of the uniformity of a common policy in the European Community on control of state aids to the textile and clothing industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: Representations have been made by the British Textile Confederation about alleged subsidies. We are considering these allegations carefully.

  There continue to be isolated cases of aid approved to manufacturers in the textile and clothing industries on which we make our concerns known to the Commission. In general, progress appears to be being made in the enforcement of the EC treaty obligations controlling and limiting state aid.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences were(a) applied for and (b) granted under the export control system for arms exports in 1991 and to date in 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The following figures are in respect of export licences for goods covered by group 1 of part II of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991:

  1991

  1992

  (a) Export licences applied for

  13,832

  12,907

  (b) Export licences issued

  13,216

  12,005

  Coal Uses
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what publicly-funded bodies are currently carrying out research, within the United Kingdom, into alternative uses for coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Research into alternative uses of coal funded by the public sector in the United Kingdom is mainly undertaken at British Coal's coal research establishment—CRE—near Cheltenham and at its Point of Ayr coal liquefaction pilot plant, north Wales. Work in recent years has focused principally on coal liquefaction, the production of chemicals from coal by prrolysis, coal gasification and carbonisation undertaken at CRE. Both British Coal and my Department are contributing to the £41 million Point of Ayr project with additional public sector funding from the European Commission.

  Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, research into alternative uses of coal is undertaken at a number of universities with funding from the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, Science and Engineering Research Council and the European Commission.

  A substantial amount of research into alternative uses of coal has also been undertaken by the private sector in the United Kingdom with European Commission funding over the past few years. This includes work by British Gas on producing a synthetic natural gas from coal and work by British Steel on coal carbonisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are the actual clearance times on average for disability living allowance claims; and what is the proposed target for new claims and for reviews of earlier claims;.

  (2) on how many claims for disability living allowance the adjudication officer decided to send an examining doctor to the claimant's home rather than a home visit officer;.

  (3) what percentage of new claims for disability living allowances are successful; what percentage of successful claimants received each component of the benefit; and what percentage of unsuccessful claims are followed by an application for a review;.

  (4) what is the current backlog for reviews of disability living allowance claims.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about claims and reviews for Disability Living Allowance (DLA), their outcome and the types of evidence used in the adjudication officers decisions. I will deal with each of your points in turn.
  National clearance times
  The Benefits Agency introduced a standard performance measure across benefits some time ago. This is expressed in terms of clearance targets rather than average clearance times as was previously the case.The primary target set for the clearance of DLA claims is 60 per cent. of claims to be cleared in 30 days. Since the launch of DLA in February 1992 the performance to date has been 33 per cent. of claims cleared in 30 days. The latest performance for the month of October shows 39 per cent. of claims cleared in 30 days.The success of the advertising campaign and the policy initiatives surrounding the launch of the benefits attracted a much larger number of applications in the early stages than was expected. Backlogs of work arose as a result and this has undoubtedly affected our ability to meet the clearance targets.I can assure you, however, that whilst we arc still some way from meeting the target, firm actions have been taken to reduce the backlog and thereby significantly improve the clearance times. Extra staff have been deployed and overtime is being worked to a considerable extent. We are also reviewing our working practices to ensure the most efficient procedures are in place consistent with our customers' needs. These measures have already borne fruit with the number of claims being cleared rising steadily from approximately 15,600 in April to 57,700 in October.
  Reviews
  You asked about the target times for reviews of claims to DLA. This is also expressed in the same way as new claims but the primary target for these cases is 60 per cent. in 55 days.You also asked about the current backlog for reviews of DLA claims. At the end of October 1992 there were 25,085 applications for review still to be cleared. The number of applications for review has been steadily rising as the recovery programme to clear the backlog of new claims has been successfully completed.810 The build-up of these reviews has also been affected by the diversion of resources to clear those outstanding Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance review and appeal cases inherited at 6 April 1992 when DLA was introduced. I am confident that these inherited cases will be cleared by the end of December 1992, as mentioned in my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs, and further resources are now being diverted to tackle the DLA reviews.Number of claims adjudicated upon after a medical examination has been requested.From February to the end of October just under 270,000 decisions have been made on new claims to DLA, of these nearly 160,000 decisions were made to award DLA, with almost 110,000 rejections. Over 54,400 decisions, representing 22 per cent., were made based on evidence obtained by way of a medical examination and over 400 decisions, less than 1 per cent., were made using information obtained by a home visit officer.
  Numbers and percentages of successful claims
  During the period February to October there were around 342,000 new claims to DLA, of these nearly 160,000 were awarded, this is reflected as a success rate of 59 per cent. The table below shows a breakdown by each component and rate:

  Rate

  Number

  As a percentage of successful claims

  Higher rate care

  5,300

  3

  Middle rate care

  7,900

  5

  Lower rate care

  15,700

  10

  Higher rate mobility

  45,600

  29

  Lower rate mobility

  11,300

  7

  Higher rate care plus higher rate mobility

  18,300

  11

  Higher rate care plus lower rate mobility

  3,700

  2

  Middle rate care plus higher rate mobility

  10,200

  6

  Middle rate care plus lower rate mobility

  9,100

  6

  Lower rate care plus higher rate mobility

  16,800

  10

  Lower rate care plus lower rate mobility

  15,900

  10

  I should explain that it is not possible to identify the number of review applications received following a decision to reject a claim to DLA as customers may ask for a review on any decision whether it is favourable or not. However, the total number of review applications received between February and October was 29,664 which is less than 10 per cent. of the total number of decisions made during the same period.All figures quoted are provisional and may be subject to amendment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies arc also being placed in the Library.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people have used the benefit inquiry line or his Department's local offices for help in completing the application form for disability living allowance; and what percentage of total claims are dealt with in this way;.

  (2) how many claimants have requested home visits for help in completing the disability living allowance form; what percentage of total claims this represents; and, of those requesting such visits, how many claimants were visited by his Department's officers.
  811
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about how many customers have requested home visits for help in completing the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claim form, what percentage of total claims this represents and how many visits were actually made. You also asked how many people have used the Benefit Enquiry Line or his Department's local offices for help in completing DLA forms and what percentage of total claims are dealt with in this way.Information is not available on the number of requests made for visits. However, since the launch of DLA in February 1992 to the end of October approximately 1,950 home visits had been made by the Customer Service staff in the Disability Benefit Centres.In this same period over 51,000 claims were completed with the assistance of telephone calls from Benefits Agency staff, which represents approximately 15 per cent. of the total of 342,000 new claims received.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what intervals claimants are advised on the progress of their claims or reviews for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter,, from M. Bichard to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking at what intervals claimants are advised on the progress of their claims or reviews for Disability Living Allowance (DLA).New claims to DLA are administered by 10 Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) around the country. When a new claim is registered on the computer system an acknowledgment is automatically issued. The claim is then referred to an adjudication officer who may decide that further information is required and if this is the case then the customer will be informed. If the claim has not been cleared after 35 days then the computer system issues a letter automatically informing the customer of the delay.I should explain that the volume of claims received has resulted in much longer delays in clearance and unfortunately we have been unable to keep customers fully informed of the progress of their claim in the latter stages. However now that the recovery programme to clear the backlog of claims has been successfully completed, clearance of claims will be accelerated and extended delays should not normally occur.In the case of reviews, which are dealt with at the DLA Unit in Blackpool, due to the volume of work currently on hand customers have not been kept fully informed of the progress of their case. Action is being taken to address the outstanding review cases and staff will be keeping customers informed of any further delays which might arise when they action those cases.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total number of cases of social security fraud detected in each of the last three years; and how many of these have resulted in prosecutions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The investigation of social security fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for the total number of cases of social security fraud detected in each of the last three years; and how many of these have resulted in prosecutions.
  The number of cases which have resulted in a weekly benefit saving and those that have resulted in prosecutions for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92, are given below. I should explain that a weekly benefit saving is where benefit is reduced or terminated as a result of the work of fraud staff.

  Weekly benefit saving cases

  Prosecution cases

  1989–90

  159,372

  8,671

  1990–91

  158,178

  7,911

  1991–92

  181,870

  4,379

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies of this letter are being placed in the Library.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Doncaster area currently qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme; what percentage this is of the total number of households eligible to claim benefits from his Department; and what have been the comparative figures for each year since the scheme was introduced.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in the Doncaster area qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme; what percentage this is of the total number of households eligible to claim benefits from his Department; and what have been the comparative figures for each year since the scheme was introduced.Doncaster is covered by the Agency's Doncaster District. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how many customers would qualify for a Cold Weather Payment except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in August 1992, it is estimated that approximately 18,900 customers in the Doncaster District may qualify for a Cold Weather Payment, should the area be triggered. This represents approximately 50 per cent. of Income Support Customers.813 The only period available for comparison is 1 November 1991 to 31 March 1992, when up to 12,820 (approximately 47 per cent. of Income Support customers) were paid during the four periods when the area was triggered. All other local statistics have been destroyed in accordance with standing instructions.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Medical Examinations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by month since January for the Doncaster area, how many claims for(a) invalidity benefit, (b) sickness benefit, (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) income support were referred to the regional medical services; how many of these cases resulted in medical examinations; and what was the outcome (i) where examination took place and (ii) where they did not.

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

  Annex

  Number of cases referred to BA medical services: From Doncasier area by benefit type

  1992 year to date

  Invalidity benefit

  Sickness benefit

  Severe disablement allowance

  Not in receipt of an incapacity benefit1

  Total referred

  January

  438

  172

  17

  81

  708

  February

  486

  191

  9

  97

  783

  March

  504

  162

  12

  103

  781

  April

  466

  193

  10

  85

  754

  May

  619

  199

  19

  128

  965

  June

  575

  164

  17

  109

  865

  July

  545

  224

  15

  79

  863

  August

  527

  168

  12

  86

  793

  September

  541

  208

  14

  58

  821

  October

  574

  194

  4

  46

  818

  The results of the above references received to date are:

  Incapable of all work

  5,545

  Capable of work

  218

  Incapable of normal occupation but capable of work within certain limits

  471

  Did not attend

  263

  1 Included in this column are customers who do not receive a National Insurance Incapacity Benefit but may qualify for Income Support based on incapacity for work.

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many DSS offices in each region had, halfway through the year, exhausted their funding provision for community care grants(a) for children, (b) for the elderly and (c) for the disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about community care grant funding in DSS offices.814
  Letter from Mr. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking by month since January for the Doncaster area, how many claims for (a) invalidity benefit, (b) sickness benefit (c) severe disablement allowance and (d) income support were referred to the regional medical services; how many of these cases resulted in medical examinations; and what was the outcome (i) where examinations took place and (ii) where they did not.
  The complete range of such information is not available except at disproportionate cost. This is because statistics covering decisions made following references to the Benefits Agency Medical Services are not available in the requested form.Listed in the annex are the figures available for Invalidity Benefit, Sickness Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance. There have been no references directly from Income Support sections but customers in receipt of the incapacity benefits which I have mentioned may also be in receipt of Income Support.The above information covers customers of the Agency's Doncaster East, Doncaster West and Mexborough offices.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.Annual allocations are made to each Benefits Agency District for community care grants. No District has exhausted its grants allocation for 1992–93.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Incomes
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistical information about low incomes it is his practice to give, other than that provided in the households below average income stocktaking report.

  Mr. Burt
  It is the practice of this Department to give such information as is available within cost constraints. This may be by reference to any published data or from other information collected by the Department.

  All statistical information from HBAI data is presented in line with the recommendations of the stocktaking report.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons 1988 and 1989 data in the
  815
  households below average income stocktaking report were combined, but not data for any two of the previous years covered in the report; and if for future years he will ensure that trend data are consistent, whether for individual years or two years combined.

  Mr. Burt
  Data for 1988 and 1989 are combined in the most recent edition of the households below average income statistics in order to reduce the effect of sampling error. This change in methodology was discussed in the HBAI stocktaking report, published in December 1991, and in appendix 5 of the latest edition. Earlier years were not combined since the effect of sampling error was much smaller: in fact the sampling error for 1988 and 1989 combined was larger than for 1979 alone.

  There is no statistical inconsistency in comparing HBAI data for a single year's family expenditure survey with HBAI data based on two combined years' FES data. Future HBAI figures will remain based on combined years post–1988.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the change in his Department's spending, on family credit and other benefits, of the proposed abolition of wages councils.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to predict the effects of the abolition of wages councils on benefit expenditure. In any case, variations in the level of wages are not the major determinant of family credit expenditure.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for war pensions were not determined before the applicant's death in each year over the last 10 years; how many applicants died before they received their benefit and arrears; and how long before the death each application had been made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Health Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he last reviewed the relevance and appropriateness of the criteria for selecting people for the boards of Welsh health authorities in accordance with the procedure in paragraph 52 of "Guidelines of Procedure for Ministers";.

  (2) what steps he took to solicit suggestions of names for membership of the boards of Welsh health authorities, prior to the announcement of the names appointed by him to those authorities on 30 October, pursuant to the recommendations of paragraph 52 in "Guidelines of Procedure for Ministers"; and what consultations he undertook.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 6 November, at column 473.

  Labour Statistics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the percentage rates of male unemployment in(a) the valleys of south Wales and (b) Wales as a whole, for each year since 1988.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Rates for the valleys programme area and Wales are given in the table.

  Male unemployment rates1 expressed as a percentage of the workforce

  September

  Valleys area

  Wales

  1988

  16·8

  12·0

  1989

  13·7

  8·6

  1990

  13·5

  8·5

  1991

  18·4

  12·2

  1992

  18·7

  13·3

  Source: Employment Department.

  1Unadjusted.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the level of unemployment in Wales over the last 12 months.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between September 1991 and September 1992 the number of unemployed claimants increased by 10,365.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a venture capital fund for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A venture capital fund for Wales already exists.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policies concerning the encouragement of manufacturing industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will continue to take every possible opportunity to encourage manufacturing industry in Wales, both in respect of locally based companies arid inward investors. This will include making full use of schemes of Government financial assistance and of the wide-ranging activities of the Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales.

  NHS Research and Development Director
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce the appointment of the research and development director of the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of the arrangements for managing the proposed NHS Wales research and development strategy will be given in the strategy document, which I am to publish in December.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales concerning his review of the assisted areas map.
  817
  Mr. David Hunt
  Eighty-eight representations have been received from Wales as a whole. Of these, 12 were from Clwyd.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning his review of the assisted areas map in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations concerning the review of the assisted areas map from a variety of sources, including hon. Members, local authorities, local businesses, chambers of commerce and a number from all-Wales bodies.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many opencast coal applications for Wales are lodged with his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are four planning appeals and one called-in application in respect of opencast coal mining proposals by the British Coal Corporation and four appeals relating to opencast coal mining proposals by private operators.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines he has issued to local authorities in Wales on the format and the details to be included in the contaminated land registers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A consultation exercise on contaminated land registers was undertaken in May 1991 and a copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House. The Government have recently consulted on revised proposals in the light of responses to that paper and further guidance is planned for issue to local authorities in due course. A copy will he placed in the Library of the House at that stage.

  Domestic Water Connections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many domestic water connections there have been in each of the last 10 years in each of the borough and district council areas of Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally. The collection of data on domestic water connections is the responsibility of Dwr Cymru Cyfngedig, Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company and Chester Waterworks Company as the water undertakers servicing Clwyd.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of national health service Wales overall budget is spent on health promotion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92, identifiable expenditure on health promotion was £7,442,000 and this represented 0·4 per cent. of the total national health service budget in Wales.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority the number and proportion of mandatory student grants not paid by 31 October.

  Mr. Forman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 5 November 1992, Official Report, column 344.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase hill livestock compensatory allowances for farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The payment arrangements for the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme are considered within the context of the autumn review of economic conditions and prospects for our hill and upland farmers. As part of this process I have met representatives from the National Farmers Union (Wales) and the Farmers Union of Wales who have outlined their views and priorities. The HLCA payment arrangements to apply from 1 January 1993 will be announced as soon as possible.

  Tourism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of revenue from tourism to Wales in 1980, 1990 and 1991; what proposals he has to facilitate increased tourism in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Estimates of expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales are given in the following table. Since 1989, information on United Kingdom visitors to Wales has been obtained from the United Kingdom tourism survey. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the results of this and earlier surveys. Information on overseas visitors is not available prior to 1981.

  Estimates of expenditure by day visitors are available only for the financial year ending on 31 March 1989 when an estimated £22 milion was spent in Wales.

  Expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales1

  £ million

  Year

  United Kingdom visitors

  Overseas visitors

  1980

  2—

  3—

  1981

  2—

  50

  1990

  900

  130

  1991

  900

  130

  Sources: United Kingdom Travel Survey, International Passenger Survey.

  1 These estimates, derived from sample surveys and thus subject to potential random sampling errors, have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2 Not available on a comparable basis.

  3 Not available prior to 1981.

  In order to further promote tourism in Wales, the Government uplifted support for Wales tourist board by 20 per cent. in 1992–93 to a record £13·529 million.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the report of the Countryside Council for Wales on acid rain.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The report makes a useful contribution to our understanding of the potential threats posed by acid rain to the aquatic environment of sites of special scientific interest in upland Wales; and underlines the importance of the substantial reductions that the Government are seeking in the emissions which lead to acidification. The report acknowledges that more work is needed to identify more clearly the overall effects of acid rain within the Welsh environment and to this end the Welsh Office is currently sponsoring research with the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from farmers in Wales regarding sheep quotas.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.

  Education Authorities (Capital Credit)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state for each local education authority in Wales the amount of capital credit approval they have applied for, for use in 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh local education aujthorities do not bid for or receive specific capital credit approvals for education services. County councils receive resources within their annual basic credit approvals which are unhypothecated to particular services. Spending priorities are a matter for them.

DEFENCE

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department is conducting into the prospects for implementing a limited anti-ballistic missile system.

  Mr. Aitken
  The potential ballistic missile risk and possible ways of countering it are being reviewed in consultation with the United States and other NATO allies.

  Krypton-85
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been conducted by the Meteorological Office on the potential effects on the atmospheric balance of the release of radioactive Krypton-85.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 9 November 1992:
  820 The Meteorological Office has considered the possible impact of the release of radioactive Krypton-85, but has conducted no specific studies. Although the release affects the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere by a small amount, there are as yet no accepted theories to suggest that this minor effect has a significant influence on weather phenomena such as thunderstorms.

  Mammoth Vehicles
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the mammoth major transporter will be replaced; and how many more trips are planned for the mammoth major vehicles.

  Mr. Aitken
  Replacements for the truck cargo heavy duty Mk 1—sometimes referred to as the mammoth major transport vehicle—are now in service. There are currently no plans for further use of the mammoth major.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 25 June,Official Report, column 299, if the figures for nuclear waste include radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of disused facilities at the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston; and how much radioactive waste will arise at Aldermaston up to the year 2000 as a result of decommissioning old facilities.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated volumes of nuclear waste arising at the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston up to the year 2001 which I quoted in my answer of 25 June included radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of disused facilities at the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston.

  The current estimated volumes of intermediate and low-level waste to be generated at the atomic weapons establishment Aldermaston by the decommissioning programme between January 1992 and March 2001 are 450 cu m and 3,300 cu m respectively.

  On-site Inspections
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the on-site inspections made in the United Kingdom under the Stockholm and Vienna documents; what has been the annual cost of providing escorts for on-site inspections made in the United Kingdom under the Stockholm and Vienna documents; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken;.

  (2) if he will list the on-site inspections made by the United Kingdom under the Stockholm and Vienna documents; what has been the annual cost of carrying out on-site inspections under the Stockholm and Vienna documents; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom has received one inspection under the Stockholm and Vienna documents; to south-west district in October 1990. The United Kingdom has conducted two inspections, to Minsk in September 1990 and Moscow in September 1992. It is not possible to identify the costs associated with individual outgoing inspections, or against particular arms control agreements. Provision for the joint arms control implementation group—JACIG—which provides inspectors and escorts for all United Kingdom arms control activity, is made from vote 1, subheads A, B, C, D, E, F and L.

  Nuclear Warhead Containers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected timetable for delivery of nuclear warhead containers by the United Kingdom to the Russian Federation.

  Mr. Aitken
  On 10 November my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russian Foreign Minister which sets out the terms for the supply to Russia of 250 nuclear weapons containers and 20 nuclear weapons transport vehicles. The design process is well advanced and delivery of these equipments is scheduled to commence in late 1993, with completion expected by the end of 1994. Preliminary equipment is due to be delivered later this year.

  Deep Space Tracking Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the United States Air Force deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell; and when it was first declared operational.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States Air Force deep space tracking system at RAF Feltwell has been working up to operational status since 1 October 1990. It is expected that the system will become operational in the spring of 1993.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the numbers of search and rescue helicopters that will be deployed at each base under his latest proposals; and what steps he will take to guarantee the availability of helicopters at the extremities of the areas covered where there is no longer an overlap between those areas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the open government document "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Shipping Orders
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the(a) assault ships, (b) helicopter landing ships and (c) frigates that have been ordered in each of the last five years, for 1992–93 and estimated for 1993–94; if he will give the type and cost of the order in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following type 23 frigates have been ordered during the last five years:

  Date

  HMS Iron Duke

  11 July 1988

  HMS Monmouth

  11 July 1988

  HMS Montrose

  11 July 1988

  HMS Westminster

  22 December 1989

  HMS Northumberland

  22 December 1989

  HMS Richmond

  22 December 1989

  HMS Somerset

  23 January 1992

  HMS Grafton

  23 January 1992

  HMS Sutherland

  23 January 1992

  822
  No assault ships or helicopter landing ships were ordered during this period. We invited tenders for a helicopter carrier earlier this year and we plan to invite tenders in the spring of next year for the first of two assault ships.

  It is not our policy to make the costs of orders public as they are commercially confidential. All these orders were placed as a result of competition.

  Seminars
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of the dates, titles and venues of the seminars that his officials have attended on the subject of defence diversification over the last 24 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department have not attended any seminars devoted to the subject of defence diversification. They have attended each of a series of six regional seminars organised by the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this year under the title "Changing Tack—New Perspectives for Defence Suppliers", which was designed to assist small and medium-sized companies supplying the defence market to assess the strategic issues to be faced in the light of current and projected reductions in global expenditure on defence equipment.

  The dates and venues of these seminars were:

  Venue

  29 April

  Tring

  12 May

  Blackburn

  18 May

  Southampton

  20 May

  Solihull

  1 June

  Bristol

  3 June

  London

  WE177
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expenditure by his Ministry for each year to date, including 1992–93, on studies of the possible replacements for the WE177 tactical nuclear weapon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Expenditure on studies of possible vehicles is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  928,518

  1990–91

  1,372,329

  1991–92

  1,870,285

  11992–93

  1,563,918

  1To end of October.

  Expenditure on the warhead programme is classified.

  Long-Term Costings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now prepared to reconsider his policy relating to the release of information on long-term costings of his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 13 May 1992,Official Report, column 155.

  Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimates he has of the amount of his Ministry's expenditure which has been lost due to fraud in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement;.

  (2) how many incidents of suspected fraud have been reported by his officials to the Ministry of Defence police in each of the last five years; in each year, how many resulted in (a) prosecution and (b) conviction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Diversification
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of each paper that his officials have delivered to outside bodies on defence diversification over the last two years in the Library.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials of my Department have not delivered any such papers.

  Trident
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the outturn cost of the Trident programme in 1991–92; and what is the estimated outturn for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Aitken
  Actual capital expenditure on the Trident programme during financial year 1991–92 was £1,163 million. Our current estimate for capital expenditure on the Trident programme for the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 is £1,019 million and £827 million respectively.

SCOTLAND

  Woodland
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage woodland in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The two main aims of the Government's forestry policy are the steady expansion of tree cover to increase the many, diverse benefits that forests provide, and the sustainable management of our existing woods and forests. The Government provide a range of incentives to support this policy, chiefly through the woodland grant scheme administered by the Forestry Commission.

  This scheme provides grants for establishing new woodlands and replanting felled woodlands, with higher grants for broadleaved trees and native pinewoods and for woodlands of less than 10 hectares. Special supplements

  Executive agency: Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number

  Cost £

  Number

  Estimated cost £

  Chief Executive

  1·0

  42,933

  1·0

  45,220

  Unified Grade 6

  2·0

  75,726

  2·0

  78,434

  Marine Superintendent

  1·0

  36,175

  1·0

  38,635

  Engineer Superintendent

  1·0

  35,230

  1·0

  37,626

  Unified Grade 7

  3·0

  87,021

  3·0

  91,878

  Commanding Officer

  4·0

  136,440

  4·0

  144,628

  824
  are also available for planting on improved agricultural land and for the creation of new woodlands close to towns and cities. In addition, the scheme provides annual grants for managing existing woodlands, with higher rates for broadleaved woodlands and for woodlands of special environmental value.

  The farm woodland premium scheme was introduced earlier this year as a successor to the farm woodland scheme and offers annual payments for new woodlands planted by farmers under the woodland grant scheme.

  The Government have recently launched several other projects to encourage the establishment and management of woodland in the United Kingdom. These include a community forests programme, proposals for a national forest in the midlands, a central Scotland woodlands initiative, a Welsh valleys forest initiative and a programme to restore the traditional Sherwood forest.

  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 10 November]: The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department commissioned management consultants to review the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme last year. The consultants' report made a number of useful recommendations, which have required further detailed study. I hope to consult interested parties on revised proposals for the future of the scheme shortly.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the terms of reference for the Quayle Munro report on water and swerage services; what was the fee for this consultancy; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies which were given to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 26 October at columns 530–31 and on 6 November at column 424.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 November]: The information set out in the tables has been supplied by the chief executives of the agencies.
  825

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number

  Cost

  Number

  Estimated cost

  £

  £

  First Officer

  12·0

  279,804

  12·0

  296,592

  Second Officer

  22·0

  439,296

  22·0

  465,674

  Chief Engineer

  4·0

  115,548

  4·0

  122,480

  Second Engineer

  4·0

  93,268

  4·0

  98,864

  Third Engineer

  19·0

  379,392

  19·0

  402,173

  Chief Petty Officer

  8·0

  77,896

  8·0

  81,584

  Seaman

  20·0

  157,240

  20·0

  167,920

  Chief Steward

  4·0

  44,944

  4·0

  48,540

  Cook Steward

  18·0

  168,642

  18·0

  176,742

  Motorman

  12·0

  101,292

  12·0

  100,752

  Inspector of Sea Fisheries

  8·0

  181,048

  8·0

  186,720

  Fishery Officer I

  21·0

  386,148

  21·0

  399,147

  Fishery Officer II

  34·0

  458,558

  37·0

  546,934

  Senior Executive Officer

  2·0

  45,112

  1·0

  23,340

  Higher Executive Officer

  4·0

  73,224

  4·0

  76,028

  Executive Officer

  8·0

  112,392

  8·0

  118,256

  Administration Officer

  6·0

  62,436

  6·0

  65,052

  Administrative Assistant

  9·5

  69,378

  14·5

  113,796

  Personal Secretary

  3·0

  39,378

  3·0

  40,992

  Storeman

  2·0

  16,916

  2·0

  17,610

  Typist

  1·0

  10,502

  1·0

  10,933

  Total

  233·5

  3,725,939

  240·5

  3,996,550

  Note: Costs include earnings-related national insurance contributions.

  Executive agency: Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Number

  Cost

  Number

  Estimated cost

  £

  £

  5

  1·0

  42,970

  1·0

  44,732

  6

  2·0

  75,208

  3·0

  117,438

  7

  14·0

  427,560

  13·0

  413,296

  SEO

  2·0

  47,708

  1·0

  24,832

  HEO

  0·0

  —

  1·0

  19,177

  EO

  3·0

  45,456

  3·0

  47,319

  AO

  4·0

  43,472

  5·0

  56,570

  AA

  5·0

  40,125

  6·0

  50,124

  PS

  3·0

  41,793

  3·0

  43,505

  SSO

  12·5

  296,050

  11·5

  283,532

  HSO

  19·0

  353,248

  22·0

  425,788

  SO

  19·5

  300,495

  18·0

  288,758

  ASO

  17·5

  214,392

  24·5

  300,150

  SG Band 2

  3·0

  26,985

  5·0

  46,820

  Ind Band 2

  1·0

  7,684

  2·0

  15,998

  Ind Band 6

  7·0

  55,244

  8·0

  65,728

  Ind Band 10

  3·0

  24,495

  3·0

  25,500

  Ind Band 18

  1·0

  8,712

  1·0

  9,069

  Typist

  2·5

  30,173

  3·0

  37,692

  Sen Photo

  1·0

  15,793

  1·0

  16,441

  P&TO

  1·0

  14,380

  1·0

  14,970

  Farm Worker

  7·0

  59,535

  6·0

  53,124

  Farm Manager (HPTO)

  1·0

  19,200

  2·0

  39,974

  Shepherd/Grieve

  1·0

  10,365

  1·0

  10,790

  Tractorman

  3·0

  27,639

  4·0

  38,364

  Total

  134·0

  2,228,682

  149·0

  2,489,691

  Note:

  1. Costs include earnings-related national insurance contributions.

  2. Staff costs are increased by the employment of casual-seasonal labour.

  Executive Agency: Historic Scotland

  1991–92

  1992–93 (budgeted)

  Number

  Cost

  Number

  Cost

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Management

  31

  1·4

  31

  1·4

  Administrative

  123

  1·9

  122

  2·3

  Professional/Technical

  87

  2·1

  92

  2·1

  826

  827

  1991–92

  1992–93 (budgeted)

  Number

  Cost

  Number

  Cost

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Custodial

  99

  1·3

  116

  1·7

  Industrial

  284

  3·5

  299

  3·8

  Totals

  624

  10·2

  660

  11·3

  Notes:

  1. A breakdown of costs into each grade could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  2. Costs include earnings-related national insurance contributions, superannuation and overheads.

  3. Numbers and costs exclude casual staff and work carried out by contract.

  4. Staff number fluctuate throughout each year with higher seasonal staff during the summer tourist season.

  5. The functions and outputs related to these numbers and costs are higher in 1992–93 than in 1991–92.

  Executive Agency: Registers of Scotland

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–931

  Grade 4

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  2

  Grade 6

  3

  2

  Grade 7

  22

  21·5

  SEO

  45

  48

  HEO

  200

  208

  EO

  424

  414·5

  AO

  267

  269

  AA

  167

  169

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  5

  5

  Typist

  108

  111

  Support Manager 2

  1

  1

  Support Manager 3

  6

  8

  Support Grade 1

  43

  45

  Support Grade 2

  68

  68

  Personal Secretary

  2

  3

  Total

  1,364

  1,377

  Cost

  £20,201,000

  1£22,000,000

  Note: Costs include allowances, overtime, superannuation and earnings-related national insurance contributions.

  1 Estimated.

  Governance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his office received from CBI Scotland regarding possible improvements in the governing of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received one recent representation from CBI Scotland.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments in the Sheffield area have been(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted under the wages council legislation since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Statistics for the number of establishments that have been investigated in the Sheffield area since 1979 are not available. There have been two prosecutions under wages council legislation since 1979 in the Sheffield area; one in 1990 and one in 1991.
  828
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which employers have complained that wages council settlements have a significantly detrimental effect on industry or service sectors.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received a number of representations complaining about the detrimental effect wages council settlements have on their business. These include letters from the British Hospitality Association, Butlin's Holidays, the National Association of Master Bakers, Gateway Food Markets Ltd., Grand Metropolitan plc, Trust House Forte plc, Blackpool Pleasure Beach Ltd., the Unquoted Companies Group and the Rank Organisation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received on wages councils from Conservative and from other not-for-profit clubs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received two representations from Conservative clubs in the last year, both about the adverse effects of wages council settlements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which employers and organised groups of employees have determined pay levels at or below wages council rates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for each main wages council industry the lowest detected rate of pay in the past three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people employed in(a) Pendle and (b) Lancashire are in occupations covered by the wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that information on the number of workers covered by wages councils is not available for geographical areas smaller than a wages inspectorate division.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Government last consulted on wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  From December 1988 to February 1989.
  829
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies currently notified to the jobcentres in Nelson and Colne are in occupations covered by the wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the number of current vacancies notified to Jobcentres in Nelson and Colne which are in occupations covered by the Wages Councils. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.On the 6 November, there were 14 local vacancies available in Nelson Jobcentre and 15 available in Colne Jobcentres covered by the Wages Council.I hope this is helpful.As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence she has of the extent of opposition to wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We continue to receive complaints from employers about the adverse effect which wages council settlements have on industry.

  Skilled Labour
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the labour force is skilled in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Spain and (e) Portugal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The skills held by people in the labour force vary widely and are often a product of informal training and job experience rather than formal courses. It is not possible, therefore, to provide statistical measures which are comprehensive and comparable between countries.

  Training
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she plans to prevent employers who provide adequate training losing staff to those who do not.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to interfere with the free movement of trained people between employers. The Government recently consulted about the possibility of changing the law on the enforceability of training contracts.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5 November, Official Report, column 343, to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), which annnounced the outcome of that consultation.

  Wages, Lancashire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will state separately for full-time, part-time and all workers(a) the number and (b) the percentage earning less than £120 excluding overtime for (i) men and (ii) women in (1) Lancashire and (2) the United Kingdom for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information on the numbers of full-time employees in Great Britain earning less than £120 per week in April 1992 is published in table 14 of part A of the new earnings survey 1992. A copy of the publication is available in the Library. The available information on the percentages of employees earning less than £120 per week in April 1992 is as folllows:

  Lancashire

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland1

  Full-time

  Men

  2·6

  2·0

  5·O

  Women

  9·4

  7·3

  14·1

  Adults

  5·0

  3·9

  8·5

  Part-time

  Men

  2—

  76·4

  85·0

  Women

  2—

  79·9

  80·3

  Adults

  2—

  79·4

  81·1

  1 Denotes including overtime.

  2 Denotes information not available.

  Job Search Seminar
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the job entry rates for those who have attended a job search seminar, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about job entry rates for those who have attended a job search seminar. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.Over the period October 1991 to September 1992, 12,935 people found jobs during the seminars, giving a job entry rate of 17 per cent.It may be helpful if I explain the background and aim of the job search seminar programme. Job search seminars were introduced in July 1991 as part of a package of measures to provide additional help for people who had been unemployed for 13 weeks. The aim of the seminars is to enhance people's prospects of finding work, and avoid becoming 'long term unemployed', by widening their job search activity and improving their job search techniques.Job search seminars normally last for a period of four days spread over five weeks. This usually takes the form of two days in the first week and half a day in each of the subsequent four weeks. No detailed tracking takes place to see whether people who take part in a seminar eventually start work. For management information purposes, rather than as a performance measure, details are recorded of people who have found work over the five week period of the seminar. Many people will take longer than this to actually get a job and will often have applications still pending at the point when the management information is recorded An evaluation of job search seminars is currently being undertaken. It will include an assessment of the number of people finding work over a longer period of time. Results are expected by the end of 1992.I hope this is helpful.As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers and the changes that have occurred in the male unemployment figures for Coventry over the past 12 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In September 1992 the number of male unemployed claimants in the local authority district of Coventry was 15,483, and increase of 2,214 over the last 12 months. The figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Maternity Pay
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the changes in the rights of women to maternity pay and to return to work after giving birth since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Changes to the right to return to work after having a baby have been made since the Employment Act 1980 as follows: the initial notification of 832
  the woman's intentions must be in writing, rather than in writing only if requested; an additional power has been introduced for an employer to seek confirmation, after a woman has given birth, of her intention to return; the woman's notification of her intended date of return must be written and provided at least 21, rather than seven, days in advance, and her ability to postpone that date for a period in specified circumstances has been increased accordingly from 14 to 28 days; where it is not reasonably possible for an employer to take the woman back in her original job, he may now offer a suitable alternative or, if he has no suitable work and has only five or fewer employees, he may be relieved of the duty to reinstate her.

  In April 1987, maternity pay, administered by employers under employment legislation, was replaced by statutory maternity pay—SMP. Employers pay a statutory minimum amount of maternity pay for a maximum of 18 weeks to employees whose average earnings are above the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions and who at the qualifying week —the 15th week before the baby is due—have worked for them for at least six months. The statutory minimum rate of SMP has increased by 3·4 per cent. in real terms since 1987 from £32·85 to £46·30 per week.

  Running Water
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments in the Sheffield area have been(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted under the health and safety legislation relating to the provision of running water.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During routine visits to premises for which they are the enforcing authority, Health and Safety Executive factory inspectors will inquire about the provision of running water if they have any reason to believe that the facilities may be inadequate. However, no comprehensive record of such inquiries is kept.

  A search of records for the last five years has shown that there have been no prosecutions in the local authority district of Sheffield under health and safety legislation relating to the provision of running water.

  Equal Opportunities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the European social directives concerning the equal treatment of men and women which, at the most recent date, were the subject of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission for faulty application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no infringement proceedings under article 169 of the treaty before the European Court of Justice against the United Kingdom in relation to European social directives concerning the equal treatment of men and women.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will list those jobcentres in Scotland where no provision is made for the job interview guarantee scheme;.

  (2) what has been the total level of expenditure in Scotland on the job interview guarantee scheme.
  833
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions about Jobcentres in Scotland where no provision is made for the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative and about expenditure on JIG in Scotland. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.The Job Interview Guarantee initiative is not a feature of Jobcentre services in the following locations:Annan, Lockerbie, Dumfries, Castle Douglas, Sanquhar, Girvan, Stranraer, Newton Stewart, Oban, Campbeltown, Rothesay, Dunoon, Peebles, Galashiels, Hawick, Kelso, Eyemouth, Banff, Elgin, Forres, Fort William, Kirkwall, Nairn and Peterhead.The initiative offers a range of services to people looking for jobs and to employers with vacancies to fill. The most popular service involves matching unemployed people to notified vacancies and whilst this is not available under the Job Interview Guarantee initiative in the above locations, many of these Jobcentres do offer services which match unemployed people against employer's vacancies. My area managers also keep the position under review and if they identify a demand for the initiative in a particular location, they do their best to meet it Turning to your question about expenditure on the Job Interview Guarantee initiative in Scotland. Since April 1991 when Job Interview Guarantee was launched we estimate that expenditure amounts to £1,660,000 I hope this is helpful As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Officers Appeal
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking against the RUC officers responsible for the convictions of Noel Bell, Winston Allen and James Hegan following the appeal judgment.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 29 July 1992 the Court of Appeal directed that its judgment in the appeal of R v. Neil Fraser Latimer, James Irwin Hegan, Noel Richmond Bell and Alfred Winston Allen be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland so that he could consider the bringing of prosecutions against officers who he considered had committed criminal offences in connection with the trial of the appellants.

  I am informed that on 5 August 1992 the Director issued an interim direction to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary requesting that certain reports and information be obtained. When these matters have been received and considered the Director will take decisions as to whether or not to institute proceedings.
  834
  Once the Director has taken these decisions, and subject to them, it wil be for the Chief Constable of the RUC to decide whether disciplinary charges should be brought against any police officer.

HEALTH

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Healh what discussions she has had with the British Medical Association on the use of CFCs in prescription items; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have not discussed the use of chlorofluorocarbons in prescription items with the British Medical Association.

  The Licensing Authority has drawn to the attention of product licence holders the public statement by major suppliers of certain CFCs that they intend to cease production of these materials in the foreseeable future. We understand that the pharmaceutical industry is investigating the suitability of alternatives to CFCs, particularly for metered dose aerosol inhalations. Any company proposing to market a medicinal product using recycled or alternative materials in their manufacture would need first to satisfy the Licensing Authority as to the safety, quality and efficacy of the product by submitting a licensing application with the necessary supporting data.

  Health Services, Coventry
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many have been waiting in total and by main specialty(a) six months, (b) 12 months, and (c) over 12 months for treatment in the Coventry health authority area;

  (2) what was the patient waiting list for Coventry health authority each month from January 1991 to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by district health authority is published twice a year. The most recent figures, for 31 March 1992, are given in "Hospital Waiting List, In-patient and Day Cases—ISBN 1 85839 003 6—copies of which are in the Library. Monthly waiting time figures for individual district health authorities are not collected centrally.

  Asthma
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the expenditure and (b) the expenditure per head on general practitioner prescribed drugs for the relief of asthma and asthma-related conditions in 1991–92 in each family health service association area, and for each NHS region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The data included in the table are for bronchodilators as defined in chapter 3.1 of the British National Formulary. The period covered is April 1991 to March 1992 and the figures are for the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, prescriptions dispensed by doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.
  835

  Bronchodilalors

  FHSA No.

  FHSA name

  NIC (pounds)

  NIC/head £

  321

  Cleveland

  1,669,706·81

  3·04

  322

  Cumbria

  1,355,331·59

  2·73

  323

  Durham

  2,136,343·82

  3·59

  324

  Northumberland

  957,161·33

  3·14

  325

  Gateshead

  622,778·57

  3·04

  326

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  864,079·51

  3·13

  327

  North Tyneside

  567,180·48

  2·96

  328

  South Tyneside

  493,550·71

  3·19

  329

  Sunderland

  1,073,062·47

  3·62

  Northern

  9,739,195·29

  3·17

  341

  Humberside

  2,658,963·82

  3·09

  342

  North Yorkshire

  1,856,821·52

  2·53

  343

  Bradford

  1,346,838·83

  2·86

  344

  Calderdale

  609,625·81

  3·07

  345

  Kirklees

  1,028,628·15

  2·74

  346

  Leeds

  2,130,440·45

  2·99

  347

  Wakefield

  1,219,805·73

  3·87

  Yorkshire

  10,851,124·31

  2·96

  361

  Derbyshire

  2,659,395·24

  2·84

  362

  Leicestershire

  2,562,079·96

  2·84

  363

  Lincolnshire

  1,996,616·78

  3·35

  364

  Nottinghamshire

  2,903,519·19

  2·84

  365

  Barnsley

  677,550·64

  3·05

  366

  Doncaster

  1,073,446·55

  3·64

  367

  Rotherham

  816,403·35

  3·21

  368

  Sheffield

  1,573,501·72

  3·01

  Trent

  14,262,513·43

  3·00

  381

  Cambridgeshire

  1,684,666·15

  2·51

  382

  Norfolk

  2,047,795·40

  2·70

  383

  Suffolk

  1,600,230·16

  2·46

  East Anglia

  5,332,691·71

  2·56

  401

  Bedfordshire

  1,434,323·96

  2·66

  402

  Hertfordshire

  2,685,494·47

  2·71

  403

  Barnet

  633,568·95

  2·04

  404

  Brent and Harrow

  1,053,122·56

  2·34

  405

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  1,589,867·45

  2·48

  406

  Hillingdon

  563,668·64

  2·38

  407

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  699,548·30

  2·28

  North West Thames

  8,659,594·33

  2·49

  421

  Essex

  3,677,334·05

  2·38

  422

  Barking and Havering

  927,474·10

  2·45

  423

  Camden and Islington

  498,741·06

  1·41

  424

  City, Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets

  1,485,270·18

  2·59

  425

  Enfield and Haringey

  969,222·08

  2·14

  426

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  968,776·19

  2·19

  North East Thames

  8,526,817·66

  2·28

  441

  East Sussex

  2,094,533·13

  2·90

  442

  Kent

  3,514,824·86

  2·29

  443

  Bexley and Greenwich

  815,618·46

  1·88

  444

  Bromley

  606,366·05

  2·00

  445

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  1,896,531·43

  2·78

  South East Thames

  8,927,873·93

  2·43

  461

  Surrey

  2,191,410·73

  2·19

  462

  West Sussex

  1,746,588·38

  2·44

  463

  Croydon

  626,240·47

  1·97

  464

  Kingston and Richmond

  724,604·87

  2·38

  465

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,441,755·91

  2·47

  South West Thames

  6,730,600·36

  2·30

  481

  Dorset

  1,806,522·47

  2·69

  836

  837

  FHSA No.

