Sitting of 16 November 1992

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

    School Governors
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further steps he will take to inform school governors of their rights and obligations under local management of schools.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Before I reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to welcome the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to the Opposition Front Bench as this is his first Question Time as Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs.
    We will shortly be distributing to all governors updated versions of "School Governors—A Guide to the Law". This contains a great deal of useful information for governors including advice on managing a school's budget and staffing.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister of State was slightly remisss in not congratulating Llanelli on their win over the Wallabies when he congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), our new shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs.
    2
    Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been a problem with the governors of locally managed schools and grant-maintained status schools which was only recently acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Education with the new Education Bill? Does the Minister agree that being a school governor at the moment is quite a hazardous occupation in respect of liability for health and safety and the Food Safety Act 1990?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Certainly, governors do valuable work. There are 20,000 school governors in Wales and between 12,000 and 13,000 of them were due to be reappointed or to be appointed anew this term. They have a great deal of responsible work, but, according to the reaction that I have received, they are taking their work very seriously and are doing extremely well.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local management of schools has been an outstanding success and that grant-maintained schools will be an even greater success? What measures does my right hon. Friend intend to take to stop local education authorities under the control of Opposition parties from mounting scurrilous campaigns against those schools, and their governors and parents, that are considering applying for grant-maintained status?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Certainly, I agree with my hon. Friend that LMS has been a great success in Wales. Six hundred and fifty primary schools and 200 secondary schools are now locally managed and all schools will be locally managed by April 1995. It is indeed a short step from local management to grant-maintained status. I agree with my hon. Friend that parents who wish to consider grant-maintained status should be given fair play and should certainly not be bombarded by local education authorities. We are taking steps in the Education Bill to ensure that the amount of money spent by LEAs is equivalent to the amount of money that could be spent by a school seeking grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister must surely be aware of the groundswell of opinion against the provisions that were put forward in the consultation paper in the summer and

    3
    the implications that they have for all schools in Wales. May I press him on guidance to governors with regard to special needs education? Is he aware that many governors will not have a background in respect of the special resources that are needed, and that, if they have to make value judgments on the use of available resources, they may not have the necessary backgrounds to reach such decisions? What steps is the Minister taking to safeguard the needs of those who require special education?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There is a later question, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, about special educational needs. However, over the past four years we have spent£12 million on support and training for school governors in Wales, so they should know about children with special educational needs.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I thank the Minister for the kind words with which he started this Question Time? I hope that he will enjoy my stay at the Dispatch Box as much as I shall.
    When the Minister informs LMS schools of their rights, and, incidentally, tries to bribe them into opting out, will he be slightly more honest than he has been recently in his analysis of LEA expenditure? Not all Welsh local education authorities are underspending on education. Why does he not admit that there is no pot of unspent gold, as he suggests? If schools are bribed into opting out, that will be at the expense of the majority of schools in Wales which will not opt out. Why does he not accept that?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There is no bribing whatsoever. Through grant-maintained status we are ensuring that schools get their proper share of the money. The hon. Gentleman must know that local education authorities retain a substantial amount of money to maintain their services and their local bureaucracy. With regard to capital allocations, I have made the point clear again and again that there has been an underspend of 15 per cent. overall in Wales in the amount of capital spent on schools and colleges. There was a similar underspend, although not as large, last year and, indeed, the year before.

    EC Funding
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to seek objective I status for Wales, or parts of Wales, under the structural funds of the European Community.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): May I also add my words of congratulation to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)? I think that I am the third Secretary of State for Wales in 13 years and he is the third shadow spokesman in 13 weeks, but I wish him well for many years to come as Opposition spokesman on Wales.
    On question 3, I shall of course be submitting to the EC proposals to secure the maximum support for Wales from the structural funds.
    Mr. Dafis: I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises, or at least I hope that he recognises, the immense importance of strengthening the structural funds —the only hope for a vigorous regional policy in Wales. Is he willing to undertake to attend the Edinburgh summit
    4
    and represent Welsh interests directly and specifically in talks about the importance of the structural funds for the development of the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Hunt: So far as the Edinburgh summit is concerned, of course we work through our colleagues in the normal way, but I will personally undertake to do everything possible to secure the maximum possible support for Wales under the structural funds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, such matters are governed by the nomenclature for territorial statistical units, which is known affectionately in the Community as NUTS, and the NUTS classification is very important. Notwithstanding that, I will do my best to secure the maximum resources for Wales.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend, in putting together his submission in support of aid under the structural funds, draw specific attention to the survey that was published in the Financial Times on 12 November, confirming the excellent record that has been achieved by the Welsh Office in ensuring that Wales is ahead of the league in the whole of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment throughout the 1980s?
    Mr. Hunt: The partnership with the European Community, with local authorities, with central Government and with the Welsh Development Agency has meant that Wales has consistently won record levels of international investment, as the report bears out. Just as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and I were at Stradey park on Saturday to watch Llanelli gain a brilliant victory, so Wales wins in the world.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I warn the right hon. Gentleman not to strip Deeside of development area status. That would imperil its objective 2 status. Does he agree that this would be the wrong time, during a slump and with rising unemployment, to detract from the assisted area status map of Wales? May I warn him that the steel industry in Europe, Britain and Wales is under severe pressure and ask him what be intends to do to safeguard Wales's steel interests?
    Mr. Hunt: In Wales we are proud to have some of the finest steel plants anywhere in the world, with a producitivity to match that of anywhere in the world.
    As for assisted area status, I am about to meet a delegation from Clwyd county council about it, and I will of course bear what the hon. Gentleman says in mind.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy. I may he the third shadow that he has had to face in 13 weeks, but I assure him that I fully intend to be the next Secretary of State, representing a Welsh constituency.
    The fact is that we in Wales need all the help that we can get, from the European Community and from the Government. Wales is now at the bottom of the British wages league. Last week's autumn statement will be a bitter blow. One third of Welsh workers in the public sector are already on low wages, and in effect they now face a pay cut.
    Why will not the Secretary of State accept that, with rising unemployment and poverty wages, the last thing that Wales needs is a question mark hanging over its assisted area status in the important belt from Bridgend to Cwmbran—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, beside the Dee estuary?

    5
    I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking to consult, but why does he not give the House an assurance that he will fight for assisted area status in Wales? Why will he not assure us that he will fight for Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman intends to remain Labour spokesman for many years to come. I am pleased that the game of musical chairs has stopped, and I wish him well as Opposition spokesman for many years to come.
    Since I became Secretary of State, wages in Wales have risen faster than the average in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]—that is a statistical fact. But I also recognise that there is a longstanding problem in Wales. I want many more high-quality, highly paid jobs to come to Wales. I repeat what I have said about the importance of bearing in mind all representations received on assisted area status.

    A470
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the improvement of the A470; and what work has been done so far.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Since 1979 over £115 million has been spent on the A470. We have plans to spend a further £120 million including the major improvements shown in the 1992 "Supplement to Roads in Wales".
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend expect that the whole route will eventually be upgraded to dual carriageway standard? If so, can he give any idea of when that might happen?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: There is no economic or environmental justification for upgrading the whole route to dual carriageway standard. Our policy is to undertake selective improvements for safety reasons and to reduce journey times.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the economy is to be made to grow by investing in capital projects, is there not a better scheme to extend the A470 than the one from Pentrebach to Cefn Coed? Will the right hon. Gentleman move heaven and earth to bring in the scheme ahead of schedule and get it started in 1993? Will the Minister at least assure us that the development of the A470 scheme will not be the subject of any silly experiments along the lines of private financing or tolling, as foreshadowed in the autumn statement?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Pentrebach to Defn Coed scheme is one of the bypasses envisaged under the plans that I just mentioned. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the supplement for "Roads for Wales" he will find the time band in which it has been placed. Meanwhile, the draft line side road orders were published in September and draft compulsory purchase orders are expected to be published this month. A public inquiry could be held in the spring of 1993.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will be greatly relieved to hear that he does not propose to drive a dual carriageway through some of the loveliest parts of mid Wales, where there is clearly no economic demand for such a road. On behalf of my constituents, I ask him for an assurance that the representations made at the presentation in Builth
    6
    Wells, concerning the proposed bypass, will be closely considered by his Department before any announcement is made?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the last assurance that he requested. Consideration is being given to the views expressed following public consultation. I am glad that he agrees that, on environmental grounds, there is no case for upgrading the whole route; nevertheless, as he knows, many parts of it require improvement.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: While there is no requirement for a dual carriageway throughout Wales from north to south, will the Minister tell the House by what date we can expect a decent-quality trunk road from north to south Wales? Will it be in this century or in the next?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Certainly we are improving the A470 and the A483. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the considerable improvements that have been carried out. I have mentioned that among our future plans are the Pentrebach, Cefn Coed, Merthyr bypass, the Builth Wells western and eastern bypass, the diversion east of Llangurig to Wern Villa, the Commins Coch bypass, the Lledr Valley improvements and the Llanwrst bypass, with a possible further improvement to the Pontypridd to Coryton section of the A470. We expect considerable progress, in addition to the considerable improvements which have already been carried out.

    Council Housing
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of people on local authority waiting lists for rented housing; and what is his planning figure for the number of new public sector rented housing units which will become available next year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Information on local authority waiting lists is not available centrally. Decisions on resources to local authorities following last week's autumn statement, will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Llwyd: In view of the large amount of informed opposition to Tai Cymru's recent discussion document, does the Minister agree that the proposal in it—that there should be housing on a development scale of 50 to 200 units, centred in four or five geographical areas of Wales—is utterly unsuited to the needs of rural Wales? Does he further agree that it flies in the face of the purpose of setting up Tai Cymru, which it was said was for local and sensitive development? Finally, does he agree that it would be far preferable to purchase existing housing stock and to refurbish rather than to build?
    Mr. Jones: Tai Cymru's consultative process finished on 31 October. I hope that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to submit his comments. I know that Tai Cymru is keeping an open mind and will consider fully all representations made to it, as I am keeping an open mind on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce last week a further £38 million to be spent before the end of this financial year and I look forward to that adding about 1,000 new homes for rent in Wales.
    Mr. Roger Evans: On waiting lists, can my right hon. Friend explain the other side of the issue and tell us how far Welsh housing stock has increased in recent times?
    Mr. Jones: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that Housing for Wales and the housing associations have been making superb progress. This year more than 4,000 new homes will be added to the stock, which is a tremendous step forward by Housing for Wales.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it plain that last Thursday's statement was, in respect of housebuilding, both incompetent and misleading? Is not it obvious that if local authorities must depend on additional sales to generate funds for new building in the middle of a housing slump, new building is unlikely to take place? Would not it have been much better, for the sake of the slump-hit construction industry as well as to meet housing needs in Wales, if the Chancellor had allowed local authorities properly to release their capital assets so that we could get on with some real building?
    Mr. Jones: I feel that I may be in a unique position in trying to answer a question from the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he has previously asked a question since he returned to the Back Benches. I fear that he may have missed the point because the £38 million is to provide some 1,000 new homes. It is extra money provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter forward. The point that he misses about past capital receipts is that all of that money, except that allowed by special dispensation, has been used permanently or temporarily to offset debts that have already been run up.
    Mr. Murphy: If the Minister is unwilling to say how many people in Wales are waiting for council houses, may I be permitted to tell the House that between 80,000 and 90,000 people in the whole of the Principality are on council house waiting lists? If capital receipts in the next 13 months are to be used to try to build new houses at a time when it is unlikely that people will want to sell them in any event, what logic is there that nearly £600 million-worth of capital receipts, which are still tied up in our local authority coffers, cannot be used? Is not the Minister's suggestion a crazy nonsense?
    Mr. Jones: No. The crazy nonsense is the fallacy to which the hon. Gentleman still clings. Except for the dispensation already allowed for, housing receipts have been used temporarily or permanently to offset the debt that has already been run up. Even after allowing for all redemption, Welsh local councils still have a debt of some £1 billion, which must be paid for by the people of Wales.

    Railways
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the reduction in services along the north Wales coast main line.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend last met Sir Bob Reid on 7 September. They discussed a number of issues, including services in north Wales.
    Mr. Jones: In his letter to me dated 9 November, the Secretary of State for Wales said that reports that rolling stock from the north Wales inter-city service would be
    8
    withdrawn for franchise services were without foundation. However, we all know that during the summer that rolling stock was under considerable threat, as Richard Branson and others were bidding for franchise services. Will the Secretary of State now come clean on the issue? Was there a threat to inter-city services this year as a result of the franchising proposals? Will he give a categorical assurance that those services will continue when the next franchising proposals come forward in 1994 and, if they are to continue, that all services will begin and end at Holyhead?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the privatisation of British Rail and franchising, because it is possible that the north Wales coastal services will do considerably better. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that direct services from London to Holyhead are to be reduced from three to two—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Yes, but we do not run British Rail. It is not for us to involve ourselves in operational matters, which are entirely for British Rail. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should be looking forward to the privatisation of British Rail and to franchising.
    Mr. Rogers: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Rail to discuss services in north Wales, will he remind him that the valley lines in south Wales have experienced enormous problems with the lack of capital funding? As a result, they now state that they hope that there will be no demand—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is moving around rather geographically.
    Mr. Rogers: It is a branch line.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know my Wales better than that. If the hon. Gentleman can stay within the question, he may have a supplementary, but if he is moving I am afraid that he cannot and we must move on.
    Dr. Marek: As a north Wales Member, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that at the last general election almost twice as many people voted Labour as voted Conservative? The hon. Gentleman has no mandate to be a Minister for Wales. In answer to an earlier question, he sought to wash his hands of services provided by British Rail for north Wales. He should make way for somebody else.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was by no means a parliamentary question. We shall now move on to question 7. I hope that the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will do rather better.

    Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about Welsh Office capital allocations for the planned Neath and Port Talbot hospital.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In my right hon. Friend's statement on 29 October he advised that capital allocations were available for the next infrastructure works on site. It will be for West Glamorgan health authority to bring forward its requirements for future capital allocations.
    Mr. Hain: I shall endeavour to stay within the perimeters of Neath and Port Talbot, Madam Speaker. The Minister has not denied that there is a view among the

    9
    mandarins in the Welsh Office that Neath hospital, in which local people take considerable pride, will be downgraded to a new cottage hospital on Baglan moor —centralising trauma in Morriston and maternity in Singleton—thus reneging on a commitment given to the House last year by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister give an absolute and categorical assurance that the £18 million capital allocation for the construction of the new hospital, with all its planned specialties, will go ahead as originally planned?
    Mr. Jones: I know of no suggestion that there shall be a cottage hospital for the new provision for Neath and Port Talbot. In addition to my right hon. Friend's statement last year, he specifically said in a statement on 29 October that we remain committed to a new hospital on the site at Baglan. We seek to go further and have asked West Glamorgan health authority to conduct a review into the best balance of services in addition to the hospital at Baglan.

    Hospitals, South Glamorgan
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on future hospital provision in the area of South Glamorgan health authority.
    Mr. David Hunt: This is a matter at the present time for the health authority.
    Mr. Morgan: We in the Cardiff area are concerned about the delay in knowing exactly how many hospitals are to remain open and how many will be closed. As I have received letters from consultants at one of our leading hospitals, Llandough, saying that junior hospital doctors do not have any work to do, the Secretary of State will naturally, I hope, share my concern that the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for health matters in Wales, should think of giving up complacency for Lent. There is one big difference between the Under-Secretary and me as the two Ministers responsible for health matters in Wales. If I roll up my right trouser leg, it is to show people—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman remained within the terms of his question.
    Mr. Morgan: The point about the future of health provision and hospitals is that they have to be run by people who have a genuine interest in their proceedings and who do not make provision for appointing their own secretaries to the board of the health authority.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is not one of the Ministers responsible for the health service in Wales and he never will be. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have seen in South Glamorgan an increase in expenditure from £57 million in 1978–79 to £218 million this year. As a result, health care in South Glamorgan has improved considerably. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Llandough hospital. It received one of only 36 chartermarks awarded in the United Kingdom; that award is based on the highest standards of service and the high standards offered by the hospital. The hon. Gentleman should rethink what he says before he spouts his script without reference to what is happening on the ground in South Glamorgan.
    Mr. Sweeney: How many more people are being treated in Welsh hospitals than were treated in 1979? Is that not the real test of the success of the health service?
    Mr. Hunt: We have seen enormous increases in resources, from £57·8 million to £218·3 million. Over the past year alone, the in-patient list in South Glamorgan has come down 12 per cent., and the number of people waiting over a year for in-patient treatment is down 34 per cent. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the achievements of South Glamorgan. I pay tribute to all those who work in the health service in South Glamorgan, and I ask them not to pay attention to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and instead to pay attention to the achievements of the Government and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney).
    Mr. Michael: If everything is so marvellous, why have wards at Llandough been closed when there are patients waiting for operations? As the question is about future provision, why is it that, since 1987, we have not had a proper plan for the future of hospitals in South Glamorgan, the plan produced then was unsatisfactory and was only partially approved and the planning of health services in South Glamorgan is in such a shambles?
    Mr. Hunt: It is not in a shambles. The health authority asked in 1989 whether it might review its strategic plan and that is the review which is taking place. That is why the answer to the original question was that this is a matter for the health authority to determine.

    Special Needs Education
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra resources have been allocated for special needs education in Wales for 1993–94.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It is for local authorities themselves to decide how much to make available for special educational needs, but we are doing all that we can to encourage improved provision. Next year, for example, there will be a 17 per cent. increase in the grants available for training teachers of pupils with special education needs and, for the first time, funding to encourage the integration of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools. That is on top of a parallel initiative under our all-Wales mental handicap strategy for those with severe learning difficulties.
    Dr. Howells: Does the Minister know that attempts have already been made to integrate into state schools children who are suffering from one impediment or another, and some have been successful? Throughout Wales, parents of those children are at a loss to understand how funding will be provided in the future, with all the gimmicks and experiments that are going on in self-financing and so on, and are desperate to know what the Government intend to do about what encompasses some of the vulnerable elements in society. Does the Minister agree that children who are afflicted in this way should at least be given an equal opportunity to make progress with their peers?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last statement. The whole policy of integrating children with special needs in mainstream schools was initiated by the

    11
    Government in 1989. I realise only too well that resources are necessary, but they can be held back by local education authorities or delegated to schools. There is a duty on the LEAs to ensure that, where children are statemented, provision is made to meet their needs. We know that some children are not statemented but have special educational needs. My impression is that the entire education system, in every kind of school—LEA maintained, grant maintained or whatever—is paying special attention to the needs of those children.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Education Bill which was given its Second Reading last week will improve matters for such special needs children and their parents?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will improve matters by enabling parents to express a preference for a school in the maintained sector, speeding up the assessment and statementing process, extending parents' rights of appeal and setting up an independent appeals tribunal to replace the current system of local appeals and appeals to the Secretary of State. Furthermore, in this coming year we shall spend £1·1 million on training teachers for children with special educational needs.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Can the Minister advise parents in Wales who believe that their children deserve to be statemented, when they are in classes with those who have already been statemented, and who feel that their children are suffering a tremendous injustice? What would the Minister advise those parents to do?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: That is one of the points that I covered on Second Reading of the Education Bill, which is due to go into Committee tomorrow. The Bill deals with parents' rights and it enables parents to have a far greater say about the education of special needs children.

    House Building
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new houses were built by (a) councils and (b) housing associations in Wales in 1979, 1989 and 1991; if he will make a statement on the performance of Tai Cymru, Housing for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Figures are not available for 1979–80 in respect of new homes. In the remaining two years, local authorities built 301 and 119 and housing associations built 534 and 1,003 respectively. Housing association stock has increased by more than one half since the inception of Housing for Wales in 1989.
    Mr. Carlile: On the question of quantity, will the Minister tell the House his excuse for the burgeoning shortage of houses to rent in rural areas of Wales? On the question of quality, will the Minister join me in expressing sympathy to the family of Stanley Gregory, who died on Saturday having been burned in a property owned by Cartrefi Cymru housing association, to which he had been transferred under care in the community provisions? Will he ensure that, in future, those who go from hospitals into the community receive nursing care as part of that care in the community?
    Mr. Jones: I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in offering my condolences to the family. I am aware of that sad case, which is being closely looked at by officials of my Department.
    On rural housing, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that Housing for Wales has contributed £35 million towards meeting housing needs in rural areas, in addition to a further £10 million that has generally come from local authorities. The need for new homes is accepted, but again I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, since the Conservative party came to power, 126,000 new homes in Wales have been provided, which is an increase of more than 11 per cent., while the population has grown by less than 3 per cent.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Crown prosecution service is continuing to develop best practice on a national basis through the national operational practice initiative. It is continuing to recruit high-quality lawyers and is making substantial progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues.
    Mr. Lidington: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the problems that the CPS has caused to the police service in Aylesbury and elsewhere by its insistence that the police should supply it with lengthy written summaries of tape-recorded interviews? That insistence is causing police officers to spend hours seated at word processors instead of being out on the beat catching criminals. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a waste of time? Will he consider whether the situation could be improved?
    The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I would strongly acquit the CPS of the use of the word "caused". The use of summaries is standard procedure, but I recognise the advantage of typed transcripts, done by typists, straight off. That can provide tremendous benefits to the criminal justice system, as can the immediate typing of all the papers at that stage.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Attorney-General satisfied that at all times the CPS gets the right people charged? Is he satisfied that its effectiveness and efficiency, which resulted in the three Matrix Churchill people being brought before the court, were correct? Would it not have been more proper for all those Cabinet members to be brought before the court, instead of those three people? Is it not a coincidence that that case managed to last over the general election and was sub judice for all that time, so the real truth could not come out about Iraq-gate? If it had, we would have been faced with a different situation in that general election—where the Prime Minister and all the rest of them would have been referred to as the guilty men, and not the three people in that case.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman's comments are as riddled with confusion as any of those that we have heard recently. An important feature of our

    13
    prosecuting system is that it is independent. The prosecuting authority in the Matrix Churchill case was Customs and Excise, an independent prosecuting authority which employed independent counsel. The independent leading counsel is someone of great experience who is much respected in his profession. He acted throughout with complete integrity—as, I believe, did everyone involved in the prosecution process.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's belief that the Crown prosecution service is a more reliable prosecuting authority than Customs and Excise, which brought a successful case against Ordnance Technology in the Crown court in Reading last February? It led to the convinction of three directors of that company and two other personnel on charges relating to the transfer of weapon-making equipment, supposedly to Jordan. Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine that matter as well?
    The Attorney-General: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is worried about the propriety of a particular case. Although I do not know enough about that case, I think that he may well be able to refer it to the independent inquiry to he set up shortly and chaired by Lord Justice Scott.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Attorney-General confirm that if the Scott inquiry shows there to be evidence of criminal offences by any person, however high his position and whether or not he be a Member of the House, the same level of independence will be applied to possible prosecutions as that about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier?
    The Attorney-General: I confirm that absolutely. The prosecuting process in this country is carried out by independent prosecuting authorities without fear or favour and without regard in that sense to whornsover it may have to consider.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the allegations by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were superbly refuted by leading and junior counsel in the case, who said that everything had been carried out with complete propriety and that Ministers could not avoid their responsibilities? Were not those points made clear by prosecuting counsel when laying the papers before the court?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes valid points, all of which will be capable of being considered learnedly, independently and impartially by Lord Justice Scott when he carries out his inquiry.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not it the duty of the Attorney-General —both as head of the prosecution service and because of his inherent power to put an end to any prosecution, whether brought by the CPS, Customs and Excise or anybody else—to undertake that never again will he allow a prosecution to proceed where he had personally obliged Ministers to sign immunity certificates and where, if the judge had believed what those Ministers were saying, innocent people might have been sent to prison?
    Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's duty to justice greater than the duty to Ministers to hide behind immunity certificates? Just what is the authority for saying that immunity certificates are mandatory? Surely somebody could use some common sense in these cases.
    The Attorney-General: First, I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's points—that the duty to justice supervenes all others. That said, I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman repeating a number of points that, quite frankly, are badly made and ill-founded.
    The hon. Gentleman and I frequently ask and answer questions across the Dispatch Box, so with all respect I say to him that he is mistaken in a number of his suggestions. However, all those matters will be capable of being properly investigated by Lord Justice Scott.

    Sentencing
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how often he has appealed against the leniency of sentences since he was granted that power.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Since 1 February 1989, when the power to seek leave to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence came into effect, 103 references have been made to the Court of Appeal, including nine references to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. As at last Friday, 69 references have been determined. In 56 of those the original sentence has been increased—more than 80 per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Court of Appeal and the Attorney-General have combined to create entirely acceptable sentences that can be applied in future sentencing policy? Does he agree also that the high success rate emphasises the extreme folly of those who opposed the introduction of the new power by this House?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. We hear a great deal from the Labour party about justice, but let us examine the Opposition's record when the provisions passed through the House. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that they were "wrong in principle", had been introduced for political purposes, and would impose
    "political influence and political pressure on sentencing."— [Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 692.]
    That was an astonishing complaint because the letters that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General receives asking for cases to be referred include a considerable number from Labour Members. Have they changed their policy in the meantime?

    War Crimes Act 1991
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the operation of the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: The special unit established by the Metropolitan police is investigating all the allegations made to the Hetherington/Chalmers inquiry, together with other allegations made subsequently to the police. Inquiries are being concentrated initially on those cases offering the best prospects of a useful investigation.
    Mr. Winnick: I hope that the 1991 Act will not be a dead letter and that those who should be prosecuted according to the rule of law will be so prosecuted. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that under no circumstances will Ministers sign immunity certificates in such cases? Bearing in mind recent events, such an assurance is much needed.
    The Attorney-General: I can certainly confirm that if and when the police come forward with a case to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and myself, prosecution decisions will be undertaken precisely in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors and normal standards.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he repeats a misunderstanding that has fairly wide currency—that to claim public interest immunity in accordance with legal duty is to deny the court a document. In fact, under the system documents are put before the court by prosecuting counsel. The judge then performs a balancing exercise having, if he considers it appropriate—as he normally would in a criminal case—seen the documents himself.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Drought, Africa
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he expects to visit the drought-affected areas of the African continent in the next six months; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to visit drought-affected areas of Africa again in the new year. She did so last September. We are wholeheartedly exerting ourselves to help the victims of drought and other disasters in Africa.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the 100 mecu currently languishing in Community development budgets should be urgently released? Will he bring his influence to bear at the EC Development Council meeting later this week, to ensure that money is spent on establishing a special plan for African recovery? Surely there is something seriously wrong with the system that allows money to languish when thousands are starving in Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: I will certainly try to speed things up. This year, Britain has committed £150 million in humanitarian help to Africa, including £63 million to drought-affected areas. A great deal is being done to help.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not our noble Friend Lady Chalker enjoy a high reputation because of all the work that she is doing to improve our relations with Africa, and is not this country already doing a considerable amount to aid Africa—not least in the important matter of water extraction and the water industry throughout Africa, which is part of the base of the problem?
    Mr. Hurd: That is certainly true. I am glad that—contrary to dire predictions from Opposition Members —we have been able to maintain our aid programme in the public spending review. I think that, in the circumstances, most people would regard ours as a very reputable record.

    Child Labour
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it the policy of the Overseas Development Administration to use
    16
    the aid budget to seek to eliminate the employment of children in dangerous or unhealthy conditions in recipient countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): It is the policy of the Overseas Development Administration to help those children who are forced, through poverty, to work in dangerous and unhealthy conditions.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware that an increase in the volume of exports of Colombian coal is forcing more and more people in Colombia to buy from the domestic market serviced by small mines? According to a recent statement by the Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights, 900 of those small mines employ children, some as young as five years old.
    Does the Minister accept that the Government's policy of electricity privatisation has led to the purchase of considerable amounts of Colombian coal by PowerGen and National Power, and that compulsory competitive tendering has forced local authorities to do the same? Will he make it his policy to use the development budget to support development projects that will eliminate the use of child labour in Colombia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have been informed by Carbocol, the Colombian coal company, that no coal exported to Britain from Colombia is produced through the use of child labour. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of the contrary, I shall of course want it to be considered very carefully.
    It is very much the Government's policy to use ODA resources to help with the awkward problem of child labour throughout the world. Children are sent to work because of the great poverty that exists throughout the world. All our projects take cognisance of that, and try to improve living standards so that child labour is no longer used.

    Procurement Policy
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of overseas aid is used for the procurement overseas of British goods and services.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The proportion of bilateral aid commitments tied to British goods and services was 76 per cent. in 1989, 79 per cent. in 1990 and 74 per cent. in 1991.
    Mr. Fabricant: Do British manufacturers derive any export benefit from multilateral aid—aid given through the European Commission or, indeed, through agencies of the United Nations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. I have just given the overall percentage for bilateral aid; a total of £934 million helped British industry in 1991. We reckon that, over the seven years between 1982 and 1989, every £1 contributed to multilateral aid produced £1·40 for British goods and services.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of the overseas aid programme for the next two years.
    Mr. Hurd: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement, the aid programme for developing countries is planned to rise in 1993–94 to £1,900 million, compared with £1,835 million this year, and then to be maintained at that level in 1994–95.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that today more than 3,000 Somalis are stranded, starving, in a ship in the Red sea? That is a matter of deep personal concern to my constituents in Cardiff who have relatives in Somalia. Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed that, on this day, we have frozen our overseas aid for the next two years, effectively saving £75 million next year and £150 million the year after, and cutting our aid budget by 12 per cent. over those two years?
    Mr. Hurd: I am told that the refugees to whom the hon. Gentleman refers have now reached Yemen. Our aid to Somalia this year has been substantial—£27 million sterling. As for the total figures, I have received, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman received, many letters protesting against the Government's intention to cut aid by 15 per cent. I do not know where that story came from. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does. However, it has been completely falsified by events. They show a rise, in cash terms, in aid to developing countries this year; a steady figure, in cash terms, in the remaining two years; and, as regards our total external assistance, including eastern Europe, a rise in cash and in real terms, throughout the three years. In the circumstances, that is a very satisfactory outcome.
    Mr. Wells: Is it not true that the increase in the aid budget, which I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing, clearly helps the poorest countries, and the
    18
    poorest people in those countries? However, because it is tied to the acquisition of British goods and services and to the employment of British people, does it not help this country out of recession, as well?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, it does have that effect. Although much of our aid is untied, British industry benefits greatly as a result. It is widely felt in the House, even on partisan occasions, that the quality of British aid is high and that it is well targeted. I am delighted that the total agreed in the autumn statement is, in the circumstances, a good one.
    Mr. Meacher: Contrary to what the Foreign Secretary said, does he not acknowledge that to freeze the aid budget for two years after 1993 will cut £75 million off aid programmes that had been planned in the first year, and £150 million in the second year, and that that represents altogether about 12 per cent. of the whole aid budget for this year—£225 million? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the two-year freeze, plus the 15 per cent. devaluation after black Wednesday, will cut the value of British aid abroad over the next three years by no less than a quarter? Is he also aware that the latest cuts represent yet another prime ministerial U-turn and broken promise? At Rio, the Prime Minister promised that he would increase British aid, but it is being frozen and reduced. If he is still Prime Minister at the end of this week, should he not be hanging his head in shame when the European Community Development Council meets?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has juggled rather desperately with figures which even he must admit are a good deal better than he probably expected. As regards his one substantial point, the effect on the exchange rate, he will know that a very large proportion of our aid is calculated and paid for in sterling.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Sir John Wheeler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I very rarely raise a point of order, but I do so today on an issue of considerable importance. May I respectfully ask whether you have received a request from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), to whom I have given proper written notice of my intention to refer to him this afternoon, to make a statement about issues that he has raised in public on matters that are the proper concern of the Lord Justice Scott inquiry? It has been very much in the style of his recent unsubstantiated allegations on a whole range of topics and of statements that he had made that subsequently have been proved to be false. I refer to what the hon. Gentleman said in this place:
"I believe that self-governing trusts … are patently designed to pave the way for the privatisation of the Health Service."—[Official Report, 13 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 339.]
As the House knows, that is totally untrue. Is there any reason to suppose that the hon. Gentleman's statement in connection with matters to be inquired into by Lord Justice Scott will not also prove to be other than false?
Madam Speaker: I think that I can deal with that point of order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has not been in touch with me about these matters. As the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) knows, it is not a point of order, or a matter that the Chair of this House can deal with.
Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a fresh point of order and not the same point of order.
Mr. Flynn: Yes, it is.
Madam Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Flynn: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, of the long-stated concern of many Back Benchers about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the secret intelligence service and MI5. There is news today that a committee is to be set up, but the suggestion is that it will not be directly answerable to Parliament. Given today's further allegation that MI5 has been spying on a member of the royal family, is not it crucial that a statement is made in the House and that the body that is established is directly answerable to the House?
Madam Speaker: No Minister or Department has informed me that they wish to make a statement.
Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm the deadline by which the subject for today's Opposition day debate had to be with your office? My understanding is that it was by close of business on Friday. If so, it seems a little puzzling that I have listened over the weekend to various Liberal Democrat spokesmen saying how they would rather debate Matrix Churchill and the Scott inquiry than the subject that has been chosen. Will you confirm that this is not censorship on your part, Madam Speaker, but incompetence on theirs?
Madam Speaker: There has been no censorship on my part; and I have been far too busy over the weekend to listen to the radio or to watch television.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the guardian of hon. Members's rights, will you, Madam Speaker, deprecate the failure of Departments to answer questions tabled by Members? Last Thursday, I tabled 10 written questions to the Foreign Office and the Home Office about the impact of visas on Bosnian nationals. To date, I have not received even a holding reply. Would it be in order for the Minister speaking in tonight's debate on Bosnia to make it clear whether the 180 nationals who have been invited to this country by the Leeds-based organisation Alert will be granted visas so that they can enter this country for medical treatment and for the other urgent reasons why they need to come here?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is up to the Minister at the Dispatch Box to make whatever speech he wishes to make. If he wishes to declare such matters, that is entirely up to him. It would not be for me to withhold any information or statement that a Minister wanted to make. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's point on parliamentary questions will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and he will receive an answer shortly.
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how hon. Members can obtain an early opportunity to debate public interest immunity, especially in the light of the public statement made by defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill case that Ministers acted honourably—
Madam Speaker: Order. These are matters for the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been announced that the Scott inquiry will go ahead, but its terms of reference have not been published—I checked with the Library before coming into the Chamber. Will there be some opportunity for the terms of reference to be debated in the House before the inquiry is set up? It will be extremely unfortunate if its terms of reference are rather narrow. The House will not have the opportunity of discussing the terms of reference, and if evidence is submitted Lord Justice Scott and his colleagues can argue that they cannot deal with it because it is outside the inquiry's terms of reference. Will we be in a position to debate the terms of reference and, if so, when?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I refer him to the fact that it is for the Leader of the House to determine whether there will be a debate or a statement on the subject. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be able to help me and other hon. Members. I understand what you said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) about the competency of the Chair in these matters. However, we are subjected almost daily to a barrage of allegations about hon. Members by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). In the past, such allegations have been totally destroyed when he has had to appear on television, for example, to justify them. Can you

21
help us on the matter? Is there any way in which you can ensure that the allegations are made in the House to enable hon. Members to question the hon. Member for Livingston? If he has something to say, he should say it here where other hon. Members can comment on it.
Madam Speaker: Our rules and procedures are not being abused in any way. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have no authority in those matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of questions about Saddamgate, we appreciate that there will be difficulties about what the Table Office will accept. One of the points I have been trying to get in the form of a question is how many Cabinet Ministers are involved in trying to pervert the course of justice. The Table Office is not very happy about taking—
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I shall deal with it. I am not interested in any speeches that he may want to make.
Mr. Skinner: At the end of the day, all questions are a matter for you, Madam Speaker. If the Table Office says no, we can ask whether you are prepared to accept the question. If you are not prepared to accept my question —the way in which you jumped up suggested that you are not very happy about it—may we ask how many Cabinet Ministers are in the Saddamgate loop? That is the vital question today.
Madam Speaker: It very much depends on how the hon. Gentleman phrases questions. To quote a famous phrase, he should try harder.
Mr. Richard Page: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want you to think that I am not interested in the debates on homelessness and on Bosnia. However, further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), I clearly heard through the media at the weekened the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, say that he was forced to have a debate on those subjects and not on Iraqgate as he wanted. May we have your assurance that no pressure has been put: on you to prevent a debate on Iracigate? That will expose the scandalous lies that have been—[Interruption.] I withdraw that term.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is getting repetitive. Nobody puts pressure on me, either in the Chair or anywhere else.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to the answer you gave the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), may I ask you to clarify one issue? If an hon. Member deals in a distortion of documents, and peddles those distortions to the press, when the documents are clearly going to be the subject of a proper inquiry, will you rule it in order for Conservative Members to table early-day motions relating to that fact and to those distortions?
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members must frame their early-day motions. I shall then look at them carefully.
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the question of documents, it is well within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has made something of a speciality of dealing in leaked documents of one sort or another. Will you advise the House on the proper relationship between an hon. Member and members of the civil service, especially in light of the hon. Gentleman's experience? On one well catalogued occasion, he used a document that had come from a civil servant via his adviser. Is that behaviour to be deprecated or to be applauded by the Chair?
Madam Speaker: The page number of "Erskine May" escapes me at the moment. I am sure that the lion. Gentleman knows that the Speaker does not give such guidance and information across the Floor of the Chamber.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the terms of reference of the Scott inquiry, I raised the same point of order last week and you, Madam Speaker, told me that I had overestimated your powers. I believe that this issue goes to the heart of democracy in this country. If you do not have the power, Madam Speaker, can you advise me, as a new hon. Member, how we can get to the bottom of the matter, given that people are hiding behind the Attorney-General's skirts and he is going to drop the terms of reference—
Madam Speaker: Order. The terms of reference of an inquiry are not a matter for the Speaker.
Mr. Boyce: They should be.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman and the House feel that they should be, then by all means alter our rules and procedure and give me that authority which I do not have at the moment—but not today.

Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Homelessness and Mortgages
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the shameful state of housing in Britain and the horrifying total of well over 150,000 families a year now accepted as homeless by local councils; further notes that over 75,000 homes were repossessed last year and that over 190,000 people are now more than six months in arrears with mortgage repayments; deplores the fact that in real terms the proportion of national expenditure spent on housing has more than halved since 1979; recognises that in the Autumn Statement, although Her Majesty's Government has announced a few measures which will assist some of those in need, its proposals are altogether inadequate and have yet again failed to include the release of the accrued £.5·5 billion of local authority capital receipts, higher credit approvals for councils with few or no receipts including those in Scotland, and a nationwide programme of home insulation; believes that the only reliable way out of the recession is a large scale public investment programme of which a central element should be higher capital spending for home renovation and new build; and calls on the Government to introduce such a programme which would rescue the construction industry, boost the general economy and provide real jobs, whilst at the same time ending for many the nightmare of a life in cardboard city, in bed and breakfast accommodation or in a home that is under imminent threat of repossession.
  It gives me no pleasure to have to introduce a debate on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on housing, homelessness and the mortgage crisis in Britain. I move the motion because, since the general election, the House has not had the opportunity to debate properly the state of housing in Britain. I move it because the housing crisis is a crisis the length and breadth of the country. I move it because, after 13 years of Tory Government, all their promises have been seen to be shallow and hollow and millions have suffered as a result.
  In 1983, the former right hon. Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, said and had printed in the Conservative party manifesto for that year:
  "Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe."
  Nine years later, I wonder how far she believes that we have moved towards that goal.
  The majority of people who come to Members' surgeries—and you, Madam Speaker, will be as aware of this as any other Member of this House—come with housing problems. It is clear to them that housing is the most fundamental issue that a Government must address. It is a kind of fundamental human right.
  Housing is a moral issue as well as a practical issue. The Catholic bishops conference stated in 1985:
  "First of all, housing is a moral issue. Decent physical accommodation is a basic need and not a luxury; a right, not a concession."
  Another quote sums up quite well how important housing is in the spectrum of policies that concern us all:
  "Housing is the greatest of all social needs. It is the first priority among social services. Even the best schools, clinics,
  24
  hospitals, playing fields and libraries are something of a mockery to those thousands of families who have no decent home of their own."
  That was a quotation from the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, to the Tory party conference in Blackpool the year after I was born. Everyone of right judgment would agree with Harold Macmillan, and it is a tragedy that the 13 years of Tory rule have not dealt with that agenda in a way that the people of Britain need and would have wished.
  We could look at any of the last four Conservative manifestos, but perhaps we should concentrate on the last but one Tory manifesto in the middle of the period in the 1980s which encouraged and pushed people into buying even though one had always understood that it was Tory policy to encourage people to choose—in this case, to choose whether to rent or to buy. The 1987 Tory manifesto stated:
  "Housing is the biggest single investment that most people make, whether in money or in time, skill and effort. In the last eight years, as a result of our policies, we have seen a dramatic increase in home ownership. In the next five years we will complement that with policies designed to improve the supply and condition of the rented housing stock."
  Four years after the goal of making this country the best-housed nation in Europe, other targets were set—other targets which also have abysmally not been met.
  On 4 February 1992, the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom my colleagues and I respect and welcome to his job, when speaking in the "Roof" debate, which we both did, just before the general election, said:
  "The goal has to be a decent home for everyone in the tenure that he or she wants and at the price that he or she can afford."
  There is a consistency about the rhetoric. There is also, tragically, a consistency about the practice.
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. The House will accept the sincerity of his comments and of the motion. While he is dealing with consistency and manifesto content, will he tell the House whether his party still stands by the pledge that was given in its manifesto in the recent election to scrap mortgage interest relief? Does he agree that if that pledge were implemented, and if it is still held strongly by his party, it would add to the misery of many millions of home owners today?
  Mr. Hughes: Interventions are often predictable, and interventions that are culled from Tory central office briefings are more predicatable. I not only predicted but welcome the opportunity to deal with a distortion of the truth. I shall deal with that now because the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and his colleagues might otherwise continue to press me, thinking that I am not dealing with that matter straight away.
  My colleagues and I have had a very clear view, and it is supported by all informed opinion, no matter whether it is professional from the housing sector, from the Confederation of British Industry, from housing charities or from the most famous source of all, the inquiry chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, and that is that a system of tax relief that advantages those who purchase over those who rent is unfair and should be replaced as soon as possible in the fairest possible way.
  What my colleagues and I proposed at the election was very simple. It was not the abolition of mortgage interest

  25
  tax relief; it was for the future and for those who have not yet bought the replacement of that form of tax relief by a different form of tax relief, which we called housing cost relief and which would be available to those who bought and to those who rented alike. We have never proposed abolition. We have proposed doing what all informed opinion argues should be done, which is to move to a fair system of assisting everybody to acquire a home of the sort that they want when they want.
  Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I will not give way again, because I hope that the answer was not only comprehensive but that it will allow the hon. Gentleman to understand our policy and not distort it.
  Conservative policies of the past 13 years have resulted for many in homelessness or old, cold and damp housing, and, worse in recent years, the increasing risk to those who have bought that their homes will be repossessed over their heads. That blight affects all parts of the country and people of all ages and backgrounds. Whether I talk to my hon. Friends the Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who are from one of the most remote parts of the north of Scotland in rural Britain, my hon. and learned Friend from rural mid-Wales, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), my hon. Friends from the south-west, whether in citiies such as Bath or Truro or in rural communities such as north Conwall and north Devon, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), or my colleagues on the council in the London borough of Southwark, the problem is essentially the same. There are queues of people who cannot be housed and queues of people who, although housed, do not think that they will be able to stay in their housing either because it is unfit or because they fear that they will not be able to keep up the payments for the home which they have been persuaded to buy.
  Young people and others on the streets of cities such as London are the most visible victims, but there are many other invisible victims of the housing crisis. Today, my colleagues and I want to show that there are in this House people who understand the severity of the crisis and who believe it possible, given the political will and within the term of one Parliament, to ensure that the goals expressed over the years are achieved and that everyone in Britain has a home at a price he or she can afford.
  I shall deal briefly with the record. How many houses are there; are we meeting the need? The statistics are clear. The most recent figures on house building starts and completions were issued by the Department of the Environment in November this year. They show that starts in Great Britain in the past 10 years have decreased from 194,000 to 160,000—lower than ever before. Completions have fallen from 175,800 to about 167,000—lower than ever before.
  The National Council of Building Material Producers, in its October bulletin on the state of the building industry, says:
  "There are ominous signs that the industry is now moving into a deeper recessionary phase and that the situation is very much worse than had been anticipated in our February survey. The autumn state of trade survey reflects the appalling state of the construction industry."
  The number of jobs in all parts of the industry has fallen too. Since July 1989 the Federation of Master Builders has
  26
  lost 260,000 construction workers. A quarter of the skilled work force is out of work, and apprenticeships are down by 50 per cent.
  We are not building the necessary houses, and on current projections there is no prospect of our doing so.
  What has happened meanwhile to the number of people wanting property? The most objective statistics are those for households accepted as homeless. Record numbers of such households exist. In England, in the second quarter of 1992, there were 34,840. In London, in the second quarter of 1992, 9,400 households were accepted as homeless and there were more than 10,000 in other English metropolitan areas. In the same period 62,780 households were in temporary accommodation—6,500 more than a year ago; 11,000 households were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  Last year more than 150,000 households in the United Kingdom were accepted as homeless, and about 1,250,000 were on waiting lists. Probably another 750,000 households need somewhere, but are staying with family or friends on settees or on floors. The census carried out a year ago counted just under 3,000 people sleeping rough, and at the same time a quarter of the housing stock is deemed unsuitable for human habitation, as defined by an Act of Parliament introduced by this Government.
  England, Scotland and Wales exhibit similar characteristics. Increases between 1979 and 1989–91 are recorded in all three countries. In 1979, in England, about 55,000 were accepted as homeless; in 1987, the relevant figure was 109,000; and in 1991, 150,000. In Wales, the figure rose from between 4,000 and 5,000 to more than 6,000, and, in Scotland, from 7,500 to more than 10,000. These are not just statistics: they are people and families among the most vulnerable groups in society, and we all too regularly hear tragic stories of people in just such categories as these.
  Of course, during the eighties, many people took the Government's advice and bought. They decided to avail themselves of mortgage interest tax relief and became owner-occupiers. What has happened to them? So far, 1992 has been—and is likely to continue to be—the worst year for house price reductions since records began. The transaction volume—the number of properties bought and sold—is the lowest since 1974, when far fewer people owned their homes.
  Mortgage rates and mortgage repayments are low—no doubt the Minister will tell us that they are the lowest for 20 years—but, with the fears surrounding the prospect of purchase today, many people now will not buy.
  The worst fear is that of unemployment. According to every projection, official unemployment is soon likely to rise to well over 3 million and people are not likely to buy if they do not think that they will have the money to pay for their house. They fear that the house price will fall below the value of the mortgage. One in five of the people who bought during the past five years now owns a property which is worth less than they paid for it. That is hardly a good investment, although one that has been explicitly encouraged by Tory policies.
  As of June, according to the most recent report of UBS Phillips and Drew, there were 1·5 million households in the debt trap, which is one seventh of all households with a mortgage. The Bank of England estimates that 1 million people are in that position and have an average debt of more than £6,000 on their property.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman referred to the UBS Phillips and Drew survey. He is aware, of course, that earlier in the year a UBS Phillips and Drew forecast was that there might be a 14 per cent. increase in house prices next year. One of the fears was that that might start too much of a sustained rush back into owner occupation. The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints, which reflects the concerns of many home owners, must be seen within the context of the survey he quoted, which also said that that situation might quickly turn round.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have heard that before.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, we have heard that before: we have heard all too many promises about green shoots and things turning round.
  I have read the whole of the most recent survey, which makes it abundantly clear, in black and white, that the prospect is that things will get worse and not better in 1993. That was before the autumn statement, which I shall deal with later. The survey states that, at best, things might improve for some people in 1994. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not dispute what the survey says.
  The survey also states that confidence in the housing market is at an all-time low. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that all those people who were encouraged to buy are now in as bad a position as many who stayed in the rented sector.
  To put the most unpleasant icing on this unpleasant cake, one of the saddest things that I have read was in a law report in The Times in August. The headline read, "Children of mortgage defaulters have no right to be rehoused." If one fails to keep up mortgage payments, one can be declared to be intentionally homeless and cannot therefore be housed by the local authority, which would otherwise have a duty to house people who were on the streets.
  Our last major indictment is on debt. The right hon. Lady who was, until recently, the Prime Minister of this country for far too many years said that she was in favour of family life and against debt. What has happened to debt which is the product of house purchase, which is normally the most expensive purchase that anyone makes? In the early 1980s, personal debt was about 55 per cent. of the annual disposable income of adults in Great Britain; it is now 114 per cent. of disposable income. At the same time as the number of people waiting to be housed has risen, so the number of people in debt with their properties and likely to remain so has risen. Many of them bought under the right-to-buy scheme initiated in the 1980s. They are in as bad a state as the rest, with unexpected capital, service, and sinking fund charges to pay. Having bought council stock from a council whose tenants they had been for years, they now find that they cannot keep up the mortgage payments either.
  All those things are happening while around us tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of empty properties lie waiting to he used.
  Tory policy in relation to tenants and owner-occupiers could be summarised so far as a double whammy. It is now in danger of becoming a triple whammy because a potentially final knockout blow is about to be struck. Next April, people in housing will have to pay a council tax, and the bills of many people who pay a poll tax may go up by
  28
  50 per cent. The council tax about to be brought in by the Government will make the properties to which many people have hung on through the bad times impossible to hang on to any longer.
  It is not surprising that the Government's policies have not lived up to expectations because their expenditure on housing as a percentage of our national wealth has dropped phenomenally. When the Government came to power, we spent about £11·5 thousand million on housing; we now spend less than £6 thousand million. The Minister cannot argue that such a large proportion of people have bought their own homes that the percentage is bound to go down. He knows that the number of people who have bought their own homes has not doubled in the past 10 years and that, while the budget on housing has been slashed, expenditure on health, law and order and social security as a proportion of our national wealth has gone up substantially. The Government cannot expect people to be adequately housed when they cut the nation's housing budget from 2·7 per cent. to 1 per cent. of gross domestic product—a cut of 62 per cent., which is larger than the cut in the budget of any other of the Government's public expenditure programmes.
  Not only politicians but many of our constituents were hoping that, at the Government's first opportunity since the election, they would have realised the urgency of the problem. Even Conservatives were hoping that, and many local Conservative associations submitted motions on housing to the Tory party conference, among other things, urging the Government to remove controls on local authorities' receipts. Motions from north Cornwall, Taunton and Honiton, among others from the south and from the north, said that the £6 billion or a little less from the sale of council properties should be used. The Confederation of British Industry, Shelter and all the opposition parties argued for it.
  However, the autumn statement failed adequately to respond. On housing, it started by stating the obvious. The Minister said that housing and the construction industry had faced particular difficulties in the past two years, and then made some announcements. Although there is extra money, two obvious comments can be made about the £700 million plus which the Government committed last week. First, it is simply a drop in the ocean; and, secondly, it is a con because much of the money that has now been given has been taken away from programmes for the following two years.
  A simple, objective analysis was made in the weekend press. The Guardian on Saturday said:
  "The Chancellor's Autumn Statement brought some cheer to home buyers but fell far short of the radical moves which many had hoped for."
  The CBI said:
  "Capital receipts are also unevenly distributed and it is too early to assess the effects of the relaxation of the rules … on individual authorities."
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities said:
  "On capital receipts we arc told we cannot spend the money we raised when the property boom was in progress but we can spend anything we can raise now the boom is past and gone. Such freedom is not going to lead to much rejoicing in the coalfields and the conurbations."
  Last week the Government responded to the call for the release of capital receipts—but which capital receipts? Only those from 13 November 1992 until 1 January 1994, predicted receipts the Government say are worth about £1·75 billion. Putting aside the fact that most Government predictions over the past few years have been miles from

  29
  the truth, there is not much point in saying that anyone who buys now from a local authority—and they might be mad to do so—will see their purchase money spent by that authority to increase the lowest ever amount of local authority building. As the AMA press release made clear, the capital receipts that were accumulated when people were buying because the market was good are still frozen in the bank. In England and Wales they are called receipts, while in Scotland they are called credits, but the result of the announcement is just the same.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I can see how the release of capital receipts would benefit my constituency in which there have been many council house sales and where we have had to tackle an acute but not large problem of homelessness. However, I am slightly at a loss to see how it would help the hon. Gentleman's constituents, because his local authority is already £0·9 billion in debt.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman touches on the important problem of how to render equal treatment to local authorities, given that the right to buy is exercised much more in areas where there are more houses than high-rise flats. He cites a good example because my authority has about 60,000 properties, the largest number of any London authority. They are mainly flats, and many of them are high-rise flats which do not sell as well as traditional council housing.
  The subject is complicated and I shall not do the hon. Gentleman the injustice of pretending that it is simple. There are various ways to account for public expenditure capital receipts and to attribute the money to the accounting budget in terms of either the Government planning total or the public expenditure borrowing requirement. It is, however, possible to arrange the collection of receipts and the distribution of local authority rights to borrow to give a fair distribution that responds to the needs of local authorities.
  My hon. Friends and I, whether we represent urban or rural constituencies, argue for a formula that will fairly distribute for housing renovation or repair the money that is currently locked in local authority coffers or banks. Of course, some of that money may already have been spent. It is quite possible to do that without exceeding the Government's public expenditure total of £45 billion. The Minister and I and others have had long debates about that. I shall give the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) an example. We could retrospectively legislate to allow receipts prior to this financial year to be counted outside the public expenditure total. It would have no effect on the Government total for the current year or on their projections for the year ahead. The issue is complicated, but there is a solution and the Government should find it.
  The Government have given £750 million to housing associations to buy empty and repossessed properties and it is reckoned that about 20,000 such properties will be bought. However, the con is that, although the Government previously promised the Housing Corporation £1·92 billion for 1993–94, that sum has now been reduced by £133 million. For the following year, they previously promised the Housing Corporation £1·77 billion, but that has now been reduced by £190 million as well. There is money to bring back 20,000 properties into use, but it has been found at the expense of meeting the
  30
  housing needs of Britain in 1993 and the years to come. If that is not a con, what is? It is also sad that the rough sleepers initiative, which was supposed to meet the needs of those at the acute end of the housing crisis, has also been cut as a result of the autumn statement.
  My party has argued a consistent case for many years. It is that the only way for Britain to be adequately housed is for us to invest in it, led from the public purse by those in charge of the Exchequer and Ministers in spending Departments. We repeat that call today. Let me put it simply, because the arguments have been well made.
  There should be a large increase in public expenditure, specifically to fund house building and house repairs. It is good value for money, and it not a foolish way to conduct public accounts. We should cut the uniform business rate as that will allow some businesses to put money into housing as well. We should have a stable interest rate policy so that people feel encouraged to buy, in the knowledge that they will not be penalised in the years ahead. We should invest in training and in keeping people in work so that the construction industry can recover.
  Perhaps most acutely now, there should be a new element of public finance, a subsidy that would allow people in difficulty to keep their homes or perhaps convert from mortgages to rents. It is entirely possible—and we have put out figures to show this—to start turning the corner of Britain's housing crisis. Our indictment of the Government is that, over the past 13 years—and they cannot blame anybody else because they have been told over and over again—they have, worse than not listening and failing to act, condemned millions of people in a rich and civilised country to conditions that are not only unsatisfactory but often inhumane.
  Of all elements of policy, it is this policy and record of which the Government should be most ashamed. I am sad that they have so far given no adequate answers. I hope that now they are at least embarrassed enough to do something about the crisis before many other people suffer as all too many have already done.
  4.17 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George
  Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the Government's continuing commitment to housing policies designed to ensure that a decent home is within reach of every family, and in particular to promoting the growth of owner-occupation, widening choice for tenants, and improving value-for-money and targeting of public expenditure; and especially welcomes the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement which—consistently with the need to maintain tight control of public spending in the interests of the economy and the taxpayer—will contribute to stabilising the housing market, will increase the supply of social housing thereby helping homeless families, and will promote investment in renovation of run-down council estates."
  The Government welcome this opportunity to debate housing. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, it is an important subject to millions of our citizens. The Government are happy to explain and defend their record on housing.
  Last Thursday, while most of us were listening to the Chancellor's autumn statement, someone was drafting the motion before the House, a serious motion but one drafted with a strange mixture of Sun headlines and Guardian prose. As I hope to show, all the people mentioned in the

  31
  motion have reason to welcome the measures in the autumn statement. Indeed, I see that, in a release last Thursday, Shelter said:
  "Shelter strongly welcomes Government initiatives to provide more homes."
  That shows that, while Shelter regularly urges us to do better, it recognises progress when it sees it.
  By contrast, the rather grudging recognition in the motion—
  "although Her Majesty's Government has announced a few measures which will assist some of those in need"—
  does less than justice to the scale of the Government's response last week to the case for housing.
  Let me set out those whom the hon. Gentleman has identified in the motion. They include those sleeping rough, those in "bed and breakfast accommodation", those
  "accepted as homeless by local councils",
  those in difficulty with their mortgages, those in housing in need of improvement and the construction industry. Every hon. Member shares his concern for those groups and much was already being done to help, but we plan to do better.
  Let me start with the most visible aspect of homelessness—rough sleeping. In a civilised society, no one should have to sleep rough. Over the past three years, under the rough sleepers initiative, we have made available £96 million to provide 900 hostel places, 2,200 places in permanent housing for those in hostels to move on to, and 700 places in flats and houses leased from private landlords.
  Voluntary organisations estimated that, before the initiative began, more than 1,000 people were sleeping rough in central London. Their most recent count on 5 November showed that just over 400 people were sleeping rough, of whom fewer than 60 were under the age of 25. Many of those remaining will be helped by the initiative under way at Lincoln's Inn Fields to provide accommodation for them and, one hopes, to restore that open space to an attractive park that can be enjoyed by Londoners.
  The rough sleeping initiative was to have ended on 31 March next year, but the autumn statement announced further resources to provide continuing help to rough sleepers. A further £86 million will now be made available to enable the excellent voluntary organisations, which are managing the programme, to build on their achievements and to drive the momentum forward to make it unnecessary for anyone to sleep rough. To project that funding as a cut does less than justice to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, because the hostels and permanent accommodation are, of course, still there. They will remain available in the forthcoming period. What is happening is that we are providing an extra £86 million over and above the resources originally planned. Moreover, I will shortly be announcing details of this year's cold weather shelters, which will open in a fortnight and which will provide accommodation for people who would otherwise have to sleep rough in central London this winter.
  Even before the autumn statement the numbers of those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had been falling. No one is in favour of it as a temporary form of accommodation. I see it as a measure of last resort. Many local authorities, to their credit, manage not to use it at all.
  32
  In the past year the number of homeless families in such accommodation has gone down from 13,000 to 11,080. As a percentage the number is down from 24 per cent. to 18 per cent. In London the decrease has been more marked —from 8,110 to 5,870.
  Those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation have more reason to welcome the autumn statement than any other group because of the way in which the 20,000 extra homes to be bought between now and the end of March compares with the figure of 11,080 who are currently in that accommodation. Those in bed and breakfast and other temporary accommodation will be rehoused more quickly as a result of the £630 million to be spent in England in the next four months. With the private finance that we plan to lever in, I expect the result to be a £1 billion package for recovery in the housing market.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Minister confirm that, at current rates of repossession, the number of home owners who are likely to lose their homes between now and the end of March will probably be well in excess of that 20,000? Will he tell us how there is any hope of significantly reducing the numbers in temporary accommodation when there is a huge additional demand to be met from home owners facing repossession?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of court actions entered for repossession has fallen sharply by about 32 per cent. in the past year. The Council of Mortgage Lenders reckons that about 55,000 repossessions have been avoided as a result of the measures it introduced in December.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister quoted Shelter's reaction to the autumn statement and gave a litany of figures. What does he say to Shelter's comments in today's press release on rough sleepers, entitled "Government cuts in help for people sleeping rough. A matter of life and death"? It stated:
  "The Government has announced a cut of £5 million in help provided for the growing number of people sleeping rough on the streets of Britain … The 13 per cent. reduction … from £38 million to £33 million was revealed by the Department of the Environment on Friday morning, less than 24 hours after the Government's Autumn Statement".
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the rough sleeping initiative was originally devised as a three-year programme and no provision was made in the public expenditure survey for any money after 31 March. We have found fresh resources to keep that initiative going and against that background it is misleading to allege that there has been any reduction in expenditure. Planned provision of help to rough sleepers has been increased.
  On the question of the extra 20,000 homes to be made available, I am concerned—other hon. Members may share my concern—at the lack of mobility within the social sector of housing. New accommodation tends to go directly to those in temporary accommodation. It would be possible for an existing council tenant to move into the new accommodation and then to move a homeless family into the accommodation thereby released. A council tenant who chose to move would lose his right to buy, but he might be prepared for that if it meant that he could live in a more attractive property than his present home. I want the new stock that is acquired to be used to promote

  33
  mobility. There should be more transfers for existing tenants where the scope for mobility within a council's stock is limited.
  Of course, councils and housing associations must consider the issue in the light of local circumstances and they must take account of people's preferences. They should not assume that people are not prepared to move voluntarily outside the council sector if that would get them better houses.
  I have been in touch with the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Housing Corporation and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met mortgage lenders and the chairman of the Housing Corporation again this morning, when they underlined the importance that we attach to taking as many properties as possible off the market through the initiative. I am pleased to say that those lenders present confirmed that they would play a full and constructive part in the initiative. They are confident of responding to the challenge that the Government have set them and of providing the target number of homes.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: My hon. Friend referred to his meeting with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Did he also discuss our right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement last week of a reduction in interest rates and the apparent difficulty of some mortgage lenders in passing on that benefit to home owners, sometimes deferring it for many months?
  Sir George Young: I was not at that meeting, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. From the press statement issued after that meeting, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reminded lenders of the importance of passing on interest rate reductions as quickly as possible. I understand that shortly after the meeting the Halifax announced a welcome reduction in its mortgage rate.
  Mr. George Howarth: I am anxious to pin down the Minister on one point. He is suggesting that the scheme that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement to create an additional 20,000 properties to rent should be used in some way to facilitate mobility in housing. My understanding is that housing associations are required by statute to operate an allocation procedure and that most allocations are zoned to a particular location. Without specific Government intervention to ring-fence the properties for a national mobility scheme, I cannot envisage how the Minister's suggestion can work in practice.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is making rather heavy weather of this matter. The housing associations will buy 20,000 properties. In the normal course of events, they would give the nominations to local authorities, which would then nominate families currently in bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation. My suggestion is that the housing associations should continue to give the nominations to local authorities, but that instead of them nominating people in bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation, they should offer transfers to existing tenants. Those people could move into the new homes, if that is what they want, and the homeless
  34
  families could move into the local authority stock thus vacated. That would improve mobility in the social housing sector. It is certainly difficult in London to get a transfer unless one has strong grounds. My suggestion would encourage transfers within local authority stock and also within housing association stock—
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir George Young: Yes, but for the last time as I am anxious to make progress.
  Ms. Jackson: My local authority has an inadequate number of two and three-bedroom houses, so the problem of families transferring would not be alleviated by the 20,000 properties to which the Minister referred. Indeed, inadequate properties for the size of family groups are endemic.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady is making heavy weather of this matter. The whole point about the package announced last week is that the housing associations and local authorities should consult and the stock acquired by the housing associations should be of the sort that local authorities want—the right configuration and size to meet the needs of their areas. It is important that there is close liaison between housing associations and local authorities to avoid the mishmash to which the hon. Lady refers.
  Against the background of an extra £597 million for the Housing Corporation this year, I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will have the decency —for I believe him to be a decent man—to admit that the rumour to which he referred in Committee last Tuesday, that the Conservative party might abandon its manifesto commitment to provide 153,000 homes through the Housing Corporation over the next three years, was ill founded. The figure will rise by 12,000 to 165,000.
  Mr. John Battle: The Minister refers to this year's commitment, but he will recall the Conservatives' clear manifesto pledge of money over three years ago. Is the third year absolutely guaranteed?
  Sir George Young: There is a lot of battle smoke around. However the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that there is more money for the three years covered by the manifesto—an increase of £597 million this year, with a decrease in the following two years of £155 million and £191 million. That represents an increase, and extra homes are being provided in the early part of the period in question. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again to admit that our manifesto is being more than honoured, I shall be happy to give way to him.
  Conditions for tenants on many council estates are unacceptable. The autumn statement made it clear that our popular programme of housing action trusts can continue. Our expenditure provision for next year will allow the momentum of the HAT programme to be fully maintained. That will allow the establishment of three further housing action trusts to follow those in Hull, Waltham Forest, and the successful ballot in Liverpool. I am sure that will be warmly welcomed in areas where housing action trusts have already begun work or are under consideration. The feasibility work on Castle Vale in Birmingham and the Bow estate in Tower Hamlets is largely complete and I expect to make decisions on ballots shortly.

  35
  There will be more resources for the estate action programme. The amount available in 1993–94 will be £356 million, which is £16 million more than this year. On current practice, that expenditure will allow us to fund 135 of the 270 schemes that authorities are anxious should go forward. However, the capital partnership approach announced last Friday will enable us to spread resources even further. The more that authorities contribute from their capital receipts, the higher the number of schemes that we will be able to include in our programme.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend the Minister favourably consider the scheme submitted by Morecambe, which has a substantial housing need?
  Sir George Young: I am delighted that that popular clement in the Government's housing policy has won such favour in a constituency adjoining that of my hon. Friend. I will be happy to send my hon. Friend details of the HAT programme and the procedure that must be observed if a trust is to be established in her part of the country.
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I welcome the prospect of greater mobility and extra funding that my hon. Friend's new scheme will introduce, but Isleworth council is encountering considerable problems because of the way that the points system is used to allocate council housing needs. The new system has disadvantaged many thousands of people. Will my hon. Friend consider re-jigging it to allow for a more equitable share of council properties?
  Sir George Young: I hope that my announcement that the Government felt that there should be more mobility within the local authority stock will encourage councils —including Hounslow—to review their transfer policies, and also to review the way in which priorities are allocated among competing demands from local authority tenants. I hope that all councils will try to find ways of promoting more transfers.
  The relaxation of the rules governing local authority capital receipts over the coming year will provide authorities with an extra £1 billion for housing. I expect them to devote the money mainly to renovating rundown council estates, and to implementing the housing investment programme strategy set out in their recent bids. The figure is derived from evidence on local authority returns. Tenants awaiting improvements do not mind whether the work is paid for by borrowing or by a capital receipt; they want the work done, regardless of how it is funded—and more work will now be done.
  "Capital receipts" is a phrase that has been much on the lips of Opposition Members. It is worth reminding them that there would be few capital receipts for us to debate if we had taken their advice on the right to buy. We did not think it right to allow authorities simply to spend the capital receipts that they had already built up. The current need is to stimulate the construction industry, and that justifies a temporary relaxation of the requirement to set aside part of the new receipts for that purpose. The relaxation gives authorities some £1·75 billion of extra spending power. Our proposals give them an incentive to promote new asset disposals, and to get in fresh receipts rather than recycling past ones.
  36
  I expect interest in the right to buy to increase as the economy recovers; I also expect interest in the rent-to-mortgage scheme to increase when the Bill reaches the statute book. Predictably, Opposition Members have already criticised the scheme: the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), for instance, described it as facile and short term. I see nothing facile or short term in treating people as adults and giving them choice—a word used by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. Authorities will gain a capital receipt, and they will be able to spend all of it, provided that it comes in before 31 March next year. I predict that Opposition Members will abandon their objection to the rent-to-mortgage scheme when they realise how popular it is, just as they abandoned their objection to the right to buy.
  The motion makes the fair point that some local authorities have less prospect than others of generating receipts. We can handle that, up to a point, through the services of a lady called Rita—receipts taken into account. When we allocate credit approvals to local authorities—this, I think, is the process towards which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was cautiously nudging his way—we take into account the relative availability of receipts. That enables us to give higher basic credit approvals to the authorities with the fewest receipts —a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
  Authorities with limited receipts will also be able to compete for the capital partnership scheme that was launched on Friday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The scheme provides up to £600 million of public money for projects that will stimulate growth.
  The motion also mentions owner-occupiers. The package included help for those facing difficulty with their mortgages: a further and welcome reduction of one percentage point in interest rates. Over the past two years, interest rates have fallen by eight percentage points; that translates into a saving of more than £130 a month on a typical £33,000 mortgage since the level reached its peak in October 1990. For those who are concerned about the value of their properties, we are taking some 16,000 empty homes off the market in a short space of time. That will increase the number of transactions in the property market, and will reduce the overhang that has deterred many prospective buyers. The measure can only help to return confidence to the market—although none of us wants a return to the excesses of four years ago.
  Measures taken a year ago have probably reduced the number of repossessions by about 50,000, but the best mortgage rescue scheme is provided by lower interest rates and a recovering economy, which was the purpose of the measures in the autumn statement. The number of court orders for repossessions has also fallen: in the third quarter of the year, the number of actions entered was 32 per cent. lower than it had been a year earlier.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir George Young: No. I promised that I would not give way again; indeed, I believe that I made that promise three times. The longer my speech lasts, the less will be the hon. Gentleman's chance of making his own formidable contribution.
  One consequence of the fall in house prices has been the number of people with negative equity—perhaps 1 million,

  37
  according to one estimate by the Bank of England. That phenomenon does not call for the domesday scenario painted by some commentators. Most negative equity borrowers are not having trouble meeting their payments, nor do they want to move, but if they do want to move the property that they move to is likely to have fallen in value, along with their own home. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary announced on 20 October two measures, which were widely welcomed, to help to promote mobility in those circumstances.
  The building and construction industry is also mentioned in the motion. It was assisted last Thursday. Builders have the opportunity to improve their cash flow by selling unsold homes. There will be opportunities for smaller builders to carry out necessary repairs to repossessed homes that need attention. These measures have been welcomed by the construction industry. Neville Sims of Tarmac, for example, praised the Chancellor's proposals as imaginative and as a good way to get money into the construction industry in the regions. The new public-private funding rules announced on Thursday will give a further boost to investment in the inner city areas covered by city challenge.
  There is even something in the package for estate agents. The £50 million to enable local authority and housing association tenants to buy homes in the market will increase transactions, as well as freeing up more homes for those on the waiting list.
  Because of the rough sleeping initiative, there are now fewer people sleeping on the streets. There are fewer families in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The last figures for homeless acceptances showed a reduction, not an increase. The provision of good quality accommodation by housing associations has doubled in the past three years and the ambitious target that we set ourselves in our manifesto is now to be exceeded.
  The programme for modernising and improving local authority estates can proceed at a faster pace, thanks to the change in the capital receipts rule. With interest rates for some first-time buyers at 6 per cent., home ownership is more affordable than it has been for more than 15 years; 20,000 homes, instead of lying empty, are to be put to the use for which they were built and that will help to restore confidence in the housing market.
  I recognise that we have much work to do. Any London Member of Parliament knows that there are still shortages of social housing and that too many council tenants live in unacceptable conditions, but we are on the right track. It would be too optimistic to expect the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to withdraw his motion, but I ask the House to support the Government amendment with enthusiasm.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. John Battle: We, too, welcome the debate. There is nothing in the motion with which we disagree. It is particularly welcome at this time, coming so soon after the autumn statement. The autumn statement day ought to be remembered as the day when unemployment passed, in real terms, the 4 million mark. According to the original calculation of the figures, before the Government's 30 changes to massage them down, on 12 November this year unemployment passed 4 million. I
  38
  mention that at the beginning of my speech because rising unemployment is the primary cause of homelessness and the housing market crisis.
  The scale of the housing crisis is daunting and worsens day by day. However, the Government try to put on a brave front and say that they are coping with it. Since the late 1970s, homelessness has more than doubled. In England alone, 147,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in 1991. Many more were turned away as ineligible. More than 1·5 million are on local authority waiting lists. They comprise what could be described as the hidden homeless, often living in overcrowded and inappropriate circumstances. It is estimated that in 1991 an additional 80,000 single people were homeless but ineligible for help. In the past 18 months, more than 100,000 families have had their homes repossessed.
  Not surprisingly perhaps, fewer than 100 families have had their homes saved by the Government's "intended" mortgage rescue scheme, which was announced this time last year. The Government promised us at the Dispatch Box that 40,000 households would be rescued. That never happened. More than 200,000 households are now more than six months in arrears with their mortgages; more than 1 million cannot afford to move because their homes are worth less than they paid for them.
  Recently, the Bank of England estimated that further small falls in property values would add an additional 500,000 households to that total. In September this year, after the general election, the Department of the Environment disclosed that a record number of 62,780 homeless families were living in sometimes terrible quality temporary accommodation. As we now know, since 1979 the proportion of national expenditure, in real terms, spent on housing has more than halved. There has been a significant cut in expenditure. I say "significant" because the cut amounts to £5·3 billion—ironically, exactly the figure of accumulated capital receipts that local authorities have in the bank. To this day, the Government are preventing them from spending that money on housing.
  What is the Government's response to the housing crisis? I submit that it is feeble. When we look at the small print of what we were offered in the autumn statement, we see that we have been short-changed. Barely six months ago, on 23 March, during those heady days of the electioneering period, the Secretary of State for the Environment asserted:
  "House sales under the Conservatives are picking up.'
  All this, we were told, would change on 10 April if there were a Labour Government. We were also told that the recovery—I am tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to insert the word "sic"—in the housing market would be devastated, just as it was getting under way. The Secretary of State for the Environment was echoed by the Prime Minister on 31 March, when he said:
  "We're going to make life easier for people buying their home. Our policies will mean a stronger housing market."
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) may mutter, "Hear, hear", but what every other hon. Member and everybody else in the country knows is that exactly the opposite is true. People were truly conned on 9 April. Families now face the worst housing crisis in our society since the war. It is tempting to add that all the Government's special offers have been heard before and have been found to be second-hand and shoddy goods.

