Sitting of 19 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Visitors (Pakistan)
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from Pakistan sought to enter the United Kingdom as visitors in the last year; and how many were refused entry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): In the year ending August 1992, there were some 67,000 admissions of Pakistani visitors at United Kingdom ports; 371 were refused entry and removed. It is likely that the majority of them were visitors.
    Mr. Chisholm: That is a high refusal rate. Why are 8·5 per cent. of visitors to this country from the black Commonwealth, while 54 per cent. of refusals are from those same countries? Does the Minister realise that, once people have been refused they will probably never be able to enter because it is marked in their passports? Does he accept that the situation will get much worse if appeal rights are abolished and immigration officers become completely unconstrained?
    Mr. Wardle: It has been made absolutely clear to immigration officers that none of their decisions should be based on questions of race, creed or colour. The hon. Gentleman asked about Pakistan. In the case of that country, 78 per cent. of applicants for visit visas last year were successful, 22 per cent. were unsuccessful initially, and just 2 per cent. of those were granted visas on appeal.
    Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British people are not interested in those who are refused entry but in those who are allowed in and are now here illegally? We want to know whether they are here permanently and whether they are drawing social security. We all know that the lot opposite will let anybody in. When will the asylum Bill be put in place?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will know that the immigration and nationality department has a most effective and hard-working enforcement department and that this country welcomes visitors from all over the world. Last year, some 5·5 million visitors were welcomed to this country, including more than 215,000 from the subcontinent.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that black British, Asian British and other ethnic minority British are seething with anger at the Government's proposal to abolish the right of appeal for visitors seeking to come to this country? Some 1,500 visitors from the subcontinent alone won their appeals last year. Why are the Government now abolishing the right of appeal, rather than correcting the process that brings it about? Is it because there is a hidden agenda from the European Community—the Schengen group, the Trevi group, and the ad hoc committee of Ministers? Will he come clean on why the Government are abolishing the right of appeal, when visitors are refused entry to our country?
    Mr. Wardle: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is long on invective and short on substance. Removing appeal rights for visitors will improve the fairness and effectiveness of the immigration appeals system by enabling decisions to be concentrated on matters that are of fundamental importance to people's lives, such as questions of settlement or deportation.

    Police Pay
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Police Federation to discuss the pay and conditions of police officers.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Sheehy inquiry.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I last met representatives of the Police Federation on 28 September. We discussed a number of matters, including the Sheehy inquiry which I have asked to report to me by the end of May 1993.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Police Federation represents the thin blue line which, even in Avon and Somerset, stands between the community and a rising tide of crime, including drug abuse. Is he aware that, at a recent meeting in my constituency with representatives of the Police Federation, I found that they were concerned about his proposal, on which we still await details, to take away from the police the registration and processing of applications for firearms certificates? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think carefully about that? Is he aware that for rural districts I believe that the police are the best people to consider who should and should not be trusted

    395
    with firearms? In particular will he give an assurance to the House that he will not allow the manufacturers and retailers of firearms to have any influence over the processing of firearms certificates?
    Mr. Clarke: Of course, I realise that the Police Federation is a responsible organisation, as was shown by its welcome to the Sheehy inquiry and its recent recognition of the need to accept a 1·5 per cent. pay restraint on behalf of its members in the interests of helping to revive the national economy. We are out to consultation on the issue of whether we should have a civilian firearms board and have not yet reached a conclusion. I am attracted by the idea of a civilian firearms board as it would release police officers for more direct policing responsibilities, but we need to recruit the necessary experts onto the board. I have not yet made a decision and I shall bear in mind submissions from the Police Federation in Somerset before I reach a conclusion.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Home Secretary aware of the continuing anxiety among police officers that the setting up of the Sheehy committee of inquiry may prejudice their pay and conditions of service? Will he reiterate to the House the categorical assurance that he gave to the Police Federation at its conference in May that the Sheehy inquiry will in no way alter or jeopardise the pay or other conditions of service of police officers in England and Wales, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly gave no assurance in those terms. I said that the time had come to have such an inquiry into pay, terms and conditions of service, rank structure and other factors within the police force. The Edmund-Davies arrangements served their purpose extremely well, and the Government implemented them. The arrangements had a dramatic effect on the pay and recruitment of police in the 1980s. The Edmund-Davies arrangements have fulfilled their purpose, and the Sheehy inquiry is taking a fresh approach to settling the pay, terms and conditions of policemen in order to produce an effective, efficient and well-motivated force for the 1990s.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, following his speech to the Police Federation conference in May this year, a warm welcome was given to his remarks about working with police officers and ensuring that they were properly paid for the dangerous job that they do? When responding to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech the chairman of the federation made it clear that the federation welcomed the establishment of the Sheehy inquiry as the federation had been calling for many years for an inquiry by means of a royal commission into the terms and conditions of the police.
    Mr. Clarke: That is exactly so. My hon. Friend was at the conference, and he and I remember the occasion well. The Police Federation made an extremely responsible and forthcoming response stating that it welcomed the inquiry and accepted the need to look at issues such as fair share of rewards for responsibilities, rank structures and other factors. The Police Federation has been submitting constructive evidence to that inquiry and we all await its outcome in May next year.
    Mr. Blair: Is not the real problem that the police—like everyone else—face soaring levels of crime? Three times as
    396
    many crimes are committed as are recorded, and there are 15 million crimes a year in Britain. Does not the Home Secretary recognise that, instead of the changes becoming an excuse for the Government to pass the buck to the police, the Government and Ministers have the responsibility to produce a strategy to cut crime and make our community safe?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has the figures slightly wrong. There is nothing new about more crime being committed. There has been no change under any Government for centuries, when more crimes have been committed than reported. There is a maze of fairly useless criminal statistics and we are trying to make them clearer. If we consider the "British Crime Survey", the only accurate guide to the level of crime, we see that crime has—I accept—risen by about 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. We are suffering the same experience as every other developed society—rising criminality occurs in the richer and more developed countries of the world, particularly in western Europe and northern America. The Government respond by having an efficient and effective police force that they support, and by introducing reforms to the criminal justice law to keep it up to date and reforms to the prison system. We shall have and maintain an extremely effective policy on protecting the country against the problem of rising criminality.

    Stolen Firearms
    Mr. Ashby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of firearms stolen in the last three years for which statistics are available.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Recorded offences of burglary and theft in which firearms were reported to have been stolen were 1,774 for 1989, 2,024 for 1990, and 2,410 for 1991. It is possible that more than one firearm may have been stolen in some cases.
    Mr. Ashby: Those are very worrying statistics, showing an increase in the theft of firearms. Is my hon. Friend aware that I sent the Department details of a disabling device that can be fitted to shotguns so that any shotgun with such a device could no longer be used for crime—and stolen guns will be used for crime? Instead of fobbing me off, when will the Department instigate a proper evaluation of the device and make it mandatory for all with shotgun certificates?
    Mr. Wardle: There was a 19 per cent. increase between 1990 and 1991, but I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that controls were considerably strengthened after the introduction of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The latest figures are still lower than the figures for the early 1980s. My hon. Friend's recommendations will be considered and passed to the Firearms Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in my area eight handguns were stolen from one source not many months ago, and that two have already turned up having claimed three lives? I suggest stricter controls on how many handguns can be held by one person—eight magnums in one flat seems a ludicrous number. Secondly, a court case is proceeding involving one of those stolen handguns, and the original owner of the gun has demanded it back even

    397
    though it was used in one of the killings. That, too, is ludicrous; will the Minister put a block on it as far as is humanly possible?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman's recommendations will be considered by the Firearms Consultative Committee. He will also bear it in mind that just one fifth of 1 per cent of all recorded offences last year involved the use of firearms, and that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced stiffer penalties for the judiciary to use in cases involving the criminal use of firearms.
    Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend accept from one who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that there was considerable concern that, despite our best intentions, we would end up with a campaign against legitimate firearms holders in rural areas, particularly farmers and those who enjoy field sports? Does he agree that there is anxiety that if we move away from police certification the intimate knowledge that local police have about genuine holders of firearms in country areas will be lost if a civilian body is set up? Will my hon. Friend tread carefully in the rural parts of Britain?
    Mr. Wardle: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He will know that responsibility is vested in the chief officer. The recent consultation paper that proposed a firearms control board spoke of a body of information being stored centrally, rather than constabulary by constabulary. My hon. Friend will know that when we consider responses to that consultation document the interests of public safety will be paramount.
    Mr. William Ross: How many of the weapons that the Minister listed as stolen were handguns or bullet-firing weapons? Does he have any evidence that any of them turned up in the hands of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Wardle: I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question now, but I will seek the information and then tell him. Most of the weapons stolen in each of the past 10 years have been air weapons. Fewer than 150 weapons stolen in each of the past five years have been pistols.

    Burglaries (Urban Areas)
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle the level of burglaries in urban areas.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): Individual police forces continue to develop anti-burglary policies which reflect the needs of their areas. In addition, the safer cities programme and estate action allow agencies working with the police to tackle a wide range of urban problems, including burglary.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware that according to police statistics there are 95·75 burglaries for every 1,000 homes in one of the wards of my constituency? That means that 10 per cent. of the people there can expect to be burgled every year. Would the Minister be as complacent about what the Government are doing if he faced the same problem in his constituency? The Department has sat on the Morgan report for two years and has refused to extend
    398
    the urban crime allocation fund—indeed, it has stopped it altogether. When will Ministers do something about this appalling situation?
    Mr. Jack: I am saddened by the hon. Gentleman's lack of generosity, since Coventry already has a safer cities programme and he will know that the Woodend and Hillfields estate have benefited from improved security as a result of the estate action programme. He will also know that one of those estates has benefited from the expenditure of £185,000 from the safer cities programme on anti-burglary activities and that Coventry council plays its part on the safer cities steering and action group which mirrors what is said in the Morgan report.
    Sir John Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend agree that research shows that 5 per cent. of people who are convicted before the courts are responsible for 70 per cent. of crime, that the number one area of the Metropolitan police also confirms that a small number of people are responsible for street crime and opportunist burglaries, and that when the police take those facts into account and organise with the community they can improve the arrest rate and reduce the burglaries?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend pays proper tribute to the excellent work achieved by Operation Bumblebee. [Interruption.] There is a certain buzz in the tail of my hon. Friend's point, to which Opposition Members should listen. A targeted police approach such as Operation Bumblebee has a real benefit in terms of reducing burglaries.
    Mr. Clelland: It is not often that Opposition Members have the opportunity to thank the Government for much, but is the Minister aware of the success of the urban crime fund in fighting crime and improving the relationship between the community and the police in my constituency on Tyneside? Notwithstanding the Secretary of State for the Environment's disgraceful announcement that the urban programme was to be brought to an end, is the Minister actively considering the extension of the urban crime fund? If not, will the Northumbria police force be given additional resources to carry on its good work?
    Mr. Jack: I am aware of the programme that the hon. Gentleman describes, and some of the interesting and innovative initiatives involving the community, particularly in some difficult areas such as the Meadowell estate, have shown that the type of community-based policing, which was occasioned by the use of some of the urban crime fund moneys, worked well. But the hon. Gentleman will also know that that programme was introduced on a limited time basis and we will wish to evaluate the lessons learnt from it.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware of the valuable contribution of neighbourhood watch schemes such as the one in my area? Does he agree that they have been particularly successful in that they make sure that each and every person is aware of his or her responsibility to lock up property properly?
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend's continuing support and interest in neighbourhood watch. She will be aware that there is shortly to be a national conference for neighbourhood watch organisers and I have every confidence that the new neighbourhood watch

    399
    organisers' manual will give all those people who give so generously of their time further guidance to improve their effectiveness in the fight against crime.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that a project such as the safer cities programme is inadequate to tackle the problems of a city such as Coventry where crime has risen by 29 per cent. in just two years? As house burglaries are up by 16 per cent. nationally compared with last year, up by 25 per cent. in the west midlands and up by more than 50 per cent. in some parts of the country, does the Minister accept that burglary of homes is one of the few growth industries under the Government?
    Mr. Jack: Growth in anxiety about burglaries and forms of crime prevention certainly are a concern of the Government. If the hon. Gentleman looked at some of the research that he has been doing through parliamentary questions, he would find that notifiable offences in safer cities areas rose between 1989 and 1991 by 25 per cent. while the national equivalent is 37 per cent. There is an important message there.
    Mr. Marlow: Given that the vast majority of urban crime is carried out by pseudo macho little gits who get a kick out of crime, and given that we have no proper solution to the problem, will my hon. Friend consider instituting a punishment of judicial thrashing so that in future they should have a disincentive and a kick of a different sort?
    Mr. Jack: In his own inimitable style and language, my hon. Friend has highlighted a point taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the Conservative party conference in Brighton when he committed us to the policy of developing a new approach to persistent juvenile offenders. No doubt, when we consider our own recommendations, my hon. Friend's words will ring in our ears.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current terrorist campaign in England.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government condemn terrorist crime wherever in the United Kingdom it occurs, and support the police and others in their work to secure the conviction of those responsible.
    Mr. Trimble: No doubt the Home Secretary has seen recent press reports suggesting that more than 20 tonnes of explosive was available to the Irish republican army in the London area this year. Most of it, thankfully, has been intercepted.
    The explosive appears to have been manufactured and assembled largely in the London area, and it takes more than a dozen people to make up a large bomb. Does the Home Secretary agree that such activity is difficult to conceal, and ought to be readily detected by ordinary people who are vigilant?
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had some spectacular successes in recent weeks in intercepting bombs and explosives. I congratulate the police, security men and others concerned on their courage and vigilance. Obviously, we give no details of operational activity against the IRA, but I agree with the hon.
    400
    Gentleman that it is important for us to succeed in dealing with the IRA members who are operating in London. That requires sustained vigilance on the part of ordinary members of the public, as well as the police service and the security people.
    Mr. Bowden: The House has expressed gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for praising the brave police officers who have faced armed men when they themselves have nothing but a truncheon. Is he holding discussions with police representatives to see whether anything can be done to improve the provision of rapid back-up with armed men when such incidents happen in the future? Does he agree that they will happen again, probably before Christmas?
    Mr. Clarke: Regrettably, in modern circumstances we must deploy armed policemen in operations, and we can do so rapidly. It is best to deploy specially trained men who are disciplined in the use of firearms, and that is done on such occasions. PC Hall and his colleague in Stoke Newington were unarmed and on ordinary patrol; we all admire their courage in facing men who turned out to be armed. I am glad to say that PC Hall is making extremely good progress, and recovering from his injuries.
    Mr. Eastham: Does the Home Secretary recognise that nowadays some very sophisticated policing equipment is available in the form of national fingerprint files, computers and communications? When I wrote to the Home Office recently about the budget for such equipment, I was informed that it was contained in the global figure for policing in the Greater Manchester area. That meant that less than 1 per cent. of the total budget was available for sophisticated equipment. Most of the money is being spent on trying to provide and pay for policing.
    Mr. Clarke: In fact, considerable progress has been made. The national criminal intelligence service is now up and running, and is providing a very effective and sophisticated operation of intelligence gathering for the whole country. We are making good progress towards computer-aided fingerprint matching, which operates in a number of police authorities now, and we are on course for the introduction of a national system in due course.
    Modern technology is being deployed very effectively in the police service. Over the past 10 years, we have sustained a high level of investment in the service, in terms of men, equipment and modern technology.

    Roads (Camera Evidence)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been as a result of camera evidence on roads since their inception; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: The police have been asked to provide statistics on automatic enforcement on a quarterly basis, and the first complete information is expected to be available in the first quarter of 1993.
    Mr. Greenway: No one supports excessive speeding; however, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why people travelling through west London pass through no fewer than six spy camera zones between Paddington and the Target roundabout in Northolt, and another six

    401
    on the way back? In view of the importance of spy camera zones, why are not speed signs much clearer, and why are they placed level with the camera zones where they are shown? Is it police policy to prosecute drivers who are a few mph above the speed limit, or not? Finally, will the policy be to ensure that there is a proper space for a downward transition on the A40 from high to low speeds—say from 60 to 40 mph—rather than the few yards that are provided in some places at present?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to address them. He should bear it in mind that 13 per cent. of accidents are associated with red light running and 33 per cent. with excessive speed. To make the best use of scarce police manpower, automatic systems have been introduced. There are five cameras on the A40—two on traffic light jumping and three on speed. My hon. Friend knows that prosecution is a matter for the police. If he has any queries, I am sure that he will wish to take them up with the chief officer of the Metropolitan police. As for signposting, an inventory was carried out before the introduction of the cameras and improved signing was installed.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that the speed laws should be obeyed and that rather than campaigning to cut the number of cameras, we ought to increase the number so that people from Ealing who do 90 mph in the fast lane of the A40 are brought to book and do not threaten the life and limb of the rest of us?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). People other than those from Ealing use the A40, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the use of this type of equipment is designed to improve road safety. As I have already said, 33 per cent. of road accidents are the result of excessive speed.

    Police Authorities
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reorganise county police authorities along regional lines; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are considering a range of issues concerning the future of the police service, including the role and structure of police authorities. We have yet to reach firm conclusions.
    Mr. Dunn: The Home Secretary will know that, in the context of the organisation of police forces, I belong firmly to the school which says that reforms are all very well so long as nothing is changed. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give me an absolute guarantee today that the county of Kent constabulary will continue to be controlled from Maidstone and not from a remote regional centre such as Guildford?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend puts forward an approach to reform which would have done credit to Lord Palmerston. We have not yet reached any conclusions on the future structure or shape of police forces. We have not committed ourselves to any change and have not yet
    402
    addressed the question whether Maidstone or Guildford is the best place for the headquarters of the police service in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear it in mind that as the Crown prosecution service is divided into 12 areas throughout the United Kingdom, it would be wise to reconsider their distribution. bearing in mind that it is useful if Crown prosecution areas are coterminous with local police areas, as they are at present?
    Mr. Clarke: I am full of praise for the Crown prosecution service, but, with respect, the delivery of a police service is somewhat different. The key question in the case of policing is how to retain the necessary local element for community policing, with responsibility being devolved to an officer who has charge of the beat officers in an area that he knows well and with the right headquarters structure above that—a structure which is not too oppressive and distant and can give the necessary headquarters support to a modern police service. The questions that we have to address here are not exactly equivalent to those which have to be addressed in the case of the Crown prosecution service.

    Drug Abuse
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent young people from becoming victims of drug abuse.
    Mr. Jack: The prevention of the misuse of drugs by young people is a prime objective of the Home Office drugs prevention initiative, the annual progress report of which was published on Monday. In addition, the 20 local drug prevention teams are currently playing their full part in European Drug Prevention Week.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is it not right that this year £5·3 million has been made available to the drugs prevention initiative to fund such things as local drugs prevention teams? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the contribution made by voluntary organisations such as Action on Addiction, which recently supported financially the setting up of the national addiction centre'?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend properly draws attention to the role of the voluntary sector in drug prevention work. Our drug prevention initiative has shown the value of partnership in fighting the menace of drugs. I was pleased to confirm this week that the drug prevention initiative will be extended until 1995.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: How does the Minister's answer square with the lobby in the House this week of young people who have been victims of drug abuse and are struggling to free themselves from that travail in the face of the Government's broken promise on ring fencing drug and alcohol abuse services?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady tempts me into areas beyond the boundaries of the Home Office. She will know that Health Ministers have received representations and have issued enhanced guidelines to local authorities on the subject.
    Mrs. Peacock: In all the hype of this week, will my hon. Friend ensure that he does not forget the problem of solvent abuse, which is often forgotten and seems to be the poor relation? Regrettably, West Yorkshire has a high record of young people who have died from this abuse.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw the House's attention to that. If she saw some of the excellent work being done in our drug prevention initiatives, she would realise that many of the drama messages conveyed by young people to young people include a powerful one about the dangers of solvent abuse.
    Mr. Battle: In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson), why has the Minister not made representations to his colleagues at the Department of Health? Is this not a classic example of his making encouraging and supportive noises while another Department undermines his initiatives by cutting resources? What representations has he made?
    Mr. Jack: I have emphasised the Home Office's support for drug prevention work. That view is well known throughout government.

    Asylum
    Mr. Sykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in 1991 were found to be multiple applications submitted by individuals using false names.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Separate figures for refusal of multiple applications are not identifiable, but in the past 12 months more than 12,000 applications have been refused because of failure to provide information or to attend interviews. We believe that there is a correlation with multiple applications.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree with those of us in Scarborough and Whitby who want the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill to be enacted as soon as possible and regard bogus applications with the same contempt as we regard opponents of the Bill?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right, for two reasons: first, fraudulent applications clog the system and delay the genuine applications of refugees who have experienced harrowing problems; secondly, they are an abuse of the social security system.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Was not the Minister's treatment of my constituent's family and their Yugoslavian friend last night a slur on the credibility of the Government and a disgrace to his name as Minister? Having deported that girl from Manchester airport at 6 am today, will the Minister confirm that she had lived in Switzerland for three years, that she had a return ticket to Switzerland dated 21 December, that she had £700 in her pocket, that she had credit cards from Swiss banks, that she had a full-time job in Switzerland with an employer who had given assurances that she would stay in Switzerland—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is somewhat abusing Question Time. Perhaps he will now come to his point.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: She was also due to return to Switzerland to be married next January. Does the Minister regret the disgraceful decision that he took last night, or is this the new form of barbaric Conservatism that we have to experience?
    Mr. Wardle: I have written to the hon. Gentleman, who gave the House a long list of circumstances. I do not normally comment on a case, but he omitted to mention that the lady concerned told immigration officers that she was aware that former Yugoslavs needed a visa to come to this country but said that she understood that it was required only of ethnic Serbs. The refusal was mandatory. Had the case not been treated as it was—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister's response must be heard in the House.
    Mr. Wardle: Had the case not been treated in that fashion, it would have been an abuse of the change in the rules which imposed a visa regime on the citizens of the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my hon. Friend take the oportunity to confirm that the Government remain totally committed to their obligations to asylum seekers under the 1951 United Nations convention, and that any person throughout the world who has a genuine fear of persecution is welcome here? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill now before the House of Lords will strengthen the rights of the genuine asylum seeker at the expense only of those who seek to break the rules?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right: the Government are absolutely committed to the 1951 convention. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will be an improvement on the existing system, and will provide an oral hearing for every refused asylum applicant.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the training of interpreters used in asylum applications.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: At present no formal training is provided for interpreters. The immigration and nationality department is currently undertaking an internal review of the provision of interpreter services, including the question of training.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister undertake to review all the complaints that have been received about the quality of translation provided for people arriving in this country and seeking political asylum? Is he aware that mistakes are often made because interpreters speak the wrong dialect or have insufficient training, or because people seeking political asylum have no confidence that the interpreters will maintain the important confidentiality of the interview? Will the Minister ensure that proper training is given and that there will be a proper examination of all the procedures? Otherwise, there is a grave danger that legitimate asylum seekers will be debarred from achieving refugee status in this country due to lack of proper translation services at the ports of entry.
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about dialects. As he knows, the immigration and nationality department takes the matter seriously. At the

    405
    end of an interview, an account of it is read to the interviewee, who is asked whether he or she agrees the account.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 6 of the annual report of the immigration and nationality department, which says that the total number of complaints received is about 400. Some of those will involve interpreters.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crime prevention programmes are currently funded by his Department.
    Mr. Jack: The specific crime prevention programmes that we currently fund, in addition to those operated by the police, are safer cities, crime concern, the Home Office crime prevention centre, publicity programmes, Car Crime Prevention Year, the probation supervision grant scheme, and research and development programmes.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the first quarter of Car Crime Prevention Year showed a 2·5 per cent. fall in car crime? Will he ensure that such schemes continue? But will he also point out, much as we should like the people who carry out such crimes to be locked away, most people invite car crimes by not taking proper security measures and sometimes by not even locking their cars?
    Mr. Jack: I confirm the statistics that my hon. Friend has put before the House. It is a tremendous result that in the first quarter of Car Crime Prevention Year there has been a 2·5 per cent. reduction in car crime. The fact that we have managed to achieve such a splendid result is a great tribute to the partnership approach of motor manufacturers, people in the second-hand car business, car park operators, and owners.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government do not spend one hundredth as much on crime prevention as his Department has to spend on the criminal justice system, and that a better balance would be struck if there were more expenditure on crime prevention?
    Mr. Jack: As usual, Opposition Members find it difficult to distinguish between quantity and quality. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would examine the quality of what we are doing and the range of programmes that we fund, and would acknowledge that involving the people in the communities of this country in the fight against crime is the most effective way forward.

    Greyhound Racing
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the subject of the funding of greyhound racing.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I have received a number of letters recently, and on 28 October I met representatives of the British Greyhound Racing Board. Following that meeting, further discussions between the bookmaking and greyhound racing industries have taken place. I understand that agreement has now been reached on the establishment of a joint body for
    406
    distributing the money accruing from the reduction in general betting duty announced by the Chancellor in this year's Budget.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my hon. Friend agree that eight months from the Chancellor's announcement of the year-long ¼ per cent. reduction in betting duty is long enough for the greyhound racing industry to wait for the bookmakers to come up with the 3 million smackers reckoned to be their due? What further part can my hon. Friend play in bringing the matter to a speedy conclusion?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government's role is to give encouragement to both parties to reach sensible arrangements. What they agree is up to them. I congratulate both parties, as both have made concessions in these discussions. They now have an arrangement. I hope that it will work very well and that the money will be used effectively in the dog racing industry, as the Chancellor intended.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that urban programme authorities, such as Burnley, which have been designated programme authorities because of deprivation, on the Government's own criteria, are devastated by the axing of the urban programme? That has brought despair and despondency to those areas. Will the Prime Minister now guarantee that those deprived areas will get more resources, not less, as a result of the change in Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is probably overlooking, first, the impact of city challenge, secondly, the impact of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, thirdly, the fact that the urban programme has not been cancelled. Some ·176 million will be available in 1993–94.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that., following yesterday's publication of school league tables., there can be no turning back on providing extra information to parents about their schools? Did my right hon. Friend notice that while the Labour party and the education establishment mafia were opposing the league tables, parents throughout the country were jamming the switchboard of the Department for Education demanding copies of those very league tables?
    The Prime Minister: It is indeed the case that the education service will never again be able to hide this important information. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will agree that this is information which should legitimately be available to parents, is now available to parents, and should continue to be available to parents.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister none the less explain why his Government are so incompetent that they cannot even produce an accurate record of the examination results?
    The Prime Minister: That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls his infamous Jennifer's ear broadcast not long ago, he will recall that the day after that, the Labour party's dossier of people it claimed had to wait for treatment was wholly wrong. Out of 10 people it listed, five were wrong.
    Mr. John Smith: To return to the subject, can the Prime Minister explain why in the case of Manchester high school, which had a 100 per cent. pass, the figure was recorded as 16 per cent. and in the case of Holyrood comprehensive school in Chard, a 46 per cent. pass was recorded as 6 per cent? In both cases the schools contacted the Department to correct the misleading information that they thought was likely to be published. Why cannot the Department for Education perform the simple task of recording and transmitting information?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to hide the fact that he and his party want a cover-up on these statistics—[Interruption.] If there are errors in the statistics, the Department will correct them. The main point is that it is right to give this information to parents and astonishing that the Labour party should wish to hide this information from parents—[Interruption.]—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Members must come to order instead of bawling and shouting all the time like this.—[Interruption.]—Order. Ministers must be heard in the House, as must every other Member. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with this morning's Guardian, which said:
    "What's new is that parents have more information than they had before. No democrat should regard this as a reverse. This …will allow … a more informed choice."
    Is Labour against more choice and more information?
    Mr. John Smith: We favour, above all, the provision of accurate rather than dogma-ridden information. When the Prime Minister is engaged in the task of correcting the errors, will he look at the case of Cambridgeshire, where, according to the county council, there have been 53 errors affecting at least 30 schools? Why does the Prime Minister not admit that the Government have made a botch of this, take it away and start again, this time trying to reach the minimum competence levels which even this Government should be able to attain?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that we shall continue to provide this information, and next year we shall go further with the information. This is the biggest exercise of its kind ever undertaken by a Government: a quarter of a million statistics in one complete set of tables. Every school had a chance to check its figures. In addition, some complaints may have originated in the information wrongly presented in the media, based on our figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is hardly surprising that there are some errors.
    408
    We shall correct them. Next year—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better listen, because this is what they will get next year: extra information; national curriculum results in English, maths, science and technology, routes taken by pupils at age 16; truancy rates; and examination results. They will also get the first primary school tables giving national curriculum results for pupils aged seven. That is the information which the Opposition would hide and we shall provide.
    Mr. Butcher: I commend to the attention of my right hon. Friend an article in the current issue of the Fabian reviews in which it is argued that selective education should be reintroduced and that our secondary schools should be reformed on the German model of vocational and academic education. If this is now a legitimate subject of interest for the more enlightened socialists, why are our own Ministers so coy about reintroducing grammar schools?
    The Prime Minister: The main thing that we are concerned with is the highest quality of education across the whole of the public sector. That is what we are seeking to provide, together with the greater spread of information. With regard to what my hon. Friend has to say about the socialist party, he must speak for them in so far as he wishes to do so—I certainly would not wish to do so.
    Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for the moment the 180 refugees for whom Austria has provided refuge because Britain would not, may I again remind the Prime Minister of the more than 6,500 innocent civilians without adequate refuge, trapped in Serbian prison compounds, their lives threatened imminently by starvation and cold because no third country will have them? Does the Prime Minister realise that they are there, at least in part, because of his failure as President of the European Community to provide a co-ordinated European plan for Yugoslav refugees? Why?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this country has taken the lead in most of the initiatives dealing with Yugoslavia in recent months. We have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors, of whom 4,000 have applied for asylum. This country has shown great generosity and will continue to do so, but we share the view of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that help should be provided as close as possible to people's homes, and not by taking them abroad when that is not absolutely necessary. That is the policy which we have been following and the policy which I believe it is right for us to follow.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of league tables for local schools is entirely responsible? Is he also aware that the reason why certain parties in the House object to the publication of information for parents is that it brings into the open the mediocrity introduced into our schools by the left in the 1960s?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—and, more to the point, so do parents up and down the country, who know very well where the bad education authorities are. The Labour party has tried to block every one of our education reforms, so it is hardly surprising that it is now trying to block information.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICI chlora-alkali factory in Runcorn has experienced a 60 per cent. increase in its electricity bills in the past 18 months? Unless it can negotiate a more realistic price for its electricity, or benefit from bulk purchasing, it will go out of business—putting 4,000 people in Runcorn out of work. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that he will intervene on behalf of jobs in British industry and ensure that ICI is treated fairly in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot intervene in the way in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to, and it would not be right for me to do so.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Prime Minister find time in his busy schedule to visit Portland to speak to those running the naval base there and, in particular, to examine sea training? It is not planned to reduce sea training, but simply to move it to Devonport. Is not the best place to undertake such training the place where it has always been undertaken—Portland?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows of the decision, which has been taken after careful examination. I am not able to announce any change in that decision this afternoon. I am, of course, perfectly happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Following the announcement today that 3,500 jobs are to go at the Royal Bank of Scotland and 550 at Blue Circle cement, does the Prime Minister realise that while unemployment continues to soar out of control no one will have any confidence in him or in the economy? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has not a clue what to do about unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Given that the hon. Gentleman supports a party which wanted a tax on jobs, all the burdens of the social charter and a national minimum
    410
    wage, I find his remarks a bit rich. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman did not notice the reductions in interest rates, the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, or the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment over many months. Where has the hon. Gentleman been during all this time?
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating a company in my constituency—Amersham International—on winning the Queen's award for industry for its brain-imaging agent, ceretec? The company leads the world in the field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is further evidence of the success of the Government's privatisation policy?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that most of the industries that have been privatised have had a substantially better record in the private sector than they had in the public sector. That is why it is entirely right for us, wherever we can, to look to move enterprises from the public to the private sector, where they can be run by business men, run for profit, and provide secure, long-term, permanent employment.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: On 16 November the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the National Union of Mineworkers saying that the 10 pits in the review would have to close because they were not making a profit. [Interruption.] I am not reading. Is the Prime Minister aware that five of those collieries are currently making a profit and two of them are expected to make a profit at the end of the financial year? Who is telling the truth in the matter—the Coal Board or the Prime Minister? The pits are to close—yet they are making a profit. Does the Prime Minister not want to keep the pits open because he would tarnish his reputation again?
    The Prime Minister: The Government are seeking to ensure that we can have a coal industry in the future which is sustainable, profitable and viable. That is in the interests of the coal industry, in the interests of energy users and in the interests of the local communities—and it is what the Government wish to see.

Dounreay Fast Reactor
3.30 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland), (by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the European fast breeder nuclear research programme.
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government decided in 1988 that the Dounreay prototype fast reactor would close in 1994. In August we confirmed that decision.
In its report of 1990 on the fast reactor, the then Energy Select Committee recommended that the Government review their expenditure on fast reactor research and development once the design validation stage of the European fast reactor was completed in March 1993. In their response, the Government said that they would keep their position on EFR under review in the light of future developments.
The Government also said that once the design validation stage had been completed they would expect the nuclear industry to accept the responsibility for further work, should there be sufficient interest in the project.
The Government have now reviewed their position and concluded that funding of fast reactor R and D beyond March 1993 is not a priority, since there is general agreement that the commercial deployment of the fast reactor will not be justified until well into the next century. The Government asked the nuclear industry what priority it attached to this PFR research. The industry decided that it could not justify continuing this programme alone. The programme will therefore now be wound down.
The Government will discuss with AEA Technology, which carries out the R and D work in the United Kingdom, what contribution we might make to consequential restructuring costs, within existing constraints on public expenditure.
The Government will continue to fund the operation of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay until its closure in 1994, together with its subsequent decommissioning and the reprocessing of its spent fuel. This work is likely to provide information of value to the development of fast reactors. The Government are also prepared to consider funding a small programme of experiments at the PFR at Dounreay as it closes. The knowledge gained from these experiments and the decommissioning work will be made available to our European fast reactor partners as our contribution to European collaboration.
Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the Government's announcement will be treated with dismay by all the scientists in Britain, and especially by my constituents at Dounreay and in Risley, who have worked for almost two generations to put Britain at the head of this technology? The consequence of his decision will be to pass the work to the Japanese working in collaboration with the French and once again the Government's failure to support industry at the pre-competitive stage will lead to our losing a national lead.
Is it not extraordinary and unacceptable that the hon. Gentleman should have made that announcement before the conclusion of the 1994 review on nuclear policy, which the Government commissioned from the industry, and in the face of the advice of the nuclear and energy supply
412
industries that fast breeder reactors should be backed and that they would be prepared to make a proper contribution to the funds, given the Government's commitment?
Mr. Eggar: My announcement does not affect the 1994 nuclear review, which relates to commercial nuclear reactors and not to the PFR, as the hon. Gentleman knows. On his comments about scientific consensus, I remind him that the Select Committee on Energy recommended that we should examine the position as we approach March 1993, when—as the hon. Gentleman will realise—the design validation stage will have been completed. My Department's advisory group on research and development has recommended that we consider seriously whether it makes sense to go ahead with PFR funding.
During the past 40 years, we have spent about £4 billion in today's money on that research, and we have managed to come up with a basic design which will enable us to proceed to a prototype commercial development, should it ever be economic to do so. Given the likely cost of uranium and energy demand, the industry has decided not to give priority to PFR research, and the Government and the nuclear industry have decided that further expenditure is not justified.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Surely the Minister will recognise that we should exploit our achievements, and that, as we have a lead, we should carry it further forward? Is it not odd that the Europeans, the Japanese and the Americans are going ahead with fast breeder reactors and that in the United Kingdom we are beginning to abdicate that responsibility?
Mr. Eggar: The Germans have taken almost exactly the same decision as we have. The German Government have decided to transfer responsibility for most R and D and design work to the nuclear industry. The French Superphénix project is not operating and is not likely to in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Minister not realise that his decision will be a grave disappointment to those of my constituents who will lose their jobs because of it? Is that not more evidence of the Government's short-termism? Surely, if the PFR were developed, it would overcome one of the problems that has always been associated with the nuclear industry—the storage of nuclear waste—because it would recreate its own fuel. Obviously, that is the way in which the industry of the future will go, yet the Government are backing out. That is another sign that they are concerned with market economics instead of looking to the future.
Mr. Eggar: There is no doubt about the Government's commitment to the PFR—we have spent about ·1 billion on research since 1979. We have now reached the stage when the Select Committee on Energy recommended, in 1990, that we should examine whether we want to spend more money on the PFR. We are following the advice of the Select Committee. After analysis, we have decided that, from the Government's point of view, further expenditure in not justified.
We have asked the nuclear industry whether it wishes to invest in further R and D in the PFR, and it has given us a clear sign that it does not attach sufficient priority to it to allocate additional funds from its resources. We now

413
have the basic competence to move forward to a prototype commercial PFR, and that would seem to be the right stage at which to cease to provide Government funding, additional to that that I have already announced.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members in all parts of the House saw the fast breeder programme as a source of abundant energy in the next century, particularly as we could get about 60 times more energy from uranium than through the conventional nuclear programme? Does his announcement mean that we have now abandoned for the foreseeable future the interest we had in the fast breeder programme, or will steps be taken to conserve the technology so that, in perhaps 20 or 30 years, we might be able to look at the project again?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend makes the point. He was Chairman of the Select Committee at the time. It was recognised that, once we had reached the design validation stage, we would have reached the point when, if at some stage in the future it made sense to move forward to a commercial PFR, we would have done the basic research. I said that we shall be putting in hand additional research concerned with the decommissioning of PFR, and we shall make the information available as part of the Europewide collaboration. I am confident that we shall continue to keep a close watch on what is happening, particularly in other countries, should other countries decide to continue with additional research, which is by no means certain, particularly on the part of our European partners.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Is the Minister aware that the whole of the scientific community in Britain will be stunned by his decision and the way in which it has been announced? Is he further aware that this is another example of Britain withdrawing from a major research and development and demonstration programme and handing it over to our major industrial competitors, the French, Germans and Japanese, and ignoring the interest that the Russians are expressing in the programme?
Mr. Eggar: No, I do not accept that. Britain has spent ·4 billion in today's money on research going back over 40 years. That has been a considerable investment. Having done that, we have reached the point at which we have a basic design which we shall be able to develop should it make economic and scientific sense to do so in the future. It is widely accepted that further work would not get us another stage further and would not be justified as against other scientific research priorities.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: While the Minister's announcement is sad, may I ask him to accept that the real leader in nuclear technology in this country is Rolls-Royce and Associates of Derby, which for 40 years has been putting nuclear power packs—units that are small, robust and tremendously safe—into submarines, including conventional submarines? Perhaps that is the direction in which we should be going forward into the next century. Does my hon. Friend think that it might make sense to put some public money into that type of research instead of leaving Rolls-Royce to do it all?
Mr. Eggar: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the technological lead that Rolls-Royce has developed in
414
the area in which it is operating. But there is a considerable difference between what Rolls-Royce is engaged in and the fast breeder reactor programme.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister realise that in the next century there will be the most bitter recrimination about his announcement today? Nuclear physics cannot be mothballed. The Japanese and others will take advantage of all that we have achieved.
The hon. Gentleman talks about there having been consultation with the nuclear industry. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) nor I, nor many others who have followed these matters, know to whom he is referring. Many people—apart from Clifford Bloomfield and those who have been doing the work—including the chairmen of the generating boards and members of the British Nuclear Forum, whom hon. Members on both sides of the House have met, are absolutely against any such decision. It is a quite different matter to say that they would not fund it. At issue is a Government responsibility, and the Government are shirking it.
Mr. Eggar: I wrote to the chairmen of the relevant nuclear bodies at the end of July of this year telling them of the Government's position, which was that, having examined the matter, we were not ourselves prepared to make funds available and asking whether they regarded it as of sufficient priority for them to allocate their funds so as to take the R and D forward. The answer that I got from them at the end of October was that they felt, having examined all their priorities across all the R and D, that they could not give enough priority to fast breeder reactor research. That was a clear decision. The priority that the nuclear industry gave to the matter brought it to exactly the same decision as the Government.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the decision will not be welcomed in the north-west? How many jobs, directly or indirectly, will be lost as a result of the decision? Why have we decided not to go ahead with the research, whereas the Japanese and the French will continue to do so? Finally, what use will be made of the money saved? Will it be used for research into other sources of energy?
Mr. Eggar: There will be about 270 redundancies as a direct result of the decision, of which about 160 are expected at Risley and about 40 at Dounreay. I apologise for not giving that information to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Obviously, the funds will be redeployed within my Department's budget.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not strangely ironic that, while the Labour party is attacked for being anti-nuclear, the Conservative party and the Government have systematically undermined the nuclear industry in recent years? Have not the Government threatened the privatisation of the nuclear industry; are they not threatening its future through privatisation; and have they not terminated the fast breeder reactor programme, with the loss, over the years, of potentially thousands of jobs? They are now questioning the future of the THORP project in West Cumbria. Is it not time that we had some proper decisions taken on a national economic energy strategy?
Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of nuclear power. The Government continue to believe that economic nuclear power can make a useful contribution to the United Kingdom's energy supply. As he knows, the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. With regard to the point that is of particular interest to him—the THORP project—he will be aware that a public consultation process commenced at the beginning of this week, to which he and his constituents will wish to contribute.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the decision have implications for employment at Winfrith in my constituency? Will Winfrith be in line to pick up a contract for the decommissioning research which my hon. Friend has announced? Will the funds that will now be released allow funding to go into the small integrated reactor that was designed and outlined in my constituency? Furthermore, does my hon. Friend welcome the enormous support that he is getting from the Opposition for nuclear electricity?
Mr. Eggar: I have noted with interest the Opposition Members who have been on their feet and how they have phrased their questions.
I am informed that, unfortunately, some 40 people are likely to be made redundant at Winfrith. I suggest that my hon. Friend takes up the other matters that he raised with AEA Technology.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: How much money is involved in the next phase of investment and research funding? How much was requested from the nuclear industry, and how much did it offer? Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that many of us are watching him and noting the attention that he has given to Select
416
Committees' recommendations, and that we shall look to his attention being directed towards other Select Committees' recommendations in the near future?
How does he propose to deal with the number of people whose jobs and livelihood have been affected? Although only a comparatively small number may be involved, given the welter of unemployment that is emerging at present, does the Minister accept that those people are among the most highly qualified and skilled in the United Kingdom? Such teams will not be reassembled again with ease or with the possibility of success in future. To return to such a programme in 10, 15 or 20 years would need an educational programme on a scale beyond people's conception.
Mr. Eggar: Few people believe that a fast breeder reactor is likely to reach commercial viability until the year 2030 at the earliest. Those people currently working in the industry are unlikely to see a commercial reactor in place during their working lives.
On the issue of funds, the nuclear industry was asked if it wished to carry forward and fund aspects of future research and development. It made it clear that it did not wish to give priority to providing funds on the basis suggested. As for the individuals involved, I have already said that the Government will work together with AEA, particularly AEA Technology, to consider redeployment costs within the constraints of public expenditure.
I should have thought that Opposition Members would have welcomed the fact that the Government have responded to the Select Committee's recommendations in 1990. The Committee recommended, and the Government accepted, that it was now time to make decisions on whether to continue to fund as, by March 1993—when the decision comes into effect—we would have reached the end of the design validation stage and would have a basic design ready to be carried forward if that was considered appropriate.

Business of the House
3.52 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (6th Allotted Day). There will be a debate entitled "Conduct of Ministers on Arms Exports to Iraq" on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 24 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the European Community White Paper, European Community budget and future financing, on a Government motion.
WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Until about 7 pm, motion relating to Members' pay, followed by proceedings on the Car Tax (Abolition) Bill.
THURSDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Debate on the management of the public service, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 3o NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
The House may also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 25 November at 10.30 am to consider European Community document No. 8586/92 relating to cosmetic products.