  FHSA name

  NIC (pounds)

  NIC/head £

  482

  Hampshire

  3,585,354·46

  2·29

  483

  Wiltshire

  1,420,044·23

  2·49

  484

  Isle of Wight

  356.593·25

  2·70

  Wessex

  7,168,514·41

  2·44

  501

  Berkshire

  1,846,457·84

  2·43

  502

  Buckinghamshire

  1,628.332·02

  2·51

  503

  Northamptonshire

  1,621,906·31

  2·76

  504

  Oxfordshire

  1,389,659·24

  2·37

  Oxford

  6,486,355·41

  2·51

  521

  Avon

  2,406,280·28

  2·51

  522

  Cornwall

  1,519,497·90

  3·21

  523

  Devon

  2,832,277·29

  2·70

  524

  Gloucestershire

  1,645,135·93

  3·07

  525

  Somerset

  1,055,096·10

  2·25

  South Western

  9,458,287·50

  2·72

  541

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,085,177·18

  3·04

  542

  Salop

  1,431,789·11

  3·48

  543

  Staffordshire

  3,092,397·40

  2·95

  544

  Warwickshire

  1,819,330·85

  3·74

  545

  Birmingham

  2,978,763·66

  3·01

  546

  Coventry

  935,532·31

  3·10

  547

  Dudley

  765,4400·16

  2·50

  548

  Sandwell

  1,114,751·60

  3·80

  549

  Solihull

  582,544·58

  2·84

  551

  Walsall

  767,798·39

  2·92

  552

  Wolverhampton

  613,154·02

  2·48

  West Midlands

  16,186,639·26

  3·09

  561

  Cheshire

  2,821,837·36

  2·91

  562

  Liverpool

  1,590,608·60

  3·51

  563

  St. Helens and Knowslcy

  1,187,757·55

  3·46

  564

  Sefton

  884,525·50

  2·96

  565

  Wirral

  1,058,606·31

  3·15

  Mersey

  7,543,335·32

  3·14

  581

  Lancashire

  4,850,765·25

  3·47

  582

  Bolton

  881,691·66

  3·31

  585

  Bury

  655,155·46

  3·71

  584

  Manchester

  1,739,761·89

  3·96

  585

  Oldham

  731,376·69

  3·31

  586

  Rochdale

  911,667·39

  4·36

  587

  Salford

  979,012·36

  4·24

  588

  Stockport

  852,145·89

  2·93

  589

  Tameside

  699,991·07

  3·20

  591

  Trafford

  781,247·00

  3·65

  592

  Wigan

  1,059,568·76

  3·41

  North Western

  14,142,383·42

  3·56

  England

  134,015,926·34

  2·79

  Expenditure
  Mr. Cleland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total revenue expenditure in each of the English regions by her Department in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information derived from the 1990–91 annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England is shown in the table. Figures from 1991–92 accounts will be available later in the year.
  838

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS): 1990–91

  Region

  £ million cash

  Northern

  931·4

  Yorkshire

  1,058·0

  Trent

  1,303·1

  East Anglian

  580·2

  North West Thames

  1,102·7

  North East Thames

  1,373·2

  South East Thames

  1,216·5

  South West Thames

  960·1

  Wessex

  796·1

  Oxford

  635·7

  South Western

  934·3

  West Midlands

  1,510·1

  839

  Region

  £ million cash

  Mersey

  753·7

  North Western

  1,267·2

  Total

  14,422·3

  Notes:

  1. HCHS covers all the services provided or managed by the health authorities concerned including hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. The table excludes expenditure by family health services authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals which, although funded by the Department, is not strictly attributable to particular regions. Expenditure by other special health authorities and bodies comprising the NHS, and expenditure met directly by the Department are generally incurred on a national rather than a regional basis, and are also excluded.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the number of people who have been taking benzodiazepines for longer than the recommended 28-day maximum period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the current level of benzodiazepine prescribing in England; and if she will make it her policy to reduce benzodiazepine prescribing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are aware that prolonged prescribing of benzodiazepines can lead to dependence and severe problems with withdrawal. Because of this, we have ensured that information on both prescribing and withdrawal from these drugs is freely available to doctors. There has been a steady reduction in the number of benzodiazepine prescriptions, from about 24·51 million in 1982 to around 15·71 million in 1991.

  1 The figures are based on prescriptions dispensed by chemist and appliance contractors in England.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued for benzodiazepine for individuals by community pharmacists in England in 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Anti-Depressants

  FHSA No.

  FHSA name

  NIC (pounds)

  NIC/head £

  321

  Cleveland

  828,021·14

  1·51

  322

  Cumbria

  744,159·16

  1·50

  323

  Durham

  1,013,008·03

  1·70

  324

  Northumberland

  435,540·59

  1·43

  325

  Gateshead

  341,020·58

  1·67

  326

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  409,386·05

  1·48

  327

  North Tyneside

  314,643·04

  1·64

  328

  South Tyneside

  188,621·92

  1·22

  329

  Sunderland

  405,151·08

  1·37

  Northern

  4,679,551·59

  1·52

  341

  Humberside

  1,078,67805

  1·25

  342

  North Yorkshire

  923,863·60

  1·26

  840

  Benzodiazepines England 1991

  Drug group

  Prescriptions (thousands)

  Temazepam

  6,039

  Diazepam

  3,063

  Nitrazepam

  3,000

  Lorazepam

  1,080

  Triazolam

  1,076

  Chlorodiazepoxide

  504

  Oxazepam

  360

  Loprazolam

  180

  Lormetazepam

  171

  Clonazepam

  128

  Clobazam

  61

  Total

  15,662

  Notes:

  1. These figures are actually based on 100 per cent. prescriptions dispensed by chemist and appliance contractors in England.

  2. 1991 figures are based on the new prescription cost analysis statistical returns and refer to the number of prescription items as opposed to fees used in previous years.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums were allocated to each family health services authority in respect of indicative prescribing budgets for 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what were the outturn figures for 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 June 1992 at column 459. The information requested for 1992–93 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) expenditure and (b) expenditure per head on general practitioner prescribed anti-depressant drugs in each family health services association area, and for each NHS region during 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The data included in the table are for anti-depressant drugs as defined in chapter 4.3 of the British National Formulary. The period covered is April 1991 to March 1992 and the figures are for the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, prescriptions dispensed by doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.
  841

  FHSA No.

  FHSA name

  NIC (pounds)

  NIC/head £

  343

  Bradford

  725,352·81

  1·54

  344

  Calderdale

  265,855·87

  1·34

  345

  Kirklees

  542,287·98

  1·45

  346

  Leeds

  1,053,494·95

  1·48

  347

  Wakefield

  426,202·89

  1·35

  Yorkshire

  5,015,736·15

  1·37

  361

  Derbyshire

  1,057,830·65

  1·13

  362

  Leicestershire

  1,196.084·57

  1·32

  363

  Lincolnshire

  985,719·90

  1·65

  364

  Nottinghamshire

  1,061,107·70

  1·04

  365

  Barnsley

  265,608·38

  1·20

  366

  Doncaster

  367,296·56

  1·25

  367

  Rotherham

  266,533·44

  1·05

  368

  Sheffield

  648,018·70

  1·24

  Trent

  5,848,199·90

  1·23

  381

  Cambridgeshire

  717,480·09

  1·07

  382

  Norfolk

  1,186,088·89

  1·56

  383

  Suffolk

  900,273·01

  1·38

  East Anglia

  2,803,841·99

  1·35

  401

  Bedfordshire

  584,461·66

  1·08

  402

  Hertfordshire

  1,155,851·33

  1·17

  403

  Barnet

  295,723·11

  0·95

  404

  Brent and Harrow

  377,773·67

  0·84

  405

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  618,615·23

  0·97

  406

  Hillingdon

  207,923·05

  0·88

  407

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  442,361·00

  1·44

  North West Thames

  3,682,709·05

  1·06

  421

  Essex

  1,735,054·88

  1·12

  422

  Barking and Havering

  333,532·00

  0·87

  423

  Camden and Islington

  417,284·60

  1·18

  424

  City, Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets

  497,474·60

  0·87

  425

  Enfield and Haringey

  374,180·24

  0·83

  426

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  330,082·81

  0·74

  North East Thames

  3,684,014·13

  0·98

  441

  East Sussex

  994,457·73

  1·38

  442

  Kent

  1,693,801·69

  1·10

  443

  Bexley and Greenwich

  352,122·88

  0·81

  444

  Bromley

  318,490·05

  1·05

  445

  Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark

  618,071·71

  0·90

  South East Thames

  3,976,944·06

  1·08

  461

  Surrey

  1,254,371·60

  1·26

  462

  West Sussex

  887,010·05

  1·24

  463

  Croydon

  303,492·04

  0·96

  464

  Kingston and Richmond

  378,917·45

  1·25

  465

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  636,867·68

  1·09

  South West Thames

  3,460,658·82

  1·18

  481

  Dorset

  988,409·03

  1·47

  482

  Hampshire

  1,979,490·63

  1·27

  483

  Wiltshire

  771,882·06

  1·35

  484

  Isle of Wight

  202,366·98

  1·53

  Wessex

  3,942,148·70

  1·34

  501

  Berkshire

  897,119·05

  11·18

  502

  Buckinghamshire

  566,879·97

  0·87

  503

  Northamptonshire

  642,954·11

  1·09

  504

  Oxfordshire

  587,035·25

  1·00

  Oxford

  2,693,988·38

  1·04

  521

  Avon

  920,270·05

  0·96

  522

  Cornwall

  622,828—17

  1·32

  842

  843

  FHSA No.

  FHSA name

  NIC (pounds)

  NIC/head £

  523

  Devon

  1,299,214·25

  1·24

  524

  Gloucestershire

  714,334·09

  1·33

  525

  Somerset

  490,277·15

  1·04

  South Western

  4,046,923·71

  1·16

  541

  Hereford and Worcester

  778,074·01

  1·13

  542

  Salop

  500,953·72

  1·22

  543

  Staffordshire

  1,285,380·26

  1·23

  544

  Warwickshire

  525,118·54

  1·08

  545

  Birmingham

  1,199,510·76

  1·21

  546

  Coventry

  301,278·02

  1·00

  547

  Dudley

  291,902·90

  0··95

  548

  Sandwell

  379,663·60

  1·29

  549

  Solihull

  255,828·91

  1·25

  551

  Walsall

  120,055·97

  0·46

  552

  Wolverhampton

  362,307·84

  1·47

  West Midlands

  6,000,074·37

  1·15

  561

  Cheshire

  1,309,186·53

  1·35

  562

  Liverpool

  715,289·61

  1·58

  563

  St. Helens and Knowslcy

  434,182·92

  1·26

  564

  Sefton

  439,425·34

  1·47

  565

  Wirral

  531,423·10

  1·58

  Mersey

  3,429,507·50

  1·43

  581

  Lancashire

  1,957,186·68

  1·40

  582

  Bolton

  328,191·44

  1·23

  583

  Bury

  270,736·24

  1·53

  584

  Manchester

  733,955·48

  1·67

  585

  Oldham

  210,640·55

  0·95

  586

  Rochdale

  376,689·32

  1·80

  587

  Salford

  386,218·93

  1·67

  588

  Stockport

  521,839·22

  1·79

  589

  Tameside

  279,193·86

  1·27

  591

  Trafford

  369,634·35

  1·73

  592

  Wigan

  438,181·41

  1·41

  North Western

  5,872,467·48

  1·48

  England

  59,136,765·83

  1·23

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health ( 1 ) if she will list the number of patients, for whom Basildon and Thurrock district health authority is responsible, by age and gender, currently undergoing treatment at St. Bartholomew's hospital, London;

  (2) if she will list the number of patients, for whom Basildon and Thurrock district health authority is responsible, by age and gender, that have been referred to St. Bartholomew's hospital for treatment since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. George Gould, chairman of Basildon and Thurrock health authority, for details.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each local authority area in south Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by her Department; and if she will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.
  844
  Mr. Sackville
  The management of residential property owned by the Department of Health has been fully delegated to local health authorities, and the information requested is not held centrally.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many papers her Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if she will list their titles; and when she estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Sackville
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Record Acts to retrieve material, temporarily, from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use.

  The number of items and frequency of such retrievals can vary considerably but, as at 5 November 1992, the Department of Health had 275 files out on loan to it. A list of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Such records arc returned to the Public Record Office as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 81, if she will make it her policy to collect statistics on the numbers of national health service trust staff who arc currently in national health service pension schemes and those who elected to change to a private pension scheme run on behalf of a trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. National health service trusts have been established with the minimum of bureaucratic constraints. A requirement to collect statistical data about the exercise of free pension choice would run counter to that principle.

  Extra-contractual Refunds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 71, if she will make it her policy to collect from each regional health authority the number of extra-contractual referrals returned in each financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Extra-contractual referrals account for approximately 1·2 per cent. of expenditure in England. The vast majority of referrals being made within contracts. The management of the extra-contractual referral process is the responsibility of district health authorities as agreed with regional health authorities. It would not, therefore, by appropriate managerially or administratively to collect this information centrally.

  North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will increase the West Midlands regional health authority's capital expenditure limits in order to finance the bringing forward of plans for magnetic resonance imaging facilities at the North Staffordshire royal infirmary.

  Mr. Sackville
  West Midlands regional health authority has received a capital allocation for 1992–93 of £155,550,000. Decisions on how to allocate these funds are a matter for the authority.

  Healthtrac and Qa Business Services
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to her answer of 3 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham. Northfield,Official Report, column 184, if she will ensure that the Audit Commission report on Healthtrac and Qa Business Services Ltd. is published without any delay.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 10 November. It is not for the Secretary of State for Health to intervene in the work or timetable of the independent statutory auditor.

  Community Care
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the money transferred to local authorities to fund the community care changes from April 1993 is ring fenced by each local authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East 846
  (Mr. Butler) on 10 November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 2 October that local authorities would receive a ring-fenced special transitional grant for community care.

  Victory House, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Department of Health and national health service staff have been or will be relocated from Victory house, Tottenham Court road, London, to Bristol.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the membership of the joint task force she has established with the British Diabetic Association to advise on the implementation of the World Health Organisation/European regional committee of the International Diabetes Federation St. Vincent declaration on the improvement of diabetic care.

  Mr. Sackville
  The task force will be chaired by Professor Shaw CBE, lately dean of medicine, university of Newcastle, who will be supported by a multi-disciplinary expert team.

  The task force will advise on the implementation of the World Health Organisation/International Diabetic Federation St. Vincent declaration on the improvement of diabetic care.

  It is expected that the task force will need to seek further expert assistance on the range of specialist areas covered by the St. Vincent declaration.

  The membership of the task force is as follows:

  Professor David Shaw, CBE, Lately Dean of Medicine University of Newcastle.

  Dr. Clive Buxton, Chairman, Director of Public Health, North Durham Health Authority.

  Dr. Michael Hall, General Practitioner.

  Mrs. Margaret Hunter, Area Co-ordinator (Tyne and Wear), British Diabetic Association.

  Mrs. Mary MacKinnon, Diabetes Nurse Specialist, Northern General Hospital Sheffield.

  Dr. Robert Young, Consultant Diabetologist, Salford

  Dr. Rhys Williams, Lecturer in Community Medicine, University of Cambridge.

  Professor Harry Keen, British Diabetic Association.

  Mr. Michael Cooper, British Diabetic Association.

  Miss Susan Knibbs, British Diabetic Association.

  Dr. Doreen Rothman, Department of Health.

  Mrs. Patricia Edwards, Department of Health.

  Mr. John Garlick, Department of Health.

  Crown Car Scheme
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of national health service employees who use the Crown car scheme, or similar schemes, broken down between(a) nurses, (b) midwives, (c) health visitors, (d) community dental officers, (e) community medical officers. (f) managers and (g) works officers and other professional and technical staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment her Department has made of the risks of acanthamoeba and related eye infections to
  847
  users of extended-wear disposable contact lenses; and when these risks were first brought to the attention of her Department;

  (2) what steps she has taken to warn the public of the risks of acanthamoeba and related eye infections to users of extended-wear disposable contact lenses; and if she will review the procedures for warning the public of risks of this nature;

  (3) what discussions she has had with representatives of (a) the ophthalmic professions and retail outlets and (b) lens manufacturers about the risks of acanthamoeba and related eye infections from certain types of contact lenses; and which hospitals have supplied her Department with figures relating to such cases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has been made aware of the risks of acanthamoeba and related eye infections to users of extended-wear disposable contact lenses from:

  A study published late last year from Moorfield.'s Eye Hospital;

  reports to the Department from the Manchester Eye Hospital, of a number of incidents of extended-wear contact lenses associated keratitis; and

  three separate studies currently being carried out or completed at Moorfield's Eye Hospital. These are not yet fully analysed but preliminary results indicate that the incidence of contact lens associated keratitis is increasing as a result of a number of different factors.

  These risks were first brought to the attention of the Department at the end of last year. The Department subsequently asked the College of Ophthalmologists to set up a working party to assess how these risks could be addressed. Since this time, meetings have been held with representatives of the College of Ophthalmologists, the British College of Optometry, the Institute of Optometry, the Association of British Dispensing Opticians and the Association of Optometrists. At these meetings it was
  848
  agreed that information documents should be produced to help both eye care practitioners and the wearers of contact lenses.

  A working group has been established under the chairmanship of the Department to discuss the detailed wording of these documents. The next meeting will take place at the beginning of December and this will be followed by discussions with the relevant contact lens manufacturers.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had about the use of disclaimer forms by opticians to deprive extended-wear contact lens users of redress.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  NHS Information
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 87, what consultations will take place during her Department's review of NHS information with individuals and organisations outside her Department and the NHS management executive who make use of information currently collected by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current review of the Department of Health's requirements for information from the national health service included a study by management consultants of the uses made by the NHS of information collected on behalf of the Department and the burden it imposes. Proposals for reducing this burden are currently being drawn up by the Department. In considering these, I shall examine what wider consultation might be appropriate.

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

Lord Woolf
The Right Honourable Sir Harry Kenneth Woolf, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Woolf, of Barnes in the London Borough of Richmond—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wigoder and the Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

Algeciras-Gibraltar: Ferry Service
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Spanish Government have now offered any explanation of their ban on the ferry service between Algeciras and Gibraltar.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Spanish Government drew a link between the Algeciras Ferry Agreement and the Gibraltar Airport Agreement. Until the airport agreement is implemented, they will not allow the ferry service to resume. The British Government are not satisfied with the situation. Therefore, I shall take the opportunity to raise the matter this weekend at my bilateral meeting with the Spanish Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and wish her all good fortune at the meeting to which she referred. However, is she aware that many of us realise that this petty little bit of hostility on behalf of the Spanish Government is thoroughly bad for relations between the two countries? Surely it is a case that if they have any sense they will drop it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter puts it far better than I could; it is a petty matter. I hope to explore what may be done to bring this stupid business to an end.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we wish the noble Baroness well in her efforts to resolve this long-standing dispute. However, can she say whether there is an EC policy on the subject and whether the Transport Commissioner of the EC has taken any initiative in the matter thus far?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the law under Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome (the provision of services) provides for a company based in one member state to be allowed to operate in a second
176
member state. One of the problems with the whole affair is that it is a Spanish company that wishes to operate the ferry service and which is seeking to gain permission to do so from the Spanish Government. Therefore, it is not really covered by Article 59. However, as I said, I shall explore the situation and, having done so, we shall return to the Transport Commissioner to see what more can be done.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the long run, it would be in the best interests of Spain to be more generous to Gibraltar?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I understand that HMG wrote to the Transport Commissioner in 1990 expressing dissatisfaction with the interpretation that the Commission was placing on the issue. Can my noble friend say what reply was received from him?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the British Government approached the Commission not only in 1990 but also in 1991 when the then Secretary of State for Transport wrote to the EC Transport Commissioner asking him to look into the problem. The Commissioner, Mr. Van Miert, replied that the Spanish action did not break Community law. In fact, that is legally the situation as I explained it when I referred to Article 59. One of the possibilities that I am exploring is whether there is some other way of going about the matter. At present, action before the European Court of Justice is not an option, but it may become one under certain other circumstances.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, although, as my noble friend says, the company that seeks to operate the service is a Spanish one, will she confirm that the operation of the service is of substantial importance to the Gibraltar tourist trade?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right, but it is not just in the interests of the Gibraltarians that the ferry service should he resumed. It would also be in the interests of local people in the Algeciras area of Spain. It seems to me to be one of the curious examples where we have to put the Community right.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a good example of the lack of affinity in the European Community? It is a matter which is just outside the legal rules, but an affinity is necessary if the whole idea is to work.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We need a little pinch of common sense here, and perhaps we will put the matter right.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, in view of the attitude Spain has taken for a number of years on this issue, have Her Majesty's Government tried to enlist the support of other member states to solve the issue which affects, as the Minister said, various interests?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valuable suggestion. I shall see whether we can do it all by ourselves. If we cannot, I am quite prepared to ask for assistance.

Recreational Facilities: Schools Opting Out
2.54 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the threat to the provision of local authority facilities for sport and recreation implicit in a recent decision of the assets board arising from the opt-out of Great Barr School, Birmingham.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Education Assets Board has not made a decision: it has made recommendations and referred the case to the Secretary of State. The Government do not consider that that case represents a threat to the provision of local authority sports and recreation facilities as user rights are protected under the Education Reform Act 1988.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is it not the fact that 731 schools have sports facilities of excellence because the local authorities and the Sports Council have added money to educational money so that the schools will benefit and the community will have seven-day facilities available to it throughout the year? The absurdity of the asset board's recommendation can be seen in respect of Great Barr, where it suggests that the school should have the £1 million sports hall but the local authority should be left to pay the £120,000 a year interest charges; and, furthermore, that the ownership of the recreational field should be divided. That seems to be an absurdity to anyone who knows anything about the management and control of recreation grounds. Will any local authority in its right mind in future put any of its resources into dual-use sports facilities if they can be taken off it immediately a school opts out?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Great Barr case is under consideration, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to enter into the detail of it. This country has a proud record of dual facility use with schools and the community? As I said in my original Answer, there is no threat to the community using the facilities because the rights of all users, whether they are community users and/or education users, are protected under the law.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just sports facilities that are affected? A great many arts and cultural activities go on in community and adult education in schools. Many people involved in community education are worried about what may happen in this case. I hope that the Minister will use her influence to see that such people retain their rights to use the premises.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I repeat that where dual arrangements have been entered into those rights are protected.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is no bar to a grant maintained school renting out any facility that it happens to have on its campus to a local authority or anyone else?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is true, but it is also true of LEA maintained schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following the Minister's answer to the last question, will she confirm that it would be inappropriate for a grant maintained school to rent out such facilities? They should be available freely to the local population, which has paid for those facilities through the community charge. Is she also aware that the Sports Council has frequently invested money in such facilities and was not expecting schools to charge for them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness ignores the running costs of such facilities. That is important. If they are to be free to all users, then of course their use will be limited. Where there can be an income stream, it means that the facilities are extended to more people.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 4th March during the Committee stage of the Education (School Premises) Bill in another place when I led for the Opposition, the then Minister for sport, Mr. Robert Atkins, gave a specific undertaking that the ownership of such facilities would be protected in the Bill and that the Government would make the necessary provision by order? That being the case, it was recognised that a major policy matter arose out of this incident, and so why have the Government not acted to redeem the promise made by the Minister as recently as 4th March?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is probably aware that the contents of that Bill are resurrected in the Education Bill which is now before another place. It is hoped that it will ensure that all dual-use arrangements which have been entered into and which will be entered into in the future will work for the benefit of the school community and the wider community.

EC: Short-term Currency Speculation
3 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to put forward proposals for limiting short-term currency speculation for discussion with partners within the European Community and elsewhere.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that unsatisfactory reply. I only wish to ask him to continue to consider the problem because he would surely agree that it is important. Does he realise that in the past it was a capital offence if someone tried to gain money personally and not in the national interest when the country was in difficulties?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Viscount will be aware of the importance of London as probably the world's major trading centre for foreign exchange. If one pursues the noble Viscount's line of thought, one would have to look, first, at the desirability of any action and, secondly, at the practicality.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that one of the difficulties in this instance is that short-term speculation is not defined in any way in the Treaty of Rome, much less in the wretched Treaty of Maastricht? Does he agree that in any event if it were possible to define it and legislate against it, it would put half the banks and financial institutions in the United Kingdom completely out of business?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the banks were trading on the foreign exchange markets. But, as he will know as well as anyone else, so were a great many other people.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is it not the case that, were any proposals such as the noble Viscount suggested put into effect, the minimum lending rate would now be 2 per cent. higher than it is and the pound would be at an unacceptably high rate in the foreign exchanges? Do we not owe a vote of thanks to the currency speculators?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what happened in September showed certain strains within the ERM.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the noble Earl's Answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, does that mean that we shall make no efforts, early or late, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I seem to remember the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asking me precisely that question not so long ago. It is not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it would be far better for the Government to concentrate their energies on minimising the economic financial uncertainties now existing than on taking the course of action proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth? It is these uncertainties that lead to speculation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making the Autumn Statement tomorrow. I hope that the noble Lord will be clearer as to the policy then.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, while recognising that any action to curb speculation must be on a global basis in today's international markets, will the noble Earl agree that the best solution is for the British Government to conduct a sensible monetary policy so that speculation does not arise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thought that the party opposite was in favour of the ERM and welcomed the fact that we went into it. Perhaps I misunderstood the situation.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that we must deplore the large profits made by certain banks, particularly overseas banks, at the expense of the British taxpayer? Will he agree that the blame for this must be placed with the Bank of England for not having made it clear to Her Majesty's Government that the kind of intervention in which they indulged was quite futile, and predictably so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that it would have been quite wrong for the Government not to have tried to defend sterling in the way that they did on that occasion.

Vehicle Clamping: Privately Owned Land
3.4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further conclusions have been reached on the legality in the United Kingdom of clamping vehicles on privately owned land and the imposition of penalties, following the finding by a Scottish court and comments by Ministers on 17th June (HL Deb. Col. 183) and 23rd June (HL Deb. Col. 383).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the judgment in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland would appear to provide only a limited precedent for England and Wales, where the legality of the practice is likely to be governed by the particular circumstances of each individual case. The Government, however, intend to publish a consultation paper depicting the law as we see it and canvassing a range of options for addressing the problem.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that the subject of clamping is of keen interest to the public? Many of their daily lives are bedevilled by problems of parking. Does the noble Earl's statement mean that the situation would be determined more easily in England and Wales if there were to be a test case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there were to be a test case, obviously the law as it stands at the moment would be clearer. When my noble friend says that there is keen public interest—because I think he inferred people hated being wheel-clamped—the answer is that of course I understand people disliking it. But the purpose of wheel clamping is to enable traffic flows to continue. People are only clamped when they have been illegally parked.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if and when the consultation paper appears, will it tackle the question of whether wheel clamping on privately owned land—to which the Question refers—is a trespass to goods?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is quite right. If one parks on private land, the parking is itself a trespass. If one clamps a

181
car on private land, the clamping can also be a trespass. But there are defences for trespass such as consent. An example of that might be that if a person illegally parked his car when there was a notice warning him of its illegality, he would know that he would be carrying out an illegal act if he parked. That would be a defence.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the Minister do everything in his power to publish the Government's proposals on private wheel clamping as soon as possible, because the problem seems to be growing almost by the hour? Can he tell the House whether the proposals include the Government's reaction to Mr. John Spellar's Private Member's Bill on the issue in another place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously that is one of the matters about which the Government are concerned at the moment. Our idea is that the consultation paper should canvass all the details and also all the possible solutions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that clamping on private land is not the only problem? Not only do people clamp but they then demand extortionate charges for removing the clamp. They are then in the position of demanding a fine, which is not open to anyone else, to satisfy their own sense of being in charge.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the problems. The learned judge in the Scottish case said clearly that the clamp was theft and to ask for a fee to remove the clamp was extortion. But under Scottish law, theft is the dishonest appropriation of property; in England, Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 states that theft requires dishonest appropriation, as in Scotland, as well as the intention permanently to deprive the owner. Whether or not a person is entitled to levy a fee for releasing that car is one of the matters which will be discussed in the consultation document.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if I may pursue my noble friend one stage further, has he considered the possible application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to the levy of this degree of penalty and to the legitimacy of that in relation to the law of trespass?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have addressed my mind to many points on this subject, but not that one. I should tell my noble and learned friend that it would not be for me to address my mind but for the court to address its mind, were a case to come before it. As yet, no case has come before it.

Business
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the short debate on small business and before the short debate on the work of voluntary agencies, my noble friend Lord
182
Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Northern Ireland—Political Talks.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Caldecote and Lord Elton. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend, Lord Caldecote, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes and in that of my noble friend Lord Elton seven minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.
It may be worth reminding noble Lords that the digital timing devices record historical fact rather than the present. Thus when they indicate eight, the ninth minute has started.

Small Businesses
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to call attention to the contribution made by small businesses to the economy of the United Kingdom and the importance of stimulating growth in this sector; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am delighted that there are to be two maiden speeches in this debate. I know we are all greatly looking forward to hearing them. Before introducing this Motion standing in my name I must declare an interest in that I am chairman of a small company employing four or five people.
There is no doubt that small businesses make a most valuable contribution to the economy. Those employing fewer than 20 people employ more than one-third of the private sector workforce and account for about one-quarter of the GNP. Those employing up to 200 people employ nearly 60 per cent. of the total. Some recent research has shown aggregate job creation in small firms to be remarkably stable throughout changes in the economic cycle. However, size itself is less significant than the structure of small independent businesses in determining the special contribution which they make to the economy.
The great majority of small businesses are managed by their owners, so management is free to concentrate solely on the long-term interests of the business without fear of takeover and other pressures. Many founder shareholders have sunk all their savings, or a legacy from the mythical Aunt Agatha, in the business: others less fortunate have mortgaged homes or given personal guarantees to banks to raise the initial investment. So these owner-managers have a strong personal commitment to the future success of their businesses.
At one end of the spectrum achievement may be no more than bare survival providing minimum personal income and constant worry over many years. At the other extreme, healthy profitable growth brings real

183
prospects of sale or flotation in the foreseeable future and the dream come true of making that first elusive million. It is the prospect of the rewards of success that encourages enterprise, hard work and risk-taking in these small companies. Those rewards, fairly earned, must never be denied to the successful by taxation or regulation.
Although life in independent small companies is tough, it is also relatively simple, with clear objectives, short lines of communication and close personal relationships as well as inbuilt motivation. These attributes give such companies many advantages, particularly in flexibility and quick reaction to changing market needs to which owner-managers are very sensitive. There is no inhibition to taking a long-term view of investment and growth. I remember a good example of quick reaction in a small company making knitted socks in which 3i had an investment. Sales were falling because customers disliked the patterns, so the joint owners, who knew every detail of the manufacturing process, worked flat out through a weekend to reset the machines for new designs. Soon the socks were selling like hot cakes.
An example of being able to take a long-term view bringing ultimate success is Oxford Instruments plc, which was founded many years ago in 1961 by a scientist who brought an idea out of an Oxford laboratory and developed it into the substantial, publicly quoted company of today. Long years of hard work and little financial reward were eventually crowned with success by flotation in 1983. That success owed much to singleness of purpose and independence of ownership. But although these factors give strength to small companies, their vulnerability to hard times is much greater than that of a large company. They usually have little fat to shed through cost reductions, nor family silver to sell. Accommodation, plant and equipment are often leased and as they are normally single-product companies there are no fringe businesses to sell off to raise cash and see them through a financial crisis. That puts an even greater premium on good management, especially cash control. That also applies in larger businesses.
There is evidence that a change in the optimum style of management occurs as the company grows to employ more than about 10 people. So training for managers, and advice obtainable from training and enterprise councils and similar sources, is of great value. I remember once attending a meeting of an enterprise agency. I spoke to many of the young people who were present who had started their own businesses. Without exception they all said the advice they had received from the enterprise agency was of great importance to them in making a success of their businesses. They said that advice was a far greater help to them than help in raising money and other such help. Management training for people in small companies is of the greatest significance.
It is important to appreciate the strength and the problems of small businesses so that they can be given the most effective support and encouragement, for their value to the community and contribution to the economy is immense. Not only are they the acorns
184
from which great trees such as Thorn, Tesco, Oxford Instruments and Trust House Forte grow within a single lifespan, but they are also substantial job creators; for virtually every investment in a small company is for growth, creating job opportunities, whereas the objective in large companies, particularly in manufacturing, is very likely to be the reduction in labour costs and consequently a smaller number of jobs in the admirable pursuit of greater competitiveness.
Small companies also play a vital part as specialist suppliers to big companies. That fact is not always as well recognised as it should be in terms of the treatment they receive. Therefore, it is encouraging that in the past 13 years of Conservative government we have seen valuable progress in the growth of small companies. Between 1985 and 1989 they created about 1 million new jobs; that is twice as many as in larger firms. Self-employment has increased by 75 per cent. since 1979. Virtually all of that has occurred in small firms. Most significantly, the number of small manufacturing businesses rose by an average of 5,000 per year between 1979 and 1990 compared to 1,500 a year in the previous 16 years.
Of course small businesses have not escaped the effects of the deep recession and lower interest rates are as welcome to them as they are to larger firms. Although badly managed companies of whatever size are obviously most likely to fail, even well-managed small ones can all too easily be put out of business by circumstances entirely out of their control, such as rapid changes in the economic situation. Even so, over the past three difficult years new business starts have continued at a rate of over 400,000 a year.
The enterprise allowance scheme has been of real value in providing income support to entrepreneurs during the difficult initial stages of a new business. In 1991–92 new starts supported by this scheme averaged about 1,000 per week, which shows what a help it is for these young people who are starting new companies to have an income through the enterprise allowance scheme while they are building up their businesses. However, in spite of the success of this and many other schemes designed to help small companies, there are many problems still to be tackled and much more support is needed for small companies if they are to play the full part in society of which they are capable.
Probably the most important way forward is the continuing deregulation and removal of red tape. In view of the limited management resources of small companies it is absolutely vital that they should be concentrated on managing the businesses and not be diverted by protracted negotiations and complex paperwork when seeking support from the various schemes available. The same applies to negotiations with banks and other financial institutions.
Similarly, large company customers should not take advantage of their strength to delay payments beyond the due date nor to rely on legal niceties to disclaim responsibility for payment which a small company cannot afford to challenge. The CBI's code on prompt payment is most welcome, and I was glad that it was relaunched at the CBI's national conference this week.
Two further ideas to help solve the problem should be actively considered. Small businesses should be allowed to pursue claims up to £5,000 through the small claims court procedure, and the professional accounting institutions should include in their codes of professional conduct a requirement to promote prompt payment to small companies in a responsible way.
In the interests of helping managers of small businesses to use their time most effectively, I also welcome the plans to establish "one-stop shops" recently announced by the President of the Board of Trade. There they will more easily be able to discover which support schemes can best help them. If those shops are to be fully effective the whole procedure for participation in the schemes must be simplified and the time from application to implementation greatly shortened, even if that offends against the Treasury principle that every transaction must be fully documented.
I hope, too, that those shops will also be able to give clear guidance on the sources of finance most likely to meet a small company's needs. In that connection, the business expansion scheme has performed a most useful function in filling the equity gap between the limited funds available to the founders of a business and the lower limit of investment which venture capital funds will make—around £150,000.
I am concerned that the BES scheme is to be phased out at the end of 1993 without any plans having been announced for its replacement. BES investment in approved small businesses can be deducted from the taxable income of the investor, and that provides a real incentive to risk-takers. The demise of the scheme will further increase the difficulties of raising the relatively small amounts of capital which are often required in the early years of a growing company and will force companies to rely to an unhealthy extent on loans from banks, making them more vulnerable in difficult times.
As pressure on small companies has mounted during the recession the clearing banks have been severely criticised for their treatment of small companies trying to survive. The fact is that the managements of those banks have little experience of assessing business risks, particularly in small companies, which they seldom have time to visit. They cannot therefore be expected to support small companies through equity investment, which is the only practical way of achieving a profitable balance between risk of loss and potential reward in the long term.
Therefore, the importance of creating better ways of financing the growth of small companies cannot be overestimated. I very much hope that my noble friend who is to reply will be able to comment constructively on that issue.
The successful control of inflation will always be of immense significance to small businesses, particularly those which export, for it is extremely difficult for them to absorb inflationary cost increases. The
186
achievement, therefore, of lower inflation through Her Majesty's Government's policy has been of real value to small companies.
We should also look at experience in other countries, particularly the USA, where much of the growth over a long period was due to the attention given to the small company sector through the Small Business Administration. One requirement of the SBA has been that a specified proportion of sub-contract work in government procurement contracts must be placed with small companies. In current circumstances that example could be followed here to great advantage.
Similarly, large companies should help their smaller suppliers by giving notice well in advance of requirements. Suppliers then have a much better opportunity to meet them rather than being forced to respond to demands at short notice in competition with overseas suppliers. The good example set by such firms as Marks and Spencer and Rolls-Royce should be more widely followed.
In those and in many other ways, which I am sure will be covered later in the debate, we can support and strengthen our important small business sector. Above all, small businesses need stability of economic factors. They can readily react to market and other changes relating to their own businesses but even the best managed are very vulnerable to major changes in external conditions. Neither have they the resources to deal with unnecessary red tape and paperwork. Therefore, economic stability and simplicity through deregulation must always be kept in the forefront of policy to enable the small business sector to flourish in the interests of us all. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Viscount for having initiated this significant debate, not least because it will give the House the opportunity to hear a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I look forward to that particularly having served with him in the House of Commons for some considerable time and served under him when he was Speaker, and a most distinguished speaker too. He did not call me often enough, but that is another matter. We shall also be able to hear a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, who will give us the benefit of his banking knowledge, which is so relevant to the debate today.
As the noble Viscount said, small businesses and medium-sized enterprises are critical to the strength of the economy and to employment. They need rather more help than the lip-service which, by and large, this Government have given them. Because their success is indivisibly linked with that of industry and other commercial enterprises, at a time when we are facing raging storms of recession and slump they are peculiarly vulnerable. That could not be more graphically illustrated than by the recent pit closure fiasco. It was not only 31,000 miners' jobs which were at issue but also 100,000 or more jobs elsewhere, and not least the price to be paid by small businesses.