  39
  The latest evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which was published last week, shows that further small falls in house prices threaten to double negative equity. It points out that four out of every 10 Londoners who bought their homes in the past five years now have properties worth less than their mortgages. Basildon now has a negative equity rate of 60 per cent. —an average shortfall of £6,500 for every household. That is where the rent-to-mortgage pilot scheme was undertaken. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine that it is going down well in Basildon.
  What of the scale of the Government's response? The Government amendment is remarkable in its complacency. It says that the Government are keen to promote the growth of owner-occupation. Many commentators on housing and economic policy now submit that, at 69 per cent., owner-occupation in our society is unsustainable because there are not sufficient homes for people who need to rent. The Government do not seem yet to appreciate that fact. The amendment refers to widening choice for tenants. It does not refer to the fact that under the Housing and Urban Development Bill which is being considered in Standing Committee the Government are taking away tenants' rights in order to push through compulsory competitive tendering.
  The amendment refers also to the targeting of public expenditure. It is tempting to add that that may be the only truthful statement in the amendment. It is true that resources are being targeted, because existing resources are being wrapped up and disguised as new money when in fact they prove to be old money.
  The moves on interest rates are welcome. They will give hard-pressed home owners some relief, if the interest rate reduction is passed on, but that relief will apply only so long as people have a job and continue to be able to pay their mortgages. The question that many people are asking is whether this will be enough to revive the housing market. Many people think that they live simply one pay cheque away from redundancy and worry that their home may be the next to be repossessed.
  The autumn statement was trumpeted in the press as offering extra money, but the Secretary of State was careful to use that weasel word and say that money had been "earmarked" rather than to suggest that new money was available. We discover from the fine print that that was a sleight of hand—a clever piece of news management to create the impression of new money. The Government are simply juggling the figures in a remarkable creative-accounting exercise.
  What does the figure of £1·75 billion mean? It is tempting to ask the Minister, in the light of his statement, how firm that promise is. We are glad that the Government are at last coming around to our common-sense arguments on the need to use capital receipts, but it is not clear whether that promise of funds will be realised.
  The autumn statement is based on illusion—the £1·75 billion in estimated capital receipts is not there. The Government have acknowledged that only £1·1 billion of that money will be available for housing, and only capital receipts that may be available in the next 12 months will be available as extra expenditure.
  40
  What will happen to the £5·5 billion of receipts that is sitting in local authorities' banks? Why cannot those funds be released?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): If the hon. Gentleman is to take that point, perhaps he will redefine his position. I quote from an interview with Inside Housing as recently as mid-September in which the journalist commented:
  "redefinition of the PSBR, which could theoretically release capital receipts for housing, is clearly not something Mr. Battle is prepared to argue for today."
  The hon. Gentleman said:
  "Those are the arguments that the Treasury team are going to have to sort out. not me as the Housing spokesman. At the moment, redefinition is not on Labour's agenda. It is not one of my priorities."
  Has the hon. Gentleman and his team managed to redefine the PSBR for the benefit of the country?
  Mr. Battle: What I said still stands. We have pressed for the phased relief of capital receipts to enable them to be distributed according to need. The Government have not responded. They have simply told authorities that they may spend money which may or may not come in. Amazingly, in the face of current evidence, the Government assume that right-to-buy sales will pick up from their present low, but if they do not do so, the extra £1·75 billion will not materialise. Is not that the truth and should not Ministers be spelling that out? In practice, as the figures work through, people will find that they have been shortchanged again. The key question is whether the money will be available, and that depends on homes being sold to tenants on low incomes, under the right to buy, during a housing market slump and at a time of record repossessions. Most people in work feel that they cannot afford to take the chance of moving to purchase in case they lose their jobs.
  A London Weekend Television programme on Friday night revealed that 70,000 people who bought their council flats cannot sell them because mortgage lenders are again doing what used to be described as red-lining. In his conversations with mortgage lenders this morning, what did the Minister say about that and what do the Government propose to do to unlock that situation? In turn, that will be a check on further house sales.
  The small print of the autumn statement shows that Government capital allocations for local authority housing will be cut and that credit approvals will be substantially lower. We cannot now say what the figures are, because they will be revealed only in the forthcoming months, but that is the logic of the arithmetic in the autumn statement.
  I suspect that the capital partnership is another example of iniative dazzle—an initiative for the media that lasts 24 hours, but in the afterglow realises little. In practice, it is top-slicing—taking money out of budgets and organising them from the centre again. It is a form of revamping of the estate action scheme. It is also clear that it will depend on bids and competition, with local authorities competing against each other according to how they use capital receipts in forthcoming years.
  Sir George Young: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Battle: The Minister says "Hear, hear", but that action reduces local authorities' ability to respond to local need and the total amount that is available for them.
  Sir George Young: When I dealt with the capital partnership, I specifically explained that if, for good reasons, a local authority has no access to capital receipts, it will not be penalised in its hid for estate action.
  Mr. Battle: It is encouraging to receive that reassurance, but we shall watch to see how it works in practice because we were told the same about the city challenge, and we saw how that worked in practice. Many authorities have been disappointed.
  The promised new £600 million depends on sales that may never materialise. The whole project will buy only 16,000 homes, whereas more than 200,000 are empty, and that overhang is dominating the housing market. There is no new money, because £400 million will come from the Housing Corporation's allocation and £200 million from local authority credit approvals.
  In practice, it could be argued that housing associations were worst hit in the autumn statement. Housing association grant rates are being cut from an average of 72 per cent. to 67 per cent. In an article in The Roof, Mr. David Edmonds, the former Housing Corporation's chief executive, pointedly showed how private finance would be more difficult to obtain because investors would be worried about whether housing benefit would continue to meet the tab for higher rents. The corporation's 150,000 homes promised over the next three years could be jeopardised because the Government have not got their act together and are forcing up rents. David Edmonds said:
  "There is very solid reason to argue that the point has been reached beyond which grant rates should not be diminished. How does an association explain to a banking credit appraisal expert that higher amounts of loan are needed, payments on which are serviced primarily by people on HB who pay rents which are increasingly viewed as unaffordable?"
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there must always be a correlation between private finance and the grant rate made available by the Housing Corporation to take account of reductions in interest rates? There has been a substantial reduction in interest rates. Whenever an interest rate reduction is made—at least this is what happened when I was deputy chairman of Housing for Wales—;an alteration is made to the grant rate.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point that the critical figure of 67 per cent. for attracting private finance is on the margin below which the private sector will not lend money to construct houses in the first place. The promised partnership between public and private money will collapse because the Government are reducing their contribution to housing associations.
  Mr. Jenkin: I suggest that the matter is in the nature of public-private negotiations. The private sector will negotiate, of course, for the best terms that it can get and it is right that the Government should play their part and negotiate the best terms for the public sector to get better value for money. Those matters are resolved in the fullness of time. If one goes into negotiation on the basis that one will lose that negotiation, all I can say, on behalf of the homeless, is thank goodness the hon. Gentleman is not in charge.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point that, for months, all the housing associations and the
  42
  private housing finance world have spelt out to the Government that 67 per cent. is the bottom line. Below that point, schemes will not go ahead.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) will join me in pressing the Minister to make available the report on affordability which was prepared by the Housing Corporation and which now rests in his Department. I am pretty sure that it reveals that housing associations are being forced to push up rents, which makes schemes unsustainable. The net result is that housing associations can only take tenants who can guarantee that they are on full housing benefit. If they cannot, they will not get a place.
  I urge the Minister to make the report available so that it can be discussed and the figures can be worked through in those terms. By changing grant relationships and by not taking account of housing benefit changes, the Government are pricing people out of even housing association housing, yet the Government insist that housing associations—and only housing associations—should provide affordable housing.
  Special capital grant approvals are to be cut from 75 per cent. to 60 per cent. That means that for improvement grants to be paid at all to hard-up owner-occupiers, local authorities will have to meet 40 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. of the cost. We had hoped that there would be some reference in the autumn statement to the problems that local authorities face in terms of mandatory grants. The whole of their housing investment programmes could be consumed by the demand for improvement grants, yet the Government seem simply to be turning a blind eye. I urge the Minister to look again at mandatory grants and at their impact on local authorities' ability to serve housing needs in the round.
  Let us look in slightly closer detail at the £750 million package to take 20,000 properties off the market through acquisitions by housing associations. We believe that that is inadequate when almost 250,000 properties either have been repossessed or were unsold in the first place. On BBC News on 12 November, John Wrigglesworth of UBS Phillips and Drew referred to the sum as
  "a snowflake on an iceberg".
  Although the scheme is limited, the Government could sharpen it and substantially improve it.
  Can the Minister assure us that the available money will go only to mortgage lenders who are running or who are about to set up mortgage rescue schemes? Why is the money not tied in so that there can be real and workable mortgage rescue schemes? That would make the money go further, as properties would not just be taken off the market. We would be reassured that repossessions would slow down, which would in turn prevent more repossessed houses coming on to the market. Why not link the scheme so that it does not simply reward lenders who repossess but goes some way towards keeping people in their own home?
  Surely the same grant rates should apply to those schemes as they do to any other schemes funded by the Housing Corporation. Lower grant rates will simply lead to unaffordable rents and to dwindling housing association involvement in the scheme. In practice, the scheme is too inflexible. Some lenders may want to lease properties rather than to sell them outright. Why cannot the Government relax leasing restrictions on local authorities and on housing associations, and allow 20-year leases? There should be a combination of buy-back and leasing.

  43
  It is not clear whether the properties that are in disrepair or have been vandalised are to be included in the scheme. It is now evident that many properties that have been repossessed are in a terrible state. It is estimated that 100,000 repossessed properties standing for sale are in a poor condition and increasingly are being vandalised. Although lenders should bring properties up to standard, why do the Government not allow previously rundown properties to be included in the scheme as long as the lender agrees to do the necessary improvement work to bring them up to scratch, so that people can move into them?
  Why cannot local authorities be given a guarantee of first refusal so that they can use the properties for homeless families? There would then be a direct link between cutting temporary accommodation bills and bringing the properties back into use.
  What do we find for local authority tenants in the small print of the autumn statement? We find that council rents are to be forced up by 9 per cent. in the coming year—more than twice the rate of inflation. It will mean an average of £2·50 on everyone's rent. The Government then tell us that there is no problem of people being priced out of their homes. The measures in the autumn statement will have that effect and will force people into debt and insecurity. How can people exercise their rights if they find that they are increasingly in debt and unable to meet the primary demand to pay the rent? The Government fail to help not only those with mortgages, but those with rents.
  There was no housing windfall in the autumn statement. Many homeless families, tragically, will still face a cold and bitter winter. There is no real evidence that the Government take the housing crisis seriously. Perhaps in the coming months they will listen to the lobby of the tenants and of the churches which is coming to the House. In the meantime, the autumn statement is part of the Government's clear strategy of simply putting off what they cannot bear to face today because it is politically embarrassing. We are not being presented with a new policy. It is simply a time-buying exercise to get the Government into the calmer waters of less hostile headlines.
  As homelessness and unemployment inexorably rise, the Government's pitiful failure to recognise and to take seriously the scale of the housing crisis will become plainer for all to see. We intend to keep the spotlight on the Government's lack of housing policy. We continue to monitor initiatives that constantly prove ineffectual. We shall continue to press for emergency measures to tackle street homelessness not only in London but elsewhere. I remind the Minister that rough sleeping is no longer confined to London.
  We shall press for real measures to revive the housing market and we shall continue to demand that people have the right to rent. We shall harass the Government in detail until our society is a lot closer to ensuring that everyone's right to a decent, appropriate and affordable home is realised. The Minister's great claims today for his Government's minuscule measures will not even stand the test of this Parliament.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). I noticed that the words "welcome" and "glad" passed his lips. However, the tone was rather different. It was a speech by a rather lugubrious hon. Member. In terms of visual aspect, he was the nearest thing to Clement Freud.
  I can understand why the hon. Gentleman was so gloomy. He appears to be an aficionado of "Black Dog" in the Mail on Sunday—his required Sunday reading, at least according to his speech in the Committee considering the Housing and Urban Development Bill. Last Tuesday, he gave us a warning about what was likely to happen the following Thursday when the Chancellor made his autumn statement. He quoted "Black Dog", saying:
  "'There is worrying news about Sir George Young the affable Housing Minister, whose budget has reportedly vanished in this autumn's draconian spending round."'— [Official Report, Standing Committee B; 10 November 1992; c. 3.]
  The hon. Gentleman then quoted more from that article. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman was so gloomy. He has found that the budget of my hon. Friend the Minister has not evaporated. Instead, it has been considerably expanded and I welcome that. I particularly welcome the extra funding that has been made available in Wales. Some £38 million of extra funding will be used by local authorities and Housing for Wales and to assist the work of housing associations.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already said that he will discuss that allocation with the chairman of Housing for Wales and that wide-ranging discussions will take place about how that money can be spent because we must ensure that the money is spent wisely. In that regard, I want to raise some concerns with my hon. Friend the Minister.
  It is important that the money should not be used as a catalyst for mortgage lenders to take further action in cases where they are staying their hands in respect of repossessions. The hon. Member for Leeds, West referred to the deterioration of properties which have come on to the market. If the money was to be spent solely on purchase and rehabilitation of those properties, it is important that we consider the taxation rules.
  When I was involved with Housing for Wales, I was concerned about the fact that there was a shift towards new build away from the rehabilitation of property. That shift occurred because 17·5 per cent. VAT is added to the cost of the rehabilitation of property. It would be deeply damaging if much of the new funding was leaked away in that fashion. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point in the discussions with the Housing Corporation and the local authorities when they assess how the funding can be used.
  I am also anxious that the rural housing problem should be recognised in Wales and elsewhere. So often when we discuss homelessness the problem is referred to in the context of cardboard city and images of people in desperate circumstances sleeping in the shop doorways of many of our major cities. Many of the problems are being addressed by initiatives referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister. However, as a result of those stark images, we sometimes lose contact with the fact that there is also a

  45
  rural housing crisis. The problem of people who earn the lowest wages and live in rural areas is pushed into the background.
  I am pleased to say that in Wales at least that problem has been recognised. Twenty-eight per cent. of the funding to housing associations in Wales is given to associations that work in rural areas and perhaps that lesson could be followed in England. Some of the Welsh initiatives will avoid situations that have occurred in towns because it has been recognised that the funding should be invested on the basis of local needs.
  Although councils may have ideas about local housing needs, sometimes the people who live in the villages have the best means of identifying the local housing needs. That is why several initiatives have been started in Wales which draw together local needs surveys. They have identified problems in relation to housing which the local housing authorities may not have recognised in some parts of the Principality.
  Once the problems have been identified, there is investment, but not in those vast council estates—the monoliths of municipal socialism of the past as I like to describe them. Instead, perhaps between two and eight houses are built in a village and they become part of the village. They do not become ghettoes. Those houses are not just part of the community; they are attractive to local people and young people can stay, live and work in the communities in which they have been raised.
  Initiatives have also been taken on a national level, and also in Wales, to bring into use the empty accommodation above shops. That is a worthwhile initiative for which funding has been made available and it is quite apart from general support made available for the vital renting and shared ownership programme.
  My hon. Friend the Minister outlined the steps being taken to attempt to deal with rough sleeping in our cities. I particularly welcome my hon. Friend's attempt to reduce the figures in terms of the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for so many families. Before I came to the House, and subsequently in articles that I have written on the issue, I have stated that it is unacceptable for a Government who have been in office for 13 years still to have so many people, even on today's figures, living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is not something with which I want to be associated and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister does not wish to be associated with it either.
  More than that, the provision of bed-and-breakfast accommodation does not make economic sense. All the surveys show that it can cost between twice and three times as much to accommodate people in those absolutely unacceptable conditions than if we were to house them properly in the first place. I welcome the steps that have been taken to reduce the proportion, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, from 24 per cent. to 18 per cent. During the many years that I will be a Member of this place, I hope that we will ensure that the figure is reduced substantially—and the earlier the better.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not take offence when I say that he adopted a sanctimonious approach. At one point, he seemed to say that the Government should simply be building more houses. That may be a disservice to him, but I do not believe that simply more housebuilding is what is needed. On the contrary, it seems that we have sufficient properties.
  46
  It is well known that there are about 750,000 empty properties in private and public hands. We can all argue about the accuracy of the figures and we often hear all sorts of figures bandied around the House. However, we might agree that about 150,000 families are currently accepted as being homeless by local authorities. In such circumstances, we should urgently seek a marriage between the two sets of figures.
  According to the figures that I have seen, 9·7 per cent. of public housing in Liverpool appears to be empty. It is unacceptable that there are local authorities—including authorities which at least two hon. Members in the Chamber now represent—in which the amount of council house rents outstanding is colossal. The highest amount outstanding is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. According to my figures, there are some £35 million of uncollected council house rents in the hon. Gentleman's authority.
  I know that it is said that the cause of such outstanding rents is that people are in desperate financial circumstances and they cannot afford to pay the rents. I notice that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is in the Chamber. He will be aware that his local authority, within which many people face strained financial circumstances, has performed much better in terms of collecting council house rents than Southwark and Bermondsey or Greenwich.
  Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a serious problem in respect of people being able to afford rent or mortgages in the rented and privately-owned sectors? Does he accept that mortgage arrears have increased dramatically, as have rent arrears? When the Government propose to increase rents in council properties by on average 9 per cent., when they expect public sector workers to accept a maximum 1·5 per cent. pay increase, does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a recipe for further increases in arrears?
  Mr. Evans: I made a misjudgment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to explain why Greenwich had an outstanding figure of 25 per cent. in council house rents—about £13 million. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell us how many houses in his constituency might be built for that sum.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Has my hon. Friend noted the correlation between councils that are dilatory at collecting rents and those that have bad records in respect of occupied housing and the number of vacancies in boroughs such as Southwark? Southwark is the fourth worst borough in London in terms of vacancies. One of the few councils with a worse record for vacancies is the Liberal Democrat-controlled borough of Tower Hamlets.
  Mr. Evans: I also have made that correlation. I represent the largest constituency in Wales—I think that it is also the largest constituency in England and Wales—and we have managed, through all local authorities in Wales, many of which are controlled by friends of the Labour party, to keep down the number of public housing voids. The figures that I was able to gain from the Welsh Office in a parliamentary answer only last week show that there is a direct balance between housing association voids and council house voids of 1·2 per cent. in Wales. When we compare that with the situation in which there have been

  47
  up to 10 per cent. voids in some local authority areas in England, we see that far more needs to be done than just throwing money at the problem.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree. The hon. Gentleman will imagine that, for obvious reasons, I am critical of my local authority, but one thing that he may not know, which is relevant and has been raised with Ministers, is that there is an unfair method of calculating the amount needed per unit of property, which is called the management and maintenance allowance, across different authorities. For no current, valid reason there is a differential allowance—government to local authority money—which means that boroughs such as Southwark get far less than otherwise identical boroughs with the same housing needs.
  Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he would not wish to excuse his local authority's performance in terms of that staggering figure of outstanding council house rents, particularly when he so graphically illustrates the housing problem in London.
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has spent some time being highly critical of local authorities. I should like to give him an example of what is happening in the private rented sector in London. In one case, a young woman found a room for herself in a house where the rent was £45 a week. She would have had to claim housing benefit to pay it. Her landlord suggested that, as she was claiming housing benefit, they should bump up the rent to £60 and split the difference. She refused to do that and is therefore homeless.
  Another case involves a young couple, one of whom was a student. Her boyfriend became ill. When their landlord discovered that they would be reliant on housing benefit, they were asked to leave. That is yet another example within the private sector. Local authorities are saints in comparison.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) continues, let me say that interventions are becoming progressively longer. That is not confined to one side; I make the observation to all.
  Mr. Evans: I am obliged for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be as generous as possible to Opposition Members.
  I certainly do not defend the activities of landlords who behave in the way that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) has outlined. She appears to have in her hand a document which presents some detail of that case, but it seems to me as a lawyer that the first case that she outlined is one in which the involvement of the police should be considered at an early point. It clearly was an invitation to participate in a criminal offence.
  Ms. Jackson rose—
  Mr. Evans: I shall give way just for clarification and then I shall make progress.
  Ms. Jackson: A lawyer would realise that any case requires evidence.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Lady has not been putting points to me without evidence. I rather hoped that she put her case with evidence to support her assertion. I shall now make progress.
  It has become clear that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that we improve the supply and condition of our rented housing stock. Quite apart from the other choices and availability that there may be of different tenures, that has to be a cardinal point. The Government, sometimes in the face of substantial opposition, have given positive support to housing associations, and they deserve congratulations for that. In the course of that work they have had to attempt to deal with a manifest distortion in the rented housing sector. I refer in particular to the way in which the private rented sector, sometimes because of the abuse that is piled on many landlords who have attempted to operate within the private sector, has declined substantially. That has been regarded with some sadness by hon. Members.
  It must be recognised that if there are three quarters of a million empty properties, although many are in the public sector, a large proportion of them are in the private sector. One would wish those properties to be brought into better use. One factor that must be borne in mind when we consider the Opposition's figures is that the Government have given substantial support through the housing benefits system.
  I note the point that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but, according to figures that I obtained from the Library this morning, in the past year £5·9 billion in support was given. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is not terribly happy about that because, in seminars and conferences around the country, he has been saying that that is manifestly dreadful and stupid. Taken together with the other amounts of support in terms of the Government's house building programme, there is substantial assistance—up to 18 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement, according to the figures that I saw today.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to such evidence and said that mortgage tax relief is a bad thing. The hon. Member for Greenwich shares that view. The proportion of support available under mortgage tax relief has substantially eroded over the years, and that must be recognised. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is shaking his head, but that is absolutely true. Inflation and tax decreases have substantially eroded that benefit, as a result of which it is fairly likely in the current year that the amount of support available through housing benefit will overtake the support that is given under mortgage tax relief. At the moment, 69 per cent. of households in Wales are receiving support through the housing benefit structure initially directly from the Government and then from local authorities.
  Hon. Members recognise that there is a housing crisis in this country—I hope that I made that clear at the beginning of my speech. If there were no crisis there would not be a need for all the steps that the Government have taken to address the problem. My hon. Friend the Minister is regarded throughout the country as a person who genuinely recognises the scale of the problem. Many of the initiatives over the past few years are directly as a result of the pressure and influence that he has been able

  49
  to bring to bear. I am absolutely sure that, with my hon. Friend in charge of our housing programme, we have a policy that all our colleagues can support.
  5.28 pm
  Ms. Glenda Jackson: Although I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, I do not welcome the fact that for the fourth time in this Parliament we are debating the issue of homelessness. I look forward to the day when homelessness will have no place in this Chamber or in the cities and towns of this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has referred to homelessness as a scar on the face of society. While agreeing wholeheartedly with his sentiment, I disagree with his analogy, because over time scars heal, but during this Government's tenure of office the number of households accepted as homeless has tripled, to stand at 150,000. That represents 400,000 adults and children. According to the Shelter briefing, which I am sure all hon. Members received in time for the autumn statement, almost 63,000 of those families will spend this Christmas in unsuitable temporary housing, such as bed and breakfast hotels and local authority hostels.
  There are enough learned documents around to prove the dangers for children in bed and breakfasts—quite apart from the economic costs. In London, the cost of keeping a family in bed and breakfasts is estimated at £14,500 a year. The damage done to children is almost inestimable. Children in bed and breakfasts tend to catch illnesses far more easily and to have greater difficulty in learning and in creating real social relationships. The borough in which my constituency lies has 1,900 families with no homes of their own; that figure does not include the number forced to use voluntary hostels or squats or cardboard boxes for shelter.
  There is no doubt that the plight of the homeless is a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but a former leader of the Conservative party once said that it is not enough for people merely to say that they care; their actions must support their words. The Government's actions so far have failed to alleviate, let alone eradicate, the evil of homelessness.
  Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer unveiled a number of proposals in his autumn statement designed to boost the housing sector—proposals to which the Minister referred today. One proposal was to purchase 20,000 empty homes. Another was that councils would be allowed to spend the capital receipts that they earn between now and December 1993. That was done, the Chancellor said, to make a real contribution to housing families in need.
  What was the background against which the announcement was made? Twenty thousand homes are to be purchased, but last year 75,000 homes were repossessed. Capital receipts will be released from now until December 1993, but more than £8 billion in capital receipts have already been accumulated. So the Government can buy 20,000 homes, yet they allow the seizure of 75,000.
  This is a time of deep recession, when people are much concerned that they may have no jobs, when—to quote Shelter—the rate of mortgage repossessions in England alone is running at 200 a day and when loans more than 12 months in arrears had risen by June 1992 by almost 25 per cent. to more than 110,000. So the Government, on the
  50
  most optimistic estimate, are giving £1·75 billion in capital receipts but are blocking the £8 billion that councils have already raised from the right to buy.
  On top of all this, the Government tell councils, which have the prime responsibility for housing those in need, that they will give them less money next year to discharge their duties than they did this year—that has always been the trend while the Conservative party has been in power. Spending on housing in real terms fell from £11·6 billion in 1978–79 to £5·5 billion in 1991–92—a reduction of £6·1 billion.
  The Government claim that they care about the homeless, but in the next breath they say that it is not for central Government to generate the growth in the housing sector which the homeless so desperately need and in their third breath they announce that they will bring in spending measures that will prevent local government from generating growth.
  Homelessness under this Government has become an epidemic, and it is eating away at the fabric of society. How much potential is wasted in the doorways of the shops lining the Strand? How many doctors, teachers and business men could have grown—could still grow—out of the people who have no home of their own and hence no opportunity? What can be said of a Government who deny them that opportunity?
  The Conservative manifesto states:
  "The opportunity to own a home and pass it on is one of the most important rights an individual has in a free society."
  But what of those denied the right to live in a home, never mind own one? A right to clean, decent, affordable housing should be guaranteed, and if all else fails it is incumbent on the Government to safeguard that right. If solving the problem of homelessness means Government intervention before lunch, breakfast and dinner, so be it. Homelessness will not be solved by the reintroduction of restrictions on capital receipts, due to come into effect in December 1993. Nor will it be solved by the restrictions on council spending due to come into effect in April 1993. Nor will it be solved by unemployment, by recession or by the slump to which no end is in sight—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Jackson: I shall shortly have finished my speech.
  The glossy brochure in my hand is not, it may surprise my hon. Friends to hear, a charter produced by the Government. It is called, "The London Day Centres Directory: Services for Homeless People". As Conservative Members can see, it has many pages and many more sub-divisions. Instead of tackling the basic problem of homelessness and our inadequate housing stock, we are being directed to manage homelessness—to find it acceptable and to tolerate it. Many people have asked me why homelessness and the problem of housing are not higher up the political agenda—
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Jackson: I say that these issues are high up the political agenda—we will all see how high as Christmas approaches. For a few weeks before Christmas, local and national newspapers will publish schemes under which the homeless will be taken off the streets and put in damp, drafty vaults under bridges. There they will be fed turkey

  51
  dinners on paper plates and there they will toast each other in champagne from polystyrene cups. Come Boxing day they will become invisible again.
  I urge the Government to set in train before Christmas real measures that will make this glossy brochure utterly irrelevant by this time next year.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the hon. Lady is giving way.
  Ms. Jackson: I have concluded my speech.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: This will be the fifth time I have spoken since becoming a Member inApril. By some strange coincidence, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been in the Chair on each occasion. I do not presume to detect any connection beyond the fact that we represent neighbouring seats.
  I was interested to hear the excellent remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who said that he foresaw many happy years in the House for himself. Given that he has a majority of 130, one can only conclude that that was an example of great confidence—admirable confidence.
  I congratulate the Government on the excellent measures in the autumn statement to help boost the housing market and meet housing need. We all want everyone to have a decent home at an affordable price, and it is encouraging that the Government have introduced more measures to meet that end.
  I refer first to the £750 million to be provided for housing associations to buy up an estimated 20,000 repossessed properties in the next 12 months, to convert them to homes for rent. That will be an important measure to free the housing market, which has been bogged down during the past two years. The Government have taken an incisive and imaginative measure to get the market moving again at the lower end, by removing 20,000 empty and repossessed properties from the market. I support that excellent measure, as it will help to stimulate the housing market.
  I welcome the reduction of the interest rate to 7 per cent.—as low as I can remember during my working life —which is an excellent boost for the property market. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening—
  Mr. Baldry: Yes, I am.
  Mr. Streeter: I am sure that my hon. Friend is—I did not wish to infer otherwise. I thought that he might have nodded off and that perhaps the headphones were his personal stereo. I hope that he will speak severely to building societies that fail to pass on the benefits of lower interest rates for several months. Recently, the Halifax announced that it would pass on the benefit in January. I must declare an interest, as it is lending me a small amount of money. Why cannot the Halifax pass on the benefit of that rate reduction in December?
  Building societies and banks have a lot to answer for in failing to pass on interest rate reductions early enough, and we shall hear more about banks in the Adjournment
  52
  debate tonight. I hope that the Government will get tough with those building societies and banks that fail quickly to pass on the reductions.
  Excellent deals are available in the market place for first-time buyers and people who want to move house, who will be able to borrow money at advantageous rates. I scanned the Sunday newspapers and found that one could get a loan on a fixed rate of interest for seven years—long enough to tide us over the next upturn in the property cycle which is bound to come—at 8·25 per cent. Anyone who wants to plan ahead with certainty can take the sort of packages on offer at 8·25 per cent. There has never been a better time to buy a property, and I hope that that message is getting across to home owners and first-time buyers.
  Even estate agents have begun to report an upturn in activity during the past few days, which is greatly to be welcomed. We hear much about the difficulties that home owners have suffered during the past two years—about negative equity and repossessions. Those are real problems, but it is not right for us to concentrate on a short-term problem and to allow it to negate a long-term benefit.
  There is no doubt that home ownership remains the aspiration of the vast majority of families, and so it should be. In the long term, home ownership is a great asset to any person or family. It is undoubtedly the single biggest asset that most people have, and is to be encouraged. I welcome Government measures to encourage it and the forthcoming rent-into-mortgage scheme which will extend the choice of home ownership to another layer of the population.
  I also welcome the capital receipts initiative, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his excellent statement on Thursday. I am not the only one to welcome it. On Friday 13 November, a report was published in the Plymouth Western Evening Herald—an excellent local newspaper—which stated:
  "Plymouth could be in for a £2 million windfall from council house sales, courtesy of Chancellor Norman Lamont it emerged today. City Housing Chairman Pat Kelly gave a cautious welcome to Mr. Lamont's announcement yesterday that councils can now spend all the money they make from selling land and houses. Mr. Kelly said, 'I have done some sums which indicate we could generate between £1·5 million and £2 million from the sale of about 100 council houses that we have in the pipeline'."
  That is a cautious welcome from a left-wing Labour-controlled authority, which is no friend of our party or of the homeless. By May 1991, when I ceased —by the will of the people—to be the housing chairman in Plymouth, I had already set up many deals between the council and housing associations, which the local authority instantly froze for ideological reasons. It preferred to keep people waiting on the streets and in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, rather than to deal with evil housing associations, which it saw as the wicked private sector. That was an absolute disgrace. That same council has welcomed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on capital receipts, estimating that it will release up to £2 million during the next 14 months, which will enable the council to build up to 100 council houses. That is a measure of the support that my right hon. Friend's excellent initiative has in this country. A cautious welcome from the left-wing Plymouth city council is the highest accolade.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to the Opposition Front Bench, although he is no

  53
  longer in the Chamber, and I listened to his speech with interest. I am pleased that he intends to press for measures to improve housing, and I offer to accompany him on his trips around Labour-controlled local authorities—I am sure that that was what he had in mind—to urge them to get their act together, to collect rents, carry out repairs, utilise voids and deal with housing associations rather than turning their backs on them.
  Mr. George Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman care to name one Labour authority that turns its back on housing associations?
  Mr. Streeter: I have already named Plymouth city council, which turned its back on housing associations for 18 months, hoping to keep all the land in its ownership so that it could build council houses, knowing that it would never have the money to do so.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. Streeter: No, I must move on. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Leeds, West at long last understands the need to press for measures to improve the housing stock—doubtless by putting pressure on Labour-controlled authorities.
  In addition to the Chancellor's excellent statement about capital receipts on Thursday, I welcome the fact that he has been able to maintain the Housing Corporation's budget for the next three years and even to add to it. That is greatly to be welcomed. Housing associations in Plymouth are planning to build more than 250 houses in the next 12 months and the 100 houses that the city council may be able to add to that will be an excellent step towards meeting the needs of the homeless. I welcome the fact that the budget has been not cut but augmented. No doubt that owes much to the Government's commitment to the homeless.
  The Government should encourage councils to consider not merely selling houses or land to release capital receipts to spend on housing. Plymouth Pavilions is a leisure and conference complex, which was built by the local authority at a cost of £25 million and which is running at a loss of £1·5 million per annum. Local authorities should not run such centres. If that complex were sold to the private sector, it would make a profit, and release money which could be spent on noteworthy assets and meritworthy schemes in Plymouth. I suggest that local authorities should consider such sales. The Government can only create a framework and it is for local authorities to deal with their housing stock, and to suggest initiatives to take full advantage of the excellent leadership given by the Government.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about releasing the £5·5 billion currently held by local authorities; he referred to those funds as "historic capital receipts". But the motion does not say how local authorities would deal with the shortfall in their general funds which spending that money would create. The interest currently accruing on those capital receipts comes from the general fund of local authorities throughout the country. If that money were spent, the interest would not enter the general fund and the shortfall would have to be covered by community charge payers. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that. If he is committed to that course of action, I invite him to make
  54
  it perfectly clear in the leaflets that will no doubt flood the land in the run-up to the county council elections next May that it is Liberal Democrat policy to spend those capital receipts and to double community charges throughout the country, massively increasing the council tax. That will allow voters at the county council elections to decide whether they wish to follow such a policy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's accusation is that we have a simple view, which I hope that he, as a former local government councillor, supports. Each local council should have the freedom to spend all its capital receipts or not. That decision should not be imposed by central Government.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I take it as a confirmation that the Liberal Democrats will be courageous enough to spell out in its election material the implications not only of 1 p in the pound for education but of doubling the community charge to pay for capital receipts.
  Mr. David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats also want to abolish capping, which would increase last year's community charge or next year's council tax, placing a further burden on home owners?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is of great concern that those Liberal Democrat policies slip through the net because no one takes the party seriously enough to read its manifestos and see what its policies are. Most people would be alarmed at the prospect of those dreadful policies.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that local authorities give value for money in their management of public sector housing. That is vital if we are to resolve housing issues. We should remember that 4·2 million household units owned by local authorities are still let in the public sector. The best way to improve the condition of housing stock and the plight of the homeless is to persuade local authorities to become increasingly efficient. I welcome the measures which the Government have pursued for many years to drive local authority housing departments towards greater efficiency.
  The compulsory competitive tendering measures shortly to be introduced are welcome, but they do not go far enough. One of the biggest problems of housing departments in managing housing stock is the fact that they are bogged down by local authority culture. Legal, treasury and general administrative services supplied to housing departments throughout the country are a major impediment to efficiency.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the point that I made in my maiden speech—it now seems a long time ago—about independently managed local authority companies buying in services from wherever they wish, at the best price that they can find, whenever they want them? They would buy in repair, legal, financial and every other service, rather than being suffocated as they are now by local authority culture, which most housing departments must suffer. CCT is an excellent measure that will introduce efficiency into housing departments. But it will not help housing management to escape the icy grip of local authority culture, and I hope that the Government will look again at that point.

  55
  It has been said that the Government's proposals will result in a 9 per cent. increase in council rents. The average council rent in Plymouth is just less than £25 a week. From the way in which Opposition Members react when the matter is discussed in the House, one would think that we were talking about £125 a week. I believe that £25 still provides excellent value for money and that 9 per cent. on £25 is not a draconian increase. Moreover, housing benefit exists to support those who cannot afford to pay it.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Streeter: I am just winding down, so I shall not give way.
  It is wrong to suggest that the Government are introducing measures that will penalise council tenants. However, I urge them to look again at the most effective way of encouraging local authorities to run housing associations.
  I reject the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats and support the Government's valiant attempts to make affordable housing appropriate and within the reach of everyone in the nation.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter). He should not try—in the House or elsewhere—to characterise Labour-controlled local authorities or any other local authorities as being generally obstructive towards housing associations. I am familiar with how Labour-controlled local authorities and housing associations operate, and it simply is not true to say that Labour-controlled authorities have a general policy of obstructing housing associations. I am not familiar with his example of Plymouth council, but as a general principle it is not the case. I expect that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who has some experience in these matters, will confirm that that is the case in Wales.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman will concede, however, that even I know of instances where some authorities take such a hostile line.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton was trying to establish the fact that Labour-controlled authorities have such a general policy, and that simply is not true. That is the only rebuttal that I care to make of his speech.
  May I say a few words about the consequences of the autumn statement for housing policy? We need, first, to consider the Government's diagnosis of the problems in the housing market and, secondly, to look specifically at how their proposed remedies follow the diagnosis. The generally accepted diagnosis, which even Ministers may accept, is that there is a double problem of overhang in the housing market. On the one hand, a debt overhang is causing considerable hardship to families but is also acting as a brake on the housing market. On the other hand, there is an overhang caused by the number of properties on the market that cannot be sold because of general market conditions. Those two problems feed off each other: the glut of properties on the market causes problems for people who wish to sell and their debt therefore mounts
  56
  up. Part of that equation is the effect of falling prices—the negative equity that has already been mentioned. That is the broad diagnosis of the problem.
  I shall not go into the problems of homelessness, which have been more than adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) and others. I wish to concentrate on the narrow area that is of immense importance to the development and execution of housing policy in the next year or so.
  Two remedies are proposed. First, £750 million is allegedly being made available to the Housing Corporation to enable housing associations to acquire, it is said, 20,000 additional properties. Secondly, the Government will grant permission to use capital receipts between now and the end of next year. According to the Housing Corporation press release issued on Thursday, £600 million is being made directly available to that programme and another £150 million will be directed from capital receipts.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister said that additional money would be available over the period covered by the press release. I have not had the opportunity to make a precise calculation, but the amount available during the 12 months of the scheme will be more than £200 million. However, it will be available in principle only.
  On Friday, I spent a good deal of time telephoning a wide range of contacts in the housing association movement. Some of them are directly employed by associations, some are consultants, and some have general expertise in housing finance. I do not claim that it was a scientific survey, but it led me to the view that for two reasons the scheme will not work. First, considerable delays will necessarily be imposed on housing associations because of the negotiations and surveys that must take place before any property is acquired. Unless the associations can buy huge portfolios of properties by way of auction or some such scheme, much time and resources will need to be spent carrying out the necessary searches and surveys and in conducting negotiations. I spoke to a surveyor who carried out some preliminary work of that nature. He told me that the repair bill to make a property fit for habitation and available for rent is likely to be between £5,000 and £10,000.
  A substantial amount of public money is used to fund the housing association grants system and those associations have to go through all the proper procedures to acquire property. That will take time. Secondly, they have to identify the extent of the necessary repairs, and if they are very expensive the transaction may have to be abandoned. Given a tolerance level of plus or minus 20 per cent., I predict that the 20,000 target will not be achieved. I could go further and say that it is unlikely that the Government will achieve 2,000 units within the time available. That will result in a huge difference between the actual cost and the money that the Government have identified for the programme. Much but not all of that money has already been taken from the Housing Corporation's agreed development programmes for the next two years. If I am right and there is a substantial underspend in the programme, will the money be put back into the corporation's agreed development programme over the next two years? I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes to give that assurance.
  Mr. Baldry: I have every confidence that the Housing Corporation and the housing associations will be able to meet the target that we have set for them.
  Mr. Howarth: In that case, I conclude that if the scheme fails to meet the target of 20,000 properties, the corporation's agreed programme for the next two years will have had money taken away from it and not spent. The overall impact on the construction industry will therefore be negative rather than positive.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Even if the hon. Gentleman's worst fears were realised in a short time, he will know from his knowledge of housing associations that they are currently working on cash-limited allocations for years ahead. If it is a matter of spending money, it should not be difficult to advance programmes that have already been planned or to make off-the-shelf purchases.
  Mr. Howarth: That may well be the case, but it was not my point. In his intervention the Minister did not make it clear that the resources will be returned to the Housing Corporation's programme over the next two years. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) may dissent from the specifics of my prediction hut, given his knowledge of the Housing Corporation; he would probably accept its generality. If my prediction is correct, the impact on construction will be negative.
  The second part of the programme announced in the autumn statement was that local authorities will be allowed to spend capital receipts that they accrue during the 12 or 13-month time slot. The matter is notoriously unpredictable. In his speech, the Minister used submissions by local authorities for credit approval bids to assess the amount of money that would be available. I think that I am right in assuming that. I do not know how one assesses the accuracy of those bids because they are always best guesses. However, I know from experience in my constituency and elsewhere that the market is in such an appalling state that many potential buyers of land and council properties—of which about 40 per cent. have probably been sold—are wary about entering it. I suspect that even local authorities did not anticipate the depths to which the market would sink. The Government's assessment will turn out to be extremely optimistic.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Many people are not willing to exercise their right to buy council properties or properties in the private sector because they fear redundancy and unemployment, a cloud that is hanging over hundreds of thousands or millions of people.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a most important point in justifying my argument. Confidence in the market by builders, developers and potential purchasers simply does not exist. I would be delighted if the autumn statement and subsequent pronouncements from the Department of the Environment and the Housing Corporation boosted confidence. However, the proposed programmes do not contain sufficient substance to inject such confidence into the market.
  Another point arises out of the autumn statement. In this, I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West from the Front Bench. By reducing the housing associations' grant percentage to 67 per cent., the Government are hoping—this is an arguable point—to raise additional private finance and thereby to
  58
  expand the amount of programme money that will be available. In other words, they hope to make the available public money go further.
  My fear is that, rather than achieving that, it will have one of two effects. First, it could make it more and more difficult, in each given scheme that a housing association considers, to arrive at a combination of private finance and grant that will result in affordable rents. I know that, even at higher levels of grant, housing associations are having difficulty making that equation work.
  If submissions from housing associations, through the National Federation of Housing Associations and others, prove to the Minister that this will create problems, I hope that he will listen to those representations and find a compromise solution to enable the programme that we all want to see in place go ahead. I hope that he does not get tied down to the figure as the last word when it may turn out to cause a problem.
  The other possible consequence that I fear is that housing associations will be obliged, if they try to stick rigidly to that percentage, to drive down standards so as to make the equation work. We know from the example of local authority housing in the 1960s and 1970s the consequence of allowing standards to slip. It creates expensive long-term problems that are the source of great misery to many people.
  I had hoped to say more, but I shall cut my remarks short as several hon. Members still wish to speak. I hope that the expectations that the Government have created through the Chancellor's announcement can be met, but I strongly fear that they cannot. After all the hype and the fuss over the past week have died down, if it proves, as I fear that it will, that the problems built into that announcement overwhelm the projects that have been set in train, I hope that, as quickly as possible, the Government will think again. I hope that the Minister will listen to the submissions that are bound to come from housing associations and others and will be willing to modify the details so that the Government's objectives —rather than the hype—can be met.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: For a variety of reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment. Some of the major points missed by Opposition Members include the important one that, since the Conservative party came into power in 1979, we have changed the nature of the housing market and the link with councils. The base line has changed so radically that many Opposition Members have been left behind. The changes are not only in the position of councils but in the expectations of individuals. The simple fact that well in excess of 60 per cent. of the population own their own homes is a significant factor. It means that people are determined to take decisions about their own lives into their own hands and to get away from the problems resulting from the bad running of estates by local authorities.
  The Government have recently made some significant commitments. I congratulate them on their stated hope to exceed the commitment to build 53,000 houses. Over the period that we have been in power, of the 6 million householders who have bought their own homes, about 1·4 million have done so under the right-to-buy scheme, of which all of us are justifiably proud.

  59
  I shall not speak for too long as many others wish to speak, but I wish to dwell on the subject of the housing action trust scheme, introduced by the Government. For a while, it was faltering as councils opposed it. In my area, the tenants in Waltham Forest gave it their full support. The Conservative party should thank them, because more than 70 per cent. of them voted in favour of taking their housing estates out of the control of local authorities and instead to put them in the hands of a housing action trust. It is important to bear that in mind because that is the key to the issue. We have here people whose lives have been blighted by some of the worst-run estates in central London and who chose, in significant numbers, to get away from that.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise—the Minister will, as he was aware of this—that the tenants in Waltham Forest voted for the housing action trust only when they had been given a clear and categoric guarantee that they could return to local authority control after the properties had been renovated?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: When I go around the estates, I am told that the tenants have no wish to see the properties return to local authority control. The record of the local authority in running the estates, particularly Chingford Hall estate, which is in my constituency, was appalling. One has only to walk around the estate to see that it has been left in rack and ruin and that it is falling to pieces, to such an extent that the housing action trust will take down most of the estate and rebuild houses that will be perfect for people who wish to live there in comfort.
  Mr. Raynsford: The tenants still wish the properties to return to the local council.
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: They do not wish that.
  When I have visited the housing action trust for Chingford Hall estate, I have found that people are buoyed up with enthusiasm about the scheme—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister can attest to that as he recently visited the area. Furthermore, those who run it, both from the Hoe street headquarters and from Chingford Hall estate itself, show what can happen when people are in charge who want to do something for those who live on an estate and want to help them to solve some of the worse problems. That is a great bonus, and shows how a Conservative policy is working well.
  In support of Conservative policies over the past 12 years or so, particularly now, it must also be said that Government expenditure on housing is a significant £8·5 billion. That includes £2·3 billion for the Housing Corporation, £1·5 billion for local authorities and £3·7 billion for housing revenue account subsidy. That shows clearly the Government's commitment to housing.
  Others have talked at great length about homelessness, but the Government's record on that, particularly their recent record, is one on which they can stand up and be counted. Single Homelessness in London, in its recent annual report, stated:
  "Extra resources which the rough sleepers' initiative and the homeless mentally ill initiative are providing a welcome recognition by central Government of the scale of the problem in central London."
  That is significant.
  60
  I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has spoken already about those two initiatives, but I shall highlight some points about them. Some £96 million will be provided for the rough sleepers initiative and that should give 2,900 spaces in permanent or leased accommodation and 900 in hostels and emergency accommodation. Some £20 million will be made available over the three years for the mentally ill initiative, to develop a new housing advisory service.
  I support the amendment and the Government's housing policy. Building on what has been achieved over the past 12 years, it will take us more and more down to the level of individuals looking after themselves while those who cannot are supported and directed through group initiatives and housing associations rather than through councils.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall make a brief contribution because I suspect that others wish to speak before the winding-up speeches.
  There has been an unusual degree of three-party agreement today. My colleagues and I did not expect to find ourselves in agreement with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who offered words of wisdom to lenders. They must watch their reputations carefully in the coming weeks to see that they pass on the interest rate cuts that they have now been permitted.
  I was also extremely surprised to find that I agreed with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) who made an eloquent plea on behalf of rural areas. When I worked for Shelter in the south-west, my primary work was centred on Plymouth—the city represented by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Sutton. If I still had that job, however, it would now take me as much to the rural areas and the market towns as to the large cities. There are rough speakers—I mean sleepers —in almost every market town; there may be rough speakers, too, at some hours of the night, it depends on when one disturbs them. When I spent time on a sleep-out, I was staggered to find how many full-time professional rough sleepers there were compared with a once-or-twice amateur like me.
  The rural areas face a serious homeless problem. The excellent work conducted by Glen Bramley and his team at Bristol university in 1990 and 1991 has shown that up to one third of new households in the rural areas require rented accommodation. Those people will not be accommodated through the right-to-buy provisions or as a result of liberating the now frozen owner-occupied market. More than half of those newly formed households simply cannot afford the full value of anything on the market, even now with so many depressed house prices.
  The work undertaken by Action for Communities in Rural England—ACRE—estimates that about 377,000 homes will be required either immediately or in the next five years in rural areas. Recently, I visited rural areas in north Yorkshire, Cumbria, Scotland and in my home area of Cornwall. It is clear to me that we must have a continual programme to provide rented accommodation of all sorts for those communities.
  In recent years, the Minister has not shown himself to be dogmatic about the split between the rented and owner-occupied sector. He is a man of great stature, because he listens to both sides of the House on this subject

  61
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I agree with the Minister's colleagues. In the months ahead, we look to him to be flexible and to ensure that if the new programmes are not successful he will be prepared to argue with his colleagues at the Department and in the Cabinet for a bigger slice of the cake for those who seek rented accommodation.
  The study undertaken by the Department of the Environment of communities with populations of fewer than 3,000 has revealed that they will need far more new homes than are currently proposed. In the housing association rental programmes for 1991–92 and for 1992–93, the DOE figure show that 2,436 additional housing units will be provided under the supplementary credit approval scheme. That number will be insufficient to meet the needs of those areas. In Cambridgeshire, for example, only 106 new units will become available; in Cheshire, Cumbria and Cornwall the numbers available will be 38, 51 and 78 respectively. Those numbers are a drop in the ocean. When one considers all the forms of social mix and occupation that make up the rural areas, I cannot believe that the vast majority will be able to make the dramatic shift from the rented to owner-occupied sector—their needs cannot be met.
  Good work has been done by the House-Builders Federation, the Association of District Councils and others to try to find ways in which matters can be improved, but the social and housing mixture is extremely difficult to achieve for legal, funding and planning reasons.
  In the Chancellor's statement last week some limited help was offered to the hard-pressed building industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has already drawn attention to the problems of that industry. It is labour intensive and if more money had been made available to it immediately, that could have had a major impact not only on the housing problem but on the jobless totals in many areas.
  The disappointment felt at the inability to invest the historic receipts from council house sales is particularly great in rural areas, because many authorities there have few suitable properties still for sale. In the present depressed state of the rural economy, even fewer authorities expect their tenants to be able to exercise their right to buy. I note what the Minister said about Rita, but she will have to work extremely hard in the coming months if an effective equalisation of opportunities is to be offered to people in rural areas.
  As the Minister will know, there has been cross-party support in the south-west—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Sutton did not refer to this—for the campaign by The Western Morning News to obtain a phased release of council house receipts. That approach would be a much more sane and effective way in which to achieve the investment in housing that is required in the rural south-west.
  The rural areas have one national champion when it comes to job opportunities, help for small businesses and housing—the Rural Development Commission. That excellent body has recently produced an excellent report entitled "Homelessness in Rural Areas". It undertook special studies of Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Shropshire, Northumberland, Lincolnshire and north Cornwall.
  In the particular section relating to my area of the country, that exhaustive report showed that 90 per cent. of applicants for housing had incomes of less than £10,000 a year, 63 per cent. had incomes of less than £6,000 and 36 per cent. relied solely on pensions or benefits. The waiting
  62
  list in the area has grown at the rate of 80 individuals or families a month. In recent months, repossessions have had a marked effect on the problem.
  One would think that the Rural Development Commission, given its excellent pioneering work—which I acknowledge happens to be of particular interest to my constituency—would be given additional funds to help it to meet its housing responsibilities. But what did we find in the autumn statement? Its modest budget of some £40 million is to be cut by £2 million. That organisation is the only one that can effectively try to overcome the homeless problem in some of the lowest income areas, but its budget is to be cut. It is a sad day when such effective organisations, with such small means, find that they are at the mercy of the Chancellor's axe.
  When the Prime Minister, who represents a rural constituency, took over from someone whose suburbanity was a terrible example to us all, some of us hoped that the country areas would get a fair crack of the whip. We have had a sad few days since the autumn statement because, once again, the rural areas will be deprived of expert help, limited though it was, which it received and which was designed to try to ensure that they got a fair slice of the housing action.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is clear from the speeches of the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) that this subject is becoming less and less of a purely party political issue. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North was keen to emphasise that Labour authorities have now come round to the idea of housing associations, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North even paid warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. I take it as progress that other parties are coming round to our way of thinking.
  Colchester borough council is a hung council that takes a non-party political approach to its small but acute homelessness problem. It is one of the key issues in my constituency and the reason for that is simple: the vast majority of people live in excellent housing, which makes it all the more unacceptable that an albeit tiny minority should be excluded from that element of prosperity. All parties on the council are determined to resolve the problem and are committed to using housing associations to achieve that end. There is a remarkable lack of party dogma.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) and I have been invited to attend a meeting with the council on Friday to discuss how to make further progress. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in the spirit of political co-operation between all the parties, to approve an application for additional credit under the Government's estate action programme.
  I shall be brief so that the replies can commence. I had intended to comment in detail on housing need in Colchester and what is already being achieved by housing associations. In summary, a total of £15 million is being spent, with £8 million coming from the Housing Corporation. Considerable progress is being made. The estate action programme on the Greenstead estate involves 3,200 properties and a £2 million programme of mainly flats and maisonettes. The problems are familiar and it is

  63
  worth emphasising that not all acute housing problems are in our inner cities; there are just as many in the surrounding towns and the rural areas.
  The environment has deteriorated and, for no apparent reason, vandalism and crime are on the increase. The people on the Greenstead estate have an undeserved reputation. They want to improve their area. I know that many of those people are as decent and law-abiding as any anywhere in the constituency and they deserve better. The council has developed plans in close co-operation with the estate's residents and there is evidence of a strong desire for greater self-determination and for the area to recover its standing. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the application favourably.
  There are also certain actions that we can urge the council to take. It could sell its assets and make use of the proposals in the autumn statement. It could sell the bus company and Colchester Contract Services to raise the necessary capital. All those issues and many others will be discussed at the meeting on Friday.
  I commend the Government amendment to the House.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: It is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to reply to the debate. It has been a good debate. However, I am disappointed that only a few hon. Members have attended it. I hope that it is not a signal to the wider audience that the House does not take seriously the subject of homelessness and the housing crisis. It is a matter that we should take very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that a home is a right, not a concession.
  Many people in my constituency and elsewhere fear buying houses while there is a lack of confidence in the housing market. They have three main fears. The first is that prices will continue to fall—and over the past two months there have been large falls. Secondly, there is the continuing fear of unemployment—and a report published today shows that 46 per cent. of people fear that they could lose their jobs. Thirdly, there is a fear of negative equity —and my hon. Friend said that one in seven households currently live in a property worth less than the mortgage.
  One Conservative Member accused the Liberal Democrats of wanting to abolish mortgage interest tax relief. My hon. Friend dealt with that suggestion so firmly that Conservative Members did not mention it again. I want to lay the matter firmly to rest. Our manifesto at the general election said that we would
  "introduce housing cost relief weighted towards those most in need and available to house buyers and renters. This will replace mortgage tax relief for future home buyers …People holding mortgages will be protected: they will have the choice of moving to housing cost relief or continuing to receive mortgage interest tax relief."
  I hope that that clarifies the matter for Conservative Members, who clearly have not read our manifesto. I must admit that I have not read the Conservative party manifesto, but I prefer non-fiction.
  I was grateful for some of the Minister's comments. I am enjoying working alongside him and other familiar faces on the Committee considering the Housing and Urban Development Bill. I am sure that we will be on that Committee for a number of months to come, so it is important that we maintain good relations.
  64
  I welcomed the Minister's comment that no one should have to sleep rough, but I question the cut in funds for the rough sleeping initiative which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, was announced on Thursday. I am concerned about the provision in the autumn statement of £750 million to buy 20,000 vacant houses. I take seriously the comments of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) about delays and the Government's possible lack of ability to meet that target. The key intervention was that by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who pointed out that, during the time it takes to buy those 20,000 homes, it is likely that there will be more than 20,000 further repossessions. The scheme is a drop in the ocean.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said that, on the 1979 basis for calculating unemployment, the true unemployment figure is now in excess of 4 million. It is right to link the unemployment rate with the number of houses on the market and the number of people in financial difficulty. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the curious logic in the Housing and Urban Development Bill—which we shall seek to amend—where the Government propose to take away the rights of tenants through compulsory competitive tendering.
  When the Minister replies, will he deal with the point about accumulated receipts of £5·5 billion? It is the crux of the matter. It is well known that the best and most sure way out of a recession is through the construction industry. A phased relief of £5·5 billion in councils' bank accounts throughout the country would get the building industry back to work, with all that that means.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give way as I am short of time and I have a great deal of ground to cover.
  If that £5·5 billion were released in a phased way, it would enable houses currently requiring repairs to be brought back into use. It would allow housing associations and councils to make an impact on their waiting lists. It would also put back in work many of those in the construction industry who have lost their jobs.
  A family who recently visited my constituency surgery believed that the way to instant riches was to buy their council house, so in 1987 they voted Conservative and bought their property the following year. The husband was a skilled bricklayer, but in 1989 he lost his job and the family home was repossessed.
  That family found themselves again on the local council's books, and the home that they occupied as council tenants for 11 years was left empty. Every Sunday, the family used to visit their old house and look through the front windows of the property that was once their home. If they had not believed Conservative party propaganda, they would still be contented council tenants.
  That family was placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which had a serious effect on their health, for 56 weeks—at a cost to the council of £18,000. That is the economics of the situation.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Jones: No, because I have much more ground to cover.
  The most remarkable contribution in today's debate was that of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr.

  65
  Evans). Many of his comments might lead one to think that he had a place on this side of the House. I agree with him that local authorities must be efficient in collecting rent and in turning round property. I pay tribute to Cheltenham local authority, which has cut the time between lets from seven weeks to four weeks and is reducing it still further. As a consequence, the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has also fallen and continues to do so. I point out that the council is controlled by Liberal Democrats, and that is Liberal Democrat policy in action.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) said that she would like to see £1·75 billion of receipts released. She is right to argue that, though I believe—because I was absent from the Chamber—that the hon. Lady confused some of her figures.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor summed up the situation when he asserted that there is a housing crisis and that after 13 years in power it is unacceptable that under the Government there are so many individuals and families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am sure that everyone on this side of the House agrees with that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that the purpose of housing policy is to provide a decent home for everyone, on a tenure of their choice, and at a price that they can afford. By any measure, the Government have failed to do that. The autumn statement does not address the issue. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, the autumn statement is a snowflake on an iceberg. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Government amendment and to support our motion.
  6.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): As Liberal Democrats appear to have spent most of the weekend trying to change the topic of today's debate, I have little doubt that they now regret choosing the subject of housing. Even as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was announcing last Thursday the business of the House for this week, a headline in the Evening Standard was proclaiming "Billions to boost housing". A front page article reported:
  "Chancellor Norman Lamont pumped billions into the housing industry today to spearhead his drive for the economic recovery of Britain."
  Even Labour Members were compelled to acknowledge that, as a result of the autumn statement, there will be more money for housing than was set out in our general election manifesto.
  Government spending plans provide for all the commitments in our manifesto to be met, including more housing action trusts and continuing help for rough sleepers—and I may explain to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) that £86 million for the rough-sleeper programme that was not there before is not a cut. There will be further large-scale voluntary transfers of council housing and increased output of social housing.
  Capital spending on housing funded through the Housing Corporation increased this year by £600 million to produce an immediate boost to the housing market, and nearly £6 billion will be spent over the next three years. We estimate that that will enable substantially more than the 153,000 homes forecast in our manifesto to be provided over that three-year period—and the Government, rightly, will be looking to lever in more private finance in support of the £7·5 billion of public capital spending to be made
  66
  this year and over the public expenditure survey period. That is expected to produce a total of £10·5 billion of spending on new social housing across four years for people in need.
  Anyone reading the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would be disappointed. It contained no new ideas or suggestions, but was just a clutch of recycled speeches and other people's press releases. The hon. Member for Cheltenham regretted the paucity of attendance for this debate, and I agree. Three out of the motion's six sponsors have failed to make an appearance, such is their considerable interest in housing matters. It would be interesting to know where the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) might be. Perhaps they hoped that they would be successful in changing the topic of today's debate.
  The absence of new ideas and lack of interest from the Opposition Benches is not surprising. It is often the case that, when Opposition parties have local responsibilities for housing, their record is truly appalling. Five per cent. of Hackney's housing stock—2,000 homes—stands empty and a further 1,200 homes are illegally occupied. The council has no clue who lives in those properties. That council has 3,200 empty or illegally-occupied properties, but its homeless total is just under 2,000. That council could house them all and still have some change.
  The Liberals are no better. Tower Hamlets has a 4·5 per cent. void rate, or 1,895 houses. That is rather more than the total of 1,669 persons that council had in temporary accommodation at the last count.
  The 1990 auditor's report described Islington council as "incompetent". He mentioned eight flats leased from private owners to alleviate homelessness that the council had left empty for one and a half years. A report by a Queen's Counsel ommented that the council had
  "the cash office staffed by the innumerate, the filing done by the disorganised, and the reception in the care of the surly and charmless."
  Basil Fawlty on the rates.
  Islington council also paid a firm to maintain communal television aerials in a block of council flats that has been demolished 10 years previously, and £25,000 on constructing a 40-yard cycle track the wrong way down a one-way street. Islington council also had £10 million of usable capital housing receipts but spent it elsewhere.
  As was made clear by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—whom we welcome to the Dispatch Box for the first time—Labour is still confused about its approach to capital receipts. As Inside Housing reported in a recent issue:
  "In the run-up to the election, Clive Soley ran into trouble with the leadership when he was quoted as saying that a redefinition of the public sector borrowing requirement, taking council capital receipts out of the calculation, was on the party's agenda. Mr. Battle is obviously keen to avoid similar problems. Redefinition of the PSBR, which could theoretically release capital receipts for housing, is clearly not something Mr. Battle is prepared to argue for today. 'Those are the arguments that the Treasury team are going to have to sort out, not me as the Housing spokesman. At the moment, redefinition is not on Labour's agenda. It is not one of my priorities.' And when asked for clarification today, he said that that approach still stands."

  67
  We welcome the opportunity given by today's debate to make clear our commitment to the promotion of greater owner-occupation, the widening of choice for tenants and an increase in the number of homes available for rent.
  Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be no capital receipts from council house sales if Labour and the Liberal Democrats had had their way, because there would have been no council house sales?
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend has made a good point: there would be little choice and opportunity in housing if the Opposition had had their way.
  Our housing policies are good news for tenants, because they provide an opportunity and choice—
  Mr. Pike: I assure the Minister that our position on the public sector borrowing requirement and on capital receipts is quite clear. In view of the Government's expenditure plans—announced last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—may I ask why it is all right for them to take into account over the next few years the use of capital receipts gained from the sale of public assets? What will the Government do when they have no more public assets to sell?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has made a brave attempt to rescue his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. His hon. Friend failed earlier today, and the hon. Gentleman has failed now.
  As I have said, our housing policies are good news for tenants. They provide more opportunity and more choice. Let me add that the proposed increase contained in next year's rent guidelines is less, in cash terms, than last year's increase. We are revolutionising the management of council housing and flats; we are giving tenants new rights, such as the right to improve and an improved right to repair; we are continuing to invest millions of pounds in estate action—and in housing action trusts, which concentrate resources on the worst council estates. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that I will give careful attention to his request for further implementation of the estate action programme in his area. I am sure that his local authority, like every other, will want to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by the capital partnership scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) has direct experience of tenants' aspirations in his constituency and nearby. He reinforced the welcome given by those tenants for Government initiatives such as the establishment of housing action trusts—initiatives that Labour voted against, campaigned against and would have denied tenants. Only our policies are good news for tenants; only our policies provide choice.
  Mr. George Howarth: Earlier, I asked the Minister a question which he failed to answer. Let me ask it again. If the money that has been targeted at the Housing Corporation with a view to the acquisition of 20,000 properties fails to materialise, will the Minister ensure that the underspend is carried forward into the following two years—from which much of it has been taken?
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's speech would have done Cassandra proud. I shall deal with it in a moment.
  68
  Our policies are good news for home owners. Following a further fall in interest rates, the cost of home loans is now at a 20-year low. Barratt Homes has announced a 30-year mortgage rate low of 6·5 per cent.; the majority of Abbey National mortgage customers will be paying their lowest-ever rate by Christmas; housing-market experts now expect loans to dip below 6 per cent., especially for first-time buyers. Little wonder that the chief executive of the Halifax building society stated, immediately after the autumn statement, that the 7 per cent. bank base rate was
  "very good news for the housing market—it is what we have been calling for"
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) rightly pointed out, building societies should pass on the benefit of interest-rate cuts to home owners in lower mortgage rates as soon as possible. I am glad to say that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment met mortgage lenders this morning, all the mortgage lenders confirmed that they would play a full and constructive part in the initiative for the purchase of empty properties.
  The housing market will also be helped by the Chancellor's £750 million package to enable housing associations to buy some 20,000 empty homes, including new homes and repossessed properties. That, in turn, will provide houses for families in great need. The £750 million will benefit the housing market by helping those in housing need, making it easier for some people to move and giving relief to mortgage lenders. The prospect of 20,000 families in housing need being housed sooner rather than later must be good news.
  As the chairman of the Housing Corporation, Sir Christopher Benson, has observed, this
  "has given the Housing Corporation the opportunity they are seeking—to help the revival of the housing market and to help people in housing need."
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) that building societies are queueing up to start positive negotiations with housing associations, to enable them to meet our target of 20,000 as soon as possible.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister misrepresented the truth about which of my colleagues were present earlier. Quite apart from that, however, does he accept that he has not delivered the sort of response that people outside expect? First, it may be a token of the Government's commitment that none of the amendment's signatories has been present for any of the debate—including the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for housing. Secondly, although we accept, along with others outside the House, that welcome measures were announced on Thursday, those measures are nothing in comparison with the scale of the current housing problem; and that is what the Minister has so far failed to recognise.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has expressed regret about Conservative attendance. He should look first to his own Benches: he will note that a significant number of the motion's sponsors are not present on what is, after all, a Liberal Democrat Supply day, having spent most of the weekend trying to persuade the House authorities to change the topic of the debate to anything other than housing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) reminded us that the autumn statement provided not just more money for England, but more

  69
  money for Scotland and Wales. Wales is being provided with £38 million to purchase repossessed properties. Yes, we will rise to the challenge presented by rural housing: the capital partnership scheme will give us an opportunity to work together with more rural local authorities, presenting rural housing initiatives and responding to local housing needs.
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) that rural areas have a champion: the Government. Our manifesto commitment to spend nearly £6 billion through the Housing Corporation to provide 153,000 homes over the next few years will be more than that. We now expect the Housing Corporation to provide some 165,000 further homes to rent. Local authorities will be able to use 100 per cent. of capital receipts, obtained between now and 1 December 1993. We anticipate that that will release at least £1 billion for spending on housing.
  We have launched the capital partnership scheme to reinforce local authorities' incentives to spend their money on areas such as housing, which will be of lasting benefit to their communities. The scheme will be worth up to £600 million next year. An increase in Housing Corporation spending to well over £2 billion this year, together with further leverage of private finance, is expected to provide some £10·5 billion of public and private spending on new social housing.
  We are investing in housing, and we are enabling others to do so. The money invested will allow us to tackle rundown council housing; it will provide new opportunities to help families on local authority waiting, lists, and will enable more to be done for the homeless; and it will help and encourage the construction industry.
  We are a Government committed to tackling the problem of homelessness: a Government determined to continue to take action to ensure that no one in our society needs to sleep rough, and determined that every family should have a decent home in which to live. The initiatives that we are implementing, the policies that we have announced and the money that we have made available are good news for families in need of housing, good news for tenants of rundown social housing, good news for the house-building industry and good news for the housing market. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 187.

  Division No. 86]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Llwyd, Eltyn

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McFall, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Madden, Max

  Hall, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  70

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wallace, James

  Olner, William

  Wardell Gareth (Gower)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Clare

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tyler, Paul

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Amess, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Ancram, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Arbuthnot, James

  French, Douglas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Gallie, Phil

  Ashby, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Gorst, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bates, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, William

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Harris, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bowis, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bright, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Horam, John

  Burns, Simon

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Clappison, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Knapman, Roger

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Legg, Barry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cran, James

  Lightbown, David

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

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lord, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Luff, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Devlin, Tim

  Madel, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Dover, Den

  Mans, Keith

  Duncan, Alan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Merchant, Piers

  Elletson, Harold

  Milligan, Stephen

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Moate, Roger

  Fabricant, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Norris, Steve

  71

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thomason, Roy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Andrew Mackay.