[Tuesday 24 November

Floor of the House

Relevant European

Community Documents

(a) 4829/92

Community Expenditure 1993–97

(b) 5201/92

Community Finances to 1997

(c) 5202/92

Own Resources

(d) 5203/92

Inter-Institutional Agreement

(e) 6569/92

Community Expenditure since 1988

(f) SEC(92) 1412

The United Kingdom Abatement

(g) COM (92) 140

1993 Budget

(h) 7933/92

1993 Budget

(i) 8209/92

(j) SEC(92)1990 Subsidiarity

(k) Annual Report from the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 1990

(l) Cmnd 2065

Development in the European Community January-June 1992

(m) 8567/92

Establishment of a Cohesion Fund

(n) 9901/92

Proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget

(o) Un-numbered

Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 19 November—proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(b) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(c) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(d) HC 79-i (1992–93)

(e) HC 79-iv (1992–93)

(f) HC 79-vi (1992–93)

(g) HC 79-v (1992–93)

418

(h) HC 79-vi (1992–93)

(i)

(j) HC 79-ix (1992–93)

(k) HC 24-xii (1992–93), HC 79-i (1992–93)

(l) —

(m) HC 79-ix (1992–93)

(n) —

(o) —

Wednesday 25 November

Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

8586/92 Cosmetics and Animal Testing

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee

HC 79-vii (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: As the Leader of the House failed to announced the resumption next week of the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill, will he confirm that the vital issue of principle on which the Government and the Liberal party claimed that Labour's amendment had to be defeated is now down to a difference of precisely one week? Does that not show, first, the incompetence of the Government in courting defeat on such an issue, and secondly, what a mistake it is to trust a word they say?
Is the Leader of the House aware of the urgent demand for a full statement next week on the revenue support grant? That is especially true as, though there is considerable doubt about the extra revenue for local authorities that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, there is no such doubt about the impact of the withdrawal of funding for the urban programme. Will the Leader of the House ensure that our Scottish and Welsh colleagues have the fullest opportunity to question their Secretaries of State, and there will not merely be an announcement through a written answer?
Will the Leader of the House find time as soon as possible for us to debate the Government's transport policy—or lack thereof—in the light of the dispute about the planned support for urban transport in the autumn statement, the evidence given to the Select Committee, and the suggestions of road pricing?
Finally, as an aid to planning, will the Leader of the House soon be able to tell us the dates of the Christmas recess?
Mr. Newton: I will take the hon. Lady's questions, for once, in the order in which she asked them. Given the performance of the Opposition on European questions, I find it somewhat strange that words should be uttered about whether the Government can be trusted on the issue. The Government's position was that it. was right to undertake some further consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill before the Edinburgh summit. The issue in the debate involved, to some significant extent, whether that should take place, and the Opposition tried to prevent it. The Government still intend that there should be further discussion of the Bill before the Edinburgh summit, and I expect to say more about that in my business statement next week.
I do not expect that the hon. Lady will have to wait beyond next week for further details about the revenue support grant settlement. She will no doubt be aware that these matters are not dealt with in identical ways in England, Scotland and Wales, but I know that my right

419
hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will seek to ensure that the House has opportunities to be informed.
I cannot promise a debate on transport policy of the sort that the hon. Lady requested, but I draw her attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be here is person on Monday to answer questions from her and other hon. Members.
The recess dates must necessarily be subject to the progress of business, but I very much hope that it will not be too much longer before I can give the House some idea of those dates.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Monday's debate will be widened to include the conduct of Opposition spokesmen, to give Conservative Members an opportunity to quiz the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about his campaign of insinuation and innuendo? The hon. Gentleman's own record, of course, includes a conspiracy to place a mole in the Department of Health, and his infamous "Jennifer's ear" election broadcast was condemned by Labour's own general secretary as inadequately researched.
Mr. Newton: Were it not for my desire to be emollient in this role, I would congratulate my hon. Friend on making points that I could not have put better myself. I can only hope that he finds the opportunity either to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston or to catch the Chair's eye during the debate.
Mr. Stephen Byers: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State for Education to come to the House to make a statement about the fiasco surrounding the publication of the school examination results league tables? Is he aware that the Government's expert survey control unit had no involvement in compiling the league tables, and that the responsibility was given to two organisations with no previous experience of an exercise on this scale? The House should have an explanation; parents and schools affected should have an apology; and these misleading and inaccurate league tables should be withdrawn.
Mr. Newton: My emollience is in danger of deserting me. I am almost tempted to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he requests, if only to ensure an opportunity for the Opposition spokesman on education to explain why the Opposition want to deny parents the information which they manifestly want.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a total waste of valuable parliamentary time to have a debate on Monday on a subject, the facts about which are being fully investigated by a lord justice of appeal? Does he agree that the Opposition know nothing about it and will use the debate only as an excuse for muck-racking—their sole activity in this place?
Mr. Newton: I shall retreat into emollience and say that I am sure that many will have sympathy with my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Leader of the House require the Secretary of State for Education to come to the House on Monday to tell us how
420
he intends to put right the grievous wrong done by the Department to Manchester high school for girls in my constituency? The Department announced yesterday that only 16 per cent. of the pupils there had GCSE passes, whereas in fact 100 per cent. of the fifth formers achieved them. It is intolerable that, after the school had pointed out this error to the Department before publication, the Department went ahead and inflicted this great damage to the school. What will the Government do to put it right?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already taken action. As the right hon. Gentleman may know—I hope so—an erratum slip has been issued with the tables for Manchester, the press were notified of the error yesterday, and the Under-Secretary of State has written to apologise to the headmistress in a letter which I have here, and which is dated yesterday.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my right hon. Friend initiate next week a debate on road safety, a matter of grave concern to my constituents and all those who live near motorways? Since 1988, all large lorries in Britain have had to be fitted with mirrors on each side. That requirement does not apply to lorries coming here from our EC partners or from non-EC countries—a matter of grave concern to my constituents and others who use motorways. Will my right hon. Friend initiate such a debate, so that we can obtain an assurance that we are pressing our fellow EC members to introduce legislation similar to ours so that my constituents can travel safely on motorways'?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern. As my constituency practically borders his and much of the same traffic passes through both, I too am aware of that concern. I shall alert my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the fact that my hon. Friend may seek to question him on the matter on Monday.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Did I understand the Leader of the House to say that the revenue support grant statements to be made next week would include not just those for England and Wales but for Scotland as well?
While he is on his feet, will he say what the Government propose to do in order to give the House an opportunity to hear Ministers' reactions and to debate the situation surrounding the GATT negotiations, which have some important implications for agriculture, textiles and other sectors of industry?
Mr. Newton: I well recognise the importance of the GATT negotiations and the associated agricultural issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions are going on in various ways in the hope of achieving a settlement. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but we shall keep the matter under review and discuss it through the usual channels.
I am sure that I did not give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first part of his question. The matter is handled in different ways for the three countries, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the concern that he has expressed.
Mr. Peter Fry: Has my right hon. Friend had time to see early-day motion 878 in my name on Macedonia?

421
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to use its best efforts to secure the earliest recognition of that portion of the former Republic of Yugoslavia known as Macedonia as an independent sovereign state; and bearing in mind the present desperate economic and social situation there, further urges Her Majesty's Government to use its influence to help ensure a regular flow of oil needed to sustain the essential needs of the population and their economy.]
Is he aware that in that part of what was Yugoslavia there is a tremendous tragedy waiting to happen which is not being closely followed by the major powers? Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the problems of Macedonia, particularly the question of its recognition as an independent republic?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find time to debate that matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend, whose close interest in the matter is well known, that the Government arc working to secure the recognition of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia on terms which will secure good relations with all its neighbours, but he will be aware how difficult that it.
Mr. Brain Sedgemore: Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Education to come here next week to explain how it comes about that, at seven secondary schools in Hackney, no pupils are recorded as having sat A-level or AS-level examinations, whereas in fact the seven schools all seconded staff and pupils to the sixth form centre, with impressive results?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to bring my right hon. Friend here in that context, but I will ask him to be in touch with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are many shades of legal opinion on all the substantial and important issues of the Maastricht treaty? It is very difficult for the House to understand how the treaty will be interpreted in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when the House comes to consider all the important sections of the treaty, we are told the views of the Commission and, if possible, the European Court, and the way in which they are likely to interpret the proposals involved? We shall then not be entirely dependent on a highly favourable gloss from the Government.
Mr. Newton: I undertake to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's attention is drawn to what my hon. Friend has said.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House to clarify the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Did he not omit mention of Northern Ireland when he referred to income support? Scotland and Wales were mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned "three countries", but the kingdom has four parts, and supply comes from the House.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 747?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Attorney-General to examine the report from the RUC to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor as a matter of urgency and thereafter to commence proceedings for the extradition of Finbar Ross from the United States of
422
America with a view to prosecution in respect of conspiracy to defraud investors, resident in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, in International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar (in liquidation).]
The motion is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and those of more than 100 other right hon. and hon. Members, and it deals with international investments. May we have a statement from the Attorney-General about why conspiracy charges against an associate of Finbar Ross, a Mr. Murray, were dropped? Why are such matters being let go?
Mr. Newton: I did not refer to Northern Ireland earlier, because I was not asked about it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, matters are not necessarily dealt with in the same way there as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom, but I shall bring his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman's second question is a matter for the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and I understand that they are considering it. The decision on whether to seek extradition is one for the relevant Secretary of State.
Mr. David Madel: In what way will the motion on Members' pay affect those who have left the House and are drawing pensions, and the widows of former Members? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we have responsibilities for ourselves that are conditioned by the economic circumstances, we have exceptional responsibilities to widows and pensioners; and that they should not suffer?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern. The motion that the House will debate next week concerns only the forthcoming year, and I do not expect it to contain special provision for pensioners; but the House will need to give further consideration to longer-term issues relating to both pay and pensions, and I think that that will be the appropriate time at which to address the matter.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: No doubt the Leader of the House is aware of the possibility of industrial action on London Underground next week in connection with a possible 5,000 job losses. Will he find time for a debate next week—preferably before Tuesday—on the management of London Underground to give the Secretary of State for Transport an opportunity to account to the House for steps that he has taken to try to avert damage to London's economy?
Mr. Newton: As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be answering questions on Monday. It is increasingly clear that he will have a busy day.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the dilemma faced by a number of small private nursery schools—many of them voluntarily run—which face difficulties relating to the Children Act 1989? I am sure that those difficulties were not foreseen when the Act was passed, but they will lead to closures if something is not done very quickly to exempt such schools from its provisions.
Mr. Newton: I will bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware of the continuing danger posed to the lives of Northern Ireland fishermen by the failure of the agreement regarding submarines in the Irish sea and the north channel? A couple of weeks ago, a constituent of mine nearly lost himself, his crew and his boats after being snagged by a United States submarine. No one went to him and asked what had happened, and what damage had been done. May we have a little time to debate that on-going and serious matter? The arrangements that exist are either ineffective or not being operated properly.
Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that that point, together with a number of others, is brought to the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State. However, as the hon. Gentleman's question is one that could be raised during Northern Ireland questions, for example, I ought to point out that on Thursday next my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be here.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most worrying problems today is the serious growth in juvenile crime throughout the country, even in comparatively civilised areas such as the west midlands and mid-Warwickshire? In view of the apparent inability of the authorities to do very much about it, is it not time that we had a serious debate on the subject?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request and will bear it in mind, but I cannot promise an early debate.
If I may add to my answer to the previous question, I heard, from a sedentary position, the words "Ministry of Defence" being spoken. Defence Ministers will be here next Tuesday to answer questions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Given the announcement that has just been made about the fast breeder reactor programme, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the Government's attitude towards Select Committee recommendations, which so often in the past they have completely ignored? Does the Leader of the House recall the Energy Committee's recommendation that the research and development of alternative energy technologies should be removed from the ambit of the Atomic Energy Authority? If that were to be done, does it not mean that Dounreay would be the ideal centre of excellence for the pursuit of such research?
Does the right hon. Gentleman have anything to say that is positive—a message of hope for the north of Scotland?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the promise of a debate, which is what I take the question to have been directed towards, would be interpreted as a message of hope, but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for such a debate.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind the subject that is to be debated next Monday, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that before Monday he will place in the Library the exact criteria by which Ministers decide to give public interest immunity certificates? Does he also agree that it would help the House in its deliberations on Monday if he were to give the same statistics for the period between 1974 and 1979, when Labour Ministers were required to sign these certificates?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request and will ensure that it is looked at by my right hon. Friends, including the Attorney-General.
Mr. Bob Cryer: With regard to the debate on Members' salaries next Wednesday can we be assured that the Register of Members' Interests will be published by next Wednesday so that those Conservative Members who are so keen on pay freezes can have exposed to view their outside earnings, which inure some of them to such freezes? Many are earning more than their parliamentary salaries from parliamentary advisory jobs, directorships and similar activities.
Would it not be fair to the House for it to have that information by next Wednesday so that, when people stand up and argue that civil servants in particular who are on low pay should be subjected to a pay freeze, we know how busy they are in pursuing their own pocket-lining activities?
Mr. Newton: Leaving aside the more tendentious bits of the hon. Gentleman's question and coming to the question that is principally for me, I am doing everything that I can to encourage the establishment of a Select Committee on Members' Interests in order that the register can be published. I understand that some progress, but not yet enough, has been made with the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman may therefore like to urge the usual channels to come to a conclusion.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to early-day motion 861?
[That this House demands that the President of the Board of Trade make known the information given to him by British Coal that led to his statement that the 10 pits currently in the 90-day statutory consultation period are uneconomic and have no prospect of being so; is concerned that the 7,000 men who work at these 10 collieries, their families and the wider public need to know the evidence which has decided their fate: notes that both the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister have stated that these 10 collieries are not to he considered in the Government's review of energy policy, yet there is considerable evidence that a number of these pits are economically viable; believes that a simple assertion of the collective non-profitability of these collieries is not a sufficient basis for a decision of such magnitude but that it is imperative that British Coal prove its case by making public information on production costs, forecasts, reserves, recent investment, development work and markets on a pit by pit basis; and asserts that, if the case against these pits is so strong that they are to close, this information can no longer be regarded as commercially sensitive.]
It is sponsored by the Coalfields Communities Campaign. No one asks that unproductive and uneconomic pits should remain open, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic case for closing those 10 pits and throwing out of work many thousands of people remains unproven? Should not the House have a say? Ought we not to have a debate on the grounds upon which those pits are to be closed?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request. He will be aware, however, that I said last week that I would expect the next debate on coal, other things being equal, to take place when we have the outcome of my right hon. Friend's review. In the meanwhile, I understand that, under the

425
statutory consultation process, British Coal has provided the relevant trade unions with an information package about the performance of each pit. Therefore, it seems to me that representations are best made through that process.
Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Leader of the House aware that Labour Members from the north are disappointed that there will be no opportunity to discuss the economic future of the northern region next week? May we have a debate on the subject in the future, bearing in mind our problems such as long-term unemployment and deprivation, and the fact that, as recently as yesterday, the other place held a very good debate on the subject? We need a debate on the regions, which would enable hon. Members to discuss the problems in their region.
Mr. Newton: We are in the middle of a two-day debate in which it should be possible to make such points. A number of Conservative Members feel that Monday's Opposition day might have been better used to assist the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 17 December is the launch date for the European Year of the Elderly? This will be a very important year for the European Community. May we have a debate on the subject before Christmas?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the importance of the year, with which I was concerned in my previous ministerial capacity, but I cannot promise a debate between 17 December and Christmas, unless hon. Members wish to stay here closer to Christmas than I suspect.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The House is not exactly run off its feet with business, and has met for only 31 of the past 67 weeks. During that period, a miner lucky enough to have a job will have worked 58 weeks. Should we not at least find time to discuss the mining industry in Government time, rather than leaving it to a Select Committee?
Mr. Newton: The House may have sat on the basis that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but Members have been working for many more days than that—many of them in their constituencies.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are concerned about Scotland and the Scottish people, and that he will arrange an early debate on Scottish local government so that we can consider early-day motion 856?
[That this House is concerned at reports in The Sunday Times on 8th and 15th November which disclose that Monklands District Council is ruled by an elite of 17 Labour councillors, including the Leader of the Opposition's election agent, which has employed 22 wives, sons and daughters of councillors, and that preferential employment practices have resulted in employment for the provost's 'son in the council's work study section, a daughter in the housing department and a son-in-law in the parks department' as well as the Labour Council leader's 'eldest son … promoted to assistant safety officer, … other son works in the council's economic employment section; daughter … a post in the planning department'; notes that a green form system was used to distinguish the job applications from members of the ruling families from the pink ones from the general public; is disturbed that the articles suggest that the Leader of the
426
Opposition has failed to convince his own Labour councillors of the importance of manufacturing industry; fears that the Leader of the Opposition is allowing himself to be dragged into a quagmire of mafioso-like intrigue, nepotism and corruption; and questions the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition in sending a message of support to the council's new free newspaper which has been set up by the Labour councillors in a mafia-like operation to destroy the free enterprise Coatbridge and Airdrie Advertiser and thereby enable the ruling Labour councillors to wipe out the only opposition; and believes that these actions are not in the public interest.]
Such a debate would allow us properly to discuss the attempts of Labour councillors on Monklands district council to cover up very strange matters by using taxpayers' money to fund a wholly unjustified legal action against the local newspaper, which has been exposing strange and undesirable practices in Scottish local government.
Mr. Newton: The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about the allegations and, I need hardly say, firmly oppose any form of discrimination. The allegations can be pursued through the courts, the local authority ombudsman or the Commission for Local Authority Accounts.
Mr. Alan Milburn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 858 on drug and alcohol residential homes?
[That this House expresses its concern at the prospect of the closure of over 100 drug and alcohol residential homes following the Department of Health's announcement that the transfer of DSS income support payments to local authorities will not be ring-fenced; and seeks the introduction of an adequate alcohol and drugs specific grant in the United Kingdom.]
It has attracted all-party support. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that between 5,000 and 10,000 people face the prospect of being thrown on to the streets because of the closure of up to 150 of these homes. The Government reneged on a promise given during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 that a specific ring-fenced grant would be made available to protect the homes. Will he find time next week to ensure that we have a full and proper debate before redundancy notices are issued and people are thrown on the street?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of the points being made, which the hon. Gentleman has repeated, not least because on Tuesday I attended the launch of the European Drug Prevention week. I do not accept the conclusions that he draws from the announcements that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made, and nor do they.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I have been persuaded by Opposition Members that perhaps we should have a debate next week on the publication of examination results and the league tables, and Monday would be ideal for me. It would give me an ideal opportunity to talk about parental choice and education standards and would allow us to consider the results of schools at the bottom of the league, which all appear to be in Labour-controlled local authorities. Perhaps we could consider that and see what action can be taken against those schools.
Mr. Newton: If that was a question, it was a good one, and I wish that I had thought of it myself.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the important issue of the removal of the urban programme, which is worrying in the city of Hull? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is happening adds up to the fact that there will be no rescue package for city challenge and that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said today at Question Time, there is now no effective grant regime to replace the lost money? If Hull loses its present assisted area status, that will have a devastating effect on our great city.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman said, he heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time, and I shall not seek to add to that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making representations on assisted area status in connection with the present review.
Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Leader of the House considered a debate on the grave problems of the steel industry, not least the 20 per cent. cut in production and the huge financial losses announced this week? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that hundreds of jobs have been lost at Shotton steelworks in my constituency, that those manufacturing jobs are important to the whole of Wales, and that we should like the Government to help our steel industry?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to provide time for such a debate, but again, what the hon. Gentleman is saying seems relevant to the debate currently taking place in the House, and his concerns are certainly addressed by the proposals in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement, which is being debated.
Mr. Clive Betts: In connection with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) about the urban programme, does the Leader of the House accept that to announce a major change of Government policy which will have a massive effect on the lives of many thousands of people in the inner cities in a letter to the leaders of local authorities, with no opportunity for the House to discuss the matter or ask the Minister questions, is not a proper way for the Government to behave?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment should make a statement to the House next week and answer questions? He may come reluctantly, but does the Leader of the House not accept that it is his responsibility to bring the Secretary of State to the House so that he can deal with the matter properly?
Mr. Newton: I had better choose my words cautiously, but I believe that I have already hinted to the shadow Leader of the House that there was some possibility that the Secretary of State for the Environment would be here next week in connection with the revenue support grant settlement in England. If so, that would give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to ask his questions.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Bearing in mind the fact that we have had nearly 30 minutes of bright and not so bright suggestions from Opposition Members for subjects for future debates, might it not be a good thing if in future,
428
when the Opposition have a Supply day the following week, they made their initial inquiries to the shadow Leader of the House?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for yet another helpful suggestion from one of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Keith Bradley: I am sure that the Leader of the House read with shock and dismay early-day motion 788, concerning the proposed closure of Withington hospital, in my constituency.
[That this House expresses grave concern about the North Western Regional Health Authority's proposal to reorganise hospital provision in South Manchester, involving the closure of Withington Hospital as a district general hospital; regards the proposal as one that has less to do with any rational provision of health care in the district than with the rationing of resources needed to provide hospitals as close as possible to the communities they serve; calls for reconsideration of the proposal forthwith in a review that would take account of Manchester's needs as a whole for hospital provision; and asks the Secretary of State for Health to consult urgently with the City's elected representatives and certainly before any definitive decision is taken.]
Barely four years ago, when the Leader of the House was Secretary of State for Health, he accompanied me and the Duchess of York at the opening of the new children's hospital in Withington, which will now be part of the closure programme. Will he agree to an early debate on the matter so as to secure the future of health care in south Manchester, and in particular to save a hospital which he proudly helped to open?
Mr. Newton: I certainly remember the occasion—although I fear that the hon. Gentleman has promoted me, as I was the Minister for Health, rather than the Secretary of State, at the time.
I understand that there are no formal plans to close Withington hospital, and that South Manchester health authority proposes to develop acute district services at Wythenshawe hospital, and to create a community hospital at Withington. All such proposals are subject to a decision by the various health authorities, and to consultation, before a decision can be made.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House allow an early debate on perfume companies holding consumers to ransom, forcing up prices by one third and blackmailing magazines and newspapers into refusing advertisements for cheaper prices? Will he ensure that the President of the Board of Trade bangs heads together to avoid another nine months of high prices so that you, Madam Speaker, and the rest of us may have a much merrier Christmas?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be interested in the suggestion of vigorous physical activity on his part. I will undertake rather more calmly to bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Mr. Alistair Darling: In the light of the 3,500 redundancies announced today by the Royal Bank of Scotland, and in the light of the fact that there have been a number of job losses in the banking industry in the south-east of England, in Edinburgh and in Manchester, will the Leader of the House consider an early

429
debate on the subject? If we are starting to lose jobs in an area that is this country's particular strength, it is an illustration of the extent to which the country faces tremendous job losses and a rundown in its economy. The Government should pay attention to that.
Mr. Newton: I and the whole Government regret these and any other job losses. However, they should be seen in the context of overall employment of 24,000 in the Royal Bank Group as a whole. I understand that the majority of the losses will be achieved by what is rather unpleasingly called "natural wastage"—that is, as a result of turnover.
Mr. Terry Lewis: I take it that you have taken it out on me for being naughty earlier by leaving me to the last, Madam Speaker. I apologise.
Will the Leader of the House tell us about the future of the consultants' report into the operation of the House? Will he assure me that the story in this morning's newspaper that part of the report suggests a Members' wine bar in the Cellar is nonsense? It sounds a barmy idea at the moment.
Mr. Newton: These are matters principally for the Accommodation and Works Committee and for the Catering Committee. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of both Chairmen.

Early-Day Motions
4.26 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the matter of early-day motions with you as the defender of Back-Bench Members' rights. As you know, early-day motions are one of the principal channels through which Back-Bench Members can communicate. An early-day motion of mine has been turned down for the most extraordinary reason. 1 can find no senior Member who has ever heard of that reason—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I give a little guidance to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to be helpful in these matters? If the motion has been turned down, there are procedures that he has to follow, so the matter cannot be raised on the Floor of the House. If he goes to the Table Office, he will be informed of the procedures to follow, and I shall do my best to give him guidance in the matter. The matter cannot be raised on the Floor of the House once an early-day motion has been turned down. If the hon. Gentleman will do as I ask, I shall give him as much help as I can.
Mr. Flynn: May I continue a little further, because—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. There is nothing further that we can do at this stage on the Floor of the House. I have given the hon. Gentleman some guidance, and I hope that he will follow it.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mrs. Secretary Shephard arid Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to amend sections 3 and 85 of the Social Security Act 1986, to provide for the making of certain payments into the National Insurance Fund, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
Orders of the Day

  Autumn Statement
  [Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 16th and 17th November (House of Commons Papers Nos. 201-iii and-iv.]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 November]:
  That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th November; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to the firm control of public expenditure; supports the new expenditure plans, which honour the Government's commitments and provide protection of capital spending; applauds the specific measures the Government has taken to encourage confidence and foster recovery; and congratulates the Government on achieving a substantial reduction in underlying inflation, which has laid the foundations for sustainable growth.—[Mr. Lamont.]
  Which amendment was: to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `regrets that the Autumn Statement confirms that the recession is continuing and that unemployment and bankruptcies will continue to rise; regrets also that investment which has fallen substantially during the recession will fall again for 1992 and will at best, according to Government forecasts, rise by only one quarter of one per cent. during 1993; deplores the worsening balance of payments and the failure of the Government to recognise the need for a policy for manufacturing and for the regions; demands an emergency employment programme to reduce unemployment and the fear of unemployment and additional investment measures to boost the construction industry and business as a whole; and calls for a long-term industrial and training policy for Britain'.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Madam Speaker: I must announce to the House that, between 7 pm and 9 pm, there will be a limit on speeches of 10 minutes.
  4.28 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): May I first welcome to her new position the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)? She is speaking for the first time today in her role as Chief Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shadow."]—shadow Chief Secretary. She brings with her the reputation she acquired, as health spokesman, of being a real big spender. Her translation to her present role where she is responsible for keeping tabs on the promises made by the Labour party is a case not so much of a poacher turning gamekeeper as of a fox being put in charge of a chicken coop—or a chicken co-op, as the hon. Lady would call it.
  The achievement of last week's autumn statement is to create the conditions for a return of confidence and so to remove a barrier to growth in our economy. The announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provide the strongest reassurance that the Government will maintain the most rigorous control of public spending and have evolved a robust medium-term strategy for limiting its growth.
  Equally, his statement provides well targeted encouragement to sectors of the economy badly hit by the recession. The statement demonstrates a finely judged balance between the toughness required at a time when
  432
  national finances are under strain and a willingness to respond prudently to the needs of business at a time of prolonged recession.
  Despite all the huffing and puffing from the Opposition, the economic fundamentals today are promising. First, inflation has fallen from nearly 11 per cent. to under 4 per cent. Second, we now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community and the lowest seen here for 15 years. Thirdly, our exchange rate makes our products highly competitive, whether we are selling in overseas markets or in home markets against overseas products.
  Dr. John Marek: The right hon. Gentleman could also add that our share in world trade and manufactures has fallen from 6·7 per cent. in 1979 to 5·6 per cent. That might put his previous remarks into context.
  Mr. Portillo: During part of the 1980s there was a decline in our share of trade and manufactures, but that stabilised around the late 1980s and has stabilised further since. So I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is at all well made.
  As long as we continue to keep inflation down, the competitive edge provided today by a floating pound will be of significant advantage to British business.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman talks about keeping inflation down. I can understand that he has some hopes of keeping down the levels of pay in the public sector, although that is very difficult, but can he really now, after what has been said in the past week, still believe that it will be possible to keep pay in the private sector down to 1·5 per cent.? Does he really believe that?
  Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. I was talking about inflation, not about pay. A part of my speech which I shall come to later is about pay. But, do I believe that my right hon. Friend has set monetary conditions at the right level in order to maintain downward pressure on inflation and to achieve his target of between 1 and 4 per cent. inflation? Yes, indeed I do believe that.
  As growth returns, we need to be sure that its fruits are not simply gobbled up by an uncontrolled expansion of the state. The Government's objective over the medium term is to reduce public spending as a proportion of national income, because in that way an increasing share of the proceeds of economic growth will remain with individuals: those who created it. It is the wealth creators who work and invest who should enjoy the lion's share of what is produced by their efforts.
  If public spending were allowed to grow too fast, if would absorb all the benefits of growth, and the recovery would serve only to fatten the state. The burden of spending could eventually smother the private sector. We must therefore keep a careful eye on the proportion of national income that is absorbed by public spending. That ratio next year will stand at about 45 per cent. It has climbed so high because of a static, or even falling, gross domestic product and a continuing real rise in public spending, largely driven by the demands of the recession on the public purse.
  Although the ratio is no higher than it was in the last recession, the state takes too much of our national income

  433
  today. The ratio of spending to GDP must be reduced. That is a fundamental objective of this Government, and I reiterate it now unambiguously.
  It can be done. We can reduce the ratio of spending to GDP and at the same time reduce Government borrowing, and we shall do both. I speak with confidence, because the Government have done it before. In the 1980s, the share of national output taken from wealth creators and spent by the state fell from a peak of 47 per cent. to under 40 per cent. At the same time, our fiscal position became so healthy that we were able to repay debt. Over the first three terms of this Conservativve Government, we cut the country's debt burden by the equivalent of £10 billion per year—the cost of 160 hospitals or 500 road bypasses or 5p off the standard rate of income tax.
  I remind the House that those achievements took time. We had to maintain our resolve year after year. But our perseverance paid off. Restraint and fiscal prudence in the 1980s delivered a formidable hat trick—cuts in income tax, increased spending on priority programmes and reductions in the national debt.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Was not the reduction from 46 per cent. to 40 per cent. during the 1980s partly achieved by the privatisation of telecommunications and water? Did not the privatisation of water lead to charges to the charge payer being equally great, if not greater? Does the Chief Secretary agree that we are talking not about greater personal incomes but about a redesignation that suits his purposes?
  Mr. Portillo: My figures exclude the effects of privatisation. We always publish the figures and establish the ratio on the only reasonable and fair basis on which to compare the figures from year to year, and that is excluding privatisation proceeds.
  The privatisation of water was an important and helpful achievement. It has enabled the industry to embark upon a major 10-year £30 billion programme of investment in our infrastructure. I am only sorry that the Labour party believes that, when a privatised industry invests in the infrastructure, the correct knee-jerk response is to offer to tax it. That is disappointing.
  The effects of recession have hit all countries and., like that of many other countries, the United Kingdom's borrowing is increasing. I want to make it clear that I do not welcome that. It is a direct consequence of the recession, however, and we cannot hide from it or from its consequences. As borrowing increases, so does the cost of servicing debt. If those extra costs in turn feed through to higher borrowing, eventually borrowing will spiral. If we listened to the Opposition, scrapped the ceilings on public expenditure and gave in to every demand and every interest group, we might be popular today but would certainly be bankrupt tomorrow.
  We must avoid the prospect of more and more Government money going to debt repayment rather than to refurbishing schools, building new roads and improving the health service. As the economy recovers, borrowing must be brought down towards balance. That makes it essential to control what the Government spend. Accordingly, this year, we introduced a new system for the control of public spending.
  Before any Government can decide how much they will spend, it is essential that they should have a clear idea of what the country can afford. The rate of growth in public
  434
  spending must be kept below the trend rate of growth of the economy. The Government have simply done what any family or business does every day—decided what they can afford and then decided how to spend it. If we had taken the Labour party's advice, we should have done the exact reverse—added up everything on which we would like to spend and then claimed that that was what we could afford. Labour plans its spending bottom up—an unedifying posture. The current round has been conducted on a strictly top-down basis, which is the only sensible approach.
  In setting the annual ceilings for public spending, we have made allowances for the effects of the economic cycle, but without loosening our grip on total Government expenditure over time. It would be wrong to rein back on social security spending directly related to the recession and wrong to squeeze other programmes to find the necessary money to pay for it.
  That does not mean, however, that the recession is an excuse for public spending to be let rip. We must not allow the temporary and unavoidable increase in spending to be absorbed into a permanent increase. If we do, spending will ratchet ever upwards. The new control total that we have introduced seeks to distinguish clearly between spending related to the recession and other spending. As we emerge from recession we shall ensure that, when the cost of unemployment declines, other programmes do not grow and take up the slack.
  That strategy was endorsed by the Cabinet in July. We set ourselves the remit to stick to our cash plans on the old planning total for 1993–94, but to achieve growth in the new control total across the next three years of no more than 1½ per cent. per year in real terms.
  That was a challenging target. It meant reducing by half the average rate of growth in the non-cycical part of public spending compared with recent years. We have now set plans that fully meet the remit. The planned growth rate in the new control total for the next three years averages just under 1½ per cent.: 2¼ per cent. in 1993–94, but ¾ to 1 per cent. in the next two years.
  A top-down approach implies the need to address priorities very clearly and resolutely. My erstwhile boss, and now noble Friend, Lord Lawson was apt to quote Mendes France's dictum that to govern is to choose. Lord Lawson was apt to quote it in French. However, as foreign languages are rightly frowned on in this Chamber, I shall say it in English. Foreign languages are frowned on except gobbledegook talked on the Benches opposite.
  To govern is indeed to choose. One might go further and say that to be in opposition is to avoid choice; to call for everything and have to pay for nothing. Labour has called for lower borrowing, more spending, lower interest rates and, recently, even no tax increases.
  The Opposition Front-Bench team do not confine themselves to speaking gobbledegook: they employ it in their accounting methods. The House may remember that yesterday we heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) give his analysis of car tax; the clear voice of a new school of economics. After a week in which he could study all our press releases, all the tables, all the figures, red books, blue books, brown books and grey books, planning totals, new control totals and the total of those totals, the hon. Gentleman came up with one calculation. He divided the cost of abolishing car tax by the estimate of extra car sales next year. Wow! The computers laboured at Walworth road and brought forth

  435
  a mouse—a Brown mouse. What a gift for "Spitting Image": the "Alas, Smith and Brown" school of economics at work.
  The essence of good government is to choose, and we have ensured that money is spent on priorities. Under the new system, final decisions rest with the Cabinet. Decision-making has become collective. Together, we took the view that we were honour-bound to stick to our manifesto commitments. We have done so. We chose to direct our spending plans to support industry, to educate the rising generation and to ensure adequate protection for the needy. Again, we have done so.
  We have kept our election pledges on child benefit and all the benefits which we promised to uprate in line with inflation. We shall deliver the 153,000 homes that we promised would be provided through the Housing Corporation. We are expanding the city challenge programme, and will set up the Urban Regeneration Agency. We shall keep our promise to spend more in real terms on health.
  Mr. Clive Soley: In about three or four weeks, it will be a year since the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would introduce a mortgage rescue programme which would rescue 40,000 people. So far, it has rescued about 100. When will the other 39,900 be rescued? Will it be in the next three or four weeks? That is all the Chancellor has before his promise runs out.
  Mr. Portillo: The building societies—rather effectively—committed their resources to slowing down the rate of repossessions. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that instead of carping about it.
  Mr. David Shaw: I was most interested in my right hon. Friend's comments about the ability of the Opposition to add up. I was one of those who, as reported in column 313 of yesterday's Hansard, was extremely disturbed about it. Does my right hon. Friend have enough information from the Opposition to cost their programme and determine what level of tax and what level of borrowing they would preside over, and even to determine whether the City of London could even finance that level of borrowing? Or is it a massive Labour cover-up?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will realise that those are questions for the hon. Member for Peckham, whom I described earlier as the Chief Secretary but who is in fact the shadow Chief Secretary. It is her responsibility to add up the promises that Labour makes and make sure that they can be delivered. Undoubtedly the hon. Lady will use her speech to enlighten the House.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was pressed on his spending plans at a press conference on 9 November. He said that his proposals would increase public spending. Naturally, he was asked what was the figure involved. The hon. Gentleman said straightforwardly:
  "I am not prepared to put a figure on it."
  Thank goodness that the hon. Gentleman is now reinforced by the hon. Member for Peckham, who will undoubtedly ensure that a figure is put on it.
  436
  In our manifesto, we pledged to spend £6,300 million over three years on roads. We shall do that, but the money will now buy more roads than when it was promised. We shall build the Jubilee line extension, as we promised, provided that the agreement with the private sector can be signed.
  Capital spending in the health service will reach record levels. Local authority spending of receipts will boost capital programmes on houses and schools. Our policy priorities will enable 25 per cent. more youngsters to have places in further education in the next three years, and enable more of our school leavers to join youth training. The present record level of students in higher education will be sustained. We shall reach the target set out in our manifesto of one in three entering higher education by the year 2000.
  The hon. Member for Peckham issued a press release before the autumn statement listing all the promises that she thought we would break. We broke none of them. I hope that she will use her speech today to offer an apology, and possibly a word of congratulation. The decision that we took to protect capital spending stands in sharp contrast to the approach of some previous Governments. In the late 1970s, the Labour party was in power. It became temporarily converted to the need to control public spending. The House may remember that that was under the skilled tutelage, not to say psychotherapy, of Dr. Witteveen of the International Monetary Fund. After a few sessions on his couch, Labour's knee-jerk reaction was to cut capital spending.
  Hospitals were cut by 29 per cent. Roads were cut by a staggering 33 per cent. Water investment was also slashed by a third. Labour's axe was swung with gusto, and its aim was unerring: always the capital project, the easiest target in the short term but the most damaging in the long term. The cuts were undiscriminating, unthinking and unwise.
  The Labour party did not care. Well, one person cared. The junior Minister for Education, the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), cared, and she resigned. But some had fewer scruples. Into her place stepped the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), to implement the cuts of her Government.
  Mr. David Shaw: Where is she now?
  Mr. Portillo: She sits opposite me.
  An important decision that we took in the autumn statement was to limit for one year pay settlements in the public sector to a maximum of 1½ per cent. This is not an incomes policy. It is a decision by a major employer—the Government—to control its costs. At about £80 billion a year, the public sector wage bill accounts for more than one third of Government current spending.
  Since we are preserving capital spending and maintaining support to people out of work, it is essential to seek pay restraint from people in work. However much Opposition Members would like to protect capital spending, they cannot afford to agree, because they cannot afford to disagree with the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
  Our approach to public sector pay has received widespread support. People know that it is reasonable for the Government to ask their employees to show restraint when many people in the private sector have no choice but to be restrained.