187
One only has to go through virtually every high street, and indeed side street, of our towns and cities to observe the "To Let", "For Sale" and "Closing Down" signs which represent vivid testimony to the collapse of so many small businesses and the hopes and dreams of so many families who are dependent upon them. Last year 70,000 houses were repossessed. That is an issue which is integrally related to the one that we are discussing this afternoon. All that represents heartbreak, heartbreak produced by the catastrophic failure of confidence and equally the catastrophic failure of the Government, which combines inertia and ineptitude to a remarkable degree.
I have no doubt that, as in all economic debates in this House and in the other place, the Government will express sorrow. I shall believe it from this Minister. I like this Minister. She knows that. She always has to clutch the short straw; that is the trouble. She will express sorrow about the 70,000 small business failures, the 3 million plus unemployed and the decline of manufacturing investment, which is lower today than it was in 1979. However, I believe that we shall hear little about the resources squandered on a massive scale. It is a fact that we have squandered our North Sea oil reserves and the privatisation revenues, and we have squandered £14 billion in trying to rescue the poll tax. Will the Minister express sorrow about our balance of payments deficit, which is massive even for a time of slump? We have a manufacturing deficit, which was unheard of before 1983. Manufacturing has not been in surplus since that date. However, somehow or other it is never the Government's fault —it is the fault of the trade unions, the teachers, the work-shy, the short-sightedness of industrialists paying themselves too much, the Bundesbank, the Civil Service or the Opposition. It is never their fault. The worse the situation gets, the more the Government go on floundering almost daily from one crisis to another. Evidently, the more Mr. Lamont sings in his bath —the Pavarotti of the bath tub—the worse the situation becomes.
Confidence has oozed away and small businesses face an ever worsening prospect. They are frightened about it. They find themselves buffeted by high interest rates. Businesses are collapsing all around them and engulfing them. They are the victims of late payment by often unscrupulous activities on the part of bigger businesses. By and large their pleas to the Government have gone unheeded.
Warning after warning has been given to the Government about the plight of small businesses by their own federation. On 4th February 1991 we read:
"Tunnel vision at the Treasury is writing off Britain's small businesses".
On 13th March 1992:
"The 1992 Budget measures would not put money into the pockets of ailing small businesses".
So it has gone on. There is a call for some of the measures referred to by the noble Viscount: simplification of PAYE, reforms of taxation, mitigation of the system of fixed penalties for VAT regardless of the seriousness of the offence, and other VAT reforms; as well as more and cheaper access to
188
the courts. Indeed, many other proposals have also been put forward. What are the Government doing about it?
Like so many others, businessmen are bewildered by the Government's extraordinary contortions. They simply do not know where we stand on devaluation. On 11th September 1992 the Prime Minister said:
"I was under no illusion when I took Britain into the ERM. I said at the time that membership was no soft option. The soft option, the devaluer's option, the inflationary option would be a betrayal of our future and is not the Government's policy".
It became the Government's policy.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, my name is not down to speak in this debate but I am a life president of a small business. Would it not be better to hear some constructive suggestion from the noble Lord as to how we can help small businesses? That is what we want to hear from Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have just referred to propositions put forward by the federation. The noble Lord was deaf to them. The fact of the matter is that the success of small businesses depends upon the success of our economy and this economy is floundering, even if the noble Lord does not like to hear it. The Government have gone from one crisis to another. They have contradicted themselves. They have failed business and failed small businesses.
Yesterday Mr. Gordon Brown put forward a number of propositions which evidently the noble Lord does not want to hear. He spoke of new enhanced capital allowances for manufacturing industry in plant and machinery—that is necessary; a new investment programme, offering advantages for expenditure in new machine tools and production processes; providing engineering firms with special help; and giving individuals benefits when investing in new and growing manufacturing companies and those with technological bases. Those are some of the ideas that have been put forward. I recommend them to the House.
In addition to the present 100 per cent. allowance for research and development, why not have a 25 per cent. tax credit for additional investment? Why not have grant and loan assistance for innovative ideas in relation to small and medium sized industries to aid in developing new products and technologies? Those are ideas that the Labour Party put forward before, during and after the election. They are ideas which the Government ought to consider instead of brushing them aside and walking out, rather like the noble Lord did just now.
I welcome this debate and the opportunity to canvass such ideas and I congratulate the noble Viscount on having initiated it.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like also to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for introducing this debate. I can think of no one more qualified to do so. He has had a most distinguished industrial career. He is an eminent

189
engineer and above all he introduced in this House recently the report on innovation in industry, which was exhaustively debated and of great importance.
He was quite right to draw attention to the vital importance of the small business sector. In terms of numbers of enterprises it dwarfs all other sectors in the economy: 97 per cent. of all firms are small business firms. I have tried to find out the number of small businesses but there are so many classifications of small businesses that I cannot work out whether there are 2 million or 3 million. But whichever number one chooses it is very large.
Another factor to bear in mind is the enormous growth of small businesses in the 1980s. They grew by no less than two thirds. They were buoyed up by the apparent growth of the economy in that period and by the end of the decade they formed a larger proportion of the economy than ever before. But, like all businesses, they have suffered since then. I am afraid that the burden of business failures, which we have all seen repeatedly reported in the newspapers, has largely fallen on small businesses. In 1990 there were 24,000 business failures; in 1991 that figure rose to 48,000; and in 1992 the rate could be as high as 60,000. The whole process has been reversed. Regrettably, one reads stories in the press of small businesses with sales falling having to shed labour and spending less on investment, training and innovation. In this important debate we have to consider how that situation can be put right.
The small business sector plays a very large part in the economy as a whole. Any measures that the Government take to try to improve the conditions under which the economy can recover obviously will have an impact on small businesses. It is a pity that this debate is not taking place on Friday rather than today because tomorrow we shall, we hope, hear much of great interest to the whole economy. What small businesses need in particular and the economy needs in general are a recovery of confidence, more orders and a stable economic and financial environment.
But there are specific problems associated with small firms. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also mentioned them. First, I believe that they suffer more than larger firms from the high and fluctuating levels of interest rates. I speak of fluctuating rates because sometimes we forget that in the past decade there has been an enormous fluctuation in interest rates. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that interest rates in October 1981 stood at 16 per cent.; by mid-1983 they were 9.5 per cent.; in February 1985 they were 14 per cent.; in June 1987 they were 9 per cent.; and in October 1991 they stood at 15 per cent. The base rate is now 8 per cent. and may fall. It is fine that interest rates are falling. But will we have stability or will we be permanently on a see-saw of fluctuating interest rates? As someone involved in business, I find it difficult to plan for the future not knowing whether one will be up or down in that crucial element.
My second point specifically in connection with small businesses is to ask whether we should not have a dedicated loan fund providing medium and
190
long-term financial support at stable and affordable interest rates. Other countries do that. In Germany they have an organisation known as the Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau, which has existed since the end of the war for the specific support of small businesses. It works through the banks and manages to provide money at low interest rates on a consistent basis. The same is done in France with the Credit d'Equipement des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises. We should study very carefully what is done in those other countries to overcome the particular difficulties faced by small businesses.
In recent times there has been much criticism of the relations between small businesses and the banks. Many small businesses feel that they were overstimulated by the banks to invest in the good days of the 1980s and that now in many cases the rug is being pulled from under their feet. However in recent times the banks have issued codes of practice stimulated by the Chancellor to indicate the way in which they would deal with small businesses. I believe that the situation is improving. Nonetheless it must be watched with great care.
The question of late payment has been mentioned. Dun & Bradstreet estimates that the average payment to small firms is made on average 81 days after invoice. That is 51 days after the normal 30 day period. In Germany the delay after the normal 30 day period is 18 days. Such delay is an appalling imposition on small businesses. It pushes them into having to raise more money on overdraft in order to pay for those delays. That is a matter which needs attention.
I wish to be quite fair in what I say. The Government have taken action to ensure that the procedure is tightened up with regard to government organisations. I see that the noble Baroness nods. She was no doubt going to refer to the subject; I mention it for her. The Government have laid down that their subcontractors also should apply those more effective payments. Nevertheless, delay is still a serious problem. Whether there should be some statutory regulation on the subject leading to an obligation for interest to be paid on late payment is a matter now being debated. I shall be glad to hear the noble Baroness's views on that subject.
For small businesses, the uniform business rate, the VAT regime and national insurance charges appear to take priority. Even if they should be in great difficulty, those tax obligations seem to come first. The question therefore arises whether there should be greater flexibility in the tax regime vis-à-vis small businesses.
I should like to end on a positive note. Recently a number of organisations have been established which give advice to small businesses. The DTI has a very good advisory service. The banks have now set up such a service. We have Business in the Community, an organisation with which I have had the honour to be connected for some years. All those organisations are anxious to offer good advice to small businesses. But what is required above all else is that small businesses should be treated in a way which enables them to get over the difficult times and to look forward to times when the regime in which they operate is a more stable and beneficial one.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. First, I should like to express to your Lordships my deep appreciation of the kindness of the welcome that I have received since I came to your Lordships' House, both from noble Lords and from the staff of this House.
I speak on this Motion because for some years before I entered Parliament I was actively involved in the family business which had been founded by my father in 1912, after he had led the last really successful strike of tailors against the sweat-shop conditions of that time. Unemployed and unemployable, he was forced to become self-employed. In February 1967 I was horrified to win the debate on the ballot for a Private Member's Motion in the other place. I put down a Motion very similar to that which we debate today. I well remember that on the following day I was sent for by Mr. Ian Macleod, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, who first asked me my name and then complimented me on my speech. As I was a rather modest person in those days, and nervous about speaking, I said something to the effect that I was rather reluctant to speak in this place, "unless I really know my subject". I always remember his generous reply to me: "Dear boy, I am not certain that we shall be hearing you very often".
In truth he was quite right, because shortly after that I became a Government Whip serving under the noble Lord, Lord Pym, in 1979 the Chairman of Ways and Means, and in 1983 I had the great privilege of being chosen Speaker on the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, both of whom I am proud and pleased to say are noble friends of mine. I shall always he grateful to them for the confidence which they showed in me at that time. I join them in your Lordships' House, 10 years later, with my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Tonypandy, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, who as your Lordships well know not only is the daughter of a Speaker, but the wife of a very distinguished Speaker.
I am well aware that it is not good form in this Chamber to speak unless one does know one's subject. It should be done briefly and there should not be too much repetition. My credentials for speaking are simply that I was and still am connected with a family business. In 1967 the Motion I chose for the debate led directly to the setting up of the Bolton Committee on Small Firms. The later implementation in 1971 of most of its recommendations helped to improve the environment in which small businesses operate, and gave rise to a special small firms department in the Department of Trade and Industry and to a Minister for Small Firms whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench this afternoon.
In this short debate I shall not have much time to do more than remind your Lordships that our country's 5 million small businesses employ one-third of the private sector workforce. They produce almost one-quarter of the United Kingdom's turnover. They are indeed the life-blood of the economy. It never
192
ceases to amaze me that 97 per cent. of all businesses in our country employ less than 20 people. Yet the emphasis of government policy is heavily focused on the big companies—the remaining 3 per cent.
As the noble Viscount stated, it is not the big companies which provide the lion's share of employment. Even ignoring the recession and the increasing trend towards rationalisation, larger firms are much more likely to discard jobs than to create them. My figures are from the Federation of Small Businesses. From 1985 to 1989 large companies created 120,000 new jobs compared with about 1 million created by businesses with under 30 employees. Therefore, is it not crystal clear that a healthy and thriving small firms sector is the key to future employment and to the future prosperity of our country?
A report recently commissioned by the National Westminster Bank entitled Bolton 20 Years On concluded that Government policy on small firms was still piecemeal and that administrative burdens had multiplied rather than decreased. I have been informed by the Federation of Small Businesses that the average owner of a small firm spends at least one day per week, and sometimes more, dealing with government paperwork for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment and the Health and Safety Executive. Therefore it is no wonder that he sees himself as an unpaid tax collector for the Government.
If our country's economy is to recover, measures to help small firms to survive the recession and incentives to growth are urgently required. This short debate is not the occasion to go into detail but I ask the noble Baroness to ensure that the fiscal inequalities on small firms are removed, in particular the major deterrent to their growth which has already been mentioned; that is red tape. That would be of enormous encouragement and relief to them.
I promise that your Lordships will not be hearing me too often. However, as regards this subject I shall return to the charge from time to time; that is, unless the noble Baroness is able to put our minds at rest.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on his maiden speech. Those of us who come from another place scarcely recognise him without his wig. He is gentle and warm in character and yet in his great office he conducted himself with firmness and dignity. He maintained the status of what has been and still is a great office. Now he need look forward no longer to scolding, guiding, advising and sometimes controlling a turbulent House. He has come into gentler waters, a harbour, where he can make civilised and constructive speeches as often as tempting possibilities arise. In spite of his last words we hope to hear him often in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I wish that I could speak with similar warmth about the contribution of the

193
noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Many of us—and I doubt whether all are on this side of the House—would agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Gridley. I am not one who flinches from a proper debate on government mistakes, and during the past 10 years there have been government mistakes. However, to turn this debate on an important subject into a rehearsal of all the legitimate headlines in newspapers is unworthy of the noble Lord and of his party.
I am sure that I am one of many in this House who welcomed the way in which my noble friend Lord Caldecote set the scene for the debate. I shall not try to repeat or add to his figures. I wish to make a couple of general observations. Although I do not believe that there are figures to support it, my impression is that this country no longer has as many small businesses to compare with some of the rival economies. I think in particular of Germany, which has a long and historic interest in apprenticeship and in the support of small and middle businesses. According to the Anglo-German Industrial Foundation there is a greater proportion of what it calls high-technology new businesses, which span both the manufacturing and service sector, than we have. Furthermore, one has the impression that there is in Italy a great flowering of small businesses.
I wish to draw attention to some of the reasons for the situation which exists in this country. In recent years the birth rate of small businesses has been impressive. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, there was a remarkable surge in the 1980s. Presumably there is a lesser surge in the difficult conditions of today. Many are one-man or one-woman businesses, but they are valuable for their potential and performance. Of course, there is always a high mortality rate among small businesses and therefore there has been a high death rate. Nevertheless, there has been a significant and fairly regular increase in the number of small businesses.
Ideally, we in this country wish to see a shade more of the talent, vitality and shrewdness of people setting up small businesses, which may or may not grow into middle or large businesses. As my noble friend Lord Caldecote reminded us, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, repeated, tax is important, as is regulation and the climate of the economy. However, the most important factor is far more difficult to grasp or to talk about; it is the culture of our times.
In a free society what on earth can be suggested about the culture and its effect on the decision of parents and their children about the career of adolescents? I imagine that all noble Lords will remember that lilting, catching, beguiling song which ran, "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington". I sometimes wonder whether that should not be translated today into, "Don't put your children into trade, Mrs. Worthington". Whether the reason is snobbery or a search for what is non-existent security, there appears to be an antipathy among many people to go into trade. I fear in particular that among our more highly educated people—and we all know of the Government's aspirations sharply to
194
increase the number of people who go into higher education—there is a hostility to what is seen as the vulgar and easy activity of trade. I hope only that the polytechnics, now promoted to university status, do not catch the infection because it would be sad if the proportion of our shrewdest people going into trade were to diminish.
All that is made the more relevant because today entry into many trades depends for success upon a grasp of science and engineering as well as on marketing and other necessary skills. What can be done? I repeat, what can be done? A scheme was imported from America called Young Enterprise. The importer was a man called Sir Walter Saloman; an awkward man but effective banker. It is a form—I do not want to call it playschool—of playing at trade involving schoolchildren supervised by local businessmen. Those schemes purport to produce annual profit or loss statements of accounts. It is a method of encouraging those with a propensity to trade to obtain an impression of what it might be like. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether Young Enterprise still survives in schools and whether it is growing.
I do not know what else can be done. Sometimes I think, although without sufficient knowledge to support the argument, that women's magazines would be a fruitful place in which to get across to mothers the argument that their children might not become policemen, doctors, lawyers, civil servants or social workers but in some cases opt for trade. Those are tenuous thoughts and I hope that the debate will produce more effective suggestions as to what could be done.
The impact of the Japanese in raising the standards of subcontractors and suppliers to the industries which they set up here may be having an effect on the performance of those businessmen. It may even induce some people who might not otherwise go into trade to become suppliers and subcontractors to firms which, like the Japanese, demand high standards.
I draw attention to one source for small businesses. It is not the school leaver but the man or woman who is dissatisfied with the confinement of working in a large firm. A man may leave, take the risk of taking a second mortgage on his house and may say to his wife, "The monthly salary, the pension and the company car will end. We are going to try it on our own".
Those are acts of considerable moral courage. We need to recognise the significance of those who make such a decision. I suppose that there are people who would say that we should hope that some television producer will take it into his or her head to make a series on small businesses without descending into the kind of scandalous coverage which might be followed.
I used to visit a number of schools and I asked the children what they thought lay ahead. They all spoke of having a job or not having a job. Very few of them spoke of self employment or of being an employer. We need to give them the perspective that that is the choice.
4 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, what a tremendous pleasure it is to have him with us. I feel happy to be once more in the same House of Parliament with him. I know that he spoke from great experience. The only part of his speech about which I felt a slight query is that I find it difficult to believe that he considered it to be a great ordeal to address your Lordships' House, when I think of the Seat in which he sat in another place over the past few years. I am sure that we all welcome him and look forward to many contributions from him in the future.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote for introducing this debate. I must declare an interest in that I am the chairman of a very small company, which employs five or six people. Therefore, I speak from some experience.
I am in no doubt about the great importance to any economy of a large, thriving small business sector. There is no doubt that the small business sector in this country had become dangerously small by the end of the 1970s. Therefore, the big surge which took place in the 1980s was particularly welcome. It has obviously suffered some setbacks during the past two or three years, and it is extremely important that a new surge should take place in the 1990s.
I have a considerable amount of experience in this field because in the early 1980s I was chairman of what was known as the CBI's special programme unit and for the last part of the 1980s I had the privilege to be chairman of an organisation called Business in the Community, working particularly in the field of small businesses. While there were other instruments of importance in bringing about that expansion, I have no doubt that the nationwide network of local partnerships, commonly called local enterprise agencies, must take great credit for what was achieved in the 1980s. The advice and help which they gave led not only to a large increase in the birthrate of small businesses but also—just as important—a considerable decrease in the infant mortality rate of newly-formed small businesses.
The essence of those associations is that they were local and were partnerships with local authorities, local business communities, including the chambers of commerce, local leaders of the professions and also local branches of nationwide companies and organisations in each locality. That was building from the bottom and giving each and every community a feeling of owning its own opportunities and responsibilities. Interference from outside came only in the form of help to help themselves rather than in the form of imposition from above.
That network still exists. I believe that it is the right tested and tried basis on which to bring forward a new surge in small businesses in the 1990s. We must recognise that the past three years have given the small business world—the enterprise associations and small companies—a fairly heavy battering. I trust that the Government will look carefully to see whether anything needs to be done to revitalise it. Small businesses do not want dictation; they want help. They do not wish to be swamped with money, even if
196
the Government showed any desire to do so. In order to revive themselves they may need more financial pump priming, such as they had at the very beginning of their lives. Newly set up local enterprise associations had some pump priming for the first two or three years, before they were made to become wholly self-supporting.
Moreover, some help may be needed in financing again an adequate supply of properly trained managers for local enterprise agencies, and more help may be needed from the TECs in each area, because those are extremely important complementary agencies in every area. Although they are a splendid idea, I am afraid that there are indications that they may not be functioning as effectively as they should be in all areas. That may be due not only to the inadequacy of the funding but also to the form of the funding that they receive.
When I speak about more financial input from the Government, I wish to state my belief that it should be a vital general guiding principle that any money must follow the customer and not be given to the producer. There must be payment by results. In the health service, the money should follow the patient; in this case, any funding provided should follow the customer who comes to use the service.
The Government should try to market more effectively their own schemes of help. In the 1980s I was in no doubt that many government schemes of help were not well marketed. They seemed to come from a variety of directions which were difficult to understand. Schemes were not always well designed, either to tackle the problem which they claimed to tackle or to match in with other schemes. The idea, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caldecote and spoken about by Mr. Michael Heseltine as President of the Board of Trade, of a one-shop service in each area is an extremely important possible way forward. That would mean that there would be one place to which people could go in order to be directed to all kinds of advice. It is then possible to co-ordinate the information and give more information about all forms of advice, including the best places to seek finance.
I ask the Government to look also at the Chamber of Commerce movement in this country. Where that is good, it is of enormous assistance in this sphere. Where it is not good—and it is quite variable—there is a large gap. I hope that the Minister will see whether anything can be done to bring the general standard of chambers of commerce in this country up to the standard of the best.
Finally, I hope that industry, government—both central and local—and the science and technology institutions will take very seriously and urgently into account the need to form a strong tripartite partnership within regional and national frameworks as advocated in the final report, published a few weeks ago, of the Working Group on Innovation. I believe that that is an extremely important way to achieve a natural growth of small companies which need to have a higher input of technology and other management skills. If we do all those things, we shall bring about a

197
new surge in the 1990s, as we had in the 1980s, which will be of great benefit to society as well as to the economy throughout the country.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Inchyra: My Lords, I hope that it is not out of order for me to commence my maiden speech by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for initiating this debate on a tremendously important subject. A thriving small business community is of vital importance for the future prosperity of the country. It is also of great importance for the banking industry in which I have spent the whole of my working life, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was kind enough to remark earlier.
Although it is several years now since I was directly and personally involved in handling the accounts of any small businesses, nevertheless I like to think that I am quite well informed on the subject because I am currently director general of the British Bankers' Association, the representative body for all the banks of all sizes and nationalities authorised to do business in this country. It is part of my job to speak out on behalf of the banking industry. In doing so today I very much hope that your Lordships will not judge that I have strayed unacceptably far from the guidelines offered to maiden speakers.
I would like to try to dispel some myths which have become widespread about the relationship between banks and their small business customers. In a deep and enduring recession it is inevitable that there will be a high number of failures especially among those fairly recently established who did not have time to put down more than shallow roots before the economic downturn began. I believe that it is also inevitable and very understandable that many people find it hard to accept that their business venture has failed and that their hopes and dreams have been shattered. It is hardly surprising that some should be so resentful that they complain volubly to the press and others that they have been treated outrageously by their bank on whose support they have become almost totally reliant in 99 cases out of 100.
The most common complaint is that the bank has been over-hasty in forcing the closure of a business by refusing to lend more money or to extend agreed repayment periods. It is frequently alleged that the unfavourable decision came like a bolt from the blue; in other words, with no prior warning that the bank thought that the business was in danger of going under. Such allegations are meat and drink to journalists who enjoy the current popular sport of "bank bashing" because they know that the bank is very unlikely to obtain permission from the customer concerned to disclose the other side of the story. It would of course spoil their sport if it had to be reported that the bank had been pointing out the danger signs and recommending possible remedial action for some weeks or even months, but that that advice had been persistently ignored by the borrower.
I know from my personal experience that it is very tempting always to give the borrower the benefit of any doubts and to provide the extra finance or the
198
additional time that is being requested. That is the soft option, but it is rarely the right one. It is not often that it will help the borrower or the bank in the long run. One has to face the facts. To decline a request, particularly when it will have serious effects on the local community, requires moral courage in good measure. It is never a decision which is taken lightly.
Unless there are very exceptional circumstances or the borrower cannot bring himself to face the facts or to be completely open about his trading position, the decision to foreclose will always be the culmination of combined efforts by the bank and its customer to find ways of nursing the business through its difficulties. Throughout that process continuous and very careful assessments will have to be made of future prospects. But in the end it will boil down to what can be an extremely finely balanced judgment about a business's chances of survival.
If and when the axe has to fall it is only to be expected that some borrowers will find it very hard to accept that the bank has not been precipitate in judging that the business does not have a viable future. As their own livelihoods and those of their employees are threatened, borrowers cannot be criticised for believing that a little more time or a little more money would have enabled them to turn the corner. But equally, bankers cannot be criticised if, despite their efforts to nurse the business back to health, they find themselves led inescapably to the conclusion that the business has passed the point of no return. Knowing how hard it is to break that news to a customer who may be a neighbour, a long-standing acquaintance or friend, the banker is, as I have already said, often tempted to provide more money or more time. If one looks at the rate at which the big high street banks are piling up provisions against bad and doubtful debts, I believe that one will see that they succumb to that human frailty all too often. What that record cannot possibly suggest to any dispassionate observer is that the banks are giving their small business customers inadequate time or help to find ways to trade through and then out of the current recession.
The number of reported business failures certainly remains distressingly high, but it does need to be set in perspective. The big banks—using a different source from that used by my noble friend Lord Weatherill —reckon that they have in excess of 3 million accounts of small business customers. On any given date approximately half of those accounts will be running in credit with total deposits in the region of £24 billion. The other half borrow around £47 billion, which is something over £27 billion on overdraft and £19 billion on term loans. Those at least were the figures at the end of 1991 which are the most recent and reliable ones available.
What I regret that I do not have is a figure for the percentage of borrowing customers who are struggling to stay afloat. However, I am told by the banks that as long as the difficulties are diagnosed early enough they expect to be able to nurse four out of five cases back to health. They have set up special units to provide the active assistance which is required. Their success rate

199
hardly suggests that the banks are not devoting enough time, effort and resources to try to help their small business customers who have problems.
It is not my intention to portray the banks as paragons of virtue. I know that they are not and so do they. They make mistakes and misjudgments like every other commercial undertaking. But because of their central role in the economy and their crucial role above all as the main financiers of small businesses, their shortcomings tend to get blown up out of all proportion leading to their portrayal as hard-hearted villains with no concern at all about the impact of their decisions on individuals.
As I hope I may have been able to demonstrate, without excessive bias, that portrayal is unjustified. But it is also doing untold harm by undermining the mutual trust and confidence which are the essential ingredients for a successful partnership between banker and customer. That trust and confidence needs to be restored as quickly as possible because without it there will be many fewer businesses around to take advantage of the recovery when it comes.
It would be a very helpful step along the road to correcting public perception of the banks if the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, were able to acknowledge when she speaks that the banks recognise the importance of, and their responsibilities to, small businesses. It would be even more helpful if the noble Baroness were to feel able to go a little further and give some credit to the banks for the considerable efforts that they are making to be as helpful as possible to their customers in a time of extreme difficulty for everyone.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, on his maiden speech. It was a splendid speech and we hope to hear from him on many occasions in future. The speech was particularly useful as it was a banker's view within this important debate. It is not perhaps a view with which all those who are struggling out there in small businesses would agree, but it is one which it is right and proper for noble Lords to hear.
I must also declare an interest. Like my noble friend Lord Caldecote, I am involved with small businesses. One of the small businesses with which I am concerned as chairman is called Nimtech, which is the north-west technology centre. There we are particularly involved in encouraging new technology in small companies: I shall refer to it in a moment.
I agree, as is almost always the case, with everything that my noble friend Lord Caldecote said. I wish to enlarge on a point which he and many others made as regards regulation. In the eye of the small businessman regulation is probably even greater than we think it is on the outside; it is becoming of still greater importance set against the difficulties small businesses are experiencing. Since my time in this House I have seen regulations and controls placed upon businesses without any recognition of the build-up to which each little regulation leads. We are
200
inclined to see each new idea on its own without seeing the build-up that it creates and the pressures on companies.
I congratulate the Government on its deregulation unit, but there is an urgent need also to bring in an impact assessment of regulations likely to affect small businesses. This applies particularly to the environmental aspect. It is of some interest that we now have environmental impact assessments where businesses may be affected. It is now reaching the stage where we need to have environmental impact assessment of the regulationary aspects so that we can see what is happening and judge the full effect on small businesses. This applies particularly to EC regulations. Before they are brought into law we need to he able to assess exactly how such regulations are going to impact.
I mentioned that I am chairman of Nimtech. Information technology can be a great engine for growth, particularly in small industry. There is a large amount of technology in big companies that could be brought out if those involved with the technology within those companies could be encouraged to develop an entrepreneurial spirit. There is an opportunity here to bring together venture capital and government grants.
One of our activities within Nimtech is to act as an agent for government in grant aid in technology areas. Because of the pressures on the Government, which we understand, we now find that we are not able to receive the grant levels that many technology companies might have expected. In fact, grants that they have already been given might be reduced. There is an opportunity here. If government cannot meet a certain grant level needed for a research and development exercise in a major technology company, venture capital could be brought in alongside the government money. I have spoken to venture capitalists who are interested in this concept. It would enable a programme to go ahead that would otherwise not be possible. I should like the Government to look at that matter.
Recently the Government established the Energy Saving Trust under the chairmanship of Lord Moore. It takes its money not from the Government and the taxpayer but from the major energy companies, and particularly British Gas. The energy trust acts as agent for a considerable sum of money—the total is, I believe, about £100 million for the industry altogether —which it can then make available for energy-saving enterprises. A large amount of housing that needs to be made more energy efficient in terms of heating arrangements or insulation is inhabited by people who do not have the resources to do it. If we could use the money available to the energy trust to stimulate investment in this property that would encourage a large number of new businesses. They would be small companies, and if trade could be encouraged particularly in areas where unemployment is high, and therefore where the housing problem is great, we could utilise industrial money and not taxpayers' money to stimulate a great many new businesses.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is not in his place at the moment. It is not right

201
for him to blame the Government for the problems of small businesses. I have heard more arguments from noble Lords opposite for regulations, controls, extra taxpayers' costs and government resources that would place enormous burdens on the small businessman than I have ever heard from anywhere else. There is no room for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to criticise the Government with respect to small businesses. No one did more than this Government during the 1980s to stimulate small businesses.
However, I appreciate the difficulty that the Government now have in balancing the books, with demands on one side for more social services, more handouts and support, and on the other, for finance to stimulate businesses and particularly small businesses. Government cannot do that unless there is support from the country to do it. In the early 1980s this Government spent a great deal of legislative time bringing forward support for small businesses. The noble Lord mainly responsible is sitting in front of me now.
However, in recent years there has been a tendency to look at other matters; to look at regulations, environmental controls and pollution controls to an extent which is probably unnecessary, and not to recognise the costs being imposed on industry. It needs to be understood not just by the Government but by the people of this country that the stage has been reached when economic growth, the support of small businesses, and the creation of wealth are the most important matters facing this country. If the Government are to bring that about they are going to need support from both Houses to make it happen. I give every support to my noble friend the Minister, and I hope that from tomorrow we shall be able to carry out such a policy.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I too support my noble friend Lord Caldecote in underlining the importance of small businesses to the success of our economy, which has also provided the opportunity today for two most interesting maiden speeches. It is of particular importance this week when the Government are considering how they can do more to create a climate for growth in manufacturing industry at a time of high unemployment and world-wide recession. It is important to remember that of the approximately 3 million firms in the United Kingdom—this is Department of Employment information at the end of 1989–97 per cent. employed fewer than 20 people. If one excludes all one-person firms the numbers drop to less than 1 million firms, but the proportion employing less than 20 people is still around 95 per cent. Nearly half the total workforce in 1989 was employed in firms employing under 100 people, who provided over 17 per cent. of the total turnover.
What happens to them is important therefore to the prosperity of our country. They are very different from large firms who can afford to break up their organisations into departments consisting of experts, accountants, marketing people, designers, engineers
202
etc. Very often the top 10 people or less in those small firms have to be knowledgeable in all these fields, and executive in directing their company's policies. It is a hard world, my Lords, and competition is fierce. Time is not on their side, and they rarely have time to spare. Deregulation; simplified forms to fill in; civil service and local government attitudes that focus on the vital importance of customer service, rather than satisfying the minutiae of bureaucratic systems—the red tape so eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in his maiden speech this afternoon—will contribute greatly to the oiling of the wheels of successful industry. I am glad that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade promised a new attack on this front at the CBI conference yesterday.
The plain English campaign tests need to be applied to all forms and regulations. Also liquidity is a constant problem, and they need their large customers to pay promptly and their banks to be on their side on a long-term basis. Those in charge of small firms do not want Civil Servants second-guessing what they ought to be doing. They themselves need to decide where their markets lie and how they can serve their customers best. In today's sharply competitive world, they will then need to bring their costs and overheads down to a minimum in selling their products. They will need to raise productivity, as has been emphasised at the CBI conference this week. That will mean investment in innovation, from the early use of research through to its development in practical applications, which will probably mean the purchase of new and expensive machinery. I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported in The Times on Monday to be considering giving industry a boost by allowing firms to offset more of their investment against tax. That is vital to small firms and I hope that it will be included in tomorrow's Statement.
I am glad too that from December 1993 the Government's own accounts are to make a proper distinction between capital and current transactions. That should result in better national investment in road and rail infrastructure, another vital means of lubricating industrial success. Manufactured goods need to arrive at their customers on time and not be caught up in traffic jams or held up on late trains. That goes for the people working in those industries, whether arriving at their places of work or travelling on the roads to ensure customer satisfaction. Without customer satisfaction, both before and after purchase, firms will go to the wall. Serving the customer has to be the most worthwhile thing that anyone does in the UK today. That has to be taught in schools, colleges and universities. It has to be put across in all training schemes at work and appreciated throughout society. We want enlightened and entrepreneurial young people to put industry first in their career choices. For my part, I would want them, both girls and boys, to think in terms of engineering. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend, who is not at present in the House, that Young Enterprise is still very much alive.
There will be people today who have been made redundant by firms no longer able to sell goods for

203
defence and armaments. We all want to retain as peaceful a world as possible. Nevertheless, their redundancy is for them a traumatic experience and they need to consider how their experience in that field can be turned to good account in civilian markets—literally turning swords into ploughshares. In this respect obviously export markets must be considered, and again the CBI this week is ambitious to raise our performance in world trade.
I am glad to hear that the value of our manufactured exports in the first eight months of 1992 was 2.5 per cent. up on the same period last year. However, imports have risen more rapidly, leading to a balance of payments deficit, and certainly there are markets in our own country where small firms could perfectly well compete. As I said in your Lordships' House recently, my husband and I have had great difficulty in purchasing British deep-freezers, nonstick frying pans, hammers, toasters, and my hairdresser uses Japanese scissors. Those are not hi-tech products and we should be making and selling them in Britain, not importing them. Nissan in Sunderland sets a very good example in producing and selling motor cars, and British productivity there, I understand, is even better than in Japan. Recent exchange movements will help firms both exporting and selling in home markets and we must continue to keep inflation down. The fall in interest rates will encourage investment, especially if coupled with fiscal incentives.
Much is being done in my own county of Essex, with DTI help, to encourage small firms both to sell locally and to export throughout Europe. That includes the formation of a technology club to help small and medium-sized businesses to apply and develop innovative technology with the assistance, I am glad to say, of local larger firms and higher and further education institutions. It is altogether a practical plan, near at hand, and not demanding long travelling time and communications for hard-pressed management in small industry. It deserves to succeed.
Finally, we are on the threshold of the free European market in 1993. It is important if competition is to be fair that governments support their industries equally. One reads of other European governments subsidising their industries in ways that we do not. Either negotiations must be carried out successfully to stop that practice or our industries will have to be subsidised here, too. The GATT talks which must also be made to succeed are anti-subsidy, so that must be the aim within European markets as well. In that atmosphere, I am sure, given national encouragement, that British small firms can compete with the best, both at home and throughout the world.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the two maiden speakers. I knew the father of the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, quite well. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, after making himself hoarse on an almost daily basis in another place with his "Order, order, order", must find addressing your Lordships' House almost like speaking in a goldfish bowl. He must have found
204
much greater appreciation from every quarter of the House for what he had to say to us. We hope that he will address us on many future occasions.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who, with his experience in FFI, is first rate in this area and brings great knowledge to our debates. I want particularly to emphasise the effect on jobs and, indirectly, on the balance of payments. Many of these small firms are the subcontractors on which larger firms are deeply dependent. It is very important that they should be encouraged, enhanced and given the chance of growing.
Until 1979, 30 new firms were set up every week. Since 1979 100 firms have been set up every week. So the record is not all black, as one might suppose from reading our newspapers and looking at television. Those are net figures. Sometimes one wonders whether the figures take into account only the new firms and not firms that have died away. However, the figures I have given are net figures. The private sector provides 20 million jobs, of which 7 million are in small businesses employing under 20 people. It is amazing what a contribution small businesses make. This year 46,000 small firms employing about 500,000 people have closed. That is a tragedy to which we must pay attention. I hope that noble Lords will throw ideas in front of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, and that she will take them all up. There is no harm in pinching other people's ideas when looking after small firms. I shall make that point again and again during my short speech.
Forty per cent. of new jobs come from very small firms with one to nine employees. I started my business career in a large firm, as do most people because large firms provide training. That is where people get their experience. I have four sons. For some inexplicable reason—I am not sure whether it is very profitable—they have all started their own businesses. They are practically one-man businesses and certainly three out of the four are paddling their own canoes and are only just afloat. On the occasions when they visit us at home, I hear of some of the problems which beset these small firms.
What can Her Majesty's Government do to help? The noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, spoke about the high street banks. Although there are some good ones, I have the impression that they are not all that friendly and sensitive. One becomes a little cynical when banks which have coughed up £600 million to the Al-Fayed brothers to help them buy Harrods make nasty telephone calls to their customers when they have run mildly over their overdraft limit, or they stop the overdraft completely. Surely when people have banked with them for year after year and have never gone bad on a debt they must have an interest in not bouncing cheques. My sons have had cheques bounced for ridiculous amounts. The explanation has been, "I am sorry, it was a new manager. He did not know that you had been with us for many years and did not know that you had 41 accounts". One one occasion, I said, "What the hell is the computer for if it does not know that? Surely you press the buttons and you get the information". On one occasion when the bank bounced a cheque—it was for £11.70 by the

205
way—I pointed out that if those concerned were rewriting their computer records they might add the fact that the chairman of the bank was godfather to the man whose cheque was bounced. I received an invitation to lunch very shortly afterwards.
In many cases the hardest task masters are the Inland Revenue and the VAT people. They have access and entry to people's houses. The sad fact is that for many small businessmen the collateral is their home, where their children and wives are. When the Inland Revenue or the VAT people put a company into bankruptcy, they are affecting the whole set-up. I hope that we can find some solution. I look occasionally at what happens in America. I wonder whether we could not pinch some of Chapter 11. I know we have the Insolvency Act but Chapter 11 seems to be quite widely used in the United States to keep people going while they are trying to get the matter right.
I like the idea of advice centres. When I saw the One-stop shops, I thought that they were hypermarkets, supermarkets or even ordinary markets. Such centres need to have a name which actually suggests that that is where you go for advice, help and training. As cash runs out, owners of businesses do not know where to go. That is one of the sad facts of the matter. What do you do when someone suddenly descends upon you and says, "We are going to pull the rug"? We want such centres; but they must be easily accessible so that people do not have to travel miles to reach them. I hope that Chapter 11 will be considered.
As regards accounting, there was a rather good article in yesterday's Independent newspaper. Surely we have allowed the matter of accounting to become too complicated. The idea that everything must be controlled right down to the tiniest detail may be necessary with ICI, Hanson, GEC and others, but it is not always necessary. Certainly, if some people had any drink in the house the constant efforts to keep up with the paperwork would drive them to drink, if not into insolvency. We all receive paperwork, though I suppose that most of it goes into the wastepaper basket. But if you are someone trying to run a small business, trying to keep the staff together and trying to obtain extra orders to cover the overheads, it is tiresome to be absolutely drained by the amount of paperwork. So, please, let us back up and support the idea that we must return to having less red tape.
As regards delaying payment, I know that we have been trying to do something about it. I was once so desperate that I had to ring up a big supplier and point out that the bank were going to pull the rug on me in respect of one of my companies if he did not pay £2 million which he had owed me for three months. But it is not always the big firms. Indeed, I recently met someone who was also put into bankruptcy. He employed three people. When he was asked why he used his VAT to pay his staff he said, "Because I am owed a vast amount for services that I provide to local government but they won't pay me". Incidentally, that is also true of government departments. Towards the end of the year when they are a bit short of money —that is, especially big spenders like the Ministry of
206
Defence—people may also find it very difficult to obtain payment. I hope that ideas to improve the situation will be stimulated.
Further, as regards small firms, ought we not to look at some special tax advantage—for example, to Aunt Joan, or whoever she may be, and Uncle So-and-So who is nearly falling off the perch anyhow —and try to get some help from friends, families and others? At present, there is no advantage in doing so. Of course, if you wanted the money back, you would probably never get it and there is no real small-firm stock exchange—it is very miniature—in this country.
Looking at all the facts in the matter, I gained the impression that the EC is more generous to its people. There is a very nice US slogan which says, "If you do not discriminate in favour of a small firm, you automatically discriminate against it". That is one slogan. The other, which I offer to my noble friend for use to the Treasury, is, "Not invented here". That is a terrible stopper. I urge her to take note of all ideas, wherever they may come from. Other people have the same problems. I hope that she will use those ideas to effect. If she does so, she will have every Member of this House, wherever he or she may sit, behind her to the maximum extent.
4.43 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on a wise and moving maiden speech. I hope that he will not be true to his word and ration his contributions to your Lordships' House in future. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, on his maiden speech, to which I may refer later. In thanking my noble friend Lord Caldecote for initiating the debate, perhaps I may take up his point about late payment which many other speakers have mentioned. I wish to mention particularly payment by large customers.
Anyone who has had experience of technological industries will know that one large company in particular, itself sitting on a cash mountain, has a bad reputation for paying its bills late. That highlights a problem. Executives who have spent their working lives in large corporations are apt to have no idea of some of the problems facing the smaller company. There is often an insensitivity, not of course deliberate, of the dreadful cash flow difficulties which late payment of what the large company will regard as a comparatively trivial sum can create. These days it can make the difference between survival and the receiver. There is a responsibility on the larger company to realise that the owner of a company employing even, say, 15 people carries a responsibility in human terms which is, and I use the word advisedly, enormous. In that connection, I very much welcome the CBI's initiative for introducing a code of conduct for payment of accounts, to which my noble friend Lord Caldecote referred.
We are really talking about two business sub-cultures—the large and the small. My plea is that in any small business forum, initiated either by government or by the private sector, representatives

207
from larger listed companies should be included. In that way, the impact, in particular of late payment, can be brought home to larger customers.
We heard a sensitive, informed and, if I may say so, persuasive maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, which could not have been bettered. He will understand that I have now changed some of the things that I had intended to say. However, there are three points to which I should like to draw his attention. The first is the absence of choice among the clearing banks. If a small businessman is minded to move, the first question he will be asked by the new bank is, "Where were you before and why are you moving?" The answer may well be no more than, "I liked your tele-ad on small businesses." In other words, we are not talking about serious banking alternatives. It is a fair generality to say that the smaller businessman is likely to have less experience of financial and banking institutions and therefore be very vulnerable.
Secondly, the effect of the banks' policy has been to exacerbate situations. In the late 1980s, banks were falling over themselves to lend. It is certainly the general perception that those same banks are calling in the loans, in many cases, some may say, precipitately. We all realise that banks have to look to their own balance sheets. But if there is one thing that will help a small business it is consistency on the part of the bank. If its attitude is tough as to lending, the business knows where it is. Similarly, if the bank is somewhat adventurous, then that bank should treat the consequences with sympathy. It is the predicability of his bank manager that can be so helpful to the small businessman.
I have three points that I should like to address to the Minister. First, I hope very much that the BES scheme will continue and that some way may be found to encourage the small entrepreneur to put money into his own business with tax relief. At present that is not possible. I hope that there is a possibility of some legislation on that score. Secondly, I believe that the very stringent requirements of the Financial Services Act should be relaxed in certain defined and small cases to enable friends, neighbours and relations of the entrepreneur to put their money into the business without constraints, especially those relating to invitations to subscribe. Thirdly, there is the ever present question which troubles all small businesses; namely, the raising of the ceiling of VAT.
Finally, I have been given to believe that under Mr. David Trippier a great start was made in the removal of red tape and paperwork. There is a feeling among the professional community that a further prod is needed in that direction.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, there is no doubt that small firms are in a particularly difficult trading position at the moment, even more so than medium or large concerns, and that the survivors are experiencing very considerable financial difficulties. As well as providing goods to the public, many small businesses provide services for larger organisations both in the public and the private sector. Both are taking credit
208
over a longer period on a unilateral basis which means that additional capital is needed by small firms to fund the debts. We have heard that said many times during the debate. The Government were supposed to have made some rules about the taking of excessive credit, but nothing seems to have happened.
Valuable advice for small businesses has become available through various agencies, many of which have done sterling work. In contrast, small firms do not have the muscle to obtain long credit from their suppliers themselves. It is often unwise for small firms to complain to the top of a large company that owes them money. If they do, the chairman is likely to order immediate payment of the debt with an apology. But the middle manager who is himself under pressure from his firm, and who caused the delay, and who is reprimanded by the chairman, is likely to ensure that that small firm is taken off the list and receives no more orders. The small firms knows that that will happen and so is wary of complaining too loudly.
The clearing banks are loth to fund additional credit which is why many small businesses go to the wall. Banks are often especially unsympathetic to small businesses, and even more so to those starting out. That seems to be due mainly to the rules laid down by head office. In the past, big international and property losses have been made. The smaller people are now being made to suffer as a result. Small firms and private customers are suffering from increased bank charges and less credit, as we have all discovered. That in turn obviously delays a general economic recovery.
So far as regulations are concerned, again, the small business seems to suffer the most and receive considerably more harassment. Local authorities can identify the person in charge of a small firm much more easily than with a larger company, and therefore find it easier to implement regulations. A larger employer is much more likely to receive good legal advice which makes the task of officials more difficult and time consuming.
Tax authorities find it easier to get to the bottom of small firms' accounts, whereas, again, larger companies can obtain good tax advice and launch into creative accounting. It is harder for the tax authorities to win. Also, of course, the large firm has a trained accountant to deal with queries, while the one-man business has to take time off from selling to talk out tax problems, as well as having to deal with all the regulations that pour in. There are too many regulations following one another.
It may not always be the case, but many a small proprietor feels that everyone is ganging up against him. Naturally, the recession hits everyone, large and small, but the small business, although more flexible, does not have the resources to weather the storm and many are driven out of business due to defaulting debtors. It always seems such a waste and a shame when a profitable firm, with an adequate order book, has the rug pulled out from beneath its feet merely because of a defaulting customer.
I come from Cleveland where in the 1970s the labour force was employed overwhelmingly by large business—British Steel and ICI. When those and other

209
firms rationalised, large numbers of people were made redundant, and our unemployment increased to about 25 per cent. Since then, many small firms have entered the county and have provided many jobs. I believe that our unemployment now stands at about 12 per cent. In view of the effect small firms have on employment, it comes as a surprise to me that there is a total lack of interest by the party opposite which has had no speakers in the debate apart from those on the Front Bench. Small firms are vital to us, but if one goes out of business, while it is sad and bad for those in it, it is not a catastrophe, as would be the going down of a big business. Collectively those firms are vital and not just for employment. The spending power generated by their employees is in turn crucial to the prosperity of banks and big businesses, some of which can behave thoughtlessly to those small firms.
The self-interest of banks and business should be enough to ensure that small firms are nurtured by them and given every assistance. All is not bad. Help is given, but they need even more: first, to start; and then so as not to be dragged down through no fault of their own.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Chilver: My Lords, as the debate draws towards its closing speeches it becomes increasingly challenging to shed yet further light upon the importance of small businesses. I have been involved at various times in my work with the development of small businesses. In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Caldecote made an indisputable case for small businesses. That case has been wholly endorsed by noble Lords on all sides of the House. We have been reminded by noble Lords that the number of small businesses grew substantially in Britain to record levels during the 1980s.
While that growth of small businesses has been encouraging, we should bear in mind that small firms in Britain still account for a lower proportion of economic activity in the UK than in our main competitor countries. In the recovery from the recession, small and medium businesses will probably make the earliest advances towards an improved economy. Apart from the recovery from the recession, a case can be made out for the intrinsic further growth of the small business sector in this country. My noble friend drew our attention to an important national issue.
If increasing numbers of small businesses are generated in Britain, further pressure will be placed on the many services offered to them through many different channels. That factor again must be considered seriously.
I should like to direct my remarks to specific problems suffered by small businesses. The first is the financial problem which is crucial and which has already been mentioned. The need here is for long-term funding, usually in loan terms rather than equity. That need is not met adequately by bank loans which are essentially short-term. Nor is it met by the extension of traditional forms of equity funding in large corporations. In Britain there is a real need for
210
longer term loans for small companies—probably at fixed interest rates. That would bring an element of stability into the future funding of those companies. At present our financial sector lacks the necessary range of mechanisms to provide us with an adequate range of long-term fixed interest rate loans for small companies.
My second point is that in more benign economic times innovation by small companies is important. It is challenging then, but it is even more challenging in today's economic climate. Innovation is likely to be developed more widely in businesses through a greater awareness of the potential of innovations. The introduction of new ideas into small businesses requires the identification and understanding of those ideas and their transfer into the production of goods and the provision of services. In that area, effective mechanisms for the transfer of ideas from the many sources of such ideas, in this country and abroad, are lacking in Britain. That is frustrating for small companies and for the many centres in Britain that generate new ideas which could be developed industrially in Britain. Transfer mechanisms must be strengthened considerably if large, small and medium-sized companies are to grow. They will make up the economy in the years ahead.
My final point relates to ways in which small businesses are disadvantaged, especially vis-à-vis large companies. Noble Lords have already emphasised the need for deregulation. One aspect of that is that the work of small businesses is hampered by out-dated licensing requirements.
Trading licences are still required in these days for employment agencies, public exhibitions, theatres, cinemas and public entertainments, as well as scrap metal dealers. Many of these licences are quite archaic and serve only to impair the setting up of small businesses to provide such services.
In conclusion, may I reinforce the pleas made by noble Lords that we move as rapidly as possible to sensible deregulation for small companies and equally sensible reduction of administrative demands, especially those made on companies by government departments.
5 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this has been a good debate and we all thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for arranging it. There have been two notable maiden speeches: first, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—a familiar voice to us all, now becoming a familiar face. I must say that when he referred to the convention in this House that we speak only if we know a subject, I saw a tremor pass across the Benches on both sides and I nearly "scratched" this afternoon. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, spoke as a banker; and we all listen with respect to bankers, especially on the subject of the problems of small businesses.
All noble Lords have stressed how important the small business sector is. Figures vary a little, but there seems to be agreement that something between 95 and 97 per cent. of all businesses in the UK employ fewer