  Sweeney, Walter

  Sykes, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That this House notes the Government's continuing commitment to housing policies designed to ensure that a decent home is within reach of every family, and in particular to promoting the growth of owner-occupation, widening choice for tenants, and improving value-for-money and targeting of public expenditure; and especially welcomes the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement which—consistently with the need to maintain tight control of public spending in the interests of the economy and the taxpayer—will contribute to stabilizing the housing market, will increase the supply of social housing thereby helping homeless families, and will promote investment in renovation of run-down council estates.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets that the response of the European Community, and notably Her Majesty's Government, since it has assumed the Presidency, to the crisis in former Yugoslavia has been too little and too late; is appalled by the continuing slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is deeply concerned about the impact of winter in Sarajevo and other cities, where failure to protect and stockpile food will be paid for in lives; condemns the barbaric policy of ethnic cleansing; considers that the first priority must he to suppress the ferocity of the fighting by taking over the air space above Bosnia-Herzegovina under UN mandate and if necessary using it to prevent the use of heavy weapons and aircraft for offensive purposes; calls for the effective policing of the Danube to enforce sanctions; congratulates British troops on humanitarian protection for relief convoys; insists however that they must have full capacity for retaliation including, if necessary, air cover; insists that Her Majesty's Government must respond much more generously to the refugee problem, both financially and in the numbers accepted; is deeply concerned that the conflict may soon spread to Kosovo and Macedonia; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate a European Community wide strategy for refugees as proposed by Germany and for further urgent and appropriate action.
  I suspect that many people in Europe allowed themselves a period of self-congratulation immediately after the break-up of the Warsaw pact, when the cold war came to an end and, in particular, when European countries participated successfully in the United Nations operation in the middle east to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. But the sense of complacency that these events may have created has been rudely interrupted by the break-up of Yugoslavia into its historical components, fuelled by ethnic hatred of the most virulent kind. On our television screens, atrocity piled on atrocity, inhumanity, barbarism and cruelty have been commonplace.
  Which of us can be content with the response of the international community? Which of us believes that Europe has done all that it can? Does any hon. Member feel no sense of shame about our niggardly attitude to refugees?
  British troops are at last arriving in Bosnia, but it is right to ask ourselves in what circumstances they do so and for what purpose.
  Mr. David Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned refugees, and I share his views on visa restrictions. Is he aware that many hon. Members—certainly myself—have been repeatedly ringing the Home Secretary's Private Office and the Under-Secretary's Private Office about the 180 refugees who are isolated and some of whose children may die? In view of the ambiguous nature of the decision about whether to allow them to enter and all the other facts, should not those 180 refugees be allowed to come here as quickly as possible for the most humanitarian reasons?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a most eloquent plea, and I shall put it in context.
  Let us consider how many refugees we are being asked to take compared with the numbers that countries surrounding Yugoslavia have felt obliged to take. Is not it

  73
  time for a generous response from the United Kingdom? I suspect that it would do us much good in the international community. It would do us much good in Europe if some of our partners felt that we were as willing to assume these burdens as they have been. I think in particular of the burden that Germany has assumed and of some of the social difficulties that have resulted. It is a moment for some warmth of spirit, but so far we have seen little evidence of it from Ministers.
  Our troops have gone to keep the peace. It is a peacekeeping operation, but we must ask ourselves what peace there is to keep. The decision to send British troops was taken many weeks ago, yet some of the concerns that were expressed in early September still have not been adequately met. I assert, I believe without contradiction, that we have no right to place brave men and women in circumstances where they risk their lives without giving them the clearest possible military objectives, the equipment and numbers to meet those objectives and, if necessary, naval and air support. It is said that our troops are in Yugoslavia for a humanitarian purpose—to assist the United Nations in ensuring that aid gets through. Those are desirable motives, but they are not clear-cut military objectives.
  There has been much debate about the precise terms of the rules of engagement. I would not ask the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to be express about the terms of the rules of engagement—those who know about these matters know that it is by no means sensible to narrate in detail the terms of engagement—but I must ask him to confirm that the rules of engagement, as framed, conform to the nature of the military task that we are asking our troops to undertake.
  It is one thing to issue rules of engagement based on self-defence and on negotiating a right of passage for convoys, but it is a quite different thing when, as happened at the weekend, United Kingdom forces are considered for the escort of refugees. Under what rules of engagement would our troops have conducted that exercise? If refugees in the charge of United Kingdom troops were fired upon, it seems self-evident that the troops would have returned fire. Would that be consistent with the rules of engagement under which they would have had to operate if the task of escorting refugees had been assigned to them?
  We have sent to Bosnia Senator tanks and Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, but why did it take so long for those vehicles to get there? Why are men and vehicles having to familiarise themselves in winter conditions? How much easier it would have been if troops and their equipment had been deployed earlier.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have heard colourful stories in the aftermath of the Gulf war about the performance of some British Army vehicles and how some of them were kept going only by cannibalising others in Europe to the extent that, as has been said, perhaps somewhat flippantly, there were hardly half a dozen decent tanks left in Europe. We must have guarantees about the availability of spare parts and the nature of the maintenance of vehicles, on which the lives of our troops depend.
  I must ask the Minister—and I do so with some reticence because these are issues that people are reluctant to discuss openly and in public—what assessment has been made about the possibility of casualties? Will all medical evacuations be effected using Sea King helicopters, which
  74
  have now been deployed offshore? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the capability of that aircraft to fly in all circumstances in the Yugoslavian winter?
  There are more fundamental questions. On what basis was the number of 1,800 arrived at? What assessment of the task was made in advance of a decision about those numbers? Is it true, as some with confidence have asserted, that the size of the force that the United Kingdom should deploy was determined before the nature of the task had been properly defined? What prompted the increase from 1,800 to the present figure of 2,400? Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any plans to send more troops?
  If I recall correctly, the Secretary of State for Defence said to the Defence Select Committee that the initial deployment was for six months and that there might be a further six months of deployment, but that thereafter the matter would have to be reconsidered. If that is the case, are there any plans to send more troops?
  What contingency plans are being discussed if, for example, as is not beyond the bounds of possibility, the United Nations were to take the view that the mass evacuation of refugees was necessary? Would the British troops, sent for humanitarian purposes to safeguard the passage of convoys, be turned to other tasks such as guarding airfields or similar tasks? If that is contemplated, are we satisfied that the equipment with which they have been provided is adequate for that purpose?
  When Vitez was chosen, it was some way back from the fighting. Now it is right in the middle of the fighting. What consequences will that have for the nature of the operations that British troops are able to carry out? In recent weeks, Canadian, French and Spanish troops have been prevented by irregulars from reaching the areas assigned to them by the United Nations so that deployment, according to United Nations resolution 776, has not yet been achieved.
  In the context of the weekend, we must ask how far our troops are empowered to go. I put the matter in a way that is not unnecessarily fanciful. If a drunken militia man with a Kalashnikov stands in the way of a convoy threatening to fire on those who are guarding it, can he stop it, or are our troops empowered to take such steps as they believe necessary to secure the safe passage of that convoy? I ask that question for the following reason.
  With the onset of winter, when the lives of many people will be at stake, there is bound to be far greater pressure to get access with food and supplies to those who are in need. Let us remember that it was only when winter came to the people of northern Iraq that public opinion and international opinion were prompted to take the necessary steps. If people are dying in the snow in Bosnia, there may be pressure on us here. That will be nothing compared with the pressure on our troops who will feel compelled to take the steps necessary to ensure that food and supplies get to those who need them most.
  In the winter conditions, access to our troops will be more difficult. What steps will be taken to ensure logistical supplies to our troops? Someone who claims some expertise in the matter put it to me the other day that, in the winter in Yugoslavia, British troops might find themselves concentrating almost exclusively on achieving sufficient logistical support to maintain themselves, never mind distributing food and supplies to those who required them.

  75
  Let us consider the question of command and control. There are reports that there is some friction between the senior United Kingdom commander and General Morillon. It was always going to be a delicate relationship for reasons that those who understand the politics of NATO will clearly appreciate. Are we satisfied that that relationship is now on a proper military footing? The Minister has an obligation to confirm to the House that the Government are satisfied at the highest level that the command and control arrangements are properly drawn up for the most effective use of our troops and for the best protection that is available to them.
  I turn to the question of air power. When the Secretary of State for Defence appeared before the Defence Select Committee, he was reticent when the point was put to him. I ask the Minister a direct question: if the United Kingdom commander on the ground needs air power to protect the lives of those under his command, will he have it? Have the arrangements been made? I do not ask the Minister to tell us from where or in what form—that information would necessarily require to be kept restricted. However, the House and the troops are entitled to know whether and in what circumstances they will have available to them the resources of the Alliance to protect them. I put the matter bluntly once more: if the commander on the ground needs to call down air strikes to protect United Kingdom troops, will he be able to do so? It is a straightforward question which deserves a straightforward answer.
  In the context of air power, we know that the Serbs have used military aircraft. The United Nations has responded to that by declaring an air exclusion zone, but, contrary to the air exclusion zone we have established over southern Iraq, we have not yet willed the means to enforce such an exclusion zone in Yugoslavia. What use is an air exclusion zone unless it is enforceable? Will the Government today pledge themselves to ensure that the proper means of enforcing that relevant United Nations resolution will now be obtained?
  It is uncharacteristic for such an operation to be carried on without a substantial contribution from the United States. Perhaps the fact that the United States has been locked in a seemingly interminable presidential election has had some influence on the nature and degree of its commitment. It is well known that the intelligence-gathering capability of the United States is second to none. I ask the Minister a direct question: can he tell the House whether, as a contribution to the United Kingdom's efforts in Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom is able to call on the intelligence-gathering efforts of the United States?
  I am aware that I have concentrated on what some might think to be domestic military considerations. I hope that I may be excused. I do not lose sight of the scale of the problem, nor does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who estimates that 400,000 people could perish in Bosnia this winter. I want the United Kingdom troops to help to prevent that, but I want them to have every possible assistance as they try to do so.
  As we say on every such occasion in the House, we know that we have professional, versatile and committed forces. We owe them a duty not to expose them to unnecessary risk. My questions this evening go right to the heart of the role and of the effectiveness of United
  76
  Kingdom forces in Bosnia. The more effective they can be, the more likely it is that the people of that troubled country will have a chance of survival.
  7.28 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the European Community and notably Her Majesty's Government in its capacity as Presidency on its unremitting work for a solution of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; is appalled by the continuing slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is deeply concerned about the impact of winter in Sarajevo and other cities and the need to ensure the safe passage of relief supplies to them; expresses its warm support for the work of British troops in providing protective support for relief convoys and is reassured to know that they will have the full right to self-defence; condemns the barbarous policy of ethnic cleansing; calls for the effective policing of the Danube to enforce sanctions; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's response to the refugee problem; is deeply concerned that the conflict may spread to Kosovo and Macedonia; and makes clear its strong support for the work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia under the leadership of Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance."
  The House will recall the Adjournment debate on 25 September when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out the Government's response to the troubles that continue to beset the former Yugoslavia, as part of a wider effort by the international community. Attention was focused especially on developments in Bosnia where the conflict has been extremely bloody and seemingly intractable.
  We can all agree that the overarching need is for a negotiated, political solution to the conflict. We cannot impose peace on Bosnia militarily—nor should we try; there is no military solution to the problem. The House is well aware of the continuing work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, which is continuing to draw together the efforts of the European Community and the United Nations in close liaison, building on and following up the achievements of the London conference and bringing together the key leaders on whom all hopes of a settlement depend. Under its co-chairmen, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, the conference is pursuing a comprehensive programme of work aimed at helping the parties make progress towards a solution. That work must be made to succeed. Without a solution which the parties arrive at of their own free will, there will be no end to the tragedy that is Yugoslavia and no peace for the people of Bosnia.
  Mr. Max Madden: Before the Minister develops his speech, will he answer the question reflected in the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the position of the 183 people, predominantly women and children, who have applied for visas to visit the United Kingdom? Have those applications been granted or refused, or has no decision yet been taken?
  Mr. Hamilton: No decision has been taken on that. The hon. Gentleman will have to await further announcements from my right hon. Friends on that matter. However, it is worth making the point that, since the conflict began in Yugoslavia, more than 40,000 Yugoslav nationals have arrived in this country already.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I want to comment on this point because a bus from just outside my constituency has been turned back. I remind the Minister that, as the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) have said, these people are predominantly women and children. One child has a tumour which needs almost immediate surgery to save its life. Those people have been sitting on buses in miserable, cold conditions. I believe that the Home Office has been considering the matter since Friday.
  For goodness sake, surely it is time that a decision was taken. If the Home Office cannot take a decision tonight, when on earth will it take one?
  Mr. Hamilton: I have been helped out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I can now tell the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) what the position is. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department reviewed the applications for visas from that group of refugees this afternoon. He decided that six refugees with family ties in the United Kingdom should be granted visas. The two medical cases are still under review. The rest of the group will be refused visas to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised this matter with Madam Speaker this afternoon and complained about a number of parliamentary questions that I had tabled for answer on Thursday which have not been answered and to which I have not even received holding replies. I received replies just a few minutes ago and they reveal that the situation is being handled in an extraordinary way. Those men, women and children have applied for visitor visas to visit the United Kingdom. However, for some extraordinary reason, the normal procedure has been hijacked by the Home Office. As we have just heard, the Home Secretary has taken an extremely long time to consider the applications.
  I understand from the Minister's mumbled reply that the bulk of the applications have been refused. My point of order which is directly for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that normally, under an application for a visitor visa, the Foreign Office and entry clearance officers at our post in Vienna will consider the application. Why they have been referred in this case alone to London and to the Home Office I do not know. However, it is disgraceful. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is in the Chamber, should be—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. No doubt Ministers will have taken note of what he said.
  Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department very conveniently slipped a piece of paper to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Will the Minister from the Home Department be able to intervene in the debate to tell us why on this occasion the Home Office has hijacked the normal procedures, thereby denying those men, women and children an opportunity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is not a point of order for the Chair. As I have said, no doubt the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.
  Mr. Hamilton: That is right.
  Ms. Liz Lynne: Further to the other points raised, I understand that the refugee organisation based in Leeds sought advice from the Home Office before it sent the coaches. Two of the coaches were taken from Rochdale to the Austrian-Slovenian border. They have now returned. However, all assurances were sought from the Home Office. The Minister should make a statement to explain why Home Office Ministers said on Thursday in the House that visas will be required, but arrangements were made before Thursday.
  Mr. Hamilton: Those questions should really be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I do not think that I can be expected to answer them. However, I tried to help the House on the matter.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: No, I must make progress.
  Progress is slow and attended by setbacks, as we always knew it would be, but there are encouraging developments. The new constitutional proposals for Bosnia tabled by Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen provide an excellent basis for negotiation. Discussions on a new constitution continue with all the parties in Geneva, despite the initial negative reaction from the Bosnian Serbs. We hope also that the parties will live up to the ceasefire agreement reached on 10 November by the Muslim, Croat and Serb military commanders under the auspices of the Geneva conference mixed military working group, although experience tells us that there are likely to be setbacks. Crucially, the agreements reached at the London conference and being reached, or still to be reached, in Geneva continue to provide benchmarks against which the parties' actions, and their willingness to pursue peace, can be judged.
  Where the parties fall short, intense pressure needs to be applied. But that pressure must offer the prospect of an eventual solution, by making the warring sides see where their true interests lie. Military intervention of any kind offers no such prospect. Tighter sanctions if necessary, coupled with the effective enforcement of the arms embargo against the whole of the former Yugoslavia, must continue to be the main vehicle for bringing pressure to bear. Those measures will take time before they are truly effective, but I am confident that, despite sporadic reports of sanctions-busting, the tightening noose of the trade embargo will increasingly threaten any remaining economic and political stability in Serbia. Already shortages of essential materials have resulted in unemployment rising by 60 per cent. and inflation spiralling upwards.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: If the Minister is confident that those sanctions will have that kind of effect, how does he explain the fact that newspapers have reported today that petrol queues in Belgrade are almost non-existent and that a Community member, Greece. is colluding with sanctions-busting? If that is the case, how can the Minister possibly be so confident that sanctions over time will have any effect on the Serbian Government?
  Mr. Hamilton: Sanctions are already having some effect. They are creating the most immense problems for the Serbian economy and will continue to do that. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. They must be made to work more effectively and that is how we must judge them. Measures are being taken to ensure that the sanctions work better.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could help me because I am puzzled. If what my right hon. Friend says is right, all the Serbian people—the good, bad and indifferent—are being slowly strangled to death. Would it not have been better to have done many months ago what many of us wanted and had one or two strikes at military targets within Serbia?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall refer to air strikes. However, the answer to my hon. Friend is that that would not have been right. If there had been strikes, the UN troops of whatever nationality would have been seen to be the enemy. We do not want that. We are not in the business of going to war with the Serbs. We are trying to do what we can to help with humanitarian relief. We do not want there to be a situation in which the only thing upon which the warring factions can agree is that the people in blue berets are the enemy and should be ambushed and shot at at every available opportunity.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Minister aware of statements by Lord Owen that the military activity in Bosnia is being conducted not from Serbia, but by the Bosnian Serbs themselves? In fact, intervention on a military scale from Serbia has already ceased. Attacks upon military targets in Serbia would inevitably involve civilian casualties and drive the Serb population more and more into the hands of the extremists in Serbia.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is absolutely true. We do not want to be in conflict with anybody in Serbia, in Bosnia or in any other parts of the former Yugoslavia. We are trying to negotiate humanitarian convoys through and to give protection to our troops who are involved in that. We do not intend to go to war with any of the factions in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, it would be very regrettable if we got to the stage where we were involved in out-and-out conflict.
  Ms. Kate Hoey: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, I shall not give way. I must make progress or I shall never finish my speech.
  The United Kingdom has taken the lead in providing technical assistance to the neighbouring countries where the sanctions have to be made to bite. The pressures brought to bear by sanctions will need to be increased further if Belgrade does not take action to halt and reverse the expansionist policies of the Bosnian Serbs in accordance with the commitments made at the London conference. We shall ensure that this is kept firmly on the agenda.
  It is self-evident that an end to the fighting in Bosnia cannot be brought about by military intervention, given the nature of the conflict.
  Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend the Minister is contradicting himself. A few moments ago, in response to
  80
  an intervention, he agreed that the Bosnian Serbs are no longer being egged on by the Serbs in Serbia. He now says that they are, which I believe to be the case. It cannot be both.
  Mr. Hamilton: I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that we do not want to become involved in conflict or fighting with any of the factions in Bosnia. I was not particularly agreeing with his point about the Bosnian Serbs, but we are not in the business of air strikes or getting involved in military action against any of the warring factions there.
  Ms. Hoey: Does the Minister agree that, if any arms embargo is to work, it must start with a level playing field? Any arms embargo when Bosnians do not have arms and the Serbians do must mean that those who already have arms will use them to massacre the minority of the people in Bosnia who have no arms and who have not been allowed to acquire them by the international community.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not suggesting that we should supply arms to the Bosnian Muslims to even the playing field. I do not think that many people would sympathise with that. It would merely lead to an arms build-up right across the former Yugoslavia, which would not help anybody.
  There is no single aggressor and no single front line. In Bosnia we are dealing with Serb against Croat, Muslim against Serb, and Croat against Muslim, not just within one country but within districts, towns and villages, within streets and even mixed blocks of flats. A massive armed intervention might suppress the violence for a time, but it would achieve no permanent result. It could not force people to live together in peace; its withdrawal would be the signal for a resumption of the conflict.
  I do not believe that any hon. Member here today espouses that course of action. We could not achieve our lasting aim, and we would run the risk of launching our troops into a bloody civil war, from which withdrawal would be much easier said than done.
  A lesser intervention would be unlikely to suppress the violence even temporarily. Domination of Bosnia airspace, a suggestion put forward in the motion and raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), would achieve little. The fighting in Bosnia is taking place on the ground, by small groups and individuals who live and operate among civilians—the very people whom we are trying to assist and who would be most at risk from an aerial offensive. Indeed, many of those fighting are civilians who have taken up arms.
  Even if the use of air power against the warring factions seemed justified, targets would be very hard to identify, both because of the mountainous heavily wooded terrain and because much of the fighting is done with small, highly mobile weapons such as rifles and machine guns, mortars, hand-held rocket launchers and air-defence weapons. Air strikes against such targets would be likely to add to the casualties without stopping the fighting. And, of course, it would put an immediate end to the humanitarian activities of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They could not continue to operate convoys under such conditions, nor could our troops continue to provide protection for them. We would no longer be regarded as impartial.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister saying that the heavy artillery tanks and guns which ring Sarajevo, for example, cannot be targeted?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that they can very easily be moved at night and put into areas where there are schools, convents and so on. If one tried to take them out from the air, one would cause enormous civilian casualties. I think that we have learnt that lesson from previous conflicts.
  But of course we cannot stand by and watch the appalling suffering which is already manifest in Bosnia and threatens to engulf the republic as winter approaches. Britain is playing a leading role in international efforts to bring relief to the civilian populations. We have given our full support to the extension of the mandate of the UN protection force—UNPROFOR—in the former Yugoslavia so that the force can provide protective support for humanitarian convoys throughout Bosnia. As the House knows, a British battalion group has been deployed for that purpose. Together with battalions from France, Canada and Spain, and support units from the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the United States of America and Portugal. it will form part of a new Bosnia command under Major General Philippe Morillon. Their task will be, as we have described earlier, to escort relief convoys, on the basis of negotiated passage, to where they are needed. I am glad to have this opportunity to inform the House about progress with the deployment.
  I should like to take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East about the delay. The reason was that it took time to get the ships to take out the Warrior armoured personnel carriers and it took time for reconnaissances to be made of the area before the troops arrived there.
  The last of the battalion group arrived in theatre today and will shortly be operational. The deployment has been a phased one involving 10 ships, including Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and merchant shipping, transporting vehicles and equipment, and 55 flights transporting personnel. That has been a substantial and complex undertaking which has been achieved smoothly and promptly with the professionalism that we rightly expect from the armed forces. We have been most grateful to the United States Government for their assistance in this process through the provision of the entire airlift for our troops.
  The total number of British personnel being deployed is about 2,400 initially, including headquarters troops. The reconnaissance confirmed our earlier planning figure of 1,800 personnel for the battalion group, but there will still be a short term need for some 400 extra men and women, mainly Royal Engineers, to provide support services in the initial stages of the deployment, such as accommodation and sanitation, electricity and water, reflecting the physical damage which has been sustained by so much of the fabric of Bosnia during the past months of conflict.
  Following further examination of the medical support for the battalion, we have decided to provide a helicopter casualty evacuation capability in theatre, and have deployed four Royal Navy Sea King aircraft for this purpose. They will operate initially from Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus off Split, transferring to a base ashore when conditions permit. The provision of that capability involves 100 personnel, excluding the Argus crew. The helicopters will he used for casualty evacuation when that is judged to be preferable to evacuation by road.
  82
  The United Kingdom contingent will be operating in central and North-East Bosnia, with its headquarters at Vitez and logistic bases at Split, Tomislavgrad and Gorni Vakuf. That represents a change from the UN's earlier plan for our battalion, when it was envisaged that aid might be escorted into North-East Bosnia from Serbia in the east. The reconnaissance showed that that would involve the need to cross too many front lines. It was decided that the delivery of aid would need to go with the ethnic grain to the greatest possible extent, not against it. The French and Canadian battalions reached similar conclusions in their own reconnaissances.
  We shall be contributing about 65 personnel to the two-star headquarters and about 180 to the national one-star headquarters in Split. Both are providing an essential contribution to the overall UN operation.
  The battalion is well equipped for its role, with personal weapons carried by individual service men, and the Warrior and Scimitar armoured vehicles with their 30 mm Rarden cannon. Ninety-six such vehicles have been deployed. The battalion has its integral mortars and anti-tank weapons readily available should the need arise. Our assessment is that those equipments will be sufficient to meet the battalion's needs. And our troops will have the right to defend themselves as well as the means to do so. I can confirm that they will be operating under what are effectively British rules of engagement. I hope that that answers the point that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. If anyone were in any doubt as to the effectiveness of those rules, I would draw his attention to an incident which occurred on Saturday 7 November, when a British reconnaissance party travelling in four Land Rovers from Vitez towards Tuzla returned fire when it came under small-arms and, possibly, mortar fire from unidentified assailants.
  But we must also remember that the battalion's task is not a projection of force. This is a humanitarian mission and it is no part of the plan for the force to fight its way through opposition in order to deliver its aid. There will be no tanks, artillery or combat air support. That would profoundly alter the essence of the operation. Our troops are there to help bring relief to the suffering, not to add to the fighting. Their rules of engagement allow them to fire in self-defence. Retaliation is expressly forbidden.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the event that British troops find themselves in circumstances in which, for their own protection, it is the view of the senior commander that air strikes are necessary, will they be available to him to call down?
  Mr. Hamilton: No, they will not. I had hoped to make that clear. That sort of asset will not be available. If the troops find themselves under heavy attack they must use their weapons of self-defence to fight their way out. They must retreat from their positions, or drive through using their self-protection weapons. If they find themselves in this position, that will mean that their negotiated passage has failed—the parties to some agreement have reneged on that agreement. It will mean in effect that the negotiated agreements have come apart. If the troops cannot get an agreement from the warring factions, they will not start out in the first place.
  Though the battalion's relief operation is only now about to begin in earnest, with the arrival of the main contingent of the Cheshires, the Royal Irish and the

  83
  Lancers and their armoured vehicles, the advance parties of the British contingent have been active in preparing for the task, reconnoitring and preparing routes, establishing bases and getting round the table with local people to ensure that, so far as possible, our contingent gains the co-operation, understanding and respect of all the parties. They have also made a start on the humanitarian task. Over the weekend of 31 October to 1 November they escorted a UNHCR convoy carrying 86 pallets of relief supplies from Split to Vitez, in the aftermath of the fall to the Serbs of the town of Jajce, and the consequent flow of tens of thousands of refugees towards Travnik.
  RAF participation in the relief flights to Sarajevo resumed on 10 October, in the light of assurances by the parties about the safety of humanitarian flights. Since the start of the operation in July, the RAF Hercules have flown 205 missions to Sarajevo and have delivered 2,812·5 tonnes of aid. An RN ship is taking part in the NATO and WEU naval monitoring operations in the Adriatic, which are monitoring compliance with the arms embargo against the whole of the former Yugoslavia and the trade sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. We are also taking part in the operation by the NATO airborne early warning force to support the naval monitoring forces and to monitor compliance with the no-fly zone in Bosnia imposed in Security Council resolution 781.
  As well as providing a battalion group, Britain is contributing to the humanitarian effort in many other forms. Our financial contribution is substantial: over £70 million so far, some £41 million of which has been channelled through the European Community and the remainder through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other international and British relief agencies. All our assistance is carried out in co-operation with international agencies working throughout the area—in particular UNHCR, which is co-ordinating the international community's response to the crisis. Our immediate priority is to provide food and shelter for refugees over this winter. The items for which our funds have been used include 43 trucks and support vehicles and staff operating as part of the UNHCR road delivery operation, running two or three convoys a week to Sarajevo and other areas; £2·6 million worth of medical supplies provided to the World Health Organisation and UNHCR; the provision of specialist personnel, such as medical advisers, logisticians to help plan and operate road convoys and manage the airlift, road engineers and radio operators, and mining and power teams. Our funds have also provided £3 million for the restoration of nine centres to provide winter shelter for up to 20,000 people in the Vitez-Travnik-Zenica area, where the number of refugees has increased following recent fighting.
  We are also playing an active part, as president of the EC, in creating a European Community task force for the former Yugoslavia, and have provided and paid for the head of the task force and three other key staff.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: What action are the Government taking to ensure that the almost 2 million refugees who are being driven out of their homes by massacres and ethnic cleansing and who are still in parts of former Yugoslavia will be able to return home? Have the Government finally abandoned their idea of safe havens? There are none inside Bosnia-Herzegovina. If so, what
  84
  alternative plans do the Government have to ensure that at least most of those people can eventually return home, bearing in mind that the Government are unwilling to enforce any of their humanitarian efforts against Serbian military attack?
  Mr. Hamilton: That is a matter of great concern to the United Nations, and it has been discussed in Geneva. The United Nations has always taken the view that it is much better to try to provide a safe haven in the areas from which people originally come than to remove them from the country. Some areas of Bosnia are certainly much safer than others. Our troops will try to remove people from the areas where their lives are most threatened to areas which are relatively safer. The United Nations has always taken this view so that people can return whence they came when the fighting is, as we hope, finally over.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister's answer is manifestly unsatisfactory. I recently spent a week in Yugoslavia. The only area that is "safe" for the 43 per cent. of the population who are Muslims—they form the largest group —is the central corridor, whose size is rapidly being diminished with every day's fighting—as witness the significant recent fall of Jajce. The only other safe part is the tiny pocket of north-west Bosnia known as Bihac.
  The Minister must get himself better briefed, because what he is saying does not relate to what is happening on the ground.
  Mr. Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade the House that there is some simple solution to finding safe havens for 2 million refugees, he is misleading the House. This is an intractable problem, but everything possible will be done to try to help these people reach areas safer than the ones from which they are fleeing. I do not pretend that there is a straightforward solution; nor should the hon. Gentleman.
  Finally, though the Government continue to believe that the solution to the refugee problem does not lie in the dispersal of refugees across Europe, we have made clear our commitment to take into this country a share of the highest priority cases. We have already responded to a request of this nature from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
  These are the concrete actions that the British Government are taking to help the people of Bosnia, both in the immediate future and for the longer term. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I welcome the opportunity to restate our policy to the House tonight.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I am sure that all hon. Members have been appalled by some of the answers given by the Minister of State tonight. I should like to deal with some of the questions to which he seemed unable to provide the answers.
  The main purpose of any action that we take is to bring the fighting to an end and to get food to the civilian population, both in their homes and in the refugee camps and concentration camps. Some of the Minister's answers leave much to be desired.
  The Minister has not dealt with the issue of our acceptance, or non-acceptance, of refugees and the Government seem to be confused about their policy on refugees. That was highlighted recently by the tragic case

  85
  mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), of the eight-month-old baby who desperately requires emergency surgery, in which the Foreign Office and the Home Office seem to have their lines crossed. Surely we can ask Ministers to consider urgently the possibility of establishing some form of hotline to enable people who are most in need of urgent medical treatment to receive it.
  The Minister was asked whether a decision had been made about the refugees who are waiting in buses to come to this country. He gave the shameful answer that six have been allowed in. He tried to redress that shameful statement by saying that we must accept that there are 40,000 Yugoslays in this country already. They have probably been here since the last war.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: I meant that 40,000 refugees had been brought in to the United Kingdom since the conflict began.
  Mr. Rogers: I am prepared to be corrected on that, but the Minister should have made it more clear. Whether we accept large numbers or not, we are adopting a shameful role. It is all right for the Minister to argue that it is better to keep people as close to their homes as possible, both partially to negate the aim of ethnic cleansing and to allow for a return when conditions allow. However, that argument was based on the assumption—highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—that the refugees will return to their homes fairly quickly. The likelihood of a quick return is rapidly fading and we must tackle the problem in that context and not the one in which it was originally set.
  Sir John Wheeler: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on the two most successful occasions on which large numbers from Mozambique camped in Malawi and when people from Afghanistan camped in northern Pakistan, the refugees remained in those camps for many years with international and medical support but returned to their homelands with the conclusion of the internal conflicts? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that that is the most successful way to deal with large numbers of refugees and that that might prove to be the best way to deal with them on this occasion?
  Mr. Rogers: The cases that the hon. Gentleman illustrated were completely different from the situation in Yugoslavia. He was talking about two simple political conflicts: once the political situation was resolved, people were able to return. We are talking about an area where ethnic divisions run deep and have been exacerbated during the past few months. No one in his right mind can think that all the refugees—there are about 700,000 in Croatia—are likely to return to Bosnia in the medium term at least. We ought to agree that we cannot allow those people—they are mainly women and children—to live for ever in a limbo or never-never land of camp existence. It is shameful for a civilised country to turn its back on such a problem. Shame on the Government for not dealing with it properly.
  If it were felt that we could not accept large numbers of refugees, surely we should increase financial help for countries that are prepared to shoulder their burdens.
  Mr. Winnick: Opposition Members at least agree with my hon. Friend. Does he accept that the announcement
  86
  regarding those 180 refugees was totally unsatisfactory? The Minister is not connected with the Home Office, and he was must reluctant to answer questions on the issues. Should not the Home Secretary come to the House on Tuesday to explain why his Department, and presumably he himself, have taken such a decision? There is mounting concern. Although the war cannot be helped, it does not alter the fact that a relatively small group of people have been caught in a diplomatic battle about whether Austria or Britain will accept them. Many of them are children and are very young and they are living in buses in an isolated place. Surely the least we could do is accept them, instead of which apparently only eight are to be allowed into this country.
  Mr. Rogers: I understood that it was only six. I agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will press that matter with the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Madden: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, can he cast any light on why the Foreign Office should abdicate its responsibility on this occasion? In other countries where visa arrangements are in force, entry clearance officers at British overseas posts consider visa applications. Why on earth did not the British post in Vienna decide to issue visit visas to that wretched group of people, who are seeking only to visit the United Kingdom? They are not seeking political asylum or refuge, but merely a six-month stay.
  Mr. Rogers: I agree. Perhaps, after the debate, the Minister will be shamed into dealing with that problem urgently tomorrow.
  One of the most crucial and agonising decisions to be taken at United Nations, European and local levels is whether we should deploy more military force in the former Yugoslavia. When we contemplate the increase in suffering for the civilian population during the next few months, the decision becomes more acute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said on 25 September:
  "We support the deployment of British troops under UN auspices."—[Official Report, 25 September 1992; Vol. 212. c. 132.]
  However, we have consistently argued about the precise role of the British troops in Bosnia, and the rules of engagement under which they will operate, as was highlighted by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Opposition defence spokesman, in the debate on 25 September.
  That role has not been clearly explained to the House, although I was encouraged by the remarks of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—the first time that I have been encouraged in four years of shadowing him in the defence team—to the Select Committee on Defence, when he said:
  "If ever we are going to commit our young servicemen into these situations we must be sure that they have not only the necessary equipment to defend themselves but also allow them to use that equipment."
  I am disappointed in the Minister's reply to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who asked whether commanders could call up air strikes. He said, "No, they couldn't." The other part of his answer was more significant: he said, "We don't have the capability "
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: No.
  Mr. Rogers: If the Minister looks at the record, he will see that he said, "They did not have them available anyhow". I presume that he meant that the commanders do not have the capability.
  Mr. Hamilton: I have to put the record straight, as I have heard enough rubbish from the hon. Gentleman so far. I said that they would not have that capability in theatre, not that they would not have it at all. I want to make it clear that the capability to launch air strikes will not be available to our troops in Bosnia.
  Mr. Rogers: I am used to the right hon. Gentleman's personal insults. Other hon. Members will recall that three years ago I accused him, during defence debates, of being part of the conspiracy to export arms to Iraq. I was told that I was making poisonous accusations—not by the Minister, but by Mr. Alan Clark. I was told that I was talking complete nonsense. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who can say tonight, with absolute certainty, "I told you so." Even the right hon. Gentleman's insults will not prevent me from speaking the truth.
  To return to the issue of troops in Yugoslavia, British troops will be exposed and if the capability is not in the theatre, is it not about time the Minister of State for the Armed Forces put it there?
  Mr. Hamilton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rogers: If the Minister is prepared to say that if young British service men come under attack from overwhelming forces he will allow Harriers and Tornados to sit there unused, that will not go down well outside the House. I accept that we do not want to use excessive force; but surely in such a critical situation it should be considered, at least as an option. The Minister shuts his mind to the problem, as he so often does.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the mere fact that the capability was available and could be called on could be a considerable deterrent?
  Mr. Rogers: Indeed; I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman points that out. For years, the Government have said that deterrence is the basis of their military philosophy, but now deterrence goes out of the window. Perhaps that is because they are under so much pressure that they cannot think straight.
  If we are to increase military intervention in the area, it must be done on the basis that the only way to obtain peace is to separate the warring factions by deploying a superior ground force or using air power to take out Serbian heavy weapons, thus creating a more level playing field, as the Bosnians have requested.
  The decision on whether those options are feasible could be left to the generals—as a politician, I should hate to interfere in such a decision—but there seems to be an enormous difference even between the generals. Some say that two or three divisions, amounting to 30,000 to 40,000 men, combined with maritime air cover, would be needed and others say that some 500,000 or even more men would be necessary to maintain peace. The opinion on the required force levels seems to depend on whether one supports intervention.
  We should be under no illusion because, as soon as either of those enhanced force options is used, the humanitarian assistance presently deployed will go out of
  88
  the window. I agree with that part of the Minister's speech. If it reaches the point where we are involved in a war, it could have the opposite effect of what we are trying to do in other respects. No one could believe that the Serbs would sit back and accept that form of intervention. Whatever intervention is used, whether air strikes or ground forces, the present suffering among the civilian population will be as nothing compared to the direct and indirect suffering that will result from aggressive military intervention.
  Even assuming that such intervention is feasible and effective, what happens next? Are we prepared to maintain a standing army in the area indefinitely? As soon as we pull it out, we all know that the fighting will start again.
  For some people, military intervention may be morally desirable at this stage, but I doubt whether it is a solution to the complex problems, which, as the Minister rightly said, can only be resolved politically.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Minister's reference to safe havens, which seems to be his only practical suggestion to deal with the refugee problem? Is not the basis of any idea of safe havens that they be safe? They cannot be safe in Bosnia if they are protected only by Bosnians who are not well armed, so if safe havens are to be a policy, should not that policy be safeguarded by United Nations troops?
  Mr. Rogers: I must confess that I cannot give an expert opinion on the safe havens issue, which was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. I understand from my hon. Friend that the geographical location of safe havens will be extremely difficult in Bosnia and they may not be available as an option to save lives.
  Apart from using large-scale military force, only one other practical measure is available to us—sanctions. That is why I welcome, in the Government amendment, the reference to sanctions and the Minister's statement that the Government will at last tighten up on them. They are supposed to have been in place for months and the Minister has virtually acknowledged that they have not been maintained.
  In the past few weeks, I have heard people say that sanctions do not work. Normally, they say that as a preface to arguing for armed intervention. They are absolutely right—sanctions do not work if they are not enforced. We are seeing a flagrant breach of sanctions that were first agreed by the European Community and then reinforced by resolution 713 and subsequent resolutions of the UN Security Council. The bans on trade and the supply of weapons have been continually ignored. Mandatory sanctions have not been taken seriously and there is ample evidence that convoys of barges are using the Danube to take strategic materials into Serbia, as well as using land routes from the south and east.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said in an intervention, today's Financial Times contains an article by Laura Sibler on how sanctions are being busted and strategic materials are getting through to Serbia. It is no good thinking that we are not involved in or responsible for that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised that matter with the Department of Trade and Industry and was told that import-export trade statistics for the Yugoslav republics were not even available. I understood that we were at least monitoring trade, even if we were doing

  89
  nothing to stop it. I hope that, in a couple of years' time, the ex-Prime Minister and ex-Defence Ministers will not say, "It is nothing to do with me, guvnor. Don't blame me, because I didn't know anything about it. Nobody told me" —just as they are now saying about the arms deals with Iraq.
  We have held the European Community presidency for the past six months and have been in a unique position to insist that sanctions be enforced and properly monitored. But, yet again, the Government have failed lamentably. If sanctions are not given a chance to work, the argument against military intervention is substantially weakened. The crux of the matter is that if we allow those war profiteers to make their pound of flesh out of innocent civilians now, pretty soon they will make a pound of flesh out of British troops, too. We want the mandatory sanctions against Serbia to be enforced rigorously by a more effective monitoring of the River Danube and other land access routes into Serbia.
  However difficult it may be to enforce sanctions, it will be much easier than attempting to apply a military solution. Even a ring of steel would be a much cheaper option than the cost of placing an army in Bosnia, not only financially but in the saving of human life and misery.
  The heart of the matter is the intended acquisition of land by force, the physical and ethnic cleansing of areas ahead of a peace settlement. The acquisition of land of recognised neighbouring sovereign states is against the prime underlying ethics of civilised relationships and international law. That is why we must continually make it clear that boundaries between states or new states created by ethnic cleansing will not be internationally recognised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said last August, a state based on such an obscene and uncivilised policy should be treated as an outlawed state and should be given no legitimacy in the world community.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Most hon. Members would echo the concluding words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), although for reasons that I shall seek to explain some other parts of his speech were less easy to agree with. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who opened the debate performed a signal service for the House with an admirable speech. He and his colleagues are to be congratulated on choosing this horrific subject for their Supply day debate.
  When we turn our attention, as we do all too rarely, to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, I feel an overwhelming sadness. All hon. Members have certain events seared into their memories. Some of my formative searing experiences were as a small boy seeing the Pathé news reels of Belsen and as a sixth former seeing the dreadful carnage in Budapest in 1956 and feeling at the time that everything possible must be done to ensure that such events never recur to deface the European continent. In the former Yugoslavia we are seeing a re-run of events as horrific as both of those.
  No one could have been unmoved on reading the terrible accounts relayed by extraordinarily brave journalists from the former Yugoslavia. It is fitting for the House to pay tribute to those journalists, many of whom have lost their lives in bringing home to us what has been
  90
  going on. The free world's response has been inadequate. I have felt that from the time before the Serbian forces started to shell Dubrovnik about a year ago. I felt then, and I feel now, that firm and concerted action might well have prevented the events in Bosnia. Some of us said that those events could and would take place but certain actions were ruled out.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke appositely about deterrence. A country with a weapon or a force that is viewed as a deterrent does not announce to the world that it will never use it. That was my party's consistent criticism of Labour's position on the nuclear deterrent. It was not that we were warmongers or that we viewed with anything other then abhorrence the possibility of using it, but we did not rule that out. Unfortunately, when Milosevic and his warlords in and outside Serbia got to work, the west—the free world, including the European Community—ruled out force.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) speaks with great knowledge and authority about Serbia, but I would say to him that if we had been prepared to bomb munition factories and take some tough, surgical action against Serbia about a year ago and had mounted a naval blockade of Dubrovnik, we might have avoided the subsequent carnage. I make no apology for saying that again.
  We cannot undo what has been done, but surely we can learn some lessons, one of which is to eschew ambivalence. It is incomprehensible for any member of the Government to speak as if there can be neutrality between a fire brigade and a fire or between an aggressor and those who are being victimised. I do not suggest that no atrocities have been committed by Croatians or Bosnians because there is evidence of some, but the overwhelming evidence is that the massacres, the carnage and the destruction of' a nation's heritage in Croatia and Bosnia have been the work of the Serbs.
  Last week I attended a concert in the Royal Festival hall in aid of Dubrovnik. More than 3,000 people came to show their dismay at the destruction of one of Europe's prime cultural sites. Who destroyed it? It was not the Croatians. Serbia has persistently been the aggressor. Again I make no apology for referring to the video that was sent to us about eight weeks ago. It came from a rather improbable source which I think was the Sunday Sport. That video made the most appalling viewing. It showed trays of young men's genitals, and a woman being disembowelled to find out whether she was pregnant with a boy or girl. It is horrible to speak about such things, but one must do so to bring home the enormity of such happenings.
  We cannot and should not for a moment seek to suggest that there is any equality of culpability between the Serbs and the rest because there is not. I am sure that many people in Serbia are as appalled and disgusted as hon. Members at the events there. Many of them would like to replace their present regime with one approximating to the system that we enjoy. However, the Serbian regime is culpable. That is why I find it so difficult to understand why we are unable to guarantee an air exclusion zone.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked some extremely pertinent questions. While I have great regard and affection for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who responded, I

  91
  do not think that his response was adequate. It was a case of ruling something out, and we should not do that. The UN peacekeeping force includes our young men.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend may be confusing two different propositions. The proposition advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) dealt with the deployment of aircraft in support of the United Kingdom troops in Bosnia. My hon. Friend speaks about an air exclusion zone, which is a quite different proposition. I shall refer to it in my winding-up speech.
  Mr. Cormack: I was happy to give way but my right hon. and learned Friend intervened a little too early. The point made several times in the debate is that British troops are on the ground in Bosnia as part of the UN force. A few weeks ago we were told that only 1,800 would be required, but that estimate has been increased by almost 1,000 to 2,658 according to the latest figures. If that force is subjected to unprovoked air aggression, it must be defended from the air and not left to defend itself from the ground.
  Mr. Hogg: I think that that is a slightly different issue and I am sorry that there is confusion. Perhaps I am responsible for it. A breach of the United Nations resolution on a no-fly zone would raise different questions. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East raised that matter, but I shall deal with it in my winding-up speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was entirely right in what he said about United Kingdom forces and prospective air power. There is a different answer if the Serbs use air power in breach of the United Nations Security Council resolution.
  Mr. Cormack: If there is a different answer to be given, I am mightily relieved. What I believe to be clear, and what seemed clear in what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, is that it is crucial that our forces are given every necessary protection. If my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that that is the case, I thank him for it, and I am delighted by it.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his polite observations about me. I made two points about air power. First, as the United Nations has declared an air exclusion zone but has not yet willed the means to enforce it, I asked whether it makes any sense to have a zone that one is not willing to enforce. Secondly, I asked whether, if the lives of those in the British force were at risk, the senior commander would have the right to call down air forces to protect it.
  Mr. Cormack: I concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman's two points. It seems that we now have at least a partial assurance on one of them from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. As he said, he will develop that point when he winds up, and I am sure that we shall all be listening with great interest to what he has to say.
  Mr. Hogg: I should rather say it later.
  Mr. Cormack: I should prefer that as well, having already given way three times in quick succession. The
  92
  House would be at one in expecting that the United Nations, having willed the troops on the ground, would will the means to defend them. I think also that the House would be at one in expecting any British commander to have flexible options, and not be leading his troops with one arm tied behind his back.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cormack: I shall give way once more, but interventions make for long speeches.
  Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because this is an important point. I understand that the Government are now saying that, whereas British forces on the ground would not be able to call in air support to defend themselves from attack on the ground, they would be able to call in air support to protect themselves from attack from the air, such attack being in breach of the United Nations exclusion zone. One wonders whether that principle could be extended to the civilian populations on the ground to protect them from attack from the air.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman moves us on, and I am glad to be moved on. I hope that we shall have a clear, definitive answer, deployed with all the forensic skills for which my right hon. and learned Friend is renowned, when he winds up. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I would go on to say that there is still an overwhelming case for using strategic strikes against the aggressor, in the air or in Serbia. We should not rule that out.
  I return to the deterrent point. We should not tell any potential enemies that we shall rule out anything. We should keep them guessing. We should continue to apply sanctions and try to make them as effective as possible as quickly as possible. We should try to deal with the Danube problem—a very real problem. After all, we did not rule out that option—indeed, we deployed it fairly quickly—when another sovereign state was overwhelmed in July 1990. Whether we like it or not, Bosnia was recognised as a sovereign state. There are those in the House—I pay proper tribute to them—who did not like that fact. Nevertheless, it has been so recognised, since the beginning of this year, by all the countries of the European Community and many beyond.
  Therefore, we have an obligation to do something to ensure that this new nation, which we have recognised, is not completely dismembered. It is already pretty close to being dismembered. The figures are horrendous—2 million refugees, and people who are not given to exaggeration talk of perhaps 400,000 perishing in the ice and snow this year. If that happens, as it so easily could, it will be a damning indictment of us all.
  My right hon. and learned Friend should not close his eyes, nationally, as part of the European Community or as part of the United Nations. I am not talking about massive involvement. I have never done so, and nor have people like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is nodding now. I am talking about the sort of action that Lord Owen was advocating until the very day that he became the United Nations mediator. I am talking about the sort of action advocated by Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, to whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was such an assiduous Parliamentary Private Secretary for so long.
  I urge my right hon. and learned Friend not to rule out that option entirely. What is happening in Bosnia is utterly

  93
  shameful. Both the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Government amendment refer to Kosovo and Macedonia. We all know that terrible things are happening in Kosovo, as they are in Macedonia, although what is happening in Kosovo has been more widely reported. People are being excluded from their schools and colleges, being harried from their homes and being ill treated. The cauldron is boiling and it might boil over. If it did, we could find ourselves facing a full-scale Balkan war, a war that could involve Albania, Bulgaria and two NATO countries—Greece and Turkey—on opposite sides.
  We must not rule out any option because, above all, that war is what we must deter. We cannot bring back the tens of thousands who have already been slaughtered or massacred. We cannot restore the tens of thousands maimed. We cannot, overnight, put together the families that have been shattered and dispersed. But we can do something to deter the warlords and others from plunging Macedonia and Kosovo into similar hardship and strife.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that we should anticipate these conflicts and perhaps, if we had done so, they might not have escalated as they have in Bosnia. As I understand it, there are eight missions in Bosnia, including those from Norway and the United States. Would it not be appropriate—and perhaps the Minister can deal with this point—to put more missions and more monitoring in the area and perhaps to anticipate the problems that the hon. Gentleman is so graphically describing?
  Mr. Cormack: That might well be the case. Firmness and resolution in dealing with the acute problem before us now will be the best deterrent to those who are tempted to tread this appalling path to devastation and destruction.
  It is not just that. Those people, many of whom thought before the war broke out that they had been liberated from communism and totalitarianism, looked to the free world. They aspired to what they thought were the values that had been withheld from them. The problem is not just there. As we speak, all over the former Soviet Union there are cauldrons simmering—for example, terrible things are happening in Georgia, although we do not see them nightly on our television screens.
  The firmness, resolve and effectiveness with which the European Community and the free world in general deal with the problem of the former Yugoslavia will have a significant effect on what does or does not happen elsewhere. The world is a far more dangerous place than it was before the wall and the iron curtain came down. I rejoice that they are down and that the cold war is ended.
  But the new situation calls for great statesmanship, vision and resolution. Although I pay tribute to what Ministers have sought to do, we have not been effective enough and there is no point in pretending that we have. I hope that a stiffening of resolve will emerge from this debate.
  It is also important to consider the position of the British infantry. I make no apology for raising this matter, which I touched upon in September. We are extremely fortunate in the way in which we are served by our armed forces. Their versatility, professionalism and cool courage is an example to us all, yet they are thin on the ground. Since "Options for Change" was published, many of us, some with a territorial interest—I do not apologise for my
  94
  interest in the Staffordshire Regiment—have said time and again that we are stretching the infantry too far. That fear has been backed up by military men of immense experience and prestige, as was illustrated by the recent letter to The Times from Field Marshal Lord Bramall.
  In September we were told that the number of men to be sent to Yugoslavia would be limited to 1,800; 2,658 troops are now there. I do not object to that. It might be necessary to increase that number to 3,000 and I would not object to that either. But we have Northern Ireland, and events in this capital city at the weekend have reminded us that that problem will not go away. There are other trouble spots in the world.
  We will not lightly be forgiven if we deprive ourselves of the means of defence, but the infantry is being stretched to a dangerous degree. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will review this issue. He has already said that he will if circumstances change and, through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I should like to tell him that those circumstances have changed, are changing, and will continue to do so. I make no apology for urging, once more, that reconsideration.
  Apart from the expressions of total revulsion and absolute sympathy, I hope that what comes out of this debate will be a determination to do everything that we can to bring this conflict to a close. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that we cannot do that by massive intervention on the ground, and I have not advocated and will not advocate that, but we can do it by a demonstration of resolve and by a refusal to forgo weapons that we have every right to consider using. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend replies to the debate he will recognise that.
  8.42 pm
  Ms. Kate Hoey: I agree with practically everything that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said. At the risk of upsetting some of my colleagues, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on using this opportunity to discuss this serious topic.
  Terrible events are taking place in the heart of Europe, and I was appalled not just at the banality of the Government's amendment, but by the speech of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There was a note of complacency in it and an almost total acceptance not just of what has happened but of what is likely to happen in the coming months in Yugoslavia. We as politicians, not just of the House, but of the European Community and the world, must take collective blame for what has happened. We must accept that blame because we have stood by, as a nation, and watched nothing less than the extinction of another nation and its cultural identity, the nation of Bosnia.
  More than one third of a million civilians are trapped in Sarajevo alone, without food, electricity or running water. We all know that they are dying daily, and we must recognise that, apart from fine words, fine intentions and some belated military help with humanitarian aid, they are dying because this country and the rest of the EC have refused to intervene. I do not believe that we have used our position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to support the initiatives aimed a t confronting Serbian militarism.

  95
  Consider the publicity that was devoted to the London peace conference in August and what was supposed to come out of it. At that conference the Prime Minister named Serbia as the chief instigator of atrocities and territorial aggression in the region. He claimed success in reaching specific agreements that guaranteed the integrity and security of Bosnia and its people. What has happened to those agreements? We were told that the sieges of towns and cities would be soon lifted, but that has not happened. We were told that there would be international supervision of the use of heavy weapons, but that has not happened. We were also told that there would be a ban on military flights, but no air exclusion zone has been observed. The promise to enforce sanctions on the Danube has not been fulfilled.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the question of the air exclusion zone, we have no evidence of any combat mission having been flown since 12 October. We believe that, at the moment at least, the no-flight regime has been observed for combat missions.
  Ms. Hoey: The Minister may say that, but that is not exactly what has happened. I believe that the air exclusion zone has not been monitored and has not been observed.
  The agreement on the creation of an international criminal court has not been realised. I accept that some civilians have been released from detention camps, but just as some have been released, some have been imprisoned. We heard many fine words at that peace conference, but we have seen little action. In some ways Britain has even obstructed the UN in carrying out initiatives aimed at enforcing the agreements reached in London.
  A lot of the blame must rest with the Foreign Office, which has continued to portray this conflict as a civil war and promoted the myth that all sides are equally to blame. I agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South that anyone who has studied what has happened cannot fail to say that the blame must lie with the Serbians. There have been atrocities committed on all sides, but the systematic atrocities carried out by the Serbians must be recognised.
  Civilians will get hurt in all wars, but all the evidence points to the fact that the Serbians have a deliberate and calculated policy of targeting civilians. Their policy is to kill them in sufficient numbers to make others run away. I do not believe that that is war; it is terrorism on a scale unprecedented in Europe since the Nazis.
  It is equally clear that journalists have been targeted by the Serbians. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to pay tribute to the fine work done by television and newspaper journalists. Without their reports we would be unaware of some of the terrible atrocities that have occurred.
  If we allow Bosnia-Herzegovina to be destroyed, I believe that all hope for the survival of democracy and decency in that part of the world will end. Britain has some responsibility and must take action; there is still much to be done. I may be out of line with some of my Front-Bench colleagues, but I believe that Britain should act to lift the UN arms embargo on Bosnia. I do not believe that it is right that Bosnians are dying because they have no weapons to defend themselves. They are literally being killed because they have no opportunity to get the weapons that they need to defend themselves. There is no
  96
  point in sending in the military to ensure that food aid gets through to the people of Sarajevo only for those people to be killed a few days later. We should get the United Nations to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia.
  We should be pressing for selective air strikes against the artillery and other heavy weapons of the former Yugoslav army. I agree that we do not want a wholesale military presence in the area, but, as other hon. Members have said, if when we saw the pictures of what was happening in Dubrovnik selective action had been taken, that might have deterred the Serbians from doing what they then did in Sarajevo. If we do not learn a lesson from that, there will be an escalation in the conflict in that area. I am also worried about what is happening in Kosovo. If the Serbians knew that we were prepared to take action, it might deter them from going further.
  The greatest priority is to save the citizens in Sarajevo. That is essential for the survival of Bosnia's physical and cultural identity. Last year, almost 30 per cent. of Bosnians married people from different religious groups. That is good evidence of the tolerance that has sustained Bosnia's character and identity for centuries. It must be protected from the nationalism and ethnic cleansing that threaten not only that region but the peace and security of Europe.
  Will the Minister say how much more Serbian aggression the Government will allow before they are prepared to take action? I supported our actions in the Gulf war in support of Kuwait, so I cannot justify Britain doing nothing about what is happening in central Europe. I hope that the debate will bring to the forefront the need for action. We must not sit back and allow more people to die. If we do not take action, in a year's time the conflict will spread throughout Europe. We could stop that happening, but currently the Government are refusing to do so.
  Will the Minister answer some of the questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) which were not answered by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces? I hope that the debate will bring us a little nearer to the end of a conflict that we cannot allow to continue.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Although I agree with most of what has been said about the dreadful conflict in the former Yugoslavia, I want to concentrate my remarks on the refugees issue. I am concerned that we are thinking only about refugees in the former Yugoslavia and not taking the wider context into account. The problems in that area are repeated throughout the world, so it is wrong that the House should concentrate on the Yugoslav refugees.
  What about the Sikhs in the Punjab, where there is also ethnic cleansing and the worst sort of brutality? To follow on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), there is also murder, rape and pillage in the Punjab. Other than when I have raised the matter through Adjournment debates, I cannot remember the issue being raised on the Floor of the House, and certainly not by either of the two main Opposition parties. I remind the House that all that is happening in a former Commonwealth country which has a direct relationship with us. It is not a country in Europe which, if I may put it this way, has no direct connection with Britain.

  97
  The worldwide problems are caused by civil wars. I understand that there are currently 44 conflicts throughout the world. The problems of refugees arise from the economic chaos that is rife the length and breadth of Africa. Many African countries are former Commonwealth countries, but no one is as concerned about them as about Yugoslavia.
  Many people are moving around the world in search of safer and better lives, but that is not the reason for our refugee legislation. There are problems in Romania, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Zaire, Uganda and Sri Lanka—and of course, the whole of the Soviet Union is breaking up. Countries are worried about refugees. France is worried about Algeria and Spain about north Africa and the border that allows refugees directly to enter Spain. Portugal is worried about the refugee problem in Macau, where people can apply for a full European passport. Germany has a problem because 250,000 refugees arrived there last year and a further 500,000 are expected this year from eastern Europe, Turkey, Afghanistan, Africa and, now, the former Yugoslavia. The anger of Germans has nothing to do with Nazi thugs—everyone is opposed to them.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Surely there is a difference between economic refugees, of which the hon. Gentleman rightly says there are many, and people who have been burnt out of their homes.
  Mr. Dicks: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but as I said earlier, people are suffering those same conditions in the Punjab, yet there is apparently no concern in the House about that. The Government show no concern about it in their relationship with India. It has been happening since long before the events in the former Yugoslavia, but no one cares. People are concerned about the former Yugoslavia—it is the in thing. I have almost 10,000 Sikhs in my constituency who ask, "Why the concern? We know what is happening in Yugoslavia and we do not want it to continue, but where is the concern about what has happened to our relatives in our country?"
  If the refugees going to Germany are granted asylum status, they can move wherever they wish around the EEC. They could come to Britain if they so wanted—and many of those seeking that status in Europe might want to do that. We must consider the position facing Britain before we think of taking hundreds, thousands or even millions of refugees.
  It takes up to three years to determine a claim. Between 1984 and 1990, 2,700 people from India applied for asylum. None was granted it because apparently none qualified, but 47 per cent.—more than 1,200—were allowed to stay because it took so long to process their applications. That can only encourage people to apply for asylum and to make bogus applications.
  There are already some 4,200 people from Somalia in this country of whom 665 are seeking asylum status. Those 4,200 people came here as visitors or students. I am sure that the House is aware of the fact that, whatever the circumstances, they will not be sent back. I find that rather surprising. There were 50,000 applications for asylum in Britain last year and there could be even more this year.
  During the past two years 106 unaccompanied children arrived at Heathrow in my borough of Hillingdon, which
  98
  has had to find them accommodation and educate and feed them. So far, it has cost my local authority £1 million, but there has been no help from the Government.
  On the specific matter of the former Yugoslavia, a parliamentary answer shows that in the year ending August 1992, 50,800 people from that area were given leave to enter Britain, mainly as visitors or students—but with the implicit understanding that they would not be sent back. A further 500 have applied for asylum. That makes nearly 52,000 refugees already from the former Yugoslavia who have nipped in rather quietly knowing that, whatever happens, they will not have to return.
  I appeared on a television programme with a 19-year-old refugee who said, "I don't want to go back home. I get £30 a week and my accommodation paid for. I will not return, even if the situation changes." Who can blame him? He was allowed entry for a course that he has now given up, and he just wants to stay.
  I hate to use the word "do-gooders" in this context, but one must question the actions of those who believe that it is a good idea to take empty coaches to a border and to return to Britain with refugees. I thought that a refugee was someone who sought refuge—and that the first place to do that was immediately outside the troubled area. However, some people are bussing refugees through two or three countries, which causes problems for others. One newspaper report states:
  "Dover, perhaps unusually, has never had a major refugee problem. But three weeks ago 250 people arrived in a convoy of coaches from Bosnia, brought by a voluntary group based in Leeds."
  Two days before they arrived, the authorities were told that they were going to apply for political asylum, and that entitled them to the full range of benefits—housing, social security, health and legal aid. A council spokesman said:
  "It is all very laudable for these people to bring people in, but they haven't thought out who will foot the bill."
  The Sikhs in my constituency might well say, "This seems to be the game to play now. We will charter a plane to India and bring out a few thousand Sikhs over a period of time." Another interested group might say, "The real issue is Somalia, so we will take a plane there and bring out some refugees." Another group could say, "We will take a few coaches to eastern Europe and bring refugees back to Dover."
  If such people arrive at a port, existing law on asylum allows them entry. The individuals who bussed refugees in from Bosnia have been in touch with the Home Office, and it is sending extra staff to the ports to cope with the situation. Laudable though such actions by do-gooders and members of the chattering classes may be, they have not thought through the consequences if every group having an interest abroad starts to do the same.
  With the exception of one child who is likely to be adopted by an eminent ITN reporter, refugees will not be sent to Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Hampshire. Instead, they will stay near their port of entry and move to inner-city areas that already have problems. Local authorities will have to cope and local residents—through direct taxes and the council tax—will have to pay the bill.
  Most right hon. and hon. Members have problems with housing waiting lists in their constituencies. I certainly do. When refugees arrive, my constituents say, "Hang on, Mr. Dicks—we have been waiting for years for a transfer or for accommodation. We feel sorry for refugees, but they should be helped nearer their own countries and not be brought to Britain to occupy accommodation meant for

  99
  us." It may be wonderful to drop refugees off at Dover or Leeds and let someone else take responsibility for them, but all right hon. and hon. Members have an obligation to their constituents. They must always come first and last. I would not mind so much if there were any spare facilities.
  As to the churches and vicars who encourage such action, how many of them are using their church halls to accommodate refugees, and how many archbishops have handed over their palaces for that purpose? I shall be surprised and delighted if one of them is accommodating a refugee family. I make this challenge to the Church—before it starts saying all those wonderful words, it should open its doors first and feed and clothe the refugees, and then it will not be denying a citizen of this country his or her right to housing.
  We should seriously consider redrafting the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, because it was never designed to cope with the present situation or with economic refugees from Vietnam and Africa. Neither was it meant to cope with thousands of refugees from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. That convention was never meant to put pressure on the developed world. Its wording and the responsibilities that it imparts are out of date. I want the Government to persuade the United Nations to rewrite that convention, to control not just the arrival of refugees but their departure.
  Those who, in their unworldly way, encourage refugees to come to this country should also be prohibited by legislation from encouraging people to seek refuge here after travelling through two or three other countries, when there may be safe refuge just outside their own borders. People must be told that they cannot continue to exercise their conscience and make themselves feel good when sitting by the fire at night—not taking anyone in themselves, but expecting everyone else to do so.
  We should certainly provide help and support in the countries concerned and just outside their borders. The safe haven concept is best, and we must do all that we can to encourage it. If neighbouring countries want to take in thousands of refugees that is their business, not ours.
  The people of Britain have had enough: they have done their share. They are saying, "Hang on—are we going to be a soft touch again?" Everyone else wants to shout about it; as I have said, the chattering classes want to do something. But the working-class chap in the street, who pays his taxes, wonders what the hell is going on in this country. It seems to him that every time there is a problem somewhere and people want to move from that area—for whatever reason—good old Britain is the place for them to go.
  My young daughter, her husband and their three children must be pushed down the waiting list because of the stupid Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, and the fact that having to cope with refugees means that newcomers are placed at the top of the list. Old-age pensioners in my constituency could do with a bigger pension, but have had to accept increases in line with inflation; meanwhile people come here from nowhere, and are literally given everything that they require to live a good life. I am not saying that there is not a reason for that, but let it not happen in this part of the world again.
  100
  Let us be realistic: we have done our share. We are not a soft touch. We are not the dustbin of the world, to which people should come when everything else has gone wrong.
  If the Government and the House continue to take the same view, we are likely to see the same dreadful developments that have been seen in Germany. Thank God we have no Le Pen in this country now. Many people are saying that they are sick and tired of being taken for a ride, and, if we continue to allow refugees to enter this country—as I have said, they go to the tough working-class areas around the ports and in the inner cities —we shall experience the civil strife that has taken place in Germany, France and Italy. I do not want that, but the only way to stop it is to control what is happening, rather than saying, "Wonderful Britain must open all the doors and let everyone in."
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and his colleagues on arranging this evening's debate. I am sorry that more debates have not taken place on the issue.
  As time is now short, I shall concentrate on the key points. According to the motion, the record of the European Community and the Foreign Office on Yugoslavia has consistently been
  "too little and too late".
  That is putting it mildly. In my view, the actions of the Foreign Office and the Community in the earlier stages of the crisis contributed significantly to the outbreak of fighting, to its continuation and to the form that it took. People could see what would happen in Bosnia from the moment that trouble started in Knin and around Krajina: it was obvious and predictable. Rather than preventing it, however, we took action that, if anything, encouraged it.
  We sec the same picture of people sitting back and waiting for the next conflict to erupt when we look at reports of pressure on Muslims in Sandzak, troubles in Kosovo and continuing problems throughout Macedonia. The tinder is there; but, rather than defusing the situation, we seem to be sitting back. I am particularly concerned about Macedonia, which is currently in limbo. We seem to have put it on ice, as it were, so that it can sit and wait until its neighbours are ready to carve it up.
  Before war broke out in Bosnia, Milosevic clearly signalled his desire to do a deal with his neighbours to carve up Bosnia. Now he is signalling his desire to do the same with Macedonia. What will we do about that? At present, the Macedonian administration satisfied the normal criteria for recognition, and it is clear that Macedonia would be recognised but for the problems caused by the Greeks. The Greeks had some legitimate concerns, which have been met. What concerns us now is Greek ambition, together with Serb and, perhaps, Bulgarian ambition. We should seriously consider recognising Macedonia; if we are not prepared to do that, we should make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate any forcible intervention by other parties in Macedonia. We should make our feelings very clear to the Greeks.
  We have intervened in Bosnia rather belatedly, and I am concerned about the manner of our intervention. The present intervention strikes me as incoherent. United Nations troops could have been sent in in the normal way to supervise agreed ceasefire lines. At the other end of the

  101
  scale, we could have intervened to impose our will on the situation by compelling the combatants to move back to the lines that we considered appropriate. We are told, however, that that is not what is happening. It seems that we are intervening somewhere in the middle, but the position is not entirely clear. We are deceiving ourselves if we imagine that our current intervention is, or can be, limited to so-called humanitarian work.
  Sieges are taking place everywhere. To supply food to besieged people is intervention on behalf of the besieged persons and will be perceived by the besiegers as the provision of military aid. In some circumstances, food is a weapon. Our intervention, therefore, is effectively on one side. We pretend to ourselves that we are not intervening. That is foolish and is likely to end in greater trouble.
  We cannot, however, walk away from the problem. We cannot allow the war to continue, sit back and let the people fight it out among themselves. That might have been okay in 1912 or 1913, but it is not okay in a world where there is the United Nations, and it is not okay in a Europe where there are the various agreements about the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I suppose that in some way we are trying to vindicate the CSCE.
  The debate has concentrated so far on the means of exerting pressure, whether it be diplomatic, economic or limited military involvement. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) about not forswearing certain action and making sure that there is a credible military capability available to be used, if only to keep people guessing.
  We have to think hard about our objective. I said earlier that the intervention was incoherent. It does not seem to me to have any clear objective in mind. We must start to think about what our objective is and then work back from that to see what are the appropriate means of achieving it. Having a clear objective in this case means having a view about the desired outcome. Through this whole debate, the British Government and the other European Governments seem to have been incredibly coy about the desired outcome. That must be spelt out. We must be clear about it, and then we can look at the ways and means.
  9.11 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. I welcome also the way in which it has been conducted—soberly and with considerable reflection. The debate has been distinguished by no rancour having been shown on either side of the House. That is important.
  This is an emotional issue. I must declare right away that I support the Government amendment, but the motion reflects the tension and anger that we feel about the slaughter and atrocities in that region. It reflects our awareness of the impending horror of the forthcoming winter and the feeling of total revulsion about the continuation of ethnic cleansing.
  At times, however, the House tries to blame the wrong party. It is easy to blame the Government, because they are there. Nevertheless, we bear in mind that the Government have agonised long and hard about how to perform our role in the Balkans. We are very much aware of the Prime Minister's anguish. He was anxious to make his contribution—hence the London peace conference. He made a firm stand by condemning Serbia for the atrocities.
  102
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was keen that Lord Carrington should play a role in the European Community peace initiative. He, of course, was followed by Lord Owen. The British Government were anxious to ensure that we provided an honourable deployment of troops.
  It is remarkable that this country has contributed 2.600 troops to the area, out of a total force of 6,000. That is a larger share, in proportion to our responsibilities, than has been provided by any other country. That ought to be recognised when anybody suggests that the Government are taking no action, are flaccid and are unwilling to act.
  I share everybody's concern about the refugee problem. We must remember that 40,000 refugees have already made their way to this country. I know that passions are aroused over refugees. I have declared in the House on a previous occasion that my mother is Serbian. I remember that after the last war Serbian refugees came to this country, fleeing from oppression and totalitarianism in communist Yugoslavia. So I know how important it is to ensure that we give refugees the right welcome.
  I take issue with the Government on one matter: although it is quite honourable and correct to say that we must try to encourage refugees to stay close to their home country, we must recognise that there is no safe place for them to hide. It is foolhardy for us to put our heads in the ground and to imagine that if refugees stay there they will be safe later. It is not an easy problem and I am not offering any simple answers. Indeed, there are no simple answers, and it would be false of the Opposition to suggest that there are. We must show some flexibility.
  Mr. Rogers: We are not suggesting that.
  Lady Olga Maitland: None the less, that impression was given; forgive me if I got the wrong impression.
  Mr. Rogers: I never suggested that there was an easy option. I told the Minister that I agreed entirely that the decisions that needed to be taken were extremely complicated and difficult. The hon. Lady is misrepresenting Labour's position.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman. At least we have been able to clear up the matter to some extent.
  I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who was concerned that in deploying our troops we were putting "Options for Change" under strain. I hope that "Options for Change" is not so set in concrete that we cannot take a more flexible view, should the need arise.
  I pay tribute to our troops. I have heard wonderful reports of their enthusiasm, professionalism and desire to get up and go and to serve in a humanitarian role, which is a new role for them. Their role is not just to help aid get through to those who are desperate; their mere presence is a comfort to those who are under pressure and it is tempting for them to hope that our troops would open fire on their behalf. It is important that we keep a clear head about what we expect of our troops. We cannot confuse their humanitarian work with what I call their pro-active fighting work: the two do not mix. As hon. Members have said, if our troops were involved in more than self-defence, there would be consequences for the civilians whom they are trying to protect. It is easy to say, "We must do something and fight at all costs", but it is important to

  103
  realise the consequences: for example, the Red Cross could not continue to supply aid, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would be affected and there would be no one to protect the convoys.
  It is important that we get our priorities right. The United Nations is saying, "Let us put lives before guns as we face a cold winter." We must also consider air strikes. What kind of air strikes are we talking about? Air strikes may encourage more fighting.
  We definitely have not reached the point where we can say "No, never" to any other course of action. We must monitor the situation and reconsider it in six months. I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South about the art and meaning of deterrence. History shows that it can work, and it could work again. The message that we must send to the Serbians is that unacceptable damage could be inflicted—I am not saying definitely, because that is the art of deterrence—and that, despite what they think, they may not get away with it so much in the future. That is an international decision, not a United Kingdom decision. We must realise that there are agonies that the whole Community will have to face.
  I understand the sense of frustration. I remember that, when the first break-up of the former Yugoslavia began, my mother, who is a Serb and realistic about what is happening, said, "Remember 1914. It will all explode all over again. Somehow we shall have to alert people to the character of the Balkans. The people there are not logical as one would expect people in Europe to be. They have their own culture, their own anger and their own pain. Realise that it is not a problem that will just fade away".
  One of the mistakes that we made is that we gave the wrong message to the aggressors in Serbia. We sent a message saying, "Perhaps you can get away with your ill-gotten gains." That is the responsibility of the international community and we now have to live with the consequences.
  It is important that we back the new endeavours to impose sanctions. It is important that we ensure that they really work and that the Serbians feel the bite and the anger. We must ensure that the people of Yugoslavia realise that their government is at stake. It is important that we ensure that the sanctions work because they have failed so far. The United Nations has become a laughing stock in the sanctions-busting game. To see the Greek oil tankers trundling through is offensive to common decency. I welcome all the endeavours to bring the problem under control.
  I conclude on the important point that a political solution is the only solution that will finally work in Yugoslavia. It is, therefore, important that we look hard and clearly at the man who is perpetrating the atrocities and at the man who is the oppressor—Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic is now under pressure. There will be elections on 20 December. We in the west have a moral duty to back the pro-democracy movement—to back Milan Panic who has so bravely tried to stand up to the man who brought him into power in Yugoslavia.
  We should give the pro-democracy movement the moral support it deserves. Representatives from DEPOS —the pro-democracy movement—are coming to London next week. We should be able to say, "Go back to
  104
  Yugoslavia. You are not forgotten. We back you all the way." There is only one way in which to bring peace in the Balkans. We must ensure that Slobodan Milosevic cannot continue his evil work for the future.
  9.22 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry that the debate has been so short. We have heard some good speeches, but there is so much more to say and so many more questions to ask.
  There are four differences between our motion and the Government amendment. The first is a question of emphasis. The Government congratulate themselves. We say that what they have done is too little and too late. The second is the question of military intervention, especially air strikes, to which various hon. Members have referred. The third is the question of air cover for our troops, in which we might include the issue of the so-called blockades or non-blockades in the Adriatic and on the Danube. The fourth is the question of refugees. I will deal with each in turn, taking up points made by hon. Members on the way. I will turn in conclusion to the question of Kosovo and Macedonia.
  When we consider not simply the present dreadful position but the history of the European Community's involvement and the attitudes expressed by the British Government at various stages of the Yugoslavian tragedy, we must realise that to say that the House "congratulates" —the amendment says "notably" congratulates—the Government is extraordinary. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) made a quite excellent speech. In his downbeat way, he said that what the Government had done was really rather inadequate—and that was putting it very mildly.
  From the very beginning, when I told the Minister of State in May 1991 that the European Community should perhaps take on a mediation role or even provide a peacekeeping force, the Minister said:
  "I do not think that the European Community should play such a role."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 919.]
  That did not show a great deal of foresight, and it was not very long afterwards that Lord Carrington was appointed.
  The British Government also resisted the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. They suggested that "premature" recognition would worsen the conflict. As Jonathan Eyal, director of studies at the Royal United Services Institute, wrote in The Independent today:
  "Croatia and Slovenia are independent only because they were prepared to fight for their freedom."
  Let us face it: the Government—and the European Community—would certainly have been prepared to watch them being crushed by the JNA.
  I respond badly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who responded to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), talking once more about factions in what was Yugoslavia. That is a denial of what has happened over the past year and a half. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South put it very clearly. Of course there have been atrocities by the Croats and there have been atrocities by the Muslims. However, there has been no concerted policy. As far as I am aware, there has been no siege of Serbian towns by Muslims or by Croats. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) put it extremely effectively, this has by and large been a Serbian war of aggression within Yugoslavia. To try to be even handed about the matter is not to face reality.