  437
  For a good number of people in the private sector, the recession has already brought about low pay, no pay rises, or loss of jobs. By contrast, during the past two years only about 2 per cent. of the jobs lost have been in the public sector. In each of the past three years, average earnings for public sector workers have risen faster than for those in the private sector.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Chief Secretary accept that his proposals, together with the Prime Minister's comments about pay in the private sector, amount to a Government incomes policy? Was that part of the Conservative party's election manifesto?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening carefully. I began this passage by saying that it was not an incomes policy, but an employer's attitude to the amount of money to be paid to the people who work for him, and I am now explaining that. I am happy to repeat to the hon. Gentleman that it is not an incomes policy.
  My remarks about average public sector earnings during the past three years are true, not merely for doctors and teachers, but also for nurses, national health service ancillary workers, civil service clerical staff and local authority workers. Opposition Members should ask their constituents who work in the private sector what they think about automatic public sector pay rises, whatever the conditions in which we find ourselves. The state simply cannot make awards well above inflation, year in and year out, no matter what the state of the economy.
  To return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, the Government should not and will not dictate what settlement levels are right for private sector businesses. It is up to each employer to decide what he or she can afford to pay. Everyone knows that, in general, the lower the growth in wage costs, the better the United Kingdom's competitive position will be.
  The director-general of the Confederation of British Industry has said that, and has reminded us that previous experience is instructive. Often, Britain has had a competitive edge and has let the advantage slip because of higher real wage costs. It would be sad if history were to repeat itself and if the gains in competitiveness which flow from a lower exchange rate were to be frittered away in higher costs.
  Growth in earnings is lower than for a generation. Even so, our unit labour costs are rising faster than in some of the countries with which we compete. During the past 10 years, we have come a long way, but more progress may be required if the United Kingdom is to succeed in the world of the 1990s.
  People in prominent public sector positions should exercise restraint and set an example, especially hon. and right hon. Members. We cannot, as so many hon. Members have done, call for the protection of capital spending and the preservation of benefits unless we are willing to share in the sacrifice. The Government will therefore recommend to the House a resolution prescribing a nil pay increase for Members of Parliament from January, and I hope that there will be support for that proposition from both sides of the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While wishing entirely to support and endorse what my right hon. Friend has said—it will be a sacrifice for many hon. Members to do that, but that is the example we have to set—what
  438
  approaches has he made to the relatively newly privatised utilities whose chairmen and chief executives have increased their salaries by 100, 200 or even 300 per cent? Are they going to make a sacrifice?
  Mr. Portillo: Although the levels of private sector pay should not be dictated by the Government, people in that sector have important responsibilities, and set examples. When I heard the message from the CBI conference that Members of Parliament should reduce their pay, I thought that a similar message might have been sent in the opposite direction, by some hon. Members to some of the people gathered at that conference.
  The state of the Labour party worries me. In the run-up to the election, its members showed signs of beginning to understand free market economics. They talked about free markets, incentives and profits, but since then they have had a relapse. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was again attacking the failure of free markets, sounding a little like a recording which might have been made in Poland in the late 1970s. Apparently, he seriously believes that a Government can spend their way out of recession—but they cannot.
  The hon. Member made a famous remark at a press conference about the state being an engine of growth in the economy. Sometimes, I look across the Chamber and think that I see three great engines of growth—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, the hon. Member for Peckham and the Leader of the Opposition. Three great engines of growth stoking up public spending—Gordon, the big blue engine, Harrietta, the pink railway carriage, and John, their fat controller, all huffing, puffing and shunting about, raising clouds of steam. The time has come to blow the whistle on all three.
  Our new system of controlling public spending has forced us to distinguish between long-term and short-term objectives—between what is most important and what is less pressing. The discipline of working within fixed totals has obliged the Government to confront every increasing demand-led pressure. Every pound spent on one priority is a pound which is not available for another. We approach those decisions with determination and clarity.
  An increasing proportion of our national wealth is taken by demand-led programmes: pensions, social security benefits and legal aid are just three. Every developed country is facing the need to support an aging population at a time when there is no increase in the size of the working population.
  We shall need coolly to assess the impact on other programmes if those costs are allowed to continue to rise faster than economic growth. For the longer term, we need to consider the balance between provision by the state and by the individual. The Government have provided incentives for people to make provision themselves for retirement, beyond what is offered through state schemes, by building up their entitlements in personal and occupational pension schemes.
  We face an evolving world in which, while the cold war is over, the country needs to face up to new challenges. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is implementing, "Options for Change" and we shall continue to ensure that resources available for defence match the changing requirements placed on our armed forces.
  Also, we must recognise Government's responsibility to ensure continuing improvements in our transport

  439
  infrastructure. We have decided that the task is too great and important for the Government alone. The Chancellor has invited the private sector to play a larger role in meeting the transport needs of a competitive economy through his proposals to encourage private finance, and many of my hon. Friends welcomed that yesterday.
  Other services which have traditionally been provided by the state need not be state monopolies. We have embarked on a policy of involving the private sector, whenever it is cost-effective to do so, in the supply of services, from social housing to prison management. The autumn statement takes that further. Our proposals on leasing should bring a welcome injection of new provision and new management to essential services.
  My right hon. Friend's autumn statement demonstrates the Government's clear-sighted approach, not just to the problems of this recession nor just to the year ahead—nor even just to the three years covered by our plans—but to our determination to address the fundamental challenges facing many Governments, and to bring fresh thinking to that task.
  The Government have faced up to hard choices and made tough decisions. For that reason, the autumn statement has been well received in the House and widely welcomed in the country. In the Lobby tonight, my right hon. Friend and the Government will deservedly be supported with enthusiasm.
  5 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: It is extraordinary that, on a day when another 10,000 redundancies have been announced, the Chief Secretary opened the debate without a reference to unemployment.
  The Royal Bank of Scotland has announced that 1,000 jobs will go in each of the next three years, Blue Circle Cement is to axe 550 jobs, about one fifth of its work force, excavator maker JCB is to cut 80 jobs, and I understand that within the last few minutes it has been announced that about 5,000 workers are to be made redundant by British Rail.
  In other words, we have today witnessed jobs disappearing in manufacturing, services, construction and energy in every region of the nation. Although the Chief Secretary found time to make quite a good joke about Thomas the Tank Engine, he did not find time to recognise just what is going on in Britain today.
  We have seen in recent weeks some signs that the Government recognise that they have gone wrong. They must know that they have a problem on their hands. The trouble is that they cannot distinguish between the PR exercise that they think is necessary to create the good news story for the newspapers and the real programme for recovery that is necessary for the recession. So they make promises in which they do not believe and continue to say, as the Chief Secretary said today, that the ending of the recession can be left to the market. At the same time, they criticise those who call for Government action.
  The autumn statement is a mix of measures in which the Government do not believe and which, even on their predictions, do not add up to achieving recovery. It will not bring an end to the relentless increase in
  440
  unemployment, and today we have seen not only job losses rise but manufacturing output figures revealing a further fall.
  Last month, the Prime Minister appeared live on our television screens, on ITN and on BBC News, and said, more in the way of a cry for help than a Prime Ministerial broadcast:
  "We are looking for a strategy that will deliver recovery, that will deliver growth, that will deliver jobs."
  It is clear from the autumn statement that the Government are still looking.
  Under pressure, the Chancellor has admitted the error of his ways, but, through lack of conviction, he has failed to apply the remedies that are needed. So instead of a housing policy to build, repair and modernise homes, we have the purchase—perhaps the nationalisation—of 20,000 empty properties. Instead of an industry policy, £400 is taken off the price of a new car. Instead of the release of the accumulated receipts of council house sales, we have the future release of receipts, if only councils can dump their houses and assets on to an already stagnant market. Worst of all, instead of an employment programme and policy, unemployment is left rising.
  The Government have begun to admit their failures, but have failed to provide the solutions.
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: The Labour party fought the last election on a programme of large tax increases. If, heaven forfend, Labour had won, would that programme have been implemented?
  Ms. Harman: We did not fight the last election on a policy of increasing taxes. The Tories fought the election on misrepresenting our tax policies. Since the election, many people have lost their jobs, cannot pay taxes and are having to draw unemployment benefit.
  Mr. Graham Riddick (Come Valley): During that election the Labour party argued strongly and consistently that the upper earnings limit for national insurance was wrong and should be abolished. Does the hon. Lady still hold to that view?
  Ms. Harman: Our policies were fair. In the current situation, we have set out how we would bring about recovery. To bring an end to the recession, we have suggested how our programme could be paid for. It is significant that Conservative Members can talk only about the programme of the Labour party prior to the last election, but have nothing to say about their autumn statement and the effects that might have.
  Mr. Michael Ancram rose—
  Ms. Harman: I will give way once more, especially to the hon. Gentleman, who spoke yesterday.
  Mr. Ancram: In fact, I am hoping to speak later in the debate. In view of her remarks, will the hon. Lady put a figure on what Labour's programme would cost, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) having refused to answer that question?
  Ms. Harman: We have set out what we believe needs to be done to bring an end to rising unemployment. We have said that the public sector must play an important part and that public spending will need to be increased. We have explained how our measures would be achieved. We have said, for example, that we do not believe it right to lift

  441
  stamp duty on share dealing or that the recently privatised utilities should sit on billions of pounds in the bank when that money could otherwise be available for investment.
  We have set out clearly our programme of what needs to be done and how it would be financed—[Interruption.] I am asked to give the figures. The Government throw out figures which, even on the day they are printed, prove to be wrong.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Ms. Harman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I must make progress.
  The Government have begun to talk about growth, but there is no real expectation of growth. They have begun to talk about investment, but they have no strategy for it. They have also begun to talk about fairness, but they take money out of nurses' pay packets to make cuts in the national health service budget.
  Many people believe strongly that the Government have simply stood by while the menaces of unemployment and recession have stalked us and engulfed every region of the country. People appreciate that there are worldwide economic problems, but they also know that our recession started earliest and is lasting longest.
  Even against the background of worldwide economic problems, between 1990 and 1993, Japan's manufacturing output will have risen by 1 per cent. Manufacturing output will have risen in Canada by 2 per cent.; in Italy, by 2 per cent.; in France, 5 per cent.; in America, nearly 6 per cent.; and in Germany, 8 per cent. But manufacturing output in Britain will have shrunk by 5 per cent. The same story applies to business investment, total investment and the national income.
  People hold the Government responsible for the way in which they have managed the economy, which has left us with soaring unemployment and public borrowing, with imports overtaking exports and with imports still rising, and with a stagnating housing market as we are about to enter our third winter of recession.
  There is a strong feeling throughout the nation that the Government must act positively. They must provide a recovery programme that will lift the fear of unemployment, stimulate the housing market, provide stability and confidence for industry and provide incentives for investment. The recession has cost the nation dear. This year, we have spent £1·5 billion more on unemployment benefit because of it. It has also cost the Treasury in lost receipts. This year, Treasury receipts were £5 billion less than last year because of the recession.
  Despite the upbeat talk, the autumn statement is not a recovery package. Without investment and growth, we shall not see an end to the relentless increase in unemployment. The fear of unemployment and high personal indebtedness hang over the economy. I was struck by the fact that, when the Chancellor spoke on the economy at the Tory party conference, the only time that he mentioned debt was when he mentioned his personal debt to the Prime Minister for keeping him in his job.
  The personal sector's financial liabilities have increased from £204 billion in 1985 to £470 billion in the first quarter of 1992. The ratio of personal sector debt to personal incomes has risen from 86 per cent. in 1985 to 115 per cent. in 1991. Against that background, the Government will not end the recession simply by waiting for people to go out shopping. People are burdened by personal debts.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I, too, am concerned about investment and recovery. One of the biggest investors in East Anglia is Anglian Water, which has a huge programme for improving the environment and investing. If that utility is taxed, will it continue to invest in improving the environment?
  Ms. Harman: We have been talking about profits made in the depth of a recession by utilities that have been privatised and are now running a monopoly. They can certainly find enough money to make donations to the Conservative party. We think that people in East Anglia would rather see that money invested to boost the construction industry and create demand in the economy than sitting in a bank account.
  The lack of demand in the economy and the squeezing of profit margins mean that private industry will not move into recovery simply in response to lower interest rates. The Government have been forced to go some way towards acknowledging that public investment is important in ending the recession, although the Chief Secretary moved slightly away from that today. The growth in public sector investment is set to fall from 7 per cent. this year to 1·25 per cent. next year, and the Government forecast an increase of only 0·25 per cent. in total fixed investment.
  With 400,000 building workers on the dole and 60,000 homeless families living in temporary accommodation, Tory as well as Labour-controlled councils, the construction industry, employers and unions are increasingly angry that the Government will not let councils use the £5 billion capital receipts from the sale of council houses to build more homes and provide a boost for the construction industry. The Labour party has consistently argued that it is plain common sense to allow the progressive relaxation of the constraints on capital receipts. The Government have refused to unlock that £5 billion of capital receipts. Instead, they have said that councils can spend all the receipts from their sales between now and the end of next year.
  Thus, councils have thirteen and a half months in which to sell. In his statement yesterday, the Chancellor told us that that would stimulate extra capital spending by local authorities of more than £1·75 billion. But that figure is bogus. To reach it, councils must not only maintain the level of council house sales but increase it in that thirteen and a half months by 20 per cent. Does the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) think that his council will increase the sale of council houses in his local authority by 20 per cent. in the next 13 months, against a background of redundancies and a wage freeze in the public sector?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady has outlined a number of problems facing us in the economy today, but does she honestly think that defying the 1·5 per cent. guidelines for public sector pay increases and going for bigger increases will reduce unemployment, increase investment or solve any of the problems that she has outlined? Moreover, has she any idea how she would pay for it?
  Ms. Harman: I am trying to deal with capital receipts. I shall deal with the public sector pay freeze in a moment.
  Does the Chief Secretary really believe that council house sales will even hold steady this year? Does he expect us to believe that council house sales will go up by one fifth

  443
  next year? Will more people buy their homes against a background of rising unemployment? They will not, and the Chief Secretary must know that.
  We have taken the time to check with local councils. On the basis of the latest right-to-buy applications, they expect not to keep council house sales steady but that there will be a dramatic drop in receipts from council house sales. In Trafford, applications for right to buy are down by 68 per cent.; in Sunderland, they are down by 50 per cent.; in Plymouth, they are down by 39 per cent.; in Calderdale, they are down by 55 per cent.; in Coventry, they are down by 52 per cent.; and in Enfield, they are down by 40 per cent.—that means a drop of 40 per cent. in council house sales.
  Where will the £1·75 billion which the Chief Secretary promised come from if council house sales collapse, as councils know that they will? Is it that the money can come only from councils selling all their other assets—their pools, libraries and parks? Sunderland council said that it was even contemplating selling the pictures off the walls in the town hall. Is not the real story that either councils will not have that £1·75 billion to spend, or we are set to see an unprecedented asset-strip—a forced privatisation and a selling of public assets at the bottom of the market?
  To produce false figures on such a key issue as capital investment is not the way to generate confidence in the construction industry. The absence of new construction projects and the uncertainty that hangs over those already announced will not bring confidence back to the beleaguered construction industry. The Jubilee line extension was first announced in January 1989. It was announced again in November 1989, and in May this year it looked as though it was off. It was re-announced last week, but still, we note from the Chief Secretary, with no start date.
  Plans for the Heathrow express rail link project are near to collapse and the £400 million cut in the external financing limit of London Transport threatens a range of services that would not only provide work but improve the long-term economic competitiveness of our capital city.
  The picture on overall investment is bleak and on private investment it is bleaker still. Business investment has fallen by more than 10 per cent. in the past two years. The Government have begun to express concern, but the sum total of their proposals will, according to their own figures, leave investment stagnating next year. Yet they plan to cut the Department of Trade and Industry budget in real terms from £1·6 billion this year to £0·9 billion by 1995–96. Hardest hit are regional and general industrial support, set to fall by 15 per cent. in real terms in just two years.
  What justification can there be in cutting programmes such as those to create jobs in assisted areas, those to provide grants to development areas, or inner city training projects? Cutting the DTI's budget is not the way to generate industrial confidence and, by 1995–96, the DTI's budget will be the same size as the Department for National Heritage's budget. Perhaps the two Departments can be merged into one Department of Heritage, Trade and Industry, presided over by a Minister for Fun and Former Glory, as industry becomes our past, but not part of our future.
  444
  There are fears that the manufacturing sector will be so weakened that it would be unable to respond if there were to be an upturn in demand. For the first time in Greater London there are more people on the dole than there are employed in the manufacturing industry. As the recession hits, that will be the case in other districts as well.
  Things are so bad that even the Conservatives' traditional winter ball is in trouble—I am glad to say. This year, many firms will not be going to the ball. Former staunch supporters that will not be attending this year include Taylor Woodrow, Charles Barker, a public relations company, and GKN. The chairman of Bauman Webber, glass manufacturers, when asked—as usual—to pay for an advert in the brochure for the ball, said:
  "It is the ultimate sick joke—asking British industry to lend support. Now I wish the function every possible failure."
  Peter Edmundson of Anglia Secure Homes said:
  "The damage done by the inept dogma of the Government cannot easily be forgiven."
  They are leaving the ugly sisters of recession and bankruptcy to go to the ball on their own. They will stay at home and so will many others.
  The autumn statement predicts that growth is set to rise next year by only 1 per cent. But increases in productivity mean that growth of at least 2 per cent. is needed to stop the relentless increase in the dole queue. The Chancellor admits that unemployment is set to carry on rising. We now have the highest male unemployment since the 1930s.
  The real level of unemployment is probably closer to 4 million than 3 million, and there is now a four and a half year high in the number of long-term unemployed. However, as the number of unemployed grows, the budget of the Department of Employment is to be cut. Training and enterprise councils are to have £36 million cut from the budget that they were promised for next year.
  The Government preach about the iniquities of the dependency culture, but they create dependency on a massive scale as people who want to work are thrown on the dole. The Government are adding to the dole queue. After the threat to 30,000 miners' jobs, the squeeze on local government spending means that thousands of council workers across the country will be made redundant. The National and Local Government Officers Association estimates that up to 50,000 jobs will go. We are talking not about jobs that are to be moved from the public to the private sector under compulsory competitive tendering, but about jobs that will actually go.
  Public sector workers face not only redundancy but a wage freeze. Cutting the real wages of 5 million public servants is not the way to generate consumer confidence. To freeze public sector pay, to have a centrally imposed pay ceiling, is an unfair policy which will not work. It also means that the Government are reneging on everything that they said about pay bargaining. It is unfair to make public sector workers pay the price of the Government's economic failures. The policy will not work. High wages in the public sector did not lead to the recession, and freezing those wages will not end the recession. However, it will mean Ministers going back on their promises.
  In May this year the Secretary of State for Health said at the Royal College of Nursing:
  "The review body is safe. I can endorse the resolution demanding that the Government retains the nurses and midwives pay review body. We will."
  The Chief Secretary has just said that the Government will impose pay restraints. If the Government keep the

  445
  review body and accept its recommendation for nurses, other public sector workers who do not have review bodies will face either pay cuts or redundancies.
  In order to impose pay restraints in the public sector, the Government have performed a U-turn in their drive to decentralise pay bargaining. National health service hospital trusts were recently told to set their own pay levels. Now they are being told that if they give workers an increase of more than 1·5 per cent., their services will have to be cut even further.
  I hope that one of the Ministers will deal with the issue raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) as it was not addressed then. As my hon. Friend said, the Government have overlooked the effects on the public sector pay bill of increments, which are automatically paid as part of the contract, to nurses, doctors and many other public sector workers. That means that any workers who were denied their increments could take their employers to court. A decision not to pay the increments would require legislation. But if the Government stick to their 1·5 per cent. overall ceiling, paying the increments will mean that there is little if anything left for other public sector workers. I hope that the Minister will answer that.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General made absolutely clear yesterday, the 1·5 per cent. ceiling applies to settlements—the total amount of pay in the settlement for any given year that is awarded to a particular group. While the hon. Lady is listing the problems of a pay policy in the national health service perhaps she will explain why, under the last Labour Government, nurses' pay fell 3 per cent. in real terms, and has risen by 43 per cent. under this Government.
  Ms. Harman: The Minister has not answered my question whether the increments that are automatically paid under contract are included in the 1·5 per cent. ceiling.
  Mr. Dorrell: They are in the base to which the 1·5 per cent. is applied to calculate the amount available to that group.
  Ms. Harman: Which means that other people who do not receive increments will either have their pay frozen or will have to accept pay cuts.
  The Government say that they plan to use a public sector pay policy to make available an extra £1·5 billion. They say that public servants must make the sacrifice because there is no other way. But the Government who tell some of the lowest paid to take cuts in their standard of living plan to lift the stamp duty on share transactions next April—a move which will mean a loss to the Exchequer of £1·5 billion over the next two years.
  On Tuesday the Prime Minister talked of the British people's instinct for fairness. People will not think it fair to take money out of the pay packets of nurses and put it back into the wallets of people dealing in shares.
  Mr. Portillo: While we are on the subject of fairness, how will the hon. Lady vote on the issue of the pay of Members of Parliament?
  Ms. Harman: I think that it is right that the pay of Members of Parliament should be taken out of the arena, and not be used as a political football. I believe that our
  446
  pay should be tied to that of civil servants. That decision was right—our salaries should be pegged to civil servants' pay levels.
  I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether he and his hon. Friends who are baying for a pay freeze for Members of Parliament will accept that their directorships, consultancies and other jobs are to be kept within the 1·5 per cent. Do they want to have a spiralling increase—[Interruption.] There seem to be a number of different views among Conservative Members on that subject.
  I do not think that people will think that the plans for the health service are fair. When we compare the expenditure planned for the health service with the figures in the autumn statement, we see that there is a fall of nearly £700 million.
  The costs of the recession are not measured only in the wreckage of lives and communities. The costs can also be seen in our public accounts. Money pours out to finance the growing number of people who are forced to depend on benefits, and receipts drop as companies go bust. Those who survive see their profits fall. In just four years, the public sector accounts have gone from a surplus of £14 billion to a deficit of nearly £40 billion, and the debt is still rising. That is the real story of the recession as it affects the public sector borrowing requirement.
  After the autumn statement Conservative Members cheered. They waved their Order Papers and breathless Tory Back Benchers enthused to waiting journalists that it was absolutely brilliant. One said, "He has given me everything I wanted and more."
  There is no reason for anyone to have confidence in anything that the Chancellor or Treasury Ministers say. We can all remember the Chancellor saying that he had seen the green shoots of recovery, but astonishingly he still maintains that he did see them—he just could not explain what happened to them. These are the people who told us that a vote for the Tories on 9 April would bring recovery on 10 April.
  The really impressive figures in the autumn statement, towering above all others, are the margins of error. The average errors in predicting growth in investment are now 17 times greater than the growth that they predict. The figures predict a quarter of 1 per cent. increase in growth of investment, yet the average error for such prediction in recent years has been a 4·25 per cent. overestimation. If the Government do no more than repeat their past errors, there will be, not an increase of a quarter of 1 per cent., but a fall in growth of 4 per cent.—I mean, a fall in investment of 4 per cent.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): The figures do not add up.
  Ms. Harman: It is the Government's figures which do not add up. The 0·25 per cent. increase in investment figure must be set beside the next column of figures, which shows that there is likely to be an average 4 per cent. drop.
  It is clear that the Government's belief that the market will sort everything out has left them and the Chief Secretary as spectators while the recession deepens and jobs are lost. The right hon. Gentleman has no idea of how to end the recession; he does not even mention the job losses. The market has failed to offer answers to the new challenges of the environment, the north-south divide or the changes in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Having been in power for so many years, the

  447
  Government now talk about opportunities and say that everyone else must take up those opportunities—yet the Government have allowed their opportunities to pass them by.
  Of course there have always been opportunities, but the Government have not been prepared to turn them into realities for Britain. Throughout the country people are fearful of unemployment and of businesses folding. They are desperate for a reason to be confident, but the Government have a blind spot: they will not see that when the economic situation is as serious as it is the Government, and the Government alone, can stem the tide of disaster.
  Confidence cannot be restored to the economy unless confidence in the Government is restored, and no one can have confidence in this Government. It is they who are the obstacle to the recovery that we need.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I call Mr. Terence Higgins—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is highly germane to this debate. While my hon. Friend has been speaking, news has been coming in—she alluded to it briefly—of an announcement of 5,000 redundancies by British Rail—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Redundancies outside have nothing to do with the Chair; neither have I had any requests for a statement.
  Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to request a statement on the redundancies announced by British Rail this afternoon?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that I have had no requests for any statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have now."] Order. I have made it clear that I have had no requests for statements on any subject.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I join my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in congratulating the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on her new appointment. No doubt we shall be hearing her speak in that capacity for many years to come. Unlike her, I welcome the autumn statement and I believe that in retrospect it will be seen as a turning point in our economic affairs.
  I begin by dealing with an issue that has been too little mentioned. In his Budget speech in March, the Chancellor referred to a decision to change the annual Budget timetable so that tax and spending proposals would in future be presented to Parliament at the same time. He then issued a White Paper on budgetary reform in March. Both the Budget statement and the White Paper were rather overtaken by the general election, so an important change in our parliamentary procedures has been overlooked.
  My right hon. Friend asked for comments on the White Paper. I do not know whether he has received many, but
  448
  right hon. and hon. Members have not fully appreciated what is proposed. It has always been a strange feature of our affairs that what we describe as a Budget is not what people usually regard as one, because ours is concerned only with raising taxation; it does not bring together the two sides of the equation—taxation and public expenditure. Hence my welcome for my right hon. Friend's proposal.
  The bibliography at the end of the White Paper, curiously, does not refer to the report 10 years ago of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) which dealt at considerable length with this issue. Although the report—I had the honour to chair the Committee which produced it—received a very dusty reply from the then Financial Secretary, I hope that as the Chancellor has now agreed to take the two sides of the equation together, which was our main point, he will also look at some of the other recommendations that we made.
  There is a case for putting the technical matters which usually appear in the Finance Bill into a separate Bill, and for introducing a taxes management Bill embodying the aspects relating to changing rates, and so on. New taxes should appear in the form of separate legislation. I hope that Treasury Ministers will consider a number of these points.
  I welcome the fact that next year we shall have two Budgets—one at the usual time and, if the proposals go through, another in December. That will have a radical effect on some of the points that we debate in this House.
  We should also consider another point from the Select Committee report that I have mentioned. In this House we exercise a degree of control over taxation and public expenditure but, strangely, we have never had any control over borrowing. There is certainly a case—it happens in the United States—for our having some control over it, if only as a trigger to provoke a necessary debate if borrowing reaches excessive levels.
  As for the broader aspects of the autumn statement, we have been interested in how policy has been set out after the withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. We had an emergency debate, the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he made his Mansion house speech, and now we have had the autumn statement. The pattern of policy has now been comprehensively and clearly stated.
  A great deal of criticism has been launched at the fact that we joined the ERM and then withdrew. Even with maximum hindsight at the point when we joined—had we known then that we should be forced to withdraw when we did—it would still have been the best way to reduce inflation from 11 per cent. to 4 per cent. Any other way of achieving that objective, by deflation or other means, would have been much less satisfactory and a far more painful way of attaining the Government's fundamental achievement of reducing inflation to the point at which we can resume non-inflationary economic growth. That is the idea contained in the autumn statement.
  Although my right hon. Friend's autumn statement was rightly acclaimed by Conservative Members, we shall be repeatedly told in the next three or four months by the media and by the Opposition that it has failed in its objective. Whatever had been done, unemployment is a lagging indicator and would have continued to rise. That does not mean that what my hon. Friend did in the autumn

  449
  statement was wrong; nor does it mean that we shall fail ultimately to produce the necessary results if we are to get back to growth.
  There is no doubt that the balance of payments is likely to deteriorate in the coming months. The well-known J-curve effect is bound to have an impact. Import prices will rise, with an adverse effect on the balance of payments, and it will be some time before exports pick up and reverse that trend. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not be put off by anything that the Opposition say, either about the trend in unemployment in the immediate future or about the balance of payments. The measures that he has taken are the right ones and we shall see a resumption of growth.
  When there is a devaluation or a fall in the exchange rate of the kind that we have experienced, it is usual to say that the Government should deflate in order to make that exchange rate stick. That was not necessary in the present circumstances. Had we remained in the ERM, we were heading not for zero inflation but probably for minus 1 per cent. or minus 2 per cent. inflation. Therefore, there is no reason to take further action in terms of deflation and the balance struck by my right hon. Friend in the autumn statement is about right.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I note my right hon. Friend's assessment that we might have had minus 1 per cent. or minus 2 per cent. inflation. At what stage did he think that the monetary squeeze imposed by the ERM was much too strong?
  Mr. Higgins: The question that needs to be considered is precisely the one that I posed a moment or two ago. We saw a fall in inflation from 11 per cent. to 4 per cent., and we may see a further slight decline now. None the less, that was the least painful way of achieving that fall. In that sense, the fact that we were in the ERM was beneficial to Britain.
  There are difficulties about the cross rate between the deutschmark and the dollar, over which we have relatively little control or influence, but the exchange rate is probably about right. The general level in relation to both those currencies is near enough correct. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we have had a substantial cut in interest rates by 3 percentage points in a short period and, in addition, a change in the exchange rate, which I believe will produce the right level of growth.
  Having said that, we need to be clear that in those circumstances one should allow the so-called automatic stabilisers to operate fully. I was rather heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said about distinguishing between cyclical increases and non-cyclical increases in public expenditure. As the hon. Member for Peckham also rightly pointed out, one must not seek to offset by further reductions in public expenditure or increases in taxation the fall in revenue which is also the result of the recession in the same way as there is an increase in public expenditure on social security benefits. I hope that that is a point on which there can be complete agreement on both sides of the House; otherwise, there would be a dangerous situation.
  There is clearly a problem with regard to funding. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday about further privatisation proceeds. I have always argued, as has the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, that privatisation proceeds should be
  450
  regarded as a means of funding the public sector borrowing requirement rather than looking at them in any other way. It is also important to stress the help to funding the PSBR which was the result of borrowing foreign currency before we withdrew from the ERM—selling deutschmarks and buying sterling—which has itself made a considerable contribution to the funding process.
  Another point that I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will consider carefully is that the PSBR, M4 and all the other indicators are in many ways a deficient way of managing our economic affairs. I have always thought it strange that in private business one has an income and expenditure account and a balance sheet, but the Government have only an income and expenditure account and pay no regard at all to the balance sheet.
  The reality is that over the years we have seen huge fluctuations in the net worth of the British economy, or the Government sector, which have clouded many important aspects of economic management. Now that we have better data on that, we shall gradually be able to construct a more sophisticated Government balance sheet and national balance sheet. Some attention needs to be given to that important issue.
  I have already said that the devaluation, the cut in interest rates, and the autumn statement will return us to non-inflationary economic growth, but it has to be done in the international context. I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken such a tough line on the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations. It would be absurd if a dispute about whether there should be a subsidy in a particular country for oilseed, or whatever, were to jeopardise the entire GATT negotiations and the Uruguay round on which the immediate and long-term future of the world economy so importantly depends.
  Therefore, I hope that the negotiations now taking place will be brought to a successful conclusion. It would be absurd for narrow national interests within the EC to jeopardise our negotiating position, adherence to the GATT rules as they now are and the future improvements in that area.
  Having said that, I believe that the Government's overall policy is now right and that the autumn statement will be seen as a turning point in our economic affairs when we review these matters in the future.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was right to draw attention to the importance of GATT, something on which I am sure that the House is united. He mentioned that we shall have two Budgets next year, but he will realise that we have had two Budgets this year. There is no question but that this autumn statement has been rather more of a Budget than the usual autumn statement.
  This autumn statement owes its origins entirely to the consequences of black Wednesday, 16 September. It is a great pity that all the voices that we heard from Germany and elsewhere did not penetrate the Treasury to bring about an agreed devaluation which would have saved £1 billion or £2 billion. The voices were strong and the nonsense of going up to 12 per cent., then 15 per cent. and then coming down, was one of the more shameful aspects of the whole affair. We were behaving like a banana. republic when we should have had greater sense and a greater feel for the situation. The Treasury always used to

  451
  have that, the Bank of England certainly had it, and it is a great pity that, at a time of crisis, their tentacles did not spread to an understanding of those matters.
  We are seeing a discontinuity. There has been a fundamental change, quite rightly, one would expect it, following the events of black Wednesday. Old policy had to be thought out afresh, and I do not grumble at that. However, those who try to pretend that that is part of the continuing pattern of reacting to the kind of dogmas that we had in the past fail to understand the fundamental change that we are seeing.
  In order to illustrate that, we need only consider the autumn statement and what would have happened if we had not had black Wednesday. It is fairly clear that there would have been some big changes in the autumn statement. Let us look at one or two.
  A 1½ per cent. growth is expected in domestic demand. I suspect that that would have probably been zero. Non-oil GDP is going up by 0£75 per cent. Again, it would have been zero or perhaps less. The right hon. Gentleman talked about negative inflation and he could well have been right. Manufacturing output certainly would not have grown; it would probably have shrunk further. The retail price index could well have gone down and it might even have met some of the true definitions of deflation—negative inflation.
  Those things have changed. We heard that the Chancellor was singing in his bath, but for someone who has lost Britain £1 billion or £2 billion that seems to be an excessive reaction.
  Inflation is not the main priority. It has been the main priority for all Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past, and it has now changed. Clearly, levels of inflation will be rather more than had previously been thought.
  The Government's main priority is moving towards growth, and I am delighted to see that—in terms of words, if not entirely in terms of actions—they are moving towards growth in manufacturing industry. About time too. At least the Government are making the right sounds, even if they are not doing the right things. In the past, people have looked to the City for the salvation of our economy. When Churchill pointed out that finance should be less proud and industry more content, he may have been acknowledging that finance depends on industry. The lesson that must be learned is that manufacturing industry is not just an add-on, but a fundamental part of the whole.
  London owes its development as a financial centre entirely to manufacturing industry, which, in the past, produced the goods that made London a means of putting money into industry. Similarly, New York became the financial centre of the United States, because it provided the means of putting money into the big steel makers and so forth. Today, Frankfurt is a major financial centre because it is responding to the needs of German manufacturing industry. Formerly, no one had heard of Tokyo as a financial centre; now it is one of the two or three major financial centres of the world, for the same reason.
  The Bundesbank has become powerful not because it is the cause of German success, but because it is the result of that success. If our industry were equally successful, I might be prepared to adopt the view of the Bank of England that so many Germans take of their Bundesbank;
  452
  unfortunately, however, our manufacturing industry has declined. Even today, the Financial Times contains pages of great manufacturing names that are going under, and we have not yet reached the end of that unhappy roll.
  I am delighted to learn that the Government are now talking of manufacturing industry in more respectful terms than they have ever used before. When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Nicholas Ridley—now Lord Ridley—said:
  "I do not think it is a disaster if we become an economy primarily based on the service sector. It isn't vital that we have a large manufacturing sector."
  I think that it is indeed a disaster that we have allowed manufacturing industry to decline so badly. It is not just a question of jobs, although of course jobs are important; it is a question of output.
  When manufacturing industry is becoming more efficient, it is possible to employ declining numbers, and to use the wealth that is created to improve the infrastructure and our social services—to help our fellow citizens, in fact. The more we make, the more we replace imports; the more we make, the more we can export; and the money that produces can pay for the improvements I have cited.
  Not so long ago, we used to make virtually everything in this country. That certainly happened in my lifetime: indeed, it was happening when I was a young man working in industry. If a customer wanted to buy something, he turned to the various directories that were the equivalent of today's Yellow Pages, which advertised any number of goods. We made everything—from typewriters to washing machines, from cars to textiles. We may have imported some goods, but in the main they were curiosities.
  I appreciate that the world has changed, and that there is now international specialisation. Nevertheless, the most important aspect of our former dominant industrial position was the fact that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased demand, he also increased production at home: the two went together. Now that we import so many of our manufactured goods—more than we export—the use of demand management to control the economy is not the same as it used to be. If demand is increased, the number of imports also increases. That is why, for the first time for 10 or 15 years, manufacturers must be helped directly if they are to be helped at all. They cannot be helped in the same "macro" ways that were used in the past.
  Mr. Bellingham: I agree with some of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think that he should be careful not to sell Britain short. According to the German magazine Director, 27 of the top 50 European companies are British.
  Mr. Sheldon: That has always been the case. Fifty or 100 years ago, we had the largest companies in the world; unfortunately, size did not always go together with efficiency or performance.
  I welcome the Chancellor's acceptance of the importance of capital allowances, for which I have argued throughout my parliamentary life. Obviously Labour Members must welcome it, as it was part of Labour's programme. However, I would have preferred the allowances to be rather higher. Until now, they amounted to 25 per cent.; that was nonsense, as salesmen often received 25 per cent. commission on orders, and in most cases the true depreciation—the price that could be obtained for the sale of the asset—was well below 75 per

  453
  cent. of the purchase price. That was not an investment incentive; it was an investment disincentive. Those who invested in plant and machinery lost money.
  I am also delighted that the Chancellor has restricted the measure to plant and machinery. I have repeatedly argued for that as well. Much so-called investment is not real investment at all: it may be spent on office furniture and fancy reception areas. Investment in plant and machinery is the closest that we can get to a definition of true investment. I should, of course, have been happier if the Chancellor had increased the allowance to 60 or even 70 per cent. There was a time when free depreciation operated.
  I understand that the allowances are to be time-limited, but I do not believe it. I think that they will be built into the new sensible approach to manufacturing industry, and will become a permanent memorial to the Government's change of attitude. At least they are now facing the realities. It is a pity that this is happening during a recession, because we shall not see the desired levels of investment; but at least something is being done.
  I was pleased to note that Howard Davies of the CBI was inching back to a better understanding of manufacturing industry. I also welcomed the formation of the National Manufacturing Council. Its members, however, cannot forget their past: they still feel constrained to make a bow to their past political errors. They talk of the record of the 1980s, and state that manufacturing made considerable strides then. That is obvious nonsense. I lost 33 per cent. of my companies between 1979 and 1981. The council also mentions progress since 1985, but its views sound like those of Tory politicians rather than representatives of manufacturing industry.
  As I have said, I lost one third of my companies, and I feel badly about it. They were not old-tech companies; they were medium-tech companies of the kind that can be seen in France, Germany, Japan and indeed every country in the world. Those companies went bust and closed their doors, and it is possible that a further 10 per cent. will go.
  The country as a whole has experienced a similar decline. These are serious matters: the narrowness of our present industrial base is one of the country's main problems. We have an horrendous balance of payments deficit, in the middle of the deepest recession since the war. Along with that deficit—a deficit of historic proportions—we are experiencing the miserable failure of our export performance. We must ask why that is happening. In the past the two developments would never have coincided, but we have grown accustomed to experiencing a balance of payments deficit in the midst of a slump.
  Sir Terence Beckett, the former director general of the CBI, once called for a bare-knuckled fight. He did not like the Government's attitude to the slump between 1979 and 1981. He came from manufacturing industry and realised the damage that was being done to it, but he did not realise that powerful importers and financiers were members of the Confederation of British Industry. Conservative party voices had high places in the CBI. Unfortunately for manufacturing industry, therefore, Sir Terence was soon brought to heel. That was very sad. He understood manufacturing industry. He thought that the CBI represented it, but it did not. At least the CBI is making up a bit for that now. Howard Davies and a few other voices are moving in the right direction. It is up to us to encourage them.
  454
  British producers have been helped by the depreciation of the pound. It was fixed at an absurd level. I should have preferred the pound to be somewhat lower than it is now against the deutschmark. Failing a revaluation of the deutschmark, it is a pity that we and the other European Community countries found it impossible to get together and devalue our currencies so as to force a revaluation of the deutschmark. That cannot be done, though; the differences between us are insuperable.
  I have always been and I am still in favour of a fixed exchange rate. Wildly fluctuating rates of exchange are a barrier to competitive pricing. We cannot price finely when the rates are going up and down every day and every week. There has to be a readjustment of exchange rates every two or three years, though. Even if the readjustment is 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., it is less expensive than the violent fluctuations that force manufacturers to fix high prices in order to cover their profit margins.
  At one time it was possible, depending upon whether one was importing or exporting, to hedge in the forward market. If one sold a batch of goods that went on a certain ship on a certain day, one could hedge perfectly. We cannot do that now. The home and the export markets are much the same. People buy over a long period, then cancel, or hold one up. If one hedges against that, one may lose money on one's currency as well as losing money on one's sales. Therefore, manufacturers cannot operate in that way. We must therefore accept the need for fixed exchange rates that will have to be readjusted every so often. We cannot fix the exchange rates for ever.
  Capital programmes take time to come to fruition. The new deal in the United States resulted in the great Tennessee valley authority, but it was several years before they began to feel the effects. We are experiencing the same problems. It takes time before people can be employed. However, we can do something about housing starts. We can free the capital resources held by local authorities, though not enormously. I have enough of the Treasury mentality still in me to know that one cannot throw those resources away, but we can do something in that direction.
  We can do something even better in the case of housing repairs. They get people working next week. There are jobs that I could hand out straight away to people who come to my advice bureau. I am sure that every other hon. Member is in the same position. It is a pity that we have not turned our attention to that aspect.
  As for the international dimension—GATT and Maastricht—the economic aspects of Maastricht do not bother me that much. I do not believe that monetary union will ever work, so I am more relaxed about it than are some of my colleagues. Does any hon. Member really believe that Italy will fit in with a German-dominated, fixed and unalterable economy? I just cannot see it. It is dreamland I have seen the results of some of the intervention policies in relation to farm subsidies.
  In one instance, Germany had about 500 cases of fraud each year; we had about 600 cases; and Italy had about three. There are differences between countries. Anybody who thinks that we can merge countries together just like that is mistaken. I am not bothered about that, however: it will not happen. It is a pity that all the European Community countries will not consider the Bill in Committee. Committee stages expose such nonsenses. I am sure that they will be exposed during our Committee stage.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has touched upon one of the many arguments used by those in the Conservative Whips Office—"Vote for the treaty," say they. "We know that it's a complete nonsense, but if you're right in saying that it's nonsense, it will break up and it won't have the effects that you say it will have". Is it not a fact, however, that to vote for nonsense probably imposes upon the British people the risk of a return to the over-tight credit that they have endured for the last two years, and that, before it breaks up, a great deal of damage will have been done to our fellow citizens?
  Mr. Sheldon: My feeling, although it is not so strong as it is in relation to my previous comments, is that we shall not get that far. We can see the cracks now. We shall not need to wait very long. The danger about bothering about that is that we are not bothering enough about what is even more important. The Prime Minister was right to draw attention to the difference between Maastricht, which is a nonsensical problem, and the real problem of GATT and the equally great economic problems of Russia and the eastern European countries. It may not be long before they cease to be economic problems. They could become political problems, and even military problems. It is wrong to concentrate on these preoccupations and to ignore the greater problems that could yet face us.
  The return to growth promises very little. It also depends upon the Government's incomes policy—compulsion in the public sector and exhortation in the private sector. The first will not work very well. The second will be a complete failure. The Government talk about the failures of the past. They need to think about the failures of the present. The autumn statement suggests that they have quite a bit to learn.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. James Hill: It has been extremely interesting to hear the old and the new economic voices of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a strong case for manufacturing industry. I suppose that he is unaware of what is happening in the far east, in the ASEAN countries, and I suppose that he is unaware that China is building hundreds and hundreds of factories, using local labour. British, Hong Kong and Taiwanese companies are investing in China and are producing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman looks back to—almost to the old Commonwealth preference days when it would all have come right again.
  I have visited the Shanghai Tool company. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has visited it. It is an enormous conglomerate. It makes tens of thousands of tool kits, spanner sets and all the other goods that we import. If we went into any hardware shop, we should find that nearly 80 per cent. of the goods on sale there come from the far east. They certainly come from Taiwan. They certainly come from the Shanghai Tool company. Apart from our own peripheral problems, we shall be forced to compete with giants, in manufacturing terms. Sometimes we lose sight of what is happening in the rest of the world.
  This debate ought to be called a confidence debate. Our society needs to place more confidence in our banking industry, our investors and our shippers. Anyone listening to Opposition Members today would have gained little
  456
  confidence from them and would not immediately have rushed out to phone their broker and say, "Buy me into UK Limited."
  Years ago, we had the British disease in manufacturing, but now we have despondency. We cry immediately that nothing will work out. I view the autumn statement as a good step towards restoring confidence in the private sector. Shadow Ministers have a great responsibility to advance their party's policy, but they must ensure that they do not denigrate everything that this House or the other place is doing. That is a road to disaster.
  I do not think that everyone needs to have run a business to understand business. We are more a university of business than a house of business and sometimes our theories go a little awry.
  Some years ago, I tabled written questions on joint ventures between the public and private sectors on road and bridge construction. I am pleased that at long last we are moving strongly in that direction. That is exactly what is happening in China, Taiwan and Singapore, and it is a good example to follow.
  One of the best confidence-boosting measures in the autumn statement is that designed to deal with the problems of the housing market. Once again, it has been denigrated as being too little, too late, but £750 million has been allocated to buy unoccupied homes which are falling into disrepair. We have some magnificent housing associations, and I can think of two in my constituency—Hythe and South Bank housing association and Swaythling housing association. They will be eager to obtain some of those millions, with which they could buy quite a number of empty properties that are being vandalised. In the short term, it will do much to house homeless people and to reduce council lists.
  Mr. George Howarth: It will not work.
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the first half of my speech: we must have some confidence, and £750 million is not an insignificant sum.
  Mr. Howarth: But not false confidence.
  Mr. Hill: I eagerly await the hon. Gentleman's speech, which will be very depressing.
  The issue of councils being able to spend capital receipts has been running for some years. It became apparent during the election campaign that councils could spend 25 per cent. of their receipts from sales, but now they will be able to spend 100 per cent. That is a good move, but not all local authorities have been assiduous in selling their council house stock. Some of them have made it almost impossible for tenants to buy, and we had to enact legislation to force them to sell. Tremendous incentives are now on offer to councils which have not been politically inspired to sell council houses.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury could consider the provisions on the purchase of capital equipment. Increasing allowances from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. is a bit mean. Manufacturers are looking forward to selling JCBs, tractors or anything made in the United Kingdom and to a higher allowance than 40 per cent. Perhaps that could be considered in the next Budget.
  I am pleased to see that an extra 8 per cent. has been allocated to further education colleges, but we now have a problem with primary schools. In Hampshire, 72 primary

  457
  schools are consulting on whether to close, merge or continue. At little cost, some of them could be turned into joint primary and middle schools and could be used to the benefit of the community. The community is adapting to primary school policies, and volunteers have much to offer. Sometimes the most run-down areas have the most enthusiastic volunteers, but a little more expenditure should be allocated to primary schools.
  We have honoured our manifesto commitment to pensioners and families. That was surprising, given the despondency about the Government's proposals.
  We must deal with the desperate state of our communications infrastructure, which is as essential to industry as industry itself. If a factory incurs extra cost in getting its products to a port or airport, or has to use a long winding route, that increases costs.
  I hope that I have not spoken for too long. We must ensure a successful conclusion to the GATT round. I shall mention that to Delors and Mr. Mitterrand, who are playing a very dangerous game. Until they come round and see the benefits of GATT for the whole world, rather than a few hundred French farmers, we shall be in difficulty. It appears that there will be a push to get a decent settlement to the GATT talks, but I dislike the nationalistic approach to world problems.
  6.18 pm
  Ms. Janet Anderson: The autumn statement represents the vacuum at the heart of the Government's policy—the gap between what Ministers promise at the election and what they do when they are re-elected. It is a question of trust, and the Government can no longer be trusted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, said yesterday, it is more a matter of misrepresentation to the people than representation of the people.
  The Chancellor, who claims to favour capital investment, has cut the capital programme for London Transport. Much-needed renovation to lines that cause misery to London commuters is to be cancelled, and he refuses to provide urgently needed funds.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Anderson: I will not give way at this stage.
  The Chancellor refused to provide urgently needed funds for the electrification of the west coast main line, which is vital to the economic regeneration of the north-west and is of considerable interest to businesses and people in my constituency.
  I have to tell the Chancellor and other Conservative Members that the business men and women of Rossendale and Darwen view that omission with considerable concern and regret. It came as no surprise to me recently to receive a letter from a business man in my constituency who told me that, although he was a former Tory voter—he voted Conservative at the general election—he would vote Labour from now on. His letter ended with the words:
  "Never has so much harm been done to so many businesses by so few".
  The Chancellor talks about giving the construction industry a kick start, yet he refuses to allow local authorities to spend the £5 billion of existing capital receipts to fund new housing. The builders in my constituency will not forgive him for that, either.
  458
  The Chancellor talks about growth, and the need to boost consumer confidence, yet he imposes a 1·5 per cent. ceiling on pay increases for some of the lowest paid workers in the country.
  Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Employment—I am sure that by rights he—[HON. MEMBERS: "She."]—should now be renamed the Secretary of State responsible for unemployment—proposes to turn the screw further by abolishing the wages councils.
  Devaluation has cut the living standards of ordinary people, and so will the new incomes policy of a Government who are supposed to believe in the free market. While Lord King awards himself a pay rise of no less than £1,000 a week, those who work in the public sector are being asked to shoulder the burden of the Government's economic incompetence. According to the Government's logic, the cosseted privileged public sector workers must take their fair share of the pain of the recession. I suggest that Ministers tell that to the 3,500 staff who have lost their jobs in the national health service since the general election.
  We are told that nurses can afford to take what amounts to a pay cut because they have greater job security than workers in the private sector. If that is true, the Government should guarantee that there will be no more nursing redundancies. Why should nurses take the blame for the Government's failure? Yet that is what has happened. The council tax is bad enough, but the tax on nurses, on whom we rely for our health care, is not only morally reprehensible but unjust and shortsighted. It is indicative of the Government's short-term approach to everything.
  Another example of that misguided philosophy, hidden in the small print of the autumn statement, is the postponement of nurse prescribing. The general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing says that nurses have suffered a double blow in the autumn statement. Not only do they face a pay cut, but their long struggle to win prescribing rights has been swept aside in favour of short-term cost cutting.
  The Department of Health's research into the cost of nurse prescribing proves it to be cost effective, and recognises that patients would be treated faster and nurses would gain increased job satisfaction if nurse prescribing were introduced. The Government fought a general election on a pledge to introduce nurse prescribing, and the Secretary of State for Health has made several commitments to the scheme, including one to implement it by October 1993.
  The Conservative manifesto said:
  "We will introduce powers for nurses to prescribe where appropriate".
  The Secretary of State said in the House on 3 May that the Government were fully committed to the idea of nurse prescribing. In a speech to the Royal College of Nursing congress on 22 April she said:
  "Nurse prescribing makes sense. It is a proper recognition of community nurses' skills. We will implement nurse prescribing by October 1993."
  In November 1991 the Department of Health published a cost benefit analysis of nurse prescribing which found that the savings that it generated almost exactly offset the cost of implementing and running the scheme, even before a value had been placed on the improved service to patients.