211
than 20 people and have a turnover of less than £100,000. In total, that is around one-third of the British economy.
Since the war, these small businesses have contained on the whole the fastest growth, the fastest job creation—I believe that the noble Viscount said I million jobs—and the most dynamic technological innovation. That is a very potent combination. For the past 40 years, as many noble Lords will be aware, the small companies sector on the Stock Exchange has out-performed the average for the Stock Exchange and has certainly out-performed the large companies in terms of growth. So small has meant growth as well as beautiful.
That was until three years ago, but now small businesses are under-performing. That is very serious and worrying for the future of our economy. It means the most dynamic and creative section of our economy is now at best stagnant and at worst collapsing. We are left with the most mature and least innovative part surviving. That is not good for our future; it is like an aging society without sufficient children.
In this recession, since 1989, over 150,000 small businesses have collapsed. The latest survey figures show deterioration. They show that the decline in orders is accelerating; the decline in output is accelerating; job-shedding is accelerating. The unemployment implications are quite terrifying. We now have 3 million unemployed, on the Government's adjusted figures. That is over 3½ million unemployed on the traditional calculation. The forecasts are for a further quarter of a million unemployed from various industrial sectors: building, engineering, defence, the services. Small businesses will contribute negatively to a significant part of that. I saw that the Small Business Trust estimates that over 1 million jobs have been lost from small businesses in the recession.
What is particularly worrying is that in its latest survey, the CBI shows how small businesses are reacting to the recession. They are reacting by cutting spending on investment in plant and machinery, technological innovation and training. In other words, they are reducing their own future competitiveness. That process must be reversed.
So what should be done? I think the debate has been full of fruitful and positive suggestions from all sides. The first step must be in the area of interest rates which must be cut towards the rate of inflation. I believe that they should be cut by 4 per cent. by Christmas. They should be brought down to the level at which the real rate of inflation is minimal because, as I said in a debate on the economy last week, real interest rates have still not been cut. Real interest rates are still between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent., depending on the individual borrower.
A further fact on interest rates is that the banks must cut them in line with the decline in the Bank rate. Often recent reductions have not been fully passed on. We know that many mortgage holders wait three months in order to receive the benefits of the reduction. Many industrial borrowers do not benefit in full and find that the cut in their own rate is only half the reduction that has been made in the base rate. I understand why it happens and our bankers will
212
understand. Basically what is happening is that the banks are repairing their balance sheets at the expense of small businesses. It is natural, but collectively and socially it is disastrous and is very bad for the small business sector. When the Chancellor next announces significant cuts in interest rates, he should summon the banks and the building societies and say, "This reduction has to be implemented for your borrowers".
However, interest rate cuts are not enough. Confidence is low, so it is the debts that are repaid and economic activity is not stimulated to the extent we would expect. Therefore, monetary policy must be accompanied by industrial, fiscal and employment policies designed to assist the recovery of the whole industrial sector, but especially the small business sector.
The kind of measures that have been mentioned seem to me to be sensible. On capital allowances, I believe that they should be 100 per cent. for the next two years as a kick start and 40 per cent. after that. We have had discussion of investment grants. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned what is done in Germany, and certainly there should be financial aid to small business at modest interest rates. We need more assistance for exporters. We are aware that the devaluation is helpful but the small firms find it most difficult to analyse and break into foreign markets. They do not have the resources for it, and I think that the DTI should provide more. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that full resources will be made available for small businesses to take the export opportunity.
In conclusion, the fact is that the Government have failed small businesses in recent years. The CBI has made that absolutely clear at its recent conference. There will be no improvement until the Government introduce sensible macro-economic policies to provide the proper climate for small businesses to succeed. At the more micro-level, they should introduce sensible industrial policies. Sadly, we do not yet have any signs of that, but I hope that the Minister will encourage us.
5.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for moving this Motion. I thank him with personal gratitude because, as Minister with responsibility for small firms, I am exceedingly grateful to your Lordships for your input into the subject. It is greatly to my benefit.
I was very privileged to have two maiden speakers in the debate today. I am honoured that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, chose to make his maiden speech and welcome him into calmer waters. I agree with him; I have always personally felt there is so much knowledge in this House that it induces a certain sense of nervousness. I also thank him for leaving space in another place to be filled by a lady.
I was also pleased to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra. He is a worthy champion of the banks, and they should be grateful to him. As everyone has recognised, small firms are vitally important to the UK economy. As everyone has said,

213
they have done much to foster the development of an enterprise culture, extending consumer choice and making a valuable contribution to the quality of life. They stimulate competition and offer individuals the chance to realise personal ambitions. This debate gives the Government the opportunity to assure noble Lords that our commitment to their well-being remains undiminished, and to set out how we help small firms to start, survive and grow.
We have heard several variations of figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, there are varying definitions of small firms which make direct one-to-one comparisons. However, all the figures show enormous growth in that field. I have a slightly different definition of small firms. The European Community defines a small firm as having 500 employees. I personally think 500 employees constitutes a pretty big firm. My definition of a small firm is one in which the end of the day arrives before the end of the work and no one will do that work tomorrow. I wish to consider the needs of small firms from their point of view and to consider the various watersheds that small firms hit in their growth.
We believe that business works best when it is given the maximum freedom to operate in a competitive market. The success of the economy as a whole depends on providing a context in which individual enterprise can flourish and is rewarded. While the Government have a role to play in setting a favourable economic climate for both large and small businesses, the crucial contribution is provided by the dedication, commitment and enthusiasm of individual small business people up and down the country. I meet those people and am impressed by them. I have great confidence in them. The success of these policies is reflected in the unprecedented growth that the UK small business community experienced during the 1980s. For example, between 1979 and 1989, the total number of businesses in the UK grew by two-thirds, representing a net increase of almost 500 businesses for every working day of that decade. All regions and most industrial sectors benefited from this growth. Even during the more difficult times of today, the number of new firms starting up is still impressive: bankers' surveys show 450,000 for 1991 and another 250,000 in the first half of this year. I hear that several noble Lords have been meeting undertakers, but there are still many more midwives around!
The number of businesses in the UK is around 3 million, of which, as has been said, 97 per cent. are small firms employing fewer than 20 people. Such firms provide 17 per cent. of UK turnover. My right honourable friend Mr. Sainsbury, the Minister of State for Industry, looks after large firms; but I should remind him that I have the big job in this respect in terms of where the great future for the economy lies. In this context, small is not simple. There is a tendency to underestimate the sophistication and the high-tech content of the small firms sector. That sophistication is vast and does not just occur among the mature industries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has said, the job creating role of small firms has been particularly
214
impressive. Small firms currently employ over one-third of Britain's private sector workforce. Since 1979 the Government have been working to create a more beneficial tax regime as a key factor in stimulating growth. The UK now has one of the most favourable corporation tax structures for small companies in the European Community.
As a Government, we also take a close look at the demands which we ourselves place on small businesses. Enterprises, as has so rightly been said, should not be distracted unnecessarily from their prime tasks. Governments must remember that the smaller an operation, the greater is the distraction in relative terms brought about by every single law to be complied with. The deregulation initiative has been instrumental in keeping the burden of bureaucracy to a minimum. Despite this, there is a widespread feeling that the needs of business have not been fully taken into account, and that something more must be done to create the right conditions for future growth. We are keeping up and increasing the pressure. The Prime Minister's recent announcement that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will lead a renewed initiative to cut burdens on business has been welcomed by small firms. I am delighted to confirm that we much appreciate the work that my successor, Mr. Trippier, did in this area. That work will be continued. I am delighted to reassure my noble friend Lord Chilver that licences will be one of the prime targets to be considered to enable companies to run efficiently.
As the Minister responsible for small firms, I am well aware that small firms suffer at the bottom of the late payment spiral, the compliance spiral and the regulation spiral. We are determined to look after them. I do not believe a person needs a Ph.D to take people on into employment. I do not know of a small firm other than an accountancy practice which set up in business because the employees were good at paperwork. Firms are good at the things they set up to do. We must let them carry on with what they are good at so they can grow. It would be my ideal wish that all small firms' paperwork could be pro forma and be reduced to an absolute minimum.
I believe that in the enormous growth of small firms in past years we have created a new generation of small firm owners. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman drew attention to that matter. Those small firm owners do not live in the same road as their bank managers. They do not play golf and they do not know accountants and solicitors. They need all the help they can get. It is indeed unfortunate if those firms should not succeed because they did not know how to reach the help that was available. Such a position is totally unacceptable. I have been pleased to hear the welcome given to my right honourable friend's One-stop shop initiative.
From time to time every small firm encounters hurdles in its growth process. Our task must be to help them overcome such hurdles as fast and as smoothly as possible. Apart from in the high technology field, there will be no hurdle they come up against which

215
someone has not already overcome. We feel it is important that firms should share their knowledge about such hurdles.
I was delighted to hear noble Lords agree today that small firms cannot be put into boxes and that each have individual needs. We must be there as those needs materialise. I am delighted to assure noble Lords that the One-stop shops will be visible and accessible both in terms of location and time. They will be branded for the benefit of the customer, not for the benefit of suppliers. However, suppliers are the key to success in this area and we shall harness the great strengths of the infrastructure from the chambers of commerce. the training and enterprise councils, the enterprise agencies, local authorities and those members of the private sector who are interested in the small firm economy.
It is important we ensure that small firms do not reinvent the wheel. That is expensive, and it is slow. I assure my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the small firms Minister does not intend to re-invent the wheel either and will, as he puts it, pinch any idea which will work to the benefit of our small firm economy. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I spent some time in Germany this summer trying to identify good practice which was relevant and which I could copy. Fixed rate loan money is an issue which is very high on my list of priorities.
I now turn to the question of funding, a major issue for small firms. However innovative we are in seeking to help small firms, the banks must and will remain the main funding agents of small business. It is therefore important that the relationship between small firms and banks is sound and happy and that they each understand the other's agenda.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, thinks that sometimes my attacks on banks are a little too keen. Therefore, I should first like to thank the banks for giving me channels of communication so that we can check that there are two sides to every story. However, I am the Minister with responsibility for small firms and although I know of no bank manager who is frightened of his small firm visit, I know of many small firms which are frightened of their bank visit. We have to correct that balance. There is an issue of perception. There is a need for transparency of action, and there is a need for service. If we are considering having our one-stop shops open late at night because those involved in small firms have to be with their customers during the day, I hope that the banks will consider offering that service, too. I also hope that we shall not see a continuation of the backdating of charges. I am delighted to know that action is to be taken to correct the practice of the removal of funds from accounts without the holder of the account being informed in advance.
Of course, we have to worry about the fact that loans are based on property and the many revaluations which take place. We need a commitment from the banks in that area. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that falls in interest rates must be shared with small firms as well as with shareholders. The minimum lending rate is an issue which I hope the banks will address.
216
We have looked and are looking at other areas of support. We have seen much development in the area of venture capital. I find it particularly welcome that my noble friend Lord Caldecote introduced the debate because, through his leadership of 3i, he was instrumental in ensuring the starting up of many firms which are now significant players in our economy. We would welcome now an institution rather like 3i in its early days. I also pay tribute to the pilot scheme run by 3i in Birmingham, working with the community on appraisal costs under which loans of £50,000 could be considered rather than only of £250,000. That is helpful.
We have launched enterprise funds in Yorkshire and the East Midlands. They have a regional focus, as do the German banks. We hope that that will work. In Yorkshire we call it "Yorkshire brass for Yorkshire business". There is self benefit to the community.
I believe, and many Lords have said, that money with advice is most beneficial to small firms, enabling them to maximise the advantage from the funds available. We publish guides to sources of funding and the TECs direct businesses to sources of funding. The "local angel" schemes, with the Training and Enterprise Councils, direct companies to local sources which may be of help. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade that partnerships in finance can also be crucial.
Both my noble friend Lord Caldecote and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman raised the question of BES. Unfortunately, only £15 million out of £420 million raised in 1989–90 went to small manufacturing firms. The Government's policy is for low overall taxation; but I note the points concerning the possibility of reinvesting one's own money, as company owner, into a business in a tax-efficient way. Noble Lords have also asked whether we could encourage pension funds to invest in small business, and to encourage committed persons to become involved.
My noble friend Lord Chilver rightly said that we must encourage firms to opt for fixed loans and long-term agreements.
I turn now to one of the other major issues facing small firms—late payment. That subject was raised by many noble Lords. The Government keep a constant eye on that subject. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was kind enough to say that we have tried to put our own house in order. In our contracts we insist that sub-contractors are paid on time. We have also audited all our departments and we support the CBI initiative. However, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough indicated, it is often the case that the chairman signs up to a principle while the credit controller is still rewarded for keeping money in the company. We have to make sure that the message goes all the way down. We have asked that payment terms be disclosed in annual reports.
We have not put aside the possibility of legislation, but I am conscious that it is difficult to bring the customer back to the order book once one has taken him to court. At present companies could apply interest charges for late payment, but if the supplier is strong they will not insist on that. I have a personal commitment to follow up the matter with large firms

217
and government departments. I must also pay tribute to the way in which the media have helped in drawing attention to the problem, not in order to create villains but to get the cash to flow.
In addition, I have initiated three pilot schemes in chambers of commerce and trade associations to see what help they can give on these matters because they have in their membership both small and large firms. If we can gain knowledge from that initiative, we shall certainly share it.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote drew attention to the fact that it is important that, when all other methods have failed, small firms should have easy and quick access to the court. My noble and learned friend is looking at that matter at the moment.
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words in relation to my commitment. However, I must say that I am proud to be part of a Government which has nourished so many small firms into life. This question of small businesses is not one on which I would wish to score political points. We must make sure that the economy is sound.
My right honourable friend's last Budget very much took into account the needs of small firms. I must also pay tribute to the way in which British Coal Enterprise has founded small businesses for miners. The growth in that area is tremendous.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly pointed out that making this speech the day before the Autumn Statement is not easy; but I am sure that there will be other opportunities. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Weatherill for his work on the Boulton Committee, which was a landmark in the way in which Government treats small firms. He knows that much of the work required is fiscal and that I need the support of the Treasury. However, I can assure him that I have large lungs and endless determination.
My noble friend, Lord Joseph, touched on many points. He mentioned intellect in small business as he found it in Germany. That is important and is something we continue to look at. He also drew attention to the fact that polytechnics had played a tremendous role in this area and it was very important that they did not become elitist and move away from the small firm market. We believe there is now an opportunity to encourage graduates into small business so that good. up-to-date practice can be shared, often in groups rather than individually, and to encourage large firms to do some of their training in small firms which gives their people much better project management.
I am pleased to reassure my noble friend that as far as self-employment is concerned, we have almost caught up with other Community countries (12 per cent. compared with 13 per cent.). We have a higher percentage of people working for themselves than in Canada or the United States. As my noble friend Lady Platt said, young enterprise flourishes and anyone who attends schools at speech days knows that to his or her personal expense. They are not only good producers but good sales people.
218
The Prince's Youth Business Trust does good work in small firm development, and I am hoping that it will publish a directory to which people will turn when looking for services. I believe many people will use it. My noble friend Lord Joseph mentioned women's magazines. We recognise that their awards in this area are of great value. I am delighted to tell my noble friend Lord Carr that we are supporting the chambers in their strategy to increase the strength of the movement throughout the country. Although obviously the TECs have hiccups, they are a very young organisation, the oldest being under three years and the youngest is one year only. I believe we shall see a watershed of good practice.
I am pleased to say to my noble friend Lord Wade that the DTI spends over £100 million a year on technology transfer, a large part of which is directed towards smaller firms. Schemes such as SMART do give funding of the venture capital kind as opposed to grants. Only small firms with fewer than 50 employees are eligible.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing mentioned Chapter 11 as a possibility. The legal systems in the United States and Great Britain differ greatly and we need to hit the right balance between the time needed by firms to recover from temporary difficulties and preventing firms that are not going to recover from bringing others down with them. Nevertheless, we will continue to look at useful examples of legal actions here and abroad.
The United Kingdom's experience and approach to the small firms sector is highly regarded by our European Community colleagues and the Commission. We shall continue to press for and support steps in the Community to reduce administration, widen consultation with small firms organisations and secure a realistic appreciation of the cost of new measures to new firms before they are agreed. Our broad approach to the support of small firms remains the same as it has been over the past 12 years or so: to support and not to swamp them. We continue to aim to provide the right economic climate, pursue policies designed to keep inflation under control, minimise taxes and achieve low interest rates for both large and small companies. We must minimise bureaucratic burdens from Whitehall, the town hall or Brussels. I shall personally continue to ask my colleagues to be understanding of the needs of small business.
I believe that we can face the world positively from the point of view of our small firm sector. It is well; it continues to grow; and the Government have good reason to be proud of the support that is available to help it. I am pleased to have the privilege of being that sector's champion.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers, both of whom spoke from real experience. I hope we shall hear them on many occasions in future.
This has been a fruitful debate during which many valuable ideas have been put forward. I am grateful to my noble friend for her full reply. I was encouraged to

219
hear her reconfirm the Government's recognition of the importance of small companies and their determination to reduce red tape in every way. I much appreciated her kind comments about 3i and the need to help smaller firms to a greater extent as in the early days of the company. My noble friend referred to the problems of BES not having attracted a great deal of investment. The problem was that the scheme, admirable in conception, became much too complicated and restrictive with far too many rules that prevented its use. I reiterate my firm belief that the encouragement of equity investment in small firms is of the utmost importance, because if they are too reliant on bank or any other loans they get into real trouble when there is a downturn in the economy. My noble friend Lord Chilver said that the percentage of small companies in our economy was lower than in most of our competitors. That is a clear sign that there is no room for complacency in this field. We must do all we can not only to support the current small companies but to help new ones to form.
I was surprised and perhaps a little disappointed that noble Lords opposite showed so little interest in the debate and contributed only two speakers out of 16 or 17. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was perhaps suggesting that there was not much experience or knowledge about small companies. That may be, but it is disappointing that there has not been a greater contribution from noble Lords opposite.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Political Talks
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the political talks concerning Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"These talks were built on those which were held last year. Like them, they took as ground rules my predecessor's statement to this House on 26th March 1991. The first strand of these new talks began in Belfast under my predecessor's chairmanship on 9th March this year and resumed on 29th April under my chairmanship to consider political arrangements within Northern Ireland itself.
"By the beginning of July I thought it appropriate to propose that the other two strands be launched. Accordingly, on 6th July, the second strand, involving both the Irish and British governments and concerning relationships in the whole island of Ireland was commenced. We met initially in London and subsequently in Belfast and Dublin. This strand has taken place under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ninian Stephen. To him, and to the Australian Government who permitted him to be available, we all owe an
220
enormous debt of gratitude, particularly since in the latter stages he readily accepted an invitation to help us in our proceedings across all three strands.
"On 28th July in Dublin the two governments held the opening meeting of the third strand, concerning future relationships between them.
"Throughout the talks I have received wise and indefatigable support from the Parliamentary Secretary, my honourable friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes. In particular he chaired a most fruitful series of Strand 1 Committee sessions and has often deputised for me in other strands.
"The present talks, like those last year, were stipulated to be held during a specified gap between meetings of. the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. Before the talks resumed after our own general election, the two governments announced that the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference would not be before the end of July. Since then the gap has been extended twice. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach announced on 25th September, in a final extension, that the next meeting of the conference would be held on 16th November. More than six months have accordingly been available for these talks.
"We have not yet succeeded in the ambitious task of securing an overall settlement, that is to say, a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands. Since the talks were held on the basis that 'nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole and that confidentiality will he maintained', the question of a partial settlement did not arise. Nonetheless, the talks have seen substantive and detailed engagement on issues of the first importance.
"In Strand 1 the Northern Ireland parties, together with the British Government, identified common themes and principles which should underlie any new political institutions in Northern Ireland and examined possible structures which might reflect these.
"In Strand 2, in which of course the Irish Government have also been a participant, delegations discussed fundamental aspects of relationships within the island of Ireland, and of the realities underlying them, including constitutional issues and questions of identity and allegiance. We examined the scope for enhanced co-operation within the island of Ireland, in the social, economic, and security fields, among others. We considered the nature of the structures which might best serve such co-operation.
"In Strand 3 the two governments, as co-signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, addressed, in liaison with the other participants, possible principles for a new and more broadly based agreement, and possible intergovernmental arrangements.
"Much has been done to identify and enlarge the common ground, and to increase understanding and respect for the participants' respective

221
positions. The process has involved hard work and commitment from all the participants. The talks participants have collectively reaffirmed their total abhorrence of, and unqualified opposition to, all forms of terrorism, from whatever source they may come. Nothing has taken place to alter my firm view that it was right to bring together the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and the two governments, to address, in a single process, a comprehensive agenda. It remains my judgment that, with good will and application, a comprehensive settlement can yet be secured. Those qualities are not lacking.
"Yesterday the talks participants agreed and issued a statement, copies of which have been placed in the Library. In it they recognised that, `while at this time there is no basis to agree a settlement, they have identified and discussed most, if not all, of the elements which would compromise an eventual settlement; they have developed a clear understanding of each other's positions; and established constructive dialogues on ways in which an accommodation might be reached on some of the key issues which divide them'. All recognised the great value of that dialogue. The two governments expressed their view yesterday that further dialogue was both necessary and desirable. The four Northern Ireland parties agreed with that and accordingly undertook to 'enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward.'
"The whole House, although doubtless disappointed that fuller agreement has not been reached, will welcome that commitment. The objectives of the talks process remain valid and achievable in the expressed opinion of the independent chairman Sir Ninian Stephen and in my own opinion. The objectives are realistic. We have a duty therefore to build on what has been begun, however slow that process may have been, and not to give up.
"We have a duty not to lose patience; not to give way to exasperation; not to recriminate.
"Her Majesty's Government for their part, therefore, will steadily persevere. We shall maintain our line of approach to these objectives and we shall continue also our commitment to the resolute and just government of Northern Ireland. Not only the people of Northern Ireland but the people of the rest of these islands—let us not forget them—deserve this of us".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the comprehensive Statement made by the Secretary of State earlier this afternoon. We very much welcome the progress that has been made, as referred to in the Statement, but the whole House will deeply regret that the talks were not more successful. The people of Northern Ireland desperately want peace and reconciliation in their day. I believe that many will be saddened by the failure to achieve more progress.
222
We have been fully aware at all times and throughout the talks of the huge differences between the parties and the grave difficulties facing Sir Ninian Stephen. Our expectations were not too high when the talks started six months ago but there were grounds for hoping that the talks would be concluded against a more positive background than the one revealed in the Statement. Indeed, as recently as last Saturday, it was reliably reported that Sir Ninian was trying to draw up what was described as a "heads of agreement" document to salvage something from the talks processes which started last April.
It was also hoped that the parties might agree some kind of suspension of the talks until a new Irish Government had been formed and had had time to settle into office, thus making it easier to restart another round of talks, when no doubt the pressure of public opinion in Northern Ireland would require their resumption. Indeed, that would also in effect have bridged the November meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.
The Statement refers approvingly to the undertaking that the parties will at a date in the unspecified future,
"enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward".
While those words are on the vague side, I note with some satisfaction that nevertheless it is an undertaking. Do the Government know when the process of informal consultation will begin? Do the Government propose to take any steps to encourage and facilitate those consultations? In any event, will the Government give consideration to publishing a document identifying the elements which would comprise an eventual settlement, as referred to in the Statement, and possibly identify the areas of agreement and those of continuing disagreement. Finally, I trust that the Minister is able to confirm that meanwhile the basic position of the Government continues to be that of support for the 1985 Anglo-Irish Conference.
Before I resume my seat, I join with the Government and all others in paying tribute to the role of the distinguished chairman, Sir Ninian Stephen, and his staff in helping to facilitate the talks. A tremendous amount of effort and very hard work went into the preparations for the talks and they deserved to succeed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for reading the Statement so clearly. Perhaps I could correct him on an inadvertent mistake in reading it. I am sure he will be grateful for the correction since it changed the meaning of the Statement placed in the Library by the four constitutional parties. He spoke of the elements which would "compromise" an eventual settlement rather than those which would comprise it. As that changes the meaning, I thought he would appreciate and would not mind that minor correction to his delivery.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right when he says that everyone—the whole House and indeed the country, the people in the Republic of Ireland and, most of all, in Northern Ireland where they bear such heavy burdens with such stoic courage

223
—will be very sad that the talks have broken down. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he thinks that the talks have broken down or whether they have been suspended. As I listened to the Statement, I was slightly unclear as to what would happen next. Perhaps I may return to that point in a moment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Secretary of State and to Sir Ninian Stephen. I should also like to pay tribute to the predecessor of the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Brooke. The fathers of the talks, and those who have conducted them, have done so with great skill and patience.
We ought also to do something which does not often occur in your Lordships' House; that is, pay tribute to the Northern Ireland parties themselves. They have advanced quite a long way out of their trenches. They have now returned to them but have done so alive and perhaps that will encourage them to come out of their trenches again on a future occasion.
In an earlier debate in your Lordships' House, I expressed some doubts about whether the participants were sufficiently secure on Strand 1 before they proceeded to Strand 2; and whether they had consolidated their position on Strand 2 before they moved on to Strand 3. It was a thought which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, shared with me. It is not a criticism. It is apparent that if nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, matters have to be kept fluid. Nevertheless, I suspect that one of the reasons that the talks have not ended in the success for which we all hoped is that the step by step process was a little too fluid.
Be that as it may, a great deal has been achieved. There has been an investment of good will on all sides. As the noble Earl repeated in the Statement, there is a wide measure of agreement. There is now something to build on. The question is: what happens next? I sincerely hope—perhaps the Minister will reassure me when he replies—that we shall not go back to talks about talks. I hope that we have moved beyond that process. When the Statement refers to dialogue, I hope that it does not mean that we shall begin to talk about how to talk. I hope that we may move to the substance of the talks which the parties had reached when the talks were suspended.
Within a short space of time, we shall have a new government in the Republic of Ireland. We shall know how that is composed. That may affect the Government's perceptions of how to proceed. Does the noble Earl believe that there is some scope for an initiative by the Secretary of State—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—and the British Government now to play a more positive role and to put forward their own proposals based on the terms of an eventual settlement? We are told there is a wide measure of mutual recognition. Like the noble Lord, I would value reassurance that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will remain intact until replaced by an agreement arrived at by negotiations between all the parties.
Finally, I have never detected among people in Northern Ireland in the time in which I have been involved in the subject such a willingness to urge the
224
parties on to continue talks. There is a great feeling on the part of the population of Northern Ireland, whichever community they are drawn from, that the process must continue. I hope that that pressure makes itself felt as the hot breath of public opinion blows down the necks of the Northern Ireland parties. I hope that the Secretary of State feels able to promote the resumption as soon as possible.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I am grateful that both noble Lords have spoken of their general agreement of how well the talks have gone so far. To the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who I think expressed, as he called it, disappointment, regret or perhaps both, that the talks have not actually progressed further, I would just make these points. When the talks resumed in April few thought that they would even last for one month. In fact they have continued for over six months. Historic watersheds have been passed. Unionists have sat down with the Irish Government. Dublin Ministers have been questioned in Belfast. Ulster Unionists have gone to Dublin for talks—the first talks in Dublin on the future of Northern Ireland involving Unionists for 70 years.
Those serious and substantive talks examined in detail the real issues at the heart of the problem. There has been discussion of both general principles and the detail of possible institutions. Views have been honestly and at times forcefully expressed. Everyone understands each other's position better than when we started. We have at times been surprised by the amount of common ground. Important disagreements, even fundamental ones, still remain, but the issues have been seriously addressed. Therefore, while the present talks have come to an end, all the participants have agreed to enter into informal consultations with a view to seeking a way forward.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked when talks might continue. I have already said that it will be in the future on an informal basis, obviously after 25th November, following the general election in Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, questioned the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Of course both governments have made it clear that they would be prepared to consider a new and more broadly based agreement or structure if such an agreement can be arrived at through direct discussion and negotiation between all the parties concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also suggested that perhaps a paper should be published on what has been agreed or even disagreed so far. We all accepted, as I said in the Statement, that nothing will be finally agreed until everything is agreed and that confidentiality will be maintained. We shall hold to that because the process is not at an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, suggested that perhaps at this point we should impose our own solution. However, I remind him that we are committed to an agreed outcome. Everyone accepts that any new arrangements must command the widest possible support and allegiance in Northern Ireland.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. What I suggested was that in order to promote the process of the talks the British Government might wish to take some initiative and show more of their hand to prompt the parties back to the table rather than—I use the words he used—impose our solution. I believe that that would be wrong.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, if I misread him on that. Of course it is up to all the participants on an informal basis to seek to start the talks again at an appropriate time.
Finally, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Home of Cheltenham, that he was indeed right about "comprised" rather than "compromised".
5.57 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, not for the first time in your Lordships' House I feel myself unable to agree with what has been said by previous speakers. The outcome of the talks was entirely predictable. Indeed, I said so on numerous occasions. In 1985–86 when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was promulgated, I said in this House that the terms of that agreement made it impossible at any time in the future for the Unionist members in Northern Ireland, the Protestant community, to talk to the Nationalist community. For the very first time since the creation of the Northern Ireland state the Unionists saw the process as giving preference to opinions from the Government of the adjoining republic. Having been born and reared in Northern Ireland, I realised that no matter how extreme or moderate the Unionists may be, they would never accept what they regarded as intervention by the Government of the Republic.
I saw that also in the Sunningdale agreement in 1973–74. I thought that that was the best political development in Northern Ireland since the creation of the state. There was absolutely no doubt about the acceptance and the creation of a Northern Ireland Executive. That was Strand I of the talks. It was Strand 2, on the Council of Ireland, which brought that executive to an end. There is no doubt that agreement can be reached on Strand 1 but I say here and now and with no great enthusiasm that in my lifetime—and I hope to live a long time—there will never be any agreement on Strand 2 of the talks; namely, the intervention of the Government of the Republic into the affairs of Northern Ireland. Whether I would like such an agreement and whether it would be the best solution it will never come about in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The talks are not new; they did not start six months ago. The first talks began under the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. They were continued under the noble Lords, Lord Colnbrook and Lord Prior. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees did what he could to start talks to try to find an agreement. So these talks have not been going on for six months or a year. There was the intervention of the Irish Government, which was legitimate under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The latest series of talks began because
226
the Unionist community in Northern Ireland so detested and despised every word of every sentence in the Anglo-Irish Agreement that they were prepared to enter into talks to do away with it. The SDP and the Irish Government also entered into the talks with the intention of consolidating that agreement or, if that were not possible, of finding another agreement which would give exactly the same authority.
That was the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. No agreement could be found under those circumstances. There will be no agreement if it is insisted that the Irish Government continue to have a part to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland. We must face realities in this House and that is the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may say first that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, lives for a very long time. But I think that even he will agree that six months of Irish politics is but an evening gone. I hear very clearly what Lord Fitt says but I really do not believe that it would be in the interest of the resumption of the talks to recriminate and backtrack on what has already happened. There is a lot that yet has to be done. A lot of general very good will has come about. A lot of profound understanding has happened as a result of these talks, and we wish them well in the future as soon as they recur.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said is it not inevitable that a time of consolidation should come? It therefore comes as no surprise that there is what I would call a "temporary suspension" in spite of what my noble friend said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The most dangerous action which the British Government could possibly take would be forceful intervention because forceful interventions have bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for many years. I hope that my noble friend will agree with that.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I agree that a forceful intervention at this particular point would be extremely unwise and extremely uncalled for. It was agreed by both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Ireland that the talks would come to an end before the next intergovernmental conference on 16th November.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to ask the Minister whether the Government know about Initiative 92. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a person associated with the scheme. However, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the initiative and say briefly what it is. It is an investigation into what the citizens of Northern Ireland actually want. They are being asked what kind of accommodation, political and otherwise, they can foresee and in what ways they believe progress can be made. Views are being sought not only from individuals but from organisations of every kind.
The work of the investigation has been voluntarily funded and organised. It is, therefore nongovernmental, non-sectarian and completely across the board. It is important because while there are

227
many elections in Northern Ireland there has, alas, not been a great deal of practice of normal democracy. I believe that the initiative can pave the way to renewed formal talks between the official political parties and the governments concerned. No doubt your Lordships have many friends and contacts in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will be possible to publicise the initiative so that views can be submitted during the next two weeks.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Certainly we are aware of Initiative 92 and wish it very well. Indeed, we are ready to play a part if it is helpful but of course the noble Lord will understand that the main focus is the talks.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, may I suggest that, although we listened to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, with great respect, we should not be too pessimistic about the development which my noble friend has reported today. Each exercise of this kind helps gradually to further the reduction of mistrust which has bedevilled these discussions and relations for so many generations. I hope that formal processes will not be resumed too quickly because there must be a great deal that needs to be assessed and reconsidered as a result of the process which has ended. The best way of ensuring that the next time the tide comes in it comes a little further up the beach will be to look in detail at what has happened on this occasion and see whether we can build on that so that our next efforts will be more fruitful.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the British Government are far from pessimistic. I am sure that it is the hope of us all that they find a way forward. Certainly we in Her Majesty's Government will continue to do all that we can to play our full part and we believe that present talks have made sound progress. We are determined to hold on to that foundation.

Voluntary Agencies
6.8 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton rose to call attention to the increasing importance of the work of voluntary agencies; to the Home Office publication The Individual and the Community—The role of the Voluntary Sector; and the role of other government departments in this field; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the day appointed for this debate is significant in four ways. It is the anniversary of the armistice that ended the First World War and thus a big day for one of our major voluntary organisations, the British Legion. It is also the anniversary of the birth of my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, whom I welcome to the debate. It is the eve of, and therefore sees the peak of speculation on, the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. It is also the day for the decision of the General Synod on the ordination of women. It is a day of deep importance to the Church of England. I regret that it is a day of sorrow, as it would have been whichever way the decision went, for many members of that flock to
228
which I belong. Your Lordships will recognise that for that reason the Archbishops' and Bishops' Benches are comparatively empty. On their behalf I extend to your Lordships apologies sent to me from Lambeth Palace. The most reverend Primates and the right reverend Prelates will not share with us the pleasure of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, whom I welcome to the Chamber.
Our subject today is a big one. The Charity Commissioners in their Trustee's Guide to the Charities Act 1992—an admirably lucid work on which they deserve congratulations —comment that the charity sector as a whole has an annual turnover of about £17,000 million. Its size was proved to me in a different way. Although I contacted only a tiny fraction of the voluntary and other organisations concerned, by Saturday lunchtime the replies I had received weighed three-quarters of a stone on the bathroom scales. Merely to make courteous mention of all those sources would take up half my time so I hope that your Lordships and all those who wrote will accept that I must rely on distillation rather than quotation. However, I record my warm thanks to all who wrote. In case it is necessary, I record my interest as president, chairman or trustee of half a dozen charitable voluntary organisations. I do so with great modesty as most of your Lordships will have taken on far more than I have.
One cannot cover everything from art to zoology or, indeed, from creche to hospice in a single speech so that my trawl for information is focused on those parts of the sector concerned with welfare issues. Other noble Lords will address other subjects.
Speaking to the Charities Aid Foundation—CAF —conference exactly a year ago, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"Voluntary action … improves the lives of those people that are helped, and in so doing I believe it also fulfils the lives of those people who do the helping".
As I shall have time for only a few words on volunteering, I hope that your Lordships will realise that that thought is fundamental to everything that follows, as is his recognition later in the speech that:
"Charities are not the sticking plaster of the welfare state. The activities of volunteers should be seen as part of the very cement that binds our society together".
Beside those two quotations I should like to place a third:
"Vigour and abundance of voluntary action … individually and in association with other citizens, for bettering one's own life and those of one's fellows, are the distinguishing marks of a free society".
That quotation, which I also heartily endorse, was from the third Beveridge report, Voluntary Action. Although it was written in 1948, I believe that the party opposite still accepts it. Therefore, it reveals the extent of the ground common to all Members of your Lordships' House. We can all welcome the finding by the Volunteer Centre in 1991 that the number of volunteers in the United Kingdom has risen to some 23 million. They turn in as many as 100 million man hours and woman hours every week.
That is the hallmark of a free society. We should help others in need of it. We are doing that. A government initiative which we can applaud today is the Charity Know-How Trust. The cash for it is found

229
from a group of charities and it receives a matching grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is supported by CAF and is helping to found an independent voluntary sector in Central and Eastern Europe.
If Eastern Europe offers opportunities, Western Europe offers problems. One is the Community's draft legislation on data protection. Can my noble friend confirm that that would curtail a charity's ability to appeal by post and whether any other country has supported our objection to it?
As regards the United Kingdom, the Home Office paper named in the Motion reports the number of charities to be rising and that in 1990 it stood at about 171,000. It analyses the amount and sources of their income. The CAF survey, Individual Giving and Volunteering in Britain, elaborates on those figures and brings them up to date.
While a major consultant in the field—the Chapter One group—contests the CAF findings on the basis of experience with the larger charities, there is wide endorsement of its conclusions from those from whom I have heard in the voluntary sector.
Those findings are that 80 per cent. of the population gave something to charity in 1987. That dropped to 74 per cent. in 1989–90, the year in the Home Office paper, and recovered to 76 per cent. (still 4 per cent. below the 1987 figure) in 1990–91. Total individual giving is expressed, since the survey uses inferential statistics, in bands with a 95 per cent. probability of accuracy. The band for 1987 was £2.6 billion to £3.9 billion. It peaked in 1989–90 at £3.4 billion to £4.3 billion but fell in 1990–91 to £4.3 billion to £3.5 billion.
Comparing the mid-band points of the past two years, they show an overall fall in individual charitable giving of £300 million. That is a large figure, and an easy one to remember as it is precisely the sum said to be lost to the sector in irrecoverable VAT, to which I believe my noble friend Lord Limerick will refer.
The important matter is that in real terms the value of that income had fallen by over 16 per cent. As regards corporate giving, Charity Trends, another CAF publication, shows total support to have risen slightly in cash terms between 1989–90 and 1991–92, but in real terms it fell by 5.3 per cent.
We come to our subject against that background. There is a declining value of 5 per cent. in corporate and 16 per cent. in individual giving. That decline is from a level already strikingly lower than that achieved in the United States. There is an urgent need to raise public awareness of, and commitment to, charitable giving in this country. That requires the sort of campaign which the Windsor Group of charities was convened to manage. The members of the group have made a substantial cash commitment to it but the effective campaign which is urgently needed cannot be mounted without government backing. Will the Minister please tell the House what response the Government have given to the Windsor Group's request for help. Does not their response to the Know-How Trust provide a very apt precedent?
If we are to understand what is going on in the voluntary sector now, we need to see what has led up to it over a longish period. Throughout the 19th century private people, alone or with others, were identifying newly recognised needs and meeting them with newly devised services; for example, setting up schools, hospitals, asylums and so on. They were all designed, in the words of the Prime Minister, to improve the lives of the people they helped.
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, in the first great transfer, the state recognised those needs and either took on the services from private pioneers or reinforced them with massive provision of its own. In the last quarter of the current century we are witnessing, in the second great transfer, a passage of an increasing proportion of those services, not to the kind of private individuals who pioneered them but to their collateral heirs and successors in hospital trusts, on governing bodies of opted-out schools and in the voluntary sector more generally.
That nearly circular journey has been a long one. In it a good deal has been gained in the way of technology, savings of scale and standardisation and not least from the increase in volume which results in harnessing the resources of the state. Those gains are, generally speaking, quantifiable.
There have also been losses and they, though important, are not easily quantifiable: losses such as the immediacy, individuality and flexibility of response of smaller institutions; the simplicity and speed of their transactions; the institutional loyalty and clarity of purpose that spring from direct personal relationships and wither among the adversarial structures of large managements and enormous workforces; and the greater speed with which larger numbers of smaller organisations can identify and establish best practice, simply by reason of the greater diversity of their approaches, even when they do not compete.
The justification of the first transfer—to the state was the gains I have listed; the justification for the second—from the state—is the recovery of the losses caused by it. We must ensure that in recovering the greatest possible number of losses we lose the minimum number of gains. It is because I believe we are at risk of achieving less than this that I have tabled this Motion.
The transfer now in progress is being conducted under the influence of the conditions of the day, and of two in particular. The first is the recession, which puts pressure on a Government already committed to limiting public expenditure to restrict it still further. It is essential that we do not forget that the justification for this second transfer is to recover the losses suffered in the first. Most of those do not entail cost benefits and cannot deliver savings to the PSBR. If the process of transfer is captured by the intention to save tax payers' money and if the result is a reduction of volume, particularly if it is without the unquantifiable gains I have listed, we shall have kept most of the bath water and tipped the baby down the drain.
The second condition lies in the process by which the way we look at things changes and by which those changes alter the way in which we arrange our affairs.