  105
  The Government amendment significantly does not refer to military intervention one way or the other. However, the Minister of State spoke about it at length. We argued for the use of air power to relieve the siege of Osijek in December 1991. It was clear then where the aggressors were and what they had. The Croats had no heavy guns, tanks or rockets. They were surrounded and were being pounded to pieces, as Vukovar already had been. It would have been possible to use air power then, and if we had used it there would have been no siege of Sarajevo.
  Both the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that it was clear very early on to the Serbs that no one was prepared to act to stop them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East made that point when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda. If one tells an aggressor, "We are not going to do anything to stop you", the aggressor will continue. That is straightforward and simple.
  I appeared on one of those ITV "Comment" programmes on 10 June. I said that the situation in Sarajevo had to be stopped and my words echoed those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. I said:
  "In Sarajevo, people are in the cellars, without electricity, water or food. If you have children, think of what that would be like … It is clear that Milosevic only understands force. I think the European Community through the UN now has no alternative but to consider this and most urgently. They should say to Milosevic, 'unless this siege is lifted and the shelling stopped within 48 hours, aircraft from the West will destroy these artillery positions'".
  I am not saying that only now; I have said it before. If we had done that then, it would have stopped matters.
  Even when we went to the G7 summit in July, only Britain was against even the consideration of military intervention. Mitterrand was in favour, despite the earlier support that the French gave the Serbs, and Kohl was in favour. All right, we know perfectly well that the Germans are excluded by their constitution from external involvement in that way, but they certainly showed in respect of the Gulf that they were prepared to pay, and that is going to change. That constitution was put on them by us, so let us not start blaming them for it.
  On the closure of air space, as recently as 15 May the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to me, saying:
  "I do not think an aerial blockade of Serbia would be right."
  That has been the pattern of "too little too late" all along. As has been said, we have, apparently, a holding closure of Bosnian air space. It has not been breached; I do not dispute that. However, we allowed the dropping of cluster bombs by the Bosnian-Serb air force on civilians, and I am sure that we could have prevented it.
  Mr. Rogers: That was a point of difference between the Minister and myself. As I understand it, the Minister said that we do not have the capability in the theatre to take such action as is being proposed. The Government should address that matter urgently.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that that is the case, but never mind. Nevertheless, we are now closing air space when that is much less relevant than it was. What is relevant is that, as various hon. Members have pointed out, with the breach of sea space in the Adriatic and up the Danube oil and military hardware have come, and what
  106
  have we done about that? "Too little, too late" is a fair description. There is certainly no cause for congratulation, far less notable congratulation.
  The Government's amendment
  "welcomes Her Majesty's Government's response to the refugee problem".
  For a Government who have just introduced a visa system for Bosnia without even the means of getting visas, who have taken in only a comparatively small number and who have not made any direct contribution—although I accept that they have made a contribution through the European Community and refugee organisations to poor countries such as Croatia and Hungary who have taken in an enormous number, or, for that matter, given proper credit to the Federal Republic of Germany for its huge contribution of about 260,000 to 270,000—that is terribly complacent. Not much was said about what else would be done. "Sharing" is what we said. The Federal Republic of Germany, as the Minister knows, has suggested that the European Community, of which we are still the President, should try to work out some allocations.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said that there are many refugees in many places all over the world. I know that. One cannot do everything, but that does not preclude the fact that we are concerned that people have been burnt out of their houses and are staggering helplessly through the snow. May I tell the hon. Gentleman what happens in the Federal Republic of Germany? He asked, "Where are they going to go? They are going to congregate around London." The Germans have constructed camps all over the federal republic, and they are related to the size of the towns in question so that the burden is not concentrated in one place. Central Government take responsibility rather than offload it on to the Lander Government. So the hon. Gentleman's was not a reasonable argument.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda was right: the action that we are taking is not the action of a country which is rightly proud of its civilisation. The 186 people in buses, of which we are letting in six, who have been mentioned sum up how disgraceful this all is. Rightly, the debate has focused on such people, but they are a tiny drop in a great ocean of misery.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East —[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not right hon."] I am anticipating, perhaps. In any event, my hon. and learned Friend spoke of the dangers and challenges that face British troops. Neither he nor I understands why it is not possible to provide combat air cover, operating out of Italy. Not so long ago we were told that we could counteract vast hordes of Russians, pounding through central Europe. Now we cannot produce the aircraft to take out a few tanks. Strange.
  I should like to know about the difference between the British role and that of the French. The British role seems to be exclusively to protect humanitarian convoys in dangerous circumstances brought about especially by the recent push by the Serbs. But in the little north-western enclave of Bihac the French are in the business of keeping out the Serbs—they appear to have a combat role there. That is puzzling, since I had thought that the role of all United Nations forces should be the same. I am not arguing against the French action: I just want to know what the difference is.
  The siege of the great cities and the ethnic cleansing must be stopped, and if that means air strikes, so be it.

  107
  Europe has been slow and fearful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—he is sitting behind me: one should always be concerned if the leader is sitting behind one—and I visited the heights above Sarajevo and saw the gun emplacements. The Minister said that they could be moved. Of course, they could be, but they can also be pinpointed. The guns stand above the vast bowl in which Sarajevo lies, and I still think that action could be taken against them.
  It is certainly hypocrisy to go on about the integrity of Bosnia while allowing it to be gutted. That integrity no longer exists—or hardly. The Evening Standard tonight says:
  "They were a pitiful sight on the road to Travnik, now the only town between the British base and Serbian positions. They were shelled as they tried to get through Turbe and … there were scores of casualties.
  Many herded their livestock as they ran. One farmer put a calf, wounded by shrapnel and apparently close to death, on a cart carrying his family."
  That is what is happening. Certainly, it is all terribly difficult. There will soon be nothing left of Bosnia—there is little left already. We are already too late to stop many deaths in the besieged enclaves. The scale of the intervention is too limited, but we should still try.
  There has been talk at the United Nations of a war crimes tribunal, but that has since disappeared from the agenda. What has happened to it?
  The Government should forthwith review their policy on refugees. That means taking more of them than we have hitherto. We are taking proportionately far fewer than Sweden, Luxembourg and many other countries. That means taking more refugees, and producing more money to help, because a massive tragedy is taking place next door to us. The only sensible way forward is a sharing arrangement through the European Community.
  Kosovo and Macedonia are certainly the next areas of great danger. In saying that I am not overlooking the difficulties of the Hungarians in Vojvodina. There are real difficulties there, and we recognise that, but we are not able to cover every issue this night.
  Lord Owen's stance on Kosovo—which I heard him spell out on 3 October, when he addressed the Council of Europe, and which the Secretary of State subsequently confirmed, in a written answer to me on 19 October, as Government policy—is wrong. The stance is wrong in its practical consequences, and it is morally indefensible. To exclude the right of the 90 per cent. Albanian majority to self-determination if they want it after more than a decade of suppression by 8 per cent. of Serbs is not sustainable.
  When I attended the unofficial election held by the Kosovan Albanians on 24 May—and spent an hour in a Serbian police station—I saw an admirable display of peaceful protest. I do not know how long that will hold. I do not think that it will be for long.
  When I and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats saw President Cosic of the rump Yugoslavia in Belgrade in August, we understood that he would accept United Nations monitors. Many more should be sent, and the Government should do something about that now.
  When there is a final conference to resolve the issue, as there will be eventually, it should be made clear that the right of Kosovo to self-determination, if the people so wish, has to be accepted.
  108
  Macedonia should be recognised and given economic aid. It has taken the punishment of sanctions more than any of the other countries. It is untenable that Greece should be the country to stop that happening when the United States, at the United Nations meeting in New York last week, pinpointed Greece as massively breaching the oil embargo to Serbia and Montenegro. I am not merely saying this now—I said it in July: the Government are wrong in that.
  I have two final, long-term questions; we should remember the long term. First, what is Government thinking on a European or Euro-United Nations peacekeeping force? The Bosnian problem will not be the last that we have to face in that area. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told me on 15 May:
  "I do not expect the fighting to end until the factions lose their appetite for war."
  If one deals in that sort of futile hand-wringing that is okay, but I think that we should have some ideas about peacekeeping.
  Secondly, last year, in the Council of Europe, I argued that its remit should be widened from individual to collective breaches of human rights; in other words, to create obligations in respect of minority groups. I understand that France, Spain and the United Kingdom have been particularly opposed to any moves in that direction. Why?
  We shall divide the House tonight, but not because we want to. It is because we do not think that our country has acted as it should in a terrible crisis—it is our country and not merely the Government's, although I notice that they sometimes do not make much distinction—and we want to put on record our deep unhappiness.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): This is an important debate which deals with what is probably the greatest tragedy in post-war European history in which about 2,400 British soldiers are now engaged. It is a war in which tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and serious crimes have been committed. We must concede that no early solution is in sight.
  As is to be expected with such a motion, the debate has been wide-ranging and I am conscious that I cannot respond to all the points made. However, the debate could be reduced to three main themes: first, the general policy being pursued by the Government and other European Governments from the start of the crisis, when Slovenia and Croatia announced their independence, until now; secondly, the presence of British troops operating in what was Yugoslavia, the circumstances that surround their deployment, and how we can tackle the humanitarian crisis that they and we face; thirdly, how we hope to bring about a political settlement in what was Yugoslavia. In responding to the specific points raised by hon. Members, I shall try to remain within the framework that I have just identified.
  I wish to consider the policy that has been pursued from the outbreak of the crisis until now and, in particular, to respond to some of the points made by my hon. and right hon. Friends. I shall deal with two points: first, the role of Serbia; and secondly, the suggestion that we should have used force in a pre-emptive way. My hon. Friend the

  109
  Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and others focused on those points.
  It is absolutely clear that Serbia is primarily responsible for what has happened and is now happening in the former Yugoslavia. That is not to say that others have not committed atrocities but I concede that the primary responsibility lies with the Serbians in Serbia and Bosnia. However, we must keep in mind the important proviso that, although I regard Milosevic as a powerful influence behind what is happening in Bosnia, I believe that neither he nor Karadzic have total control over what is happening there. If one needed evidence of that, one could simply remark that the assurances that Milosevic gave regarding the removal of aircraft were not adhered to by General Mladic. Although Milosevic bears a great deal of responsibility and therefore so does Serbia, war lords in Bosnia are pursuing their own policies and objectives.
  I do not believe that, by using the kind of military force that has been referred to, we would have stopped or could now stop the conflict. I accept that that could legitimately be disputed, and one can only give one's opinion. That is my opinion, partly because I do not think that Serbia is totally responsible for what is happening in Bosnia—separate leaders have separate policies—partly because the nature of the conflict does not admit of the military action in the middle east two years ago, and partly for the powerful reason that, once the United Nations has used force in that way, it will disqualify itself from the range of other functions that we all deem to be important, notably the supply of humanitarian aid and the brokering role.
  Mr. Rogers: If the Minister is ascribing good intentions to Karadzic and Milosevic, the best thing to do is to get them to join us in putting down those warlords who seem to be out of their control.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets me. I did not say that Karadzic or Milosevic have good intentions because I do not believe that for a moment. I do not think that they have total control over the warlords in Bosnia, many of whom have even worse intentions. That is a different point.
  Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I should like to deal with the main issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and I shall allow an intervention if it is material.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked many important questions about troop deployment, air cover, exclusion zones, the size of the force and so on. The present force numbers 2,400 and not 2,600 but that is a small point. At present we have no intention of increasing that force and our deployment was for 12 months. We hope that at the end of that time it will be possible to stop the deployment, but we shall have to examine the situation in Bosnia at that time. Therefore, I cannot say whether we shall extend the deployment beyond the initial 12 months.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces dealt with the rules of engagement. Our soldiers will have the ability to defend themselves. They do not have to wait until they are fired upon, nor do they have to return similar fire because they have a range of heavy weapons that are known to the House. They will not have
  110
  to seek authority up the line. The soldiers on the ground are authorised to use reasonable minimum force to defend themselves and—this answers another of the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions—those for whom they have a direct responsibility at that time.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about air power. Two quite separate issues are involved and they were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I shall deal first with what I have been calling the air exclusion zone and then with the question whether United Kingdom troops will be able to call for air cover to resist ground attack. United Nations Security Council resolution 786 authorises the no-fly zone and provides for an increase in the United Nations peacekeeping force to monitor the bases. Those forces are being deployed and we have no evidence of any aircraft flying combat missions since 12 October.
  What happens if Serbian forces fly combat missions in breach of the resolution? The answer is that we would have to return to the Security Council for an appropriate resolution. I cannot say what would emerge, but I should be rather surprised if the Security Council were not ready to authorise the use of force in those circumstances. The Serbs had better contemplate that for their own good and in the interests of everybody else.
  I was asked about air power being available to United Kingdom ground forces. The purpose of the deployment is, of course, to carry out humanitarian functions. The two that I have in mind at the moment are the convoy of humanitarian supplies and, where appropriate, the escorting of refugees. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made plain, it is no function of the British forces to fight their way through obstacles. If it becomes too dangerous for British forces to operate, that is to say, if the level of risk is too high with regard to the objectives, they will be pulled back either to defensive positions or absolutely.
  We have not provided air cover of the kind to which the hon. and learned Member referred because that is relevant only to the kind of operations on which our troops are not to be asked to embark. If it reaches that level of risk, they will be pulled back. There is another point. Air cover of the kind for which he is calling is appropriate only if it is continuous—that is to say, large numbers of aircraft flying up and down the column. That is not what we are contemplating. Moreover, says I, warming to my theme, the risk that we are facing is mortar fire or rocket attack from within urban areas. I cannot believe that Tornados or other aircraft are an appropriate response to that kind of risk.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman burns himself out, will he contemplate the following circumstances, which are not so extravagant as to be unreasonable? Let us imagine British troops engaged in the escort of refugees, as was proposed at the weekend. They are ambushed and encircled. Withdrawal in the terms used both by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is not possible. In such circumstances, why should not the senior commander on the ground have available to him —not flying up and down the column—from nearby NATO air bases, forces from which he can call down air strikes so that he can effect the withdrawal that the Minister postulates?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman needs to contemplate another point. We are not in the business of fighting through obstacles. We are in the business of negotiating passage. Anything else is bound to fail because it will run to a war. Therefore, the British troops will have to assess in advance whether what they are contemplating doing can be done with reasonable safety having regard to the forces that are available. If they cannot do it, they will not do it.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I cannot give way because I have only four minutes left.
  I shall now address one or two specific points, of which perhaps the most important is sanctions. I think that the House misunderstands the position. Much of the sanctions regime has been very successful. Serbian trade is down 40 per cent., industrial production is down 50 per cent., unemployment is up 60 per cent. and inflation is acute. Therefore, the pressure on the Serbian economy is real, but that said, I accept that there has been a greater flow of oil and petrol into Serbia than we would wish. We are seeking to address that, in two ways.
  First, and this is the product of the United Kingdom presidency, we are employing sanctions monitors in various adjoining countries. Secondly, and much more important, is the resolution being adopted today, which will deal with transhipment. There are two kinds of transhipment for these purposes—down the Danube, and through Serbia to other countries. Our purpose is to stop both and to enforce the provisions that will be contained in that regime. This will make a considerable difference to the availability of oil and petrol in Serbia. We shall come back to this if we deem it necessary because we must deny oil and petrol to the Serbian Government.
  I shall deal now with the visas issue, which has troubled a number of right hon. and hon. Members for reasons that I well understand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made the position clear on 5 November. What we have decided is that, in common with all other EC countries of note, a visa regime is justified for the kind of reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) outlined. But at the same time we have said that there will be a regime for admitting persons to this country who are identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 166.

  Division No. 87]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Barnes, Harry

  Flynn, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  112

  Hutton, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Trimble, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Wallace, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Macdonald, Calum

  Madden, Max

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Short, Clare

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ancram, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hague, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ashby, David

  Harris, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bates, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert

  Booth, Hartley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Bowis, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bright, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Jessel, Toby

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Burns, Simon

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Burt, Alistair

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knapman, Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Clappison, James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Legg, Barry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Congdon, David

  Lightbown, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Cran, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

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

  MacKay, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Madel, David

  Day, Stephen

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Malone, Gerald

  Devlin, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dover, Den

  Merchant, Piers

  Duncan, Alan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Elletson, Harold

  Nelson, Anthony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Pickles, Eric

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forth, Eric

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Freeman, Roger

  Richards, Rod

  French, Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Gorst, John

  Sims, Roger

  113

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Streeter, Gary

  Whittingdale, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Tim Wood.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the European Community and notably Her Majesty's Government in its capacity as Presidency on its unremitting work for a solution of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia; is appalled by the continuing slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is deeply concerned about the impact of winter in Sarajevo and other cities and the need to ensure the safe passage of relief supplies to them; expresses its warm support for the work of British troops in providing protective support for relief convoys and is reassured to know that they will have the full right to self-defence; condemns the barbarous policy of ethnic cleansing; calls for the effective policing of the Danube to enforce sanctions; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's response to the refugee problem; is deeply concerned that the conflict may spread to Kosovo and Macedonia; and makes clear its strong support for the work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia under the leadership of Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    114
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),,
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

    INSURANCE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CULTURE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6224/92 and the supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of National Heritage on 22nd October 1992, relating to Community cultural action; and supports the Government's objective of respecting subsidiarity and focusing Community action in the cultural sector in those areas where there is scope for clearly targeted co-operative action that generates added value at European level and emphasises the richness and diversity of the European cultural heritage both at national and regional levels.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Gavin Strang be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Lynne Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Disabled Persons
    10.12 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I present a petition signed by my constituent, Maureen Brownbridge, and 240 other residents of York and neighbouring areas. The petition is sponsored by Mencap, and seeks a change in the law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of people's disabilities —in the same way that other legislation prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender or race.
    The petition reads as follows:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of York area residents sheweth: That people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled (for whatever reason) are continually having to face widespread unjustifiable discrimination. That legislation is necessary to outlaw this discrimination. Therefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against people who are disabled or are perceived to be disabled as soon as possible. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Small Businesses
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    10.13 pm
    Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the banks' code of practice, and in particular about the speed and extent to which interest rate changes are being passed on to my constituents—especially businesses.
    I believe that the policy presented over the past two or three years by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a policy of reducing interest rates—represents the best way of stimulating economic activity. It is a welcome move, and has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Over the past two years, base rates have fallen from some 15 per cent. to 7 per cent., providing a welcome boost to industry, to small businesses and to the consumer.
    Along with many of my hon. Friends—a handsome number of whom are present this evening—I am worried about the findings of a recent survey. The survey shows that, although base rates have fallen by some eight percentage points, the cost of borrowing for small businesses has fallen by only about 2·66 per cent. over the corresponding period. If we take the figure that is being widely used, each reduction of one percentage point in the base rate provides the economy with a £1 billion boost. It is also said that that produces a saving of some £200 million for small business.
    Given that the survey is accurate—I have no reason to doubt that; the figures have been confirmed by people who have written to me from many parts of the country, and I am sure that my hon. Friends' mail bags contain the same information—the economy is being short-changed to the tune of some £5·5 billion in terms of interest rate reductions. That is twice the transport budget. Moreover, small business is being short-changed to the tune of some £1 billion. I want to make it clear to the banks and other lending institutions concerned that that apparently widespread practice is unacceptable.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: A small business in my constituency started up in 1990 paying interest at 3 per cent. over base rate in June that year. When it closed down in May 1992 and it looked into its charges a month later, it found that it had been paying up to 9·2 per cent. above base rate, having not been consulted by the banks involved. Much of the confusion involving businesses arises from the fact they simply do not know by how much the interest that they are paying exceeds the base rate. Ought not the banks to include in statements, on a regular basis, the amount of interest that they are charging businesses?
    Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend has raised a pertinent point, with which I shall deal later. He speaks with great experience, having been in business himself and become acquainted with the problems encountered by small businesses in their relations with banks.
    A constituent of mine, who runs a small business, received a letter from a bank, headed "Interest rate margins". It stated:
    "We are presently taking stock of the markedly adverse economic conditions with which all of the Banks are now having to contend, and we find that all of our major

    117
    competitors have been sharply increasing their interest rate margins across their lending books over the last year or so taking advantage of the fall in … rates … We … have found ourselves increasingly out of step, and belatedly and with a degree of regret we do feel that we now have to increase our lending margins".
    When we hear from the bank chiefs, they tell us that that kind of thing does not happen now. They say that we now have banking codes of practice—even on banking charges. We see all that in nice advertisements on television. There is conclusive evidence, however—dating from only two weeks ago—that such activities are happening on an alarming scale. That evidence is backed up by the Federation of Small Business and by the Forum of Private Business, which regularly surveys some 20,000 private businesses up and down the country.
    Two particular aspects in that letter cause concern. The first is the practice of applying fixed minimum lending rates—that is, above the minimum lending rate set by the Bank of England and subsequently agreed to by the high street banks. Fixed minimum lending rates can often be in the region of 10 or 11 per cent. today when bank rates should be 7 per cent. That is why many businesses are still paying 16 or 17 per cent. in interest rate charges even though base rates are 7 per cent. That is an extremely heavy burden to put on the backs of small businesses. As I said earlier, it is entirely unacceptable.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that another burden that banks put on small businesses is that they often exercise the right to impose a floating charge on a loan? When businesses experience difficulties, therefore, the banks are able to pick and choose which assets should be liquidated, which results in many businesses that could have overcome their difficulties going bankrupt and having to be wound up.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She has made a valid point, which I know is the result of a great deal of experience and noble service with the Small Business Bureau.
    My second point concerns interest rate differentials, from which we can draw another conclusion. Interest rate differentials are being used, in effect, as an insurance premium. The banks say openly that they assess risks and then increase the margin appropriately. That is a short-sighted view. If a small business borrowed a large amount of money and is therefore overdrawn at the bank, it is highly unlikely that the profitability of that business, or its chances of survival, would be improved by increasing the interest rate burden on it. We ought, surely, to be considering reducing the interest rate burden on that business. That is the best way to ensure that it stands the best chance of survival in our present difficulties and that it will be in existence in a few months' time to repay its loan and pay back some of the interest charges.
    I was interested to learn today that one bank has announced that it is to abolish the practice of charging fixed interest rates and minimum lending rates. I am absolutely delighted that at the eleventh hour that bank has decided to do so. Far be it from me to suggest that nothing sobers the mind of a banker so much as the threat of adverse publicity, but if the threat of adverse publicity provokes banks to take positive action, many of my hon. Friends and I are more willing to make many more similar comments and remarks.
    I have talked to a bank manager in my constituency who had worked there for 35 years—that was in the days
    118
    when bank managers looked after businesses, as opposed to being financial services providers. He said that he used interest rate differentials for one purpose only: when there was an increase in the amount of administration in connection with the handling of the account. In relation to risk, he said that there were only two types of lending—good lending and bad lending, that one lends to the good and that one avoids the bad. That seems to me to be a breath of fresh air and a bit of common sense that could well be adopted by many of the banks in their present dealings with small businesses.
    Small businesses face considerable problems in their dealings with the banks. In many cases, they are held over a barrel by the bank in question. Their ability to negotiate is severely constrained. Many high street banks behave somewhat like a cartel, in that they will not accept any movement in cases where there is an overdraft or a lending problem. Their ability to move or negotiate is virtually non-existent. It therefore falls upon elected officials, politicians, Ministers and the Government to express disapproval about such action at every opportunity so that the banks are provoked into action.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further disgrace is that small business men cannot telephone their bank manager or go to see him without being charged for the privilege and incurring an arrangement fee?
    Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the excessive charges of banks. That takes us back to the point of bank charges not being thoroughly understood by the customer. Much more clarification, certainly for small business, is necessary.
    Banks should realise that, by treating small businesses as equals and by entering into partnership with them, they could be of much assistance to those businesses and could help the economy to recover. That would be a welcome sign. Interest rates for credit card purchases are 26 to 30 per cent. What incentive is that to restore confidence in the high street, to bring customers back to high street shops, thereby encouraging and stimulating those necessary businesses?
    Mr. Rod Richards: My hon. Friend will agree that the high street banks are flying in the face of Government policy by increasing their margins on loans. Does he agree that they are fuelling the recession by not financing perfectly sound economic proposals, in order to protect themselves, at a time when they should be expanding lending?
    Mr. Bates: I agree with my hon. Friend. So many of the high street banks are behaving not like high street banks but like back street money lenders. That does no service to the banks or to their customers.
    I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to urge our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to call in the banks again to make their role in the economic recovery abundantly clear and to highlight the problems that have been experienced by small businesses. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last called in the banks, there was a flurry of activity, with hastily produced codes of practice and banking charters. I see no reason why we should not see a similar flurry of activity, which not only might benefit

    119
    customers, small business and the economy but would do much to enhance in many people's eyes the tarnished reputation of many high street banks.
    10.28 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on an outstanding speech on a subject that is of much interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: This is an extremely important debate that has attracted interest among many Conservative Members, yet if one looks across at the empty Benches opposite one sees that no Labour Member is present and only one Liberal Democrat. That is shameful, because Opposition Members talk about the recession, the pressure on employment and jobs, yet not one is present tonight.
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. I was trying to be generous. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) is a worthy opponent and we are delighted that she is here today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh has tonight proved himself a doughty champion of small businesses. He has spoken for small businesses throughout the country—for the proprietors, for the directors and for the many who work for them. We all know from our constituencies that many of them have been through a tough time in the past couple of years. Many undoubtedly feel aggrieved on occasions about the treatment that they have received from the banks. We know that because people have written to us. My hon. Friend put the case so well this evening that I am sure that the message will go out to all the banks which are, I am sure, following this debate.
    It is a sign of his power of persuasion and of the compelling arguments mustered by my hon. Friend that not only am I here, in a minor capacity, to answer the debate, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave undertakings to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee today, the Prime Minister has been making a speech on this very subject at the Mansion house tonight and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, a bank has already taken action. That is a remarkable response to my hon. Friend's initiative in obtaining this debate. I congratulate him wholeheartedly.
    The interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) were also extremely good. They reflected the widespread concern which is evident from the letters I receive as Economic Secretary and which goes well beyond the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh spoke about the economy and about small businesses being short changed. He spoke especially about his concern about the setting of fixed minimum lending rates. He said, rightly, that the banks must be the friends and not the foes of small businesses. He called for the banks to be called in, which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced today to the Select Committee.
    I know that there has been especial concern in recent weeks about reports that some banks have been failing to
    120
    pass on to their small business customers the full benefits of the reductions in interest rates. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made plain his wish that the banks should pass on the benefit of interest rate cuts, not only to small business customers, but to all clients who borrow money. I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to reiterate my right hon. Friend's views.
    The exercise that the Treasury and the Bank of England conducted last year found that banks do pass on cuts automatically to customers whose borrowings are linked to base rate, although there was clear evidence that banks seek to widen margins if they feel that the risk—to— reward ratio has moved against them, when facilities come up for renewal or when customers seek to increase their loans. That is classic territory for commercial negotiation, and not for Government intervention.
    Banks cannot be expected to lend unprofitably, but given that the recession has increased the risks for many small businesses, it is in neither side's interests for the burden on the customer to be increased to unsustainable levels. The price for borrowing must reflect the needs of both banks and customers, and both sides need to recognise that.
    There is evidence that that recognition is happening. In the face of some fierce pressure from the media, NatWest and Barclays announced only last week that they were reducing the interest rate floors which they had previously included in lending agreements with small businesses. Although that is not an area in which the Government can take direct action, we take seriously the complaints that are levelled at the banks, even if they concern matters for the market to solve. As my right hon. Friend announced to the Select Committee this afternoon, he will ask the Bank of England to have another look at the area. He intends to go through it again himself with the chairmen of the individual banks. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.
    That said, there is evidence that market forces work, as the announcements by NatWest and Barclays show. Those are not the only recent examples.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that the Chancellor, in pressing the point on the banks, will also stress to them that we are increasingly entering a highly competitive European market and that British banks should consider how European banks treat their small business customers.
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend introduces a most important dimension into the debate and I am obliged to him. Incidentally, this is not the only occasion on which my hon. Friend has raised the issue. He has spoken of it on several other occasions and I am grateful for what he has reiterated tonight.
    The issue of the banks' treatment of small businesses is not a new one. As part of last year's Treasury and Bank of England investigation into the subject, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asked the chairmen of the major banks to consider drawing up a code for their small business customers. As my right hon. Friend made clear to the House in July last year, he had told the chairmen that the very least that customers had a right to expect from their banks was adherence to seven basic principles, which were: that the terms and conditions of accounts should be fair and reasonable; that the terms and conditions should be notified to customers in advance—a point made in an

    121
    intervention this evening; that customers should be given a full written statement of the standard tariffs of charges applicable to their account; that they should be specifically warned in advance about any charges not covered by the standard tariff; that customers should be given a clear explanation of the basis on which interest is to be charged; that terms and conditions of an account—other than the interest rate—should not be altered without adequate prior notice in writing; finally, that customers should be given a clear explanation of how complaints may be made about decisions taken at local level.
    The bank chairmen, in response, assured my right hon. Friend that those principles were already reflected in their existing policy, but undertook to see what more could be done. Since then, six banks have produced codes of banking practice for their business customers, and another, the Bank of Scotland, one covering all customers. All of them are clearly written in plain English and reflect the seven principles.
    It was not my right hon. Friend's objective when he met the bank chairmen last year to persuade them to produce
    122
    identical codes. Indeed, many of them are different. Business customers can now look at the services on offer and decide which best meets their needs.
    Some of the letters I receive, however, have suggested that the Government should go further and carry out their own review of banks' codes—either because of complaints that particular banks regularly fail to live up to the teens of their codes or because the codes do not go far enough. I do not believe that that is a suitable job for the Government. Our role is to ensure that a framework is in place which encourages open competition and allows small business customers a choice. Having played a major role in encouraging banks to draw up their codes, the Government feel that customers themselves must make it clear to the banks if the codes do not meet their requirements.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount paid in compensation to victims of miscarriages of justice for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  The amounts paid in the last three financial years are as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  285,000

  1990–91

  839,000

  1991–92

  1,719,000

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced female prisoners in England and Wales were given bail or weekend leave to visit dependent children during 1992; and what is the method of financing such visits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The statistical information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The financial arrangements governing the grant of temporary release to those prisoners eligible under prison rule 6 are set out in circular instructions 36/89 and 43/92, copies of which are in the Library. There is no provision for assisting financially sentenced prisoners released by the courts on bail.

  Prison Survey
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the recent prison survey of inmates in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The National Prison Survey 1991 was published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on 10 November 1992. A Home Office research report summarising the main findings was published simultaneously. Copies of these have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Joyriding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to combat joyriding in Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The powers of the courts in both England and Wales to deal with the most serious cases of unauthorised taking have been increased by the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking. Act 1992.
  2
  The most effective way to prevent joyriding via the unauthorised taking of cars is to improve their security. This is the objective of Car Crime Prevention Year and of the many activities associated with it.

  A significant development in Wales has been the establishment by all four Welsh police forces of a vehicle watch scheme which operates throughout the Principality.

  My right hon. and learned Friend also announced on 16 July our intention to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to 10 years, when parliamentary time allows.

  Juvenile Crime, Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to tackle and reduce crimes committed by juveniles in Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have encouraged the police and other agencies in the development of effective crime prevention programmes aimed at tackling youth crime and has funded a number of initiatives. The Welsh Office have approved support of over £500,000 under the urban programme in the current financial year for crime prevention and associated initiatives in Wales. Bids for new projects to start in 1993–94 are presently under consideration. In addition, the Welsh Office has funded the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders over the last three financial years to work with local authorities in south east Wales to develop strategies to combat juvenile crime. As part of its programme of action on youth crime for 1993, Crime Concern is planning a series of regional seminars, including one in Wales, on best practice in diverting young people from crime.

  The Government are also considering what means might be needed to reduce offending by the very small group of persistent juvenile offenders.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indemnify local authorities against the costs incurred in prosecuting those offending the Sunday trading laws.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Local authorities receive a substantial contribution to their costs generally through the revenue support grant system. We have no plans to increase this contribution specifically for their enforcement duties under the Shops Act 1950.

  Confessions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the rules relating to the acceptability of uncorroborated confessions.

  Mr. Jack
  The use of uncorroborated confession evidence is within the remit of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. We shall consider whether any changes may be needed in the light of the commission's findings.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a system whereby prisoners held on remand in Wales and England should either have their case brought before the courts within 110
  3
  days, or that they be released on bail, in all cases other than those in which there could be either a real danger to the safety of the public, or of the subversion of the course of justice.

  Mr. Jack
  Custody time limits have applied to the whole of England and Wales since October 1991.

  They are:

  Magistrates court1

  —56 days from first appearance to summary trial;

  —or 70 days to committal to Crown Court.

  Crown courts1

  —112 days from committal to arraignment.

  1 Responsibility for the courts lies with the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  If these limits are exceeded the defendant will normally be released on bail. However, courts are empowered to extend the time limits upon application where they are satisfied that there is a good and sufficient cause and the Crown has acted with all due expedition.

  Prisoners (Conjugal Visits)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department is giving to introducing conjugal visits for prisoners; and what assessment he has made on the effect of such visits on the deterrent effect of imprisonment.

  Vacant less than 3 months

  Vacant more than 3 months

  Vacant more than 6 months

  Vacant more than 12 months

  Houses

  Flats

  Houses

  Flats

  Houses

  Flats

  Houses

  Flats

  Barnet

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Brent

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Bromley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Camden

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Croydon

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Ealing

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  1

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Haringey

  —

  3

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Harrow

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  3

  —

  4

  —

  6

  1

  2

  —

  Hillingdon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  5

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  9

  —

  3

  1

  7

  Redbridge

  1

  —

  5

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Richmond

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sutton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Westminster

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —-

  1

  Outer London Districts

  5

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  16

  30

  25

  35

  21

  29

  9

  28

  On market

  8

  3

  14

  13

  13

  12

  8

  17

  For allocation

  8

  27

  11

  22

  8

  17

  2

  11

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of residential
  4
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The feasibility and desirability of introducing private family visits will be considered in the light of the imminent review of the operation of the home leave scheme planned by the prison service.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent prison custody officers are employed at Her Majesty's prison Wolds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is subject to commercial confidentiality and a matter for Group 4 Remand Services Ltd.

  Police Accommodation
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many houses and flats in the ownership of the Metropolitan police in each of the London boroughs are currently vacant; and how many have been vacant for more than three months, more than six months and more than one year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  properties in the ownership of the Metropolitan police in each of the London boroughs, showing separately the number of houses and flats.
  5
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  London Borough

  Houses

  Flats

  Barking

  10

  20

  Barnet

  118

  33

  Bexley

  17

  6

  Brent

  52

  —

  Bromley

  71

  39

  Camden

  4

  47

  Croydon

  93

  16

  Ealing

  20

  113

  Enfield

  67

  17

  Greenwich

  33

  66

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  51

  Haringey

  20

  90

  Harrow

  53

  18

  Havering

  130

  —

  Hillingdon

  63

  8

  Hounslow

  10

  23

  Islington

  18

  93

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  105

  Kingston

  30

  35

  Lambeth

  8

  32

  Lewisham

  30

  24

  Merton

  12

  68

  Newham

  1

  11

  Redbridge

  73

  —

  Sutton

  39

  45

  Sutton

  35

  16

  Waltham Forest

  45

  64

  Wandsworth

  5

  53

  Westminster

  —

  141

  Outer London districts and Windsor

  215

  1

  Total

  1,277

  1,235

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made to supply clear and concise information about correct procedures for nationals of former states of Yugoslavia wishing to apply for visas.

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

  The Home Secretary's announcement of the imposition of the visa regime was widely reported on the vernacular services of the BBC and in the medial of Yugoslavia and neighbouring countries. Our posts in the area have issued releases to the media indicating that inquirers may contact any British mission for information on how to apply for a visa for the United Kingdom.

  Consultants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the consultants currently working in his Department, the title of the project, its start and proposed finish date and, where available, its cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information on consultants currently working in the Home Office is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The cost of individual consultancy contracts is a matter of commercial confidentiality which it would not be proper to disclose.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many QCs are currently women or from the ethnic minorities; and what percentage this is of the total number of QCs.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 1 October 1992, there were 760 Queen's Counsel in private practice, of whom 41–5·4 per cent.—were women.

  The ethnic origin of applicants for the office of Queen's Counsel was not recorded prior to the autumn of 1991, and the formal records in respect of ethnic origin are therefore incomplete.

  It is, however, believed that on 1 October 1992 there were seven Queen's Counsel of non-white background—1 per cent.—of whom one was a woman.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how long on average(a) fiancé(e)s and (b) spouses now being heard by the adjudicator on appeal against refusal of entry clearance have had to wait; and how long he expects those applying now have to wait.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is estimated that at present an appeal against refusal of entry clearance to an adjudicator by(a) fiancé(e)s and (b) spouses is on average heard within 16 months of its receipt by the immigration appellate authorities. This period includes the time taken by the parties to prepare for the hearing, which is typically nine months. Hearings can sometimes be brought forward if the appellant so requests and an earlier date becomes available. Steps are being taken to shorten the time taken, wherever possible, for a case to come before an adjudicator.

  Child Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases involving child witnesses heard in(a) the Crown courts and (b) the Central Criminal Court, London, evidence has been offered by way of a live closed-circuit television link in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision for the giving in evidence of a video-recording of an interview with a child witness in certain specified proceedings is contained in section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. As this provision came into force only on 1 October 1992, no cases have yet been brought in which evidence has been given in this way.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases involving child witnesses heard in(a) Crown courts and (b) the Central Criminal Court, London, video-taped evidence has been offered in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The answer to(a) is that in all Crown court centres, excluding the Central Criminal Court, the number of cases involving child witnesses in

  7
  which the live television link was used by children to give evidence was: in 1990, 124 cases; in 1991, 152 cases; and in 1992, to date, 89 cases. The answer to (b) is that in the Central Criminal Court, the number of cases in which the live Television link was used was: in 1990, four cases; in 1991, three cases; and in 1992, to date, two cases.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases in the past three years, involving child witnesses, heard in(a) the Crown courts and (b) the Central Criminal Court, London, screens have been used in order to shield a child from the accused person whilst the former is giving evidence against the latter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought by the hon. Member has not been collected, and could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many Crown courts live closed-circuit television links and associated equipment have been installed for the use for the purpose of taking evidence from those deemed to be vulnerable witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Cannabis

  Cocaine

  Heroin

  LSD

  Amphetamines

  1987

  6 kilos

  98 gms

  196 gms

  500 doses

  630 gms

  1988

  12·75 kilos

  2·51 gms

  3·65 gms

  917 doses

  466·26 gms

  1989

  21·71 kilos

  52·4 gms

  25·35 gms 1,052 MST tablets

  485 doses 17·80 gms

  658·60 gms

  1990

  37·6 kilos

  —

  2,757 MST tablets

  573 doses

  95·2 gms

  1991

  37·5 kilos 1·5 kilos herbal

  88 gms

  250 doses Dipipanone 1 gm Morphine

  ½ kilo Psilocin 800 doses 2,711 MDMA 114 gms

  625 gms 25 tablets

  19921

  14·75 kilos

  77 gms

  9 gms 51 MST tablets

  9,018 doses 3,325 tablets MDMA

  4,668 gms

  1 Up to 31 October.

  MST=Morphine Sulphate.

  MDMA=Ecstasy.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers are employed by the RUC anti-drugs team; and what increase in the number is planned.

  Mr. Mates
  I am informed by the Chief Constable that the Royal Ulster Constabulary drugs squad has an establishment of 28 officers and is at full strength. There are presently no plans to increase the number of officers deployed to the squad but the resources allocated to it are reviewed regularly.

  Nine of the officers presently deployed to the drugs squad are serving six-month secondments from their sub-divisions. This is part of an ongoing programme—which has involved the secondment of almost 100 officers to the drugs squad in the past five years—intended to enhance the level of drugs awareness and improve investigation techniques at sub-divisional level.
  8
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Installation of live television link equipment has taken place in 41 Crown court centres to date, for the purpose of children giving evidence under the provisions of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Drugs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantities of drugs have been seized by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mates
  The requested information as follows:

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many successful convictions there have been in Northern Ireland for drug-related offences in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mates
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  143

  1988

  131

  1989

  133

  1990

  113

  1991

  157

  11992

  188

  Total

  865

  1 To 31 October.

  9
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those convicted for drugs-related offences in Northern Ireland in the last five years have also been convicted for membership of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Irish National Liberation Army or the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, and other paramilitary organisations.

  Mr. Mates
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Irish Language
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Government expenditure has been directed at the promotion of the Irish language in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Government funding for projects which involve the promotion of Irish is provided from a variety of sources. The last complete financial year for which information on expenditure is available is 1991–92. In that year, Government expenditure totalled some £1,216,000. This figure does not include funding for the teaching of Irish in mainstream English-medium education or for an Irish-medium unit in an English-medium primary school.

  The central community relations unit (CCRU) within the Department of Finance and Personnel provided funding of £523,000, including support for the Ultach Trust and for research into the origins of Irish placenames. This included a once only payment of £250,000 to the endowment fund maintained by the trust.

  The Department of the Environment, through the Belfast action teams, expended some £46,410 on a wide variety of activities and schemes designed to promote the Irish language in the Greater Belfast area.

  The sum of £146,535 was paid under the Training and Employment Agency's action for community employment scheme to assist employment within six organisations promoting the Irish language.

  The Department of Education for Northern Ireland contributed £405,000 to the costs of an Irish-medium primary school.

  The Northern Ireland Office incurred staffing and ancillary costs of £61,500 in providing educational and translation facilities for prisoners using the Irish language.

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland awarded a total grant of £33,600 for Irish language arts.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to allocate extra funding to the dual support system for funding higher education research in science and technology.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As I announced on 12 November, spending next year on basic and strategic research in science, engineering and the social sciences will total £1,170 million, an increase in real terms over 1992–93 provision. It is for the research councils to determine what proportion of the funding allocated to them is spent in the higher education institutions.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to review the dual 10
  support scheme for research funding mechanisms with reference to the maintenance of diversity and scope for enterprise in the research of the science base.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy on the dual support system was set out in the 1991 White Paper "Higher Education: A Framework for Expansion"—copies are in the House Library. It announced new arrangements for dual support funding which came into effect on 1 August this year, and which were intended to clarify the respective funding responsibilities of the research councils and higher education institutions for research council funded projects within the dual support system.

  We shall be considering the wider issues of how funding mechanisms contribute to the maintenance of diversity and scope for enterprise in the science base as part of our wider consultations on the science and technology White Paper which I plan to publish next year.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to insulate domestic research programmes of the research councils from uncontrollable fluctuations in the pound sterling value of international subscriptions through his Department meeting such variations outside an agreed budget level which is subject to occasional review.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  The question of the best way of handling international subscriptions has, however, featured in a number of the submissions put to me in connection with the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology. I shall be considering carefully this and other proposals for change that have been made.

  Public Service Reform
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to discuss public service reform with other countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Throughout Europe governments are faced daily by the competing requirements of spending taxpayers' money wisely and delivering the best possible public services. Here in Britain the Prime Minister launched the citizens charter initiative in July 1991 with the aim of improving the quality of our public services and I know that other countries are working to improve theirs.

  As one of the activities arranged during our presidency of the European Community, my Department is co-operating in the organisation of a conference—"Service and the Citizen"—which will take place at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in London on 3 and 4 December 1992. It is being organised, in consultation with the citizens charter unit in my Department, by Touchstone Exhibitions and Conferences Ltd. I will arrange for a copy of the conference programme to be placed in the Library of the House.

  This will be the first time, to my knowledge, that a conference on public service reform—with such a comprehensive programme—has been organised anywhere in Europe. Already there has been an enthusiastic response from individuals and organisations who wish to participate. We also have an impressive line-up of speakers. I am looking forward to welcoming the participants to London in December for what I am sure will be an exciting and worthwhile event.

  Appointments
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many appointments to public bodies are currently held by women and members of ethnic minorities; and what plans the Government have to increase this number by 1996.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to be able to report that, as a result of the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the launch of Opportunity 2000 last year, the percentage of appointments to public bodies held by women has risen from 23 per cent. in 1991 to 26 per cent. at 1 September 1992. Detailed statistics about the number of such appointments held by members of the ethnic minorities are still being collected. Full details will be published in due course in the 1992 edition of "Public Bodies".

  All departments have now drawn up their departmental plans for further progress in this area and I am arranging for a summary of these to be placed in the Library of the House. The objectives and goals set are comprehensive and demanding, and while they vary from department to department to reflect the different circumstances existing in each department, they represent a clear and unequivocal commitment to increasing still further the representation of women and members of the ethnic minorities, on merit, on public bodies over the year to 1996 and beyond.

TRANSPORT

  Bypasses
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation his Department undertakes in relation to the environmental effects of proposed bypasses.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department carries out very extensive consultation at the earliest possible state of scheme preparation. Consultations are undertaken with the Department of the Environment, the relevant local authorities, and the environmental organisations with statutory responsibilities, including English Nature, the Countryside Commission, English Heritage, and the National Rivers Authority. Other Government Departments—eg Agriculture, Defence—organisations such as British Rail and British Waterways, and the National Trust may also be consulted where appropriate.

  Following this consultation, the Department consults the public and other organisations that have an interest.

  British Rail (Freight)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the terms of reference for consultants to investigate and report on structural options for the transfer of British Rail's freight businesses to the private sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  While the full terms of reference contain commercially sensitive material, the consultants' remit is to advice the Government and the British Railways Board on structural options for the transfer to the private sector of British Rail's freight and rail express systems services. The consultants have been asked to assess the requirements for a viable and competitive post-privatisation rail freight industry with low barriers to 12
  entry, identifying the structural options for transfer to the private sector and assessing each of the options against the following criteria:

  (i) the extent to which they provide a viable future in the private sector for existing traffics and opportunities for growth;

  (ii) the opportunities provided for competition and successful entry, and the impact on competition in related markets (eg competition between ports);

  (iii) privatisation receipts and restructuring costs;

  (iv) impact on the pace of privatisation;

  (v) the incentives provided for current management and staff to bring about improvements in performance, and the opportunities provided for them to take a stake in their businesses;

  (vi) the attractiveness to potential purchasers and/or investors;

  (vii) impact on the commercial performance of the rest of the railway.

  The Government will issue a full statement of the preferred options for the privatisation of the freight businesses in due course.

  Bus Priority Schemes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus priority schemes are currently in operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available on the number of bus priority schemes adopted by local authorities, many of which have been in operation for some years. As a result of a fresh initiative to promote bus use last year, 26 new schemes were approved for funding in 1992–93.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priority he will give to financing bus priority measures within the government grants allocated to local authorities; and if he will set out the criteria used to appraise applications for bus priority measures for grant aid.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend will be taking decisions shortly on the allocation of grants and credit approvals for local transport capital expenditure in 1993–94. Individual bus priority schemes are judged on their merits having regard to the evaluation carried out by local authorities in accordance with the Department's publication "Keeping Buses Moving", the contribution of the schemes to authorities' transport strategies, and the availability of resources.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the bids received from local authorities for bus priority measures for 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received bids for 119 bus priority measures from 69 local authorities. We are evaluating these bids at present and will announce allocations shortly.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of all research into bus priority measures currently carried out or commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Assessments are currently being carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on behalf of my Department into the benefits of bus priority measures in Aberdeen, Brighton, Manchester, Sheffield and south-west London.

  Rape Seed Oil
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many gallons of rape seed oil have been imported from Italy to run public transport buses; how many buses are currently run on rape seed oil; where the buses operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  For a trial period of three months, Reading Buses will run three of its fleet of 200 vehicles on rape methyl ester (RME), which is manufactured from rape seed oil and methanol. For this purpose 5,000 gallons of RME have been made available at no cost by an Italian producer who had obtained EC funding to make fuel available for limited trials. The vehicles will operate in Reading.

  I was pleased to inaugurate the trial at the beginning of this month. The Department of Transport, in conjunction with our Transport Research Laboratory, will be monitoring the pollutant emissions performance.

  Bus Deregulation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which bus deregulation prevents cheap return fares or travel cards being used for evening or weekend services as a result of tenders awarded to different operators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No detailed assessment has been made of the effect of deregulation on return tickets and travel cards. Ticketing arrangements are a matter for operators and for local authorities. Successful multi-operator ticketing arrangements are in place in the metropolitan areas and in several counties.

  A590
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to upgrade the A590 between Lindale and Barrow-in-Furness to a dual carriageway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: A bypass of Lindale is included in the A590 Ulverston to Dalton dual carriageway proposal on which a public consultation has been completed.

  While the A590 Dalton bypass scheme now under construction is to wide single carriageway standard, the provision of a climbing lane will satisfy projected traffic needs. There are no plans to dual this section.

  Morecambe Bay Barrage
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consideration he has given to establishing a feasibility study into the construction of a barrage across Morecambe bay as a means of improving the road links between Furness and the M6; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: None. However, Department of Energy Ministers announced a preliminary study in January 1992 to examine the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of a combined energy barrage and road crossing across the River Duddon near Askham in Furness.

  Consultations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference for the national annual consultative meetings held jointly with the local authority associations; and if he will make a statement as to progress made on the issues raised at the 1992 meeting.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: There are no specific terms of reference, but the meeting is held each year following the series of regional annual consultative committee meetings. The national annual consultative meeting is seen as a valuable forum for discussion between the Government and the local authority associations (LAAs) on road and traffic matters of mutual interest. The LAAs are free to raise any relevant issues at the meeting.

  The following points remain to be dealt with following the meeting in July:

  Bridge assessment and strengthening
  The local authority associations (LAAs) requested a meeting at official level. Some matters have been resolved by correspondence. If necessary a meeting to deal with any remaining points will be arranged after the announcement of the TSG settlement in December.

  Legislation to curb pavement parking
  I wrote to the LAAs, as promised, on 12 August setting out the current position.

  Balance of funding between trunk roads and motorways, local roads and public transport

  Increase in local capital allocation not directly tied to specific schemes ("headroom")

  Capitalisation of highway maintenance
  I wrote to the LAAs on 25 September setting out the current position on these three topics. The balance of spending between trunk roads and motorways, local roads and public transport is constantly under review. Allocations of "headroom" for 1993–94 will be announced as part of the Transport Supplementary Grant settlement in December. The views of the LAAs will be taken into account. Further work on the capitalisation of highway maintenance is being undertaken in conjunction with the LAAs by a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Highway Maintenance.

  Schemes supported by developers
  The matter is still under consideration.

  EC Green paper on Transport and the Environment
  Officials had a useful discussion with the LAAs in the light of this green paper.

  Voluntary property acquisition
  The issue is still under consideration. The LAAs have proposed an official level meeting. It will be arranged after the announcement of the TSG settlement in December.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are currently employed at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Swansea; what are their areas of responsibility; and how many staff are employed in each section.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 Novernber 1992]: The total number of staff employed at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Swansea on 31 October 1992 was 3,107. This is divided according to grade and organisation as follows.

  15

  Grade

  Organisation

  Administrative and executive

  2,817

  Driver licensing

  919

  Support, secretarial and technical

  290

  Vehicle licensing Administration and

  1,471

  common services

  717

  Total

  3,107

  3,107

  The responsibilities of the agency are described in its annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the trial schemes that are currently being undertaken by the DVLA.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the addresses of all local offices of the DVLA, the number of people employed in each and their work responsibilities.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table. These offices provide a local service for the registration and licensing of new vehicles and related work—shown as "transactions" in the table—and are responsible for the enforcement of the payment of vehicle excise duty.

  Office and address

  Number of staff

  Transactions

  Enforcement

  Aberdeen

  5·0

  3·5

  3rd Floor Atholl House,

  84/88 Guild Street,

  Aberdeen AB9 1XH

  Bangor

  4·0

  7·5

  Penrhos Road,

  Penrhosgarnedd,

  Bangor LL57 2JF

  Birmingham

  15·0

  31·0

  St. Martins House,

  10 The Bullring

  Birmingham B5 5DP

  Bournemouth

  10·0

  15·5

  Tregonwell Court,

  118 Commercial Road

  Bournemouth BH2 5LN

  Brighton

  11·0

  25·5

  PO Box 357,

  Circus House,

  New England Road,

  Brighton BN1 1DH

  Bristol

  9·0

  28·0

  Northleigh House,

  Lime Kiln Close,

  Stoke Gifford

  Bristol BS12 6SR

  Cardiff

  7·0

  21·0

  14 Cathedral Road,

  Cardiff CF1 9RB

  Carlisle

  4·0

  6·0

  Ground Floor,

  3 Merchants Drive,

  Parkhouse,

  Carlisle CA3 0JW

  16

  Office and address

  Number of staff

  Transactions

  Enforcement

  Chelmsford

  15·0

  27·5

  2nd Floor,

  Parkway House,

  49 Baddow Road,

  Chelmsford CM2 0XJ

  Chester

  9·0

  8·0

  Norroy House,

  Nuns Road,

  Chester CH1 2ND

  Coventry

  8·0

  14·5

  Greyfriars House,

  Greyfriars Lane,

  Coventry CV1 2HB

  Dudley

  11·0

  11·0

  Churchill Precinct,

  Dudley DY2 7BN

  Dundee

  5·0

  3·0

  4th Floor,

  Overgate House,

  121 Marketgait,

  Dundee DD1 1JL

  Edinburgh

  0·0

  13·0

  Saughton House,

  Broomhouse Drive,

  Edinburgh EH11 3XE

  Exeter

  9·5

  18·0

  16 Dix's Field,

  Exeter EX1 1TP

  Glasgow

  18·5

  24·0

  107 Bothwell Street,

  Glasgow G2 7EE

  Gloucester

  8·5

  11·5

  Elmbridge Court,

  Cheltenham Road,

  Gloucester GL3 1JY

  Guildford

  12·5

  14·5

  32 High Street,

  Guildford GU1 3ED

  Haverfordwest

  4·0

  2·0

  Winch Lane,

  Haverfordwest SA61 1RD

  Huddersfield

  8·0

  7·5

  Kirklees House,

  Market Street,

  Huddersfield HD1 2HR

  Hull

  7·0

  6·5

  Kingston House,

  Myton Street,

  Hull HU1 2PE

  Inverness

  4·5

  2·5

  Caledonia House,

  63 Academy Street,

  Inverness IV1 1RP

  Ipswich

  9·0

  9·5

  Podium Level,

  St. Clare House,

  Greyfriars,

  Ipswich IP1 1UT

  Leeds

  16·0

  22·5

  24a Union Street,

  Leeds LS2 7JR

  17

  Office and address

  Number of staff

  Transactions

  Enforcement

  Leicester

  8·5

  13·5

  2nd Floor,

  Rutland Centre,

  56 Halford Street,

  Leicester LE1 1TT

  Lincoln

  9·5

  12·0

  Mill House,

  Brayford Side North,

  Lincoln LN1 1YW

  Liverpool

  12·0

  22·5

  Corn Exchange Building,

  Fenwick Street,

  Liverpool L2 7TT

  London

  20·0

  0·0

  1 Zoar Street,

  London SE1 0SY

  Ground Floor,

  14·5

  0·0

  Quest House,

  11 Cross Road,

  Croydon CR9 6EW

  23 Balfour Road,

  9·5

  0·0

  Ilford IG1 4HH

  Government Building,

  17·5

  0·0

  Canon Park,

  Honeypot Lane,

  Stanmore HA7 1BD

  18 Great Marlborough Street,

  0·0

  112·0

  London W1V 2BD

  12/18 Station Road,

  9·0

  132·5

  Sidcup,

  London DA15 7DA

  Luton

  18·5

  34·5

  2 Dunstable Road,

  Luton LU1 1EB

  Maidstone

  14·0

  26·0

  Coronet House,

  11 Queen Anne Road,

  Maidstone ME14 1XB

  Manchester

  21·0

  25·0

  Trafford House,

  Chester Road,

  Manchester M32 0SL

  Middlesbrough

  8·0

  9·5

  9th Floor,

  Corporation House,

  73/75 Albert Road,

  Middlesbrough TS1 2BP

  Newcastle

  9·0

  21·0

  Eagle Star House,

  Regent Farm Road,

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE3 3QF

  Northampton

  9·0

  13·0

  Wootton Hall Park,

  Northampton NN4 9BG

  Norwich

  9·5

  11·0

  Rouen House,

  Rouen Road,

  Norwich NR1 1UP

  18

  Office and address

  Number of staff

  Transactions

  Enforcement

  Nottingham

  13·0

  16·5

  Lambert House,

  Talbot Street,

  Nottingham NG1 5NJ

  Oxford

  8·5

  10·0

  Ground Floor,

  3 Cambridge Terrace,

  Oxford OX1 1RW

  Peterborough

  10·0

  10·0

  88 Lincoln Road,

  Peterborough PE1 2ST

  Portsmouth

  10·0

  17·5

  1/4 Queen Street,

  Portsmouth PO1 3JD

  Preston

  14·0

  16·5

  Buckingham House,

  Glovers Court,

  Preston PR1 4DQ

  Reading

  13·0

  16·0

  Minister House,

  52/53 Minster Street,

  Reading RG1 2JS

  Sheffield

  12·0

  15·0

  St. Peter's House,

  Hartshead,

  Sheffield S1 1JX

  Shrewsbury

  5·0

  3·5

  1st Floor,

  Princess House,

  The Square,

  Shrewsbury SY1 2NB

  Stoke

  9·5

  6·5

  London House,

  4th Floor,

  Hide Street,

  Stoke ST4 1EL

  Swansea

  5·0

  7·5

  DVLC,

  Longview Road,

  Swansea SA99 1DE

  Swindon

  7·0

  8·5

  2 The Meads,

  Business Centre,

  Ashworth Road,

  Bridgemead,

  Swindon SN5 7YR

  Taunton

  6·0

  8·5

  Brendon House,

  High Street,

  Taunton TA1 3DT

  Truro

  5·0

  8·5

  Pydar House,

  Pydar Street,

  Truro TR1 2TG

  Worcester

  7·0

  9·0

  Haswell House,

  St. Nicholas Street,

  Worcester WR1 1NX

  19
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the contribution of the DVLA to road safety, law enforcement and tax collection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: DVLA makes a strong contribution to road safety. It helps keep off the roads vehicles and people who should not be on them and restricts the circumstances in which some people can drive. The validity of insurance and MOT certificates is checked before vehicle licences are issued. The agency gives invaluable assistance to vehicle manufacturers who wish to recall vehicles because of safety defects.

  The DVLA driver and vehicle databases are accessed extensively by the police and other law enforcement agencies in the investigation of all categories of crime in which a motor vehicle may be involved. Details of disqualified drivers are passed to the police and endorsements and disqualifications handed down by courts are entered on the driver record.

  DVLA collected some £3 billion in vehicle excise duties in 1991–92.

  Roads (Investment)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research he has commissioned into(a) the economic and (b) the employment impact of new road building;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of (a) road construction and (b) road maintenance for job creation;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications of road building for regional policy;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the implications of the road programme on employment relocation, job destruction and job creation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The programme of road construction is aimed at meeting the needs of industry and other road users through the provision of a modern strategic road network. This reflects the Government's commitment to a road infrastructure which strengthens the competitive performance of the economy. This was reiterated by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House yesterday.

  The economic appraisal of road schemes measures the benefit they generate for the economy. There is a continuing process of research carried out by the Department which supports this analysis.

  Decisions on the programme take account of local development objectives such as, for example, inner-city regeneration and the development of docklands.

  The employment implications of our expenditure on new construction and road maintenance is complex because so many industries are involved in the process. However, estimates confirmed by the CBI and other industry groups identify around 3,100 jobs created by every £100 million spent on new construction. We estimate that road maintenance is at least as labour intensive.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the financial criteria which apply to investment in transport policy and road construction; and if he will make a statement.
  20
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The Department of Transport's booklet, "The Role of Investment Appraisal in Road and Rail Transport", describes the technical procedures, and their background, at present used by the Department for appraising proposed investments in roads and rail transport. I would also refer the hon. Member to the autumn statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the existing rules for calculating the rate of return on road investment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: Trunk road schemes are appraised using standard computer programs, namely COBA 9, URECA, and QUADRO 2. They have accompanying manuals which explain the techniques used. The Department's booklet, "Getting the Best Roads for our Money: The COBA Method of Appraisal", summarises COBA, which is the most commonly used program.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the animal food manufacturers to which BSE has been traced.

  Mr. Soames
  BSE was caused by the use of ruminant-derived protein in cattle rations. This material was in common use prior to 18 July 1988 and no particular manufacturers were implicated.

  Sheep Dip
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will investigate the effect of organophosphorus on human beings.

  Mr. Soames
  As part of the current review of pharmaceutical veterinary medicinal products to ensure that up-to-date standards on safety are met, and following recommendations from the independent Veterinary Products Committee to the licensing authority, the companies that manufacture organophosphorus (op) sheep dips have been asked to carry out some further work on the effects of these products. This will include blood tests on farm operators, providing details of protective clothing worn, and studies to show which areas of the bodies of operators are most exposed. In addition, the veterinary medicines directorate is continuing to fund work by the national poisons unit as a follow-up to its recent report on cases of sheep dip exposure.

  Furthermore, the Health and Safety Executive is currently funding research into the possible chronic neuropsychological and neurological effects of occupational exposure to ops and is also carrying out a detailed occupational hygiene assessment of sheep dip working practices and processes.

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom's agricultural budget is spent on administration; and what information he has on the corresponding figure in other EC member states.

  Mr. Curry
  The administration costs relating specifically to agriculture over the United Kingdom as a whole are not readily available. The costs of this Department and the Intervention Board include elements for food and fishing; the administration costs for agriculture in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are contained within the votes of the Welsh Office, Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office respectively.

  Information on general administration costs for the Department and the Intervention Board are however set out in the Departmental Report (Cm 1903) and particularly in the cash plans tables included in that document.

  I have no information on administrative expenditure in other EC member states.

  Food and Environment Protection Act
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many orders under section 1(8) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 have been introduced in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has laid the following orders before Parliament under Section 1(8) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985:

  1985: None

  1986: 5 (all relating to the Chernobyl accident)

  1987: 1

  1988: None

  1989: 11 (10 relating to the lead in animal feed incident)

  1990: 5

  1991: 3

  1992: 3

  Subsidies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farmers' income stems from price support, subsidy and other forms of state intervention; what was the relative percentage in 1979; and if comparable figures are available for the EC as a whole.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates of the cost of support depend critically on the assumptions used. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has, however, estimated the transfers from consumers and taxpayers resulting from agricultural policies in the European community—separate figures for the United Kingdom are not available. These indicate that, for the period 1979–81, the transfer represented 88 per cent. of gross value added by agriculture. The estimate for 1990, the latest period available, is 94 per cent. The estimate for the earlier period is not directly comparable because it excludes Spain, Portugal and the former German Democratic Republic.

  As the OECD makes clear, these estimates do not take into account the impact on world prices, and on other variables, if farm support were to be removed. They are likely, therefore, to overstate the true extent of support to the agricultural sector.

  Production Regions
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will identify the specifically agricultural factors which support the division of the United Kingdom into the announced separate production regions, pursuant to his exercise of his powers and duties under article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers announced proposals for the division of the United Kingdom into regions in accordance with this regulation on 29 September 1992. The decision followed a careful examination of the available data on yields throughout the United Kingdom, the basis of which is set out in the regionalisation plan submitted to the European Commission on 16 September 1992. Copies of the plan have been placed in the Library of the House. During the coming year we shall be carrying out further work on yield patterns to see whether alternative regionalisation arrangements might be warranted for future years.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has had from the EC about the estimated levels of CAP expenditure in the current year and the next three years.

  Mr. Curry
  The budget for the common agricultural policy for 1992 is 37,289 mecu (£26,390 million1). The draft CAP budget for 1993 is 38,985 mecu (£31,798 million2). These figures include the budget for European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund guarantee and guidance measures and 1,000 mecu (£708 million1, £816 million2) for the monetary reserve. There will be no call on the monetary reserve in 1992.

  It is not normal practice to forecast anticipated expenditure for subsequent years, which depend on decisions yet to be taken.

  1 Converted at £1=1·1413 ecu.

  2 Converted at £1=1·226 ecu.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of land in the United Kingdom are covered by the set-aside arrangements; how much subsidy per acre is paid; and whether the responsibility for payment rests with the European Community, or national governments.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the voluntary five-year set-aside scheme some 155,000 hectares—383,000 acres—have been set aside in the United Kingdom. This scheme is now closed to new entrants.

  Payment rates under the five-year scheme are determined by member states within limits laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 2328/91. Payments in the United Kingdom range between £100 and £222 per hectare —£40 to £90 per acre—depending on the management regime followed by the participant and on whether the land has less favoured area status. Scheme payments are made by national governments but are 60 per cent. reimbursed from the EC budget.

  In future, growers who wish to claim the new arable area payments under the main scheme will have to set aside

  23
  15 per cent. of the area on which they claim. The set-aside period does not start until 15 December and it is not possible at this stage to say precisely how much land will be set aside in 1992–93.

  The set-aside payment is fixed by Council Regulation (EEC) 1765/92 at 45 ecu/tonne converted to an area payment on the basis of average historic regional yields. For the United Kingdom the regional rates in ecu per hectare (acre) are:

  Hectare £

  Acre £

  England

  266·85

  106·74

  Scotland (LFAs)

  216·45

  85·58

  Scotland (non-LFAs)

  254·25

  101·70

  Wales

  209·25

  83·70

  Northern Ireland

  211·95

  84·78

  These payments will be converted to pounds sterling at the rate applicable on 1 July 1993. The current green exchange rate is 1 ecu = £0·818896. These payments are fully reimbursed from the EC budget.

  Under both schemes responsibility for payment rests with national governments, but the Commission has responsibility for checking that member states have satisfactory arrangements for payments and controls.

  Rape Seed Oil
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of land in Great Britain are currently used for growing rape seed oil; and what plans he has for the use of rape seed oil to run public transport systems.

  Mr. Curry
  The area planted to rape seed in Great Britain for harvest in 1992 is estimated at about 1·04 million acres—421,000 hectares. The Government have no plans to use rape seed oil to run public transport systems.

  Sheep and Goats (Blood Testing)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 342, if he will publish the detailed findings of the random slaughterhouse survey of blood samples from sheep and goats carried out under directive 91/68/EC and the results of screening samples for maedi visna; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The slaughterhouse survey for Brucella melitensis, Brucella ovis and Contagious agalactia tested the following numbers of sheep and goats:

  Sheep

  Goats

  Brucella melitensis

  27,965

  2,193

  Brucella ovis

  875

  0

  Contagious agalactia

  20,948

  2,400

  For the results of the survey I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 5 November.

  From the initial testing of 2,531 samples, 14 were sero-positive for maedi visna. Those batches containing positive samples were tested again. An additional 24 reactors were identified from 703 re-tested samples.

  Habitats
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in order to implement those aspects of the new EC habitats directive which require the avoidance of deterioration of habitats in the wider countryside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are a number of initiatives which will help meet our obligations under the EC habitats directive regarding the wider countryside. These include the establishment of environmentally sensitive areas, the hedgerow incentive scheme, the Hedgerow Protection Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) which the Government are supporting, the countryside stewardship scheme and English Nature's wildlife enhancement and reserves enhancement schemes, and the development of guidance on the preparation of indicative foresty strategies. The Government have in place a number of measures to reduce agricultural pollution, such as new farm waste storage regulations and codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of water and air. The EC agri-environment regulation, agreed in May as part of the reforms to the CAP, provides scope for a range of new schemes.