  459
  The declared aim of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was to put patients' interests first. Similarly, the citizens charter and patients charter are based on that philosophy. If the Government are serious about putting patients first and delivering an effective health service, they should reconsider their decision to postpone nurse prescribing.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I join other Conservative Members in welcoming the autumn statement as an important step in the right direction, but I shall also sound two possible notes of caution. The first is that there is still a danger that the money supply may be too tight. The second is that, in common with several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am concerned that the fiscal side is in danger of becoming too loose. The combined effect of those two factors could be a double squeeze on the private sector—which, after all, generates all wealth.
  Two monetary features of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's public spending announcement are welcome. The first is the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates. The second, and the more important, is his commitment to a monitoring range for broad money—M4.
  After a third successive cut in interest rates and a substantial devaluation against all other currencies, it may seem churlish to suggest that the money supply may still be too tight. None the less, if we look around us at the economy, all the indicators are still of tight money, with the solitary exception of the narrow money measure MO. This morning's figures confirm that M4, which has fallen from a peak of more than 18 per cent., remains at about 5 per cent. I believe, as does the Bundesbank, that M3 is a better measure of economic output—and that has fallen from 22 per cent. to about 3 per cent. now.
  The anecdotal signs in the economy, too, still suggest that money is too tight. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative with the banks. I believe that bankers are being thoroughly greedy at the moment, but we must recognise the fact that, as well as being greedy, they are frightened.
  The situation in the motor industry is definitely improving; yet Ford has recently announced that it is substantially increasing its payment period to small suppliers in stages from 30 days to 120 days. That, too, is a sign of the tightness of money in the economy. What one company is doing is reflected in many others.
  A third factor which suggests that money is too tight is the kind of national balance sheet analysis carried out by people such as Tim Congdon—
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
  Mr. Brazier: I will give way in a moment.
  Such a balance sheet analysis shows, for example, that the ratio of mortgage debt to the value of the nation's housing stock is at an all-time high. The situation is similar in the commercial property sector, and that is especially important to the banks.
  I am certainly not a gloom monger. I firmly believe that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend last week are exactly what we need to move us on towards recovery.
  460
  However, I suggest that in at least one respect—on the residential side—there is a danger that the property market may go further.
  There are two reasons for that, the first of which is historic. The ratio of house prices to earnings is now 3:1. It is important to look back to the last sustained period of low inflation for a comparison, because I believe that the Government have cracked inflation, so I shall look back to the decade from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. The ratio then was exactly 3:1. Because that ratio is a lagging indicator, in a recession, especially in the latter portion of a recession, one would expect it now to be rather below trend. So there are historical reasons for believing that house prices may fall further.
  That reason is reinforced by a geographical fact: for the first time in its history, this country is about to have a land border—via the channel tunnel. The extreme disparity between house prices in south-east England and those in north-west France cannot continue to be as wide as it now is. Several of my constituents are already buying second homes, or even retirement homes, across the channel.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is possible that the housing market will have one further stage of readjustment to make and that that may result in further monetary tightening as people become less willing to spend as a result.
  I do not suggest for a moment that we should try to persuade water to run uphill on house prices, but I believe that there are two respects in which it is important that we keep our eye on monetary policy. First, my right hon. Friend should think of tightening the monitoring range for broad money from a monitoring range to a firm target. If we find that M4 moves below the 4 per cent. bottom, we should then be willing, whatever is happening to the exchange rate, to loosen the money supply.
  Secondly, and in some ways more importantly, we must look again at our funding policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was right to suggest that borrowing some of our money from abroad had a welcome loosening effect on monetary policy, which shows up in this morning's figures. I suggest that we should be willing to do not only what we did 10 years ago, but also what the Americans are doing now through the Federal bank: we must be willing, up to a certain point, to underfund. That is a way in which to get more liquidity back into the banks.
  The fear of a £40 billion policy of gilt-edged sales next year is a significant factor in the tightness that we find in the market now. Long-range interest rates did not fall at all last week when base rate came down. Long-term interest rates actually marginally hardened, and they are now about 8·5 per cent.
  That point brings me naturally to fiscal policy, the other side of my speech. As I stressed, we should underfund. However, no serious economist of any school believes that we could monetise the whole of next year's prospective deficit. Like others of my hon. Friends, I feel that we must be willing to consider some very unpalatable and painful choices in the medium term. We should plot a path over the medium term of five or six years back to a balanced budget and we should firmly commit ourselves to that path.
  We must be willing to look at some unattractive choices, on both the tax and spending sides. I mention three items on my own shopping list on taxation, none of which would be very painful and each of which should be

  461
  considered. First, we should end the anomaly whereby married couples can opt to have it both ways. Married couples can opt to be taxed separately and to claim the married person's tax allowance. I am all in favour of choice, but it seems wrong that a couple should be allowed to choose to have it both ways when public borrowing is so stretched.
  Secondly, with the welcome measure to abolish car tax—a thoroughly sensible measure to assist a very important industry—it would be reasonable to complete the sensible move towards full fiscal neutrality on cars as a perk. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already gone a long way towards that. He should complete the move in next April's Budget.
  Thirdly, we should abolish the 50 per cent. discount on council tax for second homes, if they are genuinely second homes. There should, of course, be sensible safeguards for those in special circumstances, such as those who have had to move although the sale of their original residence has fallen through.
  One area on the spending side in which I would not suggest further cuts is defence spending. That may come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I make two points. First, in a single decade—from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s—on our present plans we shall have cut defence spending as a proportion of GDP from 5·2 per cent. to 3·2 per cent. Even if the international changes were as rosy as we thought they were when "Options for Change" was launched—I am not convinced that the international outlook is especially rosy—that is still a massive reduction in spending. It is far larger than the planned reduction in manpower. I suggest that further cuts in defence spending beyond our present plans would be unwise.
  Secondly, it is now the defence procurement budget, almost alone of the various areas of Government spending, which directly and immediately reaches forward into manufacturing industry. When companies have short order books in other areas, it is potentially economically costly to cut defence orders. Such a cut could undermine the design bases of the companies involved.
  We must face the fact that there will have to be some cuts on the spending side. I shall mention three areas that we could consider. The first is one aspect of higher education. I am a strong supporter of the increase in opportunity for higher education that we have provided. Participation in higher education has doubled. However, there is waste in one area of higher education. We have an extraordinary system—I do not know of any other country which has such a system—of sending the majority of our students away from home to study on courses, hundreds of miles away in some cases. In most other countries, the majority of people study at their local university., so neither taxpayers nor parents face the cost of accommodating them elsewhere.
  The second area that we should consider is the legal aid budget. I welcome the modest step that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has taken. When I hear some of the howls of outrage, I am reminded of the old adage that hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a principle. The legal aid budget has doubled in four years and a 10 per cent. real increase is planned in each of the next two years, so we should look harder still at it. We should consider reducing the scope of legal aid as well as eligibility on which we have started.
  462
  The third area is spending on local government. We should ask ourselves whether we can justify each of the extra duties imposed on local government over the past few years. Many of them are welcome, but do we really need all of them? Last week, I came across one small example involving £30 million to £40 million a year. How could we have agreed to a new arrangement for the typing of Crown prosecution service documents which will cost an extra £750,000 in Kent alone next year? We must go through the fine print of such arrangements. We must be willing to take every step that we can, in little bits and in larger bits, to get the fiscal deficit down so that we can see a return to a balanced budget within five or six years.
  I end where I came in. In a number of ways, the autumn statement is the package that we need for recovery. We have seen a substantial easing of monetary policy, although I should like to see us go further. We have seen a return to a monitoring range for broad money, and we have seen a number of welcome individual fiscal measures which will help vital industries towards recovery.
  If the Government develop their policy further, we shall see a return to growth—sustainable growth—over the next year or two. It will be non-inflationary growth. We have beaten inflation. It is right that the clear, single objective of non-inflationary growth has been the Government's consistent objective since 1979.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: My speech will be mercifully short because of the weakness of my voice. Autumn may be a season of mists and mellow fruitfulness, but in the House of Commons it is a time of sniffles and hacking coughs. I am no exception.
  I suggest that the autumn statement may be a turning point. Sadly, it is not a turning point in the nation's economic fortunes. As the autumn statement itself shows, the economy is still in profound recession, with rising unemployment, falling investment, and a large and growing balance of payments deficit at a time of recession, which must be very worrying.
  It is, however, I believe, a turning point in the Government's approach to fiscal policy, and here I want to refer to the area about which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was speaking, although perhaps in a rather different way. Many commentators have concentrated on devaluation and the ability to reduce interest rates since we were forced out of the ERM. But of course there is little new about this. All that has happened is that we have returned to the floating world of the 1980s, a world which I thought had very grave disadvantages.
  What is different in the autumn statement is that for the first time since 1979 the Government are overtly using fiscal policy in what can be described as a Keynesian way. Of course, Ministers are denying that this is the case. The Chancellor continues to say, as he said to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, that he does not believe in kick-starting the economy by "some artificial stimulus or device." This new approach has been forced on the Government by the depth of the recession, and of course the measures that the Government have adopted are too little and too late. Even so, most people would see measures such as the £750 million to buy empty houses, the temporary freedom of local authorities to use future

  463
  capital receipts, the capital allowances for industry and the removal of the tax on motor cars as stimuli or devices to assist recovery.
  Anybody who really believes that Tory economic policy is a seamless web, which is the line that is often peddled before our Select Committee, should compare the 1992 autumn statement—which I agree is a sort of mini-Budget—with the Budget of 1981. In the March Budget of that year the Government drastically tightened the fiscal stance even though the economy was in deep recession. The then Prime Minister's economic adviser called it the biggest fiscal squeeze of peacetime. We have been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) what that did to industry.
  The 1992 autumn statement, with its £37 billion public sector borrowing requirement, its automatic stabilizers—I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who was such a good Chairman of our Select Committee, that the automatc stabilisers are fully working—and, of course, the so-called recovery package, modest and inadequate though that is, is totally different in tone and emphasis from what happened in 1981.
  Mr. David Willetts: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that in the circumstances of the 1981 Budget we were looking at inflation of over 10 per cent.? Does he not accept that now, with inflation below 4 per cent. and still falling, it is a very different economic situation?
  Mr. Radice: I agree that it is a different economic situation to this extent: that the recession is deeper, probably, and has lasted much longer. Therefore, it is right that we should be doing something about it.
  Mr. Budgen: Since many hon. Members are concerned about the comparison between 1981 and 1992, there is a further difference. The period before 1981 had been marked by very considerable increases in the money supply and there was no doubt that for quite considerable periods credit had been much too lax. On the other hand, the period before today has been one in which credit has been much too tight.
  Mr. Radice: I do not want to intervene in the grief of the monetarists because I do not really believe in all that stuff, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
  Unfortunately, though it may be different in tone, it is unlikely that this package will be enough to bring about the recovery that we all want. The Chancellor has pointed to interest rate reductions as his main weapon in bringing about recovery, but it will not necessarily do the trick. We have only to look at what has happened in the United States, where interest rates are much lower than they are in the United Kingdom, yet, even so, there is not a full recovery taking place there.
  Anybody who wants to see what has happened to our debt ratio need only turn to chart 3·8 on page 65 of the autumn statement. It really puts the problem in relief, and it is a very severe problem. Lord Lawson, who was, of course, the chief architect of our financial liberalisation, has admitted that he underestimated the impact that it was likely to have, and it has brought this debt problem with it. The question is whether the reduction of interest rates will be enough to stimulate consumer spending. I do not believe that it will and I do not think that we can risk it.
  464
  That is the case for Government action and for a more significant package than the Government have brought to the House in the autumn statement.
  The Government have missed a tremendous opportunity in one area. They should have used all the existing capital receipts so that local authorities could go ahead with investing in useful projects. I believe that the package should be paid for by borrowing at this time. In a slump of this scale and length, the proper reaction is the Keynesian one of deficit Government financing.
  I share, however, the worry about the size of the PSBR; it is £39 billion, I think, in the coming year and it could go up to £50 billion the year after, which would be 7 per cent. of gross domestic product, according to the Grey Book. I agree with my pair, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), that we cannot allow the PSBR to continue at that level for any length of time. We see only too clearly the consequences in the United States not only in inflation but of the fact that, if the PSBR continues at a very high level for a long time, the Government lose their ability to act, their flexibility.
  That is why I agree with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and believe that there is a case for increasing taxes, not necessarily in the next Budget but when the economy is on the path to recovery. We have to use all the weapons at our disposal and it is about time the Conservative party stopped its ideological objections to putting up taxes, even direct taxes, because they may need to do so and they should face up to that.
  Mr. Higgins: The PSBR that the hon. Gentleman is talking about here is the one before the automatic stabilisers have worked through. He needs to place his worries about taxation against the background that we are back in a situation where they have worked. So I do not share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) yesterday about taxation.
  Mr. Radice: The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North wanted it in the next Budget; I do not want it in the next Budget. I want recovery on the way before we start operating. The right hon. Member for Worthing is, of course, right that once there is a recovery that in itself improves the PSBR, because expenditure on unemployment, one hopes, begins to come down and the tax take increases.
  I also believe that there are very considerable problems with Keynesianism in one country, as we saw in France in 1981–83. There is always a danger if one expands one's economy when others are contracting theirs. That is all the more true in the United Kingdom when we have this enormous structural balance of payments deficit. I was very alarmed to see on page 65 of the autumn statement that the Government, or at any rate their forecasters, are predicting a further rise in import penetration. That must be extremely worrying and it suggests, as the Confederation of British Industry has pointed out, that our manufacturing base may now be too small, so that if we start to expand we shall suck in imports from abroad.
  That makes the case for a European-wide programme of infrastructure projects, as suggested by Mr. Jacques Delors, but turned down by the Prime Minister at the Birmingham summit. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a more sensible attitude at the Edinburgh summit. Certainly there is a case for European-wide

  465
  recovery. If we expand alone, our balance of payments deficit could become so large that it would be impossible to finance, and that must be a serious problem.
  The autumn statement shows that old-style monetarism and primitive laissez-faire economics are out, and I am glad about that. There is a new agenda, in the United States and elsewhere, and that new agenda implies a more active role for Governments in economic affairs. In the autumn statement, the Government have moved halfheartedly in that direction. But their heart is not in it and, over the next few years, the country will turn to those who really believe in more purposive government—the genuine article, as represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Although I may not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, I think that we would all agree that his new voice of mellow fruitfulness suits him; we hope to hear it again in the near future.
  The debate to which I have listened over the past two days has been one of contrasts—not least that between Conservative Members' optimism and the considerable gloom and doom of the Opposition. I find it difficult to relate the attitude taken by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to the reaction that I found in my constituency last weekend.
  Some time ago, when I asked Honda and Rover in my constituency what they wanted the Government to do, they told me that it would be helpful if the car tax was abolished. That has happened in two phases, and the necessary legislation is now before the House.
  Given that jobs are at stake in this essential industry, it is surprising that the hon. Member for Peckham should say, disparagingly and somewhat dismissively, that all that the Government had done was to take £400 off the price of an average car. Car workers in my constituency welcome the change because it makes it more likely that they will keep their jobs in future. I should add that, although £400 may not be much to the hon. Lady, an awful lot of people will regard it as the deciding factor in considering whether or not to buy a car. Some Labour Members' suggestions show them to be quite out of touch with reality.
  One or two hon. Members who have spoken have touched on the Government's attempt, which I warmly welcome, to use public sector money to increase private sector investment. That affects a number of areas, the first of which is housing. The Chancellor has told us that—750 million will be made available for the purchase of repossessed houses. I welcome that, because I believe that anything that firms up the housing market must, in the long run, be good for housing. I am sure that I am not alone in knowing of constituents who are holding back from buying a house not because they are frightened because they think they may not have the money to pay the mortgage, but because they think that if they wait another two or three months the price will have fallen; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any measure which firms up the housing market will bring purchasers back into the market and give it the boost that the construction industry and housing in general so badly need.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will talk in detail to the building societies and housing associations. There is a fear that, as the housing market
  466
  recovers, a case may be made in the building societies for repossessing houses which are not being repossessed at present because their equity value is too low. That would totally undermine everything that the Government seek to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that point to the building societies.
  I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was as disturbed as I was to hear suggestions this morning that housing associations would not use the £750 million to buy repossessed houses but would buy new ones. That will not produce the desired effect on the housing market. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the housing associations, through the Housing Corporation, that the Government have provided the money for a particular purpose. If we are to make money available, we must ensure that it is spent in the most effective way.
  I strongly endorse the proposal in the autumn statement to crack open, if not completely abolish, the so-called Ryrie rules. If ever rules prevented public sector finance increasing private sector investment, it was the Ryrie rules. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows, I have campaigned for some time for their removal, so I welcome that change—even though, at the moment, it does not go far enough.
  I was delighted to read the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at column 996 of Hansard:
  "I have asked my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to carry forward and develop our policy in this area, encouraging the private sector to bring forward proposals and to help us identify any obstacle which frustrates its success."—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 996.]
  There is enormous scope for private sector investment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will explore it to the full. Certainly in respect of joint ventures, where the risk can be reasonably shared, there is enormous scope for the Government and the private sector to work together on projects which will earn in future and which, in the end, will show a return not only for the private sector but for the public sector.
  I was interested to hear what the Chancellor said about leasing, which also has great potential—not just leasing on an ordinary rental basis but leasing on hire purchase terms. Some years ago, it was suggsted that prisons, for example, could be built by the private sector and paid for by the Government on an annual basis over, say, 21 years. That project was prevented by the Ryrie rules, which demanded that the total cost was counted in the first year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will explore such projects, in which I see enormous scope.
  If the rules are further relaxed, the private sector can be brought in to provide the investment that we so badly need. I am talking not only about prisons. I hope that my hon. Friend will talk to the construction and engineering industries about projects to build hospitals and colleges, and possibly even to build or repair schools. Such projects could all be handled through the leasing system if it were properly organised. Ultimately, it is for the construction industry itself to produce proposals, but I hope that my hon. Friend will set the scene so that the industry understands its limits and remit and can produce proposals that the Government can accept.
  The autumn statement is about hope and confidence, as the hon. Member for Peckham said, though listening to her speech I had the horrible suspicion that she was keen to avoid any hope or confidence for fear that it would destroy her case on behalf of her party. I hope that I am

  467
  wrong in that suspicion, but I have to say that that was the tenor of her remarks and of those made yesterday by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I have confidence and hope, and I believe that the autumn statement represents the beginning of a new dawn for the British economy.
  6.57 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, especially about the introduction of private capital into public sector services, although I take issue with his remarks about the reaction to the autumn statement.
  When I went to my constituency last weekend, I found that a local creamery was about to close its cheese-making line, with the loss of 250 jobs, that the Inland Revenue was to contract, which may result in the loss of another 200 jobs in the area, and that, instead of spending money on training, the training and enterprise council was to build itself brand new posh offices for senior management, taking another 80 jobs away from my constituency. I suspect that most hon. Members will be able to identify with my constituency experience. If the hon. Gentleman's experience is different, all well and good, but I feel sure that his constituency is not typical.
  We have recently heard the alarming news that 5,000 British Rail employees are to get the chop. That will mean dirtier stations, more vandalism, poorer maintenance and a smaller back-up crew in case of illness. Whatever the Government say about improving our infrastructure, they are doing the opposite. As usual, black is white.
  Last week The Sun contained a good article entitled "The wisdom of lament". There were four photographs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in various poses. The article compared what he said last year in his autumn statement on 6 November with what he said this year. The article says:
  "Last year he said:
  `It has become increasingly clear that we are emerging from recession. Our exporters have performed remarkably well.' Fact: Since last November unemployment is up, while output and business confidence have slumped."
  The Chancellor is also quoted as saying:
  "The monthly rate of increase in unemployment peaked in March and is likely to moderate further in coming months as recovery gets under way."
  But the article says:
  "Fact: The monthly rise was in fact higher in July 1991 and January 1992 also beat the March 'peak'."
  Last year the Chancellor said:
  "Consumer confidence has increased this year and is likely to go on rising as the fear of unemployment begins to abate."
  But the fact is that unemployment rose by 380,000 in the past year to 2·85 million, or 10·1 per cent. of the work force.
  Last year the Chancellor said:
  "We have followed a prudent and cautious monetary policy, whose credibility has been underscored by our commitment to the ERM."
  But the article says:
  "Fact: The pound is in free fall after Lamont blew billions trying unsuccessfully to stay in the ERM."
  That was billions of our money. Those are the facts of the matter. That is why Opposition Members do not believe all the talk about the recession being over and the sun rising in the sky.
  468
  We have been treated to a remarkable litany of rows between our Government and those of other member states of the European Community. It began with the social chapter. We had to negotiate an opt-out purely as a result of the dogma of the Conservative party. We did not endear ourselves to other member states.
  A special provision for Britain on economic and monetary union had to be written into the Maastricht treaty. The Government have always denied that there is any need for harmonisation of excise duties, yet now they are slowly beginning to talk about the problems that will face us on 1 January when it will be legal for citizens of Britain to import cigarettes in quantity and wine in almost unlimited quantities.
  Even Chancellor Kohl had to rebuke the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his interpretation of events leading up to black Wednesday. Today, the French have attacked us for what they say is the aggressiveness, incompetence and selfishness of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his tendentious statements about how the GATT negotiations were conducted.
  Whatever the truth of the matter—I do not say that all the criticisms of the Government are right—the rows, taken in their entirety, show that we are not popular in Europe. As the Chancellor had to take us out of the ERM, against all his policies, he has no credibility with our colleagues in Europe. I do not make any personal attack on him, but he got it wrong, and he should be given another job so that someone else with more credibility can take over the extremely important position of Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Unfortunately, integrity is not a trait of the Government. Members of the Government hang on to office. Black is often white. This afternoon, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the 1·5 per cent. limit on public sector pay rises was not an incomes policy. I guarantee that, if he went out into the street and asked members of the public, they would say that it was an incomes policy. Yet the Government say that it is not, simply because they want to be seen to adhere to their political dogma. They know full well that they cannot, so they act differently but maintain that they are not doing so.
  The Chief Secretary said that building up a good infrastructure was too great a task for the Government alone. That is a clear-cut example of black being white. The House will not need to be reminded that the Government went to extraordinary lengths in section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to ensure that they were prohibited from providing any money for the development of the fast link from London to Folkestone and the channel tunnel.
  Yet the Chief Secretary told us this afternoon that infrastructure is too great a task for the Government alone, and they must bring in private investment. I do not believe the Government, and I have not believed them for many years. In this matter, they have not changed their ways one iota.
  It is true that, after black Wednesday, certain facts dawned on the Government. They realised that one needs a sound economy to back up any political or monetary theory which one may wish to put into practice and on the basis of which one may wish to experiment with the British people.
  The autumn statement contained some changes. Let us take British Rail as an example. Leasing will be allowed. There has been great talk about the Jubilee line, as if it will

  469
  save the whole country from John O'Groats to Lands End. On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday—every day—we are told in press releases that the Government will build the Jubilee line. Great—I have no objection whatever—but is not a policy or a philosophy: it is a tame excuse for the Government's inadequacy and unwillingness to do anything else.
  Why can we not have a fast link between the capital and Heathrow? Why has there been delay and procrastination for years? Other modern capitals in western Europe, such as Frankfurt and Amsterdam, have a fast transport system between their main airport and the city. Yet the British Government refuse to act. Their policy is abject, and our condemnation must be total. Tonight we hear that 5,000 jobs are to go at British Rail. That will make our infrastructure even worse.
  I conclude on a slightly more technical point, but one which demonstrates the inability of the Government to govern the country properly. On 3 November, British Rail issued a press release saying that it intended to sell its consultancy subsidiary, Transmark. It said:
  "Last year Transmark had a turnover of nearly £10m and an operating surplus of £1·1m. Its team of consultants worked on more than 200 projects in 30 countries. The company also carried out work for the BR businesses, for Passenger Transport Executives and for County Councils in the UK."
  British Rail drew upon that subsidiary's expertise and resources. There might have been a book transaction for services rendered between one part of British Rail and another.
  If that subsidiary is sold, British Rail will be forced to go out to private consultants elsewhere: or, if it has financial difficulties, it will not seek the expertise of consultants. It follows as day follows night and night follows day that the quality of decision-making and management at British Rail will deteriorate if Transmark is sold and its services are not available to British Rail as part of its inherent structure.
  Yet the Government, in a triumph of political dogma over common sense, are forcing British Rail to put that small subsidiary on the market and obtain a few measly millions of pounds to reduce the borrowing requirement from perhaps £47 million to £49 million.
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend means "billion".
  Dr. Marek: Yes. But the Government will not save even £1 billion. They will save £0·1 billion or perhaps even £0·01 billion.
  There is a long way to go, and the Government have not learnt much. They are on a learning curve and some things have been done, but they must answer the questions, "Why privatisation? Is it good for the country?" and decide whether there should be a policy change. Is privatisation absolutely necessary for British Rail, since not one expert has backed the Government's plans for the rail system and the Select Committee on Transport has asked the company to delay privatisation for some time?
  I must finish, as I see flashing lights ahead of me. The Government have been listening for once. I commend them for that—they do not often do so—and I hope that they will take some notice of what I have said.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I remind the House that between now and 9 o'clock speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: People who try to protect me from myself often tell me that I ought not to talk so much about interest rates and monetary policy. However, even people who are uninterested in the subject should notice the cost of the most recent—and most fortunate—occasion when we broke out of a great monetary mistake.
  Before and around white Wednesday, the Government lost three times as much money as they hope to save in the public sector pay freeze. They borrowed $10 million in ecus, partly to encourage support for the exchange rate mechanism, and that cost will be increased by the 15 or 16 per cent. devaluation. Then they tried—on their own behalf—to support the pound, which is likely to cost between £1·5 billion and £2 billion, although they say that the amount can never be crystallised. If it could be today, it would be at about £1·5 billion. The Government will receive a large bill from the Bundesbank for the activities that it carried out on their behalf. Many people in the markets think that that bill will also be about£1·5 billion.
  So I shall tell constituents who ask me why I do not ask more questions about the level of public pay or ask for more money for this or that industry that getting monetary policy wrong is expensive. It can be seen to be three times as expensive as the savings made at the expense of public sector employees.
  During our recent history we have made two important monetary mistakes and we may make yet another vast mistake. The first mistake was when Lord Lawson shadowed the deutschmark with the pound between 1986 and 1988. Secondly, it has now become politically correct to remark that it was perhaps a mistake to have such a tight monetary policy between 1990 and white Wednesday. I always know when things become politically correct because my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) enunciates them and he said that it was clear that monetary policy was too tight in our recent history. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) also gave a clear sign that monetary policy was too tight before we came out of the ERM.
  The issue is not merely academic. It is not academic to someone who has a negative equity in their house, or to small business people who have been squeezed into the ground in the past two years. It is not academic to the banks—I understand that it is popular to attack them—because their credit base has been severely eroded as a result of the considerable fall in property values. Having lent so unwisely to big property companies, it is understandable that the banks have to preserve their position at the expense of small borrowers, who are being screwed into the ground. Those are not mere academic mistakes and they could be repeated.
  I take up the argument put so well by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). By way of an aside, he said that he was in favour of fixed exchange rates but that monetary union would never come about. As I pointed out to him, the rougher but more eloquent members of the Tory Whips Office tell recalcitrant Conservative Members that that is why they should vote for Maastricht. They say, "Okay lad, if you say it's a complete mess-up, it will come apart at the seams so you might as well vote for it rather than ruin your career."
  Voting for nonsense is an integral part of the political process, but Maastricht is nonsense which could do a great

  471
  deal of damage before it breaks up. It is important to understand that, under the proposals for monetary union in the Maastricht treaty, it is at least arguable that we are under a legal obligation to return to the ERM and to stage 2 of monetary union. The fact that we could be forced by the European Court back into the ERM and thus into stage 2 after 1 January 1994 has been well argued. If that happens we shall be ruled by German monetary policy, as we were between 1990 and 1992. I am not attacking the Germans: they are perfectly entitled to run their economic policy in the manner that they regard as appropriate to their economy. The people who put us under German surveillance should be attacked and anyone who votes for the Maastricht treaty is likely to submit us to that.
  I have a helpful suggestion. We are fortunate in having an extremely persistent and persuasive barrister, called Martin Howe—I do not know whether he is also learned—who also has the good fortune to be Lord Howe's nephew. He has written some interesting documents which comment on the Maastricht treaty. In one paper, which was recently published by the Centre for Policy Studies, he said that if we ratified the Maastricht treaty and did not go into stage 2 and join the ERM we might find that the court ordered us to do so. Mr. Howe also says of the opt-out, which has been such a source of pride to the Government:
  "The implications of the UK's Treaty obligations would appear to render its position, if opted out of Stage 3 monetary union, quite invidious. The UK would then be obliged by Treaty to seek to maintain a narrow band parity against the ECU block. However, the UK would be excluded from voting on the Governing Council which takes interest rate decisions for the ECU currency. The UK would be obliged to follow ECU interest rates in order to maintain its parity, but would have no say in setting them. This consideration renders the UK 'opt-out' from Stage 3 so unattractive that it must be queried whether its insertion in the Treaty can be regarded as anything more than an attempt at window dressing."
  I assume that he does not want to be hit on the head with a frying pan by Lady Elspeth Howe at Christmas, and so I assume that he must have thought carefully before he said that.
  We need an advisory ruling from the European Court or, at the least, an indication of the view of the Commission towards the whole subject. We do not want to vote for the Maastricht treaty and for monetary union and then find that we are under increasing pressure, to which our leaders may give in, to go back into the ERM and stages 2 and 3. We must make sure that we retain the right to run our monetary policy in the way that is appropriate to the British economy.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I suspect that we shall hear a great deal more of the subject raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, it might be a good idea to apply the 10-minute speaking rule to all stages of the Maastricht Bill.
  Our problem was not that we were in the ERM but that we were in it at an over-valued level. We said in October 1990 that the pound was at far too high a parity. Having settled down at about DM2·40 to the pound, with a 7 per cent. interest rate, it seems now to be at a reasonably sustainable level. People in other EC countries recognised
  472
  way back that a realignment was inevitable, as I discovered when I discussed the matter at length in Brussels in February.
  Developments have occurred in an uncomfortable manner, and the whole issue could have been better arranged. Even so, there appears now to be some basis of stability. Does the Treasury see the autumn statement as contributing towards greater convergence or divergence within the figures that are monitored when considering the likelihood of our re-entering the ERM? In that context, will the Minister comment on the Government's latest thinking about the likelihood of our re-entering the ERM, a subject that must have considerable significance for the economic policies that we should be following?
  The objective of further pressure on inflation, towards which the Government have been working up to now, is no longer necessary and could be dangerous. It is possible for us to live with somewhat higher inflation—of perhaps 4, 4·5 or 5 per cent.—with an interest rate of 7 per cent. We now need more than anything a period of stability. We also need some strategy. We still face the danger of short-termism, which, particularly on the industrial scene, causes much of our difficulty.
  I hope that the autumn statement will lead to greater confidence in industry and that that confidence will be based on stability and a willingness to accept greater risk-taking. That has been missing for a long time. We must ensure stability of demand, stability of interest rates, stability of currency and stability of inflation. I am not yet convinced that those have been achieved, although I have no doubt that the autumn statement reflects a basic change in Government policy.
  It will be interesting to see how that change works through. After all, the requirements to which I referred are needed not simply for manufacturing industry but for housing. In particular, they are needed to encourage risk-taking in housing by private individuals. I also hope that the GATT round problems can be solved. It would be disastrous if the GATT position went wrong.
  I am perturbed about the lack of reference to unemployment in the speeches of Conservative Members. Unemployment must remain an overwhelming worry. Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain with a contribution to make to the economy are denied the opportunity of contributing. It must be part of the Government's strategy to create employment so as to overcome unemployment, and I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will say how the Government expect their employment strategy to work.
  There is also concern about what will be the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry towards regional investment. The figures coming from the autumn statement suggest that there will be a rundown in regional spending, and that may result in our not being able to take full advantage of the resources that may come from the European Community in terms of regional policy, with areas such as Wales and Scotland, and some of England's depressed areas, missing out.
  The Chief Secretary said that the level of public expenditure as a proportion of GNP had dropped from 46 to 40 per cent. It is projected to increase to 45·5 per cent. Despite his intervention, I suggest that the Chief Secretary misled us by suggesting that the effects of privatisation had been totally taken out when formulating the figures.
  I accept that money received from privatisation is not taken into account in the figures, but taxation revenue that

  473
  used to come in to pay for, say, the water services in years gone by, certainly in the early 1980s, is now in the private sector lock, stock and barrel. The industry is no longer part of the public sector. People are now paying water taxes, as it were, and are thereby paying the water companies for what used to be public sector services but which are now private profit-making activities. That must be taken into account.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the water companies had not been able to go out to borrow money, financed by slightly increased charges, taxes would have had to be increased and they would have had to be paid by the very people of whom he is speaking?
  Mr. Wigley: Perhaps, but that should be taken into account in the money that is being spent on public sector or quasi-public sector activities and be part of the overall services that in 1980 were in the public sector.
  I wish to examine the figures applying to Wales, although most of the figures that we need to see the true picture are not available. I hope that the Welsh Office will be forthcoming in providing the figures in due course. I am disturbed by the fact that the figures for 1993–94 show a reduction for the Welsh Office of £50 million compared with the previous plans.
  That is worrying, because the areas that come under the Welsh Office, from the point of view of its activities in Britain as a whole, show increases—agriculture by £590 million; trade and industry by £1,220 million; employment by £170 million; housing by £230 million. All those areas are analogous to Welsh Office responsibilities, but in Wales the total expenditure is to go down by £50 million. In Scotland, expenditure will go up by £70 million and in Northern Ireland by £50 million, but in Wales it will go down by £50 million. We must have an explanation for that, because the implications could be far-reaching.
  The figures for Wales have been fudged by the changes in definition. Expenditure on our university and further education has come through to the Welsh Office, along with additional spending on care in the community arid the effect of the coal closures, which no doubt are being taken into account. We need clarification from the Welsh Office and, once that has been provided and the figures are available, we must have a debate on the implications of the changed Government economic strategy for Wales.
  I press the need for investment programmes in the long term. Those programmes must provide not only financial but social and environmental benefits. For example, I have pressed in the past for house insulation programmes. The implementation of those would save energy costs and, by that means, help disabled and elderly people, who are particularly dependent on energy and spend a large proportion of their budgets on it.
  Proper energy-saving policies would also reduce the demand for energy, and that would have implications for the depletion of energy reserves and the avoidance of large-scale capital spending on unnecessary energy projects. That money could be redirected to hospitals and schools. The provision of energy is labour-intensive, so it could be geared to areas of high unemployment.
  I also press for more capital expenditure on renewable energy sources, in particular on hydro, tide and wind power projects. The post-1998 position applying to the non-fossil fuel obligation must be clarified as soon as
  474
  possible. We must spend more on recycling. Such capital expenditure would bring great revenue and environmental benefits in the longer term. We must spend more on public transport, including the electrification of the railway line to Holyhead and the south Wales line right through Pembrokeshire.
  We have heard that £700 million will be devoted to the purchase of houses. I hope that the Government, and the Welsh Office in particular, will allow part of that money to be used to buy houses that have been used as second homes or holiday homes, many of which are for sale because people cannot afford to retain them. When the market is depressed, there is often a negative equity element in such homes. Those houses can then be used urgently to provide homes for those on waiting lists.
  The cuts taking place in the legal aid scheme are the largest since its introduction 40 years ago. I am concerned not for the well-being of solicitors but because those proposals could hit at least 10 million people who are dependent on legal aid to get justice out of society. If they lose their ability to take their cases to the court and get justice, they will miss out. I hope that that is not the Government's intention.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John Townend: I welcome the recovery package in the autumn statement, because it includes a number of initiatives that my hon. Friends and I have been calling for for some time, particularly to stimulate the housing market and encourage exporters and investment. I welcome it also because it brought an interest rate cut.
  Although the package should bring the confidence that we have been lacking for several months, it would have been better to have it five months sooner. That was not possible because we were locked into the exchange rate mechanism in a straitjacket. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the Chancellor is now on record as saying that, because of those constraints, monetary policy was too tight during the summer. My hon. Friend spoke about the adverse effect that that had.
  I remind those who criticise the Government that both the Labour and Liberal parties supported our membership of the ERM to the bitter end. Now that that debacle is over, I wish that the Government would remove uncertainty and make it clear that we shall not return to the ERM. I am afraid that they will not do so, because of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
  I want the Treasury to reduce interest rates much less frequently but, when they do so, in bigger tranches. Interest rates have fallen by 3 points since white Wednesday. Because they have gone down by one point at a time, there has not been the fillip to confidence that there would have been had they been reduced by 3 points immediately we came out of the ERM, and had we taken the strain off the exchange rate in one go. Nigel Lawson made the same mistake when the economy was overheating. Instead of putting interest rates up by 2·5 per cent. to bring that overheating to a halt, he imposed death by a thousand cuts—two cuts of 0·5 per cent. and one of 1 per cent.
  The subjects of public expenditure and Government debt have exercised my mind ever since I have been in the House. Indeed, I have spoken in every autumn statement

  475
  debate since 1979. As a chartered accountant, my natural instinct is for sound money, control of public expenditure and a balanced budget. However, far too often I have had to chide my Front-Bench colleagues for planning to spend too much or for having spent over their budgets. That failure has resulted in frequent changes in Government spending.
  Way back in 1981 or 1982, I said in a speech in the Chamber that the problem of controlling spending was that we had a system in which everybody demanded what they wanted and every spending Minister put in a bid, inevitably causing upward pressure on expenditure. I said that we should change that system and that the total should be fixed and then divided among spending Ministers, who should be told that that was all they would receive and must do their best with it. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now accepted that suggestion, which has long been forgotten, and have adopted a top-down formula, which will go a long way towards preventing slippage in expenditure plans, particularly in the second and third years of the cycle.
  Owing to the inexorable rise in public spending and the sharp decline in revenues caused by the fact that the recession has been longer and much more severe than anticipated, our public finances are deteriorating significantly. This year, the public sector borrowing requirement will be £37 billlion, probably rising to £44 billion next year. These two years alone will increase interest costs by some £6 billion, which means £6 billion more taxation or £6 billion more expenditure. Naturally, it will cause upward pressure on interest rates and difficulty in funding, which might crowd out private investment.
  I was delighted to hear the Chancellor's commitment to return to a balanced budget, and I strongly supported him when he said that it would be a tough spending round. With our public sector finances in such a state, it could not be tough enough for me this year. I welcome the limit on public sector pay. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago I suggested that there should be a freeze. However, when one looks at the figures in detail, one must ask how tough it has really been. Has the Chancellor really made the spending Ministers' pips squeak? Where is the evidence of blood on the floor? I regret to say that there is not much.
  After allowing for inflation, the planning total will go up by almost 4 per cent. and even the new control total, which excludes the cost of recession, shows an increase in real spending of 2·3 per cent. Considering the fact that public sector wages will be fixed at 1·5 per cent., the real increase in programmes is considerably more than 2·3 per cent. That is hardly a tough spending round when our budget deficit is soaring.
  If one looks at individual departmental budgets, one would think that those Departments with a high labour content—Education and Health—would show a reduction but, even with the pay freeze, the education budget will go up by 3·6 per cent. and the health budget by 1 per cent. in real terms. Clearly, the money that we are saving in public sector pay restraints will not reduce the budget deficit but will increase programmes. I just hope that the Minister can convince me that that increase will go into capital projects, but I do not believe it will.
  Overseas development will go up by £100 million this year. When we have large balance of payments and budget
  476
  deficits, is it sensible to spend £2 billion a year in that way? We are borrowing from foreigners whom we have to pay back with interest to give to foreigners. We could easily have cut £500 million off that budget, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider doing so next year. That would leave us plenty of money for famine aid, disaster aid and other such relief.
  I am delighted that, at long last, the outdated Barnett formula for Scotland and Wales, which gave those countries an excessive share of our public expenditure, has been abolished as regards future increases. It was a difficult nettle to grasp, but I congratulate the Government on doing so. However, they have not dealt with the backlog of the past 20 years whereby in Scotland expenditure per head of population on education is 36 per cent. higher than in England, and on health is some 29 per cent. higher. It is higher than in the north of England, which is not the most prosperous area. Next year, the Chief Secretary should look at redressing the balance of the past 20 years. Expenditure in the other countries of the Union should be fixed until the expenditure per head in England has reached the same level.
  I accept that the plans for years two and three are slightly tougher. I do not understand why we should start increasing expenditure again in 1995–96. The test will be whether the figures for the next two years will stick. Even if they do, I do not believe that we shall have done enough to reduce the PSBR. If we are to have a strong free market economy, we must bring spending down to below 40 per cent. and balance the budget.
  The autumn statement takes us in the right direction but does not go far enough. If we are to deal with the serious problem of the budget deficit, we need another assault on spending next year; otherwise, we must face the unacceptable alternative of increasing taxation. If the Government are in any doubt about which course they should take, I remind them that the pubic elected us because they believed that we would not put up taxes and that the Opposition would. If my right hon. Friends need any help in deciding, I suggest that they look at what happened to George Bush.
  The autumn statement sets out a coherent economic policy for recovery. Anyone who believes that it will not be a long haul is fooling himself. We face the serious problem of a double deficit: a budget deficit and a balance of trade deficit. This country is living beyond its means. This year is the first of what will have to be a number of years of financial stringency if we are to reduce those enormous deficits.
  I hope that all Cabinet members have the stomach for the fight. Conservative Members will support them, because what is at stake is the creation of a strong and successful economy. If Cabinet members falter, they should realise that we are behind them and will not hesitate to give them a friendly push.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) welcomed the public sector pay restrictions and said that they could not be too tough for him. I wonder why it is that hon. Members with safe jobs and regular incomes are able to call for sacrifices from those who are low paid. Why is it that the call for belt tightening is always directed at the working people of Britain? It always seems that the people