231
That process has now, I hope, reached its furthest swing towards materialism, in which we describe everything as a market and organise everything as a business.
But the inheritance which the Government received in the first transfer was not from companies seeking profit. It was from individuals who forwent profit in order to improve the lives of the people they helped. It was right for my honourable friend Michael Jack to tell this year's CAF conference that,
"the Government want the taxpayers' money to work harder".
So do we all. We are taxpayers too. But if the systems and practices introduced by the transfer work in ways which limit the immediacy, individuality and flexibility of response of the voluntary organisations, they will destroy the justification for making the transfer in the first place.
A prominent feature of that transfer is the establishment of contracts between central and local authorities on the one hand, and voluntary organisations on the other. The term "the contract culture" is now freely used in the sector. Contracting does offer advantages. The process of negotiating terms involves the parties in discussions in which the sense of partnership that we are seeking can develop and flourish. Beyond that, the advantage of contracts for authorities is that they can provide clear statements of the service bought and the standards contracted for. Put at its strongest, this means that it gives them a degree of control over the organisation.
The attraction of contracts for the voluntary organisations is that they provide certainty of income over a period. The duration of that period is important. Voluntary organisations live too much from hand to mouth. They, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the same speech,
"like businesses, need stability to enable them to plan their activities and their future".
He thus endorsed the Efficiency Scrutiny's welcome recommendation of a contract period of up to five years.
But it is not only the duration of the period, it is how it ends that matters. I know of two cases—the ITS in 1990 and the Maternity Alliance in the current year—where the Department of Health, as a major funder, announced a substantial reduction of funding after the start of the financial year in which it took effect. There may be other cases, at local as well as national level. My third request to the Minister is an undertaking that this really deplorable practice will cease in central government and be severely discouraged by it in local authorities.
I am sure that the proper system for major contracts is to use rolling contracts of not less than three years, reviewable every year. Then, even if the review takes a year, which sadly does happen, there will still be time for 12 months' notice and proper preparation for change. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that in this context, and in all others, a major contract is one that is of major importance to the voluntary organisation. In the eyes of the authority that may be tiny—indeed, it often is—and hence the cavalier treatment which voluntary organisations sometimes receive.
That system will not only help voluntary organisations to deliver a good service to clients, it will help to offer a little more security of career to their salaried staff who, in my experience, work tirelessly and with enormous dedication for less that they could get in the rest of the market. I pay tribute to them —as should your Lordships —for without their dedication the work of literally millions of volunteers and all the benefits which they generate will be lost.
But there are other risks with contracts. First, a voluntary organisation that contracts as the sole provider of a service to an authority and delivers the whole of its output under that contract becomes, in effect, no more than an agent of the authority to which it is contracted. It is under its control and subject to its policies. That does not disseminate the authority's function to the sector; it extends the authority's power over the sector.
Secondly, where the whole of a voluntary organisation's output of a service is under contract to an authority, even where others do also provide the same service, unless the contract is carefully and liberally drawn, it surrenders the freedoms to vary the service, to innovate and to experiment. But those freedoms are central to the purpose of the transfer and for which it was undertaken.
In another part of his speech, my honourable friend Mr. Jack, the Minister, said:
"I recognise that some within the voluntary sector are uneasy about developments in the contract field".
He explained that by adding:
"They have not got used to the jargon".
My next request is that my noble friend will explain to Mr. Jack that it is not the jargon that worries us but the culture.
Good contracts used in moderation can benefit the sector, and therefore its clients. But careless, illiberal or excessive contracting can do great damage to both, and is dangerous.
I said a moment ago that one of the attractions of contracting for central and local government was that it gave them a measure of control over the activity of the sector. The instinctive wish to exercise control may be weak in Ministers and council leaders, but it is strong in officials at both levels. One can understand its attractions. But if this transfer is to be successful it must maintain independence and flexibility in the sector.
In days of boom one might hope that that independence could be guaranteed by private sector funding. In days of recession it cannot. If we accept that the objectives of much of the voluntary sector are not only compatible with, but largely the same as, those of Government—and it is very hard not to—it follows that the Government have a duty to see that the sector remains at least as effective as it now is and, for reasons I hope I have explained, that voluntary organisations retain their autonomy within it.
That cannot be achieved by a reduction of government support to the sector at exactly the time the recession is both reducing income from all other sources and increasing the demands put upon it. Neither can it be achieved by contracting alone. That is why the speedy withdrawal of core funding in favour of contracting, never admitted by government

233
but constantly attested to by practitioners in the field, must be reversed. My third request is that my noble friend the Minister will impress that on the voluntary service unit in his own department. That unit has a crucial part to play. The voluntary sector operates in almost all departmental areas of responsibility and the policy of each of those departments affects it closely.
If I detect from the Opposition Chief Whip that I am over time, then I say that I understood that I had 20 minutes in which to speak.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, 15 minutes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case I shall conclude with some regret and hope that I shall have time at the end. I request that the Minister informs the House of the composition of the ministerial group chaired by my honourable friend Mr. Jack; the terms of the mission statement of the voluntary service unit and the numbers and grades of the staff assigned to it in his department and attached to it from other departments.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod has sadly fallen and is unable to be present, I hope that your Lordships will be able—with much regret and good wishes to her —to use the time that she has vacated to make good my error of judgment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating the debate on this important and interesting topic, not least because it gives me the opportunity to speak about one of the few topics of which I know a little. I rise with some trepidation to make my first speech in your Lordships' House because, unlike most of your Lordships, my expertise, such as it is, is rather unspecific. I have spent my academic career teaching and writing about political philosophy and ideas. If my party had needed a spokesman on Plato, Aristotle, Kant or Hegel, I believe that I might have been of more immediate use to it than I currently am. I am sure that I have a great deal to learn from your Lordships about the practical aspects of public policy.
William Beveridge defined the sphere of voluntary action in the following way:
"To do things which the state should not do … to do the things that the state is most unlikely to do … to pioneer ahead of the state, to make experiments and to provide public services which could not be got by paying for them".
So the central issue is the relationship between the state and the community in many ways. During the past 15 years or so we have seen a gradual decline in the degree of consensus about what the state should and should not be doing and thus of the context within which voluntary work should be undertaken and the kinds of needs that it should meet.
The government of the noble Baroness Lady Thatcher, the underlying principles of which were given powerful expression in the writings of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, in the 1970s have, I believe, led all parties, for good or ill, to a reconsideration of the nature of the state and in particular the role of the state in the provision of welfare.
234
I come to the present debate with a very strong conviction that welfare, including health care, education and social security, is a basic right of citizenship which should be provided as fairly and as equally as possible to all citizens in the same way so that we try to secure their welfare rights as well as their civil and political rights. In the light of that I welcome the Home Office document's assertion that the encouragement of the voluntary sector should not be at the expense of, or be seen as an alternative to, public provision.
I say that because in the 1980s there were many siren voices in the think-tanks, such as the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute, influenced by American social policy theorists such as Charles Murray, who were arguing for the wholesale privatisation of core areas of the welfare state. That would inevitably have meant that the voluntary sector would have had to play a much more central role in basic welfare provision than I believe could possibly be justified. The point about the voluntary sector is just that it is voluntary and thus it has to be discretionary and cannot be universal in aspiration and in scope in terms of the needs it seeks to satisfy. "From each as they choose to each as they are chosen" may be the central philosophical foundation of voluntary action, but it cannot be a legitimate principle in terms of which to distribute the basic goods, meeting the common needs of society.
Nevertheless it behoves those of us who take this view of welfare to formulate some kind of philosophy of the voluntary sector which sees a central place for it even within an entitlement-based view of welfare. In the time remaining to me I just want to mention a few features of voluntary organisations which it seems to me should provide an indispensable place for the voluntary sector. The first has to do with the idea of community. An entitlement approach to welfare has the strength of providing for people's needs in a universal and predictable way, but nevertheless it can be impersonal.
Perhaps here I may quote a short passage from an important book by Michael Ignatieff called The Needs of Strangers. This is a book which has also provided the title of a report on the future of the voluntary sector published recently by Gresham College. Ignatieff says this:
"People have needs and, because they live within a welfare state, these needs confer entitlements—rights to the resources of people like me. Their needs and their entitlements establish a silent relationship between us. As we stand together in line at the post office, while they cash their pension cheques, some tiny portion of my income is transferred into their pockets through the numberless capillaries of the state. The mediated quality of our relationship seems necessary to both of us. They are dependent on the state, not upon me, and we are both glad of it. Yet I am aware of how this mediation walls us off from each other. We are responsible for each other, but we are not responsible to each other"
in the welfare state.
The question though is, while this may be the absolutely necessary means by which basic needs are met in a complex society, it cannot be a basis for community even though it is a necessary condition for one since it is so abstract and mediated. The voluntary sector has a central role to play as a counterweight to

235
the impersonal function of the welfare state. The welfare state has its central virtues of equity, justice and fairness, but these are impersonal virtues which need to be complemented by the more discretionary virtues which voluntary action embodies. Each is necessary. One cannot replace the other.
Secondly, I think it is the case that people living in many of the most deprived areas in our society feel deeply alienated from the state, partly because of the deprivation which they experience, and as a result of that I think there are many of the agencies of the state where the social workers or social security officers may not be able to help them effectively to build up a sense of their own worth and self esteem. I suspect that the voluntary sector may have a central and crucial role to play in helping a sense of reintegration into a society which promises most people so much but can equally so effectively marginalise its less successful.
Thirdly, I believe that the voluntary sector can be more innovative than either state agencies or local authority bodies. It is in this context that I want to enter one caveat about the Home Office document, and in many ways I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. First,—and I shall be brief about this—I strongly agree with the point that the noble Lord makes about the contractual culture. I think that the idea of target setting and monitoring may well destroy precisely the innovative capacity of the voluntary sector that is so important to it.
Further, there is the commitment to funding those agencies which accept prevailing ethical standards. I am a little worried about what interpretation is to be put on that. Given the Government's view about maintaining family values, would they fund, say, a refuge for battered wives? It is that kind of issue that needs addressing. Finally, there is a danger that the contractual method of the voluntary sector may become an agency of the state, which will precisely destroy all those virtues that I have tried to explain give the voluntary sector an indispensable role in a welfare society.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I am fortunate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and to be able therefore to be the first to congratulate him on his admirable maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear him on a number of other subjects. He said that he was not an expert on the things that affected this House but we know that he is, and I hope that we shall hear him often. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating the debate. I am somewhat embarrassed by the late start of the debate because I have to leave at a quarter past eight for an appointment for which I must not be late. If I miss some of the Minister's reply I shall read it with the greatest of care.
I should like to talk about voluntary work in the field of conservation because that is the field I know best having chaired the National Trust for nearly nine years. The trust is a major example of the contribution made by the voluntary sector to the public good. Of course there are other important players in the field both in the man-made and the natural environment, but the trust must be the largest conservation society
236
in the world both in terms of the size of its holdings —more than 200 houses open to the public and half a million acres of beautiful landscape held for public enjoyment in perpetuity—and in terms of support. There are over 2 million members providing some £50 million a year subscription income alone, quite apart from the donations that they make to specific projects.
A feature of the trust's work that is especially relevant to this debate is the involvement of volunteers. The chairman of the trust, Lord Chorley —who was not able to be here this afternoon but would no doubt have told you this himself if he had been—told the annual meeting of the trust the other day that there were 23,000 volunteers last year, young and old, who put in one and a quarter million hours of work, equivalent to the hours worked by just over a quarter of the trust's permanent paid staff. It is an impressive figure and an encouraging one. He gave some examples of the work. There were 7,000 room stewards signing up for the season; over 500 professional volunteers such as surveyors, safety experts, archaeologists, insurance experts and so on. Then there is all the money that groups raise for the trust, as well as the ACORN camps which work on footpaths, fencing and so on in the Lake District and elsewhere.
How amazed the founders of the trust 100 years ago would have been to see the support that their ideals have engendered 100 years later. They of course were typical of the type of people in the late Victorian age who had strong social consciences and got together to found what had developed into very large charitable organisations. In the last century most of education, hospitals, savings and many other basic needs were primarily and sometimes exclusively served by voluntary organisations. But as the 20th century progressed the state began to do more, and of course much private philanthropy of the 19th century has been replaced in this century by business philanthropy, so that there are now really three providers of many of our social needs: the state, commercial enterprise, and enterprise of a non-profit making kind, a voluntary kind. We have, as it were, a triangular partnership.
In the field of conservation the state is represented not only by the Department of the Environment but by the two bodies funded by the Government, English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, brilliantly lead until his recent retirement by my noble friend Lord Charteris, to whom we all ought to feel, and do feel, a great debt of gratitude because as its first chairman he set it on its way 12 years ago. Both English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund were closely in partnership with the National Trust. It has been a pretty spectacular partnership over recent years, first, for historic houses that have come to the nation such as Kedleston, Canons Ashby, Calke, Belton, Castle Coole in Northern Ireland, Sheringham, Chastleton, to mention only a few, and some superb countryside such as Abergwesyn in South Wales, Kinder Scout in the East Midlands, Studley Royal in Yorkshire, the historic park at Dynevor in

237
Wales, Stowe landscape garden, and of course many coastal acquisitions under the Neptune scheme, acquisitions in the Lake District and so on.
Sometimes the partnership does not bring it off. The case I have in mind is Pitchford Hall in Shropshire, a house of great antiquity. It has no artistically very important contents but has all the historic interest and charm of a house with its accumulation of contents over many hundreds of years. The trust could not raise the money in the time available but English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund produced a scheme to rescue it within their resources. They were overruled by the Government. There is no point in having quangos if they cannot establish their own priorities within the resources allocated to them. They should determine their priorities. That case was a failure but on the whole over the past 20 or 30 years the system has much more often succeeded. The National Heritage Memorial Fund in particular has proved to be a priceless weapon in the fight to preserve our historic and natural heritage.
What of the future? The greatest contribution that the Government can make is to recognise that in the case of historic houses the private owner, whether his family has been in a house for generations or whether he has just bought it, is, if he can make a go of opening to the public, probably in this field the most valuable voluntary worker of all. Nobody recognises that more than the National Trust itself which has no ambitions ever to be more than a longstop.
I urge the Government to do more for the private owner who lets the public in on the grounds that it is the cheapest and, as many of us including the National Trust think, the best way of harnessing the voluntary sector to this goal. Fiscal help in the form of allowing maintenance funds, under the right conditions, not to pay tax and the removal of VAT on repairs to historic buildings to which there is adequate public access are the two steps for which this lobby is calling. I am entirely on their side. It is the only way that we shall achieve it. That would be the best form of partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector if we are to preserve this part of our heritage in the years ahead.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I want, though very briefly, to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Elton and I apologise for the commitment that will prevent me from staying right through the debate. I am glad to pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. He and I have an overlap of interests: perhaps an overlap of points of view; but certainly plenty to debate. I look forward to reasoning with him and arguing with him in this House from time to time.
I hope that he will recognise in what he said about the universality of provision within the social services that that universal approach has to be very carefully shaped and reshaped from time to time to protect the spirit of self-reliance on the part of those who need the provision, and the motivation of those who provide
238
the service. He will remember that Beveridge emphasised the need not to destroy the self-reliance of the population and to preserve both the work ethic and the voluntary spirit.
I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who speaks with passion and with experience of the needs of conservation, conservation which serves the interests, the sense of wonder, the education and the culture of the people of the country. I turn from the buildings that are part of conservation to the people for whom conservation is important, though I marvel, as I think we all do, at the scale, the variety and the dedication of the voluntary services. There will always be new needs and new enthusiasms on top of all the existing needs, but who can doubt that some of the human miseries with which voluntary services try to deal flow from one particular cause. It is a cause on which I have spoken to your Lordships before. The cause is inadequate parenting at all levels of income and education.
The House flinches from this subject because of its inherent delicacy and difficulty, yet I urge again that the subject be taken seriously. Of course inadequate parenting cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced. The way to reduce it which lies open to our own efforts is through voluntary services. I should like to tell your Lordships that following a debate in this House only a few months ago the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Council for Education Development have been in touch with me. We are very diffidently exploring the prospects for a few pilot projects in preparation for parenthood. Of course there are efforts going on all over the country —fragmented efforts—to provide something in the field of preparation for parenthood. We all know that it is a particularly difficult area in which to help which is made much more difficult by all kinds of current trends and all kinds of cultural influences. But if even marginally the extent of inadequate parenting could be reduced then all kinds of other fields of voluntary work would become less formidably large and hard.
I should like to speak briefly on the role of those voluntary bodies which on a large or small scale try to befriend families who want and need help in their own homes. Some of your Lordships know of my own enthusiasm for the work of Homestart which deploys nearly 4,000 volunteers. They provide about four hours of work a week in the home supporting families for an average of about 14 months. In that way they rescue nearly 20,000 children a year—fresh children each year—from what would otherwise be the prospect of family break-up and a life in care leading probably to criminality, addiction and all the other miseries.
I am talking therefore of truly radical voluntary work, work that gets at the root of later problems. If we can be less timid about trying to improve inadequate parenting where the help of voluntary services is welcome—I do not mean to impose it in any way—perhaps we can have some effect in reducing some of the other troubles that plague our society. I support my noble friend's Motion.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall not directly follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, except to say that the constituency I represented in Birmingham—Ladywood—was an inner city constituency. The Ladywood Inner City Partnership does work identical to that mentioned by the noble Lord. There are certain education problems which we all know have to be tackled but that part of Birmingham is benefiting from inner city partnership money and urban aid. However, one of the problems in trying to help the group of people to whom the noble Lord referred is that Government cutbacks on inner city aid programmes and inner city partnership money will lead to fewer resources for the voluntary organisations that are working so hard with some of the most difficult families.
I should like to concentrate upon the importance of recognising the fact that thousands and thousands of people get themselves involved in money-raising schemes in the country. They are not attached to any organisation; they are just there when the need arises. One of the most successful are those, like the one we have in Birmingham, in a children's hospital. When one has a famous operation on a child, everyone knows about it. The parents want to raise money to buy some fantastic machinery for the hospital in order to cure other young children. The snowballing continues with all such activities. Thousands of people are involved, either shaking collection boxes on a Saturday for worthy causes, organising fun runs or doing all kinds of things. In many cases, those people are the backbone of local charities.
Therefore, when I looked at the Home Office publication, I was somewhat disturbed to see that such people are called,
"ordinary men, women and children".
I do not call them ordinary men, women and children; I call some of them extraordinary. I took grave exception to the word "ordinary" being used to describe those people. Looking through the pages of the document, one can become a little worried when reading under "Awards for volunteering" that the
"Honours system, of course, reflects outstanding contributions by individuals in the voluntary sector".
I do not know whether the words "outstanding contributions" mean the number of man hours that people have given or whether it means substantial donations being given in order to get one's name on the Honours list.
I should point out that the title of the publication is The Individual and the Community and not The Individual and Society which is the subject of the debate as set out on the Order Paper. In it, we can see that training for employment is mentioned. When various departments are working together and we see the TECs taking up most of the resources, we must look at those organisations—such as the Rathbone Society, which is known to me, and others—which are losing out on TECs. They are training young people whom we now call "educationally backward". But they are experiencing extreme difficulties because they are losing out on that form of finance.
240
I thought that the report was a little dismissive about what young people do. I only know what young people in Birmingham do. If we are to have the sleep-out—of which I am part—for the young homeless in the city, we shall have literally scores of university students sleeping out all night on 4th December, as will Boys' Brigade lads and other young people.
We are very fortunate in the West Midlands to have another group of people. However, I am not sure whether this is general throughout the country. I refer to the West Midlands' fire service young firefighters. They do a tremendous amount of voluntary work. Part of their training is based on being good firefighters in the future; but the specific efforts that they make are helping in many ways. That has to be praised.
I turn now to trends in charitable giving. We must recognise the fact that one of the big charitable trends that have changed are the TV marathons. When they are taking a score of the money raised they say things like, "We have now reached half a million; let us have someone else!" There is much fun and enjoyment. Such marathons give out large sums of money to some of the smaller charities that are well known in particular areas.
If we are looking at trends in charitable giving, I should point out that "payroll giving" is enunciated in the document. As unemployment, and the large number of people on the dole has increased, can the Minister say whether the number of schemes has decreased? We see specific numbers. But, in view of the number of people who are not working now, has the practice of money being stopped out of one's wages-in other words payroll giving—diminished?
My next point follows on from the latter. I see that the Windsor Group is mentioned in the document. I have never heard of the group. However, as I come from Birmingham, that is perhaps not unusual. I do not know what it is. But if those involved can give any guidance to people outside of Windsor, London or anywhere else, we would be most grateful. One of the real problems faced by the three charities with which I am involved is that of establishing the practice of payroll giving.
Inner-city partnership will be very important in the future if it is to carry out government policy of working together. We cannot afford for charities not to know from year to year how to develop if they find that government funding is perhaps only done on a weekly, monthly or whatever basis.
I should like to conclude by referring to some words from the document, The Individual and the Community. It says that the Government cannot instruct people to give to charity but it can create the right climate to encourage them to give more. Would the right climate be that the Government should make increased efforts towards putting the unemployed back into jobs so that they could be giving more generously than they can at present?
6.56 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly calls attention,
"to the increasing importance of the work of voluntary agencies",
at a time when they are experiencing great difficulties. Those difficulties are mostly caused by under-funding, or at least lower funding than that to which they have been accustomed. Of course, the funding comes from the Government, from local authorities as well as from private sources. That lower funding comes at a time when there is increasing demand for voluntary services. I am speaking about all kinds of voluntary services, but I am especially interested in social and advisory services. The fact that they are being starved of funds is very largely due to the recession; it is not merely because less money is being given by the three main sources of funds, but also because there is very much more for the social and advisory services to do as a result of the recession.
One normally thinks of the poorer parts of the United Kingdom in regard to the need for social and advisory services. But now that is not necessarily so. Indeed, I am told that there is a steeper deterioration in some of the more affluent areas where unemployment has risen disproportionately and comparatively fast—quite apart from disaster areas such as the mining communities. Therefore, there is a double reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for raising the matter this evening.
I should like to say a brief word about local authorities. I am slightly worried about indications that one or two local authorities are not funding social and advisory services as they have in the past and are tempted to reduce their rates thereby. If that practice were to spread, it would give rise to an horrific state of affairs. It is most important that local authority funding should be kept high.
As my time is limited, I should like to concentrate on one area only of voluntary service; namely, that concerned with youth crime where the Government have expressly welcomed co-operation between the statutory and voluntary services. In particular, I should like to draw attention to intermediate treatment. The Intermediate Treatment Fund is struggling for existence after its funding has been tapered off, and is soon to be extinguished by the Department of Health which founded it, I believe, in 1978. It is sad that that should be so just as the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is being implemented. The success of its policy of keeping young people out of custody depends largely upon the provision of intermediate treatment centres which magistrates can use as part of their non-custodial sentences. Magistrates will find it much harder to work with the grain of the 1991 Act if facilities for non-custodial treatment are unavailable.
The Intermediate Treatment Fund also plays an important role in discovering, promoting and supporting IT schemes which successfully divert young people at risk and at their most vulnerable. There are other agencies that also do that. There are IT schemes funded by local authorities, but the most
242
active and innovative agency for the promotion of IT schemes is the Intermediate Treatment Fund which was a most important initiative introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he was Minister for Health. It has been continued until now by successive Ministers for Health.
The motive, apart from its intrinsic worth, is to reduce the number of young people who might otherwise drift into criminality. In its work, it is spot on in fulfilling the aims contained in the Prime Minister's speech at the Charities Aid Foundation conference in November 1991 which is incorporated in the publication which is the subject of today's debate. He said:
"We want more recognition of the needs of smaller, lower-profile organisations, the vital little battalions of the voluntary world; and we want more recognition of the contribution of volunteers".
The Intermediate Treatment Fund's staff with its accumulated experience, and the John Hunt Award Trust, have together performed just those functions. All over the country, intermediate treatment initiatives of the most imaginative and constructive kind have been actively sought out, promoted and developed. The funding has been put to exceptionally productive use, not just because of its intrinsic worth but because for every £1 in funding which the Department of Health has contributed, the Intermediate Treatment Fund has been able to raise no less than £5 from other sources. Such good value as regards such work is rare indeed. I hope that the savings generated by diverting young people from the huge cost of custody is money well spent. I hope that it will continue to receive official and private support.
I hope that the Government recognise good value when they see it and will be generous when the Intermediate Treatment Fund is relaunched next year under the dynamic new title of Divert under the dynamic leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I hope that I may have your Lordships' indulgence if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I must leave not later than 8.30 p.m. When I put my name down to speak, I thought that that would be comfortably beyond the latest time at which the debate was likely to end. Like others, I say to my noble friend Lord Elton how much we appreciate his choice of this subject for debate. It is a most important subject. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, on his maiden speech. As my noble friend Lord Joseph said, it was an interesting and thought-provoking speech. I hope that we shall have a mutual exchange of thoughts on these subjects on a number of occasions over the next months and years.
The strength and quality of voluntary organisations and work in this country is great. It is a precious asset and its scale and variety is something at which to wonder. It must be preserved. We must work constantly to ensure that it is increased and not allowed to diminish in quality or scale. We must put it to the best possible use. For a few moments that is what I want to make my theme. When one studies the booklet published by the Home Office, one can say

243
that over the past decade governments have done a great deal to strengthen the voluntary movement in what otherwise might have been difficult times. They have made it easier to give. They have encouraged giving and the use of voluntary bodies in a greater variety of ways. Over the past decade, governments on the whole can take credit for their stewardship of the voluntary movement. But I should like to see government becoming more pro-active and less reactive to ensure that we put the enormous voluntary effort to even better use.
I wish to illustrate my point by taking one example. I have the great honour and privilege of being the president of the Rainer Foundation. It is a post I took over from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who cannot be with us this evening. It was a great honour to take over from him. The Rainer Foundation has a number of particular points. First, it is probably unique in that it works for young people between the ages of 13 and 25. There is no break in the middle. The spectrum of children growing into full adulthood is continuous. Some of the troubles the services in this country have are caused by the artificial break when a child becomes a juvenile, a young adult and so forth. The Rainer Foundation works over the whole range. That is one of the reasons why it has been able to do such valuable work for so many years. It has been going for well over 100 years under one name or another.
The Rainer Foundation has three main purposes: the first is to reduce the severity and frequency of re-offending among those with which it works; secondly, to reduce the use of custody and remand into prison for juveniles and young adult offenders; and, thirdly, in doing that, to innovate and successfully to develop and constantly improve methods of treatment and to pass on its successfully developed techniques to other organisations, whether in the public or voluntary sector. Where it is successful, what it does can be done on a much larger scale than it is possible for one body to do itself, and nor should it. That is where I hope to see the Government becoming pro-active.
I talk about the Rainer Foundation as an innovator. To ensure that no one thinks that I am exaggerating, perhaps I might mention the fact that its most famous innovation was, of course, the probation service. It was a pre-war effort, but that is the spirit which continues to inspire it. I should like to give a brief summary of its record. We have managed a good many projects, often in partnership with the probation service. What has been most striking is the impact these projects have had on sentencing and apparently also, I am glad to say, in reducing the rate of recidivism among those whom we treat. For example, at the Juvenile Justice Centre in Southend custody was reduced by 70 per cent. in the first year of its operation. In Aylesbury, the Kingsbury Project, in partnership with the Buckinghamshire probation service, had a marked impact on Crown Court sentencing. Between 1987 and 1988, 37 17-to-20 year-olds were sentenced to custody. By 1990 this had dropped to 17, and last year it was only five.
However, it is not only the reduction in custody that has been achieved. Figures on recidivism have
244
also been encouraging. There is less than the normal amount of re-offending, and where re-offending occurs it is often much less serious than the original offences.
I could give your Lordships a number of examples, but I will only mention one more. At the Stone House Probation Hostel in Northampton, a study of 100 persons over a year demonstrated that only 46 became recidivists, compared with the normal 70 per cent. or 80 per cent.
I wish to say to the Minister that I hope the Home Office will look at those results and test the figures, if necessary. If that testing proves that the claims are substantial, perhaps the Minister will realise the precious gift he has in his hands to benefit young people, to reduce the amount of crime and to do both at much less public cost. That is where proactive investment will produce great social and economic benefits to our society. That is why I cry out for greater proactiveness.
7.12 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as one would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, initiated the debate in a highly expert fashion, basing his remarks on much dedicated service. His example has been followed by all other speakers, including my colleague Lady Fisher and the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I join in the warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I am glad that we heard the voice of political philosophy raised in this House; we do not hear enough of it. I gather that we shall hear more about Plato, Hegel, Kant and even Karl Marx. It was always a question when I was at Oxford as to whether Marx was a philosopher. No doubt we shall have enlightenment on such matters in time to come but today we were much impressed.
It was interesting to find so many references to Beveridge, as he is now called—William, later Lord Beveridge. I worked with him for three years as his personal assistant, I had joined the Labour Government in a humble capacity when work on voluntary action started. I did my bit, I made a speech in 1949 on behalf of the Labour Government. I was assisted with much of it by Mr. Herbert Morrison and in it I declared that voluntary action was the life blood of democracy, without it democracy loses its soul. I do not know whether people think that there are more eloquent things to be said about it today or subsequently; I reserve my opinion. At any rate, today we are concerned not with the past, not with words, but with deeds.
Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I have been concerned in many forms of voluntary action. I have often mentioned the Matthew Trust, the New Horizon Centre for the Young Homeless which I founded with others; the New Bridge for ex-prisoners which again with others I founded and over which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, now presides. He has been a good deal more successful in getting money from the Home Office than I was in the early days. When we started, the Home Office put it about that we were a homosexual set up. When it was pointed out that I had eight children, they said, "Oh, we know all

245
about that. It's just cover"! At any rate, in these latter days they are much more helpful, although perhaps not helpful enough.
I wish to concentrate in these few minutes on a smaller organisation. I have been much impressed by the talk of thousands of people being helped by this or that movement, and of course all credit goes to the people who run those immense establishments. However, I am thinking today of the Effra Trust which may or may not be known to your Lordships. There is no organisation that I personally admire more in the field of social work than the Effra Trust, and no individual that I admire more in that connection than the lady who presides over it, Mrs. Jane Branston. There are several units; but the one that I know best, has 26 of the most difficult people to cope with that one could find anywhere. They are ex-offenders who have committed serious offences and who are so mentally disturbed that it is considered that they qualify for residence in an Effra home.
The Effra Trust tries to persuade them all—successfully, in my experience—that these are their homes. Some of them have been there as long as eight years, some people have died in one establishment that I have visited. There is no doubt at all that the trust is giving a wonderful service, if only because these unfortunate people would otherwise be let loose on the public and who knows what would happen.
I find it immensely inspiring and recommend noble Lords to pay them a visit. I hope they will do so in the near future because under the Government's financial rearrangements, there is a serious danger that in 18 months the Effra Trust will be compelled to fold up. I cannot go into the financial arrangements which may produce that, but it is a real threat. At any rate, that is how it seems to the devoted people running the trust.
I do not expect the noble Earl, when he replies, to say anything positive on the matter—I gave him a few minutes' notice before the debate started—but I hope he will promise to look carefully at the situation of the Effra Trust. These people are the most difficult in the country, they have found a home there and it would be an absolute outrage if the Effra Trust were wound up. It would only be because the finance which had previously been forthcoming was no longer available. I hope that the noble Earl will make sure that that outrage does not occur.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, we are all obliged to my noble friend Lord Elton for initiating this timely debate. He has been my friend for more years than either of us would care to be reminded of, starting in the distinctly non-noble years. We are currently associated in various endeavours in the voluntary sector. I now have to do what I hate. Six months ago I accepted an evening engagement which could not be altered and I shall therefore be obliged to leave before the end of the debate, for which I apologise to the House.
My noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, among others, have drawn
246
attention to evidence that the voluntary sector is alive and well. Recently I was engaged as treasurer of the Royal Marsden Hospital Cancer Appeal in helping to raise £25 million in a rather unfavourable climate. The individual efforts which contributed a good part of that amount were beyond praise.
I wish to start with a general point. The Government's acknowledgement of the role and importance of the voluntary sector is to be welcomed as exemplified in the many constructive interfaces and specifically in the fresh look taken in their paper: The Individual and the Community.
Inevitably, in a short intervention I shall speak to issues where the situation is, at least to my perception, less than perfect. But I would not like that to detract from the recognition of so much which is good and supportive, both of the voluntary sector in general —to the annual tune, we are told, of £2.4 billion—and also specific causes within the sector.
I turn to a specific but major area and that is the poor of London. Some 101 years ago the City Parochial Foundation was created by Act of Parliament to address the needs of those people, initially with a few thousand pounds. Today it has annual donations of around £10 million. For the past 20 years I have been a trustee of that body, as a Crown nominee, and earlier this year I became chairman. Naturally our centenary history, an eminently readable account by Victor Belcher—I commend that history—was required study. Comparing that history with the thrust of the Government paper, one is struck by an evident paradox. In the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, as my noble friend Lord Elton has remarked, the voluntary sector reacted to crying perceived needs not then regarded as the concern of central or local government, and addressed itself directly to meeting them. As the provision of social security and basic health came to be assumed by government, the role of the voluntary sector remained to identify new needs and often to get those needs adopted for public funding.
Now we have an apparent contradiction—in part at least. The question I ventilate here is whether the cart may now be put before the horse. The Government paper proclaims that dedicated individuals and groups can act flexibly and that they can spot and fill gaps in provision quickly. That is a good observation as that is the traditional role of those groups and they have performed it well. However, one detects some role reversal here. If voluntary organisations are to be service deliverers, their funding base has to be secure. However, it is becoming less and less secure.
A climate of uncertainty and even confusion exists. The Department of Health, for example, has announced it will now limit its Section 64 grants for core costs to five years. Traditionally trusts have started new work, so what do voluntary organisations now do? They are encouraged to look to "other sources". What are those other sources? Other sources can only mean local authorities, companies, individual donations or charitable trusts. In the case of the nearly 2,000 organisations funded by the City Parochial Foundation and the Trust for London in the past five years, the money raised from companies and

247
donations was negligible. Local authorities increasingly were unable to pick up trust funding. Indeed some authorities warned us not to encourage voluntary endeavour because they could not take it on. Therefore we are forced increasingly to become core funders ourselves. It is this role reversal that I question.
On the one hand, it is hardly likely that government, local or central, will go out looking for problems, the amelioration of which is bound to cost a substantial sum of money, in the way that the voluntary sector does. On the other hand, when the voluntary sector in its traditional role identifies such urgent needs, or indeed if these needs emerge from projects which may be core funded by government departments, there are realistically no other sources than government to pick up substantial costs. In the present climate for fund-raising, charities are less rather than more able to respond in real terms. I believe that that question needs to be thought through more than it appears to have been thought through so far.
That brings me to the matter of the Trust for London, a sister body to the City Parochial Foundation. Again I declare an interest as chairman of the trustees. The Trust for London made its first grants in 1988. On the initiative of my honourable friend Sir George Young, its £10 million endowment came from the proceeds of asset disposal on winding up the GLC. Wonders have been performed—we have a report to support this—using the annual income of around £700,000 for the whole of London in responding to needs and inspiring action at the micro-level in the very poorest districts and communities in London, often with ethnic minorities. The benefit is out of all proportion to the cost, as illustrated in the report.
How can that good work be extended? It can only be done by an increase in the endowment. I am in touch with my honourable friend Sir George Young, who is now happily back at the Department of the Environment, to see how this might be achieved. Clearly it makes sense to apply the proceeds of surplus asset disposals in London to the lasting benefit of poor Londoners by adding to a capital fund rather than distributing to boroughs in very temporary relief of revenue constraints.
I conclude with a brief reference to a subject that was flagged by my noble friend Lord Elton and that is the burden of VAT. I cannot quantify that burden as no cost can be put on the use or misuse of the time of volunteers. I draw my information in part from the Institute of Export. I start from the position that the institute has to charge VAT on all its subscriptions. After years of argument with Customs and Excise, we have now established that 80 per cent. of subscriptions can be related to the cost of providing a journal and handbook to members and thus can be zero-rated. We do not ask to be exempt, thus losing offset on VAT inputs, but our present partially exempt status is an administrative nightmare. Every quarter we must undertake some two days' work on detailed analysis. Our director general has to sign a daunting declaration, any error in which could lead to a heavy
248
penalty. The end result is the repayment of a few hundred pounds. That sum is probably much less than the cost of calculation. One can multiply that cost across the country and contrast that attitude with the helpful attitude of the Inland Revenue towards charities.
I appreciate that VAT is a matter not entirely within our national control. I suspect that there may be some definitional overlap between this matter and the draft directive on freedom of information, to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred, as to whether the definition of companies in Article 58 of the European Community treaty extends to non-profit organisations and thence whether UK charities fall within its scope. Some relief from this VAT burden not only in cash terms but in terms of relieving those who administer charities, and who are seldom accountants, would be of incalculable help to the voluntary sector.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in his foreword to the document, the Prime Minister says:
"I believe that we in Britain can he proud that voluntary action is such a distinctive feature of our country".
I agree that we have many excellent voluntary organisations carrying out valuable work throughout the country. However, I read in some of the literature pertaining to this debate that the UK is the only country in Western Europe that asks no service from its young people. In Germany over 100,000 young people are engaged in service in hospitals, children's homes and old people's homes. In France, 16,000 serve in schools, medical centres and in economic development. A further 7,000 work in civilian defence, that is the fire and ambulance services, at home and on standby, to help tackle natural disasters in the rest of the world. Some 4,000 more work in disadvantaged neighbourhoods tutoring, providing after-school care and beautifying blighted environments.
Last Thursday I spent the day at Deerbolt Young Offenders' Institution in County Durham. The Catholic chaplain had organised a seminar with youth workers and some of the inmates so that the young people who had got into trouble could explore ways, with the youth workers, of how best they could be helped when they returned to their communities on being discharged. Many of the youth workers had never been inside a penal institution. Some were overawed when they visited the Legs—the units where the boys are accommodated—and the block.
Many of the offenders said when they left the institution that they became bored, were hassled by the police and then re-offended. They felt if they had a telephone number and a place where they could contact the youth workers, those youth workers could perhaps keep them on the right road and help them obtain an interesting occupation even if there was no employment to be found. They put employment at the top of their list of things to help them keep out of trouble. Co-operation between the statutory services and the voluntary sector, as the report rightly says, is

249
so vital. The youth workers felt co-operation from the probation service was vital if they were to be able to help these young offenders on the latters' discharge.
At Deerbolt the boys do voluntary work in the community, and that is excellent. The same is true of many other establishments. But there are thousands of young people getting into trouble. It would be far better for society if they did not offend in the first place. Should we not be looking at France and Germany, which seem to have an organised youth service? With the reorganisation of care in the community, does the Minister think that there is any hope of organising a scheme to give the multitude of young people something useful and productive to do? Would it not help care in the community if we had an organised community youth service, lasting for say a year or 18 months.
It is good to hear of voluntary work being done in prisons. Much talent is being locked up, and it is good to hear of Braille transcription being undertaken in prison to help the blind, and of other projects. I hope that the Minister will encourage such projects throughout the prison service. Helping less fortunate people is one of the best ways of rehabilitating prisoners.
I should like to give your Lordships an example from one of the voluntary organisations—and its funding—with which I am involved, the Spinal Injuries Association. This is a self-help group of people with spinal injuries who work to support the members, who have back and neck injuries, due to injury or illness, which have resulted in paralysis. We give information, provide holiday facilities, a counselling service, a legal advice service, and an emergency care service under which trained carers may go into a member's home for up to two weeks. We campaign for the correct treatment. We have produced a book called So You're Paralysed which has been translated into many languages and several other booklets on many different aspects of paraplegia.
Two of our specially adapted narrow boats were funded by Coral Racing and the other by the Young Farmers. Fund raising is an essential part of survival and is necessary in order for us to pay our excellent staff. We are supported by the racing industry, Heinz, British Coal, Bass and many others, including our members. The Bingo Association of Great Britain has raised £300,000 for the Spinal Injuries Association.
We have run an awareness campaign to try to prevent neck injuries being caused by diving. That has been sponsored by Barclays Bank. We are involved with an independent living project so that people who have become paralysed can be helped to plan their lives. That project is an example of the National Health Service—Stoke Mandeville Hospital—working with a voluntary organisation—the Spinal Injuries Association. It is sponsored by Rowntree, and it is run by an independent living adviser.
Voluntary organisations cannot sit back. They have to go out and find sponsors. In these difficult times of economic distress, voluntary organisations are very concerned when companies have to withdraw their support.
250
There are many people working in so many different ways to provide help. Many organisations have found that it is not easy having paid and unpaid staff working together, but one only has to look at the London Lighthouse, an AIDS project, to see how well that can work. The important factor is that volunteers should be given enough support and organisation so that they feel confident.
If care in the community is to be successful, the community needs training and encouragement to accept some of the people coming out of institutional care. If government departments do not monitor what is happening and give support when needed there will be a monumental muddle; but voluntary organisations must not lose their freedom.
I now have one minute in which to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for this very important and interesting debate and to congratulate the maiden speaker. I should also like to point out that next week is European Drug Awareness Week and that there are many things which need to be done in the voluntary sector. I hope that the Home Office and other government departments will look very carefully at the continuation of voluntary organisations. Otherwise, some of them will have to close down.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, this debate is surely timely, for the demands on the voluntary sector have never been greater. I should like to refer in a moment or two to Crisis, a leading charity for the homeless with which I have a personal involvement. But there is no doubt as to the general picture. Demands on the voluntary sector are continuing to rise. Social needs are bound to grow during a long and deep recession, but the ability of our society to respond by contributing money is diminishing. We all know how contribution levels grew during the 1980s but we now have a situation, according to the publication Charity Trends 1992, in which the level of corporate giving is diminishing in real terms, the level of individual giving is static, and the level of statutory contributions is also reducing. That means that there is bound to be a demand for money which cannot at present be met.
My own employer, NatWest, contributed close to £12 million to charitable causes in 1991. That record compares well enough with other large businesses, but we receive an enormous number of requests, no fewer than 10,000 so far this year. So we have to focus most of our support on financial education and financial literacy. In that way we can use money, skills and people in areas to which we can bring our own special strengths. However, the sad fact is that neither we nor other companies can anything like match the demands that people seek to make on us.
All of that highlights the importance of a number of points made in the publication The Individual and the Community. It is very reassuring that the Government do not see the voluntary sector as a cheap alternative to statutory bodies. Inevitably the voluntary sector sometimes feels that its actions may be regarded by the Government as a substitute for the discharge of those responsibilities which should properly fall upon the

251
state. It is important that the voluntary sector should be seen quite firmly as supplementing, not replacing, the responsibilities of the Government.
It is also timely that the report stresses the importance of partnership. With increasing demands and considerable restraints, it is vital that the voluntary sector and the statutory authorities should work together and harness their resources efficiently. Voluntary agencies and companies working in close partnership with statutory authorities can also help those authorities to monitor the effectiveness with which they use their own resources. I see that, too, as important.
Perhaps I may now mention briefly the work of Crisis, which was established some 25 years ago as Crisis at Christmas to help meet the needs of homeless people over the Christmas period. Since 1972 it has run the Open Christmas shelter, which last year provided accommodation and food for some 2,000 people in London over the Christmas period. But the homeless are with us all the year round, not just at Christmas. I am sorry that we shall not hear from my noble friend Lady Macleod who, with her late husband, was an inspiration for the creation of Crisis and remains closely involved with our work.
The work of Crisis has grown so that now it acts as a major agency for attracting funds which help to contribute to the financing of some 260 projects across the United Kingdom. Crisis distributed about £2 million last year, in some cases supplementing grants given by statutory authorities. That is one example of funding in partnership. Our responsibility to those projects is all the more sobering and important because of the move away from local authority core funding. That undoubtedly has the effect, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, of lessening stability and the ability of projects to plan on a sound basis.
Another example of partnership with statutory authorities was the cold weather shelter which Crisis ran with funding from the Department of the Environment. An unkempt building in Tooley Street, just south of the river from here, was transformed by 30 volunteers, working round the clock, into a short-stay shelter for the homeless. Crisis ran the hostel, largely through volunteers. It accommodated 300 people, 100 of whom were subsequently rehoused. That is most important. Short-stay shelter is no substitute for permanent housing, and co-ordination between the various agencies in this area is vital.
I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Housing, Sir George Young, who in spite of the constraints on the funds available to him seeks to understand and ameliorate the problems of homelessness. His constructive and sympathetic approach is a great asset. We hope that he will support the cold weather initiatives again this year. It will undoubtedly be much needed.
Crisis has diverse sources of funding: from the widow who gives £5, to schoolchildren who do a sponsored pilgrimage from Canterbury to London over an autumn weekend, and large companies that help with donations. But Crisis is still able to fund only about half the projects which apply for assistance. I quote Crisis as an example of a voluntary
252
organisation that seeks to use its talents flexibly. Those talents are largely the immense goodwill of many dedicated individuals whom we are able to bring together to help supplement what the Government do. I am bound to say that in some cases it substitutes its work for work which arguably in a perfect society the Government should be able to do.
Finally, perhaps I may stress how important it is that at a time of increased demand and diminishing resources the work of the voluntary sector should be well focused and cost effective. That drive for efficiency also means that charities need an effective management team backed by trustees who take their responsibilities as seriously as if they were directors of companies. That need is reinforced by the new Charities Act. I strongly believe that the voluntary sector has to be truly accountable if it is to command the commitment of individuals and volunteers and continue to make an enhanced contribution to improving social provision. I welcome the publication that we are debating and the opportunity given to us by my noble friend to talk upon this important topic.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I join those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for giving us this opportunity for today's debate. It has gone to the heart of the quality of our society. I join also in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Plant, on a distinguished, reflective and informed maiden speech in which he brought to bear his considerable learning and experience. It augurs well for what he will bring to the House in the years ahead.
In his introduction the noble Lord, Lord Elton, paid tribute both to the volunteers and to the staff of voluntary agencies. I am glad because I believe it is that unique combination that is very much the key to the genius of the voluntary sector. As noble Lords on all sides of the House will know, I have had the good fortune to spend a good deal of my working life in the charitable and voluntary sphere. One of the things I have come to admire is the professionalism of volunteers who are unwilling to put up with second best. The number of hours they spend on training and preparation to do their work effectively indicates how seriously they take the task in hand. We congratulate them on their professionalism, but what is very often overlooked is the voluntary effort of so many of the professionals. Not only do they take small remuneration; often they work hours way beyond what would normally be regarded as the call of duty. Having worked in that sphere I have come to recognise that a very special asset is the collective calibre and talent in the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom.
If we are to talk of the staff and volunteers and their relationship with government I hope we will not overlook the compassion, concern and generosity of the millions of spontaneous donors who make possible so much of the charitable work in this country. They donate not only money but frequently goods. If we are taking this issue seriously tonight I hope that one of the messages we send to those in government with responsibility for financial and tax affairs is that we must come to grips with the current