  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to consult on the proposals to implement the directive in the next few months.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the employment service's health and safety policy.

  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. Fogden to Mr. John McAllion, dated 16 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 on placing a copy of the Employment Service's Health and Safety policy in the Library.

  As requested, I have arranged for a copy of the Employment Service's Health and Safety to be placed in the Library.

  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.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list those agencies in her Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The only agency in the Department, the Employment Service, is not a candidate for privatisation or contractorisation. However, these
  25
  options are considered as a part of the regular three-year review of the agency. The next such review will be completed by September 1993.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to review the youth training and employment training schemes in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The training and enterprise councils working group has been set up at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at the whole range of education and training options available to 16 to 19-year-olds, and see how better co-ordination and coherence might be achieved.

  In the meantime we are progressively extending training credits with the aim of ensuring that, by 1996, every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer of a training credit.

  A review of adult training provision was only recently completed. My right hon. Friend announced on 12 November a new programme, training for work, to replace both employment training and employment action. Training for work gives greater flexibilities to training and enterprise councils to design programmes which will most effectively meet the needs of unemployed people.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people leaving youth training in 1991–92 will have gained a national vocational qualification level 2 or higher.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Wages Councils
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 October to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley),Official Report, column 825, if she will list the studies about the link between pay and jobs in wages council industries mentioned in her answer.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 4 November 1992,Official Report, columns 298–99.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many compensatory awards over £30,000 were made by industrial tribunals in 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The statutory limit on compensatory awards is £10,000.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies liquidated in 1991 owed compensatory awards following hearings at industrial tribunals.

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

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider bringing the compensatory 26
  element awarded by industrial tribunals within the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have no plans to do so.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about progress in implementing the national vocational qualification in road haulage; when she expects it to be available; and what steps she is taking to achieve wider recognition of this particular qualification.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am pleased to record that a number of national vocational qualifications applicable to road haulage have been submitted to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for accreditation. Therefore they are likely to become available early in 1993. The Road Haulage Industry Training Standards Council, the lead body, is in the final stage of producing a comprehensive plan to promote the use, uptake and recognition of these qualifications in all sectors of its industry.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement listing those training and enterprise councils which have supplied her with local job creation plans in areas affected by the seven proposed pit closures under the statutory redundancy procedure; and what proportion of the £75 million she has allocated has been requested to fulfil those plans.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Initial proposals for additional labour market measures to alleviate the effects of the closures of the eight pits in England on the list of 10 uneconomic pits, subject to the statutory 90-day consultation period, have been submitted by the following training and enterprise councils:

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  QUALITEC and METROTEC (Wigan) (a joint plan)

  County Durham TEC

  Staffordshire TEC

  Final action plans, including the proportion of the £75 million available, have yet to be agreed.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances he requires building societies to account for negative equity.

  Mr. Nelson
  Building society accounts are the responsibility of the board of directors and are subject to the usual independent audit. They must conform to the Building Societies Accounts Regulations and accounting standards generally. The Building Societies Commission has recently issued guidance to assist societies in arriving at provisions against a residential mortgage book.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indemnities have been made available by the Bank of England to companies, individuals or auditors in connection with the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is standard practice, when the Bank of England commissions a section 41 report, for the letter appointing the reporting accountants to include an indemnity against any cost, liabilities and expenses arising out of their appointment, investigation or report. Such an indemnity was included in the letter sent to Price Waterhouse commissioning the section 41 into BCCI.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the executive agencies for which the Treasury has approved a group bonus scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following executive agencies have had Treasury approval to operate group bonus schemes.

  Central Office of Information

  Companies House

  Directorate—General of Defence Accounts

  Driving Standards Agency

  Forensic Science Service

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Intervention Board

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Meteorological Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Royal Mint

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the executive agencies which have been authorised to introduce an agency-specific pay system for some or all of their staff.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following executive agencies have had such approvals:

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service

  Her Majesty's Stationery Service

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Royal Mint

  In addition, the Inland Revenue, as a Chancellor's department run on executive agency lines, has been given approval to introduce its own pay system.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the calculation of the public expenditure planning figure for 1993–94 of the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The Government's policies are designed to achieve permanently low inflation, sustainable economic growth and sound public finances, and are consistent with the Maastricht criteria.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the differences in definitions of public sector borrowing requirement between EC member states, with particular reference to(a) local authority spending of capital receipts and (b) local authority borrowing.
  28
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: There are no internationally agreed guidelines for the definition of the public sector borrowing requirement. Different measures of the Government's financial balance are the focus of policy in different EC member states. Comparisons between member states are normally made using the general government financial deficit (GGFD). This is a national accounts concept, the definition of which is covered by international guidelines on how these accounts should be drawn up. The GGFD includes local authorities' income and expenditure, and scores their gross domestic filled capital formation net of receipts from sales of land and buildings.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to distinguish between the treatment of revenue expenditure and capital expenditure within the public sector borrowing requirement;

  (2) what plans he has to distinguish between the treatment of revenue expenditure and capital expenditure within the public expenditure planning total.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: From the first unified Budget in December 1993, the Government accounts will be drawn up in a way which makes a distinction between current and capital transactions.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table comparing Treasury economic forecasts made in(a) the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and (b) the "Autumn Statement" for each of the last four years with the actual economic outturn in terms of growth in (i) gross domestic product, (ii) balance of payments and (iii) unemployment.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and the "Autumn Statement" do not contain forecasts of unemployment. The published balance of payments forecasts are in current prices rather than growth rates. The table compares calendar year forecasts of growth in gross domestic product, and of the balance of payments current account, with outturns.

  Forecasts of GDP and the balance of payments current account

  Year for which forecast was made

  GDP, percentage changes on a year earlier

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  FSBR 1988

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  4·50

  3·00

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  2·50

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  2·00

  1·25

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  1·00

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  1·00

  0·50

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  -2·00

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  -2·00

  Outturn

  4·50

  2·00

  0·75

  -2·50

  29

  Forecasts of GDP and the balance of payments current account

  Year for which forecast was made

  Current account balance £ billion

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  FSBR 1988

  -4·00

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  -13·00

  -11·00

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  -14·50

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  -20·00

  -15·00

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  -15·00

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  -15·50

  -11·00

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  -6·00

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  -6·50

  Outturn

  -16·25

  -21·75

  -17·00

  -6·25

  Autumn statement and FSBR forecasts

  PSBR

  £ billion

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  FSBR 1987

  3·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1987

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1988

  —

  -3·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  —

  -9·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  —

  -13·8

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  —

  -12·6

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  —

  -6·9

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  —

  -3·0

  —

  —

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·9

  —

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·5

  —

  FSBR 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28·1

  Outturn

  -3·4

  -14·7

  -7·9

  -0·5

  13·7

  n/a

  General government expenditure

  £ billion

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  FSBR 1987

  173·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1987

  172·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1988

  —

  182·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  —

  180·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  —

  194·3

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  —

  196·3

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  —

  212·7

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  —

  215·7

  —

  —

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  234·8

  —

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  236·1

  —

  FSBR 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  258·5

  Outturn

  173·2

  179·7

  200·8

  217·4

  235·9

  n/a

  RPI fourth quarter, percentage changes on a year earlier

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  FSBR 1987

  4·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1987

  4·00

  4·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1988

  —

  4·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  —

  6·25

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  —

  5·50

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  —

  7·50

  5·75

  —

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  —

  7·25

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  —

  10·25

  5·50

  —

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·00

  —

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·00

  4·00

  Treasury Forecasts
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the forecasts made by the Treasury for(a) the public service borrowing requirement, (b) public expenditure, (c) inflation, (d) unemployment, (e) growth of gross domestic product and (f) the balance of payments, in both the autumn statements and the Budget statements for the financial years 1987–88 to 1992–93, together with the actual performance in each year and the latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The Government do not publish unemployment forecasts. Forecasts of the other variables are shown in the table. A new forecast was published to accompany the Chancellor's autumn statement on Thursday 12 November.
  31

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  FSBR 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·75

  Outturn

  4·00

  6·50

  7·50

  10·00

  4·25

  n/a

  Real GDP, percentage changes on a year earlier

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  FSBR 1987

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1987

  4·00

  2·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1988

  —

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  —

  4·50

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  —

  2·50

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  —

  2·00

  1·25

  —

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  0·50

  —

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -2·00

  —

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -2·00

  2·25

  FSBR 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  Outturn

  4·50

  4·50

  2·00

  0·75

  -2·50

  n/a

  Current Account Balance

  £ billion

  Year for which forecasts made

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  FSBR 1987

  -2·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1987

  -2·50

  -3·50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1988

  —

  -4·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1988

  —

  -13·00

  -11·00

  —

  —

  —

  FSBR 1989

  —

  —

  -14·50

  —

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1989

  —

  —

  -20·00

  -15·00

  —

  —

  FSBR 1990

  —

  —

  —

  -15·00

  —

  —

  Autumn Statement 1990

  —

  —

  —

  -15·50

  -11·00

  —

  FSBR 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6·00

  —

  Autumn Statement 1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6·50

  -9·50

  FSBR 1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6·50

  Outturn

  -4·50

  -16·25

  -21·75

  -17·00

  -6·25

  n/a

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the levels of capital expenditure in real terms in the public expenditure levels for each financial year for 1979–80, including the latest estimate for 1992–93 and the forecasts for 1993–94; and what percentage of total public expenditure they represent.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Figures for public sector asset creation between 1978–79 and 1991–92 were published in cash and real terms in table 8.3 of the Statistical Supplement to the 1991 "Autumn Statement" (Cm 1920). Figures for central Government and nationalised industries' asset creation between 1986–87 and 1994–95 were published in tables 4.6 and 6.3 of the Statistical Supplement to the 1991 "Autumn Statement".

  Figures showing total public expenditure were published in table 2.1 of the Statistical Supplement to the 1991 "Autumn Statement".

  Similar analyses will be published in the Statistical Supplement to the 1992 "Autumn Statement".

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the public sector expenditure total has been spent on benefits related to unemployment for each financial year from 1979–80; and what is the latest estimate for 1992–93 and the expenditure forecast for 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Figures on social security benefits by broad group of beneficiaries, including rate rebates and community charge benefit, for years 1986–87 to 1994–95 were published in table 5 of the 1992 Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 1914). Figures on general government expenditure for years 1979–80 to 1994–95 were published in table 2.1 of the Statistical Supplement to the 1991 "Autumn Statement" (Cm 1920).

  Figures for social security benefits to the unemployed prior to 1986–87 are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  1,470

  1980–81

  2,530

  1981–82

  4,020

  1982–83

  5,010

  1983–84

  5,700

  33

  £ million

  1984–85

  5,320

  1985–86

  6,960

  Later figures for general government expenditure will be published in this year's "Autumn Statement". Later figures for social security benefits will be published in the 1993 Social Security Departmental Report.

  Manufacturing and Construction
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of gross domestic product has been produced by(a) manufacturing industry, and (b) the construction industry in each financial year since 1979–80; and what are the latest estimates for 1992–93 and the forecast for 1993–94;

  (2) what is the change in output in real terms by (a) the manufacturing industry and (b) the construction industry for each financial year since 1979–80, including the latest estimate for 1992–93 and the estimates for 1993–94.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Information on the share of current price GDP by industry is available only for calendar years. Figures up to and including 1991 are given in table 16.4 of the Central Statistical Office publication "United Kingdom National Accounts", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. Information on output in volume terms, by industry, is available quarterly. Estimates, up to and including the second quarter of 1992, from which the information requested can be derived are available on the CSO database which may be accessed through the Library. The relevant database identifiers are manufacturing— DVIS, Construction—DVJO. A new forecast for manufacturing output for calendar years 1992 and 1993 is included in the "Autumn Statement".

  EC Financial Years
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those EC countries whose financial year does not match the calendar year.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are the only EC countries in which the financial year does not run concurrently with the calendar year.

  Banned Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relaxations will be in force from 1 January 1993 on the imports of species of(a) animals, (b) plants and (c) pathogens that are currently banned from being imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  There will be no relaxation from 1 January 1993 of the prohibitions currently in force on the importation of particular animals, pathogens and plants into the United Kingdom.

  Imports of live animals will remain subject to harmonised Community animal health rules or, in their absence, national legislation, and existing import prohibitions will remain in force.

  Imports of animal pathogens will remain subject to existing national legislation. Discussions on EC and third
  34
  country trade in animal pathogens are under way and harmonised arrangements are unlikely to be introduced before 1 January 1994.

  In relation to plants and plant pathogens, I announced on 2 November that existing plant health arrangements will continue after 1 January 1993 for a period of up to six months. In consequence no significant changes will take place on import arrangements at the beginning of 1993.

EDUCATION

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he proposes to take to maintain the quality and level of peripatetic music teaching.

  Mr. Forth
  Provision of peripatetic music teaching is a matter for local education authorities to determine in the light of local spending priorities.

  Pupils Statistics
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils in each local authority are currently in schools that have grant-maintained status; and how many pupils in each local education authority are in maintained and voluntary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of full-time pupils in schools currently operating as grant-maintained and the total number of full-time pupils in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools, including grant-maintained and voluntary schools, in each local education authority in England are given in the table. Pupil numbers shown relate to January 1991, the latest date for which reliable information is available.

  Number of full-time pupils in grant-maintained schools and all maintained primary, middle and secondary schools.

  Local education authority

  Pupils in Grant Maintained schools

  Pupils in all Maintained schools1

  City

  0

  202

  Camden

  0

  19,373

  Greenwich

  0

  31,792

  Hackney

  0

  22,324

  Hammersmith

  1,178

  14,204

  Islington

  0

  20,644

  Kensington and Chelsea

  629

  9,461

  Lambeth

  594

  23,238

  Lewisham

  0

  29,153

  South wark

  391

  27,802

  Tower Hamlets

  871

  28,885

  Wandsworth

  3,695

  24,640

  Westminster

  0

  15,578

  Barking

  0

  22,152

  Barnet

  1,894

  39,050

  Bexley

  426

  31,055

  Brent

  1,687

  30,723

  Bromley

  9,103

  34,714

  Croydon

  921

  39,776

  Ealing

  4,701

  35,737

  Enfield

  0

  36,723

  Haringey

  0

  24,634

  Harrow

  0

  25,662

  Havering

  0

  33,805

  Hillingdon

  7,164

  29,510

  Hounslow

  0

  29,478

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  15,836

  Merton

  0

  18,829

  Newham

  393

  33,380

  35

  Local education authority

  Pupils in Grant Maintained schools

  Pupils in all Maintained schools1

  Redbridge

  0

  30,392

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  15,701

  Sutton

  3,941

  21,351

  Waltham Forest

  1,003

  28,657

  Birmingham

  4,619

  163,169

  Coventry

  0

  44,964

  Dudley

  0

  42,600

  Sandwell

  626

  45,135

  Solihull

  0

  31,008

  Walsall

  2,327

  42,433

  Wolverhampton

  1,696

  36,402

  Knowsley

  0

  24,681

  Liverpool

  1,014

  73,159

  St. Helens

  0

  28,310

  Sefton

  0

  43,125

  Wirral

  0

  49,697

  Bolton

  1,035

  41,661

  Bury

  0

  25,325

  Manchester

  0

  66,569

  Oldham

  0

  37,749

  Rochdale

  236

  32,539

  Salford

  0

  34,382

  Stockport

  0

  41,079

  Tameside

  758

  33,847

  Trafford

  0

  28,328

  Wigan

  0

  48,198

  Barnsley

  0

  30,535

  Doncaster

  0

  45,907

  Rotherham

  0

  39,648

  Sheffield

  71

  63.950

  Bradford

  940

  77,635

  Calderdale

  1,398

  30,318

  Kirklees

  1,048

  57,584

  Leeds

  0

  98,014

  Wakefield

  0

  45,156

  Gateshead

  0

  28,007

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  36,991

  North Tyneside

  0

  28,489

  South Tyneside

  0

  22,667

  Sunderland

  0

  45,708

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  282

  Avon

  1,388

  126,553

  Bedfordshire

  1,554

  79,532

  Berkshire

  7,194

  100,544

  Buckinghamshire

  4,122

  90,400

  Cambridgeshire

  2,500

  95,929

  Cheshire

  464

  146,402

  Cleveland

  0

  94,007

  Cornwall

  0

  64,766

  Cumbria

  4,941

  70,496

  Derbyshire

  2,406

  130,165

  Devon

  462

  128,968

  Dorset

  5,723

  77,508

  Durham

  0

  87,727

  East Sussex

  0

  78,435

  Essex

  18,710

  214,735

  Gloucestershire

  11,220

  73,179

  Hampshire

  4,659

  206,088

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  92,920

  Hertfordshire

  4,935

  138,442

  Humberside

  82

  132,027

  Isle of Wight

  0

  16,902

  Kent

  23,975

  213,268

  Lancashire

  3,968

  204,774

  Leicestershire

  347

  133,400

  Lincolnshire

  13,209

  81,861

  Norfolk

  7,056

  98,221

  North Yorkshire

  0

  95,599

  Northamptonshire

  4,064

  90,225

  Northumberland

  0

  46,541

  Nottinghamshire

  363

  138,515

  Oxfordshire

  0

  69,911

  Shropshire

  457

  59,083

  Somerset

  579

  61,257

  Staffordshire

  0

  154,149

  36

  Local education authority

  Pupils in Grant Maintained schools

  Pupils in all Maintained schools1

  Suffolk

  0

  85,666

  Surrey

  7,877

  114,402

  Warwickshire

  3,726

  67,951

  West Sussex

  0

  89,051

  Wiltshire

  1,369

  76,085

  England

  191,709

  6,635,396

  1 Including grant-maintained and voluntary schools.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in each local authority are currently making applications for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Number

  Bedfordshire

  7

  Berkshire

  2

  Bexley

  1

  Bradford

  4

  Brent

  2

  Bromley

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  Calderdale

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  Cheshire

  2

  Croydon

  1

  Cumbria

  4

  Derbyshire

  6

  Devon

  4

  Doncaster

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Dudley

  2

  Essex

  18

  Gloucestershire

  4

  Hackney

  1

  Hampshire

  9

  Havering

  3

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  2

  Hertfordshire

  8

  Hillingdon

  4

  Hounslow

  2

  Kent

  13

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1

  Lambeth

  2

  Lancashire

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  Lincolnshire

  3

  Norfolk

  4

  Northamptonshire

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Rochdale

  1

  Shropshire

  2

  Southwark

  1

  Staffordshire

  3

  Surrey

  4

  Sutton

  2

  Tameside

  1

  Trafford

  3

  Walsall

  1

  Wandsworth

  3

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents in each local authority have voted for, and how many have voted against, grant-maintained status for their children's school.
  37
  Mr. Forth
  Statistics are collected as total numbers of eligible votes cast and numbers of votes in favour of grant-maintained status for each local authority. It is not possible to derive a figure for votes against grant-maintained status by subtracting votes in favour from votes cast because this would not take account of spoiled papers. The figures are as follows:

  Total eligible votes cast

  Votes in favour

  Avon

  1,960

  979

  Barnet

  3,214

  2,206

  Barnsley

  1,479

  402

  Bedfordshire

  10,522

  6,435

  Berkshire

  7,767

  5,596

  Bexley

  2,573

  1,625

  Birmingham

  11,787

  8,335

  Bolton

  1,271

  1,116

  Bradford

  4,834

  3,118

  Brent

  4,681

  3,363

  Bromley

  12,590

  9,130

  Buckinghamshire

  8,415

  5,441

  Calderdale

  2,639

  2,100

  Cambridgeshire

  12,657

  7,981

  Cheshire

  5,921

  2,732

  Cleveland

  1,397

  310

  Cornwall

  41

  30

  Croydon

  3,109

  2,069

  Cumbria

  7,416

  5,757

  Derbyshire

  15,082

  8,568

  Devon

  6,871

  4,099

  Doncaster

  830

  306

  Dorset

  8,272

  6,032

  Dudley

  4,104

  2,874

  Durham

  1,407

  341

  Ealing

  6,772

  3,689

  Essex

  41,450

  31,245

  Gateshead

  1,613

  718

  Gloucestershire

  18,158

  11,688

  Hackney

  772

  254

  Hammersmith

  1,357

  1,279

  Hampshire

  13,264

  9,081

  Harrow

  1,082

  438

  Havering

  4,153

  2,035

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,994

  1,478

  Hertfordshire

  15,681

  10,638

  Hillingdon

  10,838

  9,522

  Hounslow

  2,196

  1,929

  Humberside

  2,031

  614

  Kensington

  906

  858

  Kent

  39,806

  31,863

  Kingston

  1,620

  1,226

  Kirklees

  3,271

  1,760

  Knowsley

  1,481

  39

  Lambeth

  2,260

  2,020

  Lancashire

  9,160

  4,270

  Leicestershire

  2,112

  1,350

  Lewisham

  594

  361

  Lincolnshire

  16,672

  13,277

  Liverpool

  1,416

  771

  Manchester

  1,061

  358

  Merton

  841

  382

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,056

  397

  Newham

  681

  349

  Norfolk

  12,482

  7,817

  North Yorkshire

  969

  370

  Northamptonshire

  13,730

  9,247

  Nottinghamshire

  3,898

  1,584

  Oldham

  1,158

  172

  Oxfordshire

  1,220

  468

  Redbridge

  765

  171

  Rochdale

  2,588

  1,034

  Salford

  1,575

  711

  Sandwell

  2,235

  1,182

  Sheffield

  1,577

  809

  Shropshire

  1,621

  1,435

  Solihull

  2,006

  1,166

  Somerset

  772

  634

  38

  Total eligible votes cast

  Votes in favour

  Southwark

  750

  685

  Staffordshire

  3,244

  2,031

  Stockport

  1,204

  316

  Surrey

  9,890

  8,111

  Sutton

  7,160

  5,756

  Tameside

  2,618

  1,815

  Tower Hamlets

  1,519

  740

  Trafford

  2,870

  1,761

  Wakefield

  44

  38

  Walsall

  7,180

  3,675

  Waltham Forest

  1,117

  579

  Wandsworth

  6,985

  5,602

  Warwickshire

  4,847

  2,984

  West Sussex

  2,894

  519

  Wigan

  324

  274

  Wiltshire

  3,501

  1,763

  Wolverhampton

  2,322

  1,750

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in each local authority now have grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Number of schools

  Kent

  36

  Essex

  35

  Lincolnshire

  23

  Gloucestershire

  16

  Norfolk

  16

  Surrey

  15

  Bromley

  12

  Berkshire

  11

  Northamptonshire

  11

  Hillingdon

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  Hertfordshire

  10

  Hampshire

  10

  Birmingham

  9

  Warwickshire

  8

  Buckinghamshire

  8

  Cumbria

  7

  Dorset

  7

  Ealing

  7

  Lancashire

  6

  Sutton

  6

  Derbyshire

  5

  Wandsworth

  5

  Wiltshire

  4

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Calderdale

  3

  Barnet

  3

  Avon

  2

  Bexley

  2

  Bolton

  2

  Brent

  2

  Cheshire

  2

  Kirklees

  2

  Lambeth

  2

  Somerset

  2

  Walsall

  2

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Croydon

  2

  Bradford

  1

  Devon

  1

  Dudley

  1

  Hammersmith

  1

  Humberside

  1

  Kensington

  1

  Kingston

  1

  Leicester

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  39

  Number of schools

  Newham

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  Solihull

  1

  Southwark

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  Tameside

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amount of the special purposes grant for 1993–94 for grant-maintained schools will be used to cover those activities that would be covered by the grants for education support and training programme in local authority maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions have not yet been taken about the precise details of special purpose grant (development) allocations in 1993–94.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 November,Official Report, column 63, if he will give the arithmetical basis for his estimate that £300 million of public expenditure can be saved by the elimination of surplus school places, distinguishing between (a) once for all capital receipts for sale of surplus premises and (b) annual revenue savings; and if he will give the period to which the estimated savings refer and the appropriate number of primary and secondary places concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend was referring to the annual cost of maintaining surplus places. The figure of £300 million given in my right hon. Friend's oral statement of 9th November is based on an average figure for the premises-related cost of maintaining a school place, based on returns from local education authorities, of approximately £150 a year for a primary school place and £250 a year for a secondary school place at 1991–92 prices. It is based on an estimate of some 800,000 surplus primary places and 700,000 surplus secondary school places. The figure does not include one-off savings that may accrue from the sale of surplus premises.

  Teachers, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the full-time equivalent numbers of teachers employed in(a) north Yorkshire infant and primary schools and (b) north Yorkshire secondary schools in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary school sector in north Yorkshire, for each of the years 1981 to 1992. Comparable figures for pupils in north Yorkshire are also shown. Figures prior to 1981 are not readily available.40

  Full-time equivalents

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery, primary and secondary1

  Teachers

  Pupils

  Teachers

  Pupils

  Teachers

  1981

  2,463

  2—

  3,324

  2—

  5,967

  1982

  2,509

  53,408

  3,309

  53,640

  5,818

  1983

  2,441

  50,845

  3,297

  53,407

  5,751

  1984

  2,390

  49,936

  3,281

  52,549

  5,682

  1985

  2,399

  50,228

  3,218

  50,962

  5,631

  1986

  2,400

  50,408

  3,148

  49,884

  5,561

  1987

  2,414

  51,081

  3,107

  47,939

  5,532

  1988

  2,497

  52,114

  3,041

  45,419

  5,548

  1989

  2,551

  53,138

  3,020

  43,712

  5,570

  1990

  2,638

  54,423

  2,953

  42,483

  5,590

  1991

  2,711

  54,700

  2,945

  42,732

  5,656

  1992

  2,762

  2—

  3,041

  2—

  5,803

  1 Includes a small number of teachers who cannot be allocated to one particular sector.

  2 Not available.

  Technology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to set out a new definition for technology in the national curriculum establishing the subject as a practical technical subject concerned with the design and manufacture of products and systems.

  Mr. Forth
  The current review of the statutory requirements for national curriculum technology aims to clarify the technical skills and knowledge which pupils should acquire at each stage of their compulsory education and in particular to ensure that these are developed through work with construction materials and related components and systems. When my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales have considered the review group's recommendations they will make a full statement.

  Science Undergraduates
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to set a target date for doubling the number of science undergraduates in United Kingdom universities.

  Mr. Forman
  No. However, the number of full-time students taking science-based higher education courses has formed formed a more or less constant proportion of a rapidly rising total throughout the 1980s. While students cannot be compelled to take particular subjects, our commitment to encourage recruitment to science based courses is clear.

  In higher education, the publicly funded tuition fee for laboratory and workshop based courses is already set at 50 per cent. above the classroom rate, and we are planning to increase the relative incentive to develop such courses. My right hon. Friend has also asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to encourage continuing expansion of science and technology through its funding.

  Non-degree Qualifications
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to set a target date for tripling the numbers achieving technical non-degree qualifications in the United Kingdom.
  41
  Mr. Forman
  No. However, the Government have endorsed the national education and training targets for:80 per cent. of young people to have achieved qualifications at NVQ level 2, or the broad equivalent of four GCSEs at grades A to C, by 1997;
  50 per cent. of young people to have achieved qualifications at NVQ level 3, or the broad equivalent of two A levels, by the year 2000;
  50 per cent. of the work force to be qualified to NVQ level 3, or equivalent, by the year 2000.

  These targets imply a very considerable increase in the numbers achieving vocational qualifications.

  My right hon. Friend has also asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to provide incentives to promote two-year full-time diploma qualifications in higher education, in particular those with a vocational emphasis.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action is currently being undertaken by his Department to ensure that pupils studying science and technology in secondary schools are taught by teachers with appropriate degrees.

  Mr. Forth
  Trainee teachers on secondary PGCE courses must have first degrees relevant to the school curriculum. Undergraduate courses of secondary teacher training must include at least two years' subject study at degree level which build on appropriate A-levels or equivalent qualifications. The Open university is developing PGCE courses in science and technology to increase the supply of appropriately qualified teachers. Shortage subject bursaries encourage recruitment to PGCE courses in science and technology.

  The Department has also funded many initiatives to improve science and technology teaching, including distance learning courses for existing physics and chemistry teachers. The grant for education, support and training (GEST) specific grant programme for 1993–94 will support £46 million of LEA expenditure on in-service training for the basic curriculum and assessment, and a further £85 million is to be devolved to schools to spend on in-service training or books and equipment according to their needs.

  Pre-school Education
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were in pre-school education in(a) 1982 and (b)

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1982, there were 235,000 pupils below compulsory school age in maintained nursery schools or nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England. The provisional figure for January 1992 is 330,000.

  Reading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to initiate a nationwide campaign to encourage parents to read to their children at home; and if he will make a statement on children's reading.

  Mr. Forth
  It is already the Government's policy to encourage parental involvement in children's reading. There is a general requirement at key stage 1—ages five to 42
  seven—of national curriculum English that teachers should actively encourage parents to share in their child's reading. The National Curriculum Council's non-statutory guidance for teachers of English stresses that teachers will need to involve parents as fully as possible in this aspect of the curriculum by discussing with them their child's reading and providing advice if necessary.

  In addition, the Department has supported a study by the United Kingdom Reading Association (UKRA) of family reading groups (FRGs), as a result of which UKRA are preparing guidelines on how to set up and run these groups successfully.

  More generally, my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of a review of national curriculum English made clear the Government's commitment to improving standards in essential skills such as reading.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many employees entitled to maximum compensatory awards from industrial tribunals in 1991 failed to obtain payment.

  Mr. Forman
  None.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the changes in the numbers of home-based students in higher education over the past five years.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department does not collect details of higher education students by place of residence. Students in receipt of mandatory awards receive grant at a different rate if they are living at home. It is estimated that the number of mandatory award holders in England and Wales receiving grant at parental home rates rose from about 30,000 in 1986–87 to about 39,000 in 1990–91.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has about the amount of money spent by local education authorities for each of the last five years on education in those areas which will come under the auspices of the Further Education Funding Council(a) in cash terms and (b) in constant 1992 purchasing power.

  Mr. Forman
  This information is not available centrally. LEAs' expenditure returns do not distinguish between expenditure on courses for which the FEFC will be responsible from next April and those for which LEAs will have continuing responsibility.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what basis the resources currently available to the Further Education Funding Council for 1993–94 were calculated; and how much they are in(a) cash terms and (b) constant 1992 purchasing power.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government's expenditure plans for further education in England in the financial year 1993–94 provide for the launch of the newly independent sector, taking account of a projected 8 per cent. increase in student numbers compared with the financial year 1992–93. The total funds to be made available to the
  43
  Further Education Funding Council in 1993–94 are planned to be £2,549 million for recurrent expenditure and £152 million for capital expenditure: expressed in 1991–92 prices, the real terms figures are £2,380 million and £142 million respectively.

  Examinations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the name of the private company responsible for compiling the national table of school examination results by local authority area.

  Mr. Forth
  Two organisations were involved in the compilation of the database and the tables. They are Bath university, which merged the examination entries and results supplied by the examinations boards and groups, and PMS Communications Ltd., which arranged for the checking of the data by schools and which prepared the national and local tables for publication.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the number of independent schools operating in the secondary sector and the number that have volunteered their examination results to be reported as part of the national reporting of examinations scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992, information available to the Department indicated that there were 1,025 independent schools which had pupils aged 15 and/or 17 years. All these schools were invited to take part in the publication of comparative tables of examination results and 259 did so.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the Central Statistical Office Survey Control Unit has approved the method by which the examination results from schools have been collected and the manner in which they will be published.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The collection and publication are administrative matters concerning identifiable schools and are not therefore covered by the arrangements under which the survey control unit approves statistical inquiries.

  "Choice and Diversity"
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library copies of the responses to the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity."

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 2 November 1992,Official Report, column 16.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Longford Hall
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give the dates on which Longford Hall, Stretford was inspected by representatives of his Department or its predecessor since that building was listed.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that the hall was inspected by officers of English Heritage, who are my statutory advisers on these matters, in February 1990.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give details of representations 44
  made to him and his predecessors about the failure to maintain Longford hall, Stretford since that building was listed, and what action resulted.

  Mr. Brooke
  Local residents have made frequent representations to officials of my Department and the Department of the Environment about the state of the building, the demolition or removal of various interior features, and the possible use of the Secretary of State's powers to secure repairs. As I told the hon. Member on 29 October,Official Report, column 779, officials have, as a result, been in regular touch with the owners on this issue.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 350, which firms were invited to tender for the contract to provide advice on the impact of a national lottery on the football pools industry and charitable donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information on those firms that were not successful in the tendering process for work on the national lottery is commercially sensitive and therefore their names cannot be given.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 350, what criteria he used in determining which firm of consultants should undertake the contract to advise him on the impact of a national lottery on the football pools industry and charitable donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The criteria used to determine the choice of consultants included price, quality and access to expert knowledge. In addition, consultants had to assure the Department that they were not currently working for and would not in future work for any companies that had an interest in bidding to operate the national lottery and that the advice they gave would be impartial and free from conflicts of interest of any kind.

DEFENCE

  Vulcan Bombers
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last Vulcan bomber was withdrawn from active service with the Royal Air Force; what plans he has for its disposal; what representations he has received from those wishing to maintain this aircraft in flying condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Vulcan XH 558 completed its operational service with the RAF in September 1984 and formed the RAF's Vulcan display flight in November of that year. The Ministry of Defence plans to sell the aircraft to the public and invitations to tender will be issued to prospective purchasers as soon as possible. We would, however, be prepared to consider any well-founded sponsorship proposals to keep the Vulcan in flying condition for air displays, but the sponsor would need to accept full financial responsibility for the aircraft and guarantee to meet all its operating, maintenance and other costs. To date no sustainable sponsorship proposals have been
  45
  received. My Department has received a large number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the public about the future of the aircraft.

  Dartmoor National Park (Loop Road)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent by the Ministry of Defence on the resurfacing of the loop road from Okehampton barracks into the Dartmoor national park; who was consulted before work commenced; when planning permission was obtained; and what category the road holds.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD spent £31,505 on maintaining the loop road during financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92. The defence land agent Plymouth consulted the Duchy of Cornwall to confirm that the work proposed was within the terms of the MOD licence and to gain approval. Consultations also took place with the Dartmoor national park officer regarding the materials used. Planning permission was not necessary in this case as it is a private road on Duchy of Cornwall land within Dartmoor national park over which the public is allowed access when live firing is not in progress on Okehampton range.

  Front-line Squadrons (Aircraft)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment of the number of Tornados that will be deployed in front-line squadrons in(a) 1994 and (b) 2000;

  (2) what is his Department's assessment of the number of Harriers that will be deployed in front-line squadrons in (a) 1994 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Annex C of the 1992 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" includes numbers of aircraft assigned to RAF squadrons based in Europe as at 1 April 1992, together with the main changes due to take place in the current financial year. We plan to update this information on an annual basis. It is not our policy to publish detailed plans for future operational strengths.

  Contracts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been awarded since 1980 by his Department to International Military Services.

  Mr. Aitken
  Until it ceased trading in July 1991, the role of IMS was to supply overseas Governments with equipment and services in the defence field, as a prime contractor, operating within guidelines laid down by my Department. Consequently there would normally be no reason for my Department to place contracts on the company. The only exception to this was an arrangement to fund the cost of a single individual employed by IMS in the late 1980s to provide after-sales service on equipment developed by my Department in service with an overseas customer.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been awarded by his Department to W. S. Atkins and Partners since 1980.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since May 1990, the Department's directorate of works services has invited W. S. Atkins to 46
  tender 32 times. It was successful on 10 occasions, and received contracts valued at £8,068,300 in total. There have also been a number of smaller contracts for works in connection with specific projects.

  Prior to May 1990 the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment was responsible for all works-related contracts.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts ministers or officials of his Department have had with International Military Services since 1980.

  Mr. Aitken
  International Military Services is a company whose shares are vested in the Secretary of State for Defence. Consequently my Department is responsible for monitoring company policy and performance. Contact for this purpose is frequent at official level. Contact at ministerial level is relatively rare.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts or dealings ministers or officials of his Department have had with W. S. Atkins and Partners since 1980.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not hold a central record of contacts or dealings with industry, so I am unable to provide the hon. Gentleman with a full reply without incurring disproportionate cost. However, officials in my Department are in continuing discussion with W. S. Atkins in connection with tenders, contracts awarded by the Department—and awarded by PSA on the Department's behalf prior to May 1990—and future opportunities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the assessment made by his expert advisory group on whether an export licence should be granted to Matrix Churchill for equipment which is now the subject of a judicial inquiry.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. The assessments will, of course, be made available to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry if it wishes to see them.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often the group of experts referred to in his Department's answer of 26 April 1990,Official Report, column 332, on military trade with Iraq met in the years 1987 to 1991 and on what dates; and what is the remit under which the group of experts operated.

  Mr. Aitken
  Normally the working group met monthly. Its remit is to make a military assessment of applications for defence-related exports to Iran—and to Iraq until the UN embargo—within the guidelines which relate to the export of equipments to Iran-Iraq.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the definition of lethal used by his Department in assessing the nature of equipment supplied to Iraq since 1980.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department defines lethal equipment as "military equipment designed to kill".

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the assessment of the
  47
  military significance of export licence applications made by his Department's group of experts was overruled by Ministers between 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  In some borderline cases Ministers sought further clarification and in the light of this did not, on some occasions, endorse the recommendation made to them. It has not been possible to determine the precise number of instances in which this occurred, but we believe that they were rare.

  Operation Granby
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 711, how much money was given by each of the contributing countries in each year towards the cost of Operation Granby; and what further contributions are expected.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Cash burden-sharing contributions towards the cost of Operation Granby were received as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Total

  Belgium

  —

  15

  15

  Germany

  274

  —

  274

  Hong Kong

  16

  —

  16

  Japan

  25

  167

  192

  Kuwait

  110

  550

  660

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  582

  582

  South Korea

  —

  18

  18

  United Arab Emirates

  86

  192

  278

  Other

  13

  1

  14

  Total

  524

  1,525

  2,049

  No further burden-sharing contributions are expected.

  Chemical Weapon Convention
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that signatories to the chemical weapon convention should remain subject to controls exercised by the Australia group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Australia group harmonises national export controls by consensus. It is for each member state to apply its individual controls. The Australia group (AG) has undertaken to review its work to ensure consistency with the provisions of the chemical weapons convention. AG members, including the United Kingdom, have declared their intention to be early signatories of the convention. In this context, the United Kingdom will seek to ensure within the AG and nationally that we maintain effective controls against chemical and biological weapons proliferation.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards the continued operation of the Australia group once the chemical weapon convention has been signed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's principal objective is to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. The Australian group (AG) has played a major role in the
  48
  effort. All AG members, including the United Kingdom, have welcomed the conclusion of the CWC negotiations and have declared their intention to be early signatories. The work of the group is to be reviewed to ensure consistency with the provisions of the convention. The United Kingdom intends to take an active part in this review.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Oliver Pryce
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to proceed with prosecutions arising from the unlawful killing of Mr. Oliver Pryce.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether a case should be prosecuted on the basis of the available evidence and in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. In this case, she had the advantage of leading and junior counsel's advice and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the assistance given by the Serious Fraud Office to those seeking recovery of assets of pension funds.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office is pleased to assist those so engaged to the extent that it is lawfully able to do so.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sellafield
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate has been made of the change in the level of emissions of radioactive substances as a result of the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  Activity limits proposed in the draft authorisations published jointly today by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would ensure a continued decline in the maximum radiation dose to the public from Sellafield even when including the contribution from THORP at its full operating capacity.

  Primates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ban the import of wild-caught primates into the EC for research and testing.

  Mr. Maclean
  The import of primates into the EC is already controlled under regulations governing the wildlife trade. These are conservation measures, intended primarily to ensure that wild populations are not seriously depleted. They are not concerned with the purpose of import, except for endangered species. While we are currently negotiating a new European wildlife trade
  49
  regulation to tighten existing controls, we have no plans to seek a general ban on the import of any animals for use in research and testing. Controls on the use of animals for such purposes within the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each urban development corporation has spent on consultants' reports since their inception.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Urban development corporations contract out project management, legal, recruitment, architectural, engineering design and a range of other services to private sector consultancies and advisers. Approximate expenditure on consultants' reports, where available, is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Urban Development Corporation

  Birmingham Heartlands

  0·0

  Black Country

  2·9

  Bristol

  0·6

  Central Manchester

  1—

  Leeds

  1—

  London Docklands

  1—

  Merseyside

  2·8

  Sheffield

  0·5

  Teesside

  4·1

  Trafford Park

  1—

  Tyne and Wear

  3·6

  1 Not available.

  Plucked Birds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to include the control of the exporting of plucked birds under the provisions of the Species (Import and Export) Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the Department's policy not to require export licences for plucked specimens of game bird species covered by the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 because they cannot be readily identified. We have no plans to alter this policy.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with organisations that run residential care homes as to the effect that paying the new council tax will have on such homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received a number of representations from care home owners about the council tax. My officials have met a delegation from the Joint Care Committee to discuss the effect of the tax. They explained that, for the reasons given in my answer to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Harvey) on 7 July,Official Report, column 157, the council tax bills faced by care home owners are likely to he modest. In many cases these bills are likely to be further reduced by transitional relief.

  Hillingdon Hospital
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what kind of complaints the London Waste Regulation Authority has received from residents of Hillingdon about the breaking of the conditions of licence issued by the authority for the operation of the incinerator plant at Hillingdon hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The London Waste Regulation Authority (LWRA) has responsibility for the licensing of disposal facilities in the Greater London area. It is therefore for it to consider the most appropriate action to take if it receives complaints alleging breaches of licence conditions. I suggest that my hon. Friend approaches the LWRA for this information.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times during the past 12 months Her Majesty's inspector of pollution has been informed by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd. that the dump stack at Hillingdon hospital incinerator has been used; what information he has about the purpose of using this equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  HMIP has been informed by Basic Energy that the dump stack has been used on five occasions in the past 12 months.

  The purpose of the dump stack is to protect operators and plant during certain fault conditions. It operates only for a short time and the impact on the environment is not significant.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of public expenditure on housing in 1978–79 and the most recent available year in real terms and cash prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information for England is as follows:

  £ millions

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  1978–79

  3,750

  10,130

  1991–92 (provisional)

  10,360

  10,360

  The figures are based on total general government expenditure on housing, including local authority self-financed expenditure from receipts and expenditure on housing benefit subsidies.

  North West Water
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with North West Water on its plans to introduce water metering throughout its area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It is for each water company to determine its method of charging, subject to the overriding requirement that they do not show undue preference to or unduly discriminate against any class or group of customers.

  Ultra-violet Radiation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the current monitoring arrangements for ultra-violet radiation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 30 October,Official Report, columns 939–40.

  Economic Development
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list each piece of legislation within the responsibility of his Department which bestows economic development powers or economic development assistance on local authority areas and which are based, in whole or in part, on statistics related to the relevant travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides all principal local authorities with a power to take such steps as they may from time to time consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their area. The Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) Regulations 1990 limit the giving of grants, loans and guarantees to a business conducted with a view to profit to a total of £10,000 per business per annum, unless the local authority providing the assistance is listed in schedule 1 to the regulations (as amended). One of the criteria for scheduling is that the local authority, in whole or in part, falls within a travel-to-work area with above average unemployment.

  Section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 empowers the Secretary of State to make grants in the assisted areas for the improvement of a basic service for which he is responsible. Local authorities would be eligible to apply for such assistance.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contributions are Greece, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Ireland and Luxembourg making to EC eco-labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  All the member states of the European Community are involved in the eco-labelling scheme. All should by now, under the terms of the EC regulation, have set up competent bodies. A number are currently leading studies to develop further criteria for product groups. I understand that further studies by other member states are about to begin or are under consideration.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the criteria for the award of eco-labels for kitchen towels, toilet tissue, photocopier paper, writing paper, laundry detergents, paints and varnishes, washing machines, dishwaters, light bulbs, hair sprays, T-shirts, bed linen and batteries to be agreed by all EC states.

  Mr. Maclean
  As I told the House on 9 November,Official Report, column 724, we hope to have agreement on a range of products in the first part of next year.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emergency arrangements are made in pre-payment water meters to enable water to be taken on credit in the event of fire or accident.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that pre-payment water meters are installed on an internal wall in the property. About four days before credit on a meter runs out, the meter emits a noise followed by a continuous flashing warning light. When all the credit has been used, the meter will still allow the customer to receive water until the following morning. The meter also has a facility to enable the customer to obtain a further seven days water in an emergency.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 234–35, how many of the disconnections of domestic water supply mentioned in his answer were reconnected within 24 hours.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on reconnections is not collected by my Department or by the Office of Water Services, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. I understand that the water industry associations believe the majority of those disconnected—and contact-able—are reconnected within 24 hours.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what emergency arrangements are made to ensure access to water in domestic or commercial properties where the supply has been disconnected.

  Mr. Maclean
  Where a water company disconnects or reduces for more than 24 hours the supply of water provided to any premises—dwellings, commercial or otherwise—for domestic, ie drinking, cleaning, washing, cooking, heating and sanitary, purposes to carry out necessary works, it must ensure that an emergency supply has been made available within a reasonable distance of the premises. In respect of disconnection for non-payment I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 November 1992,Official Report, column 795.

  Travellers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for 1990, 1991 and 1992 the number of travellers in England and Wales in(a) authorised local authority encampments, (b) authorised private encampments and (c) unauthorised encampments; and if he will break the figures down by region.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has no reliable information about numbers of travellers. I am placing in the Library of the House a table showing the number of gypsy caravans on the three types of encampment requested by the hon. Member, for each region in England. The information is derived from bi-annual counts by local authorities. Similar information for Wales is available from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant expenditure there has been in the Darlington travel-to-work area in each year since 1984(a) at current prices and (b) at 1984 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on derelict land grant expenditure is not available by travel-to-work area. However, expenditure in the Darlington local authority area was as follows:

  (a) Current prices (£)

  (b) 1984 prices (£)

  1984–85

  254,514

  254,514

  1985–86

  589,788

  558,942

  1986–87

  536,772

  492,504

  1987–88

  269,442

  234,474

  1988–89

  284,697

  231,054

  1989–90

  563,164

  428,821

  1990–91

  529,567

  372,715

  1991–92

  356,164

  234,274

  Total

  3,384,108

  2,807,298

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure on derelict land grant in the assisted areas in each year since 1984–85 at(a) curent prices and (b) 1984–85 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on derelict land grant expenditure is not available by assisted area. However, derelict land grant in the assisted areas and derelict land clearance areas combined was as follows:

  (a) Current prices (£)

  (b) 1984 prices (£)

  1984–85

  63,260,029

  63,260,029

  1985–86

  60,688,860

  57,514,833

  1986–87

  58,603,092

  53,770,095

  1987–88

  57,667,935

  50,183,790

  1988–89

  51,137,068

  41,501,822

  1989–90

  84,096,414

  64,035,214

  1990–91

  67,135,519

  47,250,650

  1991–92

  79,450,627

  52,260,239

  Total

  522,039,544

  429,776,672

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of derelict land grant spending took place in the assisted areas(a) in each year since 1984–85 and (b) in total since 1984–85.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on derelict land grant expenditure is not available by assisted area. However, the percentage of derelict land grant paid in the assisted areas and derelict land clearance areas combined was as follows:

  per cent.

  (a) 1984–85

  93·2

  1985–86

  90·4

  1986–87

  85·2

  1987–88

  76·6

  1988–89

  76·2

  1989–90

  92·6

  1990–91

  93·4

  54

  per cent.

  1991–92

  92·3

  (b) Total

  87·7

  City Challenge
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the rules concerning bidding for city challenge scheme funds in years two to five for the 11 pacemaker authorities in the first round; and what guidance has been issued to such authorities;

  (2) in what circumstances a pacemaker authority, for the purposes of the city challenge scheme, may not receive moneys in years two to five.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The action plans of the 11 city challenge pacemakers, covering five-year regeneration programmes 1992 to 1997, were agreed in February and March this year. Full financial provision for these programmes has been included in the settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 November. The agreement to provide funding is subject to individual annual reviews of progress toward achieving the strategic objectives and outputs specified in the plans. The first round of annual reviews, to be chaired by Ministers, is intended to take place in February 1993. The format and procedure for the reviews have recently been piloted with the pacemakers and this will be followed up with further guidance on the issues to be covered.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing how many tenants and tenants' organisations have responded to the consultation on his proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering to housing management; how many of these(a) supported and (b) opposed his proposals; and if he will place copies of all the responses in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 November to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle),Offical Report, column 454. I shall be placing copies of all the responses in the Library.

  Defective Housing
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties sold to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy have been re-purchased by English local authorities under defective housing legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  By the end of 1991–92 local authorities in England had repurchased some 13,200 dwellings under the housing defects legislation. It is expected that local authorities will repurchase a further 1,000 dwellings during 1992–93.

  Displaced Persons
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to compensate local authorities for the extra expenditure they have incurred as a result of the influx of displaced persons from the former Yugoslav republic; and if he will make a statement.
  55
  Sir George Young
  The resources made available to local authorities through the local government finance settlement include appropriate provision for dealing with the kind of needs which displaced persons present. I recognise that the recent influx from the former Yugoslav republic has placed an exceptional burden on a small number of authorities, however, and I am prepared to make available special grant to assist the worst affected cases. My officials will be discussing proposals for this with representatives of the local authority associations.

  Impact Pricing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce impact pricing into the planning system; what representations he has received on introducing impact pricing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present. A number of representations have been received following the announcement in February that the Department would undertake research into the scope and feasibility of development impact fees. Decisions on whether to develop the idea further will be taken in the light of that research, on which tenders will be issued shortly.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the manner in which he has made provision, within the structure of standard spending assessments, for expenditure by local authorities on their statutory duties relating to homelessness for the current financial year and for the year 1993–94, respectively.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The total of standard spending assessments was set for 1992–93 in the light of the spending needs of all authorities including an appropriate allowance for expenditure on providing for the homeless. Proposals for the 1993–94 revenue support grant settlement will be announced later this autumn.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to assist the local authorities which had deposited money with BCCI.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Authorities which applied to do so were allowed to treat their losses as capital expenditure, so that they could be met from capital receipts or by borrowing. Authorities which sought temporary increases in their aggregate credit limits, in order to maintain their borrowing capacity, were granted them.

  Environmental Protection Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the visit of the heads of European environmental protection enforcement agencies in European Community countries to the United Kingdom on 3 to 6 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The first meeting of representatives from EC environmental
  56
  enforcement authorities was held in Chester on 3 to 6 November. The purpose of the meeting was to set up a network of such bodies.

  The meeting was organised on behalf of the United Kingdom presidency by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and it was chaired by HMIP's chief inspector, Dr. David Slater. More than 50 representatives from the 12 EC member states and the European Commission attended.

  All delegates welcomed the establishment of the network, the aim of which is to provide a mechanism for exchange of information and practical regulatory experience, to address issues of mutual concern and to enhance the quality of enforcement throughout the community.

  The meeting agreed a framework for future work, including establishing a number of working groups to address aspects such as permitting, compliance monitoring, inspection and enforcement systems.

  The next full meeting of the network will take place in May 1993 in Denmark, during the Danish presidency of the European Community.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require any power station intending to burn orimulsion to install flue gas desulphurisation equipment before any of the fuel is burned.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer to November 1992]: Such matters are for HM inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) in the first instance. I understand that applications have been made to HMIP under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn orimulsion at four power stations. None of these has been determined. In determining these applications, HMIP will consider the environmental consequences of all releases from the process to all three media: air, water and land. If HMIP authorises the burning of orimulsion it is required to ensure best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent or minimise and render harmless any releases. I also understand HMIP regards flue gas desulphurisation as an available technique.

  In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's appellate role in these matters it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  Sellafield (Discharges)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the public consultation relating to the new draft discharge authorisations for Sellafield to commence.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: In response to applications made under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) to dispose of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste from Sellafield, the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), has today sent out public consultation documents proposing new limits for liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from BNFL's Sellafield operations. The consultation process which will run for eight weeks is being carried out widely and is based on draft authorisations and accompanying

  57
  explanatory memoranda so that everyone can clearly see what HMIP and MAFF propose in response in the company's applications.

  The draft authorisations will include proposed discharge limits for all relevant plant on the site. The effect of the authorisation would be to:

  (a) bring into operation new treatment plant for liquid effluent;

  (b) allow the operation of the new "THORP" thermal oxide reprocessing plant whose construction is nearing completion;

  (c) provide for the decommissioning of redundant plant, and for the processing of wastes accumulated on the site;

  (d) allow the incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil.

  I am assured that HMIP and MAFF will not make up their minds about the applications until after the consultation period when they have considered relevant information and the responses they have received. Copies of the consultation documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he is taking of the fall in property values since 1990 when finalising the introduction of the council tax in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The banding of each dwelling shown on valuation lists will be based on its estimated sale price on 1 April 1991, taking account of any significant change to the property between then and April 1993. That will establish its relative value compared with other dwellings and ensure that all dwellings are banded on the same basis.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters of objection to the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield have been received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: By 11 November Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution had received in the order of 36,000 representations about the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield from individual members of the public together with several petitions containing a total of approximately 6,500 names.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the findings of the review of navigation authorities for inland waterways.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: We will announce the results of the review when it is completed.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further announcements he proposes to make on the implications of the citizens charter for British Waterways.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The implementation of the charter is primarily a matter for British Waterways. We expect British Waterways, like other public bodies, to take account of the charter's principles in its relations with its customers and users.
  58
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has concluded his review of the role and function of the inland waterways amenity advisory committee.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: We are consulting the chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and British Waterways on our proposals for the future of the council, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of miles of inland waterways dredged by British Waterways for each of the last 10 years broken down by commercial and cruising waterways and the remainder.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: This is a matter for the British Waterways Board.

  British Waterways Board
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he reappointed Mr. David Ingham as chairman of the British Waterways Board; and for how long.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: We are currently discussing with Mr. Ingram the terms of his reappointment. In the meantime, his appointment has been extended for one month until 21 November. A further announcement will be made shortly.

  Home Repossessions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many house repossession orders have been granted.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest figures on mortgage repossession actions are contained in an information bulletin which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1992 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UN Development Fund for Women
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations development fund for women in the present year and in 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We contributed £150,000 this year (1992). The fund was first created in 1984.

  Kenya (Elections)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given to the Government of Kenya in conducting elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have agreed to provide ballot boxes, office equipment and training for electoral officials, at a cost of approximately £745,000.

  Aid and Trade
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will be taking in concert with his counterparts from the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to ensure that aid to the third world is accompanied by trade.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain's aid programme, like those of our OECD partners, promotes economic growth in developing countries through support for economic reform. We give priority to the promotion of export-led growth by helping the private sector to flourish. We are working hard for a successful completion to the Uruguay round.

  Somalia
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the overseas aid budget allocated to Somalia will be over the next year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This year Britain has committed almost £27 million of emergency humanitarian aid to Somalia including our share of EC aid. We shall continue to help. The amount of assistance we will be able to provide will be determined by need and the ability to deliver relief safely and effectively.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent Britain is able to contribute humanitarian aid directly or indirectly to the communities of southern Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is difficult for relief agencies to reach the needy in southern Sudan because of continued civil war. We provide emergency assistance through United Nations agencies and British non-governmental organisations as and when access to communities is available.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the current state of access for relief work being undertaken by representatives of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations in southern Sudan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The continuing civil war in southern Sudan is severely impeding humanitarian aid efforts by the United Nations and non-governmental organisations; only small amounts are currently being delivered. We are pressing on all parties the need for humanitarian relief efforts to go ahead without interference.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of overseas aid to be allocated to the former Yugoslavia over the next year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have committed more than £70 million for humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia up to the end of financial year 1992–93. This consists of £29·5 million bilaterally and a further £41 million which is our 60
  contribution to the EC's aid to the former Yugoslavia. This is in addition to our contribution of 2,400 British troops for the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and a field ambulance unit of 260. Decisions on the levels of humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia in 1993–94 will depend upon events in the region.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate annual expenditure of the European Community on(a) food aid of an emergency character and (b) other food aid, in ecu and pound sterling, together with an estimate of the additional costs that would need to be carried by FEOGA for either category, if not funded under the Community aid budget.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991, the total cost to the Community aid budget of food aid for developing countries, including transport costs, was 590 mecu (£413 million). An accurate breakdown of costs between emergency and other food aid is not possible because of problems of definition but, in cost terms, approximately half of the programme went to five African countries severely affected by drought or civil strife: Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Somalia and Sudan.

  In addition, according to the Commission, food aid to the value of 259 mecu (£181 million) was provided for Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, funded mainly from FEOGA.

  The transfer of part or all of the cost of food aid for developing countries from the aid budget to FEOGA would result in an increase in FEOGA costs of approximately the same size as the decrease in cost to the Community aid budget. Such a transfer would tend to re-establish the links between surplus disposal and food aid which successive British Governments have sought to break.

  EC Initiatives
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific initiatives have been taken by Her Majesty's Government during the course of Britain's presidency of the EC on(a) mutual and co-ordinated untying of aid by all EC donors, (b) reduction of debts owed by the poorest countries to the EC, to individual EC member countries and to commercial banks and (c) promoting development education in EC countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the Development Council on Wednesday 18 November 1992 the Commission will report on progress made during the British presidency of the EC on framing a proposal for the untying of aid at the Community level.

  Britain has consistently been at the forefront of efforts to relieve the burden of debt on the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. As a result of the Prime Minister's Trinidad's term initiative, 10 countries have benefited from substantial reductions in their debts to governments. Debt servicing payments to the EC from loans made available under successive European development funds are recycled to provide new financing to developing countries.

  61
  The United Kingdom, in common with its EC partners, is already encouraging commercial bank debt reduction through the Brady plan.

  No specific initiatives have been taken during our presidency to promote development education in EC countries.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-governmental organisations in receipt of grants from his Department for each year since 1990; and what was the size of each grant.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of all grants to NGOs in 1989–90 and 1990–91 are set out in the table. Similar details for the financial year 1991–92 are not immediately available but will be notified to the hon. Member within the next few weeks.

  Agency

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Acord

  1,110,074

  1,508,600

  Actionaid

  1,235,250

  1,356,128

  Action on Disability and Development

  134,326

  142,142

  Action Water

  10,000

  —

  Afghan Aid

  1,700,000

  1,000,000

  Africa Now

  9,960

  28,601

  African Medical and Research Foundation

  201,179

  400,281

  Aga Khan Foundation

  1,518,765

  1,718,034

  AHRTAG

  141,863

  231,503

  Aid Armenia

  12,261

  —

  Aid for India

  35,960

  —

  Alternative for India Development

  51,857

  96,184

  Anti Slavery Society

  34,361

  88,650

  Appropriate Technology for Tibetans Trust

  —

  17,822

  Apt Design and Development

  —

  24,626

  Association of Commonwealth Universities

  415,443

  431,252

  Band Aid

  —

  49,581

  Boys Brigade

  13,219

  —

  British Executive Services Overseas

  360,000

  390,000

  British Red Cross Society

  271,763

  560,224

  Business in the Community

  —

  10,000

  Busoga Trust

  33,333

  33,334

  Care

  7,146,494

  9,620,284

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development

  5,580,702

  7,837,864

  Catholic Institute for International Relations

  1,252,195

  1,434,846

  Child to Child

  8,000

  8,000

  Christian Aid

  6,193,505

  8,811,828

  Christian Outreach

  267,000

  470,751

  Christians Abroad

  18,000

  23,659

  Commonwealth Human Ecology Council

  22,659

  17,883

  Commonwealth Trade Union Council

  118,612

  54,560

  Concern

  1,122,367

  956,596

  Conservation Foundation

  123,790

  —

  Consortium of Christian Agencies

  —

  30,000

  Consumer Research Laboratory

  —

  14,097

  Co-operation for Development

  497,184

  158,029

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  4,000

  —

  Cranfield Trust

  —

  15,000

  Cusichaca project

  37,000

  25,000

  DPCCN

  400,000

  —

  Duke of Edinburgh award

  77,000

  40,000

  Durham Lesotho link

  —

  18,903

  Equipment to charity hospitals overseas

  35,084

  25,000

  Faith Foundation

  —

  33,600

  Farm Africa

  55,000

  387,253

  62

  Agency

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Feed the Minds

  8,330

  7,282

  Find your Feet

  —

  7,611

  Food for the Hungry

  —

  40,000

  Forum

  —

  5,000

  Friends of the Earth

  —

  6,014

  Friends of Urambo and Mwanhala

  —

  17,180

  Goal

  50,000

  —

  Great Britain China scholars

  —

  15,000

  Gurkha Welfare Trust

  —

  476,642

  Hand in Hand

  7,397

  9,325

  Havest Help

  40,076

  30,581

  Health Unlimited

  175,893

  187,686

  Help the Aged

  282,695

  168,583

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  —

  10,382

  Homeless International

  12,771

  75,561

  Ideas aid International

  —

  20,000

  Impact Foundation

  7,096

  3,652

  India Development Group

  33,325

  33,077

  Intercare

  30,487

  43,936

  Intermediate Technology Development Group

  277,763

  691,555

  International agricultural training programme

  37,950

  21,839

  International Bee Research Association

  32,000

  —

  International Boys Town Trust

  33,180

  —

  International Committee of the Red Cross

  100,000

  1,900,000

  International Council for Bird Preservation

  33,943

  69,594

  International Extension College

  249,796

  150,000

  International Institute for Environment and

  63,000

  266,755

  International Medical Relief

  80,600

  —

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  —

  7,168,000

  International Rescue

  23,816

  —

  International Trust for Nature Conservation

  3,898

  2,830

  Jalchatra Project

  8,250

  —

  Karuna Trust

  —

  16,255

  King Mahendra Trust

  14,750

  14,750

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  83,923

  114,303

  Living Earth

  61,400

  84,500

  Luth World Federation

  7,559

  —

  Marie Stopes International

  520,520

  602,309

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  70,975

  54,369

  Methodist Church

  —

  65,244

  Money for Madagascar

  3,600

  1,685

  National Childrens Home

  15,406

  19,150

  New Age Access

  13,500

  —

  Ockenden Venture

  248,536

  371,088

  Opportunities for Women

  55,490

  19,513

  Order of St. John

  125,000

  109,700

  Overseas Development Institute

  570,000

  411,280

  Oxfam

  5,810,354

  7,699,622

  Passe Partout

  10,675

  11,063

  Plan

  209,608

  304,722

  Population Concern

  272,392

  335,706

  Quaker Peace and Service

  —

  4,064

  Ranfurly Library Service

  115,000

  100,099

  Reed Charities

  117,969

  37,890

  Regional Conference on International Volunta

  5,000

  —

  Richmond Fellowship

  —

  14,077

  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind

  36,393

  261,279

  Royal Geographic Society

  —

  15,000

  Ryder Cheshire Mission

  30,000

  40,000

  Samburu Aid in Africa

  —

  22,000

  Sandy Galls Afghanistan Appeal

  134,000

  80,000

  Save The Children Fund

  6,201,958

  8,777,983

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

  74,515

  100,537

  Scottish Education and Action for Development

  7,000

  —

  Scripture Union

  —

  44,500

  63

  Agency

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Semi arid lands training livestock improvement

  25,272

  17,451

  Send a Cow

  10,120

  12,950

  Sheffield Health Authority

  53,020

  10,591

  Skillshare Africa

  1,048,666

  1,194,501

  SOS Sahel

  176,846

  306,184

  Special projects in Christian Missionary area

  115,217

  124,128

  Tear Fund

  58,749

  50,374

  Toc H

  —

  9,124

  Traidcraft exchange

  22,341

  64,205

  Trax

  31,943

  25,257

  Trust for Education and Development

  2,000

  —

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  212,743

  163,400

  UK Foundation for the peoples of the South Pacific

  79,360

  88,747

  United Nations Association International Service

  611,904

  700,403

  University College

  —

  35,532

  Urban Aid

  15,000

  15,000

  Vetaid

  75,053

  12,715

  Village Services Trust

  —

  5,768

  Voluntary Services Overseas

  10,384,155

  11,347,623

  War on Want

  56,179

  4,480

  Water Aid

  859,481

  591,846

  Womanaid

  —

  26,453

  Womankind

  —

  67,781

  Workstart

  —

  6,586

  World Conservation Monitoring Centre

  —

  312,894

  World University Service

  535,636

  1,389,625

  World Vision

  298,399

  298,756

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  1,000,000

  1,200,000

  Y Care International

  144,729

  181,050

  You and Me

  21,000

  40,000

  Young Womens Christian Association

  7,127

  —

  Zimbabwe Trust

  31,350

  151,461

  Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total, for the current financial year, of humanitarian aid for(a) Somalia and (b) the former Yugoslavia; what has been the United Kingdom share for each of EC aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: To date, the total United Kingdom bilateral commitment for humanitarian aid for Somalia for the current financial year is £15·4 million, and for the former Yugoslavia about £29 million. Figures for EC aid are not available by financial year, but since the beginning of 1992 74 mecu (about £58 million) has been allocated for Somalia, of which the United Kingdom share is about 13 mecu (£10·2 million); and 276 mecu (about £217 million) has been allocated for the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom share of which is about 50 mecu (about £40 million).

  Slovenia
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if Her Majesty's Government will make direct assistance available immediately to instal heating in refugee camps in former Yugoslav military barracks and prisons in Slovenia;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Slovenian Foreign Office regarding assistance to refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina currently in Slovenia; and if he will make a statement;
  64
  (3) how much of the United Kingdom aid for humanitarian assistance in the former Yugoslavia has gone to assist refugees in Slovenia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Representatives of the Slovenian embassy have held discussions with ODA officials. We have committed more than £70 million for humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia. This includes nearly £8 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN agencies, who are assisting refugees throughout the former Yugoslavia, including Slovenia.

SCOTLAND

  Workers Educational Association
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of funding for the Workers Educational Association; what is the projected funding for the organisation for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has agreed to pay the Scottish Council of the Workers Educational Association a grant of £180,000 in 1992–93 towards expenditure on headquarters administration. No decisions have yet been taken on the level of grant to be offered in 1993–94 to voluntary organisations in the community education field.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is proposing to take to restrain the rate of growth in legal aid expenditure in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure on legal aid in Scotland has almost doubled over the past five years. In line with the proposals for England and Wales recently announced by the Lord Chancellor, I propose to introduce the following measures in order to ensure that expenditure on legal aid in Scotland does not rise even faster.

  As far as financial eligibility for civil legal aid is concerned, my objective is to strengthen the legally aided clients' financial interest in the progress of the case and to bring the means assessment for legal aid more closely into line with that used for other means-tested benefits. I therefore intend to lay regulations to provide that, from 1 April 1993, the lower income limit for civil legal aid—that is, the limit of disposable income below which an applicant for legal aid pays no contribution—will be reduced to the equivalent income support limit. This means that, on current figures, the limit would be reduced from £3,060 per annum to £2,213 per annum. I propose to make equivalent changes to eligibility for advice and assistance.

  The upper eligibility limits for civil legal aid—that is, the limits of disposable income above which an applicant for civil legal aid ceases to be eligible for assistance—will not be increased in April 1993.

  I also intend to lay regulations providing that—
  from 1 April 1993, dependants' allowances for civil legal aid will be reduced to income support levels;
  from 1 April 1993, all those granted civil legal aid will be required to pay a contribution of one third of their disposable income above the lower limit; and
  only those who would qualify for assistance free of contributions shall, from 1 April 1993, be able to receive advice under the advice and assistance scheme.
  65
  I do not propose to alter at present the existing financial eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid.

  Students
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many undergraduate students received an award from the Scottish Education Department from session 1979 to date; and if he will give the figures by(a) type of establishment, (b) region and (c) faculty.

  Undergraduate awards 1979–80 to 1991–92

  Academic session

  University

  Scottish college of education

  SOED Central institution

  Scottish FE college

  Other

  Total

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50,079

  1980–81

  30,767

  3,657

  8,295

  6,968

  2,027

  51,714

  1981–82

  31,052

  3,589

  9,180

  7,887

  2,335

  54,043

  1982–83

  30,507

  3,323

  9,837

  8,555

  2,390

  54,612

  1983–84

  29,954

  3,093

  10,549

  9,583

  2,496

  55,675

  1984–85

  29,437

  2,927

  10,704

  10,045

  2,456

  55,569

  1985–86

  29,039

  2,910

  17,041

  4,005

  2,709

  55,704

  1986–87

  28,813

  2,894

  16,910

  3,968

  2,643

  55,228

  1987–88

  29,307

  3,099

  16,851

  4,128

  2,748

  56,133

  1988–89

  30,537

  3,110

  17,772

  4,622

  2,739

  58,780

  1989–90

  31,577

  3,552

  18,738

  5,118

  2,775

  61,760

  1990–91

  32,994

  4,182

  20,830

  5,740

  2,726

  66,472

  1991–92

  34,580

  4,577

  22,728

  9,785

  3,918

  75,588

  Notes:

  1. The above figures relate to the position in the April following the start of each session. They exclude students whose awards had not been processed by this stage, and students who withdrew from their courses prior to this date.

  2. Up to 1984–85 Napier polytechnic and Glasgow polytechnic were Scottish FE colleges. In 1985–86 they transferred to the SOED Central Institution sector.

  3. Only the traditional universities are included in the column headed university.

  4. The figures for FE colleges include full-time HNC students with effect from 1991–92.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many postgraduate students received an award from the Scottish Education Department in each session since 1978–79; and if he will analyse the figures by sex and by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The available information is set out in the table. No breakdown by sex is available prior to 1980–81. Information on the home region of award holders is not collated centrally.

  Postgraduate Awards 1978–79 to 1991–92

  Academic Session

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1978–79

  n/a

  n/a

  3,085

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  3,521

  1980–81

  1,444

  1,767

  3,211

  1981–82

  1,338

  1,605

  2,943

  1982–83

  1,328

  1,525

  2,853

  1983–84

  1,303

  1,482

  2,785

  1984–85

  1,253

  1,374

  2,627

  1985–86

  1,343

  1,508

  2,851

  1986–87

  1,399

  1,593

  2,992

  1987–88

  1,387

  1,521

  2,908

  1988–89

  1,335

  1,409

  2,744

  1989–90

  1,310

  1,478

  2,788

  1990–91

  1,322

  1,567

  2,889

  1991–92

  1,626

  1,845

  3,471

  Note:

  1 The above figures relate to the position in the April following the start of each session. They exclude students whose awards had not been processed by this stage, and students who withdrew from their courses prior to this date.
  66
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: The available information is set out in the table. Information on the home region of award holders is not collated centrally, nor is information on the faculty offering the award holder's course. Information on type of establishment is not available for 1979–80.

  Scotland-Northern Ireland Power Cable
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place with the representatives of fishermen anent Scottish Power's proposals to lay an electric power cable between Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The proposed undersea power cable between Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE). My right hon. Friend understands that NIE has requested Scottish Power to assist it with consultations in Scotland about the undersea cable. These consultations have included a meeting between representatives of Scottish Power and the Clyde Fishermen's Association. Any formal application to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the undersea cable will of course be a matter for NIE.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available from his Department for 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (2) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available from his Department for the provision of youth training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (3) if he will list for each local enterprise company the budget made available from his Department for the

  67
  provision of employment training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: The Scottish Office does not make budget allocations to local enterprise companies. The allocation of resources to the companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Insurance Claims
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies have been proceeded against and convicted for submitting fraudulent insurance claims for fire-damaged property or goods in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Office's classification of crimes and offences.