  477
  who are the greatest scrooges when it comes to public sector spending and pay for the low-paid workers become the biggest Santas when it comes to giving tax cuts to millionaire fat cats.
  In as much as the autumn statement gives the Government a policy where for two months there was only a vacuum, it is to be welcomed, but the statement will not bring recovery or tackle the fundamental problems of British industry. I also suspect that it will not restore to British industry the long-term confidence that it needs. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister cannot bring confidence because no one can guarantee what their policy will be next week. Indeed, there have been so many U-turns, S-bends and policy gymnastics from the Chancellor that I wonder whether his parents, too, were circus acrobats.
  The new economic strategy has been forced on a Government who have appeared out of control and very much at the mercy of events. Many of the more sensible U-turns in the autumn statement—for example, capital allowances—have been forced on a reluctant Chancellor. Now that the Chancellor has lost most of his totems—from the exchange rate mechanism to M3—we have to rely on his judgment to guide our economic policy.
  The quality of the Chancellor's judgment will not, however, inspire confidence in British industry. After all, he is the Chancellor who said no to devaluation, no to leaving the ERM, no to a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £35 billion and no to necessary interest rate cuts in the months up to September, on the basis that we needed to stay in the ERM. The Chancellor's judgment is unsound. He is in partnership with a Prime Minister who was responsible, when he was Chancellor, for guiding the economy into the ERM at too high an exchange rate—also not a man of good judgment. Industry knows that the Government's judgment is unsound, which is why confidence will be slow to return and recovery will not come easily.
  The unemployed know only too well that few of them will find jobs as a result of the autumn statement and that many more people will lose their jobs. The two years since the Prime Minister took office have seen unemployment rise by 71 per cent. or 1·2 million people. During that time, the number chasing each job vacancy has risen from 11 to 30. Can Ministers understand the dispiriting desperation of a family man looking for a job when he knows that he has to compete with 29 other people for that job? The number of young people out of work has risen by 323,000. The number of lost manufacturing jobs has risen by 541,000.
  In my constituency of Warwickshire, North the jobless total has more than doubled, from 2,070 to 4,632. Some 587 miners at the Daw Mill pit were told just a few weeks ago that they were about to be made redundant. They have been saved until now only by the review in the coal industry.
  The taxpayer pays an average of £9,000 per year—in extra benefits and tax lost—for every person out of work. It has cost my constituents £41·7 million—or more than £560 per voter—to maintain the Prime Minister's high unemployment policies.
  After 14 years of Thatcherite policies, the long-term Government policy of individual tax cuts and deregulation of industry has resulted in escalating unemployment, a manufacturing trade deficit, cuts in public services, lack of confidence in the Government, and dismay among the
  478
  British people such as I have never experienced before. There is a desperation among the people that the Government are incapable of finding a solution and are just plain unlucky. People feel that the Government do not know what they are doing and are a bunch of amateurs.
  The Government's stated overall long-term aim of further tax cuts and deregulation will only make matters worse, as the price of doing so will be the Government's failure to provide the necessary infrastructure. In pursuit of their ideological objectives, the Government have succeeded only in damaging the economy.
  The basic Tory philosophy of government is at fault. For too long public policy has been solely geared to the myth that Britain's future hangs on helping the mini-entrepreneur, the little man in the garden shed. The aim has been to reduce individual taxation and force self-reliance. However, as Robert Reich, economic adviser to President-elect Clinton, has said, in the age of new technology a nation's economic progress depends not so much on individual entrepreneurs as on collective entrepreneurial talent. It does not depend on little men in garden sheds, but on research scientists in well-funded universities developing advanced conductors, on systems analysts devising new software for international companies and on designers applying new technology to consumer requirements.
  For the collective entrepreneur, taxation and tax cuts are peripheral, and a policy of tax cuts is peripheral to the future prosperity of Britain. Good education, a highly skilled work force and an effective infrastructure are essential, as is a Government working in partnership with British industry.
  Japan, Germany, Austria, Taiwan and other countries with successful economies long ago learnt the lesson that the collective entrepreneur, not the mythical individual, is the steam engine of change in the economy. They have recognised the interdependence of the components of the modern economy, including that of Government spending. They know that tax cuts are inefficient if they restrict increased spending on universities, transport and infrastructure.
  It is clear that this hands-off Government have produced not more prosperity, but market instability and long-term decline. The ideology of less government has produced less public transport and less education, and less of many of the factors necessary to an economy. The free market has its place, but the hidden hand of the market is not enough. The failure of Thatcherism over the past decade has made that clear. As other economies have found, the hidden hand needs a helping hand—not an interfering hand, but a guiding hand. Governments, through intervention and a clear sense of direction, can be that guiding hand.
  The Government have spent 14 years saying that they cannot do much except create a low inflation, low tax regime. Clearly, that policy has failed and we need a Government who are prepared to intervene and work in partnership with industry to end the abdication of responsibility which persisted through all those years of Thatcherism. The Chancellor and other Ministers have spent so long saying that they cannot intervene that now no one has any confidence that they could do so even if they wanted to.
  The one nostrum that the Government now believe in is that low inflation is, of itself, a prerequisite to recovery. That is one of the few totems left to them after the death

  479
  of M3 and M1, shadowing the deutschmark and the ERM. However, the intellectual gap in the argument is that our industrial base has been undermined in pursuit of that objective. Industry is now in fundamental trouble. The idea that low inflation of itself will somehow lead to recovery does not make sense. We need a motivating factor and a full-blown Keynesian recovery package if we are to get genuine recovery. Low inflation can only be part of that package. It is the overall package of policies that will bring recovery, and it is the inadequacies of the rest of the package in the autumn statement that will ensure that recovery is still a long time away.
  This autumn statement is bad for my constituents, bad for the unemployed and bad for the industry in my constituency. It is also bad for the Conservatives in my constituency. Warwickshire is a Conservative-capped county council and a Conservative council; I would expect the Government to defend it, but I heard this week—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Bellingham.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) made an eloquent speech, but he wrote it before he heard the autumn statement. He has asked for a package for recovery, including some intervention, and that is exactly what the statement contained. The response to it from builders and people connected with construction and housing in my constituency has been one of pleasure. Small businesses are very pleased; medium-sized businesses are extremely pleased, because they know that there will be a definite boost for construction and housing. They are particularly pleased that certain crucial infrastructure projects will be preserved and boosted. They are also pleased about the preservation of some of the defence procurement projects.
  A number of extremely important road schemes are in the pipeline for my constituency. One of them is dualling on the A47, just west of King's Lynn. We hope that it will come on stream soon. There is also the crucial flyover at the Hardwick roundabout outside King's Lynn—a notorious bottleneck. The flyover should be built in the near future. This is why my constituents and many other people in west Norfolk are extremely pleased that the Government are getting their act together.
  I also welcome the 1 per cent. cut in the base rate. I only hope that it will be passed on to customers by the banks. The banks have begun to learn that base rate reductions must be passed on. I received a letter the other day from a small business man in my constituency. He was complaining not about the base rate that he was being charged but about the arrangement fees—£1,500 for a new overdraft, a staggering sum. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell the banks to be more sympathetic to small businesses.
  Recovery is all about confidence, which until now has proved elusive. It will start to return, however. Many people have been worried about their jobs and worried because they have detected that the Government have been locked into a system of limitations that has reduced their room for manoeuvre. I believe that the autumn statement can present a new way forward which will help to generate confidence, particularly among the crucial people who will
  480
  start moving house or improving their homes and spending more in the shops. That in turn will have a knock-on effect throughout the economy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Warwickshire, North all mentioned the ERM, although the hon. Member for Caernarfon was a good deal kinder about it than was my hon. Friend. I am extremely pleased that we are not tied into what is going on in the German economy any more. I think of it this way: we went into the rottweiler's kennel and we did not get just scratched and nipped—we had a limb bitten off and we came out of the kennel severely mauled. I hope to goodness that we will not go back into that kennel for a long time to come.
  I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said the other day that it is not our policy to go back into the ERM tomorrow or the next day but that we will take stock of the situation and take a decision some time in the future. He has also made it clear that the decision will not be influenced or constricted by the fact that we ratify the Maastricht treaty. The Prime Minister is an honourable man, and I prefer his view on the subject to that of my old friend—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No, because of the 10-minute rule. I was referring to my old friend the former Chancellor's nephew. I spent some years of my life in a part of the Fens renowned for its spires and gargoyles, and I had many a happy evening with the former Chancellor's nephew. He is sound on many points and a first-class barrister—I practised with him for a while—but on this issue his interpretation is over-sentimental and unduly restrictive. I prefer the Prime Minister's view to that of Martin Howe.
  I welcome this package, but I am still worried about home owners in my constituency and about those trapped in mortgage equity debt. A home owner told me the other day that he had bought a house for a considerable amount of money and then seen its value drop. His fiancée had left him, he had lost his bonuses at work and he was in dire straits. He had thrown the keys back at the building society thinking that everything would be all right, but he came to my surgery having received a letter from the building society asking what was to happen to the £20,000 that my constituent owed it—he did not understand that the money was his liability.
  I ask the Financial Secretary to consider carefully what it would cost to give tax relief to constituents like mine who have lost huge sums of money when their houses have been repossessed. May we have the figure? I urge my hon. Friend also to consider a scheme to encourage mortgage insurance. Many people do not insure their mortgages, but they could. It would make life a lot easier for budding home owners if they knew that they could get tax relief under a mortgage insurance scheme.
  Many hon. Members have been selling Britain short, but I do not think that we should. We must try to build up confidence, which is what my constituents need. Small business men who are determined to get going and medium-sized businesses that want to invest—they all need confidence. We have heard a great deal about the decline of British manufacturing, but the figures do not add up to the gloomy totals that the right hon. Member for

  481
  Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) proposed. Twenty-seven of the top 50 European companies are British. The other day The Economist carried out a survey which discovered that 13 of the top 30 medium to small-sized firms in the world were British. Statistics from America the other day, published in "Week's 5th Global 1,000" showed that 110 of those 1,000 companies were British. It is time we stopped selling ourselves short.
  I do not often listen to Radio 4 in the morning, but the other day I tuned in to "Thought for the Day" at the absurdly early hour of 7.50 am. A bishop was speaking and he quoted a remark that I think came from the Bible. He was not asking to avoid trouble, turmoil and tumour; all he was asking for was to overcome, not to be overcome. I hope that the Chancellor will overcome. This autumn statement is a step in the right direction, and I shall back it wholeheartedly.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: It strikes me that much of the reaction to the autumn statement derived not so much from what was in it but from what was not in it. Many of the plaudits that it earned were a result of briefings emanating from Ministers and their officials before the statement, suggesting that there would be tax increases, cuts in benefits, measures to send people who rely on disability support reeling, and so on. They also suggested that, against the wishes of those who have campaigned for so long to increase overseas aid from this country, it would be cut.
  After all these behind-the-scenes briefings, reported in the newspapers, we were meant to cheer—Conservative Members did—because these terrible things had not come to pass. It was not a particularly original political trick, nor did it produce an autumn statement that will start to turn around our economic problems. That is the other respect in which the statement was remarkable not for what it contained but for what it did not.
  Much of the autumn statement is welcome. We argued for many of its measures a considerable time ago. Those who have lost their job in the meantime might well be looking for an apology from Ministers, not just a U-turn. However, its measures go nowhere near far enough to turn the economy round. The job losses and business failures that followed the previous Budget and autumn statement when Ministers made similar predictions prove the point. The action being taken now is too little, too late, a phrase which has been used a lot about the autumn statement.
  That the action is too late can hardly be denied by Conservative Members, let alone by the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is self-evidently too late to be taking investment measures—which were advocated so many months ago—for all those people who have lost their jobs and for all those businesses that have gone bankrupt in the meantime, waiting for precisely the kind of U-turn that the Government now claim to have made.
  But the action is too little as well. A few weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I led a delegation of people from Cornwall to Downing street. It was not party political. It was composed not of party politicians but of representatives of a cross-section of businesses, jobs and political viewpoints in Cornwall. It included an architect, a farmer, a
  482
  postmaster, a builder, an hotelier and others who once worked but are now unemployed, who once ran businesses but are now unemployed.
  Those involved in the delegation were united, not by a political ideology but by a belief in their county and in their ability to put things right for themselves if only they are given a fair wind and the necessary support from the Government. Each member of the delegation wrote to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor outlining the problems in their own sector of the economy. That presentation, "Cornwall's charter for jobs", concluded:
  "We now ask this Government to recognise the difficulties we are facing. Most are not of our own making. They have been created by national policies that have treated Cornwall, its people and communities harshly. Our wish is for the Government to behave as any business and employer must: we ask it to become pro-active. We ask it to remove the obstacles to Cornwall's success. We ask it to provide its people with the tools it needs to create jobs for its jobless, and a future for its children."
  Those sentiments would be echoed by people throughout Britain, particularly in the rural, so-called peripheral, areas that have been particularly disadvantaged by so many of the Government's policies.
  Along with millions of people in Britain, people in my part of the world are suffering from the devastation of the economy that the recession has wrought. In Cornwall, male unemployment is approaching 20 per cent. Business failures in the south-west are up 40 per cent. this year on last year. High street banks are closing and tourism, fishing and farming are suffering terribly, too.
  I do not ask merely for expenditure; there are other things that the Government can do. One is to tackle the problems within the banks, not merely the lack of interest rate cuts, but, even more significantly, the way in which the banks treat so many small businesses. I campaigned at the general election, as did my colleagues, for a banking charter. The Government have done nothing to make the banks establish a proper contractual relationship with small businesses that would ensure that when the banks sting their fingers abroad and with big businesses, it is not local small business men who are asked to pay the price.
  The cut in interest rates is welcome, but promises of a new economic strategy raised hopes of much more. In many areas such as my own, businesses need a reduction in the uniform business rate, a fully funded development agency and assisted area status to aid investment. Instead, in the longest recession since the 1930s, the Government are proposing to review assisted area status, reducing the area of the country that is eligible for help from 35 per cent. to around 30 per cent. That will cut off the blood supply, the lifeline, for so many more businesses.
  More generous investment in the infrastructure would have put our builders, plumbers and electricians back to work on projects for the future. To suggest that future capital receipts will be released for that is a some time, one time, maybe never, kind of promise. Cornwall has money from its capital sales, particularly the council house sales. We have people who are now jobless with the skills to build homes. We have one of the worst problems of homelessness in the country. All we need is the political will from the Government to release even a proportion of those funds for the investment that is needed, but that political will is still not there.
  Our businesses face further threats of continued high water rates, higher electricity charges because of the distance from generating stations, the possible termination

  483
  of inter-city rail services at Plymouth and Exeter. Time and again, we have to put up with Conservative Members in the south-west and elsewhere complaining about the effects of the very policies for which they voted in the first place. They have shed crocodile tears about electricity price increases, when they voted for the system that has led to those increases; about water rate increases, when they voted for the system that led to those increases; and about rate increases, when they voted for the system that created those increases. Worst of all, they have had meetings with Prime Ministers and Ministers when they hold in their own hands, through their votes, the chance to change Government policy and to defeat Government policy merely by coming together and exercising the power that they have—crocodile tears indeed.
  To those Ministers and other Conservative Members who may be worried about taking such a wide turn away from past policies I say that half a Keynesian is better than no Keynesian, but full-hearted policies are what our county and country need.
  The British public are forgiving of people who make U-turns. They know that if one drives down the wrong road, the most sensible action is to turn round at the earliest moment and find the right route. They ask only two things—first, an apology for the mistake and, secondly, that there is some indication that, having turned round, the Government know where they are going. For a start, it is better to go back up the road one has come down than to drive off into the fields or woodlands on either side where one is only likely to become bogged down and in a worse situation than when one started.
  One area that is being attacked because the Government believe that they must tackle spending in some small way is legal aid. The legal aid changes are designed to save money for the Government, but they will make no great difference to our general economic problems or fortunes. However, they will make an enormous difference to those individuals who can no longer obtain the legal help that they would once have had.
  Millions who were once eligible for legal aid have already been taken out of it. The Government say that legal aid costs have increased, but that is because of the complexity of cases, not because more people are eligible for it; fewer are eligible for it.
  The Government should be tackling the legal system, not the legal aid. They should be seeking to create simpler routes by which people can obtain the genuine redress to which they should be entitled in our modern society. The Government are tackling the symptom, not the cause, and millions of people, many of them those hit hardest by the recession, will suffer as a result.
  Those changes could have been included in the autumn statement. They could have been made. I fear that the Government have realised their mistakes and pulled into the field only to find themselves bogged down. I fear that unemployment will continue to increase this autumn—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Douglas French.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I have no hesitation in welcoming the autumn statement as a reasonable formula to provide a short-term way out of our current economic problems, but I have the greatest difficulty in
  484
  being persuaded that it was the logical next step in a long-term policy strategy. We must consider carefully what our long-term aim for the economy is.
  Like other hon. Members, I remain extremely uneasy about the planned level of public borrowing. In the 1991 autumn statement, borrowing was set at £19 billion; by the time of the 1992 Budget, it was at £28 billion. We are now told that it will be £37 billion in 1992–93—about twice the original estimate. The forecast for 1993–94 puts it at £44 billion. I cannot help fearing that it is heading inexorably towards £50 billion, which would be 8 per cent. of gross domestic product and would take us back into IMF territory. We must avoid that at all costs.
  Some forecasts—even those of reputable City analysts —now suggest that the figure may reach £65 billion in 1994. Goldman Sachs, using a 1·5 per cent. growth projection, puts it at £80 billion. If such figures are really being contemplated, they are much too high. As we know, a burden of debt must be serviced. In the past 10 years we have made impressive progress in reducing debt servicing; we do not want to make a deliberate decision to return to it now.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that we had managed to cut the debt-servicing burden by £10 billion. It seems, however, that we are now set on moving in the opposite direction. We had a hard lesson to learn, and I am disturbed by the possibility that we shall have to learn it again.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the 1981 Budget. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that the situation in 1981 was different from the present situation, but there is some common ground. The public borrowing level was then far too high. I well remember the difficulty experienced by the then Chancellor—not his nephew—in trying to decide how to handle the deficit. He had to make the difficult decision to raise taxes—not a welcome decision, given that the 1979 general election had been fought on a platform which preached the virtues of a low-tax economy, but a decision that had to be made to reduce public borrowing. Within a short time, things were moving reliably in the right direction.
  Although I am a great advocate of low-tax regimes, if I had to choose between borrowing moving out of control and increasing taxation, I would reluctantly choose to increase taxation. One of the worst courses is to pretend that tax increases may not be necessary, before eventually finding that they have to be imposed after all.
  What worries me particularly about the present circumstances is the speculation now rife in the press that taxes will have to rise in the next Budget. Such speculation is most unhelpful and pulls us in exactly the opposite direction from the one in which we should be moving. If the aim is to create confidence, the chances of creating it will be undermined when people start worrying about facing tax increases before long. The prospect of an increase in indirect taxation—in VAT, for example—may conceivably have a beneficial effect in bringing forward a purchase, but it will result in a vacuum later. Threats of income tax increases cause people to worry about their household budgets and are likely to prevent the renewed confidence that the rest of the strategy seeks to promote.
  It is very unwise to let it be known that taxes are likely to rise or, indeed, to set out a package in which the arithmetic points inescapably in that direction. If tax

  485
  increases are eventually to he necessary, the longer they are delayed the more damage there will be. More debts are incurred, more uncertainty is caused, confidence is undermined, and the economy remains further away from where we want it to be.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) mentioned the change in Budget timetables. I think that mini-Budgets should be avoided wherever possible. They do not help the continuity of policy, they do not increase confidence, and they do not provide the reliable framework that businesses need. If judgments are sound at the time when a Budget is made, they ought to remain in place for at least a year.
  I welcome the bringing together of the income and expenditure statements, but I view with dismay the prospect of another Budget in March and a further one in December. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to two Budgets in a year; in fact, there will be three in a little over a year. That is unnecessary, and almost certain to undermine confidence.
  I am also not in favour of time-limited incentives. I thought that we had learnt our lesson when Lord Lawson ended the system of dual mortgages on single properties, and in doing so caused no end of trouble. We then tested the market with a temporary moratorium on stamp duty, which had absolutely no effect. Now we have a 40 per cent. capital investment allowance, which is apparently to end towards the end of 1993. Trying to concertina people into making decisions in such a limited time is likely to undermine the quality of the decisions made. I firmly oppose time-limited incentives as they merely distort markets and increase speculation.
  I accept that some of the measures in the autumn statement were necessary because the recession was so deep, but I suspect that some would not have been necessary if interest rates had come down earlier. Here I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). The policy of dribbling the rate down one percentage point at a time strikes me as being open to considerable doubt. The single percentage point was invariably heavily trailed, discounted in advance and implemented in a diffident fashion, with an obvious fear of the exchange rate consequences.
  At no time did it look as though that would be the end of the matter. It always looked as though there might be a further instalment, and the reduction was frequently accompanied by a warning that in the event of adverse consequences the rate would have to rise again. It never looked to business men as though rates were set to remain at a particular level for any length of time; the old enemy, uncertainty, was a constant factor.
  It is hardly surprising that in such circumstances a business man should defer decision making, and hardly surprising that it should be concluded that low interest rates alone were not enough to get his business moving and to move us out of recession. It was clear that a further raft of measures would be needed.
  From the point of view of the international capital markets, it is clear that capital movements are influenced by comparative interest rates, but interest rate levels are only one indicator of the health of the economy.
  Capital, after all, seeks out currencies in anticipation of potential movement in their capital value. That is bound to be a reflection of international judgment of the underlying health of the economy involved. Capital likes to move into a currency when, on a balance of probabilities, it is likely
  486
  to be at its lowest and ready to move up; strong currencies are those that markets expect to move up, and weak ones are those that they expect to move down.
  That perception could better have been created if at some stage in the downward spiral a reduction of two percentage points had been made. It could have been done without adverse exchange rate consequences. I very much regret that the Chancellor did not choose to make that reduction. Had he done so at the right time, I believe that much of this package of measures would have been unnecessary.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: Last Thursday Conservative Members waved their Order Papers after the Chancellor's speech. The same Members waved their Order Papers after the Budget statement earlier this year. The difference is that in his Budget statement the Chancellor forecast that growth would be 1 per cent. this year, but in his autumn statement he forecast a 1 per cent. reduction in growth. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor forecast a current account deficit of £6·5 billion, but he is now talking about £12 billion. In his Budget statement, the public sector borrowing requirement was to be £28 billion, but it is now forecast to be £37 billion. With that forecasting record, one has very real doubts about whether the forecast for next year of 1 per cent. growth is right. If it is not, the economy will continue to decline.
  It is not just the figures that have changed. The words have changed, too. Last spring, unemployment was still "the price worth paying" for reducing inflation. Now the accent appears to be on growth, jobs and dealing with unemployment. Even borrowing is no longer a dirty word on the Conservative Benches. It hardly could be, given the amount of Government borrowing.
  When one looks at the details of the autumn statement, which we have had the opportunity to do since last Thursday, one finds that they contain no coherent or effective plan of action to deal with the depths of the recession and depression that the Government have created. There is no effective plan of action to create the jobs that people require.
  We find that there is no new money in the autumn statement, but if we are to create jobs we shall have to spend money. The Government are constrained by their own problems with the public sector borrowing requirement—a self-inflicted problem. The Opposition support a major expansion of investment in the infrastructure. We make no apology for saying that the public sector has to be the motor for recovery. Of course we want investment in the private sector, but, at a time when confidence in the private sector is so low, the public sector has to be the catalyst to get the private sector going. That may demand, in the short term, a further increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, but if it is properly managed it will generate the revenues that are necessary to pay for it in the medium term.
  Before the Government accuse the Opposition of wanting to increase the PSBR, I should like them to explain how they calculated the autumn statement figures relating to public expenditure and the PSBR. Why do the Government believe that they are the right figures to deal with our present economic problems? The figures for public expenditure have all the signs of having been

  487
  decided before the Government made their U-turn, to some extent, and of the Government not having altered them in the light of the circumstances that we now face.
  As well as there being no overall increase in expenditure, most of the schemes put forward are not new, either. The Government have highlighted certain key projects, but in the last few months there were suggestions that they would be cut. The Government now claim a victory and a boost for recovery, simply by maintaining schemes that were already in the programme.
  The Government admitted to some cuts last Thursday —cuts in legal aid and invalidity benefit, which I deplore. Since last Thursday, however, we have found hidden cuts that were not declared. There is to be a cut in the urban programme, which represents the expenditure of money that is targeted directly on the most deprived areas of the country. The Government have placed particular emphasis during the past few years on spending to help to generate economic activity in the most deprived communities—in particular, expenditure on infrastructure projects. The end of the urban programme will affect people who have the least change of getting jobs and will increase unemployment where it is already at the highest level. That cut ought to have been explained openly to the House. It is a disgrace that it was not.
  When we hear about local government expenditure proposals next week, we shall no doubt find that there are further hidden cuts. Every local authority—not just Labour local authorities—is talking about the jobs it will have to shed next year and the people it will have to get rid of. It is yet another aspect of the autumn statement that will lead to increased unemployment, not to more jobs.
  On the question of public sector pay, we were told this afternoon that this is simply a matter of employers dealing with the employment costs of their workers. That is an incredibly narrow view for the Government to adopt. They are an employer, but they are also supposed to be managing the economy. If we take spending power away —for that is what reduced wages mean—from the poorest in our community, we shall reduce demand in the economy. That, in turn, will create job losses in other sectors of the economy. This is yet another measure which will have a depressing effect on jobs in general.
  Where the Government have acted, they have acted insufficiently. Why did they not let local authorities spend the housing capital receipts that they now hold? My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) well illustrated the problems that local authorities will face in trying to sell assets in a depressed market. Why force local authorities to do that when they already hold sufficient resources? New homes are needed. Houses and schools need to be repaired. Expenditure on housing repairs could be put into effect very quickly. The need is there; the money is there; and the private sector has the capacity to carry out the work. Why will the Government not put the money held by local authorities to work in the private sector and therefore meet the needs of local communities? It would be a simple matter for the Government to do that.
  It is worse than that, however. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to adjusting the capital control totals of local authorities. I have an awful feeling that when local authorities are told how much their capital allocations are to be, they will find that part of the miserable amount of
  488
  extra money that they received through the capital receipts initiative will be clawed back by means of a reduction in the credit that they are allowed to have in the next financial year. The effect of the measure, therefore, will be even less than the Government pretend.
  I welcome the reduction in interest rates and the relaxation of the ridiculous rule that prevented private sector capital expenditure in the public sector. That rule is nonsense. We ought to get rid of it. However, the Government will not face up to the fact that the lack of confidence in the private sector means that these measures will have little impact. We can reduce the cost of money to as low a level as we want, but if the private sector does not feel that the risk of investment is worth taking, investment will not occur. That is the problem that the Government face. The reduction of interest rates by 3 per cent. in the United States has not stimulated much investment in the private sector. That is why a major public sector thrust is needed.
  The autumn statement contains no reference to European-wide initiatives. We have the presidency of the European Community for six months. What a wasted presidency it has been. The Government refused to put European economic recovery on the agenda. By doing so, they have failed not only the British people but all the people in the European Community. They should be ashamed of themselves.
  There is a medium-term problem for the housing market. We have heard a great deal about the immediate crisis that faces the housing market. In real terms, house prices are falling. Money is relatively cheap. People are using their savings to reduce indebtedness. Building societies are not lending much money. No new houses are therefore being built. If confidence returns in two or three years' time, it will amount to a potentially lethal mixture that will lead to another massive increase in house prices.
  The autumn statement will do nothing to get the economy moving. There is no coherent strategy, beyond the immediate survival of the Government. There is no new money. There are few genuinely new schemes. There are hidden cuts and missed opportunities. There is no European perspective. The package is long on rhetoric but short on any real strategy to assist the unemployed and to create the climate for economic success. It is a missed opportunity for the Government, but, more importantly, it is a missed opportunity for the country.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I should like to give a wholehearted welcome to the autumn statement. I should have liked to give it a fulsome welcome, but, with the constraints of the 10-minute rule, suffice it to say that with the lowest interest rates and tax rates in Europe we now have the basis to rebuild consumer confidence, which is crucial. We hear so much talk about investment as though it were virtuous and consumption was somehow naughty. The only reason for investment is that there is already consumer demand, which the investment is aimed at meeting. I have no hesitation in emphasising the elements of the Budget that will encourage consumers to spend more.
  The figure for lending in October was £5·1 billion—the highest since November 1990. That is one small sign that perhaps consumers are feeling more optimistic about the future. It was an encouraging indicator.

  489
  I know that many people in the Treasury still have at the back of their minds the terrible warning of 1972, when we left the previous attempt at a fixed exchange-rate link with the continent of Europe. It was the basis on which the Barber boom subsequently took off. We allowed borrowing to rise out of control and eventually suffered the inflationary consequences.
  Although I welcome the cuts in interest rates, I hope that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will be able to make it absolutely clear that, if there is any prospect of inflation rising above the target range, and particularly if the growth of M0 and M4 are rising towards the top of their target range, they will have no hesitation in increasing interest rates. The only thing that would be worse than the recession of the past two years is if it were to be followed by the same mistakes as happened during the Barber boom.
  I want to dwell briefly on one exciting element of the autumn statement—the proposals on private finance for public projects. I welcome the special responsibility that the Financial Secretary is being given to carry that initiative forward. I am sure that he well knows that there is a history of Treasury teasing on the subject.
  We have been told before that liberalisation of the rules on private finance for public projects is to take place. Ingenious schemes are proposed by merchant banks and construction companies for building and operating prisons, roads or hospitals, but the Treasury says, "'This is all very interesting and is a good idea, but, of course, it would be cheaper if it were carried out in the public sector, with borrowing at gilt rates"—and, sadly, we decide not to carry them forward. According to that argument, we would nationalise ICI to reduce the cost of borrowing to finance investment. I hope that this time around the changes are serious.
  I have noted in particular how the stress has been put on private sector road building and toll roads. Of course I welcome interesting innovations, but the significant feature of the roads example is that there is a private stream of revenue that the firm operating the road can enjoy. The significant challenge or test for the Treasury is whether it is prepared to bring private finance into schemes where services will be sold to the public sector.
  I am rather troubled to see that such schemes are described by the Treasury in the autumn statement as leasing arrangements. I regard leasing as financial engineering to get around a public expenditure constraint. I would not support leasing fiddles where something impossible under normal public expenditure disciplines was allowed simply because of a change in the financial structure. That is not what we are looking for. We are looking for Treasury recognition that, if the private sector is free to build and operate a private prison or hospital and sell its services on a long-term contract to the public sector, that arrangement may release new ideas for better management, use of labour and maintenance of capital and achieve improvements that, sadly, have not been realised in the public sector.
  Hitherto, Departments have not registered the fact that, if the public sector is to run a hospital in a different way—possibly by saving staff or using them differently —it wants to be able to design the hospital so that the physical plan matches the way in which it wishes to use staff. In other words, if I may slip into the jargon of economics, it wants the physical capital for which it is
  490
  responsible to embody working arrangements that it can achieve but which have not proved possible in the public sector.
  The ultimate argument in favour of private finance and private management for such projects is that they are better managed and more efficient and innovative than if they remain in the public sector. They are far from being leasing fiddles. I therefore very much hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to assure us of the energy with which he will approach his exciting remit.
  The Chief Secretary should be congratulated on the way in which he has conducted the Treasury's negotiations. He has at last been able to get the message home that, if public expenditure negotiations are to be responsible, they should be on priorities within an agreed total rather than attempt to overturn financial discipline. I welcome the new public expenditure control arrangements, which seem to have achieved that conspicuous success.
  I welcome the statement's focus on the medium term. Too often, public expenditure negotiations have degenerated into horse trading about next year, with years two and three in the survey largely being ignored; they are left for next year's negotiations. This time, we had serious negotiations on years two and three, and the Treasury achieved new figures for growth in years two and three of 0·75 per cent. real growth and 1 per cent. real growth. That is a conspicuous achievement, on which I congratulate the Chief Secretary.
  Having achieved those marvels of public expenditure control under the new Cabinet Committee arrangements, I am surprised that the Treasury is further considering more institutional change next year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) spoke about that. I am worried about the change in the timetable for economic decision-taking, so that expenditure and tax announcements are brought together in the autumn.
  There are three reasons for my concern. First, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will accept that I am truly concerned about the work load that is falling on him and other Treasury Ministers. I am sure that being a Treasury Minister is a tough job. Between September and December, there will be the major international conferences, the tough public expenditure negotiations in the Committee that is now chaired by the Chancellor, with the Chief Secretary actively involved; and at the same time the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will be considering Budget starters and trying to reach tax decisions. That is a heavy burden.
  My second concern is an operational one. Many public sector bodies such as local authorities and district health authorities need to know as soon as possible what their budget will be for the following year. After the autumn statement, Departments spend weeks working out what the overall expenditure figures mean for local authorities, health authorities, the remaining nationalised industries and other public bodies. Next year's autumn statement may be a month later than this one, so there will be less time for public bodies to take important operational decisions.
  Finally, there is a risk of the Treasury, having established control over public expenditure this year, sacrificing control over taxes next year. If public expenditure negotiations and tax negotiations are being conducted together, spending Departments may be tempted to press for tax increases to finance higher

  491
  departmental expenditure or at the very least to undermine the Treasury's wider fiscal position. I therefore hope that Treasury Ministers will be able to make it clear that the new arrangements to be implemented next year will avoid those pitfalls.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement last week, there were scenes of wild delight on the Government Benches and much shouting in parts of the Tory press that the economic recovery had begun.
  There may have been wild delight on the Tory Benches, but if Ministers had cared to visit Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands—the real world outside this place —they would have found no wild delight. On the contrary, they would have found disbelief, anger, bitterness and real frustration among the people of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands who have no jobs or spending power, and who have seen their industries destroyed in the past 13 years. Those people were saying, "Why have the Government missed their opportunity yet again? Why have we gone through all that, and seen the Government make so many U-turns? Why, even in the autumn statement, which takes half a step forwards towards a Keynesian policy, are the Government still not prepared to admit the mistakes that they have made in the past and do something to regenerate British industry?"
  Let us see how good the autumn statement was, and how much it will do for British industry. What will it do for GDP and growth? The forecast is for 1 per cent. growth in 1993—and that will follow a drop this year. What will the statement do about unemployment? Unemployment now stands at 2·8 million, but everyone in the House knows that the unemployment figures are massaged and that 2·8 million is not the true figure. Everyone knows that the true figure is nearer 4 million. What will the statement do for those 2·8 million-plus people who are unemployed? By 6 o'clock this evening, anyone who cared to look at the ticker tapes of news coming in could see that in one day a further 10,000 jobs had disappeared. What did last Thursday's statement do for those people?
  Will investment increase? On the contrary, it is still falling. Will the balance of payments improve? Will we suddenly see a great narrowing of the gap? That will not happen. We have only to examine the Government's own forecast.
  What about public borrowing? In 1988 the Prime Minister said that public borrowing of £25 billion was unacceptable. He asked why we should pass on to the future the burden of the follies of the present. The figure was £25 billion then; it is £37 billion for 1992; and it will be £44 billion for 1993. Why should we pass on to future generations the burden of the follies of the present Conservative Government? That is what the Prime Minister asked in 1988.
  The Chancellor told us that from now on we could spend some of our capital receipts, that the money received for every public asset—every council house, school playing field or piece of land—which local authorities sell between now and the end of 1993 could be used for new capital projects. Local authorities throughout the country are saying, "Thank you very much, Mr. Chancellor of the
  492
  Exchequer. That is very kind of you. That will really solve our problems. Here we are in the middle of a massive recession, property prices have collapsed, and for everything that we can sell—if there is anything that we have not already been forced to sell, and if we get a decent price for it—we shall be able to use the money for new capital projects."
  What about the £5 billion which is locked away and which the Chancellor will not allow local authorities to spend? Why will he not allow them to spend that money to build desperately needed houses, to improve roads which are falling apart, to improve the infrastructure of the inner cities, to improve people's quality of life and make some amends for the follies of the past 13 years? "No," says the Chancellor, "You cannot spend that money—you must use it for debt repayment."
  Outside in the real world, the Chancellor's statement was greeted as a nonentity. In my constituency, 26 per cent. of the population is unemployed. There was one small cheer for the Chancellor's statement: my constituents were grateful that their social security benefits would not be cut. Most of them are on social security. They do not have jobs—their jobs have disappeared—and they were thankful that the Tory Government who destroyed their jobs did not intend to victimise them again by cutting their social security.
  That small debt of gratitude was more than outweighed by a feeling of despair and anger. In Birmingham, four out of 10 people have been unemployed for longer than a year. That may be of little concern to certain hon. Members, and to others it may be an irrelevance, but it means a lot to the people who have experienced it.
  I do not know how many Conservative Members have ever joined a dole queue and waited to sign on. I am sure that some of them have, but I think that most of them have not. I wonder if many of them have even gone to see what the process is like. As somebody who experienced unemployment, although for a relatively short time, I can tell them that it is not a pleasant experience, and certainly not an experience that we should want to pass on to others. The present Administration seem impervious to that.
  The west midlands used to manufacture cars and export them all over the world; it was the hub of the British car industry. The motor manufacturers were pleased that the car tax was abolished last week. Hon. Members may think that throughout Birmingham people will stampede down to the car showrooms with £10,000, £12,000, £15,000 or £20,000 in their pockets wanting to buy brand new cars and save £400 in car tax. I must enlighten them: anyone with that sort of money who wanted to buy a new car could go into any showroom in any part of the country and name his price. Hon. Members will know that my point is valid because many of them will have done just that. One can get any discount now, because the car salesmen are so desperate to unload their cars. The idea that £400 will suddenly provide a massive boost to the British car industry amounts to sleight of hand.
  The abolition of the car tax is welcome—anything is welcome when one is lying flat on one's back—but it will not regenerate the British car industry. Why not? Why did I begin by saying that most people greeted the Chancellor's autumn statement as a nonentity? I said that because our problem is one of confidence. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to confidence. Yes, there is a crisis of confidence. That is what it is all about. People

  493
  do not have confidence in the Government or in their policies. They are not going to dash out and spend money—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate the Chancellor on the autumn statement. Despite what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) might think, I am from the real world. I will indulge the House, if I may, in the sense that, for the past 10 years, I was in manufacturing, and may be a small microcosm of the British economy. I have always maintained that it is manufacturing that made this country great and put the great into Great Britain.
  My own firm—I am indulging myself and I declare an interest—moved to Cornwall. We set up a factory in the constituency of my hon. and athletic Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). We established the factory there because it is a pleasant area. More importantly, there are a willing and able work force. There were investment grants from the Government and there were economic wage rates in that part of the United Kingdom.
  Opposition Members continue to espouse the minimum working wage. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has identified the minimum working wage as the single most important factor which is creating unemployment in France. A minimum working wage in Cornwall for our factory would have driven us out of Cornwall, would have driven us out of business and, more importantly, would have put those Cornish workers out of work. That cannot be to the advantage of anyone who wants manufacturing to get on.
  I fully appreciate that it is the Opposition's job to oppose, but there are times when opposition is destructive. There are times when it is a good thing to blow the nation's trumpet. Manufacturing output went up from around 1982 onwards by 3·7 per cent. each year on average in the 1980s. That is something to blow our trumpets about. Export manufacturing went up by 6 per cent. each year on average. That is a triumph of which we can feel proud.
  Opposition Members say that there has been a decline since 1990. I can see that thought in their faces. There has been a decline, but there has been a greater decline in Germany. The Opposition must recognise that fact.
  I spoke to a group of industrialists from the midlands yesterday. They said that it is the lack of confidence that is creating the economic difficulty in which we find ourselves given that we now have the lowest rates of interest in Europe. It is a fear of losing jobs which is preventing people from spending money in the shops. I was pleased to see in last night's Evening Standard that spending has gone up: it is 1 per cent. higher than it was in the summer and 1·5 per cent. better than it was a year ago. At last we are beginning to see some improvement in spending patterns.
  Simply talking down the economy does nothing to encourage confidence in this country. We now have everything to be confident about. We are now top, whereas we used to be bottom, of the G7 productivity league. We have one of the lowest interest rates in Europe. We have the lowest taxation in Europe, as other hon. Members have said.
  494
  What is the bottom line of all this? The bottom line is that we are seeing huge amounts of inward investment into the United Kingdom. Some 40 per cent. of investment from outside the European Community comes into the United Kingdom, with the remaining 60 per cent. being scattered among the other 11 E.C. countries. In Mid-Staffordshire, that means more jobs for people in places such as Lichfield, who will work in the Toyota plant which is not far down the road.
  I will focus on two specific aspects of the autumn statement which I welcome. The Chancellor will know that I have nagged him consistently since I became a Member of Parliament for the introduction of greater capital allowances. As I am in business, I have always felt that unilateralism was nonsense. I believe that, just as it was crazy in the 1980s that, when the Russian SS20 missiles moved across the Urals and across eastern Europe to the borders of the then West Germany, the Opposition said that they wanted us unilaterally to disarm and that the Russians would disarm if they were asked nicely to do so, so it is equally nonsense for us unilaterally not to have capital allowances when our competitor countries have capital allowances.
  We have increased capital allowances for plant and machinery from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., and we have increased the capital allowances for industrial and agricultural buildings to 20 per cent. I welcome that increase, although I believe that it is overdue. France, Germany, Japan and the United States have accelerated capital allowances, and capital allowances work there because they improve investment.
  The second aspect that I will focus on is interest rates. Although I have not been known for my great enthusiasm for Maastricht, I have never felt that being a member of the exchange rate mechanism per se was necessarily a bad thing. As a business man, I welcomed our entry into the ERM. After all, although we were manufacturing broadcasting equipment in Cornwall, we imported equipment from countries within the EC. We had to quote for large contracts abroad in foreign currencies. To get our costings right, we either had to buy currency forward or we had to build in a sufficient amount to allow for fluctuations in the exchange rate. I welcomed our entry into the ERM.
  Being in the ERM is worth while only if the mechanism works. It is far better not to be in a mechanism than to be in a mechanism that is flawed. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has said that we shall not re-enter the ERM until our currencies converge. I go further and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) who said that our currencies should all be synchronous. Only in that way will the ERM work. In the unlikely event of such a situation arising, then, and only then, would I welcome our going back into the ERM, because it would then help British businesses. Sadly, I can see no circumstances in the next few years in which any currencies in Europe will be synchronous.
  I must say that some of the comments from the Opposition have been quite incredible. We have heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) make three impossible statements together. Constantly he said: keep us in the ERM; keep us in the ERM and do not devalue; and keep us in the ERM, do not devalue, but cut interest rates by half the current rate. That is absolutely impossible. It is like saying let us free-wheel on a bicycle uphill: an impossibility; economic innumeracy.