253
threat from Brussels to introduce VAT on voluntary effort. The prospect of VAT being imposed on donated goods is a nightmare. The value added to donated goods is the voluntary effort that goes into raising resources for charitable work. To see charitable activity of that kind taxed is totally unacceptable.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, spoke of the interface between the official and voluntary services. One point we have been making in various ways in the debate is that if we will the end we must will the means. If there is a significant place for voluntary organisations in our society the state must ensure that they are provided with the resources to take on those responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it is important in that context to watch what is said tomorrow with some care and attention.
Sometimes people have commented to me on the potentially close relationship between voluntary organisations, charities and the public sector. I am always worried when I hear that. I believe deeply in the role played by public administration. I want good public services and public administration in the society in which I live, but my view is that the role of voluntary agencies is in some ways much closer to the role of the private sector. The voluntary agencies are entrepreneurs but entrepreneurs of ideas, experimentation and initiatives in the interests of the disadvantaged in our society. It is that originality that we have to preserve.
One issue that I feel I must deal with is the prospect of a state lottery. I have never been quite sure where a banana republic begins, but I am fearful about a society that becomes unduly dependent on a state lottery for its cultural, voluntary and similar aspects of national life. It is a matter of balance. One of the things that worries people in the voluntary sector is the indication that a state lottery will attract money that would otherwise go to the voluntary sector and so penalise the voluntary sector. We need to think very hard about that.
Beyond that general point lies the more specific anxiety that at a time when we are talking about the importance of voluntary effort, and the initiative, spontaneity and decentralisation which should be a characteristic of voluntary activities, we will see a move towards centralisation as we set up cumbersome state apparatus to decide how the money raised in the lottery is allocated and where. I say to those making these plans that if we take seriously the spirit of voluntarism the potential contrast is quite sick. It is very important that those responsible take seriously the creative and original dimension of voluntary activities and, in working out how money is allocated, preserve the essence of voluntary effort and not just make it an adjunct of public administration.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing the debate and illustrate one or two points made by him. St. John Ambulance, with whom I am connected, has some
254
30,000 adult members and a further 25,000 cadets. Together they give about 4 million hours a year doing voluntary work on public duties. Eighty per cent. of public events are covered by the voluntary services of St. John Ambulance and many of them, like football, could not legally take place without first-aid cover.
Since we are now in the football and rugby season, it is appropriate to illustrate the voluntary sector's contribution to those major spectator sports. St. John Ambulance asks London clubs for a minimum donation of £11.60 per 1,000 spectators plus £75 for an ambulance and £120 if a mobile first aid unit is required. The figure is slightly lower for other clubs, and obviously some organisations for which we provide cover are able to be more generous than others. Donations from event organisers, therefore, do no more than cover running costs.
St. John Ambulance relies on its many loyal supporters to raise the balance of funds required. It costs £350 to train each volunteer. A modern ambulance costs £40,000 and a mobile unit is £60,000. Even basic first aid equipment, such as dressings, stretchers, etc., are provided by fund raising. A relatively small crowd can require about four St. John personnel. However the organisation will be providing four ambulances and 60 personnel for Saturday's match at Twickenham. A similar level of service provided by the NHS would be vastly more expensive; for example, whereas St. John Ambulance asks for a donation of £75 for the use of an ambulance, the charge for the use of an NHS ambulance on similar duties is at least £200. It is interesting to note too that each policeman on duty will cost the organiser of the event £85. Similar comparisons are easily provided for other sports such as cricket, tennis, racing, and for public events such as major agricultural shows, festivals, concerts, and so on.
Community care is an important field for co-operation between voluntary organisations and the statutory authorities. A study in 1985 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys identified around 6 million carers in Britain. The Family Policy Studies Centre has estimated that the cost of the service currently provided by those carers, even using a very conservative figure of £4 an hour, would be between £15 billion and £24 billion a year. The Department of Health has even run an experimental scheme to look at new ways in which the voluntary sector could provide support for carers. That is ample acknowledgement of the tremendous need.
Voluntary care covers many fields. I take one for my example: the care of older people. We live in an aging society and the number of people aged 85 years and over is rising dramatically. Fifty-one per cent. of carers are aged 45 to 64 years and 28 per cent. are over 64 years of age. The majority devote at least 50 hours a week to care. Many suffer considerable strain under the burden and many themselves are not fit. It is important that adequate provision is made to identify and support those often isolated members of the community.
For demographic and social reasons there is a decreasing number of able people available to meet the needs of the increasing number of carers, and I do

255
not refer only to those engaged with the elderly. It is a problem that needs further study. Increasing numbers of women now work either full or part-time. Families move to different parts of the country either because of, or in search of, employment. Thus the network of families in communities breaks down, often leaving isolated those in need of care.
An illustration of co-operation between the voluntary and statutory sector can be found in a charity called Counsel and Care, which provides nationwide an advice and information service for all older people and their carers. Over the years it has built up a comprehensive database of information, to the extent that one-third of the inquiries it receives comes from the social services department itself.
It is imperative that the tradition of offering service to others is nourished and maintained. There are many voluntary bodies which seek to encourage people, particularly the young, to offer their services to others. It is vital work to help ensure that there are willing, volunteer carers for the future. St. John Ambulance has chosen to rise to that challenge and will be launching a major Care in the Community initiative in April next year. However, there is a point at which such generosity of spirit and willingness to serve is not enough of itself, and I call upon Her Majesty's Government to consider carefully setting aside resources and funding to enable the voluntary agencies to provide their services in the efficient and cost effective way that those agencies and Her Majesty's Government would wish.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Elton for so eloquently introducing this subject and leading us into what has been a most interesting and helpful debate. I should also like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, on his admirable address. We look forward to hearing much more from such an extremely able addition to your Lordships' House.
The voluntary sector is very wide indeed. I wondered, when thinking about this debate earlier, whether it included your Lordships' House, bearing in mind the remuneration that noble Lords receive. I wondered also whether it spreads across the road to the Synod of the Church of England which met in Church House this afternoon and very narrowly gave approval to the ordination of women. I am not quite sure whether that is also part of the voluntary sector.
The theme that I should like to adopt from the Home Office report, which has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton and other noble Lords, is that of partnership. I read a sentence from page 7 of the report:
"The Government … seeks a free, vigorous and creative partnership with the voluntary sector, in which both parties can make their distinctive and valuable contributions".
I shall speak in particular on the theme of partnership between the voluntary sector and local authorities.
I first pick up on what my noble friend Lord Elton said about the risk of contracting, about which I am also slightly anxious. It can favour larger organisations to the detriment of some of the smaller ones
256
working in the field. I have the privilege to be president of an organisation called the Field Lane Foundation which, among other things, provides residential homes for the elderly. Currently there is tension between commercial efficiency and the low costs that the local authority (with which in every case we have very good relationships) quite rightly look for when they purchase a service. There is a tension between efficiency and the desire of the organisation to maintain its own purpose and aims. Following what other noble Lords have said, an example might be the amount of time that a carer is able to spend with a client.
Another aspect of contracting is the competitive spirit that is encouraged by offering contracts rather than grants. I am told that experience in the USA, in documents published by the NCVO, suggests that that can be very damaging to the nature of voluntary work and may reduce the incentive and opportunity for people to become involved. It is right that voluntary organisations should be both professional and efficient. Contracting needs to be watched.
The second need of the voluntary sector is stability at the present time. Again, the point about length of term of contracts was validly made by my noble friend Lord Elton. Voluntary organisations need stability and certainty to plan the services that they offer. They may want to expand, and develop and offer services to the local authority. They need to have stability. Voluntary organisations do not have large built-in reserves to tide them over changes. Therefore the whole matter needs to be thought through and planned carefully so that the voluntary sector knows its position.
I touch on the question of research, which is needed by many voluntary organisations to ascertain the demand for their services. It can be expensive and time-consuming for them. I suggest that local authorities should provide a comprehensive and freely available research service within their areas detailing the amount and location of need. That would save much time, energy and expense and it would enhance the partnership between voluntary organisations and the local authorities.
Finally, I refer to the partnership between different voluntary groups. I have encouraged Field Lane Foundation and other voluntary organisations with which I work to meet with other voluntary organisations to see how they can work together in particular in the community field. Can they help each other? Can they provide services together? That is another aspect of partnership which local authorities can encourage in their area. If local authorities can assist and support voluntary groups to work together it will benefit the outworking that everyone wants to see. It will be valuable in the community care field after next April. The theme of partnership which runs through the report needs to be expanded and strengthened at every level of voluntary work.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is no criticism of the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, but it is almost a cliche to say that what we see is partnership

257
between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. If there is to be real partnership, there has to be trust and understanding on both sides as to what is needed. I wish to underline as heavily as I can what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said, about the need for reliability and stability in the arrangements for funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that contracting is not always a satisfactory substitute for core funding. Every voluntary organisation that I know of always has difficulty in raising the money for core funding. Of course no one supports excessive administrative overheads. But one cannot mount any organisation without some office at the centre; and for that core funding is required.
In order to raise money from public authorities for core funding, the practice is to negotiate for a year ahead. I ask noble Lords to consider in more detail what that entails. The voluntary body has to make its plans. It takes time, and time is money. It has to have a date to see the public authority, the government department. That can involve a considerable wait. It has to negotiate with the government department. It has then to wait—sometimes for weeks—to hear where it stands. That body is then told that it has or has not been given a grant. Let us assume that it has been given a grant. By the time that money is in the bank, it has to start the business all over again. That is time consuming and extremely wasteful. The people who undertake such negotiations ought to be engaged on the professional work of running the organisation, and they are not. They are being deflected into unnecessary activities. I ask the noble Earl to take this question seriously.
Is it possible to have three-year contracts which will roll over? Yes, there will have to be reports at the end of each year, but it is stability that one needs. How can one run any business, large or small, from a sweet shop to ICI, unless one can rely on some stability on funding: what the money will be and how the funding will come in. Of course there will be variations. I implore the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to take the point seriously. Stability and longer-term funding are necessary so that the voluntary bodies do not have to waste so much time redoing the claims that they make and in the planning, talking, preparations, discussions and arguments.
Other factors arise in the negotiations. It would be nice if we could occasionally have the same people to deal with. I refer to the speed with which officials change. One meets with new officials whose knowledge of the subject is not always as great as it might be. An education process has to be gone through before the official understands what one is talking about. Unless one is lucky, by the next meeting, he or she has moved off. It would be nice to have some specialisation within the department so that the people with whom we deal are familiar with the subject and we could rely on them. We attain that relationship at times, but there is so much change that one has to keep starting the process all over again.
Of course we would all like to deal with only one government department. Government departments
258
are always telling us to get our act together. Would it not be possible for government departments to get their act together, so that we could deal with several departments at one go and not have to troop around from one office to another achieving a little support here and there, and then realising that, on occasions, one department is playing another one off. We are always told at the end of the day, "That will be all right but there is always the Treasury". Of course we never get anywhere near the Treasury, but departments will always use that reason as the excuse why one cannot receive what one thinks has been promised.
So much for relationships with government departments. That would help life a great deal. However, there is a bigger problem. We have to be careful that we do not destroy the very heart of voluntary organisations. Why are they valuable? They are valuable for their independence, their ability to initiate, and to stand up to governments and to tell governments where to get off. Not infrequently that is a very necessary job. If a voluntary body is 90 per cent. dependent on public money, how voluntary will it remain over the years? The important issues will never be raised because they will make it too difficult when it comes to negotiations on funding.
We need to look urgently at the future of voluntary bodies in this country. I believe that we need to have, as they have in the United States, a few powerful, well financed funds, trusts or foundations which are completely independent of government so that there are other sources to which to go. At present a number of private funds and trusts are listed in a thick book which costs £50. If we could have countervailing financing—I know that this is a long way off—away from government departments, then the independence of the voluntary sector could he maintained. If we do not have such financing, bit by bit the voluntary sector will become little more than a limb of Government administration and that would be a great loss.
I believe that a committee of your Lordships' House could with great advantage examine what ought to be done about the long-term development of the voluntary sector in this country. It is the kind of subject that we are good at dealing with. We have a great deal of experience in this Chamber. We know the value of government departments and the need for collaboration. But we also know the risks. Will the noble Earl give thought as to whether a committee of noble Lords might consider where the voluntary sector is going. Is it going in the right direction? If not, how can it be saved?
8.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it has been a fascinating and useful debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on bringing the subject before the House. It is one of those subjects which this House is well qualified to discuss. Everyone in the Chamber has been involved with the voluntary sector in some shape or form. The amount of experience and expertise displayed from all Benches within the past few hours has been remarkable.

259
The debate has also been remarkable for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield. It was a speech of high quality, if I may respectfully and humbly say so. It was clearly well thought out. It had considerable intellectual content. I look forward to a little Hegelian dialectic between my noble friend Lord Plant and the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, as to precisely where one draws the line between the activities of the state and of the voluntary sector. It is a prospect which I relish. I sincerely congratulate my noble friend upon the power of his speech. All who heard it will look forward to the opportunity of hearing him again.
The debate has provided us with an opportunity of drawing attention yet again to the valuable work of Britain's voluntary agencies. We also welcome the Home Office report which shows that the Government's attitude towards the voluntary sector is now more positive. This country has a proud tradition of providing help to those in need but lately the voluntary agencies have assumed an even greater role.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the other side of the coin is that many charities are beginning to believe that the Government are asking them to step into the role of providing as charities services which should be available to citizens as of right. For example, in the implementation of the Children Act the Department of Health has provided no less than £250,000 for training for the whole of the voluntary sector. I am told that Barnardo's alone spent £1.6 million in 1991–92 retraining its staff for that purpose. It is that type of relationship which I find disturbing. It exists not only in the example which I have given but in many other sectors.
We in this country have one of the largest voluntary sectors in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, used the word "awesome". I note that it is the noble Lord's birthday today; perhaps he will allow me to express our congratulations. The noble Lord used the word "awesome" in looking at the whole of the voluntary sector. The word is extraordinary and not inappropriate because the sight is awesome. The Charities Aid Foundation states that in 1990 171,434 charities were registered with the Charity Commission. Their total income is between £16 billion and £18 billion. In terms of employment the sector is 80 per cent. larger than the motor industry and the same size as the energy and water supply industries. The voluntary sector plays a most important part in our national life and we must safeguard its future.
There is evidence, however, that as the recession has deepened so the total income of all charities has fallen in real terms. That view was expressed by many speakers. The Charities Aid Foundation has found that during the past three years donations from large companies have declined and legacies to the top 400 charities have fallen. At the same time it is estimated that government grants fell by an average 5.5 per cent. per year between 1985 and 1990. While the amount the Government are willing to spend on fees may have increased, grants, and especially core funding grants, seem to be increasingly threatened. I strongly agree with what was said tonight about the importance of core funding. However good the objectives of the
260
organisation may be, however desirable and effective it may be, it cannot achieve them unless its core funding is guaranteed somehow or another.
I am concerned also that one result of the present economic background is that more charities are having to draw on their reserves in order to meet spending commitments. Barnardo's and the Spastics Society are in that position. Both have warned, rightly and inevitably, that that is only an interim position. They cannot continue to eat into their reserves merely to preserve the level of their present activities. Barnardo's is also faced with the position that the value of its assets is decreasing due to property devaluations. The effect of the recession is therefore proving to be extremely disquieting.
We on these Benches welcome the work of the Home Office voluntary service unit. It has made great strides in its liaison with, and its support for, the voluntary sector. I hope that tonight the Minister will comment on its future and the expansion of the unit's work.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there is a need for more co-ordination between government departments as regards voluntary agencies. On the one hand the Department of Health urges local authorities to support voluntary organisations in order to ensure the success of community care and child protection. On the other hand the Treasury and the Department of the Environment are squeezing local authority budgets and local authority expenditure. The left hand and the right hand need to work more closely together and move more in the same general direction.
I do not oppose a contract culture per se. That is a somewhat inelegant phrase but it appears to be part of the vocabulary used in this area of our national life. It can derive more certainty as contracts are usually for longer than a year but I wish to echo what I have heard from many speakers tonight. We do not want contracts to replace a commitment to core funding and we do not want voluntary organisations risking their independence to experiment and to be radical, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, wanted. They should be independent from government and from local authorities. Will a ruling be made soon on the question of VAT being chargeable on contracts when it is not chargeable on grants?
While we welcome the fine words of the Government on the high value of the voluntary sector —indeed, we echo them —we are concerned lest that commitment remains verbal only. The voluntary sector needs a number of things: it needs funding; it needs recognition of its valuable role in providing services which otherwise would not be provided; it needs VAT exemptions for local authority contracts; and, most of all, the Government must make it clear that they respect the independence of the voluntary sector. Contracts should not be awarded only to those charities which the Government find acceptable and perhaps acquiescent. Contracts should be awarded also, and perhaps in particular, to those which are more critical of government policies. Core funding must be safeguarded as it is not at present.
8.17 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing the subject for debate. His knowledge of, and interest in, so many parts of the charitable and voluntary sphere are well known. Although the debate is described as a "short" debate it has enlisted a formidable array of knowledgeable speakers. It has also enlisted an equally formidable array of noble Lords who, for one reason or another, said that they would not be able to stay until the end of the debate. We understand those reasons. It only remains for me to commiserate with those noble Lords who do not have a pressing engagement at eight o'clock tonight. I am grateful to those who have resisted the temptation to leave and who have remained.
The debate has been notable for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. His speech was bound to be brief according to the rules but that did not make it any the less attractive. It was an interesting and knowledgeable speech. The noble Lord said that he did not believe that he had any great qualifications for taking part in the debate because his qualities lie in another field. All I can say is that the proof of the pudding was in the eating and it was very tasty.
The debate was also notable because one of the participants has a birthday today—I refer to my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. I am surprised that he has resisted the temptation to have another engagement but I hope that after the end of the debate he will enjoy an engagement in full measure.
The voluntary sector does not, as your Lordships well know, have quite the uniformity which its name suggests. It has always struck me what a remarkably diverse collection of organisations it is. No one knows, oddly enough, exactly what is its size. It probably consists of something like half a million voluntary organisations of all shapes and sizes. Not all of them are well-established charities with household names. Not all of them are run along strict business lines. Some of them are tiny organisations with little money, whose success depends upon a few local enthusiasts working hard for no reward at all. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to them as the vital little battalions of the voluntary world. When that kaleidoscope of varied organisations is lumped together—if one can do such a thing with a kaleidoscope—they represent a rich seam of British national life. Those voluntary bodies contribute enormously to the totality of life, and of caring, in the country as a whole. Our lives would all be considerably the poorer without them.
One merely has to take one example of many—and I would take the work of that remarkable man, the late Lord Cheshire. The Cheshire Foundation, which looks after the incurably sick, took over my old home at Staunton Harold in Leicestershire, nearly 40 years ago now, and I had the privilege of being a trustee of his foundation for some 15 or so years. I shall never forget the first trustees' meeting which I attended in 1955. It was decided that there would be no more Cheshire Homes because there were enough and the organisation would become too large. There were six.
262
There are now 83 in the United Kingdom and 180 abroad in 48 countries. No one can know how many people's lives have been affected, alleviated or transformed by the work of the late Lord Cheshire and his foundation—and one need not have been a patient to be so affected. I take this organisation as only one example of one particular field of voluntary work. However, it is certain that people's lives have been helped by voluntary effort in a way which would have been impossible had they been left solely to the care of the state. That is not a reflection on the state, it is merely a fact.
I am also glad that our voluntary bodies are playing an important role in spreading the idea of voluntary activity beyond our shores, to the new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred in that connection to the draft EC data protection legislation. The Government share charities' anxieties about the Commission's first draft of the data protection directive. That would have severely hampered fund raising by charities. The Commission issued a redraft on 15th October. There have been a number of consultations. The preliminary indications are that the redraft goes a long way towards meeting the anxieties of charities. The Government will continue to work towards seeking a directive which is as close as possible to United Kingdom law.
The Government are, and will remain, committed to supporting and to promoting volunteering in the community. That support is not limited to words of encouragement. Between 1979–80 and 1990–91, the level of direct support to voluntary organisations rose by 150 per cent. in real terms. It now stands at £472 million a year.
Tax reliefs to charities, and charitable giving, are now worth the quite considerable sum of over £900 million a year. Excluding that tax relief, in all the Government are supporting the sector annually to the tune of £2,600 million. That is a substantial amount by all, or any, standards.
In today's debate there have been understandable cries for more money or for better distribution of funds. My noble friend Lord Joseph referred to inadequate families and the fact that, for whatever reason, they need help. He said that the problems of such families often contributed towards encouraging criminality, and he was quite right about that. On a similar subject, my noble friend Lord Carr said that we should look at the work of the voluntary sector to see whether or not that keeps people away from crime. He said that we should look at the figures and, if that is the case, we should back the voluntary agencies. He made an extremely persuasive speech. We do look at the figures. There are endlessly good arguments for spending more money but we must set some parameters on expenditure. We spend a great deal. It is important to see that what we spend is spent wisely and properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to a national lottery. I realise the fears which the voluntary sector has on that. Of course, charitable bodies will be an important category of recipient of lottery proceeds. Money from the lottery will not replace conventional

263
public expenditure. Consideration is being given to amending existing legislation to protect the small lotteries from which many organisations derive their income.
Some voluntary agencies which are involved in providing aid and relief, such as Oxfam or Save the Children, are household names in almost every country. They provide swift and effective assistance when disasters strike, but they also make a unique contribution to improving the conditions of the poorest communities. Their contribution is so valuable that the Overseas Development Administration provides those organisations, and others, with substantial amounts of money. In 1990–91 over £88 million was given to non-governmental agencies. The final figure for 1991–92 is likely to be well over £100 million.
Volunteer agencies, the largest of which is Voluntary Service Overseas, now account for about half of all the personnel who are working overseas and assisted by the Overseas Development Administration. The work of the voluntary agencies is essential in the developing world. Their courage and fortitude, working in places like Sudan and Somalia, are outstanding and these non-governmental bodies are often the best local ambassadors for Britain that we could wish to have.
It is important, too, to have the involvement of the business sector. Many businesses give very generous support to voluntary organisations, by cash donations and in more practical ways. There is also much that they can do to promote volunteering. We have, therefore, been supporting the Employee Volunteering Initiative. That is designed to promote the practice of companies encouraging their employees to become involved in local projects.
Our leading national charities and voluntary organisations are increasingly prepared and equipped to provide services throughout the country. They are also prepared to take advantage of the growth of what is often termed—and we have heard it so often this evening—the "contract culture". Developments in the contract field are sometimes viewed with a certain amount of unease in case the drive for efficiency, and compliance with contracts, might undermine the traditionally independent voice of the sector. I understand that anxiety, and that is one reason why we have emphasised the need for voluntary organisations not to become totally dependent upon public funds.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that he objected to the jargon on contract culture and asked me to pass on his objections and his other strictures on the subject to my honourable friend Mr. Jack. I shall do that. I hate jargon in any form and I shall be content to pass on the remarks of my noble friend.
My noble friend referred also to the withdrawal or change from core funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that funding needs to be constant in order that people know where they stand. We recognise that core funding is essential to some aspects of the work of many voluntary bodies. We remain committed to that concept. However, we cannot merely write out a cheque and leave it at that. We must satisfy ourselves
264
that the funding is used cost effectively. That has been, and will remain, the concern of the voluntary services unit of the Home Office.
On a similar tack, my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said that core funding lessened the ability of organisations to know where they stand. That is true. However, there are advantages in contract culture. There is room for both. It is important to decide how best to apportion the available resources, however limited they may be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a penetrating and devastating speech, as she always does, about the insecurity attendant upon annual funding. Again, that is a similar point. She asked for three-year contracts and said quite sharply that no one, not even a sweet shop or ICI, would run on an annual basis. That may well be true except in the case of the government. She will be aware of the dramas that have been going on recently as regards public expenditure. I know that the noble Baroness will accept that it is difficult for a department always to agree something on a long-term basis when it does not know itself how much money it will have at its disposal. I shall certainly look at that point because it is a very real one.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to VAT. That is a subject all on its own and of great complexity. Time will not allow me to do so this evening, but I shall look at the points made and get in touch with those noble Lords who expressed concern.
Partnership is another means of harnessing government and voluntary effort. We want to see statutory, private and voluntary organisations working together. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, referred to payroll giving. She asked whether that had decreased because of the recession. There are 6,000 schemes and 300,000 participants. Oddly enough, far from going down the contributions have increased, though not as much as we would have liked.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was concerned that formal arrangements should be made about young people taking part in voluntary service. I was interested to hear what she said. The idea has been canvassed before but it has not received substantial support from the voluntary sector, the business sector or from the statutory services. There are many opportunities for young people to volunteer. A campaign is to be launched next year by the Volunteer Centre and Radio 1 to attract young people and to match them to the available opportunities.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the membership of the Ministerial group on the voluntary sector. It includes Ministers from 14 departments. I shall contact my noble friend on that matter later because it might take up an unnecessary length of your Lordships' time if I were to outline them now. Similarly, I shall let him know the content of the voluntary service unit mission and the staffing.
The partnership approach is now engaged in all walks of public life and activity. The Royal National Institutes for the blind and the deaf, for example, are making an invaluable contribution to an employment programme which is designed to help people with

265
disabilities. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the Effra Trust. He said that he did not expect an answer and that was very kind of him. However, I shall give him one. The Home Office is aware of the concerns of that trust about its ability to continue to provide offender beds under the new community care arrangements. Officials of both the Home Office and the Department of Health are jointly working to try to ensure that voluntary organisations such as the trust can continue to operate under the new arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Carr referred to the Rainer Foundation. The Home Office is aware of its expertise in the field work with juveniles and young adult offenders. As my noble friend recognises, the Home Office has already provided funding for a number of the foundation's projects dealing with offenders. I hope that the foundation will be able to continue to make contributions to criminal justice work under the new partnership arrangements.
Many points have been raised by your Lordships, but in the time available I have been able only to address my replies to a mere sample. The desire to give, and to give freely, is an integral part of the make up of every person and nothing should be done to numb that virtuous quality. I hope that everything will be done in future to encourage volunteer work and giving.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all Members of this House for their contributions to a debate which has been not only impressive but nostalgic for me. The first occasion on which I heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, speak on the subject of Mr. Beveridge was long before his third report and when I was in short trousers at my private school. I do not believe that the noble Earl's views have changed, but he has matured wonderfully.
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plant, on his successful embarkation on the waters of this House. I apologise to your Lordships for transgression of the time allowance which was drawn to my attention by the grimaces of my noble friend Lord Long. I also apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, who drew attention to the error in the Motion. Together they made me determined, when I get home, to look in my shoes in order to scrape out the clay.
I conclude with just three questions of which I have not give my noble friend notice because I have the answers for him. They centre on funding and the burning issue of core funding. Do Ministers doubt the cost effectiveness of at least maintaining historic levels of cash support to the voluntary sector? In that case let them consider the survey referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which showed that for every pound of government money expended through the ITF (in which I declare an interest) the recipients were able to raise £5. That is good value for taxpayers' money.
Do Ministers doubt that a stimulus to the sector will contribute to the stimulation of the economy generally which is now so urgently needed? Let them
266
reflect on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He told noble Lords that it accounts for 3.4 per cent. of the GDP; it gives paid employment to over 450,000 people, which is up to 80 per cent. more than that of the motor industry.
Finally, do Ministers doubt the political wisdom of supporting voluntary organisations with cash? They should consider the 450,000 employees and the 23 million voluntary workers who are all adults and have votes. I congratulate the Government on making the progress which they have. Under the stimulation of that statistic, I hope that they will progress even further and faster. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Damages (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.36 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ELLIOTT OF MORPETH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rights of relatives of a deceased person]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("from the deceased's society and guidance").
The noble Earl said: I am not going to talk about this amendment at all. We are at a late hour and there are very few Members present for a Bill of outstanding importance. I question whether further discussion at this stage is really worthwhile. I suggest that we take a further look at the report which we have in front of us. I have regard for the report for a special reason. I remember very well when Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor 25 years ago. He suggested that an examination should be made of the problems which arise through statutory work.
When Lord Gardiner made his statement I was sceptical. I was not sure what he was going to do. I now say that he was right. He has added something to the structure of the way in which Scottish law can be developed. We are extremely indebted to him.
What we are doing is a little difficult. We are saying that the former law was wrong. The noble Lord will tell me whether it has to be abolished and whether we have to put a complete new law in its place. It is an extremely important matter. It deals with all damage or death to individuals of this country whether they be in industry, in motor cars or for any other reason whatever. It affects everybody and no matter who they are.
It is very important that the structure and shape of this Bill should be properly dealt with. I do not want to move the amendments tonight because the occasion is too thinly attended. It is an important one. The noble Lord probably wishes to say a number of things about his amendments. I suggest that postponement

267
should be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will deal with the amendments put down by him. My amendments have been put down by the Law Society of Scotland. We should examine them and see whether they are fit. The noble Lord can take his own amendments and have them examined by his colleagues to find out how far they will be effective for the purpose.
This Bill is important and it has to be good. It is no good pretending that we can provide a half-hearted Bill. It is an important Bill and we would be criticised by all kinds of people if we do not get it right. We must get it right. Even if it is a matter of convenience for anyone who is here tonight to rush it (which it probably is not) it is much more important that we should thoroughly satisfy ourselves that the way this Bill is shaped is suitable.
We have put in some observations. We have cut out certain words that are believed to have an unsatisfactory significance. We have made it a little more open to the courts. They are not compelled to follow a certain course but they can follow a course according to their view. These are small points but they are in the clauses. I do not want to press this further tonight. I shall leave it to the noble Lord to develop the point. I should like these observations read by what I might call the members of both societies, and for them to examine carefully what has been said to see whether it meets their requirements and that we can satisfy ourselves that we have put forward the best Bill that we can. In these circumstances, I do not propose to say any more. I shall not move Amendment No. 1.
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 4
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(2) At the beginning of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the words "Subject to subsection (5A) below,".
(3) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) Where a deceased has been awarded a provisional award of damages under section 12(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, the making of that award does not prevent liability from arising under this section but in assessing for the purposes of this section the amount of any loss of support suffered by a relative of the deceased the court shall take into account such part of the provisional award relating to future patrimonial loss as was intended to compensate the deceased for a period beyond the date on which he died.".").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 in my name seeks to insert a new subsection in Section 1 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 which relates to the rights of relatives of a deceased person. The amendment is somewhat technical and caters for a situation which is likely to arise fairly infrequently. I can perhaps best illustrate the need for the amendment by means of a simple example. Take the case of a shipyard worker of 40 years of age who has contracted asbestosis as a result of working with that substance. His doctor tells him that he has scars on his lungs and
268
that he is unfit for any gainful employment. The doctor also reveals that there is a risk of mesothelioma developing at an unspecified future date.
Faced with a complete loss of future earnings, the claimant seeks advice from his lawyer who decides that the best course for the claimant is to raise an action for provisional damages in terms of Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. The action is raised and the pursuer recovers solatium in respect of the injury to his lungs and he is awarded a sum representing loss of earnings for a period of future time. The court awards these damages as provisional damages under, and in terms of, Section 12 of the 1982 Act. In a year or two after the provisional award has been made mesothelioma develops and causes the claimant's death before he has an opportunity to return to court to finalise his award.
Two questions arise. The first is: do the provisions of Section 1(2) of the 1976 Act prevent a claim being made by the relatives? Section 1(2) should not preclude the raising of an action by the relatives on his death. In part, this amendment is intended to remove any doubt as to that. The second question is whether there is a possibility that there could be an overlap of the loss of earnings awarded as a provisional award under the 1982 Act to the claimant and the loss of support which may be claimed by the relatives under Section 1(4) of the 1976 Act. It would appear that this might well arise as there could be a potential overlap of patrimonial damages where the deceased has obtained in his provisional award of damages a sum representing his entire loss of earnings throughout his life. In such a case it would be inequitable that the defender should also be liable to pay the relatives damages for loss of support resulting from the deceased's death. If this had not been a provisional award of damages, the payment of such an amount for patrimonial loss would have discharged the defender's liability and thus prevented the relatives claim from arising.
To obviate the possibility of double damages being paid, the amendment enables the court to take into account in considering the relatives' claim such part of the provisional award relating to future patrimonial loss as was intended to compensate the deceased for any period beyond the date on which he died. I hope you will agree that this amendment clarifies the existing law and provides a solution which is fair both to the relatives and to the defender. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that it was a very full description of the amendment that the noble Lord gave. It is not easy for a lay person to follow that kind of description. Can he tell the Committee whether this amendment comes from any particular body? Is this a Law Commission second thought about the Bill, or does it come from any particular direction? It would help the Committee to understand what is happening. I do not think it was mentioned at Second Reading. I was not able to be here but I have read the Hansard report and I do not remember that aspect being mentioned.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: To be honest at this stage, I cannot be precise; but I think it arises out of the report of the Scottish Law Commission on the effect of death on damages.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): Perhaps I could help my noble friend Lady Carnegy. This particular amendment derives from I shall not say a second thought but a further thought by the Scottish Law Commission and a letter from Lord Davidson on this matter. It was realised that if this particular amendment was not brought in, a difficulty would arise where someone died after a part of the procedure had been gone through, and that while alive that person had recovered a sum of money which would include a sum for future loss of earnings for a period beyond that period when he actually died.
Therefore, when he had died and his relatives then came to bring their claim, and that claim being for a loss of dependency during the period after his death, it was seen that there would be a possibility of double counting, so to speak. In order to take account of that matter, the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission wrote, and this is an amendment deriving from the Scottish Law Commission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Transmissibility to executor of deceased's right to solatium for his injuries]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("not").
The noble Earl said: This is an important point. The Bill would delete that on the death of a certain person the executors will be fully informed. The executors should be fully informed. In a way it is a small point but they may be interested in a variety of matters and all sorts of things may be concerned relating to the property of the man who died. His relatives and friends should be acquainted as to how they stand. For that reason this should remain and the word "not" should be taken out. It seems to me to be fair to the persons concerned and that that is the best way to handle it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am not sure that I understood the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he said that he thought that the relatives should be informed of a certain matter, and he thought that if the amendment was not carried, the effect would somehow or other be to deprive the relatives or the executor of some information. I think that what the noble Earl said perhaps rested on a misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 3(2). I shall explain what the effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would be.
The idea of the amendment of the Law Society was that not only claims for solatium but also claims for patrimonial loss in the period after the deceased's death should transmit to an executor on the death of the deceased injured person. The existing Section 2(3) (b) of the Act, which is re-enacted by what will become Section 2(2), is intended to prevent the duplication of damages. But Section 2(3) (b) does much more than that because it actually expresses one of the
270
fundamental purposes behind the Act and rests on a principle which has been part of Scots law for—I put it at the very lowest—at least 100 years. The principle is that compensation is directly related to the loss suffered.
When a claimant dies the situation is radically changed, and in the new situation the claims of the deceased's executor and the claims of the surviving relatives are quite distinct. The claim of the executor is one for compensation for losses which have been suffered by the deceased up until the date of his death. Thereafter, the deceased having died, he can suffer no more and it is a matter of compensating relatives for their losses after the deceased's death. That is the basic structure of the legislation. This amendment would completely undermine it.
I should add that with the introduction of the new rules on transmissibility, which is the whole point of the Bill, the family should be substantially better off than it was formerly. In addition to solatium, which would come via the executor, the relatives enjoy the right of loss of support suffered since death or likely to be suffered as well as the reformulated loss of society award relating to non-patrimonial benefits.
The effect of the amendment would be particularly unacceptable if the deceased died leaving no dependants who can make a claim for loss of support. It could then happen that some beneficiary who might be a very remote relative would receive a windfall sum of damages which would apparently be designed to compensate the deceased for earnings which he could not make because he was dead. Such a concept verges on the grotesque.
There may indeed be a case for a further and wider review of the current law on damages, as the noble Earl suggested, but this amendment would represent a fundamental departure from the present law and would raise much wider issues such as the possible use of structured settlements or actuarial methods for calculating damages. No change such as is envisaged by Amendments Nos. 5 or 6 could possibly be contemplated without wide-ranging consultation and without seeking the advice of the Scottish Law Commission. I underline the fact that the Bill has been prepared by the Scottish Law Commission. Bearing those matters in mind, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: I hate to say this but I could not understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I did not follow his argument. He said that the relatives should get other things, which is exactly what I am trying to do. If a man is killed, one would expect his wife and children to get something. Who would give it to them? The executors would receive it and it would be up to them to hand it on.
I listened as carefully as I could to what the noble and learned Lord said. If he can tell me that that is what will happen, I shall not press the point further. I realise that the Bill is not finished and is still in a somewhat immature state. But if that is not what it does, I think it is wrong. The relatives must get those things. It may be a house, a handkerchief, tables or chairs, but that is what they should have. There is no

271
protection if the word "not" is left in. The noble and learned Lord may show that I am wrong but that is my reading of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sure that it is my fault if the noble Earl did not follow my explanation. if can assure him that the Bill as it stands does not take away anything from the relatives. On the contrary, the effect of the Bill will be to increase what is claimable by the executor. As the noble Earl rightly said, the executors would pass it on to the people entitled to it.
Under the present law the executor can claim only for damages suffered by way of patrimonial loss by the estate up until the date of the man's death. The executor cannot recover damages for the pain and suffering which the man has suffered up until the present date. The effect of the Bill will be that from now on the executor will have a claim which will relate not only to the loss suffered but also to the pain and suffering which the man experienced before his death. The effect of the noble Earl's amendment would be to go much further than that—this is where I take issue with it—and to undermine the principle underlying the whole of our law of damages and say that, in addition to that, a sum will be awarded for earnings which he would have had after his death. What happens under law is that the estate does not get earnings after the man's death but the relatives get a sum which represents what they would have been expected to get if he had lived. That is a just and fair way of proceeding. It is certainly the way the law has been up until now.
It may be that I have not made the matter sufficiently clear. I should he more than happy to discuss it with the noble Earl between now and Report stage. If he has any doubts or hesitations at that stage I have no doubt that he will raise the matter again. I ask him to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Selkirk: I do not have doubts on the laying down of the law by the Lord Advocate on any account. I would not for a moment press this point. But what I am saying is that I do not understand how the damages of a man who has been killed can possibly transfer to his relatives. That seems to be one of the things the noble and learned Lord said, but I may not be right. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has taken the point; he has asserted that without the "not" he gets the point. If he says that, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enforcement by executor of rights transmitted to him]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert:
(" "Enforcement by executor of rights transmitted to him.
2A.—(1) For the purpose of enforcing any right transmitted to an executor under section 1A or 2 of this Act the executor shall be entitled—

(a) to bring an action; or

(b) to he sisted as pursuer if an action for that purpose has been brought by the deceased but has not been concluded before his death.").