  Lees Group
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Highlands and Islands Development Board or Highlands and Islands Enterprise investment in the form of loans or grants was provided to the Lees group of companies in the 1980s.

  Mr. Lang
  I have asked the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Coal and Steel Community Levy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will specify the proposed means by which revenue equivalent to the 0·3 per cent. European Coal and Steel Community turnover levy will be raised to provide for the expenditure of training ex-coal and steel workers, research and development and job creation;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his consultations with his opposite numbers in the European Community on the abolition of, or bringing forward of the date of abolition of, the European Coal and Steel Community levy;

  (3) what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the European Community concerning the use of the £500 million accumulated in the European Coal and Steel Community turnover levy; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the date of cessation of levying of the European Coal and Steel Community levy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The last substantive discussions at ministerial level on the European Coal and Steel Community reserves were in April 1991. A further discussion is expected at the Industry Council on 24 November which should reflect the view of European industry that the levy should end and reserves be drawn down during the run-up to 2002.

  RECHAR
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that a second phase of the RECHAR programme is maintained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The 11 United Kingdom RECHAR programmes do not have phases. They run from 1989 to 1993. Thereafter it would be more effective if structural funds assistance to eligible coal-mining areas was channelled through the general structural funds programmes covering the areas concerned.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will place a copy of the available agency health and safety policy statements in the Library. Those agencies which have not yet finalised their statements are covered by the Department's health and safety policy, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list details of each consignment of plutonium 239 exported since 1979; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the new international atomic energy nuclear supplier guidelines on such transfers.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information is not available in the form requested. The strict conditions on the supply of fissile materials, including plutonium, under the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines have not changed.

  Green Issues
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who in his Department 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 his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department set up a new environment division in July this year dealing with green issues which reports at ministerial level through me to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The division, which is headed by Dr. David Evans (G3), brings together staff previously in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Energy dealing with environmental questions who currently number 65. The tasks of the division include ensuring that proper account of environmental issues is taken in the development of all Department of Trade and Industry's policies, stimulating an effective business response to environmental developments and ensuring that the Government's overall environmental policy takes proper account of the impact on business.

  The division also calls on resources elsewhere in the Department of Trade and Industry for publicity and

  69
  awareness activities, support for environmental technology and the carrying out of economic and other analytical studies to support the development of policy. The division's spend on these activities in 1992–93 is likely to be about £9 million. In addition, a number of other divisions whose focus is on other policy matters have staff devoted wholly or in part to environmental issues.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many sites for wind farms are currently under consideration; how many are under construction; and how many wind turbines are already linked to the national grid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Of the wind farms which have received contracts under the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), the following is my understanding of the situation:

  1. Under consideration—16 sites

  2. Under construction—13 sites

  3. Already linked to the grid—five sites, including 56 wind turbines.

  I am not aware of any wind farms outside the NFFO, although there probably are some in the first category, being given consideration in anticipation of future NFFO orders.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to encourage wind energy production in areas where the average wind speed is between 6·5 and 7·5 metres per second.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans to constrain any future non-fossil fuel obligation orders for wind energy by either wind speed or geographic location. I believe potential developers must be free to exploit the best sites which are acceptable to the planning authorities.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimated target in megawatts for wind energy production in the United Kingdom in the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are currently working towards a figure of 1,000 MW of new electricity generating capacity from renewables by the year 2000. I do not have a target for individual technologies, such as wind, within that figure.

  Renewables
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to set a target of 4000 M W of renewables to be in service in the United Kingdom by the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy are under consideration as part of the current review of the Government's renewable energy programmes and of the review announced on 26 October,Official Report, columns 522–3

  Sportsworld plc
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the conduct of Sportsworld plc in organising holidays to the Barcelona olympics.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Investigation of anti-competitive practices or monopolistic behaviour is the responsibility of 70
  the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand the director general is considering this matter, following which he will decide what action, if any, he should take.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to prevent the establishment of a monopoly in the supply of tickets to major international sporting events.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep all markets under review and to refer them to the Monopolies arid Mergers Commission where he considers it necessary.

  Offshore Installations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many persons have been proceeded against in Northern Ireland because of failures or defaults in adhering to the conditions laid down by him relating to the carrying out of abandonment programmes under section 9 of the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many notices have been issued, under the terms of section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1987, in each of the past four years to persons in order to enable them to carry out abandonment programmes; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many proposals under section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987, for abandonment programmes he has (a) accepted and (b) rejected in each of the past four years; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how many abandonment programmes have been carried out under the terms of section 8 of the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what vetting procedures are used in the assessment of (a) the capability and (b) the financial resources of those persons who have submitted or have given notice of submitting proposals for abandonment programmes under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) who carries out the inspection of sites following the completion of abandonment programmes under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) how many persons have been proceeded against in (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales because of failures or defaults in adhering to conditions laid down by him, relating to the carrying out of abandonment programmes under section 9 of the Petroleum Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following notices have been issued under the terms of section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1987 in each of the past four years:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Offshore installations

  280

  12

  29

  164

  132

  Offshore pipelines

  186

  56

  189

  155

  35

  1 To date.

  During the same period, abandonment programmes have been approved in respect of the following installations: Piper Alpha, Crawford, Blair and Argyll, Duncan and Innes. None has been rejected.

  The abandonment programmes in respect of Piper Alpha, Crawford and Blair have been carried out. The first

  71
  phase of the programme in respect of Argyll, Duncan and Innes is currently under way and the second phase will be carried out during the summer of 1993. All these programmes are subject to continuing monitoring obligations.

  The obligation to submit programmes and to carry them out when approved is joint and several. The Department has satisfied itself in respect of every installation for which notice has been served under section 1 of the Act that there is among the parties served at least one capable of meeting the entire abandonment obligation.

  Where inspection of the site is appropriate, the President of the Board of Trade requires certification that relevant conditions attached to the abandonment programme have been complied with. The certifying body varies according to requirements.

  There have been no proceedings under section 9 of the Act against any party in relation to default in carrying out programmes.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the licences awarded to Hamilton Oil Company to explore for oil and gas in the Lleyn peninsula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Hamilton Oil Company was awarded two blocks north-west of the Lleyn peninsula in the twelfth round of offshore oil and gas licensing. In view of the environmental importance of this area, the then Nature Conservancy Council proposed special licence conditions designed to safeguard the environment. All the conditions were accepted. They include bans on drilling in a 7 km safety zone around Bardsey island and in the rest of block 107/6 between March and September, when seabirds are breeding.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since August regarding exploration for fossil fuels in(a) the Lleyn peninsula, (b) Cardigan bay, (c) the Pembrokeshire islands, (d) the Bristol channel and (e) Lundy island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received a small number of letters since August expressing concern about any possible environmental effects of exploration for fossil fuel in one or more of these areas. I have been able to reassure correspondents that special conditions have been and will be attached to licences in these areas to safeguard their marine ecology. In total, the numbers of references to each area has been as follows:

  Number

  a. Lleyn peninsula

  7

  b. Cardigan bay

  11

  c. Pembrokeshire islands

  3

  d. Bristol channel

  2

  e. Lundy island

  Nil

  Areas adjacent to the Pembrokeshire islands and Lundy have not been offered for licensing.

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export licences have been granted since 1980 to International Military Services and to W. S. Atkins and Partners in connection with Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not our practice to discuss such matters, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take further to assist the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: I fully appreciate the vital role manufacturing industry plays in securing the United Kingdom's long term prosperity. The underlying theme of the Government's policy towards manufacturing industry is to help businesses to win in the increasingly international market place, both at home and abroad.

  The first strand of the Government's strategy is to create the right climate for manufacturing industry to thrive. Low inflation is the key to sustainable growth. Interest rates are now at their lowest level for nearly 15 years. The cut by 8 percentage points over the past two years represents a £10 billion a year reduction in industry's costs. Industry is also now able to take advantage of a very competitive exchange rate.

  Secondly, DTI and ECGD assist manufacturing industry. In order to achieve this there must be an effective dialogue with industry. I have recently reorganised the DTI to help in this by creating a clear contact point for each sector of manufacturing industry. I have also established an industrial competitiveness division, which among other functions is examining what lessons can be learnt from other leading industrial countries.

  My current initiatives include strengthening our support of exporters. A further £700 million of ECGD cover is being made available, and some of the constraints on cover for individual countries eased. So as to help exporters take advantage of the current opportunities I have now invited over 100 British companies to second 100 top quality men and women to DTI to help in our export promotion work.

  I am also working with the CBI, chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils and local authorities on arrangements for one stop shops to provide support and advice for smaller businesses.

  Thirdly, other Government policies are important for the health of manufacturing industry. Examples include initiatives like the TECs to help provide the training and enterprise support best suited to local needs, and those set out in the recent White Paper on education which are designed to help provide industry with the future work force it will need.

  A very clear example of the importance of wider Government policies is the autumn statement. The abolition of special car tax will bring benefits not only to the automotive industry, but also to its suppliers. It will also help customers, many of whom are industrial. The measures on capital allowances should also assist British industry not only by helping each firm to invest but also by enhancing the domestic market for United Kingdom manufacturers. Similarly the new arrangements for

  73
  leasing, and for the private financing of capital projects, create new opportunities for British businesses. This is in
  74
  addition to those which will arise from the priority given by the Government to capital expenditure within the tight overall public expenditure settlement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  The Prime Minister
  My Office has not made use of private detectives.

  President Yeltsin
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent visit of President Yeltsin of Russia.

  The Prime Minister
  President Yeltsin paid a highly successful visit on 9 and 10 November, the first official visit to the United Kingdom by a President of Russia. During his visit he addressed Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery, attended a luncheon given by Her Majesty the Queen and met businessmen at the London Stock Exchange. I hosted a dinner for the President in the painted hall of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

  President Yeltsin and I signed a treaty on the principles of relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation and five other agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed by representatives of the two Governments during the visit. In discussions with the President, I welcomed the new and friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Russia and underlined the Government's support for the process of economic and political reform in Russia.

  Classless Society
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the creation of a classless society in Britain.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening choice and opportunity for all members of society. Most recently, progress has been made through the introduction in the 1992 Budget, of a new lower rate band which reduced the marginal rate to 20 per cent. for almost 4 million people on low incomes, including over 1 million working wives; through our recent reforms in education and health; and through other public service initiatives, including the introduction of the citizens charter.

  Environment
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on implementing the involvement of young people in environmental awareness following the decisions agreed at the 1992 Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Many of the recommendations relating to young people in Agenda 21 have already been implemented in the United Kingdom; for example, the requirements of a number of subjects in the national curriculum include studies relevant to the environment. We are also supporting informal environmental education initiatives through the Department of the Environment's76
  grant schemes. Chapter 17 of the Second Year Report (Cm 2068) on the anniversary of the "Environment" White Paper explains our action in detail.

  Office Telephone Lines
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 November,Official Report, column 672, regarding facilities for the public to telephone his Office, if he will give details of the existing practice.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 10 November at column 672.

  Iraq
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 10 November,Official Report, columns 737–38, what was the start date for the application of the full embargo on the supply of arms to Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  The full embargo came into force at midnight on 8 August 1990 in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 661.

  All relevant issues will be covered by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry whose terms of reference will be:
  "Having examined the facts in relation to the export from the United Kingdom of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq between December 1984 and August 1990 and the decisions reached on the export licence applications for such goods and the basis for them, to report on whether the relevant Departments, Agencies, and responsible Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty's Government; to examine and report on decisions taken by the prosecuting authority and by those signing public interest immunity certificates in R v Henderson and any other similar cases that he considers relevant to the issues of the inquiry; and to make recommendations".

  The terms of reference have not been restricted to Matrix Churchill. They include the supergun and other defence and dual-use sales.

  The terms of reference relate not just to arms questions but to decisions taken on the prosecution of companies and on public interest immunity.

  All Ministers who are called will give evidence.

  All civil servants who are called will be instructed to co-operate.

  All papers that the inquiry calls for will be made available.

  Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report and of the evidence he takes.

  If Lord Justice Scott finds that his powers are in any way insufficient, he can invite the Government to alter the basis of his inquiry and the Government would agree to do so.

  The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the rules of collective responsibility for decisions made in a Cabinet Committee are applied only to those attending the meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  Decisions reached by the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total administrative cost of social fund payments for the last 12-month period for which figures are available, for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; and if he will provide separate figures for each district office.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on social fund adminstration costs for 1991–92 is in the Library. Information about administrative costs by application type and district office is not available.

  Personal Damages Awards
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to uprate the £2,500 limit in personal damages awards below which no recovery of social security payments is made by the compensation recovery unit in his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no such plans but we are keeping the figure under review.

  Incomes
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 16 July,Official Report, columns 946–47, and 28 October, Official Report, column 738, what is the additional cost of (a) providing information for the mean as well as the median for subdivisions of the income distribution and (b) distinguishing 1988 and 1989 income date from data for both years combined.

  Mr. Burt
  Additional costs are not a material consideration in the use of median rather than mean data. The reasons for the use of median measures are explained in paragraphs 4.72 to 4.25 of the "Stocktaking" report, a copy of which is in the Library. Paragraphs 2.8 to 2.12 of the report also explain why years of data are combined for reasons of statistical reliability rather than cost.

  Costs are the determining factor in not providing results covering every year from 1979 to 1989, as stated in my reply of 16 July at columns 946–47. Databases consistent with households below average income methodology as recommended in the "Stocktaking" report are available only for the years 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988 and 1989. To produce databases for the other years would cost in the order of tens of thousands of pounds, and would delay the next edition of HBAI.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 13 July,Official Report, column 454, and 28 October, Official Report, columns 738–9 what consideration his Department has given to presenting family expenditure survey data in the form presented in the households below average income "Stocktaking" report for (a) 1990 and (b) for 1989 and 1990 combined, in July.

  Mr. Burt
  Improvements in timeliness will enable us to publish the next edition of HBAI in mid-1993 using the most recent data. This will feature figures for 1990 and 1991 as well as 1988 and 1989; there are no plans to give 78
  figures for 1990 on its own. This complies with the recommendations of the 1991 "Stocktaking" report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make available statistics relating to the take-up of invalidity benefit by region.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is held on the number of recipients of invalidity benefit, by standard statistical region, which is in the table1.

  Region

  Numbers

  Scotland

  181,400

  Wales

  146,600

  England

  Northern

  126,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  124,500

  East Midlands

  74,200

  East Anglia

  28,800

  South East

  219,200

  South Western

  71,900

  West Midlands

  105,900

  North Western

  219,800

  Overseas

  7,400

  Total

  1,306,000

  1 Information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants as at 30 March 1991.

  Emphysema and Bronchitis
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he now expects to make a statement on the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on emphysema and bronchitis in metal workers and miners; how many intended beneficiaries of its recommendations have died since the report was submitted to the Government; and how many are now terminally ill.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report will be published by the end of November and a statement will be made then. The information requested is not available.

  Invalidity Benefit Appeal
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the timing of the hearing of the appeal, at the Court of Appeal, of the chief adjudication officer against a commissioner's decision (CS/27/91); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  A date for this case to be heard by the Court of Appeal has not yet been set since a decision is awaited on another case dealing with related issues and which is currently before the European Court of Justice.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary Of State for Social Security on what date the last claims for the independent living fund will be accepted; and on what date outstanding independent living fund claims will cease to be processed.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund is an independent charitable trust administered by trustees. The
  79
  issues of policy and administrative arrangements, including the processing of applications, are matters for the trustees of the fund.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps were taken to inform all recipients of mobility allowance under the age of 66 years of the new disability living allowance; and what instructions he has issued to adjudication officers in respect of late claims.

  Mr. Scott
  Since January 1992, 16 million tailored letters have been issued to some 1·5 million beneficiaries of attendance allowance and mobility allowance, giving advice about disability living allowance. These letters were in a series of 16, eight of which were designed by mobility allowance recipients and people who had been refused mobility allowance. The letters enclosed an explanatory leaflet which set out how the changes would affect individuals and, where appropriate, recipients were invited to claim extra benefit available through disability living allowance. Regulations allow awards of this extra benefit to be backdated to 6 April, if the person was entitled to attendance allowance or mobility allowance at that date.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications from Hartlepool, north Tees and Cleveland county have been received for the disability living allowance by the disability living allowance unit; how many of these have resulted in awards; how many of these awards have been at the lowest rate of the care component; and how many have been at the lowest rate of the mobility component.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Copies of the health and safety policies of the Natural Resources Institute and of Wilton Park have been placed in the Library.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Sir Lanka concerning the protection of workers and the promotion of environmentally sound techniques on re-privatised tea plantations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. The plantation restructuring unit, which is responsible for overseeing the privatisation process, is looking to appoint an independent company to monitor the estates. It will take environmental issues into account, particularly sustainability. The plantation workers are represented by unions which are active on their behalf.

  Mr. Arjumand Naqvi
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Abu Dhabi authorities concerning the death in detention of Mr. Arjumand Naqvi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following Mr. Arjumand Naqvi's death on 3 November 1992 our embassy in Abu Dhabi formally requested a copy of the post mortem report.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took, before the death in Abu Dhabi of Mr. Arjumand Naqvi, to encourage the Abu Dhabi authorities to(a) release him, (b) charge him, (c) provide proper legal representation and (d) provide proper medical attention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made repeated representations to the Abu Dhabi authorities asking them either to charge or release all those detainees, including the late Mr. Arjumand Naqvi, for whom we have consular responsibility. The detainees are free to engage legal representation. A doctor pays regular visits to the detainees.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which United Kingdom posts in Bosnia are able to supply visa application forms to Bosnian nationals wishing to visit the United Kingdom; and what delay there is between a post receiving such applications and decisions being taken;

  (2) how many British officials are present at United Kingdom posts in Bosnia dealing with those applying for visas to visit the United Kingdom; how many interpreters are available to assist at interviews; and in what languages application forms and guidance notes are printed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is no British post in Bosnia.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been authorised to issue visas on behalf of the United Kingdom to Bosnian nationals wishing to visit the United Kingdom; what documentation is required by UNHCR before visas are issued; how many applicants have(a) been granted visas to date, (b) been refused visas to date and (c) appealed against refusal of visas.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UNHCR has not been authorised to issue United Kingdom visas.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made to send humanitarian relief by air to those parts of Bosnia difficult to supply by road.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Lack of airfields and security risks make delivering supplies by air impractical. With the onset of winter UNHCR is concentrating its efforts on supplying humanitarian relief by road. UNPROFOR's mandate was extended by United Nations Security Council resolution 776 to protect road convoys, a more effective way to distribute relief. The Sarajevo airlift continues and has delivered over 17,500 tonnes of aid.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have
  81
  so far been made by Bosnian nationals, or other residents of Bosnia, to visit the United Kingdom, to date; how many applications have (a) been granted, (b) been refused and (c) how many people have applied to appeal against refusal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British consulate general in Milan has received three applications. All were granted. The British embassy in Vienna arranged with the Home Office on 7 November for 115 Bosnians, who had started their journey before the imposition of the visa regime, to enter the United Kingdom without visas. The embassy subsequently referred 183 visa applications from people currently on the Austro-Slovenian border to the Home Office on 13 November. These and our other posts in the region have received a number of telephone inquiries.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what documentation Bosnian nationals are required to submit when applying for visas to visit the United Kingdom; and what evidence of support, maintenance and accommodation in the United Kingdom is required.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no requirements specific to Bosnian nationals. All applicants for visas to visit the United Kingdom have to complete an application form, provide two photographs and pay the appropriate fee. There are no documents which must be presented in support of visa applications. However, in order to satisfy themselves that applicants qualify under the immigration rules, entry clearance officers may ask to see evidence of an applicant's financial standing and funds for the visit, or evidence that a United Kingdom sponsor can and will support and accommodate the applicant during the visit; or evidence of any firm travel plans made, and if appropriate, evidence that the applicant has leave of absence from an employer, and will leave the United Kingdom before the expiry of the period which s/he has been admitted.

  Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have ratified or acceded to the inhumane weapons convention; and when he expects Her Majesty's Government to ratify the convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following states have ratified, accepted or acceded to the convention: Australia, Austria, Benin, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and Yugoslavia.

  We are currently considering ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom, and expect to reach a decision soon.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he proposes to take during the current session of the United Nations General Assembly over human rights abuses in Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General's special representative on human rights in Iran,82
  Mr. Galindo-Pohl, will present a report to the United Nations General Assembly later this month. Together with our EC partners we will work to ensure that his report's findings are fully reflected in any resolution adopted at the General Assembly.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the authorities in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan over its sale of nuclear warheads to Iran.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. We have no reason to believe that any nuclear warheads have been transferred from Kazakhstan to Iran.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Russian Federation over its sale of submarines to Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We expressed to the Russian Government our serious concerns on this subject during President Yeltsin's visit on 9 and 10 November: my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised this matter with President Yeltsin on 9 November. It was also raised during the talks held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with the Russian Foreign Minister on 10 November.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made by the Iranian Government to reopen its office of procurement in London; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iranians have made a number of requests to be allowed to reopen their military procurement offices in London, which were closed in 1987. We have made it clear that this would not be appropriate or welcome.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards asking the United Nations General Assembly to introduce an arms and oil embargo on Iran in view of its continuing human rights abuses.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so. The United Nations Secretary-General's special representative on human rights in Iran, Mr. Galindo-Pohl, will present a report to the United Nations General Assembly later this month. Together with our EC partners we will work to ensure that his report's findings are fully reflected in any resolution adopted at the General Assembly.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account is taken of human rights' records of recipient countries in allocating the aid budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Respect for human rights is a part of our good government policy and an important condition for achieving sustainable development. It is one of the main factors we take into account in deciding where aid resources should be allocated.

  Malawi
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government
  83
  of Malawi regarding the case of Mr. Ulaya; what reports he has received concerning violations of human rights in Malawi since August; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware of reports that Mr. Ulaya and other members of pressure groups recently formed in Malawi have been subjected to harassment and detention by the Malawian authorities. We understand that many were detained only briefly, but that Mr. Ulaya remains in detention in Mzuzu. On many occasions, we have drawn to the attention of the Malawian Government, our concern about human rights abuses in Malawi, most recently in a joint EC demarche on 20 October. We will continue to monitor the situation closely, including the case of Mr. Ulaya.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Malawi concerning(a) the detention and trial of Chakufwa Chihana and (b) the holding of a referendum on multi-party democracy in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We made formal representations in April and August this year calling on the Malawian Government to release Mr. Chihana pending formal committal proceedings and informing them that we considered his arrest and the subsequent charges to be a flagrant violation of his right to freedom of speech. On 20 October, in acknowledging President Banda's decision to hold a nationwide referendum, we urged the Malawian Government to ensure that the process was conducted with transparency and that those groups advocating democratic reform were allowed to do so openly and freely.

  Angola
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the methods whereby the United Kingdom and the EC will facilitate demobilisation, confinement of troops and collection of weapons in Angola, as indicated in the 4 November EC statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The questions of demobilisation, confinement of troops and collection of weapons are addressed in the Bicesse peace agreements, compliance with which we and our EC partners, and the United Nations, are actively seeking to promote.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom and the EC will hold responsible those parties which obstruct the peace process as indicated in the 4 November statement on Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Any party which obstructs the implementation of the Bicesse peace agreements, to which all parties in Angola have committed themselves, will clearly carry responsibility for the frustration of the peace process. As indicated in UN Security Council resolution 785, any such party would be rejected by the international community.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 November,Official Report, column 547, what steps he is taking through the international community to ensure that UNITA accepts the results of the Angolan election and abides by the terms of the peace accords.
  84
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to be active in our support for the efforts of the United Nations to secure formal UNITA acceptance of the election results, consolidation of the cease fire which came into force on 1 November, and continued implementation of the Bicesse peace agreements.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to northern Somalia by the ambassador to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our ambassador to Addis Ababa visited northern Somalia on 2 to 5 November. He went to Hargeisa, Berbera, Sheikh and Burao. He met local leaders and clan elders as well as representatives of United Nations and other aid agencies. His visit was not intended to indicate any recognition of the so-called Republic of Somaliland.

  European Community Officials
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards increasing the number of Britons employed by the EC; and if he will make a statement on the European fast-stream project.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following representations from the British Government, the Commission has now started to hold regular recruitment competitions for graduates from all academic disciplines—"generalist" competitions. When the first of these competitions was introduced last year there was an enthusiastic response from United Kingdom candidates. In time we hope that a much greater number of Britons will be able to gain employment in the European Community via this route.

  Meanwhile, the European staffing unit in my Department is tackling the problem of British under-representation in other ways. A main task has been to set up and run the "European fast-stream" scheme. Up to 30 administrators, economists and lawyers are recruited to the British civil service each year and helped to prepare for the European Community competitions through a combination of relevant postings and training. Currently, there are 59 European fast-streamers in post, and we plan to build up to a maximum of 120 by the end of 1994. Although the scheme is still in its infancy, the initial results have been encouraging: over 50 per cent. of those who took last year's generalist competition have been invited to the final interview stage.

  Nuclear Material (Export)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional allocation of resources has been made by Her Majesty's Government in support of the application of International Atomic Energy Agency INFCIRC/254/rev parts I and II, of July 1992, to amend international export control provisions on nuclear material, equipment and technology; and if he will make a statement on the co-operation arrangements in place between the European Atomic Energy Agency and the IAEA in enforcing the safeguards guidelines.
  85
  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  INFCIRC/254 records common principles and guidelines that nuclear supplier states have agreed to follow in considering nuclear exports. Implementation is therefore undertaken by the nuclear supplier states, not the IAEA. In the United Kingdom, application of the recent revisions to INFCIRC/254 will be met from within existing resources.

  The arrangements for the application of safeguards in the non-nuclear weapon states of the community are set out in an agreement (INFCIRC/193) between these states, the European Atomic Energy Community and the IAEA. As announced by the IAEA on 29 April 1992, discussions are under way between Euratom and the agency, in the context of IN FCIRC/193, to examine new approaches on the implementation of safeguards. This study has not yet been completed.

WALES

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chief executive officer and leader of Blaenau Gwent borough council, together with representatives of other local authorities, to discuss the current capital allocation and its effect on the provision of mandatory home renovation grants.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I understand that a meeting between my officials and Blaenau Gwent will take place this week.

  Motor Components Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the motor components industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The motor components industry has developed strongly in Wales and now employs about 18,000 with a wide range of products and companies.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of male unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In October 1992, seasonally adjusted male unemployment in Wales was 103,000.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales and in Clwyd are without jobs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In October 1992 there were 127,191 and 15,762 unemployed in Wales and Clwyd respectively.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he intends to introduce to curb the increase in Welsh unemployment.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office and its agencies, which already operate a range of measures to increase employment opportunities, will continue to look for further opportunities which will increase employment prospects.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of unemployed persons in Wales, Mid Glamorgan and Ogmore; and what were the numbers in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991.
  86
  Mr. David Hunt
  In October 1992, there were 130,200, 25,586 and 3,300 unemployed claimants in Wales, Mid Glamorgan and Ogmore constituency respectively.

  Comparable figures for Wales for 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1991 are 63,800, 154,400, 140,700 and 119,900 respectively.

  Comparable data for 1979 are not available for Mid Glamorgan and Ogmore constituency, but for 1983, 1987 and 1991, the figures are 33,452, 24,418, 24,636; and 4,350, 3,841, 3,129 for Mid Glamorgan and Ogmore constituency respectively.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to safeguard the teaching of Welsh following implementation in Wales of the White Paper on education proposals.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This Government have already taken steps to safeguard the teaching of Welsh by establishing it as a foundation subject in the national curriculum. The proposals in the White Paper will enable further improvements to be made to the teaching of Welsh in schools.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest timetable for the implementation of changes to the structure of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My timetable is unchanged—I expect the new authorities to assume their responsibilities in April 1995.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Touche Ross report into cardiac surgery facilities in Wales will be published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I expect the report to be submitted to my right hon. Friend later this year.

  Bettws Colliery
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited the Bettws colliery, near Ammanford, to discuss the employment prospects in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Arrangements are being made for me to meet a number of local authorities and other interested bodies to discuss local economic issues, including the effect of possible colliery closures.

  Arable Support Scheme
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the criteria and reasoning supporting his decision to make Wales a single separate region for the arable support scheme, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1765/92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I was obliged to have regard to the terms of the regulation and to the reliability of available data on cereal yields in recent years.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress with the construction of the second Severn crossing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Construction of this £500 million project is substantially under way. Preliminary offshore foundation work for the estuary crossing is progressing well. Tenders have been invited for the approach roads on both sides of the estuary.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what effect there has been on unemployment levels in the area covered by the valleys initiative since the scheme was launched.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unemployment rate in the valleys is 8·3 per cent. lower than it was in 1988 when the programme for the valleys began. United Kingdom unemployment is now more than 20 per cent. higher than it was in 1988 when the programme for the valleys began.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning surplus school places in the primary and secondary sector in each local education authority in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As the answer contains numerous figures I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. There are, however, more than 118,000 surplus places in primary and secondary schools throughout Wales. The cost of supplying these places is estimated at about £25 million.

  Following is the information:

  Surplus places in maintained schools in Wales at 1 January 1991

  County

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Clwyd

  9,987

  2,927

  12,914

  Dyfed

  9,013

  2,071

  11,084

  Gwent

  9,799

  10,604

  20,403

  Gwynedd

  5,129

  4,533

  9,662

  Mid Glamorgan

  13,416

  7,409

  20,825

  Powys

  3,102

  1,602

  4,704

  South Glamorgan

  9,864

  7,318

  17,182

  West Glamorgan

  14,025

  7,303

  21,328

  Wales

  74,335

  43,767

  118,102

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has regarding the assisted area status of Llanelli travel-to-work area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations about the Llanelli travel-to-work area, from local authorities and other organisations, some of which request that Llanelli be upgraded to development area status, others seek to maintain its present status.

  Employment Information
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he plans to introduce to improve the accuracy of employment information.
  88
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department of Employment is responsible for the preparation of employment estimates for Wales.

  In the past two years, the Employment Department has completed three major projects to improve the reliability of the estimates. Other projects, including the first full census of employers since 1981 and the development with the Central Statistical Office of a register of employers, will be completed over the next three years.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that the majority of members of the boards of national health service hospital trusts in Wales are elected.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made towards the announcement of grant-maintained schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In addition to the three schools in Wales already enjoying grant-maintained status, four schools—Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan and Maelor comprehensive in Clwyd, Caergeiliog primary in Gwynedd, and Llanerfyl Church in Wales primary in Powys—have published proposals to become grant maintained. I hope to make an announcement to the first of these, Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan, shortly.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress the Higher Education Funding Council is making in the development of higher education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales assumes responsibility for the funding of higher education in Wales next April. Since its inception the council has met on four occasions and has concentrated on formulating a policy for funding the higher education institutions next year.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students have(a) applied for and (b) received discretionary grants in each local authority area in Wales in each of the last five years; and how much money has been allocated for discretionary grants in each of the last five years in each local education authority area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of students who have applied for discretionary grants and the amounts allocated is not held centrally.

  Acccording to returns made to the Department of Education, 11,478 students received discretionary grants from local education authorities (LEAs) in Wales in the academic year 1990–91. This is the latest year for which such information is available. Similar information for previous years could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The allocation of money for discretionary grants is a matter for LEAs. Each LEA determines its own discretionary grants policies, the cost being met from within its own resources.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that the principles and good practice outlined in the all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped people are fully implemented within special needs provisions within the further education sector in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An important contribution is made by further education in fulfilling the principles of the all-Wales mental handicap strategy. The Further Education Funding Council aims to ensure that the needs of students with a mental handicap are assessed and appropriate provision identified. The funding council is working to ensure the best possible response to students needs.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to grant increased funding to colleges in the further education sector in Wales for the running of special needs courses for students with learning difficulties.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Until 1 April 1993 responsibility for special needs courses in the further education sector in Wales rests with the local education authorities. From that date, responsibility will transfer to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. My right hon. Friend, in his letter of guidance to the chairman of the funding council, asked that the council's decisions on the distribution of funds to the colleges should take account of the additional costs involved in making provision for students with learning difficulties.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations have been cancelled in Wales on the day the patient was due for the operation since April.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific courses for students with learning difficulties within further education colleges in Wales which have been disbanded in each year since 1987–88; and what was the reason for each course being brought to an end.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the designated courses for students with learning difficulties which have been offered by each college of further education in Wales in each academic year since 1987–88; and how many students followed each course in each academic year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Rivers Authority.
  90
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and his officials hold frequent discussions with the chairman arid officers of the National Rivers Authority about matters of mutual interest.

  Furniture Safety
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals to grant support for premises to enable compliance with the draft Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the annual budget since its creation, of the TECs in Clwyd; and what is the percentage annual change in the central Government contribution to the budget.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The majority of the county of Clwyd is covered by North West Wales TEC. North East Wales TEC covers the western part of the county. Comparative information is only available for financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93. The following table sets out expenditure, budgets and percentage changes for the TECs concerned.

  Total expenditure and budgets

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  North East Wales TEC

  11·363

  11·164

  -1·75

  North West Wales TEC

  12·883

  14·163

  9·94

  Mencap
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures the Government are taking to ensure that county council funding of Mencap is adequate.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  County joint planning teams—which are led by social services departments and consisting of representatives of health authorities, housing associations, education authorities, voluntary organisations, service users and their carers—are responsible for the planning and the priority of services for the mentally handicapped including those provided by Mencap in Wales. The available resources are then allocated according to the locally determined priorities.

  British Rail
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the chairman of British Rail.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend meets Sir Bob Reid regularly. They last met on 7 September, but a date for their next meeting has not yet been arranged.

  Education White Paper
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he will propose for financing the education services provided by the National Library of Wales in consequence of the proposals contained in the education White Paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposals in Cm 2021 have no direct implications for the services provided by the National Library of Wales. With regard to the museum school service, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 5 November,Official Report, column 388.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to combat single teenage pregnancies in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales undertakes a range of initiatives in collaboration with national and local agencies, to promote healthy sexuality, and combat teenage pregnancy. They include provision of information and advice on contraception, sex education, pilot projects including parents, research on knowledge and attitudes/behaviour, the development of databases for professionals working in this area, and support for multi-agency initiatives. The Department also provides direct support to the Family Planning Association in Wales for its work which includes training for those working with young people.

  District health authorities are also addressing the issue of teenage pregnancy and many have introduced measures geared to local needs, including health education programmes and services specifically for young people. Further guidance will be contained in the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Emotional Health and Relationships", due to be published in early 1993.

  Births
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many babies have been born in Wales since April; and how many nursing mothers were allocated qualified nurses, midwives or health visitors.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of live births in Wales from 1 April 1992 to 31 July 1992 which had been registered on or before 31 July was approximately 10,780. This figure includes all live births in hospitals in Wales, and live births at home to women usually resident in Wales. It does not include a small number of births which would have occurred elsewhere. Information about births registered after the end of July is not yet available.

  The number of nursing mothers allocated qualified nurses, midwives or health visitors is not available centrally.

  Child Psychotherapists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many child psychotherapists are in practice in Wales; what plans he has to increase this number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 30 September 1992 there were three—whole-time equivalent 1·5—child psychotherapists 92
  employed within the national health service in Wales. Information about the number of child psychotherapists in practice outside the NHS is not collected centrally. The Department is also funding a child psychotherapist post in Clwyd health authority, from the mental illness strategy.

  Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the youth training and employment training schemes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment today,Official Report, columns 24–5.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for improving the training and enterprise councils in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The training and enterprise councils (TECs) in Wales have made good progress in tackling skills and business development needs in their local communities. My right hon. Friend has issued strategic guidance setting out the key issues he wishes them to address and Ministers meet regularly with the chairmen of the Welsh TECs to discuss and review progress.

  National Record of Achievement
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the cost implication of the stationery required for the national record of achievement post-16 for high schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The national record of achievement is not compulsory for post-16 in high schools. It is therefore for individual schools to decide whether to fund the NRA's introduction for post-16 students.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost to individual high schools of the post-16 national record of achievement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As the national record of achievement is not compulsory post-16, central records are not kept and the information is not available. However, if individual schools decide to introduce the NRA post-16, the cost varies according to the numbers ordered, ranging from £7·00 per folder for ordering one to £3·27 per folder for bulk orders of 100 or more.

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of research funding to universities in Wales from agencies funded by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Financial allocations for programmes, including higher education, within the Welsh block will be announced in the near future.

  Sixth Form Students
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of students in the sixth forms of Wales.
  93
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In September 1991 there were 23,185 pupils in sixth forms in Wales.

  This figure includes the number of pupils in the two sixth form colleges in Wales.

  High Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority high schools there are in each of the local education authorities of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of local education authority secondary schools in Wales as at September 1992 was as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  33

  Dyfed

  31

  Gwent

  31

  Gwynedd

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  42

  Powys

  13

  South Glamorgan

  27

  West Glamorgan

  26

  WALES

  226

  These figures include two local education authority sixth form colleges, one in Clwyd and the other in South Glamorgan.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the £75 million allocated to fulfil plans for local job creation in areas affected by pit closures has been requested by each of the training and enterprise councils covering Betws, Point of Ayr and Taff Merthyr collieries.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have already announced that, over the next 18 months, I shall be making available up to £4·8 million for employment arid training measures in the areas affected. I am considering the action plans from the TECs involved and will announce my decisions on funding in due course.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning personnel procedures and guidelines; and if he will make a statement on departures by the agency from the standard procedures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I meet regularly with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a range of issues.

  America's Cup
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has received for public sector assistance for a Welsh challenge for the America's cup; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There have been informal discussions about the possibility of a Welsh entry in the America's cup. I have received no formal request for financial assistance from the public sector.

HEALTH

  London Ambulance Service
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current sick leave rate for the London ambulance service; what is the national average for sick leave; what is the position of the London service in the rank order of ambulance services with the highest amount of sick leave; and if she will ensure that this aspect of the management of the London ambulance service is considered by the inquiry into the service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on sick leave among ambulance staff is not regularly reported to the Department of Health. The results of a recent survey of urban (1) ambulance services are set out in the table.

  Average per cent. of ambulance staff on sick leave

  Per cent.

  London

  9·88

  South Yorkshire

  7·00

  West Midlands

  6·94

  Surrey

  6·50

  West Yorkshire

  6·50

  Avon

  6·00

  Cleveland

  5·50

  Greater Manchester

  4·90

  Mersey

  3·50

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates, the purpose on each occasion, and the name of the Minister for each official visit to the headquarters of the London ambulance service between 10 April and 25 October.

  Mr. Sackville
  I visited the London ambulance service on 13 May and 30 September.

  On 13 May, I met Mr. James Harris, chairman of the London ambulance service board, to discuss the performance of the service.

  The purpose of my visit on 30 September was to meet control room and ambulance personnel.

  Patients' Transport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to encourage district health authorities to make use of(a) taxis in general and (b) the new design of taxi with its special facilities for the disabled in their provision of non-emergency patient transport services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance issued by the Department advises that non-emergency patient transport services purchasers should make use of all modes of transport from a range of patient transport service operators who can provide a reliable and flexible service to patients, including, for example, the NHS ambulance service, private ambulance operators, vehicle hire, taxis and voluntary car services. The form of transport used will be determined locally and should be the most suitable for each patient's needs, taking into account any recommendation made by the patient's doctor.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing, for men aged 65 years and over and women aged 60 years and over, the
  95
  number of deaths from hypothermia in (a) Pendle, (b) Lancashire and (c) the United Kingdom for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate for males aged 65 years and over and females aged 60 years and over in (a) Pendle, (b) Lancashire and (c) United Kingdom for the years 1987 to 1991.

  Males aged 65 +

  Females aged 60 +

  1987

  United Kingdom

  199

  387

  Lancashire

  2

  14

  Pendle

  0

  0

  1988

  United Kingdom

  169

  317

  Lancashire

  3

  9

  Pendle

  0

  0

  1989

  United Kingdom

  152

  307

  Lancashire

  6

  6

  Pendle

  0

  0

  1990

  United Kingdom

  164

  282

  Lancashire

  5

  4

  Pendle

  0

  0

  1991

  United Kingdom

  188

  363

  Lancashire

  5

  7

  Pendle

  0

  0

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the actual and (b) the percentage difference in budget between 1991–92 and 1992–93 for each district health authority in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary is payable to the chairman of the NHS Supplies Authority; and how many days a week he is expected to devote to his duties.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority is currently paid £20,925 per annum. He is expected to devote sufficient time to NHS Supplies to meet fully the responsibilities of his office.

  Staff Relocation
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting support staff have been or will be relocated from Woodseats house, Chesterfield road, Sheffield, to London.

  Mr. Sackville
  None have moved. The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is considering the possibility of relocation as part of a cost-savings programme.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual cost of NHS prescriptions; and what is the total cost of items supplied by appliance contractors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total cost of national health service prescriptions in the family health services in England, including dispensing fees, amounted to £2,924 million in 1991–92, of which around £30 million related to prescriptions dispensed by appliance contractors.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what differences there are in the arrangements for paying appliance contractors and pharmacists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  For dispensing appliances, appliance contractors receive a dispensing fee and payment of between 25 per cent. and 15·8 per cent. of the cost of the appliances, depending on the number of prescriptions they dispense in a month. Pharmacy contractors currently receive a dispensing fee, 2·5 per cent. of the cost of the appliances and various minor allowances. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 30 October, at column 941. We shall be reviewing the structure of payments to appliance contractors in the light of changes we are making to pharmacists' remuneration.

  Dentists
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of the dentists in England that are refusing to take on new national health service patients.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are currently unemployed in each health region in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure that arrangements for community care will work for people who do not come from stable backgrounds or have recognisable local links.

  Mr. Yeo
  We believe that homeless people who need care should receive it on the same basis as all other citizens. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities towards people of no settled residence as well as people ordinarily resident in their areas. We will issue guidance to local authorities early next year to help them determine from April 1993 "ordinary residence" and responsibility for funding in individual cases.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of commissioning York Health Economics Consortium to carry out the review of the accident and emergency services; and to whom the cost falls.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. M. F. Emberton, chairman of Liverpool health authority, for details.

  Budgets, Merseyside
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual budget for(a) the Liverpool district health authority and (b) the North Mersey Health Consortium for the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Liverpool health authority's total purchasing budget for the current year, excluding GP fund holders, amounts to £218 million.

  The North Mersey Health Consortium, which includes Liverpool, South Sefton, St. Helens and Knowsley and Southport and Formby district health authorities, has a current purchasing budget of some £460 million.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of out-patients in each health authority in England were(a) given a specific appointment and (b) seen within 30 minutes of that time for each of the last available financial years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Estates Agency under its chief executive, Mr. John Locke, and to the Medicines Control Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Keith Jones. I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member.

  Day case self-deferred—March 1992 by region and specialty

  Region

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglia

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  SHAs

  England

  *Data includes Trusts

  General Surgery

  230

  220

  391

  214

  123

  318

  248

  333

  105

  151

  311

  592

  279

  371

  24

  3,908

  Urology

  119

  83

  79

  74

  54

  178

  37

  75

  51

  19

  112

  114

  58

  87

  18

  1,158

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  148

  92

  249

  110

  141

  187

  70

  203

  98

  177

  275

  274

  134

  119

  29

  2,304

  ENT

  28

  29

  71

  46

  36

  60

  10

  82

  13

  53

  56

  55

  25

  72

  4

  639

  Opthalmology

  27

  17

  28

  38

  32

  17

  6

  75

  18

  9

  41

  50

  50

  70

  72

  546

  Oral Surgery

  18

  74

  56

  65

  46

  48

  37

  94

  39

  29

  89

  107

  35

  110

  6

  853

  Restorative Dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Paediatric Dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  63

  79

  Orthodontics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  5

  12

  Plastic Surgery

  41

  8

  52

  16

  63

  25

  10

  26

  0

  68

  56

  25

  15

  131

  0

  634

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Paediatric Surgery

  16

  6

  0

  0

  2

  0

  6

  16

  35

  0

  1

  13

  0

  1

  15

  111

  Accident and Emergency

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  3

  11

  1

  0

  0

  29

  0

  0

  0

  47

  Anaesthetics

  2

  21

  6

  12

  0

  6

  0

  8

  0

  8

  0

  29

  9

  16

  0

  117

  General Medicine

  0

  0

  13

  121

  20

  30

  2

  60

  4

  3

  14

  188

  3

  83

  0

  541

  Gastroenterology

  0

  30

  21

  0

  32

  41

  0

  3

  0

  13

  2

  5

  28

  16

  0

  191

  Endocrinology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Clinical Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  Clinical Physiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical Pharmacology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Audiological Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical Genetics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  CL Cytogenetics/Molecul

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rehabilitation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Palliative Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiology

  0

  5

  2

  0

  2

  13

  0

  11

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  12

  46

  Dermatology

  5

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  4

  0

  0

  2

  0

  27

  2

  52

  Thoracic Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Infectious Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Medical Oncology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Nuclear Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Paediatrics

  5

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Paediatric Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Geriatric Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  13

  Dental Medicine Specialist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Obs and Gyn (Gynaecology)

  59

  215

  143

  150

  35

  273

  61

  254

  82

  120

  47

  281

  137

  86

  7

  1,950

  GP (Non Maternity)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  98
  Letter from J. Locke to Mr. John McAllion, dated 13 November 1992:

  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply in writing to the Parliamentary Question (No. 1779) you tabled on the health and safety policy of the NHS Estates agency.

  NHS Estates currently adopts the policy of the Department of Health as a whole. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library as requested.

  We shall be moving to our own offices in Leeds next year and may have to develop our own health and safety policy for staff in that building and administer it within the agency then.

  I hope that you find this helpful.

  Letter from R. A. Alder to Mr. John McAllion, dated 16 November 1992:

  The Secretary of State for Health will have advised you that your recent Parliamentary Question will be answered directly by the Chief Executive of the relevant agencies. I give below the response for the Medicines Control Agency6:

  Parliamentary Question P.1779

  This Agency, being part of the Department of Health, operates the same policies on health and safety at work as the Department. Therefore, we are arranging for a copy of the Department's Policy Statement to be placed in the Library.

  Waiting lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer of 22 October,Official Report, column 369, how many self-deferred cases are included in the figures for March 1992 of (a) in-patient admissions and (b) day case admissions of (i) in each NHS region and in England in total and (ii) in each specialty.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The information requested is given in the table.

  This shows that the total number of patients who declined an offer of admission fell by nearly 4,000 (or 8 per cent.) compared with March 1991.
  99

  Region

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglia

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  SHAs

  England

  Mental Handicap

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental Illness

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Child Adolescent Psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Forensic Psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Old Age Psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Radiotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Radiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blood Transfusion

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chemical Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Histopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Immunopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Medical Microbiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neuropathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Occupational Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All Specialities

  694

  799

  1,116

  854

  588

  1,204

  489

  1,285

  480

  850

  1,004

  1,773

  774

  1,199

  262

  13,151

  In-patient self-deferred—March 1992 by region and specially

  Region

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglia

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  Wessex

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  SHAs

  England

  * Data includes Trusts

  General Surgery

  375

  633

  763

  395

  519

  1,109

  462

  587

  720

  294

  797

  1,073

  389

  422

  57

  8,585

  Urology

  85

  135

  119

  130

  102

  405

  88

  134

  88

  25

  115

  170

  87

  135

  56

  1,874

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  346

  318

  874

  313

  408

  875

  198

  313

  362

  218

  462

  781

  188

  247

  43

  5,942

  ENT

  225

  261

  366

  261

  353

  585

  169

  445

  205

  193

  453

  386

  175

  306

  22

  4,385

  Ophthalmology

  124

  96

  120

  121

  205

  100

  116

  185

  159

  62

  158

  271

  179

  191

  284

  2,349

  Oral Surgery

  58

  150

  173

  187

  158

  230

  87

  116

  178

  114

  192

  203

  6

  78

  8

  1,919

  Restorative Dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Paediatric Dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  7

  Orthodontics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Neurosurgery

  0

  3

  7

  5

  4

  16

  0

  8

  0

  0

  5

  8

  0

  0

  23

  84

  Plastic Surgery

  87

  26

  147

  54

  130

  84

  62

  78

  0

  121

  172

  31

  13

  118

  8

  1,131

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  0

  10

  19

  9

  20

  35

  19

  3

  1

  0

  10

  3

  9

  2

  11

  151

  Paediatric Surgery

  7

  14

  4

  7

  10

  6

  22

  6

  21

  0

  2

  18

  0

  10

  7

  134

  Accident and Emergency

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Anaesthetics

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  4

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6

  0

  0

  30

  General Medicine

  1

  1

  7

  4

  5

  51

  0

  12

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  85

  Gastroenterology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  27

  24

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1

  3

  66

  Endocrinology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  18

  Clinical Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Clinical Physiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical Pharmacology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Audiological Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical Genetics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  CL Cytogenetics/Molecul

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rehabilitation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Palliative Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiology

  0

  5

  7

  12

  22

  63

  50

  2

  2

  2

  2

  13

  16

  2

  4

  202

  Dermatology

  6

  0

  2

  0

  0

  9

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  31

  Thoracic Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Infectious Diseases

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  1

  1

  8

  5

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  18

  Medical Oncology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  30

  Nuclear Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurology

  12

  1

  0

  2

  7

  18

  1

  3

  0

  2

  1

  7

  20

  9

  53

  136

  Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rheumatology

  0

  4

  14

  0

  0

  4

  4

  3

  0

  7

  3

  7

  0

  2

  1

  49

  Paediatrics

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2

  14

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  23

  Paediatric Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  Geriatric Medicine

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  Dental Medicine Specialist

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Obs and Gyn (Gynaecology)

  165

  309

  398

  178

  130

  480

  179

  276

  283

  120

  223

  397

  215

  242

  30

  3,615

  GP (Non Maternity)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  Mental Handicap

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mental Illness

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  6

  1

  9

  Child Adolescent Psychiatry

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Forensic Psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Old Age Psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Radiotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  12

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  Radiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  General Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blood Transfusion

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chemical Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Histopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Immunopathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Medical Microbiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neuropathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Occupational Medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All Specialties

  1,495

  1,966

  3,008

  1,664

  2,095

  4,151

  1,503

  2,163

  2,044

  1,159

  2,597

  3,376

  1,306

  1,777

  662

  30,965

  100

  Thrombosis
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assistance has been given in the past by her Department to the Thrombosis Research Institute; and what such resources will continue to be made available in the future;

  (2) if she will make a statement outlining all the funding which is currently made available by her Department to research into the causes and treatments of thrombosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health made a grant to the Thrombosis Research Institute of £600,000 spread over three years ending in 1991–92 to assist with the establishment of the institute. We have no current plans to extend this funding. Consideration of support for research into the causes and treatment of thrombosis is a matter for the Medical Research Council.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the number of deaths from thrombosis in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Deaths from Thrombosis1 for England and Wales 1982–1991

  Year

  Number

  1982

  120,102

  1983

  118,958

  1984

  115,685

  1985

  116,591

  1986

  111,810

  1987

  107,766

  1988

  103,932

  1989

  99,193

  1990

  95,799

  1991

  93,609

  1 ICD 410 Acute Myocardial Infarction.

  ICD 434·0 Cerebral Thrombosis.

  ICD 444 Arterial Embolism and Thrombosis.

  ICD 452 Portal Vein Thrombosis.

  ICD 453 Other Venous Embolism and Thrombosis.

  Drug and Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on future payment of development moneys for drug and alcohol clinics.

  Mr. Yeo
  An announcement regarding the specific grants to be made available for 1993–94 for the personal social services will be made shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she proposes to ensure that local 102
  authorities give proper weight to the needs of alcohol and drug misusers under community care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The special circumstances of alcohol and drug misusers have implications for both local authorities and service providers in funding for community care.

  We propose to address these by issuing special guidance to encourage local authorities to pay special attention to meeting the needs of alcohol and drug misusers within community care and encouraging local authorities and alcohol and drug services providers to work together to establish "fast track" assessment procedures to ensure that decisions about service provision for these clients can be made quickly and establish good practice in identifying responsible authorities for out-of-area referrals.

  We will also establish special monitoring arrangements for alcohol and drug misuse services in the first three months after the third stage of our community care reforms come into operation in April 1993.

  We have already taken steps to ensure that the £539 million special transitional grant (STG), which will fund the additional community care responsibilities being assumed by local authorities from April next year, is spent on services which reflect client's wishes and causes minimal turbulence. These are:

  (i) the pre-condition of the STG that health authorities and local authorities should have signed agreements on where their responsibilities lie;

  (ii) that 85 per cent. of the transfer element of the STG be spent in the independent sector;

  (iii) the direction on choice which will ensure that the views of alcohol and drugs misusers—like other community care clients—are taken into account when deciding the most appropriate package of care.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the difficulties projects such as Phoenix House will face following the introduction of community care in April 1993 in negotiating contracts with many local authorities;

  (2) what action she proposes to take to ensure the future funding arrangements of Phoenix House and other short-stay residential projects for drug misusers;

  (3) if she will make it her policy to ring-fence funds to protect residential drug services within the funds earmarked for community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  A special transitional grant for community care of £539 million will be made available to local authorities in 1993–94. This money will be ring-fenced for use by local authorities for the whole range of community care, including services for drug and alcohol misusers. We have, however, recognised the special circumstances in relation to services for drug and alcohol misusers and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) today.

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

Biodiversity Initiative
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to implement the proposal from the Natural History Museum, and other organisations, in response to the Prime Minister's announcement of the Darwin initiative for the survival of species at the UNCED Conference in Rio de Janeiro in June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, consultations with interested institutions and organisations, including the Natural History Museum, are continuing and we expect to make a statement later in the year on the structure of the initiative and the activities to be undertaken as part of it.
I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that provision has been made in this year's public expenditure survey for the Darwin initiative of £1 million for 1993–94, £2 million for 1994–95 and £3 million for 1995–96.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. May I ask for more details of his reply relative to securing the future of the National History Museum and its continuing ability to provide international leadership in the field of biodiversity? What action will Her Majesty's Government take to provide it with modern storage and research facilities, according to its latest corporate plan, not yet published? What benefits might it expect to receive from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, in which he announced that he intends to rescue the construction industry by placing massive orders on public account?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that a question on the future of the Natural History Museum is the one on the Order Paper. However we very much want to work with the Natural History Museum to further the cause of biodiversity.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I warmly welcome the announcement of the financial provision over the next three years? Will he say a little more about the consultation? What opportunities to take part will there be for non-scientific bodies interested in all aspects of the follow-up of the Rio Conference so that there will be maximum consultation with interested parties?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, there are many different organisations, not just
446
scientific ones, which we shall wish to continue to consult. We recognise that many different people have an interest in the subject.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, for those noble Lords who are not scientists, will my noble friend tell us what is biodiversity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, biodiversity is the study of the different species that occur in our natural environment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the figures he announced are enough for the Natural History Museum and others to implement that most important initiative announced at Rio by the Prime Minister?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe that the money is enough. We have not yet decided how that money will be shared out. That will be decided in a report that will be made before the end of the year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister's announcement about funding is, of course, welcome. Will he say a bit more about the report which will be made before the end of the year? Who will it be made to and upon what will the decisions be based?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall have to see the report before I can say what it is going to report. It will be given to the House. Exactly how it will be given to the House will depend upon the importance of the report.

Trident Missiles: Testing
2.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following Baroness Trumpington's Answer on 26th October [col. WA 93] that "it is not practicable for the UK to test [nuclear weapons] while the US Government is itself unable to do so", Trident missiles will not even be tested to ensure their safety; and, if so, whether the country most threatened by the missiles will be Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like the noble Lord and, I suspect, all Members of the House, I am delighted to be able to rely upon the considerable authority of my noble friend whom he quotes in his Question.
It is important to distinguish between the testing programme of our Trident warhead, which has been successfully completed, and the quite separate process of testing the Trident missile. The missile has already been extensively and successfully test-fired in the United States, and will also undergo a comprehensive series of trials, assessments and formal safety approval procedures before entering service with the Royal Navy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Minister and the Government are so satisfied with the position, why do not they join the United States in declaring a moratorium on nuclear testing?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord that the present Administration in the United States, like us, feels that the resolution proposed and passed by Congress is unfortunate and misguided. As I have made perfectly clear to noble Lords, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular, on previous occasions, the reason it is important that we should continue testing is, above all else, for matters of safety.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Viscount on a point of fact, the United States Administration has since accepted the position of Congress and the President elect equally accepts the idea of a moratorium. The British Government are alone in standing out against it. Is it not about time that they changed their minds?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not wish to indulge in your Lordships' House in a pantomime-like, "Yes, it is", "No, it isn't" exchange, but I must emphasise to your Lordships that the US Administration believes, like us, that Congress's legislation for a moratorium and an end to testing in 1996 is misguided.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that far from being threatened by these missiles, Scotland—in common with the rest of the free world—feels secure in having them, as she and the rest of the free world did with having the Polaris submarines? Will he further point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that even the Labour Party now concedes that the defence of our country in nuclear terms is important? Not only does it back the siting of Trident on the Clyde, but it is rightly campaigning for the reprocessing and refitting of the Trident submarines at Rosyth, also in Scotland.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his authoritative interpretations of public opinion in Scotland. I am the first to agree with him that I should be unwise in any way to challenge his diagnosis of what people think north of the Border. In the Ministry of Defence, we have noted the remarkable degree to which the Labour Party is campaigning towards the retention of nuclear refitting at Rosyth. It is a decision which the Ministry of Defence will find difficult to take, but which will certainly be taken within the reasonably near future.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, whether or not the United States legislation is misguided, it is there? Since we test in the United States, it means that we shall only be able to have three tests up to September 1996 and no tests thereafter. In the light of that, will the Government reconsider their view and cease opposing a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have certainly never denied the desirability of ultimately endorsing a complete test ban treaty. However, it is perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, should, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, realise that any future testing from now relates not to the safety of the Trident system itself but very much to the safety of future systems and the capabilities of the teams we have in place in this country.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the commitment of the Labour Party is still to a total ban on nuclear testing? In his replies, he seems to assume that there has not been an election in the United States. To what extent are the Government in touch with the next Administration in the United States—which on many issues pursues a different policy—in order to bring our policy a little more up to date?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know from his experience and would rightly expect Her Majesty's Government to be in close touch with events in the United States and I can reassure him on that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not fair to say that the noble Viscount has now admitted that the Government are in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty? It is just a question of time. If—and it is an "if"—the new Administration of the United States takes the resolution of Congress at its face value and does not continue testing in the United States and removes our testing facilities, to reiterate the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and puts a time-frame on it, when will the Government come out in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything revolutionary or new in a declaration from Her Majesty's Government's Ministers that we are in favour of an ultimate test ban treaty. That has been perfectly common ground between us for many years. What we have to realise is that such a treaty has to be capable of standing, of verification, and it has to work. There is a great deal going on in the world today which makes single-minded and easily-taken resolutions of the kind to which the noble Lord referred potentially dangerous. We know of a great many nations in the world, particularly in the third world today, whose reliability on matters of non-proliferation is open to question. I know that the noble Lord himself has referred to them in the past.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that no negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty have taken place during the lifetime of the Bush Administration, but that the new President elect has stated that he is in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty? If he proposes that negotiations shall be reopened and resumed, will the Government accept that? In other words, is the Government's adhesion to a comprehensive test ban treaty real?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not know that I can add very much to the situation which I have once again described this afternoon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. We have never been against an ultimate test ban treaty. What we have to make sure is that the agreement sticks and will be of some value. I would add that for the moment the noble Lord ought to realise that, from the point of view of safety, for those who have nuclear weapons and use them as a deterrent those weapons are infinitely safer if there is a testing capacity. It is the safety aspect to which I urge the noble Lord to address himself.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who took part in the negotiations for the original three environment test ban treaty in 1963, does my noble friend agree with me that nothing could be more dangerous than a four environment test ban treaty which was incapable of verification or incapable of enforcement?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble and learned friend's intervention. His experience in these matters is certainly much greater than mine. I am happy to give him the assurance which he seeks.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case, and will the noble Viscount not admit, that modern technology can detect a nuclear test wherever that occurs in the world, and therefore the problem of enforcement is not really a great one?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, there is no doubt that a great deal of technical progress has been made and that it is much easier to detect nuclear tests than it would have been many years ago. Nevertheless we must accept that it is not so much testing and the detection of tests that is the difficulty, it is the acquisition and proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly among third world countries, which is a danger. From the noble Lord's previous remarks, I know he is fully aware of that position.

NHS Computers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether an evaluation has been carried out centrally into the use of computers in the NHS; and if not, whether they will refer the matter to the Auditor General, in view of the levels of expenditure involved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the National Audit Office conducted an in-depth audit of NHS computing and published a report Managing Computer Projects in the NHS in November 1990. The department has accepted and acted upon the recommendations made in the report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware that
450
after the audit took place Wessex Regional Health Authority, for example, lost £43 million, of which only £21 million has been reclaimed so far as I am aware? West Midlands Regional Health Authority is now showing substantial losses. As I understand it, Guy's Hospital has discontinued the use of computers because of the failure to find a suitable one for the hospital's needs, and the London Ambulance Service has recently dispensed with computers as they put life at risk—indeed, some people may have died as a result of the operation of computers. Does the Minister think that that situation is good enough? When in another place Members raised the issue with Ministers, they were told to write to the chairman of the appropriate regional health authority. I do not believe the position is good enough. Will the Minister do her best to persuade the Secretary of State that some sense of direction is needed in this difficult situation'? Without that, I believe that there are further similar cases lurking below the surface that will surface shortly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my answer to the first question is yes, and my answer to the second question is yes.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister comment further on the use of computers, as that is what the Question on the Order Paper asks? As regards the ambulance débâcle, it would appear that the people who purchased the computers involved had no training and were conned by all kinds of slick salesmen. It would also appear that the people who used the computers had even less training. The whole matter ended in disaster. Will the Minister give some more information about those aspects of the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am well aware of the issues concerning the London Ambulance Service. Your Lordships will be aware that the chief executive, Mr. John Wilby, resigned from the service on 28th October. The NHS management executive has been developing national standards within which local managers can evaluate commercial systems. The aim is to publish revised guidance early next year.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report of the Audit Commission on the West Midlands Regional Health Authority—the difficulties it raises and the need for speedy action—is taking pride of place in the local press? Is she aware that there could be a possibility of fraud in this area?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Audit Commission is now working with the regional health authority at its request. The Secretary of State has asked Sir Roy Griffiths to go to the West Midlands to help the authority discharge its duties efficiently and effectively.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister advise and assure the House that any future evaluation of computer systems will take into account the latest technology? Much progress has been made recently and indeed there is much to come. It is vital that we in this country are up to date.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the management executive is pursuing the latest technology in computer systems. I am absolutely confident that that will improve health care in this country.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that the district auditor's report on the situation in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has not been published in full. Will the Minister say whether it will eventually be published in full and also whether the report of the inquiry of Sir Roy Griffiths will be published in full when it is completed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Audit Commission has not yet completed its work but I understand from the chairman of the West Midlands that he will wish to make all relevant information available to the public. Sir Roy Griffiths has not been asked to produce a report; he has been asked to work with the regional health authority to help it discharge its obligations efficiently and effectively.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister is clearly aware that one of the consequences of the £20 million loss in Wessex was the closure of 20 beds in St. Martin's Hospital which cares for the elderly and the mentally handicapped. Will she confirm that those beds are still closed, or has it been possible to find funds from other sources to enable that much needed service to continue to be provided?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a matter for local determination. I am not aware at the moment what the position is with regard to those particular beds.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I serviced the entire captain's office on HMS "Siskin" with an old Imperial, a Gestetner and a few filing cabinets? Are we absolutely sure that all these advances are really in the best interests of patient care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the NHS is a huge organisation. If we were to combine the turnover of British Airways, ICI, Shell, Glaxo and IBM, the NHS would still be larger than that combination. Computers are used in a whole range of diverse aspects in the NHS; for example, nursing, pharmacy, clinical diagnosis and treatment, accidents and emergency, in and out-patients, administration, stores, catering, maintenance, and clinical and scientific research. It is a huge complex organisation. No longer can we, sadly, administer it with a quill and ink.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that if one gets to the very forefront of technology in an organisation such as the National Health Service there are bound to be embarrassments and failures and this is what happened in the recent débâcle over the London Ambulance Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think I have gone into the whole issue of complexity. It is
452
enormous. I am absolutely convinced that the large organisations in this country are not perfect when it comes to developing computer systems.
Lord Desai: My Lords, given the size of the NHS, its complexity and what is at stake, is it not time we learnt the costs in terms of beds not being kept open, pacemakers not bought or units not kept open that result from the mismanagement of computer systems? Every time money is lost through computer mismanagement, something else has to give way. Will the Minister promise to provide us with a list of all the embarrassments and mistakes that have occurred and the cost of those mistakes to regional health authorities? If those costs are added up, they might show it is time we had central control of computerisation in the NHS.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am absolutely convinced that the road to disaster lies in the centralisation of everything. It is essential with computers that they are developed locally, that there is a feeling of ownership and that they operate according to the local conditions.

Civil Servants: Engineering Degrees
2.59 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many civil servants of Grade 3 and above hold engineering degrees or have what could reasonably be described as an engineering background.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, at least 31 people in the top three grades hold engineering degrees and 14 others have an engineering background.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am quite grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I hope she will go a little further, however. Does she not agree that if we are going to secure the necessary improvements in our balance of payments it is necessary that there should be a wider understanding of both the needs and the potential of industry? Does she also agree that throughout the Civil Service there should be something more than a haphazard acquaintance with the necessary engineering skills?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that at least a quarter of the secondees now in the Department of Trade and Industry have engineering backgrounds. He will possibly be amazed to discover that there is an engineer in the Treasury. I suggest that, although neither the noble Lord, Lord Benson—to whose words last week our attention has rightly been directed —nor I are engineers, we could not be better advocates for manufacturing industry.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that engineering must be at the root of the emergence of manufacturing industry from the

453
recession? Does she therefore agree that it is time that we had another look at the question of apprentices? So far as I am aware, there are no apprentices being trained in engineering, certainly in the north London area. Does the Minister agree that that means that there will be a lack of skills in the one industry where it is required if we are to come out of the recession?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that engineering and manufacturing are the key to our future economic growth. That is why I am pleased to report that in the five years to 1990 there was a growth of more than 46 per cent. in engineering degrees from polytechnics.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not one of the reasons why there is not a higher proportion of engineers in the Civil Service that at the age of 23 a young engineering graduate wants to go into industry to make things instead of entering an office to draft regulations to impede people from making things? More seriously, is there not a case for greater flexibility to allow entry into the Civil Service in middle age, such as is the case in France, where there is much greater co-operation between industry, business and the Civil Service?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to agree with the noble Lord that making things is what engineering is about. I am pleased to tell him that if one joins the DTI deregulation unit one certainly does not impede; one prevents that from happening. The Civil Service is conscious of the need to ensure that there are opportunities for people with engineering experience at the sharp end to enter the service. That is why I was so pleased to be able to announce the number of secondees and why I am pleased to report that the Office of Science and Technology held a seminar for senior people to look at those issues.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend follow up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as to the recruitment of experienced people to the Civil Service in middle age? Is she aware that it is now extremely difficult for any such person to be taken on? Is that not rather a pity?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important that we ease the communication between industry and the Civil Service, and all possible routes have been examined.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied that professionally qualified people—accoun-tants as well as engineers—who are recruited into the Civil Service, difficult though that may be, are given adequate opportunities to rise to the highest levels and to influence policy-making decisions since many policies cannot be properly formulated unless they are devised by professionally qualified people?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised an important point. That is important if our policies are to be correct. I am delighted to tell her that my records show that we have already had one Permanent Secretary who was an
454
engineer. I am sure that it is perfectly easy for people with the right skills and of the right quality to come through.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that at the time we investigated the matter in the McGaw Committee we found it outstandingly difficult for such people to reach the higher levels and that they were therefore discouraged from staying?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hope that the present situation will please the noble Baroness more.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of civil servants in the Treasury have experience in industry or commerce and what proportion also have experience in other ministries?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid that I caught only half of my noble friend's question from behind me. However, the half which I caught suggests that I should take the matter away and write to him with the details.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I believe that the Minister misunderstood the question of my noble friend Lord Stallard. The Minister talked exclusively of certificated engineers from the polytechnics and universities, whereas the most dreadful shortages will be in the area of craft apprenticeships. For instance, is the Minister aware that only a third of the number of apprentices are now being trained in engineering as fitters, turners and skilled craftsmen compared to 10 years ago, and that those are the areas where the greatest shortages will occur? What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord's question. We are very concerned that there should be facilities for training in engineering at all levels of education. It was for that reason that the technology schools initiative was formulated to encourage youngsters to consider engineering, whatever their talents.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it has taken me all the time since her original Answer until now to get over the surprise of learning that some engineering influence has at last infiltrated into the Treasury? Perhaps I may conclude by expressing the hope that, whoever he or she is, that person is high enough in the Treasury and has a loud enough voice to be heard effectively.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that if he has not my noble friend Lord Peyton will draw my attention to the fact.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
3.7 p.m.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before your Lordships is intended to authorise the construction of a barrage and associated

455
works across the estuaries of the rivers Taff and Ely in Cardiff Bay. It provides for the acquisition of the land and the rights necessary to achieve those two objectives. There is also provision for the necessary framework to enable the barrage to be operated in an appropriate manner with regard to water quality, flooding, the protection of fish and for the management of the lake.
The scheme embodied in the Bill is exceptionally important to the future of Cardiff and to the economy of south-east Wales. It provides an opportunity for the former docklands area of Cardiff to be redeveloped as a high quality, high density part of the city itself and would permit the development of a waterfront that would be an asset to any major city in the world. It would provide an environment where housing and jobs could be created on a scale which could not be achieved by any other scheme which has been considered for the area.
No one who is familiar with South Cardiff can doubt the need to regenerate the area. Much of it is derelict and polluted by the remains of the industries which used to be located there, and major sewerage outfalls flow into the bay itself. Such a situation can only have served as a disincentive to investment. The barrage project will result in the clearance of that dereliction and the recycling of land within the city's existing boundaries for productive use. It will also mean the removal of the 14 main sewerage outfalls which currently flow into the bay. Many opportunities will arise to create environmental benefits for the people who live and work there and for a range of flora and fauna to flourish in the new freshwater environment created by the barrage.
Improved access to new and existing development will clearly play a vital role in the success of the regeneration strategy. Lessons have been learned from docklands. The development corporation place great emphasis on improved infrastructure and has committed £25 million towards the costs of the Butetown link currently under construction. This is a major road link running directly into the heart of the bay area. It will provide key links east and west from the bay. Links between the bay area and the city centre are also being improved. The corporation has undertaken several studies into the provision of public transport in this area. It is concerned that the employment opportunities created should be open to people from the valleys of South Wales as well as from Cardiff. It is discussing options with South Glamorgan County Council and with British Rail, including the possibility of providing a light rail system.
I should remind your Lordships that this is by no means the first time that this House has had an opportunity of debating a Bill to authorise the construction of the Cardiff Bay barrage. Your Lordships may recall that a Private Bill promoted jointly by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and South Glamorgan County Council completed its passage through this House with little amendment on 12th July 1989. It then passed to another place where
456
it underwent extensive debate and further detailed scrutiny. However, on 16th April 1991 that Bill failed to complete its consideration stage.
The Government had given very careful consideration to the barrage proposal and supported the objectives of the Private Bill. Therefore, when the Bill failed to make progress in another place, they announced that they would introduce their own Bill to achieve the main objectives of the Private Bill.
The proposed line of the barrage as shown on the plans deposited with the Bill was one of several options considered in the early feasibility studies. It provides the greatest area of enclosed water, retains the operational use of Cardiff Dock and provides the greatest opportunity for waterside development and recreational use. It is a fundamental principle that the design of the barrage authorised by the Bill should impound the estuaries of the Taff and Ely, thereby replacing the current tidal regime with a fresh water lake. In doing so, it should not impound the entrance to the operational Cardiff Docks but should enclose the Penarth Marina.
The Government have been fully aware of the need to study carefully the environmental implications of the project. In accordance with standing orders a detailed Environmental Statement was deposited with the Bill in another place. I have arranged for copies of the Environmental Statement, and a non-technical summary of it, to be available for your Lordships. Your Lordships will have satisfied yourselves that, in coming to a decision on the principle of the Bill, a full assessment of its environmental effects has taken place.
An inevitable, and regrettable, consequence of the barrage would be the loss of the Taff Ely site of special scientific interest, which provides feeding grounds for migrating birds, notably dunlin and redshank. Those of your Lordships who followed the debates on the Private Bill, and particularly those who were involved in detailed scrutiny in Select Committee, will recall that the Bill included provision for a tidal lagoon at Wentloog, just to the east of Cardiff, to act as alternative feeding grounds for birds displaced from the bay by the impounded lake. Similar provisions were included in the government Bill as introduced in another place.
However, your Lordships will wish to know that these provisions do not appear in the Bill as presented to this House. They were removed at the request of the Select Committee in another place. For our part, the Government remain committed to seeking some form of compensation for the loss of the feeding grounds. We have consulted the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about other possible means of mitigating the loss of those feeding grounds. Their firm advice was that they did not wish to see the lagoon provisions reinstated in the Bill.
On the 30th June my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Welsh Office announced that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and the Land Authority for Wales had commissioned a feasibility study into the suitability of a site on the Gwent Levels as a major bird reserve.