  495
  Our interest rates, thank God, have fallen. I would have preferred bolder reductions, but the rate is 7 per cent., the lowest in Europe. In Germany and France the rates are running at 9 per cent., in Spain at 13 per cent. and in Italy at 15 per cent.
  I join the chorus of hon. Members on both sides of the House asking my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to keep up the pressure on the banks. It is one thing to reduce interest rates but, if the banks do not follow suit, there is very little point to this. Moreover, overdraft facilities that can be withdrawn at almost no notice are not helpful to small businesses. There must be some permanence.
  The Opposition say that the Government should be an engine for growth. Nothing is that simple. If Governments could make engines for growth, all economies would be growing. They are not. It is not that simple, and when they talk—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution—very much shorter than I had intended—to this debate.
  I very much welcome the autumn statement, and I agree that it is a turning point in our economic affairs. Listening to speeches on the economy, and particularly those from the Opposition Benches, I sometimes think that we tend to dwell on the present and forget the lessons of the past.
  One of the obvious lessons of the past is that there is no such thing as sustained economic growth, except for a few short years. History tells us that after every upturn there is a downturn, and after every downturn, mercifully, there is an upturn. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, our economy will improve.
  I believe that successive Governments have deluded the people into thinking that Governments are all-powerful. History ought to tell us that Governments are certainly not all-powerful. There is very little that Governments can do to affect the economic cycle. Let us look very briefly at a few years of our own economic history.
  The years 1965 to 1980 were an unmitigated disaster, and it is not unworthy of note that for 11 out of those 15 years the Labour party was governing this country. Those years convinced me that Socialist economics do not work. Inflation averaged 15 per cent.; income tax rose to 83 per cent. and, if one had what the Labour party called "unearned income"—that is, income from one's life savings—one was taxed 98 per cent. There were strikes almost every day, and that more than anything killed the car industry in the west midlands, to which hon. Members have referred. Average earnings rose by a miserable £2 per week, nurses' pay was cut in real terms and so badly did the Opposition mismanage the economy that they could not even pay pensioners their Christmas bonus.
  I searched the speeches of Opposition Front-Bench Members in vain to find any new ideas. What I did find was constant carping and criticism, with the benefit of hindsight, but no constructive attempt to explain to the British people how they would get the country out of its problems—except, of course, their traditional three policies: spend, spend, spend.
  496
  In 1981–89, before the world economy was blown off course by the present economic hurricane, which is affecting every developed country, our economy grew by more than 3 per cent. per year—faster than that of France or Germany—and average incomes were up 35 per cent. More families in this country today have a car, a television set, a telephone and central heating than at any other time in our history.
  We have cut inflation dramatically and, despite the recession, nine out of 10 of our citizens in the work force have jobs. We have 1·8 million more jobs than we had in 1983, and a higher proportion of the population are in work than any other country in the European Community except Denmark. Strikes are now a thing of the past, and this was so even before unemployment began to rise. Even though repossessions are very bad, fewer than 1 per cent. of owner-occupied houses are being repossessed.
  What caused the world recession? I have asked economists this question many times, and the consensus seems to be the bubble economy in Japan and the enormous deficit in the United States. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh. Of course they do. It is very inconvenient for them; it would suit their purpose very much better if they could fix the blame for the world recession entirely on the British Government., but I am afraid it will not wash.
  We made a serious mistake in trying to shadow the deutschmark and entering the exchange rate mechanism. As a result, we have had interest rates much too high for much too long. Interest rates at a very high level have been the most important factor in the present economic downturn in this country. Joining the ERM was doomed to failure from the beginning, and had I been in the House at the relevant time I should not have voted to do so. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats must share responsibility for that mistake, because they were as enthusiastic to go into the ERM and stay in it as we were —if not more so.
  The venture was doomed to failure from the start, because all the money in all the central banks of the world together is equal to the sum traded on the foreign exchanges almost every working day. Had King Canute been alive today, he could have told us that the ERM was doomed to failure from the beginning. The fact that he was a Dane is not without interest.
  The value of a nation's currency is simply an indication of what millions of economic decision makers around the world think of its economy. Trying to fiddle the exchange rate and put it into an artificial straitjacket is like fiddling with the oil pressure gauge on one's motor car instead of attending to the engine. Fortunately, we are now at liberty to attend to our own engine.
  I am glad that interest rates have come down, although I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that, although low interest rates are good for borrowers, we must also consider the interests of lenders. The retired people in my constituency who invest their money in the economy through the banks and building societies deserve a decent return on it.
  The speeches by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members have been wholly negative—not a single constructive idea has been produced. The Opposition have an investment in gloom and doom because no one votes for them when things are going well—indeed, if the last general election is any guide, no one votes for them even when things are not going particularly well. We do not

  497
  need lectures from them about the problems; we see the distress caused by repossessions and redundancies in our own constituencies. I have set up an employment action group in my constituency to tackle this matter locally.
  Opposition Members have had a lot of fun referring to predictions made in the past, and, with the benefit of hindsight, crowing that those predictions were wrong. I felt like reminding all of them that they predicted that they would win the election! They have had a bit of fun with the Chancellor's reference to the green shoots of recovery, but I would rather hear the Chancellor trying to talk our economy up than to listen to the dismal Jimmies and moaning Minnies on the Opposition Benches constantly trying to talk it down.
  Labour Members vaguely talk about "industrial strategy", "investment strategy" and "training strategy". Of course such strategies are desirable, but we know that there is no crock of gold at the end of the rainbow from which their schemes can be paid for. They talk about Government intervention. Intervention in De Lorean cars and Meriden motorcycles? Was that not a wonderful success?
  The economic problems of today have nothing to do with lack of investment, lack of training or lack of housing, and everything to do with lack of demand. The Government have maintained their capital spending programme, and that is a good thing. In my area, £3 million is being pumped into the economy by the excellent Conservative-controlled West Sussex county council. However, any Government can only do so much, and this Government have done it. Thereafter, it is up to industry and the consumer. At £37 billion, borrowing is much too high. What do the Opposition say? "Put it up still higher."
  Let me conclude with a comment about what is generally described as Thatcherism. We think that the best thing to do is to give the British people freedom. Unfortunately, freedom to make good decisions also means freedom to make bad decisions. The British people, like any other people in the world, will not work for medals or for public approval. They will work for money so that they can support themselves and their families. Some may think that that is selfish. I remind the House that, in the 18th century, John Wesley, that famous preacher, said to his congregation:

  "Gain as much as you can,

  Save as much as you can,

  Give as much as you can."

  That is equally relevant to the conditions prevailing today.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: After seeing the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) being passed a note to tell him to sit down, I understand how the Government overshot their public spending targets.
  I sense a certain nervousness on the Government Back Benches. I do not want to appear unsympathetic. I certainly do not want anyone to think that I am not taking a constructive approach. I understand that Conservative Back Benchers are nervous about the ERM fiasco. Indeed, several of them mentioned it. Some of them are nervous about devaluation, although I noticed that some of them welcomed it.
  Of course, there is nervousness among Conservative Members about the loss of the previous Heritage Secretary, about the pit closure programme, about the
  498
  Bank of Credit and Commerce International and about the confidence vote a few weeks ago when only the Liberals kept the Government in office. Now they are bound to be nervous about the sale of armaments to Saddam Hussein.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was right to point out that, as the Chancellor sat down at the end of his statement last Thursday, Conservative Back-Bench Members cheered with sheer nervous relief that they would not have to defend large-scale state benefit cuts as well as deal with every other problem that currently confronts them.
  In order to put these matters into context, and in an effort to keep the whole House cheerful, perhaps I can take a leaf from the lead given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and remind Conservative Members of some of the points which they enthusiastically cheered in last year's autumn statement.
  On 6 November 1991 the Chancellor boasted that he had
  "reduced the ratio of public spending to national income by over 5 percentage points."
  A year later, half of that reduction has disappeared. I see that the cheers have disappeared, too. The Chancellor told the House that his careful and responsible approach had enabled the Government to reduce public borrowing. Yet we have moved from a repayment of 2 per cent. of GDP to a borrowing requirement of 7·5 per cent.
  At Budget time the Red Book forecast for the PSBR was £28 billion or 4·5 per cent. of GDP for 1992–93. Now we have a PSBR of £37 billion or 6·25 per cent. of GDP. How can there have been such a large move in such a short period? Is not the answer that the first forecast was given before the general election and the actualité has come home to roost substantially after the general election?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) astutely pointed out, future generations will now have to fund the tax cuts of which the Chancellor was so proud only a few months ago. Back in November 1991 the Chancellor told the House that it remained the Government's policy
  "to balance the budget over the economic cycle."
  I suspect that that is now completely unsustainable and that we can expect a massive PSBR until the end of this Parliament. Borrowing currently accounts for 14 per cent. of Government spending. However, the greatest difference —several Conservative Members referred to it—is with the Chancellor's comments on inflation last year. He told the House:
  "we have followed a prudent and cautious monetary policy whose credibility has been underscored by our firm commitment to the ERM. The success that we have achieved on inflation has allowed us to cut interest rates without jeopardising sterling's position in the ERM."
  Conservative Members have rejoiced during this debate that we are no longer in the ERM. Let me remind them that at the general election the Conservative party manifesto pledged that the policy was not merely some peripheral matter but a centrepiece of the Government's economic policy. Conservative Members cheered the Chancellor when he said:
  "it has become increasingly clear that we are emerging from recession."—[Official Report, 6 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 449.]
  The end of the recession has been announced even more times than the Jubilee line extension.
  As for the famous green shoots of economic recovery, there is only one possible remaining explanation. It is that

  499
  the Chancellor has pulled them up and is smoking them. He sees the recovery. No one else sees the recovery. He believes that others see the recovery, too. He comes to the House of Commons and tells us about the recovery. Truly, the Chancellor is now the Keynesian that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) made him out to be. The Chancellor is truly a child of the 1960s. Last year, the Chancellor went on to say that he expected personal consumption to rise by 2·5 per cent. in 1992, to provide the impetus for recovery. As we know from the autumn statement, personal consumption is down by 0·25 per cent. for 1992.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) told us that questions of trust and confidence were at the heart of this debate. Can I, my hon. Friend or any hon. Member have confidence in a Chief Secretary whose idea of reading around the debate on the autumn statement is to study thoroughly, "Thomas the Tank Engine"? I see that the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who chairs the Conservative Back-Bench committee on such matters, thinks that that is a laudable way to prepare for a debate, and that may tell us how Conservative Members prepare for them—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was his copy."]—or, as my hon. Friends suggest, perhaps he lent his copy.
  Last year the Chancellor told us that growth would gather pace throughout the year and that output would increase by 2·75 per cent. between the second half of 1991 and that of 1992. The outturn was a fall of 1 per cent. All those predictions look ridiculous with hindsight, but remember that they were the foundation of the Government's general election manifesto. I remind the House that Philip Goldenberg of S. J. Berwen said of that document:
  "If it had been a Companies Act prospectus it would have landed the entire Cabinet in gaol."
  Well, who knows what the future holds?
  I do not want to appear destructive, carping or all of the other things that Conservative Members like to pretend that they believe of the Opposition Front Bench. Some manifesto pledges were redeemed, or at least addressed, in the statement: enhanced first-year capital allowances; conceding the principle that local authority capital receipts can be released; allowing the involvement of private sector capital in public sector projects; allowing British Rail to lease new rolling stock; and a reassessment of the Treasury contribution to the national insurance fund. Those go some way towards implementing manifesto pledges and it is nicely in keeping with the consistency of the Government's present economic policy, and the way in which the Conservative party deals with such matters, that the pledges that the Chancellor has been so kind as to bring before the House were from the Labour party manifesto.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that the need was for immediate measures to get people back to work, and I agree. It is doubtful whether local authorities will ever be able to do much with the release of future capital receipts because people do not anticipate very much—
  Mr. Stephen: We have heard much about capital receipts from council house sales. Does the hon.
  500
  Gentleman accept that if he, his hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats had had their way, there would have been no receipts because there would have been no sales?
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept that. We would not need to release them, in any event, because recessionary forces would not be at work in the economy. They are solely due to the Government's unique approach to worldwide crises.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said in a debate on Monday that the 20,000 house target set for the Housing Corporation was unlikely to be achieved. He felt that one tenth of that figure was optimistic and that may turn out to be the case.
  I want to deal with other aspects of the statement: the pay freeze in the public sector; the rise in council house rents, which will be twice the rate of inflation for 1993, at 9 per cent., and 5 per cent. ahead of inflation for the following year; the cut in the Department of Employment's budget; and the legal aid reduction. Free legal aid will now be available only to people who earn the magnificent sum of £2,213 per year or less—the income support level. There has been no discussion of easier or cheaper routes to justice, just a primitive budget cut.
  Mr. Brazier rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way shortly to the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the intellectual dynamos of the Conservative party.
  All those changes fall hardest on the least well off, and those changes are paralleled by changes that have been made to the tax burden in the past 10 years. In 1978–79, a family earning 75 per cent. of average earnings paid 30·9 per cent. of those earnings in tax. By 1990–91, that burden had increased to 34·7 per cent. In other words, regressive changes in public spending are paralleled by a regressive tax system. The burden falls hardest on those least able to afford it, which is manifestly unfair, manifestly unjust, and manifestly Government policy.
  Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as straightforward cuts in the legal aid budget, which has doubled in four years and is projected to go on increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum for the next two years. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by cuts?
  Mr. Brown: I mean, when I refer to cuts, a reduction in the annual income level at which people are eligible for support. I am talking about real cuts, because less money will be spent on legal aid next year than is being spent on it this year.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Wrong.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman says I am wrong. According to the Law Society, about 7 million people will fall out of eligibility—[Interruption.] I speak for the 7 million and the Government can speak for themselves when the Minister replies to the debate.
  The pegging of the wages of 3 million people, and the attempt to peg the wages of a further 2 million, was described by the Financial Secretary as an evolution of policy. It is like describing our leaving the ERM as an evolution of the policy of not leaving it; or calling devaluing the currency an evolution of the policy of not devaluing it; or the Conservatives adopting some of the policies of the Labour party and describing that as an evolution of the policy of rejecting and denouncing those

  501
  policies outright at election time. So much for evolution. I am not sure what Darwin would have made of it. Nor am I sure what the public sector workers will make of it.
  The Chancellor began his autumn statement by pointing to the world recession and claiming it as an excuse. Yet it is clear that this country's recession contains some peculiarly British features. For example, from the second quarter of 1990, Britain's GDP shrank by 4·5 per cent; Germany's rose by 5·25 per cent.; France's rose by 3·33 per cent.; Italy's rose by over 3 per cent.; and the Netherlands' rose by 4·8 per cent. Despite the worldwide recession, our European partners' economies have grown while ours has shrunk dramatically.
  The Government obviously feel that some response is needed. Prodded by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor has had to go for growth—just a little growth, and he is not too sure about that—and it is clear that the Chancellor is not entirely comfortable about it all. He claims in his autumn statement that the Government have no intention of engineering a short-lived boom, but then he introduces a supplementary package of time-limited fiscal measures which he clearly hopes will engineer a boom and which, by the fact that they are time-limited, are bound to have a short-lived impact.
  Indeed, the Chancellor has managed to do a U-turn from the beginning to the end of his autumn statement, and that must be a record. He has announced a package of measures putting about £4 billion into the economy over the next three years. In the context of an economy of over £600 billion, that is not much, about 0·2 per cent. per annum. In other words, the real impact of the measures will be minimal.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) said, there is a difference between spending money as part of a coherent strategy for recovery and drifting into short-term expediencies for want of a better plan. Perhaps the Government are really saying, "Because everything else has been tried, let's give this a go."
  The attempt to give the British economy a short-term fix to get it out of recession comes nowhere near dealing with the scale of the problem. The Chancellor is trying to buy his way out of the slump without spending money. The long-term issues remain unaddressed. The largest single factor inhibiting recovery is the fear of unemployment, yet the Government are still content to let unemployment rise steadily. They even admit that they expect recovery next year to be limp, and forecast growth of only 1 per cent. The measures that they are taking will simply not get us far.
  Only by 1995 will output have recovered to what its level was when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister. Today, as this debate began, we heard a further 10,000 job losses announced. The Government may anticipate a recovery in the construction sector, but it is clear that Blue Circle, which supplies the cement, has carried out its own survey on those matters and, with obvious pain and regret, has followed an earlier 700-person redundancy round by making another 500 workers redundant. So much for industry's optimism about recovery in the industrial sector.
  In his Guildhall speech, the Chancellor said that he was dressed like a magician, but was only the Chancellor. As with everything else that he has said on economic matters, the reality is the other way round. He comes before us
  502
  dressed like a Chancellor, but he is only a magician. The children's conjurer has tricks and illusions that convince those in the audience behind him who desperately want to be convinced. He must appear to hit spending targets of £1·2 billion off next year's EC funds. Have Conservative Members been told about that yet? I wonder how it will turn out. Unallocated reserves of £8 billion become unallocated reserves of £4 billion.
  The trick for which we are all waiting—the most anticipated conjuring trick of all—is entitled "the disappearing Chancellor". I expect that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know how it works. You hear a voice off stage saying, in a south London accent, "Goodbye Norman". There is a flash of light and suddenly the Home Secretary is standing at the Treasury Dispatch Box. It is wholly in keeping with the efficiency and effectiveness of how things are run in the Conservative party that that trick, which would doubtless have been popular in the country, has not come off. We have been treated to smoke screens, illusions, mists and reality obscured, yet behind all the stagecraft, deceits and deceptions, the Chancellor remains. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) so astutely pointed out, he is stil there. It is the only real trick that the Chancellor has pulled off. Some people unkindly suggest that it is the only trick that really mattered to him. If that trick is unworthy of applause, it commands a certain amount of admiration, if only for its breathtaking audacity.
  Conservative Members usually ask, "What should we do?" I had five years doing that, so I anticipated it. Before the elections, they stand up and beg Opposition spokesmen to give them advice. Afterwards, they plunder our manifesto and try to take that which they think would be helpful, but during election campaigns they denounce us thoroughly for the programme that we put forward.
  The Chancellor shouts, probably with even more relief than Conservative Back Benchers when they cheered him desperately on his autumn statement, "And we win". I am not sure that the country is happy about that, but I am certain that the Chancellor would not want to put the matter to the test tomorrow. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not wish to do so, because for the first time in recent history the Labour party's standing is some 51 per cent. in the opinion polls. If the Chancellor feels that confident, perhaps he would like to test the matter—before Christmas would suit me fine.
  May I try to help the Government and be as constructive as Conservative Members urged me to be at the start of my contribution to this debate. What would we do about the problem? We would start by acknowledging that the recession is continuing, that unemployment and bankruptcies will continue to rise, and that investment has fallen substantially and will fall again in 1992. Even in the present slump, we would acknowledge the worsening balance of payments position.
  The solution is for the Government to develop a policy for manufacturing industry that contains something other than neglect of the regions, or what the Chancellor chooses to call the territories or not the south.
  We could acknowledge that the economic outlook is so bad and the autumn statement such an inadequate response to the slump that we now need an emergency employment programme to reduce unemployment and remove the fear of unemployment—the largest single factor affecting consumer confidence. We need additional investment measures to boost the construction industry

  503
  and business in general. We need a long-term industrial training policy. As all those items are contained in the Opposition amendment. We can make a start tonight by voting for it and giving the Government the guidance that they so clearly need.
  9.30 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): During the debate Labour Members have tried to argue that the Government do not have a strategy, but they have ended up by proving that it is Labour Members who do not have a strategy. Even the customary bonhomie of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) failed to obscure the fact that Labour Members are at sixes and sevens with themselves about how policy should evolve. That is in sharp contrast to the autumn statement presented to the House last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which set out a clear path for the years ahead and described the mechanisms by which we propose to deliver our objectives.
  My right hon. Friend started by making it clear that we intend to safeguard our key achievement of the past two years: delivering a low inflation rate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) stressed the importance of that in his speech. As he recognised, the success results not from a fetish about numbers, but from a clear analysis of the reasons for the long-term under-performance of the British economy.
  A necessary precondition for stable growth—if we do not know now, we never shall—is the establishment of sound control of inflation. There is no trade-off between inflation and growth. We have often sought a trade-off in the past, but failed to find it. Every time we have experienced inflation in this country, we find that, far from creating jobs at the margin, it destroys growth, jobs and hope. That is why we will not jeopardise our achievement of the past two years in reducing the inflation rate to an acceptable level.
  Our success in reducing the inflation rate is what creates the opportunity for growth to which my right hon. Friend drew attention in his autumn statement. It is because we recognise that it is success against inflation which creates the opportunity for growth that my right hon. and hon. Friends have been to the fore in celebrating and advertising that achievement.
  Producer price inflation is now 2·5 per cent. lower than at any time since 1968. Average earnings rose by 5¾ per cent. in the past 12 months—a lower rate of growth than for a quarter of a century. Those successes have resulted in a retail price inflation figure of 3·6 per cent. We have succeeded in controlling inflation—a goal for which successive British Governments have striven, but only few have achieved. We achieved that control in the 1980s, but regrettably lost it for a short period.
  The Labour party has never achieved that objective, and the House would do well to remember that during the last Labour Government the average inflation rate imposed on the British people was 15·5 per cent. —for five years. We shall not return to such statistics while the present Government are in office.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman has been lecturing the House about what high inflation costs in high unemployment, but will he explain
  504
  why unemployment is now at a record level? Given that inflation is now low, why have a further 10,000 jobs gone out the window today? Why are we heading for a real unemployment rate of 4 million next year?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman reminds the House of the cost of losing control of inflation at the end of the 1980s. Inflation is what destroys jobs. That is why we are determined not to make again the mistake that we have too often made in the past.
  Having delivered effective control of inflation and sound money, it is now possible for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to plan for the long term. The plans published last week reflect the choices that he can make because of the success that we have had in controlling inflation over the past two years.
  This success explains why we can deliver our manifesto commitment to spend £6·3 billion on the roads programme over the next three years. That continues the Government's record of road building and represents a real terms increase in roads expenditure of 95 per cent. since 1979—a sharp contrast with the record of our predecessors, who cut the roads programme by 33 per cent.
  We shall continue our record investment programme in British Rail—up 23 per cent. since 1979. We shall continue to invest in London Regional Transport. My hon. Friends should remember that next year we plan an investment programme in London Regional Transport that is up by 350 per cent. on the figure that we inherited in 1979. For the next three years we shall be investing in London Regional Transport more each quarter than Labour did each year. That is what we mean when we say that we are safeguarding the long-term future in the plans that we published last week.
  The health programme used to take up more of my time than it does now, but it is still close to my heart. Health investment has risen by 65 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with a cut imposed on health investment by Labour of 24 per cent.
  We do not believe that investment is measured only in terms of bricks and mortar or physical capital. The most important investment in this as in any other country is in the skills and inventiveness of our people. That is an investment that we continue to safeguard and expand in the autumn statement. More young people go into higher education in Britain today than at any time in our history: 12 per cent. of the relevant age group went into higher education in 1979—now 25 per cent. do. We are committed to increasing that to 33 per cent. before the end of the decade.
  It is not just a matter of universities. Within those figures we plan for a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students going into further education. We also plan for a higher proportion of school leavers to join youth training, with a total training spend two-and-a-half times higher in real terms today than in 1979.
  These are real investments, through public expenditure programmes in bricks and mortar and in human capital, to set this country on the path of growth again.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will be the first to recognise that the key investment, if we are to create economic success in the years ahead, is in the business sector—in the private sector, which creates the wealth and the jobs and which improves the living standards of all who live in Britain. Once again, the story of the 1980s was

  505
  a story of success on which we are well placed to build. Between 1974 and 1979, business investment grew by 10 per cent. Since then, it has grown by nearly 40 per cent., measuring it in today's figures, which are below the peak because of the recessionary pressures with which we are only too familiar.
  During the 1980s, not only was there more investment, but the returns that British business earned on that investment were significantly better than they had been in earlier years. Throughout the 1980s, returns from 13ritish business were nearly half as high again as they had been at the end of the 1970s, and by the end of the 1980s those returns were 62 per cent. higher than they had been during the 1970s. The Government are determined to continue to create, as they did during the 1980s, a favourable climate for business investment here in Britain because we recognise that that is the only means by which we shall succeed in delivering our objectives of growth, jobs and improving living standards.
  The Opposition continue to run Britain down, but if we look at what is happening out there in the economy which they affect to describe we find that business is voting with its feet and investing in Britain. During the 1980s more than half of all inward investment into Europe came to Britain. Who should we believe about the atractiveness of Britain as an investment location: the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) or those who make the decisions in Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford and Bosch—companies which have brought investment to Britain because they believe that Britain is an attractive place in which to do business?
  I agree in this at least with Mr. Delors: the Government have created here in Britain an investment paradise. It would be nice to hear the Opposition welcome that fact. That success was reinforced last week by the autumn statement, which was widely welcomed by British business. Let us hear less from the Opposition about what is alleged to be happening in business. Let us believe instead what British business says is happening in British business.
  Dr. Marek: Statistics are all very well, but we all know that we can select a particular time from which to calculate statistics and a particular time at which to finish them. Examples are a lot better. The new bridge being built across the River Severn is basically a French affair. Can the Minister give us a few examples of where British companies are investing in France and Italy and building roads and bridges? I suspect that he will not be able to. There is a difference between foreign investment in Britain and the fact that the Government have done nothing to assist British industry to invest abroad.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has at least one thing in common with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East —he prefers dealing with words to dealing in numbers. If, rather than measuring the quantum of investment and the return on investment, he wants to move to words and understand clearly the right conditions for British business in the opinions of the people who matter—British business men—let him hear the words of the Institute of Directors, which said after the autumn statement last week:
  "The Chancellor this afternoon has given business the framework needed to begin the recovery."
  The British Chambers of Commerce said:
  "Businesses have heard the right messages today."
  506
  The CBI said that CBI members would warmly welcome the autumn statement. Mr. Nigel Rudd, chairman of Williams Holdings, said that it
  "provided a practical and positive … stimulus to the United Kingdom economy."
  Those are real people working in the real economy, not I he "experts" sitting on the Opposition Benches.
  Several of my hon. Friends have expressed concern today about the scale of the deficit. That is a proper concern. Of course we all want to see the deficit held under proper control because we all recognise that it is essential to the delivery of our objective of sound money. But it is also important to be aware of where we stand in relation to the deficit.
  Last week, we published a figure of £37 billion for the current financial year. During the debate, there has been a fair amount of speculation about what will happen in later years—all of it based on getting out a ruler and assuming that there will be no changes in the future. The public sector borrowing requirement for next year is not yet predictable, because we do not yet know the contents of my right hon. Friend's Budget. No Government can rule out tax increases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) was right to draw attention to that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) was also right to remind us of one of the features which distinguish the Government from our opponents: our clear objective that tax yields should determine expenditure, rather than the other way round.
  It is also important not to lose sight of the significance of the changes in public expenditure planning which my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury introduced in the figures published in the autumn statement. The new control total, as defined in the statement, identifies core expenditure. For that, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is planning average growth of 1·4 per cent. over the three years of this programme. As everyone will agree, that is less than the long-term growth rate of the British economy. The move will have the effect of controlling the share of the national economy taken by core public expenditure, defined through the new control total.
  In the rest of Government expenditure are significant programmes which are directly related to the level of activity in the economy. As activity recovers, we can expect those programmes to absorb a smaller share of the resources available. Another factor which is acting to reduce the deficit is the fact that, as activity increases, revenues will increase as well. Within the plans, a three-pointed pincer movement is being directed at the deficit: all three points are deliberately aimed to ensure that, as activity recovers, public sector borrowing takes a smaller share of national income than it does today.
  Let me say a word about the use of private capital. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important statement about that last week. The relevant passage in the autumn statement has been widely welcomed, and I personally welcome the task given to me by my right hon. Friend—the task of finding new ways of introducing the ingenuity and the problem-solving capacity of the private sector into what has traditionally been regarded as the heart of the public sector.
  This is not a new theme for the Government. After all, a decade ago investment in the electricity, gas, telephone and water industries was restrained by the rules of public finance. The decision made by the Government, with the

  507
  support of the House, to privatise those industries made possible the investment boom that they are currently experiencing—a boom that is under attack from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who wishes to reward the industries for their investment activity by raising an extra tax on them.
  Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced further developments in the use of private capital within the public sector. He announced that projects paid for by charges would no longer be tested against a theoretical public sector alternative which there was no realistic prospect of building. That relates directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement also encouraged joint ventures between the public and private sectors, and a more flexible use of leases.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Havant and for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) both rightly stressed the fact that questions remain to be answered in relation to the extension of scope for private capital within the public sector. I can assure them that both I and the whole Government are committed to challenging conventional assumptions about how the public and private sectors are defined and what is undertaken in the public and private sector context in order to create new options to improve the public sector services available to the general public.
  The purpose of this initiative is to shift emphasis away from an obsession with inputs—with trying to second-guess every element of cost involved in the delivery of a service—to concentrate instead on the services themselves and to insist, in line with the principles of the citizens charter, that what matters in assessing whether a project is right or wrong is the quality of service that we in the public sector provide to the taxpayers who pay our salaries.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General said last night that the Labour party finds itself in some difficulty. It has been unable to decide whether to attack everything that the Government have done or to claim credit for the ideas that it believes that it persuaded the Government to adopt. Some Opposition Members have therefore claimed credit for certain ideas and then found themselves targeted by their own colleagues, their arguments being contradicted. It is what in the military context might be described as red on red.
  There was a good example yesterday. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that the exchange rate needs to fall by a further 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. before we can win back the lost ground. Rather to my surprise, he was joined today by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who said that he favoured a rate for the pound somewhat below its current level against the deutschmark. Both of them were taken to task last night by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who made it clear that he did not agree with those whom he called devaluationists and whom he clearly regarded as dangerous bollweevils within his own party. The hon. Member for Oxford, East needs to watch out. In the morass that is today's Labour party he may find himself being hit by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, who used to agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East. It is by no means clear, however, that he still does.
  508
  On 11 September the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, asked about the prospects for deutschmark realignment within the exchange rate mechanism, said:
  "One of the things the Germans may wish to propose is a realignment of the currencies … it is not our policy."
  It was surprising, therefore, to hear him say yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "We have said to the Chancellor that he had the option of realigning within the exchange rate mechanism."—[Official Report, 18 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 309.]
  That is exactly what he did not say at the time when it mattered. At the time when it mattered, he made it clear that that was not a policy that he espoused. What he did say, on the other hand, on the "Today" programme on 14 September was that, although he was in favour of stability within the exchange rate mechanism:
  "The Chancellor should announce now that he is prepared to cut rates."
  The effective commentary on that statement was provided by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who said:
  "I do not reveal any new economic law when I say that is simply nonsense."
  Shadow Treasury spokesmen experienced further difficulty with technicalities last week when they published their campaign for recovery—a document which allegedly set out the alternative path to recovery that they believe we should be following. They espoused "an emergency employment programme." The document told us little about the programme, but we were told one key fact: it was to be built on the programme that they published in April, but that it would be substantially bigger than originally planned. That was the only detail that they volunteered.
  They also spoke last week about a new industry policy. I imagine that some Labour Members were interested in what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would say because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, some still believe that therein lies the key to economic success. I carefully read what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had to say, and the key sentence reads:
  "We call on the government to bring all sections of industry together to discuss the immediate implementation of an industrial strategy."
  Labour has laboured mightily and brought forth an embryo.
  For the first time in my life, I found myself in some sympathy with Labour Briefing. The October edition said:
  "Brown has already proved a disaster as Shadow Chancellor, despite his willingness to make himself available for twenty second TV sound-bites day or night. His recent attempts to score points … by making vacuous demands for economic 'co-ordination, action and competence' have impressed nobody."
  I could not have put it better myself.
  Shadow Treasury spokesmen will not put a figure on their recovery package, but it does not stop them from advocating a new tax on the utilities. I apologise to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) because I realise that this is a sensitive subject for her. She sought to explain to Radio 4 listeners last week that this was not a tax but only a levy. The argument did not convince her interviewer and I do not believe that it will convince any of the staff or customers of the utilities, whose investment budgets would be slashed if the policy of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East were introduced. It does not seem to have occurred to him that there is inconsistency between using rhetoric about the importance of investment while

  509
  singling out the utilities—the water industry, for example, with a £30 billion investment programme—for his latest tax increases.
  Labour always has trouble with tax; it is its achilles heel. In The Sunday Times on 29 September, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded Labour Members of that. Referring to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he said:
  "It is, as he well knows, the hurdle over which Labour fell at the last two general elections. He, as Shadow Chief Secretary, and I, as Shadow Chancellor, made a botch of it in 1987. John Smith and Margaret Becket did better last April, but nothing like well enough. We all made the same mistake."
  It is not surprising that shadow Treasury spokesmen are experiencing difficulty within their own party. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) has said that Labour's Front Bench has failed to offer a coherent economic strategy. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) says that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has no understanding of the "elemental laws of arithmetic." The Labour party lives in a fantasy land, where it does not have to make any choices and does not have to disappoint anybody: which is delivering. Harold Wilson dreamed of turning Labour into the natural party of government; it is the achievement of the present Labour Front Bench to turn it into the natural party of opposition—an achievement that my hon. Friends and I warmly applaud.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 322.

  Division No. 90]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainger, Nick

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Betts, Clive

  Darling, Alistair

  Blair, Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Denham, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Dixon, Don

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Enright, Derek

  510

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fatchett, Derek

  McFall, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGrady, Eddie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fraser, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Mallon, Seamus

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Martlew, Eric

  Gould, Bryan

  Maxton, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Meacher, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michael, Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hain, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Mike

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Henderson, Doug

  Mudie, George

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, William

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Keen, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Leighton, Ron

  Simpson, Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Snape, Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spellar, John

  511

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Watson, Mike

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wise, Audrey

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ashby, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkins, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Dunn, Bob

  Bellingham, Henry

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Eggar, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Elletson, Harold

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Faber, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forth, Eric

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gill, Christopher

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Gorst, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  512

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Richards, Rod

  Key, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Luff, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stephen, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sykes, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  513

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thomason, Roy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Trimble, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That this House approves the Autumn Statement presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th November; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to the firm control of public expenditure; supports the new expenditure plans, which honour the Government's commitments and provide protection of capital spending; applauds the specific measures the Government has taken to encourage confidence and foster recovery; and congratulates the Government on achieving a substantial reduction in underlying inflation, which has laid the foundations for sustainable growth.

  Adjournment
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. Mates
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary State, Office of Public Service and Science on 17 November,Official Report, column 104.

  Announcements about privatisation or contractorisation of Northern Ireland agencies will normally be made as each agency's periodic review of its framework document is completed.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an inquiry into assistance by RUC officers to the South African agents, du Randt and Flores.

  Mr. Mates
  No, because I am advised that there is no substance to the allegations.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Mr. Mates
  Private detectives have been used as follows:

  Date

  Cost

  Purpose

  1987–88

  £126·05

  Service of Enforcement Notices under the Planning (NI) Order 1972.

  1988–89

  Nil

  —

  1989–90

  £553·25

  To investigate the circumstances of persons claiming compensation against the Department of the Environment as a result of alleged personal injuries.

  1990–91

  £3,090·31

  1991–92

  £2,644·78

  The firms used have not been named in order to protect their identity.

  Government Loans Fund
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the outstanding amounts from the Government Loans Fund for each of the Northern Ireland district councils and other Northern Ireland public bodies.
  294
  Mr. Mates
  The Government Loans Fund was abolished by articles 7 to 15 of the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 and its functions were transferred to the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland. The amounts owed to the Consolidated Fund in respect of government loans by each of the district councils and other public bodies is set out in the table.

  £

  Antrim Borough Council

  3,179,498

  Ards Borough Council

  3,208,270

  Armagh District Council

  3,053,863

  Ballymena Borough Council

  845,118

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  1,674,124

  Banbridge District Council

  2,817,219

  Belfast City Council

  13,156,729

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  32,369

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  7,474,718

  Coleraine Borough Council

  3,438,279

  Cookstown District Council

  302,725

  Craigavon Borough Council

  1,429,832

  Derry City Council

  7,973,570

  Down District Council

  5,090,230

  Dungannon District Council

  1,275,374

  Fermanagh District Council

  806,733

  Larne Borough Council

  2,019,767

  Limavady District Council

  1,495,537

  Lisburn Borough Council

  1,858,928

  Magherafelt District Council

  1,053,612

  Moyle District Council

  1,765,237

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  10,166,233

  Newtownabbey Borough Council

  8,087,643

  North Down Borough Council

  10,387,713

  Omagh District Council

  4,501,915

  Strabane District Council

  3,563,347

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  1,534,125,582

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  76,761

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Subjects
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what compensation is available to British subjects deprived of their livelihood and detained without charge or trial in a foreign country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British nationals in these circumstances should seek compensation through the courts of the country concerned.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he intends to take to secure the release of Mr. Allan Nicklin from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Riyadh is urging the Saudi Arabian authorities to speed up the process of Mr. Nicklin's departure from Saudi Arabia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pressed the case with the Saudi Arabian ambassador in London on 17 November 1992.

  Iranian Arms Procurement
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resumption of activities in connection with Iranian arms procurement at 4 Victoria street; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not given approval for the Iranian military procurement offices to be reopened in Britain by the Iranian Government. Any evidence of wrongdoing would be urgently investigated and, if appropriate, would be a matter for the courts.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The set of ideas produced by the United Nations Secretary-General, and endorsed by the Security Council as the basis for a settlement, was worked through in full in direct talks from 28 October to 11 November. There are significant areas of common ground. Important differences remain, with some Turkish Cypriot positions incompatible with the ideas. We welcome the agreement to resume talks in early March and will continue to play a full part in encouraging progress.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet President Vassiliou of Cyprus to discuss the British Government's response to the collapse of United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks in New York; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no current plans to meet President Vassiliou, but we remain in regular contact with him and all parties to the dispute. The Cyprus talks, chaired by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, have not collapsed: the parties have agreed to resume the talks in March next year.

  Pet Animals
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe convention on pet animals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  While existing domestic legislation already fulfils some of the requirements of the Convention, some legislative changes would be required before the United Kingdom could be a party to it. We are currently considering the changes which would be required.

DEFENCE

  Submarine Reactor Cores
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and location of used nuclear submarine reactor cores held by his Department.
  296
  Mr. Aitken
  Currently some 37 nuclear submarine used reactor cores are stored at BNFL Sellafield. In addition, one nuclear submarine used reactor core is held at each of the following locations: Rosyth royal dockyard, Devonport royal dockyard, and the naval reactor test establishment Dounreay.

  A91 Project Definition Study
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement of 6 November,Official Report, column 530, when the A91 project definition study was commissioned; who is carrying out the study; and what is the cost of the study.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract for the A91 project definition study was awarded to NNC Ltd. on 24 August 1992. The costs associated with this contract are commercially confidential.

  Heavy Duty Vehicles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many truck cargo heavy duty vehicles have now been delivered to his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Eight.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the volumes of(a) low-level waste, (b) intermediate-level waste and (c) high-level waste stored at (i) AWE Aldermaston, (ii) AWE Burghfield and (iii) AWE Cardiff for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  The amounts stored for each year are set out in the table:

  Volumes of low and intermediate-level waste stored at A WE sites

  Volumes are in cubic metres

  Year

  AWE Aldermaston LLW

  ILW

  AWE Burghfield LLW

  AWE Cardiff LLW

  1979

  580

  870

  7

  160

  1980

  720

  370

  5

  80

  1981

  780

  340

  8

  70

  1982

  1,060

  860

  2

  90

  1983

  1,140

  520

  6

  220

  1984

  1,160

  800

  3

  140

  1985

  1,200

  950

  3

  60

  1986

  1,670

  1,140

  3

  210

  1987

  1,340

  1,380

  0·3

  170

  1988

  2,630

  1,570

  0·7

  20

  1989

  2,100

  1,780

  0·7

  20

  1990

  1,680

  1,940

  1

  10

  1991

  1,800

  2,100

  1

  20

  1992

  2,210

  2,200

  1

  50

  Notes:

  1. The apparent change in AWE(A) LLW holdings between 1987 and 1988 is mainly due to revised volume accounting arrangements. Measurement by gross volume of ISO containers was introduced at this time.

  2. Figures stated are holdings in December for each of the years quoted, actual material held fluctuates during the course of the year.

  3. ILW has been accumulating each year since 1983, following suspension of sea dumping.

  4. Figures for AWE(A) and AWE(C) are rounded to the nearest 10m3.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the plutonium processing laboratories in A90 are expected to be declared operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  The plutonium processing facilities in A90 are scheduled to become operational in time to meet the needs of the Trident programme.

  Ancillary Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer ancillary services that do not have an offensive or defensive function to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence, in common with other Government Departments, is testing the quality and value for money of its own in-house services by exposing them to competition from the private sector. We plan, over the next four years, to expose to competition activities that currently cost us £1·2 billion a year. Where the private sector can offer better quality and value for money, the work will be transferred.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date it was first brought to his attention that Matrix Churchill goods were being used for military purposes in Iraq.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I first became aware in September this year that Matrix Churchill goods might have been used for military purposes in Iraq.

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

  Mr. Aitken
  All my Department's agencies are periodically reviewed as set out in the procedure described by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 17 November,Official Report, column 104.

  Army Pay and Personnel Unit
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian and military personnel are at present employed in the Army pay and personnel unit.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 389 military and 1,770 civilian personnel are at present employed in the Army's pay and personnel process.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the relocation and the future size and composition of the Army pay and personnel unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study examining the most efficient and cost-effective organisation for the Army's personnel function, and recommending a site for the organisation, has just been completed. I hope to be able to announce our proposals and commence consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties shortly.

  Armaments
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the transportation of armaments by rail in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In Scotland, as in any part of the United Kingdom, the Department uses the most convenient and cost-effective methods of transporting armaments. Providing these criteria can be met, movement by rail is, however, the preferred method. All the necessary safety precautions are taken and the relevant safety regulations strictly adhered to, whatever the method of transport.

  "Options for Change"
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review is being undertaken of the objectives contained within "Options for Change" in the light of the deployment in Bosnia and the possibility of further deployment of British troops.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's plans for force restructuring were developed in the recognition that instabilities and risks to our security would continue to exist in Europe and elsewhere. Nothing in recent events, including the commitment of troops to Bosnia, has invalidated those plans.

  Portland Naval Base
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 802, whether he has sought the views of other NATO countries concerning the closure of the Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The naval authorities of nations that regularly undertake operational sea training—OST —at Portland have been advised of its proposed transfer to Devonport and have indicated that this would not be a factor in deciding whether they wished to continue participating in OST. We expect to provide the same standard of service to these foreign navies at Devonport.

  House Purchase Scheme
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the new house purchase savings scheme for service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce arrangements for the introduction of the service home savings scheme have been completed. It will come into operation on 1 December 1992. The scheme is open to service personnel who have served for three years and who do not already own a home. If they save regularly for at least five years, with monthly contributions from £50 to £200, then when they buy a home, my Department will give them £1 for every £3 they have saved, including interest earned on their savings.

  Four financial institutions have been selected to operate the scheme, and will offer competitive rates on the savings deposited with them. They are:

  Bank of Scotland

  Gartmore Money Management

  Norwich and Peterborough Building Society

  Skipton Building Society

  299
  I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the explanatory brochure on the scheme which is being sent to all service personnel.

  The introduction of this new scheme represents a significant step forward in improving the opportunities for service personnel to become home owners.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of the Hydrographic Office in its second year of operation as a defence support agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Hydrographic Office defence support agency's annual report and accounts for the year 1991–92.

  As the chief executive, Rear Admiral Myres, notes in his foreword, the performance targets set for 1991–92 were not insignificant, and the annual report shows that the Hydrographic Office has met or exceeded all its targets. This has been achieved in a difficult year for the Ministry as a whole, faced with the continuing need to secure economies in defence spending and the chief executive and his staff are to be congratulated.

TRANSPORT

  Overloaded Coaches
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coaches have been found to be seriously overloaded after arrival at Channel ports from mainland Europe during the last year in which statistics are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Coach traffic from mainland Europe is not specifically targeted for weighing at ports of entry. But of the 506 coaches weighed by the Vehicle Inspectorate at the Department's weighbridge site on the A2 near Dover during the year ending 31 October 1992, the vast majority will have entered the United Kingdom from mainland Europe. Eighty-three coaches—some 16 per cent. of those weighed—were found to be seriously overloaded and were immediately prohibited from continuing their journeys.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will ensure that a unified network of rail services is maintained for passengers and freight after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government proposals are set out in "New Opportunities for the Railways", Cm 2012. Railtrack will provide and control the track network. Train services will be provided by private sector operators, including franchisees meeting standards set by a new franchising authority.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to regulate rail fare rises and keep them within inflation after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Where franchised rail services enjoy significant market power, fares will be controlled through the franchise contracts. In addition, the regulator will be 300
  able to control fares on non-franchised services to protect abuse of monopoly power. Detailed arrangements will be decided later, taking account of the circumstances of individual services: the first franchises will not be let until 1994.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that tickets for rail services will continue to be acceptable across the network after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have given a clear commitment to preserve through-ticketing. It will be for operators to negotiate acceptance of each other's tickets, to the extent that the regulator does not decide to impose such a requirement.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will preserve railcards, travelcards, and discount and concessionary fares in his plans for the railway network after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The offer of discounted ticketing arrangements will be a matter for the operator's judgment, as it is now for BR. In a competitive environment there will be every incentive for operators to seek to attract custom and maximise revenue by such measures. The regulator will have powers to intervene if necessary to ensure that benefits to passengers are maintained.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure rail services with through and connecting trains after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect the involvement of the private sector to ensure a better response to passenger demand for connecting and through services. Railtrack, as the track authority, will be responsible for the overall planning and operation of the timetable, in close consultation with operators and with oversight by the regulator.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will ensure continued comprehensive timetable and passenger information for the entire railway network after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will be in the commercial interests of operators to publicise their services and produce timetable information for passengers. If there is any doubt about the extent to which adequate information will be available, the rail regulator will have powers to impose appropriate requirements.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will maintain customer involvement in changes and improvements to rail services after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are well aware of the benefits of the current arrangements and are clear that effective consumer representation needs to be maintained. I have discussed our privatisation proposals with the Central Transport Consultative Committee on a number of occasions and have taken note of its initial views. We intend to publish a document on consumer representation by the end of the year.