The noble Lord said: After the discussion between the Lord Advocate and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I approach this fairly simple amendment with a certain temerity. The amendment is proposed by the Law Society of Scotland. Its purpose is to restructure Clause 4 and is for clarification purposes only. The Law Society of Scotland considers that Clause 4 as presently worded is unclear. It has therefore asked me to put forward this amendment which is certainly simpler in terms of words. As to whether it is as clear legally, I await the Lord Advocate's comments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove for bringing the matter before the Committee. In dealing with the amendment, I should put on record the fact that we are grateful to the Law Society for the careful and constructive approach that it has taken to what is a most important Bill and one which is demanded by the people of Scotland. In this case, I am prepared to give my noble friend an assurance that the principle behind the amendment is acceptable. It will require a little redrafting but that will not change the spirit of the amendment; indeed, I think that it will make it much clearer. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I know that my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar has spent much time on the Bill and had many discussions with the Law Society. Therefore, until we reach Report stage, I am certainly happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Transitional provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:
Transitional and retrospective provisions
(" .—(1) Section IA of the 1976 Act (as substituted by section 2 of this Act) shall have effect as if it expressly provided that the reference to a right to damages under section 1 of the 1976 Act included a reference to a right under that section as it existed at the time when the right vested and section 2A shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Section 1A of the 1976 Act shall also have effect as if it provided that the reference to a right to damages under section 1 of the 1976 Act included a reference to a right to damages by way of solatium in respect of the death of a person under the law in force before 13th May 1976 and section 2A shall have effect accordingly.
(3) Section 9A of the 1976 Act shall not affect any proceedings commenced before this Act comes into operation.
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Act shall have effect only in relation to deaths occurring on or after its commencement.
(5) Notwithstanding section 3 of the 1976 Act, section 1A of that Act shall have effect, subject to subsection (8) below, in the case of the death on or after 16 July 1992 of the relative concerned.
(6) Notwithstanding section 2 of the 1976 Act as it existed prior to the commencement of this Act, that section as

273
substituted by section 3 of this Act shall have effect, subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, in the case of the death on or after 16 July 1992 of a person in whom was vested immediately before his death a right to damages in respect of personal injuries.
(7) Subsection (6) above shall not apply in the case of a death before the commencement of this Act in so far as it would enable an executor to recover damages (other than for patrimonial loss) in respect of injury resulting from defamation or any other verbal injury or other injury to reputation sustained by the deceased.
(8) Neither subsection (5) nor (6) above shall apply where the rights to damages which transmitted to the deceased's executor under section 1 or 2 of the 1976 Act prior to the commencement of this Act have been subject to—

(a) a full and final settlement; or

(b) determination by a court in a final judgment within the meaning of section 19A(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973,

before the commencement of this Act.
(9) In calculating whether a claim made by an executor by virtue of subsection (5) or (6) above is unenforceable by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, the period starting with the date of death and ending with the commencement of this Act shall not be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: In my remarks during the Second Reading debate I informed noble Lords that it was my intention to bring forward an amendment to Clause 6 of the Bill which would enable the new rights of transmissibility to executors to apply in cases where the death of the injured person occurred on or after the date of introduction of the Bill in this Chamber —namely, 16th July 1992—subject to certain provisions and, in particular, provided that those rights could not be exercised if the claim was time-barred (obviously, by the passage of time as set out in law) or had been settled, or judicially determined in a court. The amendment seeks to give effect to that undertaking. The clause is necessarily somewhat complex in its structure. It may assist Members of the Committee if I explain its principal provisions.
Subsections (1) and (2) clarify the effect of Section 1 of the 1976 Act and also the pre-1976 Act rights of any people still affected by the law as it was then. They make it clear that in those cases Section 2A, as inserted by Clause 4, shall have effect. Subsection (3) provides that Section 9A of the 1973 Act, inserted by Clause 5, does not affect any proceedings commenced before the Act comes into operation. Subsection (4) makes clear that, subject to the provisions of Clause 6, the Act shall have effect only in relation to deaths occurring on or after its commencement.
Subsections (5) and (6) make provision for the retrospective effects of Sections 1A and the new Section 2 of the 1976 Act in any case where a death occurs on or after 16th July 1992. Sections lA and new Section 2 make provision for any right to damages, whether patrimonial or non-patrimonial, which is vested in a relative under Section 1 of the 1976 Act or in an injured person, immediately before his death, to transmit to an executor. In the case of such a person who dies on or after 16th July 1992 and before the date of commencement of the Bill, the effect of those
274
subsections is to provide, subject to the following provisions, that the right to damages will transmit to the executor on the date of commencement of the Bill.
Subsection (7) provides that subsection (6) does not apply in the case of a death before the commencement of the Act in so far as it would enable an executor to recover damages (other than patrimonial loss) for injury resulting from defamation or other verbal injury to reputation sustained by the deceased.
Subsection (8) provides that neither subsections (5) nor (6) shall apply where the rights to damages which transmitted to the deceased's executor under Sections 1 or 2 of the 1976 Act, prior to the commencement of the Bill, have been subject to a full final settlement or a determination by a court in final judgment before the commencement of the Act.
Subsection (9) provides that in calculating whether a claim made by an executor by virtue of subsections (5) or (6) is unenforceable due to the passage of time —that is, by virtue of the provisions of Part II of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973—the periods starting with the date of death (if death occurred on or after 16th July 1992) and ending with the commencement of the Act shall not be taken into account.
No doubt that explanation sounds very technical —indeed, it is very technical—but it was correct to put it on record so that people, especially lawyers, who read the report of the debate will understand the purpose of the amendment. I trust that Members of the Committee will agree that, in effect, the solution of suspending the running of the prescription period in the last section that I mentioned represents a reasonably fair means of dealing with what we all hope will be a small number of claims arising in that interim period.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate remarked on Second Reading, whether there is retrospection or not, there will always be a degree of unfairness to someone when one case is viewed against another. It is not possible to reopen cases where settlement has been made; nor, for the reasons explained by the noble and learned Lord, is it possible to change the rules for ongoing cases, irrespective of when death occurred. However, if the amendment is accepted by the Committee, it should provide some degree of comfort to those currently suffering from a terminal industrial disease. Should such people die before the Bill is enacted, it will ensure that their families will, nevertheless, be able to benefit from the improved provisions. That is the main objective behind the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As the noble Lord has explained to me the reason behind the amendment, I understand it very well. I have also read his Second Reading speech and that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I understand that the amendment has been put forward for reasons of compassion and sympathy for certain people who will be on the wrong side of the cut-off line when the Bill becomes enacted.
As I understand it, the intention is to backdate part of the clause to the date of the Bill's First Reading. On Second Reading, I believe that both the noble Lord

275
and my noble and learned friend said that there were precedents for the provision. As a lay person, it seems to me to be extremely strange that one can arbitrarily fix the date when the Bill received its First Reading as the date after which people are able to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, or my noble and learned friend can tell me what kind of precedents there are in this respect? Are they numerous? It seems very strange. I wonder whether it is good law.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Baroness for raising the point which, of course, interests us all. The reason for taking the provision back to First Reading is that the House sets its face against retrospective legislation in principle, and we had to strike a balance. There has to be a cut-off point at some stage, and we believed that we were doing the best that we could and being as fair as we could by making the First Reading what the noble Baroness has called the arbitrary date. I describe it as the most reasonable date that we could think of in all the circumstances.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the noble Lord know what precedents there are?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I cannot quote a precedent. Each Bill has to be considered on its own merits. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can give some precedents.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not believe that I can put my hand on a precedent at the moment, but I am aware in general terms that there are Bills which have been given effect from the date of First Reading. That is done on the broad principle that from that stage onwards the people who have an interest in the possible effects of the Bill are, so to speak, put on notice as to the effect that it will have. That is the reasoning underlying the choice of the date. It might be helpful if I were to write to my noble friend and give her details of some examples. I can assure her that this has been done in the past.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for the care that he has given to this provision and others and also, of course, to the Law Society of Scotland which has taken an interest in the Bill and has discussed various aspects of it with him and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I am grateful to everyone involved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Overseas Aid Programme
9.10 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what level of resources they consider necessary to meet the growing global demands on Britain's overseas aid programme.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for many millions the world remains a wretched place. Somewhere, every
276
2.4 seconds of every day, a small child dies of poverty. Across the world, one in five people lives on less than £175 a year; 1.5 billion people are without health care; 1.75 million people have no access to safe water; a woman giving birth in the third world is 12 times more likely to die than a woman in a country like ours; her children, even if they do survive, can expect to live 12 years less than we do here in Europe. More than 1 billion people live in absolute poverty.
The last decade was, by most standards, an unmitigated disaster for the majority of third world countries: a time when poverty levels reached unprecedented and almost unimaginable depths. All that has been compounded by the tragedies of Somalia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Liberia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola and the rest. It was nearly 20 years ago that the United Nations, with British support, proposed an official aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. Twelve years ago the Brandt Commission of which Sir Edward Heath was a prominent member called for,
"a massive transfer of resources",
from North to South.
Barely five months ago, at the Rio summit, John Major, the Prime Minister, publicly pledged British support for Agenda 21, the new global programme to meet the inextricably interwoven challenges of environment and development. He said, I believe—the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—
"All of us will have to meet the cost of commitments undertaken to tackle our common global problems".
He went on:
"The British Government is ready to commit new"—
I emphasise the next word—
"additional resources".
Indeed, in Chapter 33 to Agenda 21 the signatories, including the United Kingdom, agreed to augment their aid programmes in order to reach the UN 0.7 per cent. target as soon as possible. In that respect, we were heartened by the reports from Rio that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, had herself made clear that she would do everything within her power to persuade the Government to honour their commitments.
The Agenda 21 master plan reckoned the total cost of preserving the world's environment—lest a terminal crisis develops—together with the cost of effective action to eradicate world poverty, to be more than 600 billion US dollars per year. Maurice Strong, the indefatigable organiser of Rio, calculated that this would require the transfer of 125 billion US dollars per year from North to South, leaving a staggering 475 billion US dollars to be found by the impoverished South itself. At present, the OECD countries of the North are transferring little more than 55 billion US dollars per year to the South.
Of course, the response of some developed countries to the challenge of global poverty has been more shameful than that of others. Since 1979, British development assistance has fallen dramatically in real terms, some calculate by as much as 24 per cent. It is down from the 0.51 per cent. of GNP at which it stood when the Conservative Government came into office 131 years ago to 0.32 per cent. in 1991, having fallen as low as 0.27 per cent. in 1990.
At first in the 1980s we were repeatedly told by the Government that Britain would reach the 0.7 per cent. of GNP UN target when economic circumstances permitted. However, when the economy did grow, we were then told that the aid ratio was declining because our gross national product was growing so fast. Subsequently, when the economy declined, predictably we were told that there were other spending priorities and commitments.
The truth is, I fear, that the sincerity of purpose and the very genuine commitment of the noble Baroness which all of us who have had dealings with her have come deeply to respect, indeed with some affection, has never been reflected in the firm resolve of the Government as a whole. Despite her firm resolve, they have dragged their feet or, worse, disastrously undermined what she herself wanted to achieve.
Now surely is the time for this House to send an unequivocal message to the Prime Minister and to the noble Baroness's other colleagues, demanding that they support her and stand by the solemn undertaking given less than six months ago in Rio by the Prime Minister. It was an undertaking reflected as recently as the end of last month in the words of David Maclean, Minister of State for the Environment, at the General Assembly of the UN. On behalf of the European Community he spoke of member states reaffirming their commitment to reach the accepted UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP for overseas development assistance as soon as possible and of their determination to ensure prompt and effective implementation of Agenda 21.
Such a message from this House becomes all the more urgent because of the warning signals. First, with the United Kingdom holding the European Community presidency, there has been a disgraceful proposal by the Council of Ministers that there should be a cut of more than £190 million in the European Community's aid and development budget for 1993. That is a cut more than seven times the size of the United Kingdom's relief programme to Somalia alone. To its great credit, the European Parliament has voted against the proposal and instead voted for a modest increase of £15 million. I hope that the noble Baroness will tell us that that will stand firm.
Secondly, there have been rumours of a possible 10 to 15 per cent. cut to be announced tomorrow in our own UK aid and development budget. Cuts of that magnitude could be equivalent to cutting out the entire aid programme to 10 of Africa's poorest countries; to cutting twice as much as the UK spends within the overall aid budget on emergency aid; to cutting two-and-a-half times more than the total aid to India; to cutting several times more than the United Kingdom Government grant to the overseas voluntary agencies. That is a sad betrayal of the immense generosity spontaneously and repeatedly demonstrated by the British public when, by their voluntary giving, they have tried to close the gap between what the Government provide and what is needed. We ask the noble Baroness, even on the eve of
278
the Autumn Statement, to leave her colleagues in no doubt that she will not accept any reversal whatever in the United Kingdom's battle against world poverty.
Were the rumours and leaks to prove well founded, and were the Government to trim aid expenditure at all, this would represent a savage blow not only to those in extreme poverty but to the fledgling democracies emerging at last in different parts of the world. Most of them have been urged by the United Kingdom to take the road of reform. Reducing development assistance would be in sad contrast to last year's spending commitment of a 15 per cent. increase in cash terms, 3 per cent. in real terms, in development assistance. That is a commitment which at all costs must surely be protected. Aid cuts would re-establish the downward trend in overseas development expenditure witnessed since 1979. It would mean that the Government were once again moving further from the UN target they continue to accept but always fail to honour. When she answers my Question tonight, it is conceivable that the noble Baroness may argue that the concept of a UN target is out of date. If so, with what would she replace it?
Of course, any target is something of an arbitrary figure. Of course, no target can accurately reflect the real needs of third world countries for development assistance. Of course, quality of aid matters at least as much as quantity of aid. But the noble Baroness knows, as all of us who have held her office know, that in crude Whitehall battles for resources all would be lost with no such measurable yardstick.
I believe there are eight good reasons why aid should not be cut. First, it would be disastrous both for the millions on the knife edge of poverty—the desperate people we see on our television screens in Somalia—and also, potentially, for the cause of democracy where many are for the first time able to cast their votes in free and democratic elections. Secondly, the United Kingdom of the Falklands and the Gulf remains a powerful nation with strong influence in the UN, in the EC, in the international finance institutions and throughout the Commonwealth. This is a position in which firm and consistent leadership in the fight against world poverty is demanded, rather than a retreat from the challenge when times are hard.
Thirdly, aid cuts would be particularly damaging because almost certainly it would be the longer term bilateral assistance that would bear the brunt. That is precisely the type of aid, as I know from my own experience at VSO and Oxfam, and as is the experience of other non-governmental organisations, that is most effective in alleviating poverty and which helps to prevent the kind of crisis we are still encountering throughout much of Africa. Investing in long-term assistance now will mean that there is less demand for emergency help from donors in the future.
Fourthly, aid to poor countries is in the UK's own direct interests. It can boost our own employment and industry and do so in a less inflationary way than directly stimulating demand at home. It has been calculated that our bilateral aid programme generates £750 million of orders here at home and that—

279
according to the Public Accounts Committee—for every £1 contributed to multilateral programmes £1.70 comes back to the UK in orders.
Fifthly, it is obviously in the UK's own long-term interests to enable poor countries to develop in a secure and sustainable way both for the sake of the global environment and to help mitigate global security problems.
Sixthly, the public have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they would not favour any cuts in the aid budget. The generous voluntary giving speaks for itself. However, three-quarters of those questioned in a national opinion poll for ACTION AID as recently as 7th October said they would not like to see any reductions in this budget. The public response to the prospect of cuts, in terms of the volume of letters to Members of Parliament and the press, has overwhelmingly rejected aid cuts. Over 200 Members of the other place, through an open letter to the Chancellor and two Early Day Motions, have called on the Government not to reduce development expenditure.
Seventhly, cutting development aid will be a serious setback for the Overseas Development Administration, rendering any claims about its targeting aid effectively depressingly hollow. Eighthly, overwhelmingly, there is the moral imperative. In the name of civilisation we cannot turn our backs on the poor of the world without undermining the moral fabric of our own nation.
We know that the battle against world poverty is not just a question of increased aid. Priority must also be given to the issues of armed conflict, neglect of the environment, lack of democracy and accountability in government, unpayable debt, restrictive international terms of trade, extravagant consumption by the industrialised world of finite resources and, indeed, effectiveness in the use of aid itself. The challenge to GATT is huge while 80 per cent. of the world's population still has only 18 per cent. of the world's trade. As for conflict, it is no coincidence that every major famine in recent years has taken place in a war zone. It is frequently no exaggeration to argue that if we could stop the fighting and ensure distribution, for example in Somalia and Bosnia, we could end the famine.
As I have argued before in this House, success in the fight for humanity necessitates massive debt relief based on the ability to pay principle; a new and fairer world trading system centred on basic needs, food security, employment for the poor, fair and stable prices, and concern for the environment; fairer investment patterns which bring training, appropriate modern technology, good employment practice, and engagement with sustainable development; and aid which empowers the poor rather than the rich. It also necessitates urgent control of the sinister and destabilising international arms trade and greatly enhanced resources for early warning and conflict resolution. The lack of priority and sustained drive by the United Kingdom on all those issues during the God-given opportunity of our presidency of the European Community has been lamentable.
Meanwhile, a certain amount can be achieved by the re-direction of aid. Above all there must be a
280
sufficient flow of aid. The noble Baroness will gain nothing but respect if she refuses to yield to the blinkered heavy brigade in the Treasury. Let the axe men ponder. There is no country in the world more dependent than our own on a peaceful, stable and prosperous world economy. To invest in global human progress is to invest in our children's future. It is not a matter of poverty overseas versus poverty at home. Poverty is poverty wherever it occurs. At a time when the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting relatively, and too often absolutely, poorer it would be obscene to penalise the poor still further.
In and immediately after the Second World War, times of acute crisis, solidarity was the order of the day. Victory was rooted in a nation in which a priority was social justice and the protection of the vulnerable. We pulled together. It is precisely because of the gravity of the economic challenge which confronts us that we should now draw a line and determine that whatever the stringencies demanded they will not aggravate existing injustices.
I have quoted the Prime Minister at Rio. He also said during the election that his Government would never forget those with their foot on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity or those who have been knocked off by misfortune. The Government he led, he assured us, would always protect their interests. Words, my Lords, or genuine commitment'?
That is the crisis of credibility which this Government repeatedly face. In the past decade there has been too much pandering to short-term myopic greed and selfishness. A healthy, dynamic United Kingdom, as in the 1940s, would be one in which we take second place to nobody in our fight for justice and humanity throughout the world, in Merseyside as much as in Mozambique, in Somalia as much as in Clydeside. I hope that the noble Baroness will convincingly put our minds at rest tonight.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on instigating the debate tonight with a speech of great conviction. That is always a feature of his speeches, and of his whole life's work —in VSO, in Oxfam, in another place, and throughout all his activities on behalf of the developing world.
I agree with nearly everything that the noble Lord said, but I should like to add a cautious addendum just in case at one point he was a little partisan, in the party sense. He said that the commitment of my noble friend Lady Chalker was not matched by that of her colleagues. Perhaps I may say that, in a Labour Government, nor was his. Nor was mine when I worked in this field in a Labour Government. He and I are two of the five former Ministers for Overseas Development sitting in this House. It is true that our commitment, and that of some of our colleagues who agreed with us, has never been matched by the practical commitment of British governments as a whole.
The target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP has been accepted in principle by Labour and Conservative governments, none of which have ever got anywhere

281
near it. Indeed, the first of my two resignations from a Labour Government in 1969 was on that issue and due to the fact that during the 1960s the proportion of our gross domestic product spent in this direction had steadily, year by year, fallen below the figure which the then Labour Government had inherited from the Conservative Government in 1964. I am not making a party point; I merely say that a point can be made at any time about the failure of British governments of both parties and of most governments in the Western world to live up to their pledges in this field.
If there is one thing wrong with the debate it is that in a sense we are playing Hamlet without the prince. The Chancellor will make a vital statement tomorrow on this matter, as on so many other matters. The noble Lord reminded us that the programme announced last year provided for a modest increase, over the three-year period then in question, in the value of the aid programme in real as well as in cash terms. Tomorrow we will see whether that continues, improves as we would both like to happen, or some of the rumours about reductions turn out to be right. All of us will have vigorous comments to make afterwards. None of us knows except perhaps the Minister and she cannot tell us, but we all know that in recent months she will have fought her corner with great clarity and vigour.
I put the problem in the context of the public spending round as a whole. I support a tough spending round and believe that the Government should stick to their overall strategy. But within that I suggest that this year and in the years immediately ahead we need a radical rethink of priorities in public spending, which will mean some painful reductions in some programmes and improvements in others. I should like to think that in your Lordships' House and in the other place there will be debates in depth about priorities. That is a new parliamentary habit that we ought to develop. It is too easy to have debates on specific programmes such as we are having now when their supporters say that more resources are needed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, for clarification perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he is saying that he favours a reduction in overseas aid.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, I favour an increase. I believe that in some spending programmes (using that expression in the broad sense of departments) there is scope for reductions. I should not develop that at this hour in a debate of this kind, but I merely suggest in passing that there ought to be more debate in depth in both Houses of Parliament and throughout the country about the priorities we would like to see in different forms of expenditure.
I ventured to add to the volume of paper going across Ministers' desks a few weeks ago by writing a personal memorandum on this subject to the Prime Minister and every member of the Cabinet. I wrote as an ex-Minister for Overseas Development and as a supporter of the aid programme as to why the aid programme should be treated as a greater priority than might happen in the current situation.
282
I will not weary the House with all of the reasons I put forward, but some were stronger in the context of the recession and the fiscal problems facing the Government than they normally were. It seemed to me that some of the familiar reasons were given added strength. I give three examples. The first is the moral imperative as the noble Lord described it. To me it is and always has been a moral imperative. The basic reasons for that do not need restating tonight. In a situation where Ministers will have to make difficult choices there may be a temptation to trot out old cliches such as "charity begins at home", that the recipients of our aid programme have no vote in our elections and the first duty of the Government is to the people who elect them and so on. I say that the very existence of those sentiments—that some of the general public would share—places upon us and colleagues in Government a duty not to yield to those temptations. It would be mean and unworthy to break our commitments to people in sub-Saharan Africa or Bangladesh. We have made medium and long-term commitments to them. They may be more modest than some of us would like but nevertheless they are real commitments. To break them now would be a betrayal of what this country should stand for.
Another familiar argument is the "mutual benefit" argument based on the fact that development in poorer countries creates trade opportunities from which the world economy will benefit, including the aid donors. I see nothing wrong in saying that our self-interest marches in step with our moral duty. Surely, that is all the more the case at a time when the world is in recession and we want to stimulate development in as many parts of it as possible, particularly the poorest. In continuing to stimulate that development, we shall be creating opportunities for ourselves and other developed nations also. Incidentally, I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about GATT. But in addition to the trading opportunities that they should have, they should receive help with their development projects, thereby stimulating the growth that the whole world economy needs.
My third and last point is that it seems to be in the national interest, particularly in difficult times, to identify things that this country does well and to continue to do them, perpetuate them and, if possible, expand them. From my own experience in this field —I believe others share this view, including the noble Lord—I know that the effectiveness of our aid programme has improved steadily over the years. Many people have contributed to that, but in particular there has been a degree of improvement during the stewardship of my noble friend Lady Chalker.
I understand that the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, having had a study made of the efficiency and effectiveness of all the main aid programmes in the world, has identified our programme as the most effective of them all. We should take pride in that. It reflects credit upon the Minister and her department. It also reflects credit upon the hundreds of British people working in the field, men and women of many talents, skills and types

283
of experience who are working alongside people in developing countries, helping them to help themselves. Some of them work directly under the umbrella of the official aid programme or work for developing countries under arrangements made under the aid programme. I understand from something said in the earlier debate (I did not know it before) that a large number, almost half the total, are people recruited through the non-governmental organisations.
Those people deserve the encouragement of the Government and Parliament. Their work should be better known. It is not only good for the people among whom they work; it is good for this country. They are supported by the voluntary bodies and in that sense this debate overlaps with the previous debate today. Up and down the country there are many thousands of people working in this field, fund raising and organising—voluntary workers and the staff of those bodies.
In the past—I have seen it happen under both Labour and Conservative governments—a stroke of the Treasury pen has wiped out a year's fund raising by such people. I profoundly hope that that will not happen. I profoundly hope that our programme will continue to expand further in quality and quantity in the years ahead.
9.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for asking this Question tonight. It will enable us to put down a very firm marker for Her Majesty's Government; namely, that it will not do for overseas aid to be cut. It is too easy to do, but in the last resort it is against the will of the people of this nation.
I understand that when he uses the word "global", the noble Lord is also thinking of the needs of Eastern Europe. Six weeks ago I was privileged to visit the headquarters of the allied powers in Europe and to spend some time at NATO headquarters. Two things were borne in on me. They must have been obvious to noble Lords in this House, who must have realised them long ago and must forgive my lack of sophistication.
The first was the realisation that a large factor in bringing the Cold War to an end was an economic one. We succeeded in beggaring the economy of the Soviet empire by the continual stockpiling of massively expensive weapons. The effect was not one-sided. We may not have had a nuclear exchange but our own economies were strangulated. We refused through fear to invest in the future in long-term aid to countries overseas. We were too preoccupied with our own defence. As a result, we have no productive relationship between the industrialised countries of the northern hemisphere and the developing countries of the South. Furthermore, among the developing or, perhaps more accurately, the poorer countries, we must now include the countries of Eastern Europe. Europe is now probably one of the most unstable continents of the world. As has been implied by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with poverty comes political
284
instability. That has occurred not only in the countries of the southern hemisphere but now in the countries of Eastern Europe.
My second insight from my visit was that Eastern Europe is also in need of massive aid. As we were told in your Lordships' House about six weeks ago, at present only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the gross national product of the seven most wealthy nations goes in aid to the countries of Eastern Europe. After the Second World War, when in a far less advantageous position than it is now, America gave six times as much as that to us in Marshall Aid to reactivate our economy. I say that to indicate, as noble Lords know well, that we are not concerned only with charity: we are concerned with the reactivation of the economies of the poorer nations. As has already been pointed out, there is not only a moral imperative for the rich to help the poor and the strong to help the weak, but it is also in our own interests to improve their economies.
However, let me stress that I do not equate the plight of the former Yugoslavia to that of sub-Saharan Africa. In the Horn of Africa it is not a matter of tightening belts but of survival. As has already been said, every two seconds a child dies of hunger or disease. No statistic can express what it feels to see even one child die—to see an uncomprehending panic in eyes that were made to see the living world as the natural habitat for those born into it.
It is a time not for retrenching but for generous, far-seeing statesmanship. It is no time to diminish our programme of official aid, and certainly not to cut our grants to the International Development Association. The private investment in developing countries is drying up. In 1990 it was no more than 0.36 per cent. and it is decreasing. It is well known that, as a nation, we have never reached more than 0.32 per cent. in official aid, yet the Pearson Commission long ago set the target of 0.7 per cent. Furthermore, the United Nations' target for both official aid and private investment is 1 per cent. of gross national product; and we give nowhere near that.
We have consistently fallen below those targets. I was told only this evening by one who has researched into these matters that 20 years ago we were giving twice as much as we give today in official aid. In 1990 we were one of three countries to register a decline. I am told that, in real terms, between 1979 and 1990 our aid to sub-Saharan Africa fell by 22 per cent. Other donors from the northern hemisphere managed to increase their aid by 65 per cent. during that time. The extraordinary paradox is, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, that in repaying debt the seven poorest countries in drought-stricken sub-Saharan Africa pay £225 million back to the United Kingdom, which is far above the aid that we give. In summing up, will the Minister reassure us that the hopeful terms which the Prime Minister put forward in Trinidad can be implemented to the full so that repayment of debt does not outstrip the aid that is given?
I know that statistics are notoriously difficult to handle and are open to misquotation. However, it is plain for all to see that this is no time to reduce our aid to a world in need; rather it is a time to increase it. I

285
do not want to give percentages but a cut of, say, 15 per cent. would mean a reduction of £285 million per year in aid. That equals all the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to Asia in 1990. The average man and woman in the street knows that that is wrong. MPs tell me that daily they have a large postbag of letters begging them to stand against parsimony and letters asking them to stand for generosity. Twenty-four Anglican bishops have written to record their opposition to any diminishment in aid. Other Church leaders, Roman Catholic bishops and Christian councils from all over the country, have expressed a similar opposition.
I would like the Minister to address the question of whether there is a peace dividend from which aid can go to the poorest nations. In other words, in a period when defence budgets must be smaller would it not be far-sighted to take a new and hopeful initiative for the very poor whose development budgets grow less by the year?
Secondly, I wish to make the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is held in high regard by the aid agencies. She is known by governments of developing nations as one who travels unceasingly to espouse their causes and see the unprecedented human
286
tragedies for herself. Should we not beg Her Majesty's Government not to take the ground from under her feet? She should be strengthened and not disabled in her work.
Finally, although the Unstarred Question is about aid, we cannot avoid at this time reference to the Uruguay Round of GATT. We all know that if no solution is found the poorest nations will go deeper into recession and we shall follow them. In the last resort, it is trade and not aid which the world needs. We must look to the further horizons; short-term solutions are not enough. We must resist all short-sightedness and narrow-minded caution. The times are ripe for generous, courageous statesmanship. We have the presidency of the European Community. If we cut our aid other countries will follow. We need to give a lead and to set an example. If we do not we shall live to regret it.
I repeat a saying which I have used in this House before—self-interest so often dictates that which justice demands. It is not just a matter of charity; it is a matter of realpolitik. Therefore, on behalf of many workers in the field, in Christian Aid and in the parishes of our land, I express the hope that official aid is not cut when the time comes to make the Autumn Statement.
9.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the marvellous speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were so full of passion and knowledge that my mind goes back to a story which I have ventured to tell before in this House. After Edmund Burke made a great oration, the next speaker could not think of anything to say except to say, "I say ditto". In a sense, I cannot improve on the contributions of previous speakers.
This debate is vested with a great deal of unreality. We are begging the Minister of State, who is admired by all, to increase the aid budget. Everybody assumes that the aid budget will be cut tomorrow. That is a general assumption made by the newspapers. We are expecting the noble Baroness, who is not in the Cabinet, to alter the whole situation at the last minute. That is ludicrous. I remember the situation well when I was Minister with responsibility for Germany 45 years ago. I was pro-German and told the children of Dusseldorf that they were right to be proud of being German. The Germans expected me to do all sorts of wonderful things; of course, I did not achieve them. Therefore, we understand that the noble Baroness cannot achieve an increase although we go on record as begging her to make that tremendous last minute change, and no doubt she would wish to do that.
I hope that I can still call the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, an old friend. I have some things in common with him. We both changed our parties in the course of our lives. I changed my party when I was young and callow. Whether or not that is more or less credible than changing it with the wisdom of later years, I do not know. The noble Lord has been a Minister in two totally opposing governments. Only Sir Winston Churchill has achieved that in this century. Of course, I respect the noble Lord for his total integrity.
Unfortunately, I could not make head nor tail of his speech. I ventured to interrupt because I could not follow his line. I thought that he was going to say that there was some justification for reducing aid but he said that he is in favour of increasing it. Let us suppose that it is announced tomorrow that it is to be reduced. Will the noble Lord denounce the Government? He is a free agent and he is under no obligation to the Government so I hope that he will speak out boldly. The noble Baroness must defend whatever is decided if she wishes to remain in the Government; and we all wish her well. I was kicked upstairs all those years ago and perhaps that is what happened to her, to remove her from the firing line. It is a peculiar situation. We are attacking the Government's record and it seems to be defended by two people who do not believe in it.
I turn now to the figures. The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, may correct me on these, as he is more expert than I am, as is the noble Baroness. However, the figures that I have are not inconsistent with those given by the right Reverend Prelate. In 1979 overseas development assistance, as a percentage of the GNP, was 0.51 per cent. That is a poor figure, compared with 0.7 per cent. In 1991 the figure was 0.32 per cent. That being so, there was a steady reduction throughout the Thatcher years in the percentage of our national income going to overseas aid.
288
The noble Lord, Lord Prentice, cannot be proud of that record. I thought he might feel ashamed of it. It is fairly lamentable in an area which he has made his own. Therefore, the starting point is that there has been a lamentable reduction in the percentage of our overseas aid during the Thatcher period.
What is the justification for that? I have heard none other than it has been said that it means sacrifice. With enormous diffidence, I venture to say that I was rather unhappy to hear the right reverend Prelate talk about realpolitik. I know he mentioned justice, but he said it is not a question of charity. I believe that this is a question of charity in the Christian sense: faith, hope and charity. One hears the figures read out by the noble Lord, Lord Prentice. This country is still a rich country. In The Times today I see that the basic income requirement of the average family is £21,000 per year. If anyone doubts my figures, they should look at The Times today. This is a rich country and we are talking about starving people. I do not believe that we need to go into realpolitik to say that Christian duty, whether one calls it charity or love is very different from the one pursued down the ages.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, if one is a Church leader, one has to offer the teachings of Christ in such a way that people in the marketplace can pick them up and not just regard them as something which is said from the pulpit by those with Christian ideals. The quotation with which I ended my contribution came from Archbishop William Temple who was very keen on what he called little axioms. That is if we are going to offer to the secular world of everyday the wisdom of the teaching of Christ, we must do so in such a way that the world can pick it up. Self-interest so often dictates what justice demands. That means, by interpretation, that Christian love is not just a stratospheric idealism; it is a very practical way of living.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I disagree totally with the right reverend Prelate. The idea that Christianity is involved, above all things, in adjustment of principles to suit presentation is a very unhappy one. I shall not put it as crudely as I could. I do not believe that the founder of the Christian religion pursued that policy at all. I am very sorry to say, as a lapsed Anglican of 50 years' standing, that I am shocked by the utterances of the right reverend Prelate.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like other noble Lords tonight I would like first to express my thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing this subject with such eloquence and conviction. It is a great pity that there is not a larger attendance because the noble Lord's contribution was certainly moving and effective.
While most of the speakers are on this side of the House, I do not pretend for one moment that these Benches have a monopoly of compassion. I would like the noble Baroness to understand that the issues which we are discussing are not party issues at all. There is

289
a response in our nation to this moral challenge, which has been presented in the Unstarred Question before the House.
Perhaps I may also say that I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we understand her difficulties at this moment when public expenditure cuts are the order of the day. It may be of some encouragement to her to feel that she has unanimous backing in the obvious defence of her particular concerns.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is at least likely that the message that the noble Baroness will deliver will have unanimous backing. I believe that most of us will object.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am talking about the House tonight. I believe that her concerns have the backing of the majority of the people of this nation. I hope that she will feel that she speaks for the moral majority when she defends her corner. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, about the vast improvement in the quality of our overseas aid provision. I have worked for overseas aid for some years. I know that after the war, in the first flush of aid, it was more abundant and people were more responsive. A great number of mistakes were made in the supply of aid.
I like to feel that in the last few years this nation has got value for money from our overseas aid programme. I like to feel that some of the more sophisticated arrangements we are making for relief in the third world—for example, in reducing debt through debt-equity switches and that kind of thing —have contributed to improving the situation in largely administrative arrangements.
I wish to mention two aspects. One has already been mentioned: the aid-trade provisions. I have worked for a number of years with a leading merchant bank in the City of London. It was involved in project finance. When Britain was trying to secure large contracts overseas for turbines, boilers, sugar machinery and so on, we were competing with other countries. The Germans, the French and others were putting in their bids. It was not only the price of the actual plant that we were selling but the financial package that had to be produced in order to get the order.
Most of these countries had substantially larger aid programmes than we had. Last year British exporters had no money for 11 months of the year because our entire aid assistance had been taken up in the month of April, the first month of the new year of contributions. As a result we were frequently disadvantaged when competing with France, Germany and other countries because we could not add an element of aid into the bids that we were making for the sale of British plant and machinery. The so-called credit mix, which involves an element not only of credit but an element of aid, is always built into international bids. To the extent that you might be tempted to cut the aid budget, then consequently you would diminish the capacity of our heavy
290
engineering industry to compete in overseas markets. As the right reverend Prelate said, we are frequently talking about matters of self-interest when we talk about aid.
Aid programmes have often been used as a device, as a tool, to secure greater respect for human rights in many countries. Not so long ago I visited Sri Lanka where there was massive abuse of human rights. What happened? The aid agencies—not only the British, although the British took the initiative—got together and said to the Government of Sri Lanka, "We will cut off aid if you continue to suppress human rights." In so far as you reduce your aid budget you are diminishing your capacity to influence these kinds of things which are important in the developing world.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? In fact we gave to Sri Lanka in 1990–91 £10,289,000 in development aid and £3,611,000 in other aid programmes.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I did not say that we cut off aid. I said that the aid agencies—the British, Canadian, Dutch and other agencies—got together and said that we would withdraw aid. A good deal of the figures the noble Earl has just quoted are military figures, but it does not matter. The point is that assistance of this kind is frequently used, and can be used, in securing greater respect for human rights. If we diminish our aid programmes, we shall diminish our influence.
The right reverend Prelate raised the important question of how we might pay for increased aid. I share his concern that some of the peace dividend might be directed to these peaceful purposes. I do not know whether all noble Lords listened yesterday to the very moving speech of President Yeltsin, in which he talked about reducing his arms budget by 38 per cent. in order to meet domestic commitments. We should get our priorities right. The Germans recently cancelled their interest in the European fighter aircraft. It may be revived; I do not know. The Germans indicated that they could not afford the European fighter aircraft. Their priorities were directed towards improving the situation in Eastern Germany and therefore they could not afford this sophisticated aircraft.
We have to look at our programmes and at the amount of money we are spending on armaments. On Trident alone we are spending £33 billion, and that is before devaluation of the pound is taken into account. The cost may rise still further. Our total overseas aid budget is £1.8 billion. I do not regard those as the priorities of a civilised community. We have to look at what is important in our lives and what is important in our community. I regard that kind of expenditure on armaments compared with our expenditure on aid as not being a reflection of a moral society. The people who wish to spend large sums of money on armaments of this kind say, "We have to do it in order to maintain security in the world." However, the insecurity frequently arises from the conflict between rich and poor. That is what basically causes insecurity.

291
Consequently, I believe that it would be a wise investment to transfer some of the resources we are spending on military equipment into aid.
After the war I worked in the field for the United Nations in relief and reconstruction. At that time we in this country spent 1 per cent. of our GDP on aid to countries that were less fortunate than we were. I ask noble Lords to consider the position of Britain at the end of the war. Factories and houses had been destroyed, communities were devastated and we had all the problems of soldiers returning to Britain to look for better lives. At that time this nation gave 1 per cent. of its GDP to the relief of suffering of other nations less fortunate than we were. I sincerely believe that we were better people at that time. We felt that we were making a moral judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that it would be a blow to the recipient countries if we were to reduce our overseas aid. But it would also be a blow to ourselves if we were to reduce the amount of money we give to overseas aid. Therefore, I hope that this country and the Government will be convinced that a moral judgment has to be made and that the Government will respond by increasing rather than decreasing the amount of the aid budget.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in the subject as I am chairman of the United Nations children's fund in this country. As we receive substantial contributions from the Government, I have a personal interest in the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in the level of the overseas aid programme. At the same time, I should also record my gratitude for the fact that in the past decade between 1981 and 1991 government funding of UNICEF has increased by 67 per cent. We are very grateful for that. I just note that some of our neighbours in Europe have managed to be even more generous. That should be an encouragement for us keep up the good work.
Before turning to the substantive questions raised by the noble Lord's Question, I should like to say something on a personal note. I very much miss the presence from the House this evening of the late Lady Ewart-Biggs. She was the president of UNICEF's National Committee for eight years. She spoke in this Chamber on the subject with great dedication. Although I have no doubt that she will be succeeded by others who can speak as eloquently and as authoritatively as she did, she had special qualities of commitment, human sympathy and clarity of vision which will, I believe, be much missed from our future debates on development subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, phrased his Question in his own very special tones of conviction and dedication. The question is a difficult one at the best of times. But tonight, on the eve of the Government's announcement of their Autumn Statement, it must be almost unanswerable. The noble Baroness cannot be expected to disclose to us the nature of the decisions which have already been taken. But, of course, they will determine the answer to the noble Lord's Question for, perhaps, some years to come. Therefore,
292
the approach that I suggest it is most useful to adopt is to look at some of the general considerations which bear on the issue. I shall attempt to do so.
First, there is the problem of how we define the level of aid expenditure. For the purposes of our Government, that must be done in our own currency and included in the annual Budget. But, of course, most of the money which is voted will, by definition, be spent abroad in other currencies. That is a matter of particular relevance this year, given the recent devaluation of sterling. To maintain the value of the ODA vote next year—that is, just maintaining the budget for another year—even if there is a modest increase to take account of domestic inflation in this country, will in fact decrease its spending power abroad by, I suppose, 10 per cent. or more. So there is some difficulty about defining the level of expenditure in our currency, although we have to do so.
The international method of comparing different nations' expenditure on development aid, to which many speakers referred, is by the percentage of GNP. That is a worthy target. I am sure that all of us present tonight regret the fact that our progress towards it has been slow and indeed, in recent years, in the wrong direction. However, I believe that one should add a word of caution before reaching too many conclusions about the GNP base. From living in various countries around the world, my own impression is that GNP calculations are by no means infallible, even in the developed world where they are more reliable than elsewhere. In the case of our own statistical series, we have only to look at the embarrassingly large balancing item which appears in our external payments account to realise that we should not expect accuracy to one or two decimal points of GNP when we are calculating our aid budget.
There is one other problem when dealing with those broad comparisons as percentages of GNP. There are, understandably, different priorities in different societies, some of which find it necessary to spend rather more on defence and social programmes than others. Others may decide that an overall reduction in government expenditure (and taxation) is a necessary stimulus or medicine for the national economy. While we should not be mesmerised by the figure, we should regard the GNP target of 0.7 per cent. as a reasonable, approximate guide.
Looking at our recent performance over past decades, it seems to me to be an inescapable conclusion that every effort should be made to raise the level in sterling and foreign currency terms, as soon as possible. If that is not done, the constraints on the aid programme will be severe, given the devaluation of sterling this year and that the large proportion of our aid budget which is already absorbed by contribution to international bodies such as the European Community Development Fund and the United Nations agencies will grow further. Also, and perhaps more seriously, the excellent bilateral programmes that we undertake will be bound to suffer severely.
Another significant factor in addition to the question of level is quality, about which a number of

293
your Lordships have spoken. It is rightly claimed that the quality of the British aid programme is high. I hold that opinion. I also suggest—this is something which has not been said in these terms in the debate—that our programmes are well targeted. A recent survey of aid programmes to sub-Saharan Africa shows that British aid was suitably concentrated upon that geographical area and was also targeted upon the right social needs within that area. Even conceding that the quality of our aid is high, and that its priorities are well selected, we still cannot escape from the problem of volume which is the aspect that occupies most of our minds.
Perhaps I may give one current example: the conference which is to be held at Dakar later this month organised by the OAU is designed to look at the assistance needed for African children. It is a carefully prepared meeting to be addressed by the presidents of the African nations and it is designed to illustrate to the developed countries the problems facing the children of Africa who are, after all, the poorest people in the poorest continent. It is not a fund-raising meeting. It is intended to explain to the developed countries the nature of the problem and the strategies which the African countries intend to adopt. I understand that the Minister cannot attend the meeting, but I hope that it will be possible for authoritative representatives to be sent from this country to make their contributions, to listen to what is being said and to bring back their impressions for us to act upon here.
I conclude that there are three criteria which determine the effectiveness of an aid programme: level, quality and targeting. One other factor needs to be added: national interest. We normally approach aid policy primarily as a humanitarian matter or, as others have put it this evening, as a moral obligation. It is right to see it in those terms, but we cannot escape the fact that short-term political questions are inevitably involved. That includes the issue of human rights. I am glad that the Government have recently been paying more attention to that matter. We must also recognise that the amount of aid which we can contribute to international organisations will influence what we can do within them. I have to say that in some international organisations which I am acquainted with and involved in, it seems to me that if we reduce the contribution that we are now making, we shall diminish the influence which we can exercise within them. I should personally find that a matter of great regret.
However, our national interests range more widely perhaps even than that. We have an interest—a very strong one—in the future stability and political orientation of the developing world. If we look back on the post-war history of the developing world, it is remarkable that they escaped the contagion of the Marxist/Leninist totalitarianism as lightly as they did. It left terrible damage for us to see in Africa today, but it might have been a great deal worse. We need to provide more than sympathy; we need to provide more positive encouragement to help these nations
294
make the right political choices in the future. That, I believe, means a substantial, well directed aid programme.
I should like to give one other example of the way in which the contribution we make by way of aid could have a powerful effect on our future national interest. I refer to the ultimate effect of the AIDS epidemic which is now raging in Africa. I do not think it is fanciful to suppose that the fate of the African continent in the next century may be largely determined by the children now aged between five and 15, living in Africa. These are the children who are too old to have acquired the disease from their mothers and too young to have been infected by others yet. Very many of these children are already orphans or will shortly become so. Many in turn will, I fear, fall victims to the disease themselves. But those who do not die, the minority who survive, will have the heavy burden of supporting the rest of the population among whom they live. They will have grown up in conditions of great insecurity, loneliness, privation and, perhaps most important of all, psychological disturbance.
It is not hard to imagine the political dangers of Africa led by men and women who have grown up in circumstances such as these. I do not wish to exaggerate something we cannot exactly foresee, but I fear the danger of turmoil in Africa in the next century, if events take their course unaided from outside. It is, I submit, very much in our interests to help these societies to tend their orphaned children by providing local communities with the resources they need to sustain them as best they can. Although our aid contribution is also coping with this problem as best it may, I doubt whether it will be large enough to make the commitment which I would like to see.
Of course, the AIDS pandemic is not the only illustration I could give to make my general point. A substantial, well-funded aid budget is not only a worthy humanitarian cause, excellent though that is, but it is also common sense, as I think the right reverend Prelate said, to the mutual advantage of both donor and recipient. I hope that the current levels of the aid programme may be steadily increased to meet these broad objectives.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am glad to be able to add my little voice to the other voices in the debate which was introduced so well by my noble friend Lord Judd on the subject of the need to maintain and effectively increase our overseas aid programme. The debate itself is timely when tomorrow we shall hear the results of the Government's latest deliberations on the future of the economy and how to deal with the problems that the Government have brought us to so far.
Having said that I wished to add my voice to those other voices that have made a plea for our overseas aid programme not to be cut—as the whispers seem to suggest it might be —I thought it might be useful to expand a little bit and to look at the whole situation in an historical perspective. One of the things that has worried me is the way we tend to look on aid as charity