457
Both the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were closely involved in drawing up the terms of the study and continue to be represented on its steering group. The intention is to create an area of wetland which could prove to be a far more effective mitigation measure than the original lagoon proposal. The study is being carried out by consultants, including Mason Pittendrigh and David Bellamy Associates, with high reputations in their fields. The results should be available by the end of the year and your Lordships will, therefore, be able to consider the proposal in more detail at a later stage if you so wish.
If the results of the study are favourable and a decision is taken to proceed with the creation of a bird reserve, we shall not be seeking power under this Bill. No new legislative powers are being sought: the necessary authority is available under existing legislation.
Part I of the Bill provides, in Clause 3 and Schedule 3, for a deemed impoundment licence under the Water Resources Act 1991. These provisions have been included in the Bill with the full agreement of the National Rivers Authority which has a statutory responsibility for such matters. Your Lordships should be aware that in December 1991 the National Rivers Authority issued a detailed position statement on the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage. Copies of the statement are available in the Printed Paper Office. It deals at length with issues for which the NRA has statutory responsibility. Your Lordships will note that the statement indicated that, on the basis of undertakings given to the authority by the Welsh Office and the development corporation, together with the provisions of the Bill, the NRA believes that its statutory duties are adequately safeguarded. Since that time I can tell your Lordships that legal agreements between the NRA and the Welsh Office, the development corporation and Cardiff City Council have been finalised. These cover flood defence and fisheries monitoring arrangements. The agree-ments were signed last month and the NRA has confirmed that its statutory duties were fully preserved and protected.
As I have already indicated, the Government believe that the economic case for the barrage is a very strong one. The proposal has been subject to rigorous and detailed economic appraisals. An updated economic appraisal was published last month, copies of which are available to your Lordships. It shows that the attractive new environment created by the barrage could support over 23,000 new jobs. Private sector investment of well over £1,000 million could be attracted into the area. About 4,400 homes would be built. In all respects the barrage proposal produces greater returns than development without a barrage.
South Cardiff has already attracted significant amounts of private sector development in recent years. The Atlantic Wharf project, involving Tarmac, Wimpey, Lovell and the local brewers, Brains, has transformed the derelict Bute East Dock area into a high quality residential, office and leisure development, at a total project cost of some £40 million. Some of the best known names in the United Kingdom
458
housebuilding industry—Barratt, Beazer and Westbury—have combined to develop a major housing complex known as Windsor Quay on what will be the edge of the impounded lake. Grosvenor Waterside has planning permission for its prestigious office, residential and leisure development at Capital Waterside, on which construction has already begun. The total development cost will be about £20 million. Given the level of commitment that we have seen from the private sector in advance of the construction of the barrage, we believe that the assumptions in the economic appraisal concerning the likely level of private sector investment post-barrage are justified.
Your Lordships should note that the economic appraisal considers development activity and property values over a 20-year period. This is a sufficiently long period to ensure that intermediate fluctuations in the property market do not undermine the validity of its long-term assumptions. The appraisal has also been subjected to stringent sensitivity tests which also made a range of pessimistic assumptions. The results of these sensitivity tests are contained in the appraisal, which is available to your Lordships. They show that the economic case for the barrage remains robust.
I should like now briefly to refer to groundwater. There have been considerable concerns about the possible effects on houses of rises in groundwater levels once the barrage is built. The former Private Bill contained detailed protective provisions in respect of groundwater. That protection has been reproduced and extended in the government Bill. The details are set out fully in Schedule 7. Although they look different from the earlier provisions their effect is the same.
The groundwater protection scheme embodied in the Bill is a very comprehensive and generous one. Nevertheless, it is by its very nature a complex scheme and we cannot guarantee that minor difficulties may not emerge when we come to put it into practice. The Bill, therefore, contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend this scheme of protection. Your Lordships will wish to know that during the Second Reading debate in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales gave this assurance about the power to amend the groundwater protection scheme. He said:
"I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of using that power at present, but I would be prepared to use it if it emerged that individuals' interests were not being fully protected by the scheme in practice. If I decided to act in that way, any regulation to amend the scheme would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, the House would have the opportunity of debating any proposed changes to the scheme".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/91; col. 636.]
Your Lordships will wish to know that the reassurance given by my right honourable friend still stands and I am happy to give the same reassurances today. However, should it prove necessary to amend the scheme, the opportunity to debate any proposed changes will, of course, be available to your Lordships as well as to those in another place.
The very complex issue of groundwater has been examined in detail over a long period. At the request of the Select Committee in another place which examined the Private Bill detailed studies were

459
undertaken of the possible effects over a 12-month period between August 1990 and August 1991 by Hydrotechnica Ltd.
The results of these studies were published in September 1991. There followed a three-month public consultation period for interested parties to make written representations to my right honourable friend on the reports produced by Hydrotechnica. The public consultation exercise ended on 31st December.
My right honourable friend then considered all the evidence, including representations received during the public consultation period. He also considered the advice of his specialist groundwater adviser, Mr. Roy Stoner, Director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton University, who had been appointed specifically for that purpose. The Government had made it clear that public funding for the construction of the barrage was conditional on the satisfactory outcome of these studies. On the basis of Mr. Stoner's report, copies of which are available in the Printed Paper Office, my right honourable friend was satisfied that the economic, safety and technical criteria relating to groundwater can be met.
Your Lordships should also be aware that in his report Mr. Stoner suggested that it might be possible to control groundwater levels after the barrage had been built by means of dewatering wells. Very simply, the suggestion is that if groundwater in the gravels is controlled by pumping wells, the groundwater in the made ground above it—on which much of South Cardiff is built—will remain at existing levels.
A feasibility study into this proposal was published in August 1992. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office. It concluded that dewatering wells could make a significant difference should the "extreme" case of groundwater rise predicted by the Hydrotechnica studies arise. I should tell your Lordships that Hydrotechnica Ltd., Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and Mr. Stoner do not believe that the "extreme" case will arise. The Government share that view. However, we believe it is right that a pumping well pilot study should take place as recommended by the dewatering report. Results should be available in the New Year. If they confirm the report's findings, the need to carry out remedial works to properties —as set out in Schedule 7 to the Bill—will be significantly reduced or removed altogether. That would, of course, mean little or no disruption to householders.
Clearly, we cannot yet know whether it would be appropriate to proceed with dewatering wells. We must await the results of pumping tests. If a decision to proceed is taken, the Government will not be seeking powers under the Bill to do so. That can be done under existing legislation.
There is a related issue which I should draw to your Lordships' attention. The Select Committee in another place was concerned about the adequacy of local authorities' land drainage powers to deal with land which became saturated as a result of the barrage but did not show any apparent sign of surface flooding. The Government, therefore, propose to amend the Bill at a later stage in its passage through
460
your Lordships' House. Intention of that has already been published to allow interested parties to petition against it if they so wish.
The Government have concluded that by extending three references to flooding in Sections 14, 15 and 66 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 local authorities would have adequate powers to deal with saturated land caused by changed groundwater levels. We are not proposing to give local authorities new powers. Instead we propose an extension of the application of existing powers. It will, in effect, clarify the ability of local authorities to act in respect of land saturated by changed groundwater levels in exactly the same manner as they are currently empowered to do in respect of flooding.
The three local authorities in Cardiff, the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water plc have been closely involved in this proposed amendment to the Bill. Your Lordships will wish to know that the principal local authority involved, Cardiff City Council, has indicated that it is content with it. None of the other bodies consulted has expressed objection in principle.
Many of your Lordships will be familiar with Cardiff and its former docklands area. Many have supported fully the regeneration of Cardiff Bay. They know that regeneration cannot be successfully achieved on the scale and quality which Wales's capital city deserves unless we have the barrage. That is certainly the Government's view. It has been borne out by the economic appraisals. The scheme embodied in this Bill will replace the dereliction of the past with an attractive, modern urban environment. There will be many thousands of new jobs and thousands of new homes. This Bill is of vital importance to the future of Cardiff and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount St Davids.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, first, I welcome the participation of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in the debate as he is the Government Whip with special responsibility for Welsh affairs. I thank the noble Viscount for explaining to the House so carefully and comprehensively the contents of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
The Bill is contentious. It has generated an intensive debate among all the people and interests which may be affected by it. The strong support for the Bill and the equally strong opposition to it have divided the political parties and local authorities and caused divisions within local authorities. Indeed, the controversy is reflected by the 93 petitions which have been lodged against the Bill.
That is also reflected by the Bill's parliamentary record—and that was touched upon by the Minister. The Bill was given a First Reading in 1987 and subsequently was converted into a hybrid Public Bill. There are four versions of the Bill; two of the Private Bill and two of the hybrid Public Bill. Apart from the first Private Bill, which did not proceed to Second Reading, each of the Bills has been examined in detail by a Select Committee; yet it would appear that the

461
Bill is still in the learning curve stage. There remain key issues which need to be further examined by, I suggest, a Committee of your Lordships' House.
Of course, it is agreed that the barrage will bring economic benefits to the people of Cardiff and beyond. That is right. Sadly, unemployment in Cardiff is among the highest in Wales. However, I must challenge the Minister's claim, which he made more than once, that the need for the barrage and the huge artificial lake behind it, covering some 500 square acres, is essential to the reorganisation of Cardiff docklands. By its very nature that is a claim, at this stage, which is not capable of being proved or disproved.
I am heartened that the text before the House shows evidence of concessions to meet some of the real anxieties that have been expressed. I am particularly pleased that the long Schedule 7, which contains vital provisions for groundwater damage protection, has been strengthened. Nevertheless, perhaps consideration should be given as to whether some of the powers and safeguards in Schedule 7 should be entrenched and not subject to Clause 21(2).
The Bill incorporates also additional powers for Cardiff City Council which has all the necessary powers it requires to discharge its land drainage duties. The Minister confirmed that we are still awaiting two further reports. In turn, they may indicate the need for further amendments.
It would be extremely difficult not to be concerned about some aspects of the multi-million cost of constructing the barrage and its associated works. Indeed, the total costs are estimated in the Financial Memorandum to be £146.9 million. It is an old and significant doctrine that Parliament, having passed a Public Bill, must be satisfied that the funds will be available to implement it. However, there could be a problem with one of the estimates. The sum earmarked for repair of damage to basements and foundations of properties by rising groundwater underneath them is £13 million. However, in the light of the report to which the Minister has referred, one is bound to ask whether that is enough. According to Mr. Stoner's report, the number of properties which might be in need of repair because of rising groundwater could be between 1,650 and 5,695. The cost of repairing 5,695 properties could be as high as £23.52 million.
Mr. Stoner notes that the development corporation is at pains to point out that it considers 5,695 properties to be an extreme case and would expect much lower levels of groundwater in practice. However, in earmarking only £14.3 million for repairing groundwater damage, the Welsh Office has disregarded the worst scenario. That is worrying.
In our present state of knowledge, that is an area of great uncertainty; and the Minister acknowledged that. However, in the light of the uncertainties, I ask what will happen if the Welsh Office has got its figures wrong. The fact that this question can be asked this afternoon is far from reassuring. Was it a Treasury decision that £9 million must be saved from the cost of the scheme? If it transpires that the Welsh Office figures are wrong and that £14.3 million is an
462
underestimate who will provide the deficit, which could be as high as £9 million? Will it be the Treasury, the Welsh Office, the development corporation or will it be shouldered by the citizens of Cardiff?
The noble Viscount told the House that the Welsh Office had commissioned from KPMG an up-to-date economic appraisal of the project. Much has changed since 1987, the date of the first Private Bill. The Welsh Office was clearly right to commission an up-to-date appraisal. However, it seems to many who have studied the appraisal that the updated appraisal—and the final conclusions are cautiously drafted—fails to address itself adequately to the future demand for development land and property and assumes too readily that the short-term property market performance is only of limited relevance. Clearly I am not equipped to offer any worthwhile comment on the differing views, but there are differing views.
I return to the foundations and the basements of the properties which are likely to be affected. Those are basements of old houses built about 75 to 100 years ago in an old part of Cardiff. As the Minister acknowledged, there is considerable anxiety among the people of Cardiff about that issue. Of course, prevention is better than cure. I believe that it was at a very late stage in the long history of the Bill that minds began to concentrate on preventing the groundwater table reaching the risk level. In theory it should be possible to control the levels of the groundwater in the gravels so that the barrage impoundment would make no practical difference to the groundwater level. As the Minister explained, one possibility is the use of dewatering wells. However, I am advised that dewatering wells are untested over time in built-up areas anywhere in the world. If the field trials are successful, I am informed that it will be necessary to sink 70 to 80 such wells. How many will be sunk in sensitive areas in the vicinity of people's homes? How will the pumping process affect nearby householders? How will the well water be disposed of, particularly where the well is at a good distance away from the banks of the lake? What is the life expectancy of each dewatering well?
The Bill as drawn contains no specific reference to dewatering wells, and the Minister explained that omission satisfactorily. However, it may be that the Bill must be amended further to deal specifically with the operation and renewal of the wells, and also to provide compensation for any disruption or blighting which may arise.
I earnestly hope that the Select Committee's timetable, if your Lordships see fit to refer it to a Select Committee, will be so designed that it will be able to defer its consideration of the impact of the dewatering wells until about the end of February, by which time, I am informed, that the trials, to which the Minister referred, will have been completed. Clearly, the Committee must have the benefit of access to the results of the trials.
An issue which has been the subject of some anxiety is the water quality in the impounded lake, particularly under low flow conditions. I live not far from the River Taff and the reduction of flow in both the Taff and the Ely is enormous during the summer

463
months. Both rivers are nutrient rich and are among the most heavily polluted in Wales. We have an assurance from the Welsh Office—and the Minister repeated it—that the Bill contains a framework for the maintenance of acceptable standards of water which, under Clause 12, must comply with the reasonable requirements of the National Rivers Authority. That is reassuring. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is to speak in the debate. He will speak as a supporter of the barrage, but also with the authority of his office as chairman of the NRA. I trust that he will be able to confirm to the House that the NRA is satisfied that the appropriate protective provisions have been built into the Bill or are covered by agreements and that the NRA's capacity to discharge its statutory duties has been fully safeguarded.
In December 1991 the NRA, when fortunately the Bill was still at the Private Bill stage, issued an appraisal of the position. That was placed in the Library of the House of Commons. We now understand that this document is in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House but it was not available to me here at the end of last week. I congratulate the NRA on producing the document. It identifies all the critical issues relating to water quality, fisheries, conservation and it discusses ways and means of ameliorating the problem. It is a frank and thorough document and is essential reading.
It has been submitted that there is a snag about Clause 12. It places on the development corporation a duty to comply with the requirements of the NRA. That is fine. But there is also a provision that in the event of a dispute as to the reasonableness of any direction, that dispute has to be referred to the Secretary of State for Wales for determination. That proviso is worrying. Many people are puzzled as to why the development corporation, which is one of the Secretary of State's quangos, should enjoy this right of appeal to its own principal because the relationship between the two bodies is that between principal and agent. Given that it is the NRA's statutory duty to preserve and protect water quality, fisheries, conservation of flora and fauna, recreation, flood defences, navigation—and all these areas will be affected by the Bill—why should the development corporation enjoy this right of appeal against its reasonable directions? After all, it could have access to a judicial review if it considered that the NRA was unreasonable in the matter.
It is not reassuring that the Welsh Office is so determined to build this appeal mechanism into the Bill. If a right of appeal is necessary it should be to a tribunal, which is manifestly a disinterested party, to adjudge between the very finely balancing arguments. I ask the Minister to tell the House whether there is a precedent for this provision. I know of none. The Minister was pressed in Standing Committee F on two separate occasions to answer that question. He skated lightly over it. I am sure that the noble Viscount can do better. I also hope that the Select Committee will wish to address itself to the question of the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales.
464
At a late stage when the Bill was being examined by Standing Committee F, two other issues as regards water quality bubbled to the surface. They appear to me to require some clarification. The first relates to the possible application of the EC municipal waste water directive which is to be implemented in stages after 1998. Will its provisions apply to the impounded lake? In Committee the Minister again skated somewhat lightly over that question. Will the noble Viscount inform the House whether the impounded lake is to be defined as a sensitive area within the meaning of the directive? If so, what new measures will be required to treat the water and where will the treatment works be located? What additional capital and revenue costs will be involved? If the Minister cannot give the answers to those two questions today—he may well feel that he is unable to do so—may we have an assurance that the answers will be available to the Select Committee while it is still considering the Bill?
The second issue arises out of a recent study in Oxfordshire by Dr. Max Wallis and Mr. Munro. I have not read the study, but I am informed that it establishes statistically a possible relationship between waterlogged soils and infant mortality. Will the noble Viscount tell the House whether the Welsh Office has any evidence which suggests a positive link? Does it have any grounds for believing that the risk, if it exists, is so small that it can be safely disregarded?
That brings me to the next area of concern. It is an area which is described as being of extreme concern in three of the Petitions. I refer to the profound damage to water fowls. The barrage will destroy forever the 400 acres of mud flats and salt marshes—as acknowledged by the Minister—in the Taff Ely estuary which have been there since time immemorial. It is an SSSI comprising rich feeding grounds for about 8,000 wading birds in the winter months. The site is also of international importance. It forms an important and integral part of the Severn estuary which qualifies for designation under the 1971 Ramsar Convention and as a special protection area under the terms of EC directive 79/409. The Welsh Office has excluded it from the designation proposal although it is, so I understand, the most important of all the other areas in the Severn estuary to be included in the SPA.
Unlike the three earlier Bills the current version does not place any duty on the development corporation to provide adequate alternative feeding grounds for wading birds. But the Minister has explained this omission from the Bill. Such was the anxiety—and possibly the despair at one stage—of the Countryside Council for Wales, that it is now to be found among the objectors to the Bill before the House although it did not petition against it when the matter was before the House of Commons. I was therefore greatly heartened to hear from the noble Viscount that the discussions between the Welsh Office and the CCW are proceeding smoothly to their conclusion and that they are close to agreeing the mitigation measures which are to be introduced. Those measures should be available to the Select Committee. But it must be emphasised that they are always second best. Moreover, their adequacy is

465
untested. They will not fully compensate for the loss of an SSSI which is a part of our national heritage and also of international significance.
The angling interests which are so strongly represented in your Lordships' House appear to be satisfied with the Bill, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has to say when he speaks. I was delighted to read in the NRA position paper that salmon and sea trout are now once again entering the Taff and the Ely and that their numbers are expected to increase substantially within the next decade. With the likely closure of the Taff Merthyr Colliery in a few months' time, the river Taff will be free from coal pollution for the first time for about 200 years. In that respect at least it can revert to its pre-industrial condition when it was the premier sewin river of Wales, and as famed for its sewin as the Usk for its salmon.
However, the barrage will be a formidable man-made barrier to the passage of fish to and from the open sea. It is therefore vitally important that the design of the fish paths complies with the best design available and that it works. I trust that there will be an opportunity for the Committee to satisfy itself on that key point.
Finally, I wish to touch on the membership of the Cardiff Bay Advisory Committee to be established under Clause 20. It is a consultative body. The setting up of the committee in the first Private Bill was warmly welcomed and I am gratified that the concept has survived. However, I believe that there are a few problems about the clause. Under it the membership is to consist of representative members of the three local authorities in the area, presumably in equal number, together with an unspecified number of members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not set an upper limit to the total membership. That is rather odd.
Is it intended that the local authority members should constitute a majority or a minority of the membership? It is also appropriate to ask whether the membership will also include, as of right, representation of such bodies as the health authority, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Welsh Consumer Council or the Welsh Sports Council or their nominees, whose interests are likely to be affected by the impounded lake. May I dare ask: is it intended that the development corporation should provide the committee with an adequate budget to undertake the responsibilities which the Bill places on it? Will it be given access to all the information in the possession of the corporation which it reasonably requires? I hope those points will not be overlooked. I suggest that Clause 20 may be another area that could be usefully explored by the Select Committee.
This is a well-intended Bill, but it poses considerable difficulties for very many people although it also has its strong supporters in Wales. One of its most resolute backers is my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa who introduced the second Private Bill in 1988. My noble friend is the vice-chairman of the
development corporation, and an elected member of the South Glamorgan County Council. I believe that he would have told the House
466
that he has no reservations about the need for the impounded lake and about the benefits which it will confer upon Cardiff and south-east Wales. When I discussed the Bill with him last week, he asked me to inform the House that he deeply regrets that he is not able to participate in the debate this afternoon as he has to be abroad attending to other business which had been pre-arranged for today.
I profoundly believe that it is right that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should have a last opportunity to examine the Bill to see what further improvements can be made to it, and thus make it more acceptable to a larger body of opinion in Wales.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like first, if I may, to raise a procedural point which seems to me of some importance. There are 93 petitions against the Bill—some from major bodies such as Cardiff City Council and the Countryside Council for Wales and many others from private citizens in Cardiff. All maintain that their interests will be injuriously affected by the Bill and express grave concerns about various aspects of it.
I inquired about these petitions last Wednesday—4th November—and was told that they were still coming in and that the full set was not available. It was available on Thursday 5th November when I collected a set. It is this thick and heavy bundle that I have with me. That was only four days ago. Three days ago—on late Friday afternoon —the Welsh Office delivered nine documents, one of them with 150 pages—another substantial bundle—to the Printed Paper Office. It seems to me unreasonable to expect noble Lords to be able to read, absorb and reflect on 93 petitions and nine documents in three or four days. But noble Lords taking part in this debate should have an opportunity to study all the petitions and the documents carefully beforehand.
It may be said that your Lordships' Select Committee will be able to consider the petitions. Indeed, it will. But noble Lords taking part in the Second Reading, who cannot serve on the Select Committee, surely ought also to consider the petitions, many of them submitted by citizens who have vital interests at stake. It seems to me wrong to put on this Second Reading only four days after the petitions became available. To do so suggests at any rate at this stage that we are not taking serious notice of the points made in them. This is surely denying the House the opportunity to give full and proper consideration to the Bill at each stage and is, in my view, unfair to the petitioners. I hope that when he replies the noble Viscount will explain why this Second Reading has been put on before noble Lords have had a proper opportunity of studying the petitions and the documents, and how the Government justify this way of proceeding to the petitioners.
This legislation has had an extraordinary history, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has pointed out. The present new hybrid Government Bill is, in effect, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill Mark 4. But the project itself has not, I think, changed fundamentally since we

467
gave a Second Reading to the second Private Bill on 23rd February 1989. I gave my views in detail on the project in that debate and essentially they have not changed.
The rivers of our country are a priceless part of our national heritage. For millions of years they have flowed unobstructed to the sea. In England and Wales we have set up the National Rivers Authority under the vigorous chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to look after them, which it is doing very effectively. It will be no surprise to noble Lords when I say that I dislike the whole concept of barrages, fashionable though that concept unhappily still is. To build a concrete barrier across a river, blocking the downward flow, seems to me unnatural and damaging. All the muck that we tip into the rivers, particularly into those that, like the Taff and the Ely, flow through urban areas—sewage effluent, heavy metals, plastics, pathogens, nutrients, dead animals, supermarket trolleys—instead of being carried out to sea, is held up in stagnant water and either remains there or has to be removed at substantial expense. The cleansing tide can no longer ebb and flow. Fish passes can be installed, but, however elaborate, can at best be only partially effective, as studies at Pitlochry have shown.
I am particularly sceptical about the arguments for those barrages which, like the proposed Usk barrage or this one, are for purely "amenity" or cosmetic purposes—simply to cover up mudbanks so as to create a stagnant lake which is supposed to attract investment. All of us want to see the regeneration of Cardiff and the development of an attractive and prosperous city. The key question is whether to that end a barrage is essential.
When the second Private Bill came to your Lordships' House, a Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, in HL paper 57 of 1989, broadly accepted the promoters' case for the barrage, while making some amendments to improve groundwater protection, accepted the destruction of the site of special scientific interest, dismissed concerns about the water quality of the inland lake and recommended that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. I must say that at the time I was profoundly disappointed by that report, and the fact that our Select Committee was so easily satisfied contrasted rather painfully with the immensely thorough consideration given to the Bill in another place.
I hope that the Select Committee which will consider the present Bill will undertake a much more rigorous scrutiny of all aspects of this contentious proposal. I would suggest that it should address itself to the following main aspects: first, the economic arguments. It is for the Government and the promoters to demonstrate that the barrage proposal is the only means by which Cardiff can be effectively regenerated and that consequently the severe environmental damage it will entail must be accepted. The Government have to show that the project is economically viable. Doubt has been cast on their appraisal by a report prepared for the Royal Society
468
for the Protection of Birds by Jacqueline Mallender, an economist formerly with the Treasury, who contends that there will be a large negative economic return on investment if the project goes ahead. The Select Committee will want to look at that, bearing in mind that the previous plan fully to develop the Ferry Road refuse tip site has been abandoned, that costs have greatly increased and that the property market is, as we all know, in a dismal state. Canary Wharf is a warning. It should consider whether, as many contend, Cardiff can be effectively regenerated without a barrage.
Secondly, the Select Committee should consider the intractable problem of groundwater and the effect of a rise in its level on properties in Cardiff, a problem which was considered very thoroughly in another place and is raised in many of the petitions. The cost of tackling this in an urban area will be substantial, and the Select Committee should note that the special provisions set out in Schedule 7 provide for remedial work on houses and gardens but not on commercial properties.
Thirdly, the Select Committee should consider the problem of the SSSI, the proposed designation of the Severn Estuary as a special protection area and the threat to the 8,000 or so wading birds which use the mud flats in Cardiff Bay in winter. I continue to think it is entirely wrong for the Government to plan the total destruction of an SSSI. To do so makes pretty good nonsense of their overall conservation policy. Nevertheless, I welcome what the noble Viscount has told us this afternoon about the plans for an alternative site for the birds on the Gwent levels.
In its petition the Countryside Council for Wales says:
"The SSSI is of particular importance in supporting large numbers of water fowl during the winter months and has the highest density of waders for any site of its size in the Severn Estuary. The site, which by reason of the richness of its feeding grounds, shelter in adverse weather conditions and tidal regime, forms an important and integral part of the Severn Estuary which is of international importance for its water fowl, and which has been identified as qualifying for designation under the Ramsar convention and as a Special Protection Area for the purposes of the European Community's Council Directive".
It points out that,
"following amendments to the Bill in another place there are now no proposals contained in the Bill for the provision of any compensatory measures to take account of the loss of wetland that will arise from the construction of the barrage and the subsequent impoundment of water within the inland bay".
It goes on to say,
"the Secretary of State for Wales has confirmed in another place that the Government is committed to the provision of some form of mitigation for the loss of the wetland areas presently providing feeding grounds for wading birds and that proposals have been made in this respect which are the subject of various feasibility studies. As yet those studies have not been brought to any conclusion and therefore it is not certain as yet as to whether the current proposals will prove to be feasible and provide adequate compensation or whether other proposals will need to be considered".
It urges that if the Bill should be approved,
"such approval should be on condition that assurances are given to your right honourable House by the Government that prior to the construction of the barrage compensatory measures which are regarded as satisfactory by your petitioner and which include provision for permanent management and protected funding shall be put in place and

469
shall be fully operative prior to the impoundment of any waters within the inland bay so as to minimise the effects upon wildlife of the loss of habitat thereby caused".
That seems to me only right. Any new habitat for the birds must be adequate in size and satisfactory in design in any event and funding must continue for all time.
The Government have not only delayed declaring the Severn Estuary as a special protection area under the Community's bird directive but have decided to exclude Cardiff Bay from the future SPA, which appears to be a deliberate and rather shameful attempt to circumvent Community law by excluding Cardiff Bay from the ecological unit of which it is an integral part. I am not surprised that the RSPB says on this in its petition:
"In reaching that decision, the Secretary of State made it clear that he has paid regard to the requirements of the Wild Birds Directive and to the implications of the decision of the European Court of Justice in case no. 57/89 Commission v. Germany ('the Leybucht case'). However, he has treated with Cardiff Bay in isolation, alleging that it does not meet the selection criteria for SPA status … Your Petitioner is concerned that the Secretary of State, in considering the Leybucht case, has noted that but for the exclusion of Cardiff Bay from the potential SPA he would be in contravention of the Wild Birds Directive; and consequently the barrage scheme would be unable to proceed … Your Petitioner wishes to register extreme concern at the manner in which the Secretary of State has sought to circumvent the Leybucht decision, and to record that this is a matter about which it intends to lodge a formal complaint with the European Commission".
At the Second Reading of the second Private Bill on 23rd February 1989 I moved an Instruction to the Select Committee, to which the House agreed, relating to water quality in the inland bay and the effect of the barrage on the migration of fish. I know that the National Rivers Authority has had detailed discus-sions with the Welsh Office and the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation on these matters and that the arrangements for fisheries have been substantially improved. I welcome the fact that the noble Viscount has told us today that the authority is now satisfied that the side agreements and the schedule within the Bill provide full protection for the NRA in relation to the performance of its statutory duties. The NRA seems now to be reasonably content with the arrangements for maintaining water quality in the inland bay, but I see from the petitions that a group of members of South Glamorgan County Council say that they are,
"concerned about the quality of the impounded water especially in periods of hot weather and low river flow",
that they are,
"particularly concerned about smell, scum, algal growth, bloom and rodent infestation at the heart of their capital city and the unhealthy and unpleasant effect upon residents and visitors",
and that,
"it is disappointing and contrary to advance publicity that the inland bay is most unlikely to be suitable for water contact sports".
One of the essentials for fisheries is to provide a minimum flow through the fish pass. This, I understand, depends on an agreement between the CBDC and Associated British Ports, which at present has abstraction rights which, if exercised, might cut off that minimum flow. I believe that, though negotiations continue, there is as yet no such agreement, but
470
perhaps the noble Viscount or the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is to speak next and who is, I believe, a non-executive director of Associated British Ports, can tell us how matters stand on that.
And, despite all the efforts, I do not think that we can really be happy about the prospects for the fishery. We cannot be certain that salmon and sea trout, sweeping up the estuary on the tide, will be able to locate the small entrance to the fish pass. At a conference some time ago organised by the Atlantic Salmon Trust and the Institute of Fisheries Management, which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I attended, an NRA fisheries scientist gave an account in the presence of the Prince of Wales of the 20 years' work on the restoration of the Taff after the ravages of the industrial revolution and said that, even if fish passes were built and water quality in the inland bay strictly monitored, he expected that numbers of salmon and sea trout would fall by at least one third and possibly much more. If that happens the CBDC will now have responsibilities to mitigate by restocking or compensation, but it will be sad to see a river that has been so brilliantly restored by the NRA damaged again in this way.
I draw attention to one further point. In its petition Cardiff City Council says:
"The Bill as drafted makes no provision identifying the successor to the Development Corporation for the ownership and management of the barrage, the outer harbour and the inland bay. The Development Corporation is a body of limited life. Your Petitioners contend that it is absolutely vital that proper provision should be made from the outset for the long term ownership and operation of the Scheme—not least so that prospective developers will have confidence in it".
That seems to me a point of fundamental importance on which the Select Committee should satisfy itself beyond any doubt.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have three separate interests to declare. I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded the House, a director of Associated British Ports Holdings, which is a major landowner in the area. I am also chairman of the National Rivers Authority, which has major responsibilities arising from the Bill. And it was I, as Secretary of State for Wales, who originated the scheme and brought it to the starting block.
Perhaps that is not the best analogy. Starting blocks are used for sprint races, and this particular race has turned into a marathon. I little thought when I made the announcement and set up the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation at the end of 1986 that we would still be debating the whole affair in Parliament six years later. Perhaps, fortunately, in view of the length of the race, I had not hurried the training programme but had spent a whole year in consultation seeking views and advice from both sides of the Atlantic. After such prolonged consideration of all the issues, both in Parliament and outside, I hope that this House will not delay things much longer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I cannot think of any measure that has passed through Parliament, at least in modern times, that has had such detailed scrutiny of all the points that he has raised and a great many others besides.

471
As chairman of the National Rivers Authority I must make my position perfectly plain as I did when the previous Bill had its Second Reading. Because of my other interests I gave an instruction in writing to the authority's chief executive at the outset that I was not to be involved in any way in the NRA's consideration of the issues and that the authority's highly skilled professional staff should take whatever action they felt was necessary regardless of my views. I need hardly say that they have done just that. Last week I asked them to send me a position statement. I quote now from the document sent to me by the regional solicitor:
"During the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, the NRA had detailed discussions with the Welsh Office and CBDC on a wide range of technical and legal matters. These have culminated in a comprehensive 'package' of protection for the Authority in the form of:—

(i) A schedule to the Bill containing deemed conditions on the impoundment licence

(ii) A detailed agreement with the CBDC covering (inter alia) fisheries monitoring, compensation, etc.

(iii) An agreement with Cardiff City Council, CBDC and the Secretary of State in relation to Flood Defence.

Taken together, the side agreements and the schedule within the Bill provide full protection for the NRA in relation to the performance of its statutory duties".
The position statement goes on to address precisely one query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The authority's solicitor says that,
"before any work starts on the barrage the NRA must be satisfied as to the arrangements for what has been referred to as 'the water budget"'.
That protection appears in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 3 to the Bill which provides that before the commencement of construction of the barrage the corporation must submit to the NRA for approval proposals for how the minimum flow of water through the fish pass should be maintained. Therefore, before construction starts the NRA has to be satisfied about the arrangements that have been made concerning ABP's rights of abstraction.
The scope of the clauses in the Bill that relate to the NRA's range of responsibilities is sweeping and remarkable; so also, in my view, are the arrangements that have been made to deal with fears about groundwater. The Minister referred to the de-watering scheme proposed by Mr. Stoner. I understand that investigatory works are being carried out at the present time. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that that does not seem to me good grounds for further delay. The Bill provides very extensive protective arrangements for anyone who may suffer from the consequences of rising groundwater. What we have here, as I understand it, is an added protection in case that can be done more cheaply and effectively than by providing compensation. I make the same point to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who speaks from the Front Bench. He was complaining about the possible cost of any programme for dealing with compensation. As I understand it, what we have here is a scheme that is being pursued at least in part because it may provide a cheaper and more effective form of protection without any need for compensation.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was not complaining about the cost of the prevention works. I wanted to be certain that the matter had been adequately covered in the estimates and, if there was a deficit, to discover who at the end of the day would meet it.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that if the CBDC decides that this is a cheaper and more effective way of proceeding to some extent his fears will have been mitigated.
The House will understand my impatience with the delays that have occurred, but I feel also a growing sense of satisfaction and pride in what has been achieved since I first gave the CBDC its task. Large parts of south Cardiff are no longer a wasteland. The time has been used to prepare imaginative plans for the area, establish standards of design, construct infrastructure, clear dereliction and prepare public areas. A promising start has been made on development. That being so, it is legitimate to inquire whether the barrage is really needed. At the outset we in the Welsh Office judged that it would be on the basis of the advice received from those with experience of these matters both here and in other parts of the world. We have heard that since then there have been further extensive studies. Speaking simply on the basis of the knowledge I have acquired as a director of ABP and the experience gained in Cardiff by its subsidiary Grosvenor Waterside, I strongly reinforce that judgment.
Initially, there was great hesitation by developers and potential occupants of sites because they had serious doubts whether or not the barrage would go ahead. I believe that the major developments now under way or about to start would not have gone ahead without the commitment of the Government to the Bill and the progress being made with it. As the legislative process has approached its final stages so the interest of possible investors and occupants has been growing, even in the midst of recession. I have no doubt that the scale and pace of redevelopment of south Cardiff will be of a different order of magnitude if the barrage is built, with immense potential benefits not just for Cardiff but the whole of South Wales.
The connection between Cardiff Bay and the rest of South Wales is a point that needs to be made again and again. If one looks around the world the lesson that is driven home is that a prosperous city creates a prosperous hinterland. Cardiff is linked to the valleys by a network of rail lines and increasingly excellent roads. However, old prejudices and antagonisms die slowly. Those who know Wales and its history will not be surprised that the small group of Members of Parliament who have delayed the project has included a number from valley communities that have traditionally distrusted those on the coastal plain whom they have regarded as rivals. That may have made some sense in the days when men walked from their homes to pit and plant; it makes no sense today.
The House must understand that this is not a party issue. From the outset I took great care to try to create a partnership between the new CBDC and the Labour-dominated local authorities. That partnership has worked well. I have much appreciated the

473
encouragement given throughout by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whom I am delighted to note is to speak later in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, who regrettably cannot be with us this afternoon, has played a leading role both in local government and in the corporation and his contribution has been of inestimable value—a judgment that I know will be warmly endorsed by Mr. Inkin, chairman of the corporation.
A wider majority of those involved in local government, business and politics in Wales have from the start recognised the potential and importance of what has been attempted in Cardiff. During the past 10 or 15 years Wales has thrown aside its mood of hopeless pessimism and has begun increasingly to recognise that it is at the end of the long bleak decades of relative economic decline. I had the great privilege and opportunity to play a significant part in the process of attracting new industry, removing dereliction, creating the necessary infrastructure and building a new mood of confidence and pride. Wales now sees itself—as the competitive world outside increasingly recognises—as a place able to compete with the best and a suitable location for industry and business that wishes to succeed in European and world markets. Wales is determined never again to be dependent on a few basic but vulnerable industries or to have just a "branch factory" economy.
What is in train in Cardiff is a crucial part of a wider process of broadening and enriching industrial, economic, social and cultural activity throughout the region. Cardiff is a city insufficiently known or appreciated by the rest of Britain where people seem to be unaware of its magnificent parks, civic buildings, great museum, concert hall and university faculties or the wealth of its activities. For all its virtues Cardiff has for too long been like a sailing ship with one of its masts missing. What used to be its power base, driving force and the reason for its growth and success has been broken and left a tangled wreck. Despite the importance of the still active port, the sheer emptiness of the city south of the railway for many years bore witness to what had been lost. Cardiff has for too long been half a city incapable of fulfilling its full potential, and yet it possesses—and the barrage can enhance this —one of the most magnificent locations for a modern city anywhere in the world.
Few of those who praise the muddy estuaries that open into the bay live there. Fewer still, in recent decades, have bothered to go there, and that applies to most of the population and business leaders of Cardiff. It is only because of the work that has been done in the last half dozen years that people are flooding to look at, and be astonished by, the area. The excitement of what we are about in its potential has come as a revelation to many.
However, I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the mud is an SSSI and the feeding ground for waders, part of a potential RAMSAR site and, therefore, untouchable. As someone who spends the greater part of his working life protecting the environment, I do not take lightly the claims of rare and precious sites to protection, but each day, as chairman of the NRA, I find, as I found each day
474
when I was Secretary of State for Wales, that there are conflicting priorities to be balanced and differing environmental requirements that cannot be recon-ciled. Very often hard choices have to be made.
I should like to explain why I have made my choice. The House of Commons Committee heard evidence that the winter count of dunlin is 2,891 and of redshank 486. We may doubt the remarkable precision of those figures. I do not know if any noble Lord here has tried to count dunlin 400 yards away across a misty bay in winter, but, be that as it may, I accept that a considerable number of dunlin and redshank feed in the bay and that not all of them may find alternative feeding grounds in the Severn Estuary.
The existing bay area, with its mud, is the artificial creation of 19th century man and the present enclosed area was largely created by the building of Cardiff Docks. Dredging has ceased and the bay is silting up. Over the next 20 years a significant part of those feeding grounds may cease to exist, barrage or no barrage. However, that is not the decisive factor now any more than it was when I made my decision as Secretary of State. First, I weighed the fate of a proportion of those birds against the unemployment and social deprivation that had been the fate of the people of South Wales for so long. I decided that it was an intolerable suggestion that the birds were more important than the people.
If there are those who say that they have no confidence that the barrage will create jobs and better living conditions, then I must respond by stating that I have immensely greater confidence in the forecasts of those who believe that it will do so than I have in the judgment of those who say that the birds will not find somewhere else to feed.
That is not the only argument. There is a powerful environmental case. The barrage will create a vast area of fresh water, bordered by large areas of grassland, with island and river bank habitats that will attract birds in great numbers. There may be many fewer waders, but I suspect that before we know where we are the conservation organisations will be proposing the designation of SSSIs for other reasons.
During a recent visit to Slimbridge I began to wonder whether or not we would soon be welcoming Bewick swans and other visitors from northern Russia to the new habitats in Cardiff Bay or to the possible bird reserve on the Gwent Levels about which we have been told this afternoon.
Perhaps more important, so far as I am concerned, is the contribution that the construction of the barrage will make to alleviating the pressure on the Vale of Glamorgan, that beautiful vale, dotted with largely unspoiled villages, that is the green belt for Cardiff, a precious heritage under grave and continual threat. It is a nonsense to contemplate allowing development in places like the Vale of Glamorgan when there are derelict, polluted, empty deserts close to the hearts of our great cities, waiting to be brought back to use, and when we have a chance to reverse the remorseless process which has led people further and further from increasingly lifeless cities into a ceaseless round of petrol-consuming, ozone layer-devouring, soul and

475
environment-destroying commuting. I want to bring people back to live and work and play in the cities, and that is what the barrage will do in Cardiff.
We will not be constructing a few privileged homes for rich people alongside the water. We are bringing people of every kind back to live close to where they work. The Bill will bring university premises close to industry; modern industry and business close to new places of entertainment; and office buildings and an opera house, places of recreation, parks, avenues, pubs, restaurants and play houses into a desert in order to create a living, vibrant, heart, pumping blood back to the communities that spread out into the valleys of Wales that have contributed and suffered so much.
If it is wrong to dream a dream, I plead guilty, but I am proud to have dreamt it and pray that this Parliament will make it a reality.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, I cannot pretend to speak with the authority and experience of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on the subject of the Cardiff Bay Barrage project. When I was the Secretary of State in the Welsh Office my experience was limited to taking the occasional initiative in order to help Cardiff, but I never had the good fortune to be instrumental in introducing a momentous project such as this.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester, who followed him in the Welsh Office, on the way in which they have brought this project into being. We have just heard a remarkable speech from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and anyone who heard that speech inevitably must vote for the Second Reading of the Bill with a clear conscience. It is a very important Bill and I support it not because I know much about it but because I am very concerned about the future of the capital city of Wales. It is Cardiff that we should think about.
Very few noble Lords have mentioned the fact that we are talking about a derelict deprived area. We are talking about a city which is the youngest capital city in Europe which once upon a time was the biggest coal exporting port in the world. There has been a change in the economy of South Wales and there has been a change in the port of Cardiff. Cardiff has improved and has become a capital of which we can be enormously proud, but there remains a part of Cardiff which needs regeneration.
I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, because he represented the part of Cardiff with which we are concerned. I hope that he will have the opportunity of intervening in the debate.
My knowledge of the Bill is restricted to having read the Bill and one or two of the reports. I understand the concerns that have been expressed. I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was so critical. I hope that he is speaking for himself and not for his party because if ever a Bill should be bipartisan, this is it.
476
The Private Bill about which noble Lords have spoken was presented jointly by the development corporation and South Glamorgan Council, which is Labour dominated. There is no doubt that, although the noble Lord is right to state that the Bill is contentious, most Bills are contentious in some way, but it is not as contentious as he tried to make out in his speech.
Since the Private Bill left the House almost four years ago there has been delay and contention—if that is the right word—in the other place caused by a small select group of people. That may initially have been for political reasons, because we were approaching an election, but it has not been anything of which we can be proud. This is an enormously important Bill.
In his excellent speech, my noble friend the Minister said that the economic case for the Bill was strong. He said the Bill was important for the future of Cardiff and south-east Glamorgan. I agree with him. This is the biggest capital project ever to take place in Cardiff. The project would transform that deprived area of Cardiff which I mentioned and would be a high quality asset for our capital city. In place of the present dereliction, there will be a freshwater lake of some 500 acres and over eight miles of waterfront. It will regenerate a large part of Cardiff and provide permanent jobs, new houses and private sector investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he hoped that the Select Committee would study the economic viability of the proposal. He obviously again felt that there was contention and that its economic viability may not be made out. He will be aware that over the years, while the Bill has been under the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament, appraisals of the project's economic viability have been carried out by independent bodies. However, shortly after a report is published people say that there has been a change and that therefore a new report is needed. They call for the report to be brought up to date. The latest report was in October 1992.
That report claims that everyone seems to accept that there must be some regeneration and redevelopment of that area of Cardiff, and that the barrage scheme is superior in all respects to redevelopment without a barrage. It suggests that over 23,000 permanent jobs could be created by the barrage scheme—almost twice the number of permanent jobs that could be created without the barrage. Further, construction employment with a barrage scheme will be twice as much as that without the barrage, and over twice as many new houses would be built with the barrage scheme than by redevelopment without the barrage. According to that independent, up-to-date report, the most important factor is that the project should attract over £1 billion of private sector investment. Although I agree with the noble Lord that one should always study the economic viability of such a scheme and measure it against other suggestions, the evidence which is presently before the House and which was before the other place indicates that the barrage scheme is infinitely preferable to any redevelopment without the barrage.

477
I do not wish to go into all the objections that have been raised, but it is obvious that people in the area are worried about issues such as the rise in the groundwater level. That is a matter which will undoubtedly cause considerable anxiety. I have some experience of studying Bills and Acts of Parliament, and I have to say that Part IV and Schedule 7 contain exceptional provisions designed to provide protection. I do not know how many noble Lords have read Schedule 7 but it is exceptional to find incorporated into a Bill such a schedule which provides for the protection of people who may be injured by a project. I commend that to the House.
Another matter raised by the noble Lord was that under the Bill the Secretary of State has the right, by order, to change Schedule 7 in some respects should it be desired. The Secretary of State, and my noble friend who opened the debate, have made it clear that there is no intention to weaken the protection afforded by the provision. It is essential that the Secretary of State should have that power should it be necessary to amend in order to improve the provision. As my noble friend said, the power will never be used to weaken the provisions. The House can bear in mind, as my noble friend said, that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used. That of course means that both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to debate any proposed changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, expressed anxiety about dewatering wells. As I understand it, the full report on that issue has not been received, but I understand that it is proposed that there should be a well-pumping pilot study. I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that that is so. The House would be grateful to know when the report is likely to be made. Dewatering wells could be the complete answer to the problem of groundwater levels which worries so many people. All the surveys, remedies and compensation provided in Schedule 7 may not be used because there may be no risk. We all hope that that will be the case. If dewatering wells are not the answer, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that there will be no change in Schedule 7. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that everyone will give it a Second Reading.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers because it was not until 2.30 p.m. that I gave notice that I should like to speak. I thought that the Bill was so uncontroversial that it would go through on the nod. However, I was a little disappointed to find that that was not the case and so I thought that I had better add my voice. As one who has known the area for 50 years and represented it for many, I have some slight knowledge of it.
I should like to begin by saying something that I never thought that I should live to say, and that is how much I agreed with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It was a remarkable speech, and I thank him for it. He raised our eyes from some of the considerations that have loomed large in the Bill to the point of excluding the general approach and
478
magnitude of the proposition. He enabled us to see the proposal in perspective. I hope that your Lordships will read carefully what he had to say, because I believe that that is a speech that will stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gave us the history. My own approach—and I cannot remember who invented the phrase—is that this is "deja vu all over again". I have not heard a single new argument this afternoon that has not been put forward during the past six or seven years. Nothing further can be said. Many relevant questions have been asked during the progress of the plan and the approach to the Bill has been considerably improved as a result.
When, as Secretary of State for Wales, I first supported the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on this proposition, I immediately raised one issue: the history of flooding in that part of Cardiff because of the land on which the houses are built. The problem was the groundwater and the possibility of flooding. That had not been properly considered at the outset; there was no real time to do it then. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, said, since then it has been exhaustively examined. Perhaps I do not have experience of it, but the provisions in the Bill to safeguard against the possibility of anyone conceiv-ably being damaged by flooding go beyond the limits of anything the noble Lord said he had seen. I therefore defer to what he said. On that ground, which was my first and principal worry when we started the procedure, matters have been very much improved.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies rightly asked a series of questions. I wish he could have expressed himself a little more warmly about the magnitude of the proposition and the beneficial effect it will have, not only on Cardiff but also on the valleys from which he comes. Like all hinterlands, they depend upon the prosperity of the port, as we have been told. If we go to the other side of the world, we can see the impact that Hong Kong has had upon the province of Guandong in China, precisely because of the way in which that area has been developed. The same would be true of the valleys. I hope that there is no lurking suspicion in my noble friend's mind, in view of his valley loyalties, that this can be of benefit only to Cardiff. That is not so. It will be of benefit to the whole of the hinterland of South Wales. I hope that if he speaks again, he will be a little more enthusiastic about the Bill. Nevertheless, many of his questions will need to be examined and answered and he was correct to raise them.
On the nature of the proposition itself, every time a new proposal is put forward in Wales one can guarantee that there will be a thousand objections. It is our nature and I speak as one who is an adopted son. I suppose one or two noble Lords here will recall the great objection raised when the proposal to build St. David's Hall was put forward. There were editorials in the South Wales Echo, objections were made on the ground of cost and all the rest of it. Now St. David's Hall is a treasure in Wales, we all speak of it with great delight and it is a building where we are on an international footing. I warrant that the same

479
will happen in relation to this proposal when it eventually gets through and when the opposition has died down.
I ask my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to modify some of the things he said. The plain truth is that on a proposition of this magnitude there is no limit to the number of speculative questions that can be asked. There is no limit to the number of doubts that can be raised and alternatives that can be presented. I do not speak of my noble friend here, but it is in that spirit that much of the opposition to the Bill has been conducted. People are interested in different matters. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made his position quite clear. He said unashamedly that his interest was that he was opposed to barrages in general, so he would vote against the Bill. I suppose that that is a perfectly valid reason for voting against it, but if he sets that against the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I feel he ought to think again.
There are others whose prime interest is in the 500 dunlins and the 460, or whatever it is, redshanks which feed—no doubt very happily—in the feeding grounds there. On reflection I would say that there are probably nearly as many rusty bicycles in the feeding grounds as there are redshanks in the course of the winter. That is all right, it is a perfectly legitimate interest and the bird preservation people are quite right to put it forward. I think that a great effort has been, is being made and rightly should be made to meet them on it. We cannot meet the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the barrage because either we have it or we do not. But we can meet people who are genuinely concerned about the birds.
However, when all is said and done and all the interests have put their case, I am afraid I have only one interest—the people who live there. When I weigh that interest against the limited interest of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his opposition to barrages, the interest in birds, which can be met in other ways, or the difficulties of the anglers who wonder whether their interests will be interfered with, I have no doubt on which side I shall come down. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that, considering that I represented the poorest and most deprived area of Cardiff for over 40 years.
I put it to your Lordships that in the end, if we add on the basic interests of people who have lived in the deprived area, the worst area in Cardiff, and weigh them against the other interests that have been put today, there can be no doubt which way the vote should go.
I hope that in Committee the opposition to the Bill that has been raised by the special interests will not be pursued to the point of disruption. We have had enough of it; it has been going on for six or seven years since the proposals were first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It is time the matter was brought to an end. Some people will not be satisfied, indeed, they cannot be satisfied. But in my view, there is no doubt where the balance of advantage lies.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I am sorry to tackle him in this way because I agree with him more often than not on many matters. However,
480
when he says that it is shameful that these mud flats around which people in Cardiff have been living should have ceased to be a site of special scientific interest, I can only tell him that all of us who know and have lived in the area and who know the people there are astonished that this was ever included as a site of special scientific interest. It makes me wonder whether some of these sites of special scientific interest are all they are cracked up to be. However, that is another problem.
I wish to say a word about water quality. Much has been said, rightly and properly, about it and I have no objection to that. However, it has certainly not been said here this afternoon—nor has it often been said elsewhere—that in south Cardiff we already have a small illustration of what might happen (but no one can be sure) to the quality of the water when the barrage is built. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has been to see the Bute East Dock. If he has, and if he visited it on a Saturday afternoon, he would have seen that not only are there people sail-surfing, falling in regularly, but there is also dragon boat racing where people manage to topple out of the boat on many occasions. It is an area of water which is wholly enclosed, fed from the river Taff up at Blackweir and which is impeded in its exit in the same way as the barrage would be impeded. The quality of the water there, which has been tested, is as good as anyone can possibly find. By any standards, now that the sewage discharges will be diverted to Lavernock, I would say without hesitation, speaking as a layman, that the probable result is that in the end the water will be of better quality when the barrage goes through than at present. I believe that on the basis of the evidence that has been given so far it is difficult to reach any other conclusion.
I do not wish to hold up your Lordships. I only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on one point. I may have misheard him but I thought he said that Cardiff was lifeless. The noble Lord shakes his head, and I am glad; obviously he said something that I misunderstood. I believe that Cardiff, having had a stagnant period during the 20 or so years after the war, has recovered to a remarkable degree. Everyone who goes to Cardiff goes with some apprehension, but when they get there they say what a wonderful city it is. They look at the civic centre and see how it has been developed. They see the university and the civic buildings too. One can get out of Cardiff into the countryside in 10 minutes and there is the River Severn and the Bristol Channel nearby.
I remember when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer 30 years ago having arguments with the Civil Service because its members did not want to go to Cardiff. However, they went and now they could not be persuaded to leave. Incidentally those civil servants have contributed a great deal to the life of the city. Cardiff has a cultural centre and a sporting centre. In parts the city is wonderful already and I believe that with this development has the potential to become one of the show places of Europe. I hope that this Bill will meet with no difficulty in obtaining a Second Reading. I also hope that those who have genuinely expressed their own interests will recognise

481
that a great deal has been done to satisfy those interests and to meet the difficulties that have been raised.
I hope that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage we shall be able to proceed with reasonable expedition while taking into account all the proper reasons that have been brought forward for consideration by the Committee. Finally, I wish to add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies about the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, cannot be here today. Much of the initiative that has been taken in Cardiff is a result of his forward vision. He has now relinquished some of his responsibilities there although he will remain a member of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. However, his name as a City Father and as one who will have helped to create the 21st century will, I believe, live in history. I am glad to add to the tribute paid to the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, by my noble friend.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the Principality has been well served by your Lordships this afternoon and I join with its people in thanking your Lordships for the informed and enthusiastic comments which, despite a few reservations, you have made about the Bill. Having heard the speeches of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Thomas of Gwydir and of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, I may as well pack up and go home because they seem to have covered most of the outstanding questions that were raised by other speakers.
In summing up the feeling of apprehension about the scheme we need to re-examine certain points. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether the barrage was essential. We have never claimed that no development would take place without the barrage although there is wide support for its construction among developers already in the Bay. What is clear is that, without the barrage, development would not be of the same value or quality. It would not create as many jobs and it would not attract so much private sector investment.
If one looks out across Cardiff Bay today one sees what is no more and no less than a manmade sewer. One asks oneself whether that is to be the centre of the capital city of the Principality. Without a barrage that is exactly the vista one would be presented with. However, with a barrage the vista will be very different.
Questions have been raised about the water quality in this manmade lagoon. I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. If I were young and unemployed and I were looking out over Cardiff Bay today, I would wonder whether the noble Lord and I lived on the same planet. The intimation is that having built this manmade lagoon we are going to try to recreate the Sargasso Sea with seaweed, mud, muck, filthy water, supermarkets, plastic and I do not know what else. I listened in amazement to the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and many of your Lordships here today would not have put years of work into this project if we
482
intended to replace one hideousness with another. An unemployed 21 year-old in Cardiff would wonder whether we were living on the same planet if that were our intention.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to remedial questions. There must be some apprehension in this area. I can reassure him that if, without dewatering, we have to look at the higher number of houses which may need remedial action, we are talking about another £9 million. I cannot say that that sum is earmarked within a budget because when we are talking about a 20-year government budget noble Lords know as well as I do that I cannot do that. However, it is in the mind of the Welsh Office that we may have to consider the higher figure. Dewatering, as we know, is an innovative procedure. I should say to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that we hope to receive the results of the first pumping experiments together with a report on that early in the New Year.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked where the wells would go. One can almost imagine the scenario of a poor council tenant waking up one morning to find a nodding donkey in his back garden pumping out the water. We believe that any land that is needed on which to place dewatering wells is already within public sector holdings. I understand that the wells are not likely to disturb anyone's vista. I cannot say they are invisible because they would not be invisible. There are a couple of manholes in the ground.
Some claims have been made by parties involved with both the bird life and the wild life of the estuary. There has been apprehension about the fish going up the fish pass. As I said, consultations are continuing with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Countryside Council for Wales as regards providing a compensation site, although not necessarily a mitigating site, for wildlife. That will be discussed no doubt in the Select Committee. We do not necessarily believe that the dunlin and redshank which at the moment live in Cardiff Bay will move to where we want them to go. We are not replacing mud flats with mud flats. However, it is proposed to replace mud flats with a water-based environment. We may lose some of the population of redshank and dunlin but we may obtain other rarer species on the compensation land. Obviously the RSPB would like to gain half the planet, but we cannot give it that. We have to think of a smaller site, and the budget for that site must be reasonable. However, as I said, we shall shortly receive the results of the consultations I have mentioned.
I do not believe the EC directive poses a problem. It is probably disingenuous to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has done everything to, as it were, duck this issue. We have to do the very best we can for the people of Cardiff and for the regeneration of Cardiff. We have to square the circle with the demands of wildlife and of fish. We shall endeavour to abide by all directives which are placed upon us.
The EC waste water directive is not required to be in full operation until the year 2000 for larger outfalls and 2005 for smaller outfalls. For waters considered

483
sensitive areas the directive must be in operation by 31st December 1998. We are not in a position to say exactly how the requirements of the directive will be applied.
On the basis of criteria likely to be applied to the designation of sensitive and less sensitive areas, under the directive it seems unlikely that at present the Taff-Ely estuary would be designated as a sensitive area. Clearly, different circumstances will apply after the construction of the barrage. It is likely that the bay waters will then meet the criteria for designation as a sensitive area. If so, the extent to which discharges affecting the bay may require additional treatment will be considered at that time. At present that is as far as I can go in answer to the noble Lord. As more information on the directive comes to hand I shall write to him.
At the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised a procedural point. I have tried to find an answer. The 93 petitions will not all be heard on the Floor of the House but by a Select Committee. The Select Committee will be examining them at some time in the coming months. Therefore, the gathering together of the petitions by the Select Committee and the timing of today's debate are not in synchronisation, but they are not required to be so. I do not know whether that is a satisfactory answer but I understand that that is what is to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also raised questions concerning the economic argument. Other speakers today have given him as good an answer as I could. He tried to draw a parallel with docklands. Many lessons have been learnt from docklands. One was the lack of public transport infrastructure when development started. That will not be the case with Cardiff. Due not to our own good management but perhaps to divine providence, the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme will start at the right point in the economic cycle. I cannot think of a more opportune time in the economic cycle at which to start than at the beginning or on the upswing.
Doubts have been expressed in relation to the fish pass, but I understand that those points have been covered by the National Rivers Authority. I understand that the water flow over the fish pass will be in excess of that required by the NRA.
The Cardiff Bay barrage is a vital component in the regeneration of Cardiff Bay. The benefits it will bring will not be confined to Cardiff alone. Recent surveys of major employers in Cardiff suggest that nearly 40 per cent. of their employees live outside the county of South Glamorgan. The thousands of job opportunities offered by the inclusion of the barrage in the regeneration strategy will, therefore, benefit the people of the valleys as well as the residents of the city and its immediate periphery.
The image of Wales worldwide will be enhanced by such a prestigious project. Wales already has an excellent record of attracting inward investment. The perception of Wales as an attractive location for the international investor will be greatly increased. The benefits of the project are substantial, and are far greater than development without a barrage. I make no apology for mentioning some of the figures.
484
Development with a barrage will support over 23,000 permanent direct jobs. That is some 10,000 more than would be supported without a barrage. About 4,400 new homes would be built in the barrage scenario; over 1,600 more than would otherwise be built. The barrage scenario would draw in £7.50 of private sector investment for every £1 of public money spent. That is nearly twice what is likely to be achieved without a barrage. Private sector investment with a barrage could exceed £1,200 million. Without one, it would be reduced to just over £650 million.
A great deal of development is already taking place in the bay area. That reflects the measure of confidence which already exists in its future. When the barrage is built I am sure that we shall see a further impetus in the pace of development. The project offers a unique opportunity to secure for the capital city of Wales the type of development which would be a major asset for any city in the world.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, derelict and polluted land is being cleared and made available for a range of industrial, commercial, residential and leisure uses. Significant environmental improvements have already been achieved. Before construction work starts on the barrage the development corporation will divert 14 main sewers and thus remove a major source of pollution from the bay.
An attractive new environment will be created around the lake. This will include the introduction of trees and plants along the shoreline and the creation of wildlife habitats. Your Lordships will wish to note that the Bill obliges the development corporation to have due regard to flora and fauna. They are required to have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna before and after the barrage is built. Construction of the main and ancillary works, the operation of the barrage and management of the bay must all be carried out with that objective in mind, and in perpetuity.
The Bill contains provisions for the protection of water quality. The corporation will be obliged to meet the very stringent dissolved oxygen levels prescribed in the Bill. The National Rivers Authority also has powers of direction, which will ensure that the barrage is operated so as to protect the quality of water in the inland bay, to prevent or alleviate flooding and to protect fish in the inland bay. I remind your Lordships that the NRA has confirmed that its statutory responsibilities in respect of those issues are already adequately safeguarded.
The householder, too, is protected by the Bill. The Government do not believe the pessimistic prediction about groundwater which opponents of the scheme have made. They are not borne out by the detailed studies, nor by the eminent expert who advised my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Nonetheless, the Bill contains a very detailed scheme for protection which will ensure that where damage does occur the development corporation and its successors will be obliged to put it right.
I referred in my opening remarks to what the Government are doing outside the Bill—to mitigate the effects of the scheme on birds and to explore fully the dewatering solution. I believe that the protection

485
written into the Bill, and the willingness to pursue measures such as mitigation and dewatering outside it, is ample evidence of the Government's constructive approach to this project.
I believe that this approach strikes the right balance between the most beneficial regeneration of the former docklands area of Cardiff and the need to ensure that the interests of all—particularly the local population—are adequately protected. I urge your Lordships to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1992
5.10 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 be approved. The regulations were laid before the House on 28th October 1992. I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the equivalent Scottish regulations, which were laid on 27th October. I shall speak to both regulations.
The regulations, which have been considered in another place, introduce several changes to the "parent" regulations for England and Wales approved by Parliament in 1989 and for Scotland in 1990. If approved by this House, the amending regulations will come into effect on 4th January 1993.
The main change introduced is a general increase of 10 per cent. in the level of fees charged for planning applications. Since they were introduced in 1981, fees have represented a contribution by the applicant to the costs which local authorities incur in processing and determining applications. Applicants are charged according to the nature of the proposed development and to its size.
The Government are committed to progressive increases in fees in order to achieve their objective, announced in July 1990, that nationally fees should meet in full local authorities' costs of processing planning applications. In January in each of the last two years, fees have been increased by 20 per cent. towards that goal. The time is now ripe for a more modest increase.
We appreciate that a general increase of 10 per cent. in fees may be less than some planning authorities would have wished. The increase remains, however, substantial and higher than the rate of inflation. The Government believe that their proposals strike the right balance between the need to continue progress towards their target of full recovery, while having regard to the impact further increases will have on the construction industry. For developers, fees remain a very small part of their overall costs, considerably less
486
than 1 per cent. And as most kinds of minor domestic development do not require a planning application, very few householders pay any fee at all.
Let me give some indicative figures. An application to alter substantially an existing dwelling house would be charged at £60; to build a new dwelling house would attract a fee of £120. The maximum fee for a factory or office development would rise from £5,520 to £6,000; an application to win or work minerals from £8,280 to £9,000. Slightly lower fee levels will apply in Scotland.
When announcing, in February of this year, new procedures requiring some form of publicity for all planning applications, the Government undertook that the extra costs of that requirement would be taken into account in the next review of planning fees. Most local planning authorities were already carrying out some form of publicity before the new requirements came into effect on 17th July. Available evidence suggests that the extra expenditure is relatively small. Nevertheless, an allowance for this has been made in proposing the 10 per cent. increase.
The draft regulations also make three minor changes to the fees regime. The purpose of the first change, the only one to apply also to Scotland, is to rectify an anomaly. Certain types of "permitted development" which do not require express planning permission, a general permission having been granted under the general development order, nevertheless require the approval by a local planning authority of certain details before proceeding. One such is agricultural buildings, where the floor space created does not exceed 465 square metres. The fee for such determinations is currently £20. But there is a nil fee for agricultural developments of a similar size requiring planning application. To resolve this anomaly the regulations will introduce the same fee, £22, for both planning applications and determinations.
The second of these minor changes is consequential. An amendment to the General Development Order, introduced by a statutory instrument due to take effect on 4th January, extends the scope of permitted development to include particular types of radio mast, radio equipment housing and public call boxes. That amendment also requires operators to seek the prior approval of a local planning authority before installing such equipment. As with other such prior determinations, a fee of £22 will be payable.
The third minor change introduces a flat-rate fee for applications to extend the duration of an unimplemented planning permission which has not yet lapsed. That replaces the current arrangement, which charges the full amount for the particular category of development. This change rectifies an inconsistency.
Applications may be made, under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for relief from a condition imposed on a planning permission. This provision includes application to vary or revoke a condition requiring development to begin within a specified time (generally five years). A flat-rate fee, currently £55, applies to such applications.
However, there is no equivalent provision for similar applications; namely, those made under

487
Sections 91 or 92 of the 1990 Act for the renewal of unimplemented planning permissions which would otherwise lapse after the statutory period, normally five years. As a result, the full fee, as for the original planning application, is payable. This inconsistency has led to disputes between applicants and local planning authorities in a number of cases.
In a consultation paper issued in July last year, the Government proposed that a flat-rate fee should be charged for all renewals. This proposal was broadly welcomed as eliminating a troublesome inconsistency, although local planning authorities were concerned that some applications for renewal needed to be considered afresh. I accept this argument, but we do not believe that the few cases that do need to be looked at anew justify all such applications attracting a further full fee. It is therefore proposed that a flat-rate fee of £60 be payable.
The Government believe that users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system should meet the costs incurred in determining planning applications, which would otherwise fall to be met by charge payers and business-rate payers generally. Even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in the amending regulations now before the House, planning applications fees continue to be modest, and a very small proportion of developers' overall costs. We also believe that the other proposed amendments to the fees regime are fully justified. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we thank the noble Viscount for introducing these regulations. As the Government are aware we have supported increases in fees proposed in the past and we see no objection to them at the present time. As the noble Viscount rightly said, the regulations do not fully meet the desire of local planning authorities to have all their costs in determining planning applications met by fees but they continue to go some way toward it.
The major change to which he referred is the change under Parts 6, 7, 24 and 31 of Schedule 2 to the General Development Order which applies in particular to agricultural buildings. If the noble Viscount had followed the proceedings of the Planning and Compensation Bill, which took place before he had responsibility for these matters, he would know that we also supported the extension of planning controls over agricultural buildings. It seems right to us that the anomaly to which he has drawn attention should be corrected by this new provision. In general we support the two sets of regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992
5.19 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
5.20 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill does not yet qualify as a hardy annual but it is heading that way. It was first given a Second Reading one year ago and it was the first Private Member's Bill to be presented in the new Parliament in June. I then reintroduced the Bill and it has come full circle. I thank all noble Lords who have brought it to its present stage.
Since the Second Reading in June much has happened to strengthen the case for an advisory committee as is proposed in the Bill. Only last week the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons presented a new item for the committee's agenda; it has decided to outlaw the docking of dogs tails. I am old enough to remember the controversy about the docking of horses tails. That waged for years and ultimately the practice was outlawed and banned. However, this is a new development and we have yet to see what parliamentary controversy it will provoke. Awaiting treatment is a government decision, which presumably must be embodied in the law, making it an offence for anyone who is not a qualified veterinary surgeon to dock a dog's tail.
The Motion passed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons bans unqualified and unjustified mutilation and states that it is unethical unless done for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes. What is to be banned is the docking of dog's tails for cosmetic purposes. There is some lovely drafting of law on the subject and I have no doubt that there will be controversy about it.
The first attack on the Dangerous Dogs Act in Parliament occurred on 4th November when the honourable Member for Brighton Kemptown, Mr. Andrew Bowden, opened an Adjournment Debate immediately following the great crisis Vote that night. He wished to draw attention to the injustices and the defects of the Dangerous Dogs Act and to plead for a review. He received a not unsympathetic answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office and was asked to bear in mind that the Bill had been in operation for only a year. It was said that time

489
should be given to see how it progressed in full operation. The Minister welcomed what his honour-able friend had done and promised that:
"The Government will continue to listen carefully to my hon. Friend and others who wish to comment constructively on the controls. But at the same time I would ask that they bear in mind the Government's overriding duty to ensure the adequacy of the law to protect the public".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/92; col. 392.]
I question that as the basic philosophy of what the Government should do. I believe that the overriding purpose of Parliament is to protect the rights of the public—the civil rights of everyone concerned. To regard the single item of the protection of citizens against the minority problem of dog control is putting the issue rather high.
On 11th July another event of considerable importance took place. A legal conference of lawyers was held at Lincoln's Inn in order to look at the flaws and problems of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Mr. Bowden took the chair. The principal speech was made by Mr. Field-Fisher, QC, who is director of the Battersea Dogs' Home. I am sorry to say that I have not yet received a copy of the report of the conference, although it received a certain amount of publicity. I am glad to note that the Home Office is awake to the matter and has written for a copy. It will be of considerable importance. I mention the Dangerous Dogs Act because it stands to reason that any advisory committee appointed to assist the Home Secretary on matters of dog control and welfare would be bound to deal with that Act. Indeed, there is widespread belief that the Bill will foster the hope that a review of the Act will take place in the not too distant future.
Support for this Bill is growing continually. In addition to support from animal organisations such as the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League, and so forth, a magazine called Our Dogs published a profile of me a few weeks ago. In the photograph I was not stroking my dog—I do not possess one—but I was cutting my roses, of which I possess quite a number. Flowing from that article I received the largest amount of mail that I have ever received during my 18 years in your Lordships' House. It was beyond my capacity to cope with that and I had to engage specialist assistance. The letters were not routine—they had not been signed at the behest of some organisation—they were revelations of human misery, unhappiness, resentment and anger at the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
There is not the slightest doubt that there has been the most regrettable transgression of the liberties of the subject that I have encountered in my experience in Parliament. Although it may be early days for a review of the Act—its diabolical work is still in progress—preparation should be made for a review in the not too distant future.
We lack statistics. The Home Office has nothing and will not have anything worthwhile on the operation of that Act because they do not collect the statistics centrally. Questions that I have asked in order to obtain information have produced no results. So it is time to begin to prepare for a review. It will take some time and require a good deal of attention.
490
We are told that an advisory committee is not necessary because the Government have all the channels of consultation available to them. Indeed, they used them at the time that the Dangerous Dogs Act was before Parliament. I have heard first hand accounts of the consultations which the then Home Secretary had with various representative bodies on the Dangerous Dogs Act. People went in one after another. It was really a parade of delegations. The Home Secretary heard what they had to say and then did little or nothing about it. That is not what I call consultation.
I fear that we shall head for fresh trouble in that regard and in other regards because the Home Office have no record which gives any confidence whatever that it can look ahead and make preparations. I can understand the Home Office not being able to look ahead because it does not know what the problems will be for the Home Office. Its attention is frequently concentrated on matters which have arisen quite unexpectedly.
It is late in the day to begin to justify the case for an advisory committee. I can understand the Home Office not wishing to acknowledge that such a committee is necessary. If it does acknowledge that, it might be asked to pay for it. We are running into a regime when governments do not wish to pay for anything if they can possibly avoid it. So often they say that they cannot spend any new money. Extremely strict controls and a good many cuts are to be made in the field of public expenditure.
During the Summer Recess I canvassed ideas as to how it may be possible to meet that situation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office and the Home Secretary should be aware of ideas that I have had. One idea is that the Home Office should appoint an advisory committee and then privatise it —that would be in keeping with the Government's current policy—or perhaps encourage private interests to combine to fund an advisory committee of this kind, provided that the Home Secretary was satisfied as to its composition, authority and reliability in the giving of sound advice. The Home Secretary always needs sound advice; and some Home Secretaries need more of it than others.
It seems to me that there are ideas that we should look at in the field of change and in the relationship between public purposes and private provision. For example, I recall that years ago the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, set up a prestigious committee on the reform of charity law—or it was set up and he was invited to become the chairman. The Goodman Report was current thinking in the charitable world for a long time. One should not overlook my noble friend Lord Longford who in 1964 presented the Labour Government with a report of a committee of his own presided over by an archbishop. It was called Crime—A Challenge To Us All. It is still a challenge to us all but that report was a contribution on the subject.
Perhaps I may modestly refer to the fact that in 1975 I produced the first ever report, of which I am aware, on dogs in society. I did that under the auspices of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association.

491
Shortly after I produced my report the government set up an interdepartmental committee of their own to which I gave evidence. When that committee produced its report, it was largely a copy of mine. I do not quarrel with that because it was the best report that they had. It stood as part of the policy of the political parties for some time. Times change and other policies come along.
I first conceived the idea of this Bill during the ridiculous goings-on both in your Lordships' House and in another place over the proposal for a national dog registration scheme. I thought, "If this is Parliament, it is time it was reformed". I remember the antics which the Government got up to in order to prevent the House of Commons doing what the House of Lords had done; namely, to amend the Environmental Protection Bill in order to provide for work to be done on a national dog registration scheme. On one occasion it cost tens of thousands of pounds to get all the Ministers and absent MPs back to London to vote against the rebellion on the Tory Benches, which nearly succeeded. The Government had only a single figure majority on the vote on the proposal for a dog registration scheme. In the end, the Government slung into the Environmental Protection Act a set of proposals about waifs and strays and local authorities in order to edge out the amendment on dog registration. Are we to go through all that again? The national dog registration scheme holds the field in the policy of at least one of our major political parties; and that may be extended as time goes on.
Before this Bill reaches its final stage, I ask the Government to respond to ideas put to them about a different form of an advisory committee with status, quality and opportunity for investigation and research. Can that be done? Is it something novel? It means that the funding of the work of an advisory committee would pass from the Government to private sources. Do the Government object to an advisory committee being funded by a combination of charities or a combination of individual and commercial interests? I can tell the Government where to get money from if they are ready to accept commercial interest in this matter—after all, the Government do not mind deserving purposes being funded by commercial interests. Every day on the television something is being funded or sponsored. That is now taken as a matter of course.
I shall not mention any names, either of charities or commercial undertakings, but I remind your Lordships how little money is required to fund such an advisory committee. I have given figures before but the Farm Animal Welfare Council costs less than £100,000 per year. The statutory advisory committee on animal experiments costs less than £50,000 per year. Of course, if you want to take care of the nation's morals and keep sex and violence on television away from people, you must be prepared to spend £1.5 million on the Broadcasting Standards Council. If you want racial equality, an advisory committee will cost £14 million.
Those amounts are really chicken-feed when one looks at the matter from the point of view of funding.
492
The committee would give advice for nothing and, in certain circumstances, would not even claim its expenses from the Government. There are all kinds of sane ideas which I have been putting forward in the past few weeks to different people to get this committee set up. It would not be selected by the Home Secretary but approved by him as being a fair and quality advisory committee representative of the different interests on whose advice he will rely. Get that and we are home and dry and we need not bother any more about public expenditure on an advisory committee.
I have shown my hand to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has a hand to show; he usually has not. They will not let him have one. I am not really expecting any earth-shaking response from him. This Bill will be taken up elsewhere. I am very glad to say that we are getting friends in another place who feel that this is something which they should undertake.
This is a long speech to be made on Bill do now pass, but I have been waiting all summer to get this off my chest. I have been working very hard during the Recess. If any noble Lord wants a packet of my misery mail I shall be very glad to forward an instalment of it. If noble Lords do not weep then they are much harder hearted than I think they are. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
5.41 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on a Private Member's Bill like this the Labour Party is neutral, and I speak not for the party but for myself alone. I was recently re-reading some of the poetry of Alexander Pope, and I came across a couplet inscribed on the collar of the dog which Pope gave to a member of the Royal Family. It read:
"I am His Highness' dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?"
I must say that on the matter of this Bill I feel a little like that myself, having been put on my lead and taken out for walkies around the arguments in favour of this modest measure on more than one previous occasion and quite unable to strain at the leash in pursuit of new and persuasive examples or statistics with which to attempt to convince the Government and soften the noble Viscount's stony heart.
Indeed, in re-reading the previous outings we have had on this topic, I found myself not only totally convinced by the excellence of the arguments in my own speech at Second Reading, but strangely impressed by the fact that no one, apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seems to have spoken against the Bill. The nearest to an objector was the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who said that he had previously given it "qualified support" and had possibly moved from that position a little in the direction of my noble friend. Of the bodies usually consulted on canine matters only the Kennel Club was opposed to the Bill, and the chorus of support for it, from so many different quarters, has been as loud as it has been harmonious.

493
The great strength of the proposal, to my mind, is that it is based so firmly on the constitution, the functions and the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has a long and distinguished record of useful achievement. The problems and the welfare of the nation's 7.4 million dogs could surely best be considered if we agree to follow the example created for the welfare of farm animals.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of the view taken by that very responsible body, the RSPCA, when it prepared a briefing for the Second Reading debate on 18th June. It believed that the Dog Control and Welfare Council could play an invaluable role in providing independent expert advice to the various Secretaries of State responsible for dogs. The RSPCA quoted my noble friend when it said:
"This is an area which raises a number of complex and emotive issues, and the Council would, in Lord Houghton's words, 'point the way to a calmer and more considered approach'".
That is every bit as true in November as it was in June. The RSPCA at that time noted the weight of support for the Bill and listed a number of the organisations in favour of it and even of dog registration which included the RSPCA and Scottish and Ulster SPCAs, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the National Canine Defence League, the Battersea Dogs' Home, the National Farmers Union, the Country Gentlemen's Association, the Country Landowners' Association, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, the National Dog Wardens Association and the British Veterinary Association —indeed, every front-line organisation concerned with dog welfare, except, for obvious reasons, the Kennel Club.
The RSPCA also noted that every European member state save Belgium and Luxembourg now has full registration schemes as do many states in the United States of America, Australia and now Denmark. One virtue of the Bill which could perhaps be re-emphasised with profit is that it creates a body capable of taking an overview on the many aspects of both dog control and dog welfare in our society. The RSPCA, the Canine Defence League, the Kennel Club, the PDSA, and other such organisations all do excellent work, but there is, as yet, no body with direct links to government which looks at all the issues, from dog licensing to dog breeding and dog training, and advises government on them all. My noble friend's Bill co-ordinates and simplifies the transfer of information and advice in the most effective way possible, while at the same time ensuring that that advice is of the highest and most reliable quality.
Over the past weekend I have carefully re-read, with all the sympathy that I could summon up, the reply given on behalf of the Government by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, at Second Reading. I am sorry to say that I found it, with all the goodwill in the world, still deeply unconvincing. His strongest point seemed to me the argument that to set up a Dog Control and Welfare Council would create additional administrative work and added expense. And yet
494
neither he, nor anyone else, so far as I can see, has established how much additional administrative work would be required. How many civil servants would need to be recruited? How many person-hours are estimated to be necessary to service such a council? Indeed, has anyone ever seriously calculated what would be involved, and costed it? If so, who, and when, and what is the estimated expense?
As my noble friend pointed out at Second Reading, the Farm Animal Welfare Council costs something like £80,000. A Dog Control and Welfare Council could hardly cost more than that, and in the carefully considered opinion of very many of us, all across the country, it would be money well and wisely spent. I hope that on this final occasion the noble Viscount will feel able to agree.
5.49 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to have a further opportunity to discuss dog-related matters with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I believe that he and I have discussed dogs on a number of occasions—about five or six in the past few years. This Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House some five months ago. Since then I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been exploring how effect could be given to the aims of the Bill without the need to establish a statutory council. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for keeping the Government informed of the developments as to his discussions with animal organisations and how they have progressed.
When your Lordships last discussed this Bill, I set out the Government's reservations about its purposes and the reasons why we felt unable to give it our support. I know that this has disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who introduced the Bill from the very best of motives.
However, before responding to the particular points which he has raised today, it may be helpful if I were to explain briefly why the Government have still not felt able to support the establishment of a statutory council as the Bill envisages. The Government welcome advice from many quarters on matters for which they are responsible. This applies no less to the subject of dogs. Indeed, this is an area in which we receive an abundance of unsolicited advice, in addition to the advice which we receive from our contacts with the very many organisations which have an interest in dog-related matters. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that my officials met only last week with their opposite numbers in the RSPCA when dog matters were discussed among other things.
I understand the concerns of both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Both feel that there is a strong case for having a body—not dissimilar to the Farm Animal Welfare Council or the Animal Procedures Committee —which can consist of people who are expert and knowledgeable in dog matters which not only can take the breast of objections or proposals of existing or new

495
legislation but which can advise my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to whom my right honourable friend can turn for advice.
I do see that there is a force in this argument, but I am bound to tell your Lordships that any new statutory body is inevitably bureaucratic. It would also be expensive to run and, at a time when we are trying to avoid additional public expense and to avoid the increasing desire to legislate on everything, we do not feel that this is the appropriate time to set off down this road. We are, at the moment, kept alert to the many and varied opinions on dog issues by the flexibility of other existing non-statutory consultation arrangements. We do not feel, therefore, that there is quite the urgency for a statutory council as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, proposes. The Government are not alone in this view. The Kennel Club also doubts the need for the Bill. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to have to read out again his long list of those who are for such a statutory council if, indeed, he can. There are differing views, but the Government's position remains the same.
However, there is, of course, room for improvement. There may be an argument for a forum in which issues of dog control and welfare could be filtered, assessed and passed on to government. That need not —and indeed should not—be at the expense of our existing valuable, informal arrangements. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, were to be successful in obtaining agreement with the bodies with which he is consulting to the establishment of a non-statutory forum, the Government would naturally be willing to consider any advice that it might offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Your Lordships may be aware that this was discussed on 4th November in an Adjournment debate in another place. The Government made clear that we believe that it is right that the operation of the Act should be closely examined and that we will continue to listen carefully to constructive comment on it.
The noble Lord also talked about tail docking. The Government amended the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 last year to remove the right of an unqualified person to dock puppies' tails. That change takes effect on 1st July 1993. The Government are waiting to see the details of the recent deliberations of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I must repeat that the Government remain ready to discuss any proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might wish to put to us on how his ideas for a non-statutory council might be taken forward. We are always ready to receive what he might call "the Houghton Report" although we shall not necessarily agree with all the conclusions.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the most informative speech that he has yet delivered to your Lordships on this subject. He must have gone back to his officials and said, "A repetition of what I said before won't do." Anyhow, it may be that he has
496
triumphed over more forthcoming advice that he has already received. I am sure that the noble Viscount has personal resources that have not yet been revealed to your Lordships' House, and I thank him for what he said. I do not think that I should go into any more detail now.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, speaking from our Front Bench, put up a spirited and complete case for the Bill. However, on the practical points that he mentioned in response to my suggestion of other arrangements for establishing working advisory machinery on which the Home Office could rely and the existence of which it would acknowledge, I remind him that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is not a statutory body. It is appointed by regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It may well have been that any such committee would not have needed a statutory sanction. It could probably be established under regulations which the Home Office may already have the power to make.
I shall pursue what I have embarked upon because I think there is one thing missing from all that the noble Viscount said—and that is, listening to collective advice. I have had experience of this. One can listen to everybody coming separately to state views and, when they have gone, one has great difficulty knowing how to select the advice that one should follow. In my connections with the teachers' organisations—a difficult lot, if you like—I said, "I shall see you altogether. I shall take your advice when I hear it from you altogether." That proved the most successful part of the work that I had to carry out on behalf of teachers.
However, during the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Home Secretary had the various bodies involved in one at a time. They were waiting in the waiting room. One would have thought that they had all gone to the dentist. They went in one by one, and the Home Secretary called upon particular officials to explain the Home Office point of view on various contentious items in the dangerous dogs legislation. If one examines the Dangerous Dogs Act, one can see what is not there and the flaws that are there. One can see why respectable bodies such as the British Veterinary Association in particular and the RSPCA are putting forward the urgent need to restore the rights of the citizen to appeal in a judicial procedure, but those rights are not there. I do not think that the public fully understand how authoritarian it all is and how the various safeguards against injustice have been withdrawn in order to allow no respite in the pursuit of what are believed to be dangerous dogs. As I said at the time, it is a fiendish Act.
I have said all the things about the legislation to which I think that the House would wish to listen. So, I shall persevere. I hope that in due course I shall come up with something which will convince a future Home Secretary—if the present one is not still in post. Let us see what we can do. I repeat that to review this requires collective action on the part of considerable interests, and I think that they should be encouraged. That is all that I have to say for the time being.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Books for Schools, etc.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current levels of expenditure on books for schools, colleges, universities and libraries.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, three publications this autumn concern us today. The first is Books in Schools, a report of an investigation into the use and provision of books in schools, conducted by a working party under the chairmanship of Michael Marland, the headmaster of North Westminster Community School, and sponsored by the British Library and the Book Trust. The second is a report on book and journal spending in university and polytechnic libraries 1978–79 to 1989–90 produced by the Council of Academic and Professional Publishers. The third is Public Libraries and Their Book Funds, a report by the National Book Committee. I should declare an interest (though not a financial one) as chairman of that committee whose members are representative of all with interests in books: writers, agents, booksellers, publishers and the reading public through Book Trust, which is the successor body to the National Book League. It is because of what those three reports reveal that I am asking this Unstarred Question.
I believe all of us here accept the main thesis of Books in Schools that reading is the key to learning and that a sufficiency of books in the home, schools, colleges, universities and libraries is the key to reading. What we have to do is convince the Government and the Minister that if they are serious in wanting to raise standards in this country and avoid the loss of our reputation as world leaders in research they must make available funds to ensure there is ample provision of books for all levels of students.
I had hoped that when I read a press notice on 9th September that Mr. Patten was beginning to understand, though I may now be wrong. In writing to the chairman of the curriculum council agreeing to a review of the orders for English, he said that they were not sufficiently explicit about how pupils could develop the habit of reading widely and be introduced to the richness of great literature. Books in Schools however reveals all too clearly that pupils are not getting the reading experience they need, for the Government are failing to provide adequate funding for schools to make sufficient reading material available.
Learning to read at primary school is only a beginning. The crucial development of full reading and information-handling skills at secondary school is neglected. In many secondary schools children seldom read whole books. Books are increasingly replaced by photocopied extracts and information sheets. We are in danger of creating a book-starved generation. The HMI report of 1989 Reading, Policy and Practice at Ages 5 to 14 said that advanced reading skills, including information and retrieval skills, were not developed in a coherent way. Little was done after
498
initial reading was taught to take children further and help them to understand and make use of a wider range of reading in a variety of ways.
The working party found that in good primary schools opportunities for silent reading were provided. Children had books in their lunch bags and could take them home in the evening for leisure reading. But in secondary schools sustained reading was not encouraged; pupils used worksheets and booklets put together by teachers. One teacher commented that pupils felt comfortable only with worksheets that clearly set out the limits of the reading to be done. The assumption was that pupils would be discouraged by a whole book.
A successful school should teach reading skills throughout a child's school career and provide not only sufficient books and opportunities for reading but also make use of books across the whole curriculum. Many teachers have not been adequately trained to create or make use of opportunities for children to extend their reading skills or understand fully the role of books in the learning process. Changes in teacher training, with schools having the major responsibility for the professional preparation of future teachers, mean that many more are likely to have only a superficial grounding in the teaching of extended reading.
School libraries are discussed both in the Books in Schools and the public library reports. My noble friend Lord Dormand had a very good debate on this subject in February 1991. The library or library resources centre is found to be cost-effective and is highly valued. It should be at the core of primary and secondary school work, responding to changing needs, extending pupils' awareness of imaginative literature, meeting reference needs across the curriculum and helping to develop information-handling skills. The library is usually the school's largest learning resource. In some schools the book stock alone has a cash replacement value of £150,000. Unfortunately, the majority of school libraries remain undeveloped. The 1984 report of the Library and Information Services Council for England concluded that they were under-used and under-funded. Eight years later few of its recommendations have been acted upon.
The 1990 survey of the HMI found disturbing disparities in provision that did not sit well alongside the best intentions of the national curriculum. Its 1991 report on library provision and use in 42 primary schools found the use of library resources satisfactory or better in just half the schools visited. It also found among other things that library funding did not match current book costs and replacement needs and that there were unsatisfactory staffing arrangements and inadequacies in library organisation. I should like to say how important it is to have a professional chartered librarian in charge. Most secondary schools do not; in England it is only one in seven. Scotland does much better; three-quarters of their schools do. Every head I have talked to confirms the invaluable help such a librarian gives to the work of the whole school.
But what is to happen under local management of schools and when, as we are told will be the case, more schools become grant-maintained? If schools are under-funded now will school libraries suffer more? Many LEAs have kept back funds to finance the service but in future schools will have to buy in that service. Will they? Will grant-maintained schools buy in from the LEA? If so, will they continue to be able to do so in future if they so wish? I ask the Minister to respond to those questions.
Books in Schools says that the chronic problem is money. Schools remain severely under-funded when it comes to spending on books for classroom and library use. By the late 'eighties expenditure per pupil in both primary and secondary schools had declined in cash value and in real terms and was well below the Book Trust's recommended figures. The actual spending in England in 1989–90 was £9 per primary and £13.50 per secondary pupil. The recommended reasonable (not good) provision was £15.27 for primary and £24.97 for secondary. It is worth remembering that surveys in 1989 showed that on the basis of replacement every three years a GCSE student required £23.25 per year for textbooks alone. I remind noble Lords that the actual figure was £13.50. No doubt we shall be reminded by the Minister that the DES earmarked funds for books when it made £35 million available between 1986 and 1989 via the educational support grant scheme for books and equipment for the new GCSE, and that a further £45 million is being provided for books for the national curriculum between 1991 and 1994 via grants for education support and training—the GEST scheme. First, one has to remember that providing funds for major educational change is a separate exercise from ensuring an adequate level of regular expenditure for basic provision. Secondly, one of the country's major publishers has calculated that the amount required by schools to restock with national curriculum books is £71.4 million for primary and £96 million for secondary schools, a total of £167 million over and above normal spending. Others estimate a higher figure. Coopers Lybrand Deloitte suggest £235 million over a five-year period or £47 million a year. Those are vastly different figures from the Government's.
Before I turn to the public library pamphlet I want to put in a special word for the 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth form and further education colleges. Many more young people are staying on, because of unemployment or whatever. We are very glad they are staying on, but the increased numbers will put a big extra strain on book provision. I should like to ask the Minister to comment in his reply. I hope he will not say that it is all up to the Further Education Funding Council. Public library and book provision have been more in the spotlight in 1992 than before because of the establishment of the Department for National Heritage with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet, thereby augmenting the profile of public libraries. On the other hand, never has there been so much concern about the ability of public libraries to provide books
500
and the comprehensive and efficient service required of them under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.
In February my noble friend Lord Willis opened an excellent debate on the libraries and 27th February was "Save our Libraries Day", which focused on the poor provision of books and services. In fact, 80 million fewer books were issued by libraries in 1991 than in 1981. Professor Richard Hoggart, in a lecture at the new British Library Centre for the Book, said:
"In this period of unusually rapid cultural change, the public libraries are both one of the main indicators of that change and among its most prominent casualties".
It is ironic that under the 1964 Act the Minister for the Arts, now the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State for Wales have a duty to superintend and improve—I emphasise the word "improve"—the public library service when we know that the hours of opening are drastically reduced, cash book funds have seen cuts varying from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent., no new books have been bought by Camden since September 1991, far fewer new books are going into libraries than was the case 10 years ago, a good many libraries have been closed and more cuts and closures are feared. All these are contributory factors in the decline of library issues.
However, on the credit side, Peter Brooke's statement of 9th November on compulsory competitive tendering was much more favourable than once feared. Public library support services are not to be subject to CCT, and the Library Association's argument that it would be better to carry out pilot studies rather than press ahead has been accepted. But the association will be seeking an assurance from the Secretary of State that, whatever the outcome of the investigation, the statutory requirement to provide a comprehensive and efficient service will remain and that the core service shall remain free at the point of delivery.
I turn now to the report on book and journal spending in university and polytechnic libraries. It covers the years 1978–79 to 1989–90, 1990 being the final year that funding was specifically earmarked for books for university libraries by the Government and the UGC. Earmarked funds were not made available to the then polytechnics, and the far greater decline in provision there must in part be attributable to that. The figures reveal two distinct trends. The first is a steep long-term decline in university and polytechnic library funding for books and periodicals. The second trend seems to show that big cutbacks have been made since the previous year.
Everyone knows the facts of increased student numbers. In the 10 years to 1990, numbers in universities rose by 15 per cent.; in polytechnics by 21 per cent. In addition, teaching and learning are changing. I quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who I hoped would be speaking today. I am very disappointed that she is not. In June of this year she said:
"We must (use) different patterns of teaching and learning … teaching inputs must be accompanied by a greatly increased use of student self-learning materials, both computer based and more traditionally book based".

501
The welcome emphasis on mature students, distance learning, students with non-standard entrance qualifications and part-time attendance all put additional stress on library provision. One additional factor is the increasing need to acquire materials in electronic form, often requiring significant invest-ment. Looking at both book and periodical provision, it can be seen that a total of nearly £18 million would be needed to make up the shortfall for the past 11 years—and this with the benefit of three years' earmarked funding.
Many librarians see the consequence of the upsurge in numbers as erosive of the libraries' research function, as the funds to retain the critical dual role of libraries are lacking. And it is the danger to research in this country that is really alarming. Our prosperity depends very much on it. I know that my noble friend Lord Morris will speak more on higher education, so I shall leave him to enlarge on this. But I must say how glad we are that the Higher Education Funding Council for England announced at its first meeting the establishment of a committee to review library provision in the higher education sector, which shows its awareness of the critical situation.
To sum up, reading and all the other skills of assessment and appreciation that ultimately derive from reading are essential to the development of a nation's culture and of the various kinds of expertise on which its livelihood depends. Nor is it enough that children should just be taught to read. They need to exercise and expand that skill; and for that ample material must be available to them and they must be encouraged to make full use of it. It is abundantly clear from the reports that I have cited that in Britain at present that material is woefully, but woefully, deficient and that the supply continues to decline. Are the Government really satisfied with the situation as it is? Are they unable, or unwilling, to do something about what in our view is a serious and indeed a critical situation?
6.16 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the House will be greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for raising this important issue today and for doing so in such an expert and authoritative way. For my part I shall concentrate my brief remarks mainly on the public library system but I shall say a little about schools and colleges as well.
Our free public library system, from the days of the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie onwards, has been a source of national pride in this country and very much the envy of other countries. In an increasingly leisured society—some of it sadly the enforced leisure of unemployment—it makes a vital contribution to the quality of civilised living. Its role in the underpinning of our educational system in its widest sense, as was emphasised by the noble Baroness, from children at school to senior citizens pursuing their various interests and hobbies, has never been more important.
Education is in general a top priority for this country if we are to remain internationally competitive. We live in an age when most people are
502
likely to have to change their jobs and their skills two or three times during their working life. It is a world of mature students with non-standard entrance qualifications, of part-time courses and of distance learning, which in my day was called correspondence courses but is now very much more sophisticated.
The role of the local library in that educational revolution cannot be exaggerated. Roughly one third of the population make regular use of their local library. Surveys of the popularity of local government services always have public libraries at or near the top of the scale. For a government who have citizen's charters at the centre of their policies, the level of service in our local libraries should be a matter of great concern.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has shown, that level of service now varies alarmingly from one part of the country to another. The details are given in the document to which the noble Baroness referred. I am bound to say that some of the discrepancies as set out by the National Book Committee report are somewhat baffling. Looking in my parochial way at my part of Scotland, for example, I discover that in 1990–91 the city of Dundee spent £1.23 per head of population on books whereas neighbouring Angus managed no less than £3.58, which is almost three times as much, although there is an uninformative footnote which says that perhaps some of that may have been spent on more than books. Nevertheless, in my day as a working politician in that part of the world, it was Dundee that was considered to be the spending authority and Angus that was considered to be the rather parsimonious authority. I do not quite know what has gone wrong in the case of libraries.
In Kent where I presently live, and where my local village library is excellent, expenditure per head is less than £1, whereas in nearby Sussex expenditure is £1.73. I hope that the Secretary of State himself will note that local authority expenditure in his constituency of Westminster stands at £5.39 per head compared with £1.26 per head for Northern Ireland, where he was previously Secretary of State. I hope that that will encourage him to do something about that degree of discrepancy.
Although the prime responsibility for public libraries lies with local authorities, the Government have a heavy responsibility. Many of the distortions are a direct result of the financial policies of the Government that relate to local government, to the poll tax and to the general squeeze on local government expenditure.
George Cunningham until recently was the chief executive of the Library Association. I quote from a letter that he sent to me earlier this year.
"It used to be that objectionable cuts took place here and there. Now they are taking place right across the country. Opening hours are being slashed, book funds reduced, and in some cases libraries are actually being shut for good. In the mid 70s there were 229 libraries in England and Wales open for 60 hours a week or more. Now it is 18. People are in danger of losing the library habit".
The library habit of going to the local library and of looking to it for information and recreation is

503
surely the mark of a civilised society. We cannot raise a literate generation or improve reading standards if people find that their libraries are shut.
I was astonished to note from the report that in north Tyneside there has been a 60 per cent. cut, which has meant that all branch libraries are now open only for 10 hours a week. I was even more saddened to see that in Manchester, a city famous for its cultural life, the great Central Library is now closed all day Thursday.
While local authorities struggle with financial problems, of which libraries seem to be the principal victims, the Secretary of State has made a curious announcement relating to public library support costs. I was not as optimistic as the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the implications of that announcement. We welcome it as far as it goes. The Secretary of State stated that the support costs are not to be subject to compulsory competitive tendering, since librarians already achieve value for money in that area by encouraging competition. So far so good. However, the Secretary of State went on to propose a series of pilot projects into the feasibility of contracting out the direct delivery of all or various parts of the library service. I emphasise the word "all". I am a layman in such matters but that sounds like trying to reach CCT by another route. The Library Association has stated that the risk is that managerial money may be wasted in a fruitless search for contractors, who will not be thick on the ground, that could be better spent on direct delivery of a quality of service that is widely admired.
I tread with timidity on the theological ground of the net book agreement, which is a peculiarly divisive subject. If libraries, however, are looking for ways of obtaining better value for money in respect of their books, they would have greater bargaining power in the marketplace if there were no such net book agreement and if resale price maintenance were to disappear in that respect.
The so-called "bookseller index" on which some of the argument of those who have been providing us with information rests, is always well ahead of the retail prices index. I confine myself to stating that that is a very peculiar situation. At a time when a technological revolution has been taking place in the print industry generally, one would have thought that book production would be cheaper rather than dearer.
I should like to mention school and academic libraries which, as the noble Baroness explained, are suffering as much as the public libraries. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the CVCP, states that over the six years to 1990–91 book expenditure per student has had to be reduced in real terms by 30 per cent. That percentage relates to the retail prices index and not to the other indexes that I have mentioned. At the same time the Government want to see more than 300,000 additional students in higher education by the end of the century. That is a worthy aim, but the Government will have to provide the means by which that aim may be achieved.
There is a similar sad story in regard to universities. There is the dismal story of the soaring building costs
504
for the British Library which have had an impact on its expenditure. The British Library has the best library of German material in the world outside Germany—and some might say inside Germany. Last year it was not able to buy a single German monograph; there were no funds for that kind of expenditure.
School libraries, on average, are able to add only one third of a book per child per year to the book stock. That is the present situation. There is no school library service in at least five local authorities, three of which are London education authorities. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 the Government have surprisingly strong powers of intervention, but more importantly they have a duty to superintend and promote the improvement of the public library system. If there are complaints about the quality of the service, the Government can do a series of things, from setting up a local inquiry to removing the local authority's library functions and taking them on themselves. I am told that the intervention powers have been used only twice since 1964. The second occasion occurred very recently when Derbyshire had closed 11 branch libraries and cut its book fund by a half. The Government are still following up that matter and I hope that they will see it to a successful conclusion. On the basis of the National Book Committee report the case for further intervention in the worst cases seems to us to be strong.
However, the concerns of the Secretary of State should be spread more widely than his direct powers under the 1964 Act. They should spread to the nation's libraries as a whole, to local libraries, to school libraries and to the libraries in colleges and universities.
The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for National Heritage and our libraries are an important part of that national heritage. Those of us who are concerned about libraries gave a cheer when the Office of Arts and Libraries suddenly found itself rising in the world to part of a major department of state with a place in the Cabinet. We wish the Secretary of State well in his new post. The library aspect of national heritage cries out for his urgent concern and action.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, there have been occasions in your Lordships' House when I have been visited by doubt as to whether my qualifications are sufficient to enable me to take part. Those doubts, I say with presumption, are not with me tonight because I believe that the only qualification necessary to support the noble Baroness in the Question that she has asked is a deep respect for the business of reading. That sentiment is shared by most of your Lordships. Such a deep respect is a key to learning and is a source of almost infinite treasure. Reading is an essential component to the intellectual, cultural and economic health of any nation. It is able to enrich the life of everybody who takes part in it by bringing before them the whole range of human experience.

505
I shall begin, as did the noble Baroness, by mentioning the Book Trust's report, Books in Schools. As that is where the process begins, I greatly welcomed the willingness of the working party to consider widely and with imagination the whole business of learning to read. The report recognises that the provision of books is only a part—obviously an essential part—of the approach to reading skills. It makes clear that the imparting of necessary skills can be inhibited as much by the imperfect training of teachers with too little time subsequently available to them, as by the dearth of necessary books.
I also welcomed the working party's recognition of the essential part that parents play both in the process of learning to read and the later process of reading to learn. I hope that I shall never forget the debt I owe to my parents and a handful of others for pressing on with persuasion in the years when I was tempted to set greater store by other pursuits which then seemed more active and more exciting.
Today, when television plays the part it does in nearly all our lives and has undoubtedly done much to enrich them, it is probably hard for many people to switch off the set and take up a book. It is equally difficult for parents and teachers to encourage those over whom they have influence to do the same. But that merely emphasises the lack of wisdom in creating (or of not removing) any barriers to the encouragement of reading.
No one can feel in the least happy when the first sentence of that important report claims,
"Rarely have so many pupils had so few books".
Nor indeed can one feel happy that another report from the National Book Committee, mentioned by the noble Baroness, points to "a disturbing decline in book provision" over much of the United Kingdom. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, emphasised that even more strongly.
To me, therefore, the suggestion of the noble Baroness seems unanswerable. Expenditure on books, both for earlier education and for subsequent learning and enjoyment, is too low. In what ways can it be increased? When he replies, I hope that my noble friend will tell me the exact obligations under the 1944 and the 1988 Acts. As I understand it, the 1944 Act considers schools insufficient which do not have enough equipment to provide proper educational opportunities —I assume that "equipment" includes books—whereas the more recent Act of 1988 makes clear that neither parent nor pupil is expected to pay for books and other equipment. Jointly, therefore, those two obligations seem to amount to a duty on behalf of the Department of Education, the local authorities and the schools to meet that shortfall. I shall be grateful for enlightenment by my noble friend on the legal obligations of each.
Even less clear in my mind is where the main responsibility lies for the comprehensive and efficient service required of public libraries under the 1964 Act. Wherever that responsibility mainly lies, it is difficult to see why, in the case of the libraries, a greater obligation should not fall on those who make use of the service. The cost of providing entertainment through the opera, ballet, theatre or even the cinema,
506
is reflected to quite a large extent in the price I pay for the ticket. But the loan by a library of a book, often of no cultural value whatever, takes no account of the cost of providing it—which is the whole subject of our present debate. Now that there is an imperative need to improve the performance of libraries all over the country, as the noble Lord made clear, it seems positively wrong not to ask the question whether those who depend on that service should not be asked to make some contribution.
Finally, although it may be wrong to pursue this argument tonight, which goes wide of the Question of the noble Baroness, I cannot avoid comparison of the unmet needs in the United Kingdom with the almost insatiable hunger for books across the world. That need is reduced but certainly not met by a combination of voluntary efforts and such agencies as the Ranfurly Library Service, of which many of us are well aware. The only reason I mention that wider aspect, which is probably out of order, is my belief that similar steps will be required of many individuals within this country if we are to achieve the kind of service that we should all like to see at home.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, was it not the noble Viscount, the first Lord Samuel, who said in 1947, "A library is thought in cold storage"? If he were contributing to our debate tonight he might well rephrase his apothegm and replace "cold storage" with "deep freeze". Especially in university libraries, to which I beg leave to invite your Lordships' attention, the cold winds of change have reduced resources available for books and periodicals to well below the freezing point. Indeed, book funds which are frozen are fortunate; in most university libraries they have been cut and cut and cut again over the past decade.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals report that between 1984–85 and 1990–91 expenditure on books per full-time equivalent student stayed almost constant in cash terms at somewhere between £41 and £44. In real terms, as provided by applying the GDP deflater, that represents a drop of over 30 per cent. But the GDP deflater is a blunt instrument. More sensitive, more penetrating is the Universities Pay and Prices Index—the UPPI—which calculates price changes as directly experienced by universities. Within that index there is an individual index for costs of books, periodicals and bindings. If we apply that to the situation for the same period, the fall is over 45 per cent. So, from within universities we see a situation in which only just over half as much money is available for books as was available in the mid-1980s.
Over the same period expenditure on periodicals rose in cash terms by over 20 per cent. In real terms, therefore, by applying the GDP deflater, we see that that represents a drop of almost 15 per cent. and, using the UPPI, the cut is over 30 per cent. The cost of academic and research publications has increased relentlessly. Resources have not been made available to meet that increase or even keep within sight of it, and year upon year, inexorably, the situation becomes worse annually and cumulatively.

507
When the noble Viscount replies he may well echo the words of the chief priests and say in effect, "What is that to us? See thou to that". He may point out that universities are free to spend as much or as little as they like on their libraries. They have choice; they have freedom; they have opportunity. If he were to argue so, I would reply to him with only two words: "Not so"—because the cuts in book and periodical expenditure could be matched by the cuts that universities have had to make in every other area of their activity: in laboratory provision, in the purchase of scientific equipment, in the maintenance of buildings, in student accommodation, student union facilities, medical facilities, counselling and so on. A university is an organism: one part is inexorably connected to every other. The noble Viscount would be right to point out that books and periodicals are fairly close to the centre of what universities exist to do, but so are the buildings in which study and research are carried on, so is the provision of reader places in the libraries themselves. The way things are going most students will have to read books and take notes standing up, and one seat at each library table will be labelled, "Don't wait to be asked: please give up this seat if you see an elderly or infirm student who needs it more than you do".
In that same period of 1984–85 to 1990–91, student numbers in universities have risen by 22 per cent. And at the same time universities have been subjected to rigorous research selectivity exercises, where the money they received from the UFC was partly dependent upon the quantity as well as the quality of the research work they published. That meant that academics and postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers placed more and more pressure upon their limited library resources. In many cases academics have found themselves in competition for some library services with the very students they teach.
The situation was summed up, soberly, by the CVCP in its statement to the Secretary of State for Education on 26th May 1992:
"The current expansion in student numbers and the increase in research activity are imposing heavy strains on the existing asset base. Institutions' central facilities are particularly badly affected, especially their libraries which were built with much smaller student populations in mind. Today institutions not only have difficulty in maintaining their library stocks but also in accommodating those wishing to pursue private study. New capital investment in such facilities is essential if the quality of the students' learning experience is to be maintained".
Soberly and seriously, that sums it up. The "quality of the students' learning experience" is not likely to be maintained if they are unable to buy books which increase in price at such an alarming rate and are obliged to queue up for the use of the one copy that their university library can afford of a book that it is necessary for them to read.
General impressions and nationwide statistics give us one aspect of this miserable situation, but we need also to examine the effect of government underfunding on specific institutions. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to just two: one, a large, highly successful, prestigious municipal university, the other a small, unique and ancient college of the University
508
of Wales. In the case of the University of Sheffield, a very successful university in terms of the Government's own demanding criteria of research excellence, teaching quality and rapid expansion of student numbers, we find a highly professional library service, with the advantage of a superb state-of-the-art building and generously funded relative to its "larger civic" peer group. But, even with major increases of some £200,000 in each of the past two years, its library faces further major cuts in its research periodicals owing mainly to the high inflation in subscription costs and the declining value of the pound versus the United States dollar and the deutschmark.
Major additional funding, earmarked specifically for library collection development, will be required to maintain the momentum of advanced research in all areas of excellence. If that is true for the University of Sheffield, which funds its library generously, what must be the problems of other universities which are unable (or unwilling) to make similar investments in their own libraries?
The Higher Education Funding Council for England has recently established a review of library provision in higher education, chaired by Professor Sir Brian Follett, FRS, who is currently at Bristol University and soon to become Vice-Chancellor at Warwick. The Follett Report should appear in the Spring of 1993. I hope that it will set new and higher national standards for university library investment, co-operation and levels of service. Whether it makes the same impact as the great seminal Parry Report in 1967 remains to be seen.
What is clear is that one of the best university libraries, generously funded by its university, which is one of the most successful in the United Kingdom in research and in teaching, is still contemplating serious cuts in its budget for research periodicals. Surely the Government cannot view such a situation with any sort of equanimity or complacency.
Let us take, for comparison, the library of St. David's University College, Lampeter, of which I had the honour to be the principal until last December. It is small, it is specialist, dealing almost exclusively with the humanities and some social sciences. It is well managed and highly professional, with the special characteristics of working in both Welsh and English and being set deep in the heart of rural Wales. Like Sheffield, it has been strongly supported in the resources allocated by its parent body.
I did not realise just how generous it had been until I read the recently issued report on Book and journal spending in the university and polytechnic libraries published by the Council of Academic and Professional Publishers. When I read the figures the college produced for its library, I began to think that I, as principal, had been seriously conned for a period of 10 years by a very, very persuasive librarian.
Over the past 10 years and more, it has always been near the top in the table of percentage of annual recurrent grant allocated for library purposes: where the national average has been about 4 per cent., Lampeter never dropped below 7 per cent. and it was often close to 10 per cent. Yet in the period 1982–83 to 1991–92 the amount of money available for book

509
purchases, in cash terms, dropped from £50,406 to £41,800—a cut of 20 per cent. in cash terms at a time when student numbers were increasing steadily, the automation system was already fully stretched and the next nearest library was still nearly 30 miles away (by a wholly inadequate bus service).
So the use of the British Library and the inter-library loan system increased relentlessly through the decade, with all its associated costs. Library staff numbers were more or less static, and the pressure on accommodation for readers and library services grew more severe every year. Book purchase simply had to take the "backest" of back seats, and the "quality of the students' learning experience" suffered accordingly and measurably.
The university libraries at both Sheffield and Lampeter make it abundantly clear that, large or small, urban or rural, single or multi-faculty, however well managed, however generously resourced by its parent body, the current levels of expenditure on books are lower than they have been, lower than the libraries themselves wish and lower than the "quality of the students' learning experience" requires.
It should concern us all, if we care for the economic well-being of the country and the education of its cleverest citizens, that funding for libraries in academic institutions is manifestly failing to match the increases in books and journal prices and the increase in student numbers. That has been true for many years, but the recent rapid increase in student numbers has exacerbated the situation and future growth will make it intolerable.
There is just one thing, however, upon which I find myself able to congratulate the Government. At a time when it must have seemed tempting to do so, they have not "mothballed" the British Library building at St. Pancras. I am grateful for that, because with the terrible state in which university libraries find themselves, the British Library is the last resort, the long stop, the ultimate hope in the world of scholarship and research; and the St. Pancras building, for all its troubles, will be one of the great information centres of the world. It must be funded in its annual recurrent grant to be so. That, however, is the only ray of light on an otherwise dark and dismal scene. On that one question, I must say to the Minister, as Francisco says in Act I, Scene 1 of Hamlet:
"For this relief much thanks".
But on the rest of the university library scene I must continue the quotation and say:
"'Tis bitter cold,
And I am sick at heart".
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. We are grateful to her for doing so and for the knowledgeable and informative way in which she introduced the subject. There appears to be general agreement in the House on two points: one is the vitally important part that books intrinsically play in both higher education and at schools level. Secondly, the decreasing level of expenditure in real terms on books for education purposes is a matter for concern.
510
As noble Lords have indicated, the position relating to higher education is well documented in the report by the Council of Academic and Professional Publishers. In the period 1978–79 to 1989–90 book expenditure per pupil in universities had fallen by 32 per cent. and periodical expenditure by 36 per cent. Of course, the amount spent by different institutions varies in different ways. I am associated with three institutions of higher education and their expenditure on books varies from £23.30 per student to £55.50 per student, whereas their expenditure on periodicals is more or less the same—about £46 to £48 per student. Much depends on the type of universities with which we are concerned and whether or not they have a broad spectrum of faculties or whether they are the newer technological universities.
The comparison with the former polytechnic sector, now the newest universities, gives even more cause for concern. The expenditure on books over the past 11 years is down by 56 per cent.; periodicals are down by 51 per cent. Polytechnics did not have the earmarked fundings that the universities had up to the financial year 1989–90, so now, at the beginning of their new status, they have the additional disparity and problem.
The problem will not go away, it is very much still with us. The difference between the RPI and the cost of books is indicated in the Library and Information Research Report No. 82 which indicates:
"the prices of both academic books and journals have increased significantly more than RPI over this period. Between 1981/82 and 1987/88, academic book prices increased by 59%. Only seven university libraries had proportionate increases in … recurrent expenditure as high as this.
"Journal prices over the same period increased even more, almost doubling in price over this period (99%). Only one university library—Ulster—managed to keep its (total) recurrent expenditure up with journal inflation over this period".
A recent comment from Leeds University indicated that the 1991–92 rate of inflation on books and periodicals was 10 per cent., compared with the RPI index of 3.8 per cent.—a gap of 6.2 per cent. in the one year.
So far as I can see, there is no evidence that the Government are seeking to mitigate the differential in their expenditure forecast. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the decision of the Higher Education Funding Council to set up a committee to look at library provision. However, it seems that the matter is one of urgency and I hope that the Government can comment, even before the inquiry is concluded and the report is available.
Of course, universities are doing what they can to cope with their severely reduced purchasing powers, through virement between staff and non-staff expenditure and through the use of information technology. I know from my experience that Bradford University is using computer-accessed information widely, as I believe are a number of other universities. But there is a limit to how far such policies can and should be pursued. Or perhaps we should ask, is there? Perhaps the Government are pinning their hopes on the development of modern technology along the lines

511
outlined in a THES article of 23rd October 1992. There it was speculated that students, through the assistance of electronic catalogues and an electronic database, could immediately obtain printed and bound extracts from the publication of just the pages they required, with no reference to seeing the original publication at all.
Fortunately, we are not quite there yet and some serious judgments will have to be made about how far information and knowledge are to be made available to students through that route. For example, how does one teach history? The Government have been concerned about the history syllabus under the national curriculum, but how could one teach history merely by having extracts from an electronic computer base? How does one teach literature? How does one teach philosophy by these methods? Clearly, it is impossible.
So there is still the same important role for traditional library facilities, for books and periodicals to be made available to students if education is to be about knowledge and scholarship and not just about facts and information.
Perhaps I may say a word about schools where there are similar problems relating to expenditure on books. Here it seems that one of the problems appears to be the absence of any nationally tabulated information on book expenditure in schools. The obtaining of such information is likely to be even more difficult in future with LMS and the opting out by schools of local education authority control.
Although LEAs—where and if they continue to exist—will have information about the allocation of funds for library and book expenditure, they will have no certainty that the money allocated will have been spent in this way. My noble friend Lady David mentioned the importance of schools, particularly secondary schools, having the services of a chartered librarian. I believe that the metropolitan district of Bradford is the only metropolitan district to have a chartered librarian in all of its upper schools at a cost of about £10.53 per pupil per annum. One wonders whether or not that service will be able to continue if there is an erosion of the services provided by LEAs.
It seems to me that the apparent or the real decline in expenditure in schools is of real importance to us all. It is reflected in the decreasing use of books in the community as a whole. It seems that, more and more, members of the community favour information coming through television and other modern media at the expense of reading and handling books. Unless children have the opportunity to handle books themselves—real books and not just part of a book —and read those books while they are at school, they will not develop the ability to make culture judgments or to make judgments relating to the current and many affairs in which they are involved.
Someone has to do the writing of books and articles even if modern information technology is to be an increasing conveyor of information and facts. Therefore encouraging children to read, to learn through reading and to write correctly is essential if
512
the education system is to do its job properly. On that basis books must be available to children on an adequate scale.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for introducing this debate. I regret the fact that there are so few speakers from the Government Benches. Indeed, until this afternoon I thought there were going to be none other than the noble Viscount speaking for the Government, so I was delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, had put down his name to speak in the debate. In spite of the fact that there have been rather few speakers in this debate, I am sure we all agree that the quality of the debate has been very high.
I particularly admire the capacity of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris always to find the most apt quote from some great writer in English literature. In the previous debate he quoted from Pope and in this debate he quoted from William Shakespeare. I am afraid I am not able to match him in that skill.
I wish to reinforce what some of my noble friends and other speakers have said in this debate and perhaps to ask the Minister one or two further questions. It is now 18 months since we last discussed school libraries and school library services in an Unstarred Question in this House. The previous Unstarred Question was tabled by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. On that occasion anxiety was expressed on all sides of the House about the adequacy, or perhaps I should say inadequacy, of provision. Regrettably, in the period since then—it is just over 18 months—there has been a further deterioration. This evening we are debating a rather wider subject covering post-school educational institutions as well as schools. We are also covering public libraries.
The need for a wider debate became apparent on the publication of the reports mentioned by my noble friend Lady David. All of those reports paint a disturbing picture about declining levels of provision in our educational institutions and also in our public libraries. Like my noble friend Lady David, I want to spend a little more time on the availability of books for schools. I shall say a little less about public libraries and higher education institutions where I should declare an interest as the Master of Birkbeck College in the University of London.
I begin by saying something about what is happening in our schools. Few schools now spend more than 1 per cent. of their budget on books. That is a tiny amount. The managing director of Longmans, one of the biggest educational publishers in Britain, said that the entire UK schools textbook and library market is only about £160 million a year. That is under one-third of the money spent on photocopying paper. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but if it is true it is rather disturbing.
I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, said about the huge importance of reading. I think all of us in this House agree on that. I am not just talking about reading in the technical

513
sense of being able to decipher words on a page of print, but reading as a vitally important source of information, reading to acquire knowledge, to obtain a deeper understanding of the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities, and reading to appreciate great literature and to enhance our understanding of the human condition. Television can never replace books in that respect. But, perhaps above all else, it is important to learn to read for pleasure.
One of the most frightening findings of the Bullock Committee, which is referred to in the Book Trust report on reading in schools, is that many adults with reading difficulties who were surveyed by that Government inquiry had no idea that reading was something people do for pleasure. If we are to change that situation so that there are no longer any adults who are unaware of that fact, we need to help children acquire the habit of reading from the earliest possible age. The later it is left, the harder it is to achieve that aim.
I totally support what the Book Trust report states as regards the important question of reading policies. That is important not just in primary schools but also in secondary schools. I rather regret the fact that debates about teaching methods have started to obscure some of the wider and important questions about reading right across the curriculum. My noble friend Lady David discussed this matter at some length and I shall not discuss it further, but I should add that we know from educational research that the best predictor of educational performance at 16 in examinations is the reading scores of pupils at 11. We know that the best predictor of reading scores at 11 is the readiness to read at the age of five resulting from a child's preschool experiences.
It is perhaps therefore appropriate to mention at this point the important role of parents in encouraging and supporting reading. Parents need not only to read to their children when their children are young, but they also need to continue talking to them about what they are reading as they get older. Parents need to help their children regard books as a source of fulfilment. This, of course, requires a partnership with the schools and generous and well thought out courses to lend pupils books so that they can take them home and read them together with their parents. We must always remember that there are many families who possess few books in their own homes.
In the light of the importance of reading, are we spending enough on books in our schools? Regrettably, we are not. There may be some dispute about the Book Trust assessment of what is needed, and I shall be very interested to hear the views of the noble Viscount who is to speak for the Government, but even if its assessment of what is needed is on the generous side, the shortfalls in provision at present are nevertheless enormous—£80 million down on what is needed for good provision and £53 million down on what is needed for reasonable provision. It would surely be complacent to argue that the current situation is satisfactory. On the basis of the Book Trust figures, schools are spending less than half of what they should be spending to make adequate
514
provision for our school pupils. If those figures are right it is hard to escape from the fact that educational standards are being put at risk.
I hope that the Minister will not try to wriggle out of responsibility for that by blaming local education authorities or the schools themselves. There was an element of that in the previous debate we had on the subject. At the heart of the problem is government under-funding. The Government have the responsibility to provide sufficient funds and to turn round the decline in spending on books which has taken place, especially in the late 1980s, and which appears to be continuing.
If the noble Viscount tells us that resources are available perhaps he will explain why that decline in expenditure in real terms has taken place. Surely it is not because teachers do not care or have some malicious intent about cutting spending on books? It is quite the reverse. Perhaps he could also say what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to protect expenditure on books in schools.
The problem about a cumulative decline in expenditure is that it creates a backlog of needs which is then very hard to make up. It also means that pupils are exposed to out-dated and inappropriate textbooks and library books because of a failure to replace them and to weed out obsolete titles. In our last debate on this subject we produced some amusing—but also sad —examples from books still in use in our schools. Unfortunately, I suspect that there are still books in school libraries making such claims as "When the 'Queen Mary' is completed she will be the world's largest liner", or "Pygmies are fierce little creatures, but all loyal subjects of King George V".
No doubt the noble Viscount will make a great deal of the extra £15 million per annum under the GEST scheme which is being provided for three years—amounting to £45 million in total. That is intended to support the national curriculum, but it is peanuts in relation to what is needed. One assessment suggests that about £70 million is needed in primary schools and another £165 million in secondary schools. It is not just books to support curriculum change which are needed but also books to create well-stocked libraries and to provide that source of adventure for children, and real pleasure, as well as the foundations of independent learning which must be laid in pupils' use of libraries.
Concern about libraries in schools has been expressed by HMI in a survey on secondary schools in 1990 and another on primary schools in 1991. As regards the second of those surveys, the inspectorate found the use of library resources satisfactory or better in only just over half of our primary schools. Inspectors found damaged, old and inappropriate book stocks in more than one-third, thus confirming what the Labour Party survey had found earlier. They found library funding was not matched to current book costs and replacement needs. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the Government accept Her Majesty's Inspectorate's findings and what action they are taking to deal with the problems they revealed.

515
I do not have to remind the Minister, who is always very well informed, that under the Education Reform Act 1988 neither parents nor pupils should be required to pay for materials, books, instruments or other equipment. However, it is clear that parents are having to stump up quite large sums of money. A survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research found that parents have contributed £75 million over three years to ensure an adequate supply of textbooks and help maintain the fabric of buildings. It may be arguable that we should ask parents to pay something towards extra curricular activities such as trips or outings, but to ask them to pay for textbooks and school buildings is a disgrace. All it will do is increase the disparities between schools in well-off areas and those in poorer districts.
Because schools' own book provision is below par the support of the school library service, which is provided by local authorities, and public libraries is very important. Unfortunately, as a number of speakers have said, both those services are under very great pressure. Although there is survey evidence from a study carried out in the University of Loughborough which demonstrates the dependence of schools on local authority library services—for advice, pro-motion of information skills, as well as for loan stock —in a number of authorities there is now a real question about the future of the library service. One or two have already closed down.
The interesting question is what the effects of delegating to schools will be in this area. If some schools do not buy back into the service the cost to other schools could become so high, because there are economies of scale in this area, that the survival of the service would become an issue. I should like to hear the Government's view. Do they wish the library service to survive and what will they do to ensure that that happens?
I turn now to the public libraries. They are also under great pressure, yet they are now being asked to make up for some of the problems of schools by stocking textbooks. That cannot be a sensible use of their resources. They are being cut back, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. Branches are being closed, opening hours reduced and staff cut. That is a direct result of the huge financial constraints being imposed on local government.
Children need public libraries as a place in which to browse, to learn how to search for information and to help establish the habit of reading. I hope that the noble Viscount will draw that point to the attention of his right honourable friend. It is a fact that the amount of money which public libraries have to spend on children's books is now down to £1.37 per head per annum—in other words, less than a third of a book per head per year.
As already stated, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, the public library service is a popular one. It is used by something like a third of the population with, on average, 10 books being borrowed each year by those who use the libraries. It has a great tradition which goes back well over 100 years. It is a service of which we have been justifiably
516
proud. It is vital that we do not destroy it through a slow death by cuts. Between 1978–79 and 1989–90 the real purchasing power of public library book funds fell by 17 per cent. I hope that when the Minister quotes figures on book spending he will use the booksellers average price index—which is the appropriate index —and not the retail prices index.
There are worrying disparities in expenditure around the country. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is particularly unlucky to live in Kent, which spends only 98 pence per annum per head. Other authorities in the same part of the country spend more than double that. Such disparities appear to be widening with the decline in spending which has taken place in some parts of the country, especially recently.
A deep recession means that the general public are buying fewer books. As public libraries do the same book prices rise, fewer and fewer books are bought and there is a vicious spiral at work.
I should like to make one other point on public libraries. I take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, proposed. He suggested that it might be appropriate to charge more. Under the existing law, local authorities are not allowed to charge for book loans or use of materials on the premises; but they are allowed to make some other charges. I am concerned about charges such as £2 to reserve each book. That will affect the less well off members of the community and it would be very sad if they could not afford to reserve books.
I turn to university and polytechnic libraries. The picture is no less gloomy. From my own experience as head of a higher education institution I know just how difficult it is to keep pace with growing knowledge, the development of new courses and the expansion of research as well as the very rapid increase in student numbers. Whereas we can all just about survive, uncomfortable as it may be, without replacing our furniture or with too few places in our refectories or canteens, I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that we just cannot maintain high academic standards once library provision starts seriously to deteriorate.
A good library is the absolutely central core to students' needs at undergraduate and post-graduate level and across all disciplines. It is also vital for research, especially in the humanities and social sciences. There is now clear evidence that provision of both study space and books is inadequate.
The focus of this debate is about the provision of books, but we neglect library accommodation at our peril. I certainly do not expect that, as my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris suggested, we should have to stand up to read in libraries. That would be absurd and a total deterrent to visiting them. We cannot go on expanding higher education at the current rate without some capital expenditure, in particular on library provision. Higher education on the cheap in this area will eventually lead to lower quality and falling standards.
The figures for spending in university libraries have already been quoted at length by my noble friends Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lady Lockwood.

517
The figures are deeply disturbing. I shall not repeat them now. Like my noble friends, I hope that when the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government replies he will not tell us that this is a matter for the universities. The findings on expenditure are a direct result of the pressure under which higher education institutions have been put by the Government. This is what so-called efficiency savings mean on the ground.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could indicate just how universities will accommodate another 300,000 students by the end of the 1990s, without expanding library facilities. We have heard about the Higher Education Funding Council's inquiry and no doubt that will be helpful, but its recommendations will be quite meaningless unless the Government are prepared to back them with the necessary funding.
In conclusion, it is particularly worrying that we face decreases in expenditure on books right across the public sector in all types of libraries at the same time as the general public is buying fewer books because of the recession. Books are so important that to sit back and do nothing strikes at the very core of civilised life in this country. It will also damage the education of thousands of children and young people who depend on a wide-ranging supply of interesting and challenging books. I hope that the Government will accept that it is now time for them to stop the rot.
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for raising this important subject tonight. Overall spending on schools and spending on school books in particular has risen significantly over the past decade. The local authority grant settlement for 1992–93, including the additional grant for the teachers' pay award, allows education authorities in England to spend £18.8 billion on education—a 7.4 per cent. increase on the 1991–92 settlement. That follows a 16 per cent. increase the previous year. Spending on school books and equipment has risen from £20 per pupil in 1979–80 to £57 per pupil in 1990–91 (the latest year for which complete figures are available). After taking account of inflation, that is a real terms increase of 31 per cent.
There are a number of ways of measuring inflation. The Government's long-established convention is to use the GDP deflator as a measure of general inflation in the domestic market. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris.
Our philosophy is that schools are best placed to decide their spending priorities, but we have felt it important to underpin the introduction of the national curriculum with specific grants. We recognise that many schools will need to improve or overhaul their book stocks in this respect. We therefore earmarked grant from the specific grants programme for 1991–92 to cover £15 million worth of expenditure, and the same in 1992–93, for the purchase of books related to the national curriculum. In 1993–94 there will be grant of £85 million for books, equipment and in-service training, for schools to spread among the three categories, as they wish. Local education
518
authorities have consistently submitted bids for all or nearly all the grant available, and virtually every school has benefited.
The specific grants are designed to focus and encourage spending on particular activities. They do not represent what we expect schools to spend overall. Schools must also handle the normal, routine replacement of books that should go on all the time. Given good management of resources overall, that should allow schools the scope to target additional expenditure where it is most needed.
I am quite certain that it is not just a question of money. Schools need good management as well: sensible purchasing policies, a careful matching of books to the curriculum, and close liaison between library staff and classroom teachers. Her Majesty's Inspectorate has said repeatedly in its reports that the national curriculum has provided a powerful stimulus to schools to plan and manage their curricular provision. Marked improvements have taken place where there is good management, and particularly where schools have a clear policy about the role of the school library in delivering the curriculum. Attitudes have changed for the better. LEAs and schools have taken special initiatives on libraries. There is an opportunity for new thinking.
Self-determination has been another stimulus. Schools now have increasing control over the management of their own budgets under the local management of schools initiative. A growing number have grant-maintained status. Schools have the opportunity to match resources to needs more precisely than ever before. We usually find that those best placed to take decisions are those who will be implementing them in practice, and this is what local management of schools and grant-maintained status will achieve. How schools go about providing books for children is a matter for local decision, not for central Government. Many schools make extensive use of a schools library service run by their LEA and they may well choose to continue to do that in future; or they may choose alternative approaches. The Government do not require LEAs and schools to adopt any one method. Nor do we tell them what their spending priorities should be.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may seek clarification on that point. Does it mean that the Government will be perfectly happy if school library services are closed in a number of local education authorities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was just about to answer that point. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me whether grant-maintained schools would still be able to buy services from LEA's in future. The Government have proposed in the White Paper, Choice and Diversity, to lift the prohibition on LEA's and allow them to provide a range of services to grant-maintained schools for a period of two years, after which time the private sector suppliers will be able to step in.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply but it does not answer my question. Perhaps the noble Viscount will answer the question more directly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is an answer to part of the question. The answer to the other point is, in effect, no; it is for the local authority to make that decision.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely it will be for the school to decide whether it continues to buy in the services. It is not a matter for the local authority. If the schools do not want to buy in the services, they will not exist.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is right. I said that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me another question. I said quite clearly that it is up to the schools after a period of two or three years. I must emphasise that in 1991 Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report stated that books, other materials and equipment were satisfactory or better in 60 per cent. of schools.
Where the governing body controls the budget of the school it means that governors and heads will still have the scope to give priority to books. It also means that schools can purchase books most appropriate to the curriculum within the framework of the national curriculum that is offered at the school. That is the way to gain maximum efficiency and value for money. The Government are taking action in three ways to ensure satisfactory levels of expenditure on books for schools. First, they are increasing the overall funding for education. Secondly, they are providing additional support through specific grants. Thirdly, they are giving schools greater freedom to make their own choices about how to use their resources. I wish to emphasise that that is taking place in the context of our key policy of the national curriculum which focuses schools on the effective planning management of teaching and learning.
Schools, including sixth-form colleges, are prohibited from charging for books, as the noble Baroness reminded us, and for materials and equipment associated with courses of study. The Government have given an assurance that funding will continue to be available for books, materials and equipment and it will be open to colleges to continue to provide them free of charge.
The position of tertiary and further education colleges is slightly different. Most tertiary colleges model their practice on that of schools and provide books and so forth for 16 to 19 year-olds free of charge. Many further education colleges provide set books, or whole sets of books, for students studying GCSE subjects, especially where such books can be used for several years. The funds within the local authority funding at present devoted to the purchase of books have been transferred to the new further education sector. Where tertiary and further education colleges currently provide books free of charge it will be open to them to continue to do so in
520
future. Where they do not, similarly it will be for them to determine the basis on which they provide books in the future.
The Government have announced the resources to be provided to the Further Education Funding Council for 1993–94 to 1995–96. The funding council will be responsible for distributing those resources to colleges. It will be for the colleges to determine the basis on which items such as books are made available to students.
I turn to the universities. Funding for higher education has risen in real terms since 1979. The latest plan is to provide for an increase of 7.3 per cent. in available recurrent funding in 1993–94. This follows planned increases of 10 per cent. in each of the three previous years. It is for universities and colleges to determine their spending on libraries from within that and other income at their disposal. The evidence is that institutions attach different priorities to spending on libraries. Some institutions have increased spending faster than others. Total spending on libraries in universities increased in real terms in the 1980s. In addition, information technology and flexibility of opening hours have a major impact on the service to students. All aspects of the funding and management of higher education libraries are currently being considered by a review group established by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. That will take account of the views expressed by universities and colleges about the priorities of library provision and effective approaches to management.
Responsibility for providing public library services rests with local authorities. They are best placed to decide on the detail of the service provision, including allocations to the book fund. Eleven million books were added to the stock of public libraries in England in 1990–91. That compares with 10.8 million volumes added in 1980–81. Actual expenditure on books was £41 million in 1980–81 and £84.8 million in 1990–91. That represents a real terms increase of nearly 13 per cent. during the 10-year period. The National Book Committee report demonstrated that many library authorities substantially increased their expenditure on book provision in real terms during that period, even using the unfavourable Bookseller index.
Nevertheless, the Government are aware, as the National Book Committee report stated, that there are large discrepancies between different authorities in their levels of expenditure. The Secretary of State for National Heritage continues to monitor the situation and will not hesitate to step in where there is doubt about an authority's ability or willingness to fulfil its statutory obligations under the Libraries and Museums Act. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the new chief executive of the Libraries Association will see the Secretary of State for National Heritage next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about library closures. Where inappropriate library closures, or unnecessary reductions occur, or cuts appear to strike the basic services and statutory responsibilities, the Secretary of State is prepared to step in. While appreciating competing pressures on local authority

521
resources some authorities may need to use their resources better and libraries should not bear a disproportionate share of any cuts. There have been reductions in opening hours in some library services but the picture is patchy across the country. Six county library authorities increased their opening hours this year and recent statistics indicate that there is evidence of response to public pressure to reverse the decline in opening hours characteristic of recent years.
Of course, public libraries make charges but they are imposed largely to cover the many and varied services which the public libraries offer; for instance, video and audio services. My noble friend Lord Holderness emphasised the importance of learning to read and the importance of books and of handling books, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report on reading in primary schools concluded that few schools were short of books for the teaching of reading and that most provided attractive reading material of other kinds. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Baroness on that important matter.
My noble friend Lord Holderness asked about the obligation under the 1944 and 1984 Acts relating to books and equipment. Local authorities and individual schools are responsible for providing books and equipment. Indeed, it is their obligation under the Act. Legislation forbids forcing parents to pay for books, materials and school activities during the day. However, it is absurd to deny parents the right to make voluntary contributions if they wish to do so. Parental contributions are tiny compared with the total resources made available for education—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I was not suggesting that we should deny parents the right to make voluntary contributions. I was concerned about the fact that because of the shortage of good textbooks and the failure of schools to replace books and library books as a result of lack of funding many parents feel that they have to contribute. Surely that is not a satisfactory situation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's point but I was making a slightly different point.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, spoke of cuts to universities and said that spending on higher education libraries had fallen. The figures show that spending on libraries in universities increased by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1989–90. Figures showing a fall relate to spending per student and that takes no account of the economies of scale achieved through expansion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for his continuing support for the British Library. It is a vital project and we all look forward to its progress and completion.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, when he spoke of the net book agreement. He and I have discussed that subject previously at Question Time and perhaps it is not for tonight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, talked about the comparison between the old universities and
522
polytechnics as regards receiving less funding for teaching. The higher education White Paper published in 1991 made clear that universities and polytechnics receive similar levels of funding for teaching per student. Different institutions have attached different priorities to spending on libraries for research and teaching.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I do not believe that I talked about money available for teaching. I was referring to books.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I included both in the answer that I gave to the noble Baroness.
Many school libraries could be better and there are some which are definitely poor. However, the overall trend is one of improvement. Her Majesty's Inspectorate has repeatedly pointed out that there is no simple relationship between resources and quality. There is certainly a link between good management, organisation and leadership.
The facts bear testimony to the value which this Government place on the importance of books for pupils, students and the general public. Thus, local education authorities' spending per pupil on books and equipment has increased by over 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Spending on university libraries has also increased in real terms. A specialist central government grant of £30 million in the past two years has improved the supply of books for the national curriculum in just about every school. Spending on books for public libraries has increased.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I think I must be getting extremely stupid because, although I have not read the figures myself, I heard one set of figures presented on this side of the House and a totally different set presented on the other. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us how he reconciles the different figures. I am prepared to believe that either may be wrong, but they cannot both be right. Perhaps the noble Viscount will give us an explanation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness shows with absolute clarity that there are two sides to every argument.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Viscount taking a different baseline for measuring what has happened? That is an old game. If you take the right year to start with, you can achieve any result that you want to. Is that what the noble Viscount is doing? I ask because I am genuinely seeking knowledge. I have not done my homework on the figures, but I am totally confused.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is confused. I am using the Government's figures, and, as I said before, there are different ways of arriving at figures. I have spoken about the various inflationary and deflationary indexes. I can speak only for my own figures.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I too am genuinely confused. The figures that I have used—and I believe that they are common to the briefing which

523
we have all received from interested parties —are for the period from 1984 to 1991. The noble Viscount referred to 1979 as his baseline. If our sets of figures are accurate and the noble Viscount's sets of figures are accurate, the implication must be that there has been a dramatic downward trend in the second half of the decade.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is possible that both sets of figures are right to a degree. I cannot speak for the figures that have been quoted at me by noble Lords opposite. I am not responsible for their figures. The spending on books per school pupil figures are taken from local authority returns. I realise that the figures are extremely complicated. I hope that I have explained them as well as I can. I shall look carefully at the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and if there is an explanation that I can give her, I shall write to her and send a copy to other noble Lords who have spoken.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think it depends on the baseline which is taken.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, I shall write to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate if I can assist further on that matter.
524
It is not only the absolute amount spent on books which is important. Quality and value for money are also extremely important, as are book purchasing policies, book management and the way in which books are used in schools and colleges. Evidence of Her Majesty's Inspectorate has shown that those are areas in which schools generally have considerable scope for improvement. I am glad to say that Her Majesty's Inspectorate's most recent reports have detected some improvement in that respect.
For their part, the Government have ensured that schools and colleges have much more freedom than ever before to make their own spending decisions within their delegated budgets. Schools and colleges now decide the priority to attach to spending on books. It must be right that money is better spent when the decisions about spending are taken by those best placed to judge the need to spend.
In a final answer to the noble Baroness I should say that the Government are not complacent. They would like schools, colleges and libraries to have more funds for books, but we have to be realistic. Public expenditure must be contained. That said, levels of spending on books have grown over the past decade. We trust that the steady progress made in recent years will continue well into the future.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
  COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
  MATRIX CHURCHILL
  MATRIX CHURCHILL
  SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS: VAT
  SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS: VAT
  VISAS FOR ENTRY TO EC STATES
  VISAS FOR ENTRY TO EC STATES
  STONEHENGE
  STONEHENGE
  BBC: GREEN PAPER
  BBC: GREEN PAPER
  BARN OWLS AND ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS
  BARN OWLS AND ANIMAL FEEDINGSTUFFS
  PIT CLOSURES: EFFECT ON MORTGAGE LENDERS
  PIT CLOSURES: EFFECT ON MORTGAGE LENDERS
  No.2 MARSHAM STREET
  No.2 MARSHAM STREET