  Rail Access
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will make it his policy to increase access to stations, in the national railway network, for elderly and disabled persons.
  301
  Mr. Freeman
  The day-to-day operation of the railways, including the provision of all facilities at stations, is currently the responsibility of British Rail. BR has a policy commitment to improve access and facilities for people with mobility problems wherever possible. All major stations have a range of appropriate facilities; BR also issues design guidance on making stations accessible and run extensive disability awareness training programmes for their staff. In addition, it has a special adviser on disability who chairs an advisory group which looks at all proposals for station developments.

  Rail Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to preserve and enhance rail services to rural areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is under an obligation to provide services which are comparable generally with those provided in 1988. There is no reason why privatisation of the railways should result in service reductions or closures. Subsidy is not dependent on public ownership of the railways and we have made it clear that we intend to provide subsidy where it is required to maintain socially necessary services.

  A24
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of converting the A24 to dual carriageway from the Worthing border to the Offington roundabout.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The A24 is the responsibility of West Sussex county council. The Department is not aware of any plans to widen the section between Findon and Offington corner. However, as part of its work in relation to the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement, the Department has estimated that the cost of dualling this section of the A24 would be between £7·5 million, and £12·3 million, depending on the standard adopted. These costs are at fourth-quarter 1990 prices.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to ensure that any market testing by his Department measures like with like and that there is a level playing field for such exercises.

  Mr. Norris
  The White Paper "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730, introduced the concept of the in-house bid to market-testing. The Department is conducting extensive consultations to establish a sound framework within which market-testing exercises will be carried out. It is also ensuring that the experiences of other Departments inform the deliberations. Central Departments are also advising on common issues. Evaluation of bids when received will be carried out with the assistance of the Department's accountancy adviser. Attention to comparing like with like and ensuring a level playing field are central to the Department's procedures.

  Merchant Seamen
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, during the United Kingdom European presidency, he will seek changes in EC regulations to ensure that most 302
  United Kingdom and European merchant seamen serving on vessels under flags of convenience will not be discriminated against with regard to social security and health arrangements.

  Mr. Norris
  Current EC regulations cover only those seamen serving on vessels operating under a flag of a member state. However, all British seamen working overseas outside the Community are entitled to make voluntary national insurance contributions, thereby preserving their rights to some benefits.

  Networker Trains
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the quality of service of the new Networker trains currently being tested on the North Kent suburban lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations about the quality of service of the new Networker trains which started coming into service at the beginning of October. The new trains are currently running during the off-peak period in addition to the timetabled trains to see how they perform in passenger service. Once the trains have completed, these trials they will be phased into peak services, probably from the end of November. All off-peak services should be operated by Networkers by May 1993 and the complete replacement of the trains should be complete by the end of 1995–96.

  Petroleum
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the transport of petroleum by rail in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the hon. Member, and will respond shortly.

  West Highland Railway Line
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with British Rail regarding proposals to end the carriage of petroleum supplies on the West Highland line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Strasbourg Air Services
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the single market will have on the ability of British airlines to provide services to and from Strasbourg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Existing Community rules allow British airlines to operate services to Strasbourg. These rules, however, contain limitations on the capacity which carriers are entitled to provide, and regulate the fares which can be charged. On 1 January 1993, the Community's single market in air transport takes effect. Capacity limitations will then be removed; and free pricing will be introduced, subject to safeguards against excessively high or predatory fares. The decision to operate services on particular routes remains a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines.

  Roads (Investment)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rate of return on investment is achieved on(a) local safety schemes and (b) motorway widening schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 13 November 1992]: Returns provided by local authorities indicate that the sums earmarked for local safety schemes in the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1991–92 produced an average first year rate of return of 76 per cent., and over the first three years an average rate of return of 213 per cent.

  Motorway widening schemes are appraised using the COBA and QUADRO computer programs. For those programmed motorway widening schemes that have reached the stage of having a validated cost-benefit assessment based on current traffic forecasts, the average ratio between the discounted benefits and the discounted costs is 3: 1.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the receipts of local councils from council house sales they have been allowed to spend.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities have been allowed to spend 25 per cent. of their receipts from council house sales and 50 per cent. of most other receipts. Under regulations which came into force on 13 November 1992, local authorities may spend in full the capital receipts obtained between that date and 31 December 1993 from nearly all sales of council houses and other assets.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow local authorities to spend more of their council house receipts.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: Under regulations which came into force on 13 November 1992, local authorities may spend in full the capital receipts obtained between that date and 31 December 1993 from nearly all sales of council houses and other assets.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contributions were made by(a) his Department and (b) consultants to his Department, to the international radioactive waste management advisory committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency special meeting held in Vienna in October.

  Mr. Maclean
  The second meeting of the international radioactive waste management advisory committee sub-group on principles and criteria for radioactive waste disposal, which met in Vienna from 27 to 29 October 1992, was attended by an inspector from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution who participated fully in the discussions which took place.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those agencies in his Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.
  304
  Mr. Howard
  None of the agencies for which I am responsible is currently a candidate for privatisation or contractorisation. These are, however, issues that are considered as part of each agency's three-year review; where appropriate, an announcement would be made.

  Competitive Tendering
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to amend the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) Regulations 1989, S.I., 1989, No. 1588;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to apply regulation 6 of the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) Regulations 1989, S.I., 1989 No. 1588, on compulsory competitive tendering, to all works of maintenance irrespective of their value.

  Mr. Redwood
  All construction and maintenance work, other than a limited range of highways work, carried out by local authorities on their own account, is subject to the competitive tendering provisions of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and the regulations made thereunder. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has consulted on proposals to subject the full range of highways work to these provisions, and the responses are being considered. We have no plans to amend the regulations in respect of the limited competition-free allowances provided for work carried out by authorities for other public bodies.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has engaged private detective agencies to investigate the activities of British citizens; and if he will list the date and purpose of each investigation.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: None.

  Water
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to bring forward proposals for statutory annual reports and audits on water resources management in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The present arrangements are adequate. They require the National Rivers Authority, among other things, to prepare annual reports on its activities, including its duty to conserve, and secure the proper use of, water resources; and to publish information from which assessments can be made of the actual and prospective demand for water and of actual and prospective water resources.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to require all planning applications affecting sites of special scientific interest to receive direct ministerial approval.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. Department of the Environment circular 1/92 states that the Secretary of State will normally call in planning applications which are likely to affect SSSIs of international importance and of recognised national importance. Guidance to local authorities and others on how the conservation of our natural heritage is to be reflected in land use planning and development control is set out in circular 27/87. The guidance will be updated in a planning policy guidance note, which will be published shortly.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake further investigation on the type and nature of contamination on all sites which are included on his departmental register of contaminated land.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department does not keep such a register. We are considering the responses to our proposals for the compilation by local authorities of registers of land which may be contaminated. Authorities have a duty to investigate possible contamination where they consider that this may constitute a nuisance, and to ensure that action is taken where necessary.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been undertaken into atmospheric effects of methyl bromide.

  Mr. Maclean
  The best current understanding of the effects of methyl bromide was recently summarised and assessed by the methyl bromide science panel at the request of the United Nations Environment Programme.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account has been taken of the employment effect of pit closures in calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Proposals for 1993–94 standard spending assessments will be announced shortly as part of the provisional revenue support grant settlement.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 974, concerning Lord Walker, if he will give details as to the terms, including salary, on which Lord Walker has been appointed chairman-designate of the urban regeneration agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Lord Walker will be chairman of the urban regeneration agency when it is established. His current role as chairman-designate does not constitute a formal appointment. He will receive no remuneration as chairman-designate or as chairman.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the expenditure levels for reclamation projects in opencast mining sites for each year since 1980; and what projection for such costs are available for the next(a) 10 years and (b) 50 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of increased costs to local authorities resulting from increased unemployment levels, when calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Proposals for standard spending assessments for 1993–94 will be announced shortly as part of the provisional revenue support grant settlement.

  Portland Naval Base
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funding will be made available to(a) Dorset county council and (b) Weymouth borough council as a result of the closure of Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to provide additional funding on this account through the revenue support grant settlement for 1993–94.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will determine the appeals by National Power and PowerGen under section 22(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for parts of their applications for integrated pollution control authorisation to be excluded from the public register on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today dismissed the appeal by PowerGen which related to forecast schedules of emission for 1991. In view of what I conclude to be the significance of the information to the process of application and authorisation and the consequent importance of its being available to the public, and my conclusions on the likelihood and extent of prejudice, I consider that the inclusion of the information in the register would not have been prejudicial to an unreasonable degree to the commercial interests of the appellant.

  I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today jointly determined to allow National Power's appeal, which relates to different information. We are satisfied that the information is not directly relevant to determination of the applications for authorisation themselves or to any of the conditions that are likely to be imposed in the authorisations and is not necessary to enable the public to comment effectively on the applications. The information was provided in excess of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's normal requirements and is not of the type intended by the legislation to be made available to the public. In view of the lack of relevance for the purposes of integrated pollution control, we consider that any prejudice to the company's commercial interests would be unreasonable in the circumstances.
  307
  The appeals were the first of their kind under the new system and raised complex issues which required full and careful consideration. Forecast schedules of emission have been supplied by PowerGen for 1992 and are the subject of a separate appeal. Similar information in respect of 1993 will be required to be supplied to HMIP shortly by both PowerGen and National Power. It is to be hoped that any further issue of confidentiality will be resolved as soon as possible, and that determination of all the companies' applications for authorisation will then proceed without undue delay.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received for authorisation to burn orimulsion; for what amounts in tonnes; and at which power stations.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received four applications to burn orimulsion.

  The applicants state that the amounts of orimulsion which each station can burn at maximum load will be as follows:
  Padiham Power Station, Lancashire (National Power) approximately 43 tonnes per hour; Pembroke Power Station, Dyfed (National Power) approximately 700 tonnes per hour; Ince "B" Power Station, Cheshire (PowerGen) approximately 165 tonnes per hour and Richborough Power Station, Kent (PowerGen) approximately 126 tonnes per hour.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities about the report by the Institute of Local Government on the effects on costs and services of local government in the metropolitan areas of England following the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Housing, Pendle
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the number of households on the waiting list of Pendle borough council for each year since 1982;

  (2) what percentage of (a) the local authority, (b) housing associations, (c) the private sector and (d) the total housing stock in Pendle was assessed as requiring major expenditure to bring it up to standard, in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report in their annual housing investment programme—HIP—returns the number of dwellings in their own stock that are unfit, not unfit but in need of renovation, and those designated under the housing defects legislation and not yet reinstated, along with estimates of those owned by housing associations and in the private sector.

  Since 1986, local authorities also report the number of households on their council housing waiting lists.

  The information reported by Pendle is as follows:
  308

  Percentage of housing stock requiring capital expenditure

  LA12

  HA

  Private3

  Total123

  Number of households on waiting list

  1982

  26

  0

  40

  37

  n/a

  1983

  24

  0

  38

  35

  n/a

  1984

  23

  0

  37

  34

  n/a

  1985

  34

  11

  37

  37

  n/a

  1986

  39

  14

  37

  39

  1,206

  1987

  36

  14

  45

  44

  1,708

  1988

  34

  5

  53

  50

  1,481

  1989

  20

  20

  53

  48

  1,598

  1990

  22

  9

  48

  44

  1,507

  1991

  78

  8

  51

  54

  2,597

  1992

  86

  9

  55

  58

  2,901

  1 Pendle BC has provided amended local authority and total figures for 1991 since the HIP1 returns were finalised.

  2 The information collected for local authority dwellings that were not unfit but in need of renovation in 1991 and 1992 relates to all dwellings requiring capital expenditure whereas, prior to 1991, a lower limit of £3,000 was imposed.

  3 The information collected for private sector dwellings that were not unfit but in need of renovation in 1991 and 1992 relates only to dwellings whose owners were likely to be eligible for discretionary renovation grants.

  4 In 1990 Pendle borough council relaxed the conditions of entry to its waiting list for council housing.

  Lleyn Peninsula
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission an independent assessment of the possible environmental damage from exploration for fossil fuels off the Lleyn peninsula.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  I am responding to this question in view of my ministerial responsibilities for oil and gas exploration licensing. It is the responsibility of the company holding the petroleum production licence to commission an environmental impact assessment if asked to do so in the special conditions attached to the licence. Hamilton Oil Company was awarded the two blocks north-west of the Lleyn peninsula in the 12th round of offshore oil and gas licensing. It will be required to produce such an assessment before development takes place on these blocks. The assessment will be copied to statutory bodies, such as the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, water authorities and mineral planning authorities, which will advise if the planned development is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines have been issued to local authorities concerning the treatment of attendance allowance income in respect of means-tested support services.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are in the process of issuing guidance to local authorities on the new charging rules from next April for people in residential accommodation under local authority arrangements. The guidance explains that local authorities should disregard attendance allowances and the care component of disability living allowance where it is paid to temporary residents.
  309
  We will be issuing guidance later about the treatment of attendance allowance and the care component of disability living allowance in charging for domiciliary and day care services.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the capital allocations for personal social services issued to each local authority in England for each year since 1981–82 and the annual capital guidelines for personal social services for the same years, at current and constant prices.

  Capital Allocations for Personal Social Services issued to Local Authorities from 1987–88 to 1992–93

  £ (000s)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  21991–92

  21992–93

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current and Constant prices1

  Camden

  593

  819

  996

  1,284

  1,215

  1,469

  1,726

  1,930

  1,208

  1,260

  1,497

  Greenwich

  616

  851

  308

  397

  194

  235

  591

  661

  512

  533

  632

  Hackney

  432

  597

  566

  729

  643

  777

  698

  780

  893

  931

  885

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,113

  1,538

  557

  718

  671

  811

  1,271

  1,421

  1,072

  1,118

  1,014

  Islington

  381

  527

  1,357

  1,749

  678

  820

  1,275

  1,426

  426

  444

  1,004

  Kensington and Chelsea

  155

  214

  297

  383

  149

  180

  927

  1,036

  1,414

  1,474

  895

  Lambeth

  390

  539

  677

  872

  339

  410

  912

  1,020

  1,073

  1,119

  1,174

  Lewisham

  238

  329

  1,022

  1,317

  511

  618

  467

  522

  632

  658

  782

  South wark

  372

  514

  208

  268

  196

  237

  961

  1,075

  1,337

  1,394

  918

  Tower Hamlets

  163

  225

  140

  180

  131

  158

  1,413

  1,580

  1,226

  1,278

  1,391

  Wandsworth

  381

  527

  1,278

  1,647

  639

  773

  414

  463

  566

  590

  744

  Westminster

  171

  236

  201

  259

  176

  213

  286

  320

  506

  528

  575

  City of London

  0

  0

  5

  6

  5

  6

  23

  26

  9

  9

  10

  Inner London

  5,005

  6,917

  7,612

  9,810

  5,545

  6,704

  10,965

  12,260

  10,873

  11,336

  11,520

  Barking and Dagenham

  115

  159

  145

  187

  134

  162

  242

  271

  343

  357

  367

  Barnet

  767

  1,060

  675

  870

  338

  409

  705

  788

  693

  722

  930

  Bexley

  183

  253

  208

  268

  195

  236

  352

  394

  538

  561

  647

  Brent

  353

  488

  241

  311

  224

  271

  405

  453

  820

  854

  726

  Bromley

  340

  470

  289

  372

  272

  329

  771

  862

  610

  636

  846

  Croydon

  274

  379

  302

  389

  318

  384

  498

  557

  699

  729

  886

  Ealing

  557

  770

  278

  358

  259

  313

  468

  523

  630

  657

  1,160

  Enfield

  278

  384

  827

  1,066

  1,026

  1,241

  504

  564

  576

  600

  781

  Haringey

  404

  558

  202

  260

  175

  212

  307

  343

  422

  440

  1,048

  Harrow

  633

  875

  752

  969

  585

  707

  320

  358

  459

  479

  582

  Havering

  184

  254

  766

  987

  383

  463

  375

  419

  467

  487

  626

  Hillingdon

  581

  803

  886

  1,142

  443

  536

  709

  793

  590

  615

  747

  Hounslow

  444

  614

  222

  286

  225

  272

  314

  351

  440

  459

  646

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  111

  153

  132

  170

  172

  208

  225

  252

  279

  291

  444

  Merton

  167

  231

  384

  495

  401

  485

  270

  302

  401

  418

  517

  Newham

  339

  468

  304

  392

  186

  225

  330

  369

  503

  524

  592

  Redbridge

  378

  522

  236

  304

  209

  253

  373

  417

  532

  555

  731

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  177

  245

  259

  334

  149

  180

  269

  301

  418

  436

  538

  Sutton

  247

  341

  197

  254

  559

  676

  277

  310

  411

  428

  525

  Waltham Forest

  345

  477

  636

  820

  471

  569

  757

  846

  874

  911

  882

  Outer London

  6,877

  9,504

  7,940

  10,233

  6,722

  8,128

  8,471

  9,471

  10,704

  11,159

  14,220

  All London

  11,882

  16,420

  15,551

  20,042

  12,267

  14,832

  19,436

  21,731

  21,578

  22,495

  25,740

  Avon

  748

  1,034

  976

  1,258

  1,043

  1,261

  1,559

  1,743

  1,993

  2,078

  2,368

  Bedfordshire

  1,199

  1,657

  765

  986

  838

  1,013

  825

  922

  1,039

  1,083

  1,339

  Berkshire

  821

  1,135

  1,119

  1,442

  1,164

  1,407

  1,587

  1,774

  1,468

  1,530

  1,846

  Buckinghamshire

  613

  847

  866

  1,116

  550

  665

  961

  1,074

  1,557

  1,623

  1,755

  Cambridgeshire

  901

  1,245

  692

  892

  691

  835

  1,000

  1,118

  1,364

  1,422

  1,905

  Cheshire

  3,851

  5,322

  3,530

  4,549

  3,058

  3,697

  1,950

  2,180

  1,969

  2,053

  2,259

  Cleveland

  477

  659

  687

  885

  481

  582

  841

  940

  1,448

  1,510

  1,631

  Cornwall

  392

  542

  434

  559

  723

  874

  1,093

  1,222

  1,004

  1,047

  1,208

  Cumbria

  457

  632

  466

  601

  440

  532

  783

  875

  1,043

  1,087

  1,127

  Derbyshire

  880

  1,216

  1,326

  1,709

  1,360

  1,644

  2,036

  2,276

  1,932

  2,014

  2,222

  Devonshire

  1,040

  1,437

  1,231

  1,586

  1,078

  1,303

  1,751

  1,958

  2,581

  2,690

  2,713

  Dorsetshire

  1,237

  1,709

  1,367

  1,762

  880

  1,064

  1,192

  1,333

  1,385

  1,444

  1,605

  Durham

  538

  743

  572

  737

  602

  728

  927

  1,036

  1,262

  1,315

  1,451

  310
  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Table 1 gives details of personal social services capital allocations by local authority from 1987–88, at current and constant prices. From 1990–91 the allocations include supplementary credit approvals and the secure accommodation for children grant, where applicable. Prior to 1990–91, supplementary credit approvals were not available. Information about capital allocations from 1981–82 to 1986–87 and about allocations for secure accommodation for children prior to 1990–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Table 2 gives details of annual capital guideline allocations, from their introduction in 1990–91, at current and constant prices.
  311

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990–91

  21991–92

  21992–93

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current and Constant prices1

  East Sussex

  1,451

  2,005

  807

  1,040

  809

  978

  1,665

  1,862

  1,821

  1,898

  2,133

  Essex

  1,254

  1,733

  3,466

  4,467

  3,615

  4,371

  4,434

  4,958

  3,239

  3,377

  3,994

  Gloucestershire

  399

  551

  490

  631

  469

  567

  915

  1,023

  1,073

  1,118

  1,347

  Hampshire

  1,343

  1,856

  1,543

  1,989

  1,576

  1,906

  2,729

  3,051

  3,290

  3,429

  3,925

  Hereford and Worcester

  583

  806

  1,170

  1,508

  898

  1,086

  1,063

  1,189

  1,349

  1,406

  1,632

  Hertfordshire

  842

  1,164

  929

  1,197

  1,000

  1,209

  1,514

  1,693

  1,968

  2,052

  2,432

  Humberside

  994

  1,374

  1,095

  1,411

  754

  912

  2,167

  2,423

  2,090

  2,178

  2,615

  Isle of Wight

  378

  522

  911

  1,174

  559

  676

  725

  811

  574

  599

  517

  Kent

  1,252

  1,730

  1,427

  1,839

  1,366

  1,652

  2,353

  2,631

  3,287

  3,426

  4,043

  Lancashire

  1,946

  2,689

  1,774

  2,286

  1,502

  1,816

  2,258

  2,525

  3,057

  3,186

  3,521

  Leicestershire

  794

  1,097

  1,295

  1,669

  1,587

  1,919

  1,859

  2,079

  1,975

  2,058

  2,365

  Lincolnshire

  434

  600

  538

  693

  523

  632

  913

  1,021

  1,186

  1,236

  1,359

  Norfolk

  755

  1,043

  712

  918

  696

  842

  1,179

  1,318

  1,565

  1,632

  2,004

  Northamptonshire

  620

  857

  772

  995

  751

  908

  888

  993

  1,298

  1,353

  1,589

  Northumberland

  289

  399

  288

  371

  272

  329

  477

  533

  677

  706

  782

  North Yorkshire

  555

  767

  673

  867

  647

  782

  1,124

  1,257

  1,592

  1,659

  1,776

  Nottinghamshire

  979

  1,353

  1,013

  1,306

  943

  1,140

  1,602

  1,791

  2,090

  2,178

  2,415

  Oxfordshire

  612

  846

  545

  702

  523

  632

  893

  998

  1,500

  1,564

  1,825

  Shropshire

  1,371

  1,895

  1,089

  1,403

  1,319

  1,595

  1,185

  1,325

  1,021

  1,065

  1,202

  Somerset

  350

  484

  432

  557

  419

  507

  727

  813

  941

  981

  1,142

  Staffordshire

  994

  1,374

  1,382

  1,781

  1,886

  2,280

  2,212

  2,473

  2,360

  2,460

  2,438

  Suffolk

  734

  1,014

  614

  791

  577

  698

  1,049

  1,173

  1,572

  1,639

  1,909

  Surrey

  1,108

  1,531

  972

  1,253

  921

  1,114

  1,561

  1,745

  2,094

  2,183

  2,494

  Warwickshire

  460

  636

  452

  583

  471

  569

  754

  843

  1,111

  1,158

  1,446

  West Sussex

  1,149

  1,588

  876

  1,129

  928

  1,122

  1,251

  1,399

  1,473

  1,536

  1,835

  Wiltshire

  485

  670

  836

  1,077

  603

  729

  863

  965

  1,431

  1,491

  1,635

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  7

  3

  4

  1

  1

  19

  21

  4

  4

  5

  Shire Counties

  35,290

  48,769

  40,130

  51,718

  38,523

  46,578

  54,881

  61,361

  65,679

  68,470

  77,803

  Bolton

  204

  282

  246

  317

  231

  279

  413

  462

  774

  807

  949

  Bury

  153

  211

  164

  211

  152

  184

  282

  315

  397

  414

  493

  Manchester

  751

  1,038

  428

  552

  396

  479

  695

  777

  951

  991

  1,320

  Oldham

  247

  341

  207

  267

  252

  305

  527

  589

  724

  755

  608

  Rochdale

  174

  240

  256

  330

  222

  268

  360

  403

  511

  533

  631

  Salford

  342

  473

  451

  581

  273

  330

  377

  422

  538

  561

  636

  Stockport

  257

  355

  368

  474

  260

  314

  459

  513

  583

  608

  767

  Tameside

  202

  279

  205

  264

  190

  230

  345

  386

  577

  601

  847

  Trafford

  184

  254

  207

  267

  192

  232

  346

  387

  488

  509

  595

  Wigan

  235

  325

  287

  370

  268

  324

  480

  537

  785

  818

  796

  Knowsley

  188

  260

  173

  223

  160

  193

  261

  292

  371

  387

  547

  Liverpool

  447

  618

  469

  604

  423

  511

  736

  823

  1,076

  1,122

  1,250

  St. Helens

  888

  1,227

  444

  572

  222

  268

  299

  334

  420

  438

  517

  Sefton

  395

  546

  360

  464

  271

  328

  475

  531

  725

  756

  716

  Wirral

  356

  492

  681

  878

  927

  1,121

  529

  591

  944

  984

  1,157

  Barnsley

  280

  387

  455

  586

  397

  480

  822

  919

  555

  578

  611

  Doncaster

  275

  380

  274

  353

  367

  444

  454

  508

  1,046

  1,090

  1,000

  Rotherham

  214

  296

  608

  784

  718

  868

  407

  455

  677

  706

  873

  Sheffield

  568

  785

  613

  790

  485

  586

  900

  1,006

  1,145

  1,193

  1,447

  Gateshead

  193

  267

  274

  353

  391

  473

  330

  369

  652

  679

  843

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  231

  319

  384

  495

  319

  386

  448

  501

  724

  755

  819

  North Tyneside

  176

  243

  186

  240

  170

  206

  313

  350

  389

  406

  539

  South Tyneside

  223

  308

  153

  197

  788

  953

  1,467

  1,640

  1,176

  1,226

  731

  Sunderland

  546

  755

  290

  374

  405

  490

  546

  610

  769

  802

  812

  Birmingham

  1,037

  1,433

  1,357

  1,749

  1,734

  2,097

  2,968

  3,318

  2,585

  2,695

  2,921

  Coventry

  649

  897

  1,060

  1,366

  962

  1,163

  678

  758

  1,066

  1,111

  1,184

  Dudley

  321

  444

  285

  367

  849

  1,027

  1,338

  1,496

  978

  1,020

  796

  Sandwell

  275

  380

  332

  428

  390

  472

  467

  522

  1,058

  1,103

  931

  Solihull

  161

  222

  188

  242

  179

  216

  324

  362

  750

  782

  810

  Walsall

  1,008

  1,393

  953

  1,228

  965

  1,167

  783

  875

  520

  542

  842

  Wolverhampton

  254

  351

  557

  718

  521

  630

  798

  892

  536

  559

  798

  Bradford

  488

  674

  432

  557

  407

  492

  713

  797

  1,244

  1,297

  1,194

  Calderdale

  1X9

  261

  183

  236

  172

  208

  316

  353

  463

  483

  552

  Kirklees

  321

  444

  355

  458

  333

  403

  584

  653

  808

  843

  978

  Leeds

  1,128

  1,559

  842

  1,085

  1,248

  1,509

  1,107

  1,238

  1,793

  1,869

  2,366

  Wakefield

  268

  370

  292

  376

  273

  330

  487

  545

  751

  783

  903

  Metropolitan Boroughs

  13,828

  19,110

  15,019

  19,356

  16,510

  19,962

  22,835

  25,531

  29,546

  30,801

  33,776

  All England

  61,000

  84,299

  70,700

  91,116

  67,300

  81,372

  97,152

  108,624

  116,804

  121,768

  137,319

  1 at 1992–93 prices.

  2 Includes supplementary credit approval and secure accommodation for children grant allocations where appropriate.

  312 313

  Table 2 Personal Social Services Annual Capital Guidelines allocated to Local Authorities from 1990–91 to 1992–93

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current and constant prices1

  Camden

  1,048

  1,172

  734

  765

  514

  Greenwich

  561

  627

  425

  443

  529

  Hackney

  430

  481

  376

  392

  462

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  246

  275

  303

  315

  373

  Islington

  248

  277

  340

  355

  428

  Kensington and Chelsea

  903

  1,010

  632

  659

  442

  Lambeth

  350

  391

  476

  497

  571

  Lewisham

  336

  376

  457

  476

  560

  Southwark

  318

  356

  441

  459

  555

  Tower Hamlets

  487

  545

  541

  355

  403

  Wandsworth

  381

  426

  521

  543

  641

  Westminster

  259

  290

  361

  377

  457

  City of London

  7

  8

  9

  9

  10

  Inner London

  5,575

  6,233

  5,415

  5,645

  5,945

  Barking and Dagenham

  217

  243

  298

  310

  367

  Barnet

  669

  748

  626

  652

  769

  Bexley

  322

  360

  441

  460

  544

  Brent

  372

  416

  505

  526

  623

  Bromley

  735

  822

  610

  636

  753

  Croydon

  461

  515

  632

  659

  783

  Ealing

  432

  483

  586

  610

  720

  Enfield

  471

  527

  531

  553

  658

  Haringey

  279

  312

  377

  393

  470

  Harrow

  291

  325

  392

  409

  479

  Havering

  344

  385

  467

  487

  574

  Hillingdon

  678

  758

  473

  493

  584

  Hounslow

  286

  320

  390

  406

  483

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  201

  225

  279

  291

  351

  Merton

  244

  273

  335

  349

  414

  Newham

  295

  330

  403

  421

  499

  Redbridge

  342

  382

  472

  492

  588

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  243

  272

  339

  354

  426

  Sutton

  250

  280

  344

  359

  422

  Waltham Forest

  727

  813

  509

  531

  529

  OUTER LONDON

  7,859

  8,787

  9,010

  9,393

  11,035

  ALL LONDON

  13,434

  15,020

  14,425

  15,038

  16,980

  Avon

  1,477

  1,651

  1,933

  2,015

  2,233

  Bedfordshire

  773

  864

  1,039

  1,083

  1,236

  Berkshire

  1,520

  1,699

  1,468

  1,530

  1,743

  Buckinghamshire

  902

  1,009

  1,240

  1,293

  1,482

  Cambridgeshire

  939

  1,050

  1,297

  1,352

  1,552

  Cheshire

  1,868

  2,089

  1,902

  1,983

  2,149

  Cleveland

  787

  880

  1,082

  1,128

  1,215

  Cornwall

  1,046

  1,170

  949

  990

  1,105

  Cumbria

  734

  821

  998

  1,040

  1,127

  Derbyshire

  1,956

  2,187

  1,866

  1,945

  2,129

  Devonshire

  1,665

  1,862

  2,134

  2,225

  2,466

  Dorsetshire

  1,131

  1,265

  1,385

  1,444

  1,605

  Durham

  870

  973

  1,195

  1,246

  1,348

  East Sussex

  1,600

  1,789

  1,516

  1,580

  1,780

  Essex

  4,312

  4,821

  3,077

  3,208

  3,641

  Gloucestershire

  863

  965

  1,073

  1,118

  1,244

  Hampshire

  2,606

  2,914

  3,092

  3,224

  3,640

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,001

  1,119

  1,349

  1,406

  1,529

  Hertfordshire

  1,430

  1,599

  1,968

  2,052

  2,329

  Humberside

  1,387

  1,551

  1,711

  1,784

  1,942

  Isle of Wight

  701

  784

  491

  512

  344

  Kent

  2,232

  2,496

  3,071

  3,202

  3,616

  Lancashire

  2,146

  2,399

  2,802

  2,921

  3,168

  Leicestershire

  1,782

  1,992

  1,772

  1,847

  2,027

  Lincolnshire

  857

  958

  1,186

  1,236

  1,359

  Norfolk

  1,112

  1,243

  1,535

  1,600

  1,820

  Northamptonshire

  833

  931

  1,141

  1,190

  1,306

  Northumberland

  441

  493

  611

  636

  689

  North Yorkshire

  1,059

  1,184

  1,472

  1,534

  1,673

  Nottinghamshire

  1,516

  1,695

  2,030

  2,116

  2,312

  Oxfordshire

  837

  936

  1,148

  1,197

  1,369

  Shropshire

  1,142

  1,277

  804

  839

  915

  314 315

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current prices

  Constant prices1

  Current and constant prices1

  Somerset

  680

  760

  941

  981

  1,096

  Staffordshire

  2,125

  2,376

  2,060

  2,147

  2,335

  Suffolk

  989

  1,106

  1,290

  1,345

  1,531

  Surrey

  1,476

  1,650

  2,027

  2,113

  2,391

  Warwickshire

  705

  788

  966

  1,007

  1093

  West Sussex

  1,187

  1,327

  1,473

  1,536

  1,732

  Wiltshire

  809

  905

  1,114

  1,161

  1,295

  Isles of Scilly

  3

  3

  4

  4

  5

  Shire Counties

  51,496

  57,577

  60,212

  62,771

  69,569

  Bolton

  380

  425

  524

  547

  596

  Bury

  255

  285

  352

  367

  400

  Manchester

  649

  726

  884

  922

  1,002

  Oldham

  497

  556

  437

  456

  495

  Rochdale

  331

  370

  408

  425

  462

  Salford

  346

  387

  473

  493

  533

  Stockport

  424

  474

  583

  608

  656

  Tameside

  315

  352

  436

  454

  494

  Trafford

  316

  353

  433

  452

  488

  Wigan

  443

  495

  612

  638

  693

  Knowsley

  235

  263

  305

  318

  344

  Liverpool

  688

  769

  935

  975

  1,047

  St. Helens

  271

  303

  375

  391

  424

  Sefton

  439

  491

  607

  633

  684

  Wirral

  491

  549

  677

  706

  762

  Barnsley

  792

  886

  555

  578

  501

  Doncaster

  419

  468

  579

  604

  657

  Rotherham

  374

  418

  500

  522

  568

  Sheffield

  848

  948

  1,078

  1,123

  1,216

  Gateshead

  301

  337

  415

  432

  464

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  413

  462

  563

  587

  632

  North Tyneside

  284

  318

  389

  406

  436

  South Tyneside

  1,441

  1,611

  1,009

  1,051

  706

  Sunderland

  510

  570

  582

  607

  654

  Birmingham

  1,434

  1,603

  1,965

  2,048

  2,221

  Coventry

  642

  718

  603

  628

  681

  Dudley

  1,302

  1,456

  911

  950

  693

  Sandwell

  431

  482

  591

  616

  668

  Solihull

  295

  330

  405

  422

  457

  Walsall

  750

  839

  520

  542

  589

  Wolverhampton

  766

  856

  536

  559

  563

  Bradford

  665

  744

  919

  958

  1,041

  Calderdale

  287

  321

  396

  413

  449

  Kirklees

  543

  607

  747

  779

  845

  Leeds

  1,042

  1,165

  1,434

  1,495

  1,622

  Wakefield

  450

  503

  624

  651

  710

  Metropolitan boroughs

  20,070

  22,440

  23,364

  24,357

  25,452

  All England

  85,000

  95,037

  98,000

  102,165

  112,000

  1 At 1992–93 prices.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will update his answer of 17 June,Official Report, columns 552–53, on the executive agencies that have been established to date, the number of staff at the time of establishment and the number of staff currently employed in each case, in full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current list of established agencies including organisations that are operating on next steps lines, comparing the number of staff employed at the time of launch with latest staffing figures, is as follows:316

  Agency

  Staff at launch

  Current staff1

  Accounts Services Agency

  90

  90

  ADAS Agency

  2,000

  2,000

  Building Research Establishment

  680

  710

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  220

  230

  Central Office of Information2

  740

  640

  Central Science Laboratory

  370

  370

  Central Statistical Office

  1,090

  1,160

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  620

  600

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment3

  580

  610

  Civil Service College

  200

  230

  Companies House2

  1,100

  1,090

  Compensation Agency4

  150

  150

  Defence Analytical Services Agency3

  140

  130

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre3

  170

  170

  Defence Postal and Courier Services3

  490

  490

  Defence Research Agency

  12,000

  11,250

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts3

  2,180

  2,060

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  5,400

  4,570

  317

  Agency

  Staff at launch

  Current staff1

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency4

  260

  260

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,000

  1,980

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  100

  100

  DVOIT

  515

  515

  Employment Service

  33,800

  46,000

  Fire Service College2

  270

  270

  Forensic Science Service

  600

  600

  Historic Royal Palaces

  350

  340

  Historic Scotland

  610

  630

  HMSO2

  3,250

  3,220

  Hydrographic Office3

  890

  830

  Insolvency Service

  1,400

  1,550

  Intervention Board

  1,000

  970

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  300

  330

  Land Registry

  10,800

  9,560

  Medicines Control Agency

  310

  300

  Meteorological Office

  2,450

  2,500

  Military Survey3

  1,265

  1,180

  National Engineering Laboratory

  430

  380

  National Physical Laboratory

  830

  810

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  40

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  460

  460

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation3

  1,630

  1,610

  NHS Estates

  120

  130

  NHS Pensions

  630

  630

  Occupational Health Service

  100

  125

  Ordnance Survey

  2,550

  2,340

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland4

  210

  210

  Patent Office2

  1,150

  1,035

  Planning Inspectorate

  605

  605

  Public Record Office

  430

  430

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  50

  60

  Queen Victoria School

  65

  70

  Radiocommunications Agency

  520

  520

  RAF Maintenance3

  13,800

  12,900

  Rate Collection Aency4

  270

  280

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  280

  230

  Registers of Scotland

  1,000

  1,340

  Royal Mint2

  970

  1,010

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  140

  140

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  250

  210

  Service Children's Schools (NW Europe)36

  1,000

  1,050

  Social Security Agency4

  5,500

  5,100

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  65,600

  62,760

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  7,200

  8,310

  Social Security IT Services Agency

  3,600

  4,070

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  600

  460

  Teachers' Pension Agency

  290

  290

  The Buying Agency2

  110

  80

  Training and Employment Agency4

  1,700

  1,670

  Transport Research Laboratory

  630

  630

  UK Passport Agency

  1,270

  1,270

  Valuation Office

  5,250

  5,120

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  70

  70

  Vehicle Inspectorate2

  1,600

  1,820

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  70

  80

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  290

  300

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  30

  30

  76 Agencies

  Executive Units

  HM Customs and Excise5

  26,900

  26,400

  Inland Revenue

  63,780

  63,780

  1 April 1992 figures for civil servants and armed forces personnel. Casuals are excluded. Part-time staff are counted as half units.

  2 Trading fund.

  3 Defence Support Agency.

  4 Northern Ireland Civil Service.

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

  6 Launch figure excludes 1,360 locally engaged staff. Current figure excludes 1,285 locally engaged staff.

  318
  7 Launch figure includes 8,430 armed forces personal in Ministry of Defence agencies, current figure includes7,730 armed forces personal in Ministry of Defence agencies.

  Medical Research
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government aid has been given since 1979 for research into(a) the causes and (b) potential cures of (i) cancer and (ii) AIDS.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: The main Government agency for the funding of medical research is the Medical Research Council. Between 1979–80 and 1991–92, MRC total expenditure on research specifically related to cancer was £142 million. The MRC also supports research which is more general in its application but is also likely to be relevant to cancer; it estimates that it spent £73 million on such research in 1991–92. Information is not collected centrally on other Government-funded expenditure on cancer research undertaken by university departments and medical schools, health departments or health authorities.

  Information on Government support for AIDS research has been collected since 1986–87. Over the period 1986–87 to 1992–93 an estimated £105 million has been devoted by Government to AIDS research. This figure excludes expenditure by university departments and medical schools on research funded by the Government through the Universities Funding Council.

  It is not possible separately to identify research expenditure on the causes and cures of cancer or AIDS.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will arrange for concessionary television licences to be available to households consisting of registered blind adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  A television licence is not required where broadcast television signals are received in sound only through a specially adapted monitor such as that supplied by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. A reduction of £1–25 on the cost of a television licence was instituted in 1971 when radio licences were abolished and is available to all registered blind people not resident in a public or charitable institution or in a school.

WALES

  Pembrokeshire Hospital Trust
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the Pembrokeshire hospital trust business plan which has been submitted to his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Pembrokeshire NHS trust has submitted a draft business plan which is subject to further discussion. The NHS trust will be required to make a summary of the plan widely available in due course.

  Waiting Time Initiative
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each health authority in Wales, for each of the last three years and for the current financial

  Waiting times initiative: Funding and Schemes 1989–90–1992–93

  District

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Allocation £

  Schemes

  Allocation £

  Schemes

  Clwyd

  34,000

  Purchase additional hip replacement operations.

  40,000

  ENT: additional in-patient operations to reduce waiting list.

  East Dyfed

  11,800

  Dermatology: additional out-patient sessions at West Wales General Hospital.

  102,000

  Dermatology: additional out-patient, in-patient, and day cases to eliminate out-patient wait over three months.

  Gwent

  222,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics: additional in-patient and out-patient.

  249,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics: additional in-patients and new out-patients.

  Gwynedd

  36,679

  (i) Gynaecology: additional in-patient treatments.

  57,460

  Additional in-patients in ENT and gynaecology.

  (ii) Oral surgery: additional out-patients at Ysbyty Gwynedd and in-patients at Llandudno General.

  Mid Glamorgan

  298,126

  (i) ENT: additional in-patient, out-patient and day case activity in Ogwr, Rhondda and Taff Ely.

  216,000

  (i) ENT: additional in-patient, out-patient and day case activity district wide.

  (ii) Dermatology: additional out-patients in Ogwr.

  (ii) Dermatology: additional out-patients to reduce list over three months for first out-patient appointment.

  (iii) Orthopaedics: additional out-patients in Ogwr and Taff Ely.

  Pembrokeshire

  130,000

  Purchase of additional hip replacement operations from the private sector.

  110,000

  (i) General surgery: additional in-patients district wide.

  (ii) Trauma and orthopaedics: additional hip and knee operations.

  (iii) District-wide waiting list validation exercise.

  Powys

  20,000

  Additional in-patient cataract operations,

  8,500

  General surgery: additional in-patients at Bronglais General Hospital.

  South Glamorgan

  254,313

  Trauma and orthopaedics: additional in-patient and out-patient activity district wide.

  117,855

  Trauma and orthopaedics: additional in-patient treatments district wide.

  West Glamorgan

  102,479

  (i) Trauma and orthopaedics: additional out-patients at North Unit.

  105,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics: additional out-patients, in-patients and day cases district wide.

  (ii) Dermatology: additional out-patients at North and East Units.

  (iii) Minor operations: additional in-patients at East Unit.

  District

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Allocation £

  Schemes

  1 2Allocation £

  Schemes

  Clwyd

  75,000

  (i) Additional in-patient urology operations at Ysbyty Maelor.

  103,500 (36,800)

  (ii) Additional orthopaedic operations at Glan Clwyd.

  East Dyfed

  48,000

  (i) Equipment to permit an additional day case cataract operation session per week.

  84,000 (5,900)

  (ii) Additional urology/ lithotripsy operations.

  Gwent

  60,000

  (i) Additional day cases in general surgery, gynaecology and orthopaedics at Nevill Hall.

  132,000 (16,800)

  (ii) Additional out-patient sessions in orthopaedics/physiotherapy at Royal Gwent.

  320
  year, the allocation his Department has made under the waiting time initiative, giving details of the schemes for which the money has been specified.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:
  321

  District

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Allocation £

  Schemes

  1 2 Allocation £

  Schemes

  Gwynedd

  36,000

  ENT: Additional in-patients at Ysbyty Gwynedd.

  85,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  170,000

  (i) ENT: Additional in-patient treatments at Prince Charles and East Glamorgan Hospitals.

  170,500 (17,200)

  (ii) Two additional out-patient clincs in Merthyr/Cynon Valley Unit.

  (iii) Dermatology: additional out-patients district wide.

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  No allocation made.

  35,500

  Powys

  18,000

  District wide additional out-patient sessions in ENT, general surgery, ophthalmology and orthopaedics.

  38,500 (2,100)

  South Glamorgan

  215,000

  (i) Day surgery equipment at UHW.

  123,000 (4,200)

  (ii) Surgical: lasers for UHW.

  West Glamorgan

  256,000

  (i) Orthopaedics: additional out-patients at Neath General Hospital.

  108,000 (17,000)

  (ii) Urology: additional day case treatments at Morriston.

  (iii) Ophthalmology: equipment to facilitate extra ophthalmologist at Singleton Hospital.

  (iv) Orthopaedics: additional in-patients, out-patients and day cases at Morriston Hospital.

  1 Figures in brackets are allocations to family health service authorities, on behalf of GP fund holders. 1992–93 is the first year that initiative funds have been allocated to both DHAs and GP fund holders.

  2 In 1992–93 allocations were not made to specific projects but were used to support DHA and GP fund-holder initiatives aimed at meeting the patients charter waiting times guarantees.

  HCFC22
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what quantity of HCFC22 is purchased by his Department per annum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department's buildings in the past five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding has been allocated or spent to deal specifically with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Funds are not specifically earmarked by my Department for this purpose. Measures to reduce consumption of these substances are taken as part of our general procurement arrangements and the costs involved are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available.
  322
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department receives guidance on an ongoing basis from the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many chlorofluorocarbon domestic fridges are contained within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion of his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances becomes controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (2) what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by his Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use;

  (3) what measures have been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department works within the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure all its "controlled waste" is properly and legally dealt with. However, information is not collected centrally about the disposal of "controlled waste".
  323
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department's policy is to ensure that wherever practicable these substances are recovered for recycling.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. However, all systems are subject to a stringent maintenance regime intended readily to detect any abnormalities.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon installations are contained within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These installations are present in six properties occupied by my Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 22 June 1992, at column 69.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has not identified any direct uses of these chemicals which it considers essential.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an undertaking to purchase only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons or hydrochlorofluorocarbons for his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. I can give an undertaking that my Department will purchase only ozone-friendly fridges, provided that they are available and offer good value for money.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the latest available figures are for his Department's total purchase of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrocholorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone-destroying chemicals used annually in his Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available.

  Halon Fire Extinguishers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within his Department's buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.
  324
  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has 57 halon fire extinguishers remaining in buildings it occupies. These are all due to be replaced in this financial year with the appropriate ozone-friendly alternatives. They will be removed and disposed of safely under controlled conditions with their contents being recycled in accordance with the relevant British standard.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales have granted applications for relief under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the period from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1992 Llanelli borough council, Newport borough council, Cardiff city council and Lliw Valley borough council granted applications for relief under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Farm and Countryside Grant Scheme
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 9, (1) what was the total financial sum of the disallowed claims under the farm and countryside grant scheme for each of the years (a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) 1992 to 30 September;

  (2) what was the total financial sum of the disallowed claims for sheep annual premium for each of the years (a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) 1992 to 30 October.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to extend the Tir Cymen scheme to the whole of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Tir Cymen is the countryside stewardship scheme in Wales. It has been introduced for a period of five years as an experimental project in three areas because it is the first environmental incentive scheme for all farmed landscapes and habitats in a large area and it is essential to evaluate the administrative, financial and monitoring systems adopted. The extension of the scheme will depend on the outcome of that evaluation and the resources then available.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales that plan to(a) fulfil and (b) exceed Government targets for local authority recycling of 25 per cent. of all household waste by the year 2000.
  325
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  1987—None.

  1988–1 buzzard.

  1989–4 buzzards, 6 red kites.

  1990–2 buzzards.

  1991–2 buzzards, 1 red kite, 1 peregrine falcon.

  1992—To date 1 buzzard and 3 red kites.

  Departmental Printing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the value of his Department's total annual expenditure on printing for each of the past 10 financial years; what tendering procedure has been followed; and if it has been changed since 1982–83.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Annual expenditure on printing costs for the past five financial years is as follows:

  Year

  £(000's)

  1987–88

  378

  1988–89

  458

  1989–90

  560

  1990–91

  543

  1991–92

  489

  326
  Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Prior to September 1991 the majority of the Department's printing requirements were met under standing arrangements with HMSO. Purchasing since that date has been conducted entirely on the basis of competitive tendering for individual tasks.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the population-based formula for public expenditure for Wales, referred to in his press notice of 12 November, as it applied for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The population-based formula for public expenditure which applied until 1992–93 provided adjustments in the Welsh block provision equal to 5–88 per cent. of the survey changes agreed for comparable programmes in England. For 1993–94 the formula has been updated to 6·02 per cent. to take account of the latest estimated population relativity between the two countries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to place the issue of Kashmir on the agenda of the next Commonwealth conference to take place during 1993 in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believe the Kashmir dispute can be resolved only by peaceful agreement between India and Pakistan. We have offered to help to achieve a lasting settlement, if both sides wish us to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

  Iraq
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Prime Minister when he became aware that Bank of Credit and Commerce International accounts were being used to facilitate arms trading with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: I have no such knowledge.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his autumn statement of 12 November, what are the percentage figures for expenditure under the population-related formula on Wales and Northern Ireland comparable to the 10·66 per cent. specified for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The comparable figure for Wales, reflecting the population figures in the 1991 census, is 6·02 per cent. For Northern Ireland it is 2·87 per cent.

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the dropping by Customs and Excise of their prosecution at Dover magistrates court in July against Contractors 600 for illegal exportation to Iraq of lathes supplied by the Colchester Lathe Company; what payments of fines were made by the company; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: The proceedings referred to were in respect of the export of
  328
  castings without the requisite licence. The alleged offence was under section 68(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which does not allege fraudulent intent.

  Proceedings in this case were stayed following an agreement by the commissioners in the exercise of their authority under section 152 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to compound proceedings on payment of £75,000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the extent of the change of the number of criminal cases listed for magistrates courts in England and Wales during the current year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available. I understand that "Home Office Criminal Statistics" for 1991, the latest year available, are expected to be published within the next few months.

  Lord Justice Scott
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those cases, or other tribunals, over which Lord Justice Scott is currently presiding or participating; and what cases are currently listed in which he is due to preside or participate.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Justice Scott was sitting as a member of a three-judge Court of Appeal, hearing appeals in the ordinary course of the court's business which might concern a wide variety of subject matters. He is now devoting all of his time to the inquiry.

  It is impossible to give any firm indication of the cases listed before the court of which he would have been a member, since cases are only provisionally listed until the availability of judges is known. It is often necessary to make changes at short notice to such lists.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those agencies in the Lord Chancellor's Department which are being considered for privatisation or contractorisation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 17 November,Official Report, column 104, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Services and Science to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) who asked what plans my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had to review the status of agencies set up as part of the Government's next steps programme; and whether a statement would be made. The procedures outlined in that answer will apply to the Public Record Office and the Land Registry, the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. An announcement about the future status of each agency will be made at the appropriate time.

  Trial Delays
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time between committal and trial at Crown courts(a) for each of the last five years and (b) for the latest date available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the average waiting time between committal to the Crown court for trial and start of hearing for each year since 1987.

  Committals for Trial—Waiting Times England and Wales

  1987 —

  12·3 weeks

  1988 —

  12·2 weeks

  1989 —

  12·4 weeks

  1990 —

  12·1 weeks

  1991 —

  12·6 weeks

  1992 (January to September) — 13·6 weeks

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to alter the categories of representation on immigration matters available under the legal aid green form scheme.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the sum total of money recovered in each year since 1987, by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor by way of costs recovered either by award or by agreement between parties(a) in total, (b) for matrimonial legal aid and (c) for personal injuries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The net sum of costs recovered by way of award or agreement between the parties by the Legal Aid Board in matrimonial cases and in total was as follows:

  Year

  Matrimonial

  Civil Non-matrimonial

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  3,567

  41,473

  46,473

  1988–89

  3,670

  51,867

  57,294

  1989–90

  3,995

  63,916

  69,220

  1990–91

  3,615

  73,188

  78,216

  1991–92

  3,751

  91,916

  97,170

  Information on the amount of costs recovered by the Legal Aid Board in respect of personal injury cases is not available separately, but is included in the figures for non-matrimonial cases.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been paid by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor to accountants in each year since 1987(a) in total and (b) in respect of matrimonial legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board does not specifically maintain statistics on the amounts it pays in respect of accountants' fees. It does, however, publish the amount paid on disbursements, of which accountants' fees are an element, in its annual reports. In each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92, the following amounts were paid by the Legal Aid Board in respect of disbursements, in total and in matrimonial cases:330

  £000s

  Year

  Total Disbursements

  Matrimonial Disbursements

  1987–88

  33,478

  8,653

  1988–89

  39,971

  10,657

  1989–90

  49,791

  11,224

  1990–91

  61,774

  13,239

  1991–92

  84,788

  15,897

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates were issued which were valid up to and including trial in each year since 1987.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of criminal legal aid orders granted, which cover all necessary proceedings including trial, in each year between 1987 and 1991 was as follows:

  Number

  1987

  612,008

  1988

  621,151

  1989

  642,652

  1990

  657,665

  1991

  661,215

  The number of civil legal aid certificates issued during the same period was as follows:

  Number

  1987

  233,497

  1988

  225,996

  1989

  259,157

  1990

  297,555

  1991

  337,301

  It is not possible to distinguish between civil legal aid certificates which cover the whole of the proceedings and those which cover only part of the case.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the sum of money recovered in each year since 1987 by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor by way of contributions towards legal aid by the assisted persons(a) in total, (b)for matrimonial aid and (c) for personal injuries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The net sum of contributions towards legal aid by assisted persons collected by the ledal Aid Board in matrimonial cases and in total was as follows:

  £ thousands

  Matrimonial

  Civil non-matrimonial

  Total

  1987–88

  5,818

  5,344

  15,381

  1988–89

  6,284

  5,690

  16,608

  1989–90

  6,852

  6,417

  18,779

  1990–91

  6,889

  6,824

  20,073

  1991–92

  7,116

  7,039

  19,656

  Information on the amount of contributions retained by the legal Aid Board in respect of personal injury cases is not available separately but is included in the figures for non-matrimonial cases.
  331
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how much money has been paid out in total by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor in each year since 1987, in respect of experts' fees.

  (2) how much money has been paid out by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor in each year since 1987 in respect of experts' fees in personal injuries cases where the plaintiff was legally aided.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board does not maintain information specifically on the amounts it pays in respect of experts' fees. It does, however, publish the amounts paid on disbursements, of which experts' fees and court fees form a substantial element, in its annual reports. The information provided by the board in its annual reports is broken down into matrimonial, non-matrimonial and criminal magistrates cases only. The amount paid out in respect of personal injury cases is not shown separately but is included in the figures for non-matrimonial cases. The table sets out the amounts paid in disbursements by the board during the past five years.

  Financial year

  Matrimonial (approx.) (£)

  Non-matrimonial (approx.) (£)

  Criminal magistrates' (£)

  1987–88

  10,734,559

  18,114,601

  4,628,434

  1988–89

  12,733,551

  21,933,247

  5,304,540

  1989–90

  14,737,109

  28,846,229

  6,207,426

  1990–91

  18,371,514

  36,351,321

  7,050,742

  1991–92

  23,975,952

  52,028,421

  8,783,886

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates were issued in each year since 1987 which were(a) limited in the scope of the work that might be undertaken or (b) limited by reference to a particular stage in the proceedings before trial.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board does not keep statistics on the number of civil legal aid certificates issued with limitations. The total number of certificates issued in each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92 was as follows:

  In year

  Certificates

  1987–88

  233,497

  1988–89

  225,996

  1989–90

  259,157

  1990–91

  297,555

  1991–92

  337,301

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total cost to the legal aid fund of the cases involving(a) the Birmingham Six, (b) the Guildford Four. (c) the Maguire family, (d) Judith Ward, (e) Guinness and (f) Barlow Clowes (i) up to and including the trial stage and (ii) up to and including the appeal stage, including references by the Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to give the total cost to the Legal Aid Fund in respect of each of those cases. In some instances information is no longer 332
  available, and in others claims have yet to be finally determined. The position in respect of each case is as follows:

  (a) information on the costs of the original trial and 1976 appeal of the Birmingham Six is no longer available. The cost of the 1987 appeal was £752,461. The cost of the Home Secretary's referral to the Court of Appeal in 1991 has yet to be finally determined;

  (b) information on the costs of the original trial and subsequent appeal of the Guildford Four is no longer available. The cost of the Home Secretary's referral to the Court of Appeal was £426,494;

  (c) the cost of the Home Secretary's referral of the Maguire family case to the Court of Appeal was £284,814. No other information is available;

  (d) the cost of the original trial of Judith Ward was £29,582. The cost of the Home Secretary's referral to the Court of Appeal has yet to be determined;

  (e) to date around £1·3 million has been paid out of the Legal Aid Fund and central fund to the defence in the Guinness trials. Not all the expected claims have yet been received and the final amount is yet to be determined;

  (f) the final costs to the Legal Aid Fund for the Barlow Clowes case have yet to be determined.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was spent by the Legal Aid Board in each year since 1987 on(a) matrimonial legal aid and (b) personal injury cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expenditure on legal aid by the Legal Aid Board in respect of matrimonial cases between 1987–88 and 1991–92 was as follows:

  Matrimonial

  £000 's

  1987–88

  53,631

  1988–89

  68,398

  1989–90

  71,223

  1990–91

  85,855

  1991–92

  115,806

  Information on the amount spent on personal injury cases is not readily available, although such expenditure forms part of non-matrimonial legal aid for which expenditure during the same period was as follows:

  Non-Matrimonial

  £000's

  1987–88

  43,998

  1988–89

  54,429

  1989–90

  76,500

  1990–91

  102,801

  1991–92

  160,925

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what direction he has made to the Legal Aid Board to enter into contractual arrangements with Mrs. Bruce and similar persons to provide specialist welfare advice to solicitors following the comments of the House of Lords in the case of Regina v. Legal Aid Board ex parte Bruce.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. Solicitors with knowledge of the benefits system may provide advice through the green form scheme. The Legal Aid Board has recently published its proposals on the provision of franchises and is considering how these would apply to advice agencies.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the sum of money
  333
  recovered in each year since 1987, by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor by way of the statutory charge (a) in total, (b) for matrimonial legal aid and (c) for personal injuries.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The amounts retained by the Legal Aid Board by way of the statutory charge in each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92 was as follows:

  £ thousands

  Matrimonial

  Civil non-matrimonial

  Total

  1987–88

  19,309

  3,752

  23,061

  1988–89

  26,359

  4,760

  31,120

  1989–90

  24,231

  5,316

  29,547

  1990–91

  24,708

  5,963

  30,671

  1991–92

  27,929

  6,817

  34,746

  Information on the sums recovered by the Legal Aid Board in respect of personal injury cases is not available separately, but the amounts are included in the figures for non-matrimonial cases.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been paid out by the Legal Aid Board and its predecessor in each year since 1987 to experts employed by the defence in criminal cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board does not maintain information specifically on the amounts it pays in respect of experts' fees for criminal proceedings in the magistrates courts. It does, however, publish the amount paid on disbursements, of which experts' fees and court fees form a substantial element, in its annual report. In each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92, the following amounts were paid by the Legal Aid Board in respect of disbursements in criminal—magistrates courts—proceedings.

  Disbursements

  In year

  (£000)

  1987–88

  4,628

  1988–89

  5,305

  1989–90

  6,207

  1990–91

  7,051

  1991–92

  8,784

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the most recent annual figures available for the cost of legal aid cases for care proceedings in respect of children.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The most recent figures available cover the period October 1991 to September 1992, being the first full year of operation of the Act. The Legal Aid Board estimates that the amount paid out during this time was £6·7 million.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reports have been received from Professors Paterson and Sherr on legal aid franchising; and when they will be published.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board has received one research report on franchising from Professors Paterson and Sherr and expects that it will be published in the early part of 1993.

  Care Proceedings
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for legislation to require courts to order the unsuccessful party in care proceedings in respect of children to pay the costs of the proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Mr. Abid Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the appellate authority received an explanatory statement from an entry clearance officer at the post in Islamabad in the case of Mr. Abid Ali —Ref: GV 100/16103/TAH—who first applied to join his fiancée in the United Kingdom on 25 March 1986; when his appeal hearing is to be listed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The independent appellate authority received an explanatory statement in the case of Mr. Abid Ali in relation to his settlement application on 23 June 1989 and another concerning his visit visa appeal on 2 July 1992. The appeals were heard together at Leeds on 16 November 1992; the visit visa appeal was withdrawn at the hearing and the adjudicator reserved judgment in the settlement appeal.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the Government's summary of conclusions to the wages council consultations in 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There were 394 responses to the consultation document. Of these, 80 favoured abolition, 308 wanted the councils to be retained and six were inconclusive. The replies from employer organisations with seats on the councils showed a marked change of view since the 1985 consultations, when the majority wanted the system retained. Replies from employer bodies represented on the six largest councils, which embraced 94 per cent. of the workers covered by the system, showed that a majority wanted the councils abolished.

  Trade Union Commissioner
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost to public funds of setting up the office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members; and what has been the cost of running the office in each year since its establishment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The White Paper accounts of the independent Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members show the costs of setting up and running the commissioner's office, in each financial year since its establishment were:

  £000

  1988–89

  252,000

  1989–90

  246,000

  1990–91

  260,000

  1991–92

  290,000

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths and serious accidents due to workplace activities have been reported in each year since 1974.

  Number of fatal and serious injuries2, 1974 to 1990–91, as reported to all HSC/E enforcing authorities

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of the public

  Fatals

  Major3

  Fatals

  Major3

  Fatals

  Major3

  1974

  651

  1—

  1—

  1—_

  —

  —

  1975

  620

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  1976

  584

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  1977

  524

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  1978

  499

  1—

  123

  1—

  —

  —

  1979

  492

  1—

  123

  1—

  —

  —

  1980

  440

  1—

  139

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  441

  12,320

  54

  91

  7

  5,600

  1982

  472

  12,290

  48

  127

  8

  5,600

  1983

  448

  12,450

  65

  114

  8

  6,300

  1984

  438

  12,490

  60

  144

  10

  6,700

  1985

  400

  13,180

  71

  206

  4159

  6,900

  1986–87

  355

  20,695

  52

  690

  92

  14,575

  1987–88

  361

  20,057

  84

  867

  113

  12,880

  1988–89

  5529

  19,944

  80

  1,152

  121

  12,614

  1989–90

  370

  20,396

  105

  1,310

  6206

  11,378

  1990–91

  346

  19,896

  87

  1,326

  139

  9,981

  1— Not available.

  2 Injuries at work to employees and self-employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity reported under various pieces of legislation, but chiefly the Factories Act 1961 for the calendar years prior to 1981, under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (NADOR) for the calendar years 1981 to 1985, and under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) for the subsequent financial years commencing 1 April 1986.

  3 Introduced under NADOR on 1 January 1981. Definition extended under RIDDOR, 1 April 1986.

  4 Data includes the 56 fatalities to members of the public in the Bradford City Football Club fire disaster.

  5 Includes the 167 fatalities in the Piper Alpha Disaster, 6 July 1988.

  6 Data includes the 95 fatalities and 766 major injuries to members of the public arising from the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths due to industrial diseases and health-disabling diseases have been reported as due to workplace activity in each year since 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available figures for deaths due to asbestosis, mesothelioma and other prescribed industrial diseases are given in the table.

  Deaths from Occupational Diseases in Great Britain

  Asbestosis

  Mesothelioma

  Other diseases

  1974

  74

  245

  789

  1975

  97

  271

  818

  1976

  116

  315

  814

  1977

  132

  336

  737

  1978

  109

  390

  719

  1979

  102

  434

  710

  1980

  102

  458

  697

  1981

  137

  472

  633

  1982

  128

  504

  624

  1983

  121

  573

  655

  1984

  129

  624

  531

  1985

  140

  615

  587

  1986

  166

  702

  524

  1987

  144

  808

  487

  1988

  152

  862

  —

  1989

  157

  900

  —

  1990

  163

  882

  —

  For asbestosis and mesothelioma, the numbers are of death certificates mentioning these conditions. An estimated 100 mesotheliomas annually are not asbestos
  336
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information based on injuries reported in Great Britain is provided in the table.

  related. For other diseases, the numbers are for awards of death benefit under the industrial injuries scheme up to the discontinuation of this benefit in April 1988.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions the current director of field operations of the Health and Safety Executive has inspected a factory; and what are his managerial qualifications for his post.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The director of field operations—DFO—does not, as a matter of policy, carry out inspections at factories or other premises for which the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—is the enforcing authority.

  The DFO has overall management responsibility for more than 1,900 staff covering a wide range of duties in the field operations division. Inspection of factories is but one aspect of the work of the factory inspectorate and is undertaken by factory inspectors based in each of HSE's 20 area offices.

  The current DFO has extensive managerial experience with HSE and has taken part in management and development training programmes within and external to the civil service.

  Over-50s
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training opportunities are available to those over 50 years of age who find themselves out of work.
  337
  Mr. McLoughlin
  All the Government's employment and training measures are open to those over 50 years of age who satisfy the relevant entry conditions, including length of unemployment where appropriate.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she is taking to maintain employment prospects for those over 50 years of age.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are keen to improve employment prospects for people of all ages and believe that discrimination on the grounds of age is wasteful and shortsighted. We are encouraging employers to abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment and to adopt personnel policies which treat everyone on their merits. Employers should be making more effective use of the skills and experience of people over 50. I am confident that the advisory group on older workers, whose membership I shall announce shortly, will help change employers' attitudes towards this age group.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of full-time employees have worked for their current employer for less than two years, in each standard planning region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The spring 1992 labour force survey shows that the proportions of full-time employees who had worked for their current employer for less than two years in each region were as follows:

  Percentage

  South-East

  24·9

  East Anglia

  24·5

  South-West

  24·9

  West Midlands

  22·6

  East Midlands

  21·3

  Yorks and Humberside

  24·7

  North-West

  22·0

  Northern

  23·7

  Wales

  25·2

  Scotland

  24·0

  Northern Ireland

  20·8

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees currently working part-time in the United Kingdom have worked with their present employer for less than five years, in each standard planning region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The spring 1992 labour force survey shows that the proportions of part-time employees who had worked for their current employer for less than five years in each region, were as follows.

  Percentage

  South-East

  66·6

  East Anglia

  64·1

  South-West

  65·4

  West Midlands

  63·1

  East Midlands

  63·3

  Yorks and Humberside

  66·2

  North-West

  61·5

  Northern

  62·6

  Wales

  63·8

  Scotland

  63·3

  Northern Ireland

  54·6

  Wages Concils
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the research commissioned by her Department on the effect of abolition of wages councils on employment prospects for women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has commissioned several studies on the general economic effects of the wages councils. They suggest that the abolition of wages councils should improve employment prospects in the wages council industries, where the majority of workers are women. However, the studies do not focus exclusively on the prospects for women.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action is to be taken against the pesticides contractor involved in case No. C132/91 investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive — HSE—considers that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the contractor involved in case number C.132/91 investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—PCA—was in breach of any health and safety legislation. The PCA found that HSE had acted correctly in its assessment of the work of the contractor.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she intends to take following the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's second report 1992–93 in case No. C132/91 involving Mrs. Bettina Jonic Calder.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration into Mrs. Calder's complaint, the Health and Safety Executive has introduced procedural changes relating to its dealings with members of the public and to the way it handles complaints which are received. The HSE considers that no further action is required.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the case of Mrs. Bettina Jonic Calder, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration reference No. C132/91, will be included in the annual record of pesticides incidents investigated by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The pesticide incident involving Mrs. Bettina Jonic Calder was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in 1989 and details were recorded in the HSE's report "Pesticides Incidents Investigated in 1989/90" published in July 1990.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will review the role and operations of the pesticide incidents appraisal panel of the Health and Safety Executive following the finding in case No. C132/91 by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The role and operation of the pesticides incidents appraisal panel were not investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  339
  and his report made no call for their review. However, certain aspects of the work of the panel are currently under review, both in response to concern subsequently raised by the complainant and independently of her case.

  Skills Training Agency (Properties)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many properties belonging to the former Skills Training Agency or skillcentres have been sold off.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The former Skills Training Agency occupied 56 properties. The following 33 properties were transferred to Astra Training Services Ltd. in May 1990:

  Barking

  Basildon

  Bellshill

  Billingham

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Cheshire

  The following 13 properties were disposed of as shown:

  Site

  Disposal date

  To

  Cumbria

  May 1990

  Training for Industry and Commerce Co. Ltd.

  Lambeth

  May 1990

  Training Business Group

  Liverpool

  May 1990

  Metel Ltd.

  Leicester

  17 August 1990

  Hammond Grange Ltd.

  Chesterfield

  31 August 1990

  Surrendered to Landlord

  East Lancashire

  19 October 1990

  Lancashire County Enterprises Ltd.

  Chelmsford

  2 November 1990

  Surrendered to Landlord

  Leeds

  19 December 1990

  Jarvis Porter Ltd. and G. and L. Parish

  Wakefield

  8 March 1991

  Gallery Le Shon Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  28 March 1991

  The Post Office

  Southampton

  9 August 1991

  Surrendered to Landlord

  Slough

  21 November 1991

  Fairview New Homes plc.

  Reading

  27 January 1992

  Intersurgical Ltd.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much her Department has received under the clawback arrangements when Skills Training Agency or former skillcentre property has been sold off.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Because no former Skills Training Agency or former skillcentre properties sold to private sector companies have been resold or redeveloped under circumstances which could trigger clawback payments, no receipts have been received under these arrangements.

  Skillcentres
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the skillcentres which have closed since February 1990 giving the date of closure in each case; and how many of the original centres are still operating.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Fifty-one skillcentres, of a total of 60, were sold when the Skills Training Agency was privatised in 1990. The remaining nine, at Letchworth, Portsmouth, Reading, Twickenham, Perivale, Chesterfield, Northampton, Southampton (Millbrook) and Chelmsford were closed by the Department on 31 July 1990. The operation of the sold centres is the responsibility of the purchasers and not of the Department, but I understand that some 43 continue to function.
  340

  Dundee

  Durham

  Enfield

  Gloucester

  Gwent

  Millington

  Hull

  Irvine

  Manchester

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  North Staffs

  Norwich

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Preston

  Redruth

  Rochdale

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Tyneside

  West Glamorgan

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wrexham

  Competitive Tendering
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 contained in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will have on local authority competitive tendering; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One of the provisions in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, published on 5 November, is to extend the applications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to transfers of undertakings which are not"in the nature of a commercial venture".

  These regulations provide for the transfer of employment rights when an undertaking is transferred to a new employer. There has been some misunderstanding about this amendment and its possible effects have been exaggerated in some press comments.

  It has been suggested that the amendment extends the application of the regulations to the public sector and to compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services for the first time, and that people not covered in the past may now have a claim for retrospective compensation. The fact is that the regulations have always covered the public sector, including local authority services, as well as the private sector. Whether or not they apply in any individual case, however, depends on the facts of that case, and there are a number of tests to be applied.
  341
  For example, it needs to be shown that an undertaking or part of an undertaking has actually been transferred. This test has always applied and will continue to apply.

  The Government are of the view that the regulations will not normally apply where a local authority contracts out in-house services, since such a transaction does not generally involve the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations. The facts need to be considered in each case to see whether all the necessary criteria which determine whether the regulations apply have been satisfied. There will be no change in this position as a result of the amendments to the regulations proposed in the Bill.

  The only relevant changes we are making in the Bill are as follows. It will no longer be necessary to show that the undertaking is in the nature of a commercial venture and property will not have to be transferred for there to be a transfer of an undertaking. These changes are required to bring the wording into line with the EC acquired rights directive and to clarify its interpretation.

  The changes in the Bill do not imply that past: cases should have been decided differently, because other criteria may have been relevant to those decisions; nor can it be assumed that future cases will be decided differently.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what strategic guidance she is giving to TECs for 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Strategic guidance for 1993–94 on training, vocational education and enterprise will be issued today to all TECs. I am pleased that, this year, it is being published jointly with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, emphasising a consistent, coherent strategy across government. The guidance builds on the six strategic priorities identified in earlier documents and sets out the key issues for TECs to address in their plans for the coming year. Copies of the guidance "The Strategy for Skills and Enterprise" have been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Aid to Africa
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy for the additional funding granted to African countries during 1991–92 to total £30 million or more.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The year 1991–92 was an exceptional year for major humanitarian needs; £60 million was added to the overseas aid vote to enable the Overseas Development Administration to respond to humanitarian needs, including famine in the Horn of Africa.

  In 1991, we provided almost £54 million bilateral humanitarian assistance to the Horn of Africa. To date in 1992, we have already pledged, from existing programme resources, £112 million bilateral assistance—including balance of payments support, food and non-food assistance—to relieve famine in Africa. Of this, £61 million has been for the Horn of Africa.

  Tanzania
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used in determining the amount of aid given by the United Kingdom to Tanzania(a) bilaterally and (b) through the EC.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We take a number of factors into account when allocating bilateral aid to individual countries. These include the comparative poverty of the country concerned, and the effectiveness with which our aid can be used. We consider whether the country has adopted policies which will help to promote economic growth and social progress and to combat poverty. The quality of government in the country concerned is an integral part of our assessment.

  The overall allocation of funds for the European development fund—EDF—is decided by the member states. The Commission then draws up national indicative programmes—NIPs—for individual countries based on the priorities set out in the Lomé convention. The overall allocation for Tanzania for EDF VII is 195 mecu for commitment over the period 1992 to 1997. Individual projects are then put to a management committee on which the Overseas Development Administration is represented. The same criteria are applied to the Commission's proposals as we apply to our own bilateral programme.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 November,Official Report, columns 553–54, if he will list the capital and technical co-operation projects in Tanzania supported by the EC; and the total cost of the projects in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Capital and technical co-operation projects funded by the EC in Tanzania since 1981 total 225·5 mecu—approximately £184 million at current exchange rates—and are listed in the table.

  Project

  Total cost of project (ecus)

  Training Programme 1981–85

  462,411

  Attendance at Trade Fairs

  25,380

  Mtwara Water Supply

  5,065,492

  Phase 2 Agriculture Project Tringa

  10,569,323

  Morogoro Canvas Mill

  2,500,000

  Mwanza Water Supply

  6,590,240

  Coffee Development Programme

  12,848,002

  Training of Irrigation Engineers

  815,131

  Study Banana Pest Control in Kagera Region

  56,955

  Road from Idetero to Paper Mill (Supp Fin)

  8,456,155

  Study Rehabilitation of Zanzibar—Pemba Port

  49,317

  Technical Assistance Rehabilitation Hospital Zanzibar and Pemoa

  267,199

  1st Annual Microprojects Programme

  643,239

  Tanzania Trade Promotion Programme

  154,884

  Tanzania Tourism Promotion

  185,137

  Technical Assistance Food Strategy Tanzania

  238,560

  Region Rinderpest Control Programme

  1,376,470

  Nyanguge-Dunda-Musoma Road

  16,761,620

  Technical Assistance Ports Zanzibar and Pemba

  134,930

  Extensions Mbeya Water Supply System

  2,975,465

  Coffee Development Programme Phase 2

  8,556,784

  Morogoro Canvas Mill Management

  2,200,000

  Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organisation Tirdo

  1,471,515

  2nd Annual Microprojects Programme

  442,792

  Banana Improvement Pest Control

  967,812

  343

  Project

  Total cost of project (ecus)

  Rehabilitation Zanzibar Hospitals Phase 1

  1,066,044

  Co-operative and Rural Development Bank

  1,478,557

  Study Tanzania Seed Industry

  88,630

  Rehabilitation Zanzibar Hospitals Phase 2

  2,557,142

  Rehabilitation Zanzibar Ports

  9,890,767

  Moroco Shoe Factory

  35,000

  Total funded under Lomé II (European Development Fund 5) 1981–85

  106,930,953

  Food Security Agriculture Sector Programme

  17,416,116

  Coffee Production Marketing Agriculture Sector

  13,346,696

  Co-operatives Agriculture Sectors

  4,255,605

  Vehicle Tractor Repair Agriculture Sector

  10,264,599

  Road Maintenance Agriculture Sector

  13,157,609

  Managing Unit Assistance to Agricultural Sector

  5,485,449

  Rehabilitation Zanzibar Ports

  13,690,820

  1st Programme of Microprojects

  135,554

  Emergency Programme, Tanzania Railways Corporation

  1,997,945

  Musoma Sirari Road Study

  502,865

  Morogoro Canvas Mill Management

  3,296,296

  Study Telecom Network South West Tanzania

  38,522

  Study Rehabilitation STDL Dairy Plants

  11,617

  Incentive Goods for Tanzania

  6,079,753

  Sectoral Import Programme

  15,378,360

  Mtwara Audit Financing

  59,991

  Sector Import Programme

  7,975,323

  Seminar Public Enterprise Reform

  36,782

  Study Management Development Zanzibar Ports

  59,334

  Livestock Service Development

  187,436

  Study Telecom Southern Highlands

  146,377

  Feeder Roads in South West

  4,067,335

  Conservation Historic Buildings

  179,664

  Ibanda Uyole Road

  666,635

  Data Base Financial Control System

  30,581

  Total funded under Lomé III (European Development Fund 6) 1986–90

  118,467,264

  Serengeti Region Conservation Strategy

  108,933

  Total funded under Lomé IV (European Development Fund 7)

  108,933

  Source:European Commission

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost to date in(a) historic costs and (b) 1992 prices of clean-up programmes and retrofitted technology installed at (i) Sellafield, (ii) Capenhurst, (iii) Springfields, (iv) Chapelcross, (v) Harwell, (vi) Dounreay and (vii) Risley, respectively, to protect the environment against radioactive and toxic contamination.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the operators of the sites concerned.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what subsidies have been made available to British Nuclear Fuels in each year since 1971, to cover the. long-term treatment, storage and final disposal of 344
  high-level radioactive wastes from (a) foreign spent fuel imported under contracts signed up to December 1975 and (b) spent fuel sent to Sellafield by Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and their predecessor companies;

  (2) What subsidy has been made available by Her Majesty's Government to British Nuclear Fuels for the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes arising from contracts signed for reprocessing imported spent nuclear fuel (a) up to December 1975 and (b) since January 1976.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Engine Emissions Consortium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the total cost to his Department of supporting the vehicle emissions consortium's programme;

  (2) when the vehicle emissions consortium programme was concluded; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will place a copy of its reports in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total grant contribution from my Department in support of the United Kingdom engine emissions consortium's programme of research into petrol and diesel technologies amounted to £1,810,815. The last project in the programme concluded on 31 July 1992.

  The 11 collaborators in the consortium are the main beneficiaries of the research conducted. They are obliged to take reasonable steps to exploit the results of the projects in which they participated and, if necessary, to co-operate with my Department in securing an alternative person or persons to undertake such exploitation. In addition, my Department will ensure that the results of the programme, once fully evaluated, will contribute to United Kingdom policy formation on vehicle emissions legislation.

  Consortium members are preparing public presentations on the programme. I shall ensure that copies of these are placed in the Library of the House. Reports on the results of the programme provided to the Department by the member companies in the consortium contain commercially confidential information. It is open to the hon. Member to contact Perkins Technology Ltd. of Peterborough, the central co-ordinator of the programme, which will seek the agreement of the member companies to provide the hon. Member with more specific project information.

  Albania
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is providing British companies in creating the opportunities to trade with Albania.

  Mr. Needham
  The Albania trade section within my Department provides general information about the market and answers specific questions about market opportunities. In addition, the world aid section and the export intelligence service publicise the opportunities in Albania which arise from the activities of the multilateral funding agencies.

  My officials also work closely with counterparts in the joint assistance unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that British companies are aware of opportunities under the know-how fund.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the meeting between Leicestershire county council on 3 November and the Minister for Industry regarding assisted area status for travel-to-work areas in the county.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I found my meeting with Leicestershire county council interesting and useful. The points raised at the meeting will be carefully considered in the review of the assisted areas map.

  Piper Alpha
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the condition of the site of the Piper Alpha and of the removal of hazardous or toxic materials which could affect those engaged in maritime activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Conditions attached to the Piper Alpha abandonment programme approved by the then Secretary of State for Energy include requirements for samples of sediment, sea water, fish and shellfish to be obtained and examined for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls —PCBs—and radioactivity. Surveys were carried out in 1989, 1990 and 1991. The levels of PCBs and radioactivity in water, fish and shellfish, and of radioactivity in sediments, were all within the background levels found elsewhere in the North sea. Some sediment samples taken within 500 m of the platform showed elevated levels of PCBs, but these were not increasing. The measurements of PCBs in water, fish and shellfish, and in sediments further out appear to indicate that the PCBs in the sediments close to the remains of the installation are not giving rise to elevated levels in the biota.

  The conditions provide for repetition of the surveys and sampling for PCBs biennially until my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied that there is no significant risk to the marine environment from PCBs associated with transformers formerly located on the installation. In addition, samples taken after 1994 will be examined for radioactivity.

  The conditions also required that within a radius of 500 m the seabed should be surveyed to determine the position of any remains of the installation. This was done in 1990 and will be repeated in 1993 and biennially thereafter until my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied that any movement of debris will not cause unjustifiable interference with fishing. Outside the 500 m zone, to a radius of 1,500 m, the conditions required that the seabed be surveyed and trawled to recover debris identified, and that any debris too large or heavy to be lifted in a trawl should be recovered by other means. This operation will be completed next year.

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the President of the Boa.rd of Trade what information he has on the future construction of gas pipelines, to the United Kingdom from Europe and non-European nations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am not aware of any decisions by companies wishing to proceed with the construction of new gas pipelines from Europe or a non-European country 346
  to the United Kingdom. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced to the House on 30 January 1992 that a group of companies had begun a feasibility study of a gas pipeline from the United Kingdom to the continent, with a view to initial exports of United Kingdom gas. Construction of a planned gas pipeline between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is due to begin shortly.

  Gas (Electricity Generation)
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of gas used for electricity generation is not provided by British Gas and United Kingdom-based companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his projections for non-United Kingdom gas consumption for(a) the next decade and (b) the next 50 years in the electricity generating industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1991 the United Kingdom imported 7 billion cu m of Norwegian gas, almost all from the Frigg field. Production from this field is declining rapidly and will cease around 1997. Some additional gas from the Frigg area will be imported from 1993 for around 16 years. On 30 January 1992 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced that the Government would facilitate two imports of Norwegian gas for sale to National Power and an independent power generation project. These are the only firm proposals to import gas of which I am aware.

  The review my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 21 October will look into the latest estimates of likely gas reserves, and will consider the scale of gas-generated power stations in production, in build and in the planning process.

  Deep-mine Coal
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been undertaken into the costs associated with re-opening deep-mine coalfields and the feasibility of such operations.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has gained significant experience of the feasibility and cost of putting closed deep mines on to a care and maintenance basis with a view to possible re-opening. In recent years four major closed mines—Carway Drift, Frances, Monktonhall and Thorne —have been put on to a care and maintenance basis and one—Monktonhall—is being prepared for re-opening by the Monktonhall Mineworkers Consortium.

  Regulation Costs
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the cost of the regulation in 1991–92 and (b) the number of staff employed by (i) the Office of Electricity Regulation, (ii) the Office of Gas Supply and (iii) the Office of Telecommunications.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: Details of the staffing and running costs of Offer, Oftel, and Ofgas are given in the annual reports by each director general. Copies of the reports are in the Library of the House. The most recent reports available give the following information:
  347

  Annual report

  Staff

  Annual cost (£ million)

  OFFER

  1991

  1206

  29·255

  OFTEL

  1991

  1143

  37·5

  OFGAS

  1991

  28

  31·9

  1 Average throughout year.

  2 Expenditure.

  3 Budget.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Victims Charter
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress of the victims charter.

  Mr. Jack
  The charter was published in February 1990 and sets out the rights and expectations of victims of crime. It contains some 50 standards by which compliance with the charter can be judged. A recent exercise showed that 57 per cent.—31 standards—had been achieved and 39 per cent.21 standards—were in the process of being achieved, a total of 96 per cent.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the police inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The chief constable of West Midlands police is responsible for the conduct of the investigation into the Birmingham pub bombings. It would be improper for me to comment in any way on this investigation while it is continuing.

  Car Crime
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce car crime in the north-west.

  Mr. Jack
  As part of Car Crime Prevention Year we have sought to engage the whole community in a concerted effort to tackle car crime. Among the practical measures being taken in the north-west by Greater Manchester police are the promotion of vehicle watch schemes, the distribution of information packs on car security and the setting up of a special police unit to tackle car crime.

  Police forces throughout the north-west have made a positive contribution to Car Crime Prevention Year and in the 12 months of the year ending June 1992 both Greater Manchester and Merseyside forces reported a fall in the level of car crimes.

  Our safer cities projects in Rochdale and Salford have also taken action to educate the public in car security and have organised and funded projects aimed at diverting young people from car crime.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response there has been from British car manufacturers to the Car Crime Prevention Year.
  348
  Mr. Jack
  Many car manufacturers have responded very positively to the message of Car Crime Prevention Year by contributing or promising support estimated to be worth more than £3 million.

  In addition, many more new cars are now being fitted with security systems as standard equipment and security features are being given a much higher profile in the manufacturers' advertisements.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review current legislation available to deal with those who steal cars and subsequently kill and maim.

  Mr. Jack
  The relevant law is constantly reviewed; and action to strengthen it has been taken recently. The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 has significantly increased the powers of the courts to deal with both drivers and passengers in a stolen car which causes damage, injury and death. In addition, we have recently announced an intention to double the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from five to 10 years imprisonment.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he can report arising from Car Crime Prevention Year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  So far, Car Crime Prevention Year has been a highly successful campaign and I am pleased to say that the quarterly car crime figures for April to June 1992 show a reduction of over 2·5 per cent. on the corresponding quarter of 1991. While we cannot draw too many conclusions from this change, I hope that it is the start of a welcome trend.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to receive advice from outside his Department about the future of the car crime prevention initiative.

  Mr. Jack
  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have recently formed a committee comprising people who are actively involved in all areas of car security and car crime prevention to advise me on these matters and we met for the first time on 20 October.

  This committee brings together senior representatives from the motor manufacturers, the security equipment industry, motoring and consumer associations, the retail and leasing sectors, the insurance industry and the police.

  Crime (Northumbria)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet representatives of Northumbria police authority to discuss crime levels in the area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is currently arranging to meet representatives of Northumbria police authority.

  Prison Building Programme
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the Government's prison building programme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Eighteen of the 21 new prisons in the Government's current building programme have now
  349
  opened, providing nearly 9,500 additional places. The remainder will open within the next 18 months, providing a further 1,800 places. In addition, this year we shall be spending some £200 million on improving the existing estate.

  The Government's future plans include two new prisons, providing 1,200 places, on which construction work will begin in 1995–1996, as well as a continued high level of investment in the modernisation of existing prisons.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fines due under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 were waived in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was their total value.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For the 12 months ending 30 September 1992 the total value of charges waived was £1,758,000. Information about the number of charges is not available.

  Concealed Weapons
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to empower police officers to conduct random searches for concealed weapons.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Our view remains that compulsory searching should be allowed only where a police officer reasonably suspects that a weapon is being carried.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the main achievements of his Department's safer cities initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Safer cities has successfully put into practice the partnership approach under which local agencies act in concert to identify and tackle local crime problems; and the programme has supported a wide range of local crime prevention schemes with encouraging results in terms of reduction in crime and fear of crime.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use being made of community service orders.

  Mr. Jack
  The courts are making increasing use of community service orders. In 1991, a total of 41,200 community service orders were started, an 8 per cent. increase over 1990.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to extend the use of special constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of special constables in individual forces is a matter for chief 350
  constables. With the help of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, we are encouraging forces to make the widest and most imaginative use of special constables.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of special constables; and what the figure was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At 31 December 1991, the number of special constables in England and Wales was 18,072. This represents an increase of 14 per cent. on the total for 1990.

  "Images of Drugs"
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement following his visit to the exhibition "Images of Drugs" in Southwark.

  Mr. Jack
  The exhibition, which was opened by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, brings together the knowledge and experience of local people into a creative picture in a variety of media about the effects of drugs misuse. The