295
rather than as a responsibility of what I would describe as good government, linking the ability to pay and the equity of our world together.
In 1798—noble Lords may wonder why I have mentioned that year—William Pitt introduced income tax. That income tax was introduced to pay for the fight against Napoleon—that is, the Napoleonic wars we were engaged in at that time. It is interesting to reflect that that levy of tax was set at 2 pence in the pound. I have just worked out that is a figure of 0.83 per cent. and that is higher than the 0.7 per cent. figure we are asked, internationally, to contribute now.
Noble Lords may ask why we should compare the contribution of 0.7 per cent. now with the income tax of William Pitt of 1798. At that time this nation was engaged in a war. I would suggest that the whole world is now engaged in a war against the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—a war on want.
If we do not succeed in winning that war, we shall all be diminished. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has just mentioned the subject of AIDS, which is the plague of the 20th century. It is probably the equivalent of the Black Death in the Middle Ages. Unless we take effective steps to deal with AIDS, it will have an enormous and unforeseen effect on the world's population.
There is a large degree of famine, ignorance and loss of life due to natural disasters, all of which contribute to the instability of our world. That instability in our world affects us all. Last Sunday, only a few days ago, we all stood for two minutes' silence to commemorate the sacrifices that have been made on a worldwide scale twice this century. Those sacrifices came out of the instability of the world as it was then. Two major instabilities have resulted in two major catastrophes for this world of ours that impinged on us very directly.
If we do not take action to prevent those sorts of instabilities recurring, we and our children will be subjected to the horrors of world conflict. Given the technology we have nowadays, that conflict will be even more horrendous than those other two conflicts that have taken place this century.
Why should we not think of aid in terms of an income tax? Perhaps one way of looking at the issue is to make up for the system which we operate at present. In effect we make the poor of this world poorer by buying their products cheaply. We get rich at their expense. It is not equitable to make the poor poorer and become richer ourselves. That creates instability. One way to counteract that is to levy an income tax on the rich and distribute the benefits to those who are not rich.
In practice, when we deliver aid to the third world and other countries we receive more in the demand for our products than we give in cash terms. Surely, we could devise a system whereby we give cash—rather like child benefit in this country—and not tokens to be spent in the company store, which is one of the horrors of the way in which we deliver aid nowadays.
Unless we look sensibly at the future and the way we organise world affairs and unless we are prepared as a country to play our part in those world affairs on an equitable basis, providing something like a world
296
child benefit paid for by progressive taxation in the form of a global income tax, I fear for the very future of human existence and this world of ours.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is my understanding that we now give less aid as a proportion of our national wealth than all our European partners bar Ireland. This evening we are debating the prospect of a further reduction in that aid. I regard that as a shameful position for us to be in.
Britain remains a powerful and leading nation in the world, with tremendous influence in international institutions such as the UN, the European Community and the Commonwealth. I believe that we should be leading the way in meeting the target of 0.7 per cent. of which so many noble Lords have spoken. It is my personal belief that that target is too modest, but that is another matter.
Over the past few years we have seen the break-up of the Soviet Union. That has led to even greater demands on our resources. Over the summer I was fortunate enough to visit Siberia. Yes, my Lords, I was literally sent to Siberia—in a professional capacity, as an engineer. While I was there I saw a well-developed technical infrastructure. There was a great deal of expertise and specialism in the realm of oil exploration and development, which is my own profession. I also encountered a great sense of bewilderment among the Russian people. They are bewildered about the rampant inflation they are experiencing and their loss of status—in their own eyes—and they are frightened of being "ripped off" by predatory Western oil companies.
The Russians have a great deal of excellent environmental legislation, but I saw precious little evidence of their implementing any of their own environmental standards. When I pressed the environmental and engineering experts I met they shrugged their shoulders and said that it was too expensive.
When one talks to the Russians about how they believe they can solve their own problems their answers are usually quite simple. They think they need more investment, more money and a greater input of technology. I believe that they underestimate their problems. From my experience, their managerial and bureaucratic system beggars description. I know that the Government have set up the "know how" fund. From what I understand, that is a good start, but I think there is scope for extending its realm of influence to more ground level managerial advice, particularly auditing. There is also scope to help the Russians strengthen their civil society by the setting up of free trades unions, and particularly the voluntary sector about which we have heard so eloquently this evening. Those extra elements would help the Russians defend their own quite high standards in the realms of social care.
Russia has tremendous mineral wealth. It is almost the richest country in the world in that respect. Its educational standards are arguably the equal of almost any country in the world. There is absolutely

297
no excuse or reason for the creation of any dependency in that country. All aid must be practical. I wonder whether the Government can look at more imaginative measures, like adjusting the fiscal regime, to encourage companies to invest in Eastern European countries.
I am not arguing that it is a better investment of our aid to give it to the East than the South. I am arguing for more resources because there is a greater need. At the Rio conference the Prime Minister, Mr Major, said that developing countries would need our help to meet the cost of development and environmental protection. He was right. We should give that help, and give it gladly.
10.37 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just returned from Russia. He is aware that Russia was the first country to develop an oil industry round Baku and in the Caucuses at the turn of the century. He may be aware that in 1914, Russia had the largest grain exporting port in the world (Odessa), and that between 1880 and 1914 it had the highest industrial growth record of the industrialised world. It is interesting to note that the German general staff begged the Kaiser to make sure that they went to war with Russia before 1917; otherwise, they were terrified that Russia's industrial might would be enough to swamp Germany instantly. Between 1922 and 1992 Russia by incompetent and ruthless government has managed to fritter away all those advantages.
Everybody in the debate this evening has said it is essential that aid should be increased. I suspect that in this debate I am going to be in a minority of one. I am going to ask your Lordships to ponder the question: does aid do any good at all? I shall try to demonstrate the point like Henry Fonda who, in the film Twelve Angry Men, persuaded a jury that wanted to hang somebody to find him innocent.
First, we have to establish what aid means. Aid is not aid to poor people; it is a government to government transfer. It is money raised by the poor from the poor, the middling and the better-off people in this country by general taxation, and it is paid over to the governments of those countries. I have in front of me a list of the various countries which have been in receipt of British Government aid. The figures come from my noble friend's department. In due course, I shall go through some of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, waxed lyrical and compassionate about the poverty and horror found in this world. I do not in any way underestimate our anxiety for those poor people. I do not argue for a reduction in the aid budget because of meanness or lack of charity. I argue for a reduction in the aid budget because, as I shall try to show your Lordships, it does harm. The money does not reach the people for whom it is designed. It provides import substitution, so that more money can be spent on arms. A sum of £80,000 million was given by western aid to Ethiopia in the decade 1979–1989. Where did that money go? It did not go to the poor; it did not go to the starving;
298
it did not go to those people whose plants had been crushed by tanks. It went for the tanks which ran over the plants. It went to the factories in Kiev and Murmansk which build those tanks. That is where all that money went.
For instance, why do we give India a vast amount of aid? India has three times the number of soldiers that we needed in 1939 to police the whole region from Aden to Hong Kong. India has two aircraft carriers-admittedly what could be classed as clapped out second-hand British ships, but nonetheless two aircraft carriers. It has an ocean-going navy and an atomic weapons programme. And India receives a large subvention from the British taxpayer. That means that the British taxpayer subsidises and makes it possible for India to buy those things because the Indian Government does not then have the necessity of providing the wells and proper development of its own infrastructure. The Indian Government does not run a proper trade policy. It makes exporting and importing difficult and restricts wealth.
I shall now skip delicately over the border into Bangladesh, where there was a gentleman who, at the expense of the American taxpayer, learned how to make jeans. He set up a jeans factory and prospered mightily. He set up another jeans factory and another jeans factory. And soon he was a very rich Bengali gentleman. He made a lot of his money by sending good quality jeans to the United States of America. That should have been the ideal answer to development aid. What did the United States of America do? Because the South Carolina jeans manufacturers complained, they put on anti-dumping duty. The net result was expensive jeans in South Carolina, one bankrupt Bengali businessman and no more jeans manufactured in Bengal. That is what I say is wrong.
We do not buy the product of the poorer countries. There is a Multi-Fibre Arrangement which puts a whacking great tariff on the things that poorer countries can make. Our children, or we whose children seem to want trainers at vast expense all the time, have to buy expensive trainers because there is a tariff on them to keep out the cheap ones which poorer people can make. That is what impoverishes countries. It is aid that harms, not trade.
I shall read out from my list because it will be interesting to hear. We give a total of £312,000 in development aid to Hong Kong. We give China £5 million-worth of development aid. Why do we give China development aid? We give oil rich Indonesia £10 million. We give India lots of money: £85 million. My figures are right. I have them from the Overseas Development Office. We give Sri Lanka £30 million. I refer only to British aid. We give Zaire—it used to be called the Belgian Congo—£312,000. Mr. Mobutu has a hairdresser flown over from New York to do his wife's hair once a week on the presidential yacht which is anchored in the River Congo. He is terrified of going ashore because some other gentleman will shoot him. That country receives aid. What does that aid do? It keeps President Mobutu in power. Is that what we want to do? Does that help the poor? No, it hinders them. It is interesting to note that we give Nigeria vast

299
quantities of money. Nigeria has oil coming out of its ears. It has ships lying off the port of Lagos with cement hardening in the holds.
We are wasting our money and we are helping to keep corrupt governments in power. I yield to no man my concern or compassion for the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the right reverend Prelate, described. I should like people to ask: is aid going where it is needed? Does it do anything other than harm? If anyone says to me, "Look at the success of Marshall Aid," I shall reply to them, "Marshall Aid lasted only four years. The vast majority of it went to us; and it did not get us out of our economic difficulties. Some of it went to Germany. Germany got out of her economic difficulties by the currency reforms of 1949 and manufacturing goods that people wanted".
Did Venice start the spice trade with the whole of the world with start-up aid from Justinian? Of course it did not. It did so from what is between the Venetians' ears. It is not development aid that is required because that keeps rotten, corrupt and useless governments in power.
The people in Somalia and Ethiopia have no government. Of course one's heart bleeds for those people. Young men are going around in Toyota trucks with triple-mounted 500 Brownings on the back. There is chaos and anarchy. Somalia could easily feed itself if there were any form of civilised and sensible government. Any country will starve if conditions of barbaric civil war take place. In the Hundred Years War the Jacquerie rose and France starved; and France has the richest European agriculture in the world.
Please can we question the ethos of development aid? I am as sure as I stand in this Chamber that it is actively harmful and does no good whatsoever. It keeps tyrants in power and impoverishes the poor. Let us buy what those countries produce; and then they will become richer, just as Venice did. After all, Venice would have been considered part of the third world by the cognoscenti of Antioch and Constantinople in the sixth century AD.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is late in the day. Many points have been raised and I wish to take a new direction. There is obviously no point in urging the Government to increase aid or not to cut aid. If they are still deciding their Autumn Statement, they are in more trouble than I think. Let us assume that the figures were decided some time ago with some deliberation. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has fought a good fight. Whatever the outcome will be, it will be so.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, said, in general there is a certain apathy in all political parties about international aid. One has to flog Labour Party general management committees to devote five minutes to a discussion on aid. I have done so. It is a thankless task. However, given all those considerations, let us remember that this is a rich country. Our GDP in nominal terms is over £600 billion. That is not a small sum of money. We give away £1.8 billion in aid
300
and if it were to be 0.7 per cent. that figure would be about £4 billion. That is not a bad sum of money to have. I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow —he may be surprised—that it is correct to ask searching questions about who gets the aid and whether it reaches the right people.
I believe that the ending of the Cold War gives us a chance to think afresh about the whole issue of international aid, not only aid from Britain but from the entire world. While the Cold War lasted our dictators were better than their dictators and therefore we had to keep our dictators in power while some of them bought arms from their dictators, which is another matter. The so-called new world order, for what it is worth, presents a historic opportunity for us to think in a different way not only about the amount of money we give but how we give it and who receives it.
Furthermore, we must look critically at whether government to government aid is a proper instrument. That depends on good governance. There is no reason why we should not insist on good governance as a way of utilising money properly. I believe that in the emerging new world order, we are in a strong and unique position through our Commonwealth connections, our place in the European Community and the Lome Convention. One finds that in all the United Nations bodies a great deal of British expertise has been involved for a long time. If you are a British citizen you have no chance of obtaining a United Nations job because the place is full of Brits. Therefore, the international aid scene has been very much a British achievement.
I shall speak on that issue rather than the question of more or less money. While the Cold War lasted, while many hangovers of the old Empire lasted, aid was an embattled field. There was a great deal of blackmail and cajolery on both sides. There were many base motives for which aid was given but it was dressed up as humanitarian aid. It is ironic that now a whole new vista has opened up. Soon after I arrived in this House I was requested by a radical group from Gujarat to ask Her Majesty's Government to insist that the World Bank asks the Government of India to meet their commitment to the Narmada River project. Several poor tribes are being displaced by the building of the new dam and their only recourse is not to the Government of Gujarat and not to the Government of India but to the World Bank and the British Government.
That is indeed a great irony because still residing on the left I was struck by the fact that we were using previously derided international institutions such as the World Bank to insist that there are poor people in the poor countries of the world whose governments are not a good guarantee when it comes to the question of human rights. I have had personal experience of to what extent many third world governments resent judgments on their human rights.
It may be—not this evening but on another occasion—we shall have to think about the morality of conditionality. Until recently, people have resisted conditionality, saying that it is an invasion of the sovereignty of many nations. We must ask ourselves:

301
what is national sovereignty about? Is national sovereignty being used in the interests of the people of those countries or not? Why should a government be allowed to torture their people? While that may be done because we cannot prevent it, should we not stand up and say that we do not like it? There are certain moral values which we should stand up for.
We are all in sympathy with attempts to improve the lot of the poor. I believe that, very often, aid works. I take on board the many examples which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, gave. However, I should say to him that my former colleague and friend the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, had been telling me that for many years. It is an extremely important point. But now is the time to ask ourselves about notions such as human rights conditionality. Should we not insist that certain human rights standards are maintained by countries which receive aid?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not the noble Lord going down the road of that splendid character in the Jungle Book called Peter Sahib, Protector of the Poor? He is going down the road of the honourable Indian civil servant and saying, "We must govern to make sure that those people carry out their human rights obligations." If we are not very careful, that is the end of the road at which he is looking.
Lord Desai: My Lords, that may be so. I am not worried about that. I am saying that those questions have not been thought about. I have a weakness for mathematically constructing indexes and I have done that in regard to the human rights performance of different countries. At one United Nations meeting I was accused of being Eurocentric, which amused me no end. I said, "Yes, of course I am being Eurocentric because I do not think that a country has a right to torture its people." The countries which complain about Eurocentric human rights buy Eurocentric guns. As regards the technology of weapons, they espouse European values, so why do they do not do so when it is a question of humanitarianism?
We must not be complacent or arrogant but we must be tough. When the new world order is constructed, I hope that it is more democratic than the old world order. I hope that we shall look after the poorest of the third world as well as the poor of the first world. However, in a long-term way on another occasion we must ask ourselves what are the best forms of giving aid. Let us give more aid. Let us fulfil the criteria of 0.7 per cent. although I should like the figure of 1 per cent. to be given in aid. However, I believe also that issues like conditionality will not be escaped. The whole notion of national sovereignty, on which we have a battle in another sphere of our current politics —subsidiarity and so on—will be open, because we live in a very global world. In that global order in which we live, it may turn out that through the United Nations or other government agencies, we may have to think seriously about what are the various forms of giving aid and what is the best way in which to help the poorest people.
As regards GATT and the Uruguay Round, although for a long time the third world was
302
suspicious of GATT, if not hostile to it, through the 1980s third world countries have moved to a position in which they want freer trade. They want GATT to succeed. It is not succeeding. That is not because of the third world's attitude to protectionism but because of the subsidies given to very rich farmers. It has been a great loss that in its long membership of the EC, Britain, as the one country which does not have a strong farming lobby—in spite of what one may think listening to debates in your Lordships' Chamber—should have long ago set our mind very firmly against the common agricultural policy, which is an abomination. There is no other word for it. It is a vast waste of resources. Apart from what it costs us it costs the third world quite a lot. The idea is that the GATT process should be held up because of a small number of farmers in another country which shall remain nameless. We should have said long ago that freer trade is important. We have preached to the third world about trade and not aid. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, we have to protect the Carolina jean makers and our own inefficient manufacturers.
As part of the new world order we shall have to say that if it is to be trade it has to be done in such a way that the third world can benefit from it. Ultimately, while aid will be good for the many poor of this world, in the long run they will have to produce things which they can sell and which somebody will buy. That will give them income. There is no other way of doing it. In a sense the sum involved is £6 billion at one per cent. That will be equivalent to £1 per person in the third world—not very much money in either relative or absolute terms.
Eventually, the problem of rural poverty in the third world is going to be solved when the world poor have the skills and assets to produce things which others will buy either in their country or abroad. That is the only factor which economics can contribute to the problem. If that happens we shall have to have an economic order which genuinely frees trade. It helps countries to relocate industry in their backyards. Let them innovate and thrust forward in these various directions. I know that this is a political minefield. Thank God I am not speaking from the Front Bench.
There are a number of these problems which we shall all have to think about. I hope that this opportunity which my noble friend Lord Judd has given us is the first of many which we shall have in this House to think in new ways about not only British aid but in a multilateral and global sense. Let us think of new ways of solving the problems which have not been solved properly for a long time. A great deal of money has gone down the drain.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the penultimate speaker before the noble Baroness replies, it is obvious that many of the points which I was going to make have already been made far more eloquently by other noble Lords. The drift of my remarks has been summarised very well by the right reverend Prelate in the words of Archbishop Temple. I remind noble Lords that they were: self-interest dictates that which justice demands.

303
Many speakers have outlined the kind of gains that we might get in this country, but not so many have outlined the dangers which are lurking if we do not alter the present gross discrepancies in wealth which exist between North and South. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, not all overseas aid is necessarily helpful. The developing world is littered with schemes which have ground to a halt, from the groundnuts scheme onwards. Luckily, as many speakers have pointed out, I believe that the ODA has learnt from this kind of experience and is now running pretty well targeted bilateral programmes. That is more than can be said for some of the activities of the multilateral organisations, however laudable their aims.
The World Bank has been mentioned. It is always being shot at. It has a very mixed reputation in developing countries. An article in last Friday's Guardian headed,
"How to waste 5 billion dollars a year",
described the findings of a high-level internal World Bank inquiry called Effective Implementation: key to development impact. One of the saddest findings was that 43 per cent. of water supply and sanitation projects had met with problems. These are developments that are basic to public health improvements.
Overall, about one-third of projects failed, mainly because they were insufficiently tailored to local conditions. I quote from the article:
"Bank staff appeared more driven by pressure to lend than a desire for successful project implementation. They often insisted on international consultants to prepare projects resulting in poor quality suggestions because the consultants 'from New York or London'"—
I am sure they were not from London—
"had no experience of the country."
That mistake is largely avoided by the ODA, and its strong support of non-governmental organisations who are in touch with local needs is one guarantee of that. But of course large-scale projects such as could be financed by the World Bank are very much needed. I am just thinking particularly about a new sewerage system for Lagos or Jakarta—vast projects which no one who has not got a lot of money could think of launching. I do not know whether there are enough experts in the world to think about a proper sanitation system for Calcutta.
I hope that the ODAs expertise can influence the next round of World Bank projects so that they are more wisely chosen and better implemented. As we are a major donor we should be able to insist on that. Even today or tomorrow the next round of funding of the International Development Association, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is being decided. As many other speakers said, I am sure that the best way to help a poor nation to get on its feet is not through prestigious visible projects but in less visible ways through a multitude of small projects.
Here I would just mention the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which has a good record of success in the way of helping small farmers. Sadly, it is much less well funded than the World Bank. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether it can be resurrected. It is now languishing. What are the current obstacles?
304
In health, of which I have personal experience in the third world, I know that I can count on the noble Baroness to be a strong supporter of the concept of primary health care. I was present at the annual general meeting of Health Unlimited, at which the noble Baroness spoke. It was a good speech, giving an informed overview of the health-care needs of the South. In particular, I appreciated her emphasis on the need for appropriate technology. If I may quote her words back to her:
"Children and adults need low-cost technology to tackle those health problems that have the greatest social and economic consequences."
That was music to my ears, and here, like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I have to declare an interest in that I am chairman of a non-governmental organisation called AHRTAG—the Appropriate Health Resources and Technology Action Group. I know that the noble Baroness puts some of her money where her mouth is because the ODA is a major contributor to my organisation, which aims at providing educational resources for health workers in primary health care in the developing world.
To return to the benefits that we receive through well-targeted aid, as my noble friend and others have pointed out, we get orders for British industry. Overseas aid can be part of the mechanism for promoting growth, which is at last in fashion, in our industrial output. In the longer term, good trading relationships flow from the contacts made during the implementation of aid projects and especially technical assistance and training programmes. We probably lost millions, if not billions, of orders as a result of cutting grants to overseas students during the 1970s. I know that that was done by a Labour Government—all the worse, I say.
Bilateral and multilateral project aid is one way of opening up markets for our goods. A much quicker way would be to tackle, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the vast amount of commercial and official debt which is crippling the poorer countries of the third world. The servicing of that debt swallows up as much as, and in some countries more than, is given as aid, which is surely a ludicrous situation.
There are several real dangers in allowing the present situation of economic stagnation and often contraction to continue in the countries of the South. In the first place, as other speakers have pointed out, poverty leads to unrest and civil and international conflict is more likely, with consequent flows of refugees from the actual military conflict or from the famine which almost inevitably follows. Poverty itself will result in the movement of economic refugees to developed countries because there they will be prepared to work for lower wages than other workers. That encourages racism and the political movements that go with it. We are already seeing that in several European countries—France and Germany are particular examples. A better and more prosperous Vietnam would have led to fewer boat people coming out of Vietnam or would have made it more acceptable for them to return home.
Rapid population growth—I am surprised that no one has mentioned population—is associated with poverty and underdevelopment. Even before modern

305
contraceptives were available in Europe, population growth rates decreased in parallel with economic and social development. The same will occur, and is occurring, in the South. Immediate help with family planning is needed which will help women in the developing world. But the greatest long-term falls in fertility come when couples see that smaller families lead to greater prosperity and better opportunities for their children. This stage can be achieved only when development reaches a take-off point with high levels of literacy, particularly female literacy, and better job opportunities.
We need a generous overseas aid budget not simply to eliminate the degrading poverty of the nations of the South but for our own economic health and the survival of democratic values in the world.
11.13 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, this has been a long debate and it is now very late. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, most of what I was going to say has already been said. I shall try to do my best therefore to avoid repeating what noble Lords have already said and confine myself to the very few things which have not been said or which I think should be said with more vehemence perhaps than heretofore.
I must confess that I think that the date of the debate is particularly unfortunate. If it had been three weeks ago, we might have thought that we could influence, although that might be thought to be an optimistic idea, the Government's decisions which will be announced tomorrow. If it had been three weeks hence, we might have been able to discuss how we could best deal with whatever the Government's decisions turn out to be. Three weeks ago we might have thought that we could help the noble Baroness in her uphill task. Three weeks hence we might have guided her in the priorities which she should pursue. However, we are unable to do that and therefore we must do our best to express our views on this vexed and familiar subject which we have discussed many times before.
It is the case—I shall be trying to answer some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—that the need has scarcely been more urgent. I believe that most people are agreed that in the Horn of Africa 23 million people are at risk and that in southern Africa 18 million are at risk. The fear that has been expressed again and again in tonight's debate is that our present economic troubles will be used as an excuse for reducing the part that we can play in dealing with this crisis of humanity.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, made a very interesting speech which I, like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, thought derived something from a reading of the works of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. However, it seems to me that he did not distinguish between different types of aid. Aid is not just something which can be treated in a totally homogenous way; there are different forms of aid which are given in different ways and which have different impacts. For example, there is emergency aid—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I feel that I must interrupt the noble Lord. His criticism is completely accurate. In my notes, I had a reference to "ambulance aid". That is something which is fundamentally different from development aid. My criticism is of the latter which I genuinely believe to be actively harmful and something which does no one any good at all—except keep corrupt governments in power.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that was not altogether apparent from the noble Earl's speech. I just make the point that emergency aid is a concept which is actually at the top of the present agenda. What is happening in Bosnia? Well, we are using troops to transport food to people who would otherwise not get it. That aid is crucial and is the kind of aid which we need to give both in the Horn of Africa and in southern Africa. To just talk about aid as though it is counter-productive is, in my view, extremely misleading.
There is also tied aid, by which I mean aid that is tied to buying products from the country which provides the aid. That practice is often extremely damaging; for example, airlines and steel works are sometimes tied in such arrangements and have often been mis-used. There is also political aid upon which the noble Earl spent a great deal of time. That was most manifest in the cold war and led to the supply of arms to extremely unattractive characters on the Left and on the Right and was totally contrary to the spirit of aid about which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was talking.
To say that all development aid has been a waste of time is contrary to the facts. I believe that the "Green Revolution" in India—I am ready to be corrected on this —had something to do with aid. What is remarkable about that revolution is the fact that India with a population which is growing at a vertiginous rate is now feeding itself and, indeed, is even exporting some food. It would not have been able to do so without the Green Revolution. Therefore, to pretend that that had nothing to do with aid is, quite honestly, contrary to the facts.
However, the noble Earl made an interesting point when he started to question—although he did not pursue it—what makes some countries take off. We do not know quite as much as we should about that, but it is a matter to which I shall return shortly. Of course he and other people are right to say that trade is as important as aid; but they are not mutually exclusive. You can have a proper and decent trading policy and, at the same time, provide aid which is well adjusted to the needs of the country to which it is directed.
There are two other points that I should like to make before I sit down. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. When he talked about the green revolution and about India feeding itself, the noble Lord wondered whether he would be contradicted. I am afraid that I have to put forward a small point of contradiction. As I understand it, the green revolution in India hinged upon two factors: one was the technological change in the development of new

307
strains of rice which enabled there to be higher productivity; and the other, which is rather curious, was Jimmy Carter's decision not to give the aid that had been given in the past. One of the effects of that was a major reduction in agricultural machinery manufacture in the western world which threw many workers in the western world out of work.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, technological aid is important. It is one of the most important kinds of aid that can be offered. So far as concerns the green revolution and the result of technological aid, in the sense of passing on better ways of doing things, that justifies the point that I was trying to make.
I want to touch upon just one other important point which I believe was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, alone, although I do not know whether it was mentioned while I was out of the Chamber. It is the consequence of devaluation. It is difficult to assess what the result of devaluation will be. It is not good enough to say, as Mr. Lennox-Boyd said earlier this week or last week, that it will be slight, because only 4 per cent. of goods used in our aid programmes are paid for in dollars or other currencies. Devaluation must affect the quantity of goods and services which a given number of pounds will purchase. The effect will be fed through into our economic system in due course.
That means that it is crucial that aid is indexed. Unless it is indexed, there will be an automatic cut. Although people will differ about what it will be, let us say that it will be between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. Without being indiscreet about what will be in the Statement tomorrow, I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is something that has been taken into account, otherwise there will be a severe cut at current prices in the aid that we give.
The third issue is one that was raised by several noble Lords: priorities. What are our priorities in giving aid? In development aid, I have a special obsession. The highest priority is literacy. If we look at the countries that have taken off, we will find that literacy in South-East Asia is in the order of 70 per cent. while that in Africa is about 40 per cent. The inheritance from the British Empire in education lies in higher education not primary education: five universities in Nigeria, X universities in Central Africa, but inadequate primary education.
I was talking the other day to an Indian Member of Parliament who was over here. He said that India was now exporting graduates to the west, but that it was difficult to persuade the Indian Government to engage in a massive programme of primary education, and what is almost impossible is to persuade them to engage in a programme of primary education for women. Unless women are educated, there will be no progress in the matter of population, a point rightly raised by one noble Lord. I am afraid to say that education does not appear to have any effect upon the sexual activities of males. The only way to achieve birth control is through the education of women. That will not merely help to deal with population growth, but in third world countries agriculture is primarily a female occupation. If there is to be an advance in agriculture, female literacy is important. If there is a
308
literate female population, the women will see that their children are educated. So I put as a priority in aid, literacy and, above all, literacy among women. I hope that the Minister, as a literate lady, agrees with me. I greatly look forward to hearing her response to the debate.
11.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my noble friend Lord Prentice, the right reverend Prelate and many others for the kind remarks that they have made during the course of the debate. It has been a wide-ranging debate and at twenty-five past eleven at night, there is no way in which I can answer every question that was posed. I hope that your Lordships will understand, because you need your beds just as I need mine. I would like to respond in general terms and then on specific issues —if there is a specific answer—to write.
One of the interesting factors in our debate tonight has been the concern of your Lordships to get these issues right. It has been heart-warming to hear it, but I must say right at the outset to my noble friend Lord Onslow that we must do something about the facts and figures that he has been fed. I do not know who has been feeding them to him—I can guess, but I do not know for certain. What I want to do is to make sure that every pound of British aid is spent in the interests of proper development and trade.
The Earl of Onslow: If my noble friend will allow me, the figures come from the ODA.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend misinterpreted some of the ones that he read out because I did not recognise them. I am sure that I would have done, had they been in context.
Your Lordships might hope that tonight I should —but I do not think noble Lords really expect me to —anticipate the outcome of the public expenditure survey which will be announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow.
Like Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the aid programme and its Minister have been greatly exaggerated. The Government are fully aware of and appreciate the many concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships' House and in another place and by our excellent non-governmental organisations about the future level of aid. Government nevertheless have to face economic realities and my noble friend Lord Prentice put this well when he explained what had happened, not just in the time of Conservative governments but of Labour governments too, of which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was even a member.
There are many important claims on the public purse. The Government's overriding economic objective must be to keep public expenditure under firm control and build for economic recovery.

309
Nevertheless, I assure your Lordships that the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme.
Our record is sound. Since 1987–88, the Government have increased their aid to developing countries substantially—by 8 per cent. in real terms. Our expenditure last year—1991–92—at nearly £1,800 million, was 3 per cent. higher in real terms than the previous year. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very interesting speech and I shall come back to one or two of his points later. May I remind him that in 1991 we had the fifth largest aid programme in the world? This financial year it will exceed the £1,835 million planned. Perhaps I may also say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that we have been making sure year by year not only that it is better targeted, as many of your Lordships have kindly commented tonight, but that none of it is wasted. We have those checks and balances; we do not pay money to despot dictators, as I sometimes read in the British press.
As my noble friend Lord Prentice and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, intimated, it is important at all times to look not only at how much we spend, but at how we spend it. It is neither logical nor sensible to separate the quantity of aid from its quality. Donors and recipients alike all agree on that. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, as was said a couple of times this evening, has repeatedly recognised the effectiveness of the British aid programme. One reason for that is our focus on the poorest countries. About 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to countries with an annual per capita income of 700 United States dollars or less. The programme is highly concessional. All our new aid to the poorest countries is on grant terms which avoids adding to their debt burden. That is an absolutely crucial feature of it.
We have rigorous criteria—economic, technical, environmental—and we shall continue applying them to ensure the quality of all the programmes and projects we support with official funds. Another reason why the British aid programme is effective is because it is well targeted. It is targeted on areas of key relevance to the aim of promoting long-term sustainable development; the sort of development that enables developing countries to produce, to trade, to earn their own livings. I remind your Lordships that three-quarters of the income of developing countries comes from trade not from aid. I wish that it was seven-eighths, nine-tenths and even higher proportions.
We have six key areas—economic reform, good government, the reduction of poverty, the promotion of human development, the environment and the development of the private sector. Let me say briefly a little about each of those areas.
I shall start with economic reform. Sustainable development needs sound economic policies including sensible prices and exchange rates, controls on public expenditure in the developing countries and efficient public services. We do our best through technical co-operation to make sure that that happens in country after country. It is very interesting to look at
310
the countries that have pursued sensible economic reform over a number of years. It is quite clear that they are getting better growth rates and they are stopping the nonsenses of the past. I accept there were nonsenses in the past, but we have at long last got the donor community acting together to bring about sensible economic reform.
The second area is the promotion of good government which involves issues such as the competence of government; its legitimacy and its accountability to its people; broad participation of the people in the development process; and respect for human rights and the rule of law. That has been mentioned by many noble Lords tonight.
The third area is the reduction of poverty—appalling grinding poverty which, for all the scientific brains in a few countries, still exists among a mass of the people in those very same nations. We achieve that both indirectly through promoting economic growth and by direct action among the poorest in projects such as slum improvements, and particularly in education projects at primary level and education projects for women's literacy. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to that matter. If one makes women literate, one achieves so much more for the long-term than one seems to be able to achieve through the education of men. So be it!
The fourth area is the promotion of human development, including better education and health, and the promotion of childbirth by choice not chance. I agree very much with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on that subject. Here is an area where the provision of good primary health care convinces women their children will live longer. One therefore encourages them to follow sensible family planning policies. That is obviously another key part of our work.
The fifth area is helping developing countries to tackle environmental problems. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned his recent visit to Siberia. The situation in some parts of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, in terms of environmental problems, is chronic. The task there is so mammoth that we all have jobs for lifetimes to come. Through technical co-operation and our know-how funds we are seeking to help those countries to tackle their problems for themselves. We are not tackling their problems for them but giving them the knowledge and the know-how to do it for themselves. We are working alongside them so they develop the ability to control their own pollution as time passes.
The sixth area is the promotion of the development of the private sector as a crucial contributor to economic growth. Sustainable development has long been at the core of the aid programme. The UNCED conference in Rio explicitly recognised that we cannot separate sustainable development from the environment. I know how much the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others care about that. In Agenda 21 we set out a blueprint for sustainable development into the next century. I can assure your Lordships that we shall mobilise the aid programme in support of those goals of Agenda 21. In fact, we are already doing so to a large extent.

311
The process of promoting development is important for us all. Improvements in the prosperity of developing countries helps their economic growth, encourages world economic growth and will provide a better environment for British companies to trade and invest. Much of the work of our aid programme provides that very employment for British companies which we so much want and for the individuals who do such a splendid job working in the developing countries.
A number of comments were made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, my noble friend Lord Prentice and the right reverend Prelate concerning the targeting of aid. We accept the internationally agreed target but, like most other donors, we are not in a position to set down a timetable for reaching it, if we have not already achieved it or exceeded it. Future levels of aid will continue to depend on the economic circumstances of individual national governments and on other calls on public expenditure. I know, and regretted, that for the calendar year 1990 the ODA figure fell to 0.27 per cent. of GNP, but in 1991 it was 0.32 per cent. Over the five years we have maintained the average at 0.30 per cent. or a little above. It is significant that we have maintained that average over a period when our programme has grown substantially in real terms. As I have said many times, it is also important that we look at how we have spent the money.
As we went through the debate I noticed some comments about a possible reduction in money for development assistance in the EC budget. I can assure your Lordships that wherever those figures came from in the first place, they were not correct. The figure which is being considered for development assistance under the budget for 1993, including food and emergency aid, represents an increase of about 5 per cent. on the original commitment for 1992. I shall consider again what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, but I can assure him that he need have no fears on that score.
While I am on the subject of the European Community development budget, which the noble Lord mentioned, I should point out to the House that the 1992 aid budget was nearly 20 per cent. higher than in 1991 and the 1993 preliminary draft budget is more than 2 billion ecus, which represents a 15 per cent. increase over 1992. Therefore, with the latest amendments, that will rise by 0.1 billion ecus to 2.1 billion ecus. That is in addition to the EC budget. We have the Community aid to ATP countries through the Lome Convention, which so far this year is over 1.6 billion ecus. Your Lordships probably already know that all the aid to Eastern and Central Europe is separate from and additional to that for developing countries; so in both areas we are raising the amount that is being spent.
It would be easy to talk for some time about the follow-up to UNCED. The Rio conference was a fascinating one, as I made clear in your Lordships' House on our return. We shall contribute our share of the 3 billion ecus pledged by the European Community at Rio for specific projects and programmes in key Agenda 21 sectors. We made it clear in our Community statement there that the
312
member states could only announce individual contributions in accordance with their national budgetary procedures. In common with a number of other member states, although there may be some announcement tomorrow, we are by no means yet able to complete the process and we shall still have to decide the details of our contributions in the weeks ahead.
The right reverend Prelate, in his very interesting speech, commented particularly on debt. With the Trinidad terms promoted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the story in relation to debt is very much better than it used to be, but there is still a long way to go. We have led the way in promoting measures to relieve the burden of debt but, as I said, there is more to be done. The Trinidad terms currently reduce the eligible payment due to governments by as much as 50 per cent. Your Lordships will recall that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wanted that to be two-thirds of the outstanding debt. We have not reached that agreement with all other donors, but we shall press for even greater debt relief to be made available to the low income, heavily indebted countries which need it. We want them to be able to stand on their own feet, run sensible economic policies and get growth in their economies.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made reference to net resource transfers. Net transfers to the poorest countries have become strongly positive throughout the 'eighties and now the 'nineties. Some middle-income countries in Latin America have made net transfers to industrialised countries; but that is due largely to a fall in net bank lending which arises when countries are in a position to repay their debts. The official flows have increased considerably. Recent figures from OECD, which are much more comprehensive than those from other sources, show that developing countries received £23.5 billion more in 1991 than they paid out.
We have also been looking at net private flows. The figure relating to 1990, which was interpreted by some as showing that developing countries had paid £6.1 billion to United Kingdom banks, was certainly not a true reflection of net bank lending. During the past year the Bank of England has undertaken work to make sure that all financial transactions are taken into account. The revised figures for total flows from the private sector to developing countries in 1990 amount to £1.7 billion. The preliminary estimates for 1991 again show repayments of claims to United Kingdom banks but they decrease to £680 million, and there is an increased total net flow from the private sector to developing countries of £2.3 billion. The situation is gradually improving. It is those kinds of big financial movements that will help those countries to invest of their own accord in the infrastructure they need if they are to establish their own industries.
The right reverend Prelate spoke about private investment going down. The one thing that private foreign investors need more than anything is confidence before they invest in developing countries. They want to be sure they can repatriate their profits and dividends, operate in a liberal and transparent economic environment and that host governments will

313
not do U-turns in economic policies. In supporting economic reform programmes, our aid is helping to create the right conditions for foreign private investment. That too is critical to getting growth in developing countries. Your Lordships know that confidence takes time to build. Where countries persist in the right economic path we are beginning to see real returns. Mauritius, Botswana and Ghana all show how it can be followed through and are now attracting foreign investors.
Some comments were made about tied aid. We will try to get as much untying of aid as possible because we believe it right that the money made available by donors should be used in the most effective way for the recipients. That means having the freedom to buy in region and in country and not to have the aid tied. I wish a few of our partners in the Community could go along that path with us as fast as we wish to go, but we will continue to push it for the good of the recipients of the aid programme as well as better value to the taxpayer who gives the money in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the future of the aid and trade provision. I am afraid that I cannot give him any information about that until we have concluded the public expenditure decisions. What I will say is that I am well aware of how valued this is by industry but it should not be seen as a subsidy to industry; it should be there to get economic regeneration in developing countries started as well. That is always something that we must have in the forefront of our minds.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about respect for human rights. We are seeking to make sure that that, as part of our good government policies, is pursued in all our aid giving. We seek to proceed by offering incentives—handing out carrots, not sticks-but we are quite prepared to stop new aid. Indeed, we have done so. We are quite prepared not to pursue projects, if we believe that the government of the country is going down the wrong path and not a path of good government.
My noble friend Lord Onslow made a speech which, I hope the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for saying, was very much like the curate's egg, because there were parts as regards which I agreed with him. Of course we want to see trade and money properly used. But where it is being properly used-and it is largely British aid-we watch for growth and sensible developments. Studies on the effects of aid show that on balance increases in investment contribute to growth. The benefits of aid are confirmed by the record of our own aid projects, and on evaluation—all our projects are evaluated. Some 80 per cent. of them seem to have been partially or wholly successful. There are examples of benefits from well planned and executed projects. I shall not detail them tonight, but there are many to be seen. One of the new departures in recent years has been the stimulation of small and medium-sized industries in the developing countries. That is exactly what they want and how they will progress.
It is very tempting to keep noble Lords in the Chamber for a good hour further, but I promised not
314
to do so. My noble friend Lady Trumpington pulls a bigger punch than I do. But let me just say that we have had a quite exceptional year in respect of people in real need overseas. The needs in southern Africa have probably been the worst ever known as a result of drought. There are the needs in the Horn, the needs in Yugoslavia, the needs of people in Iraq and the needs of people in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. We have played a very significant part as a nation and in our presidency of the EC in making sure that the right kind of technical co-operation is given, and the right donations to the United Nations agencies which have been seeking to do so much—I mention in particular UNICEF, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is such a prominent member—to give help where and when it is needed.
But we are not only concerned with emergency aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, the need for long-term development aid exists in order to prevent the emergency aid being required at some future time. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, believes that.
While I cannot answer all the questions of noble Lords in the debate tonight, and certainly cannot put every mind at rest, I can say that we seek to fit the assistance that we offer to the real assessed need of the country. We seek to do that in a way which is both cost effective and as simple as possible, so that it cannot go wrong. Simple is beautiful in many places. That is why we back bodies such as the Intermediate Technology Development Group and many others who are bringing new ways of doing things to the developing world. We do it with remarkably little funds sometimes.
Like any spender, if I had more, I could use it. But I promise your Lordships' House that whether it be with the know-how funds that the Prime Minister announced just two days ago to President Yeltsin doubled, with another £50 million going to the Soviet Union; or whether it be through our work in multilateral organisations, we seek to get value for money.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I am not satisfied with everything that goes on, be it in the World Bank, the EC or other multilateral institutions. But I give noble Lords this assurance. We shall do all we can in the Overseas Development Administration to make sure that the faith in my department which has been very clearly demonstrated by the debate tonight is not misplaced.
On the subject of GATT, a healthy global economy and an open trading environment are vital for the developing world just as they are for us. The GATT Uruguay Round is the top trade priority in our presidency of the Community. We have gone back, and back again, when it looked as though the negotiations were breaking down. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been unceasing in dragging people back to the negotiating table. We shall continue to support the Commission in its efforts to reach agreement with the United States. The President of the Commission assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Monday that it was his wish that negotiations should resume, as they have done this week. The United States has

315
expressed the same wish. We shall go on working for a solution to avoid the use of punitive tariffs which would do nobody any good.
Finally, we are in the middle of transition to a new international order. It is not easy. The UN faces new challenges. The EC faces new challenges. We do too. But we have to make sure that we measure up to the needs of the developing world in which there are many people who literally cannot help themselves. We also need to be tough and fair with leaders of countries who could do a great deal better with their own
316
resources let alone with what they receive from donors. I assure my noble friend Lord Onslow and the remainder of your Lordships' House that we shall not only play our full part in the international effort to bring about a better world, but we shall do so with a very firm eye on the British taxpayers' money and on value for money for all the people in the developing countries.
House adjourned at eight minutes before midnight.

  COLOMBIAN COAL IMPORTS
  COLOMBIAN COAL IMPORTS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: CRITERIA for ACTION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: CRITERIA for ACTION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY PROPERTY LEASES: CAPITAL SPENDING CONCESSION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY PROPERTY LEASES: CAPITAL SPENDING CONCESSION
  TOMLINSON REPORT: RESEARCH
  TOMLINSON REPORT: RESEARCH
  INFANT DEATHS FROM BURNING
  INFANT DEATHS FROM BURNING
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1967: SECTION 4 POWERS
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1967: SECTION 4 POWERS
  EC PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTIVE
  EC PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTIVE
  PIT CLOSURE PROGRAMME: EFFECT ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  PIT CLOSURE PROGRAMME: EFFECT ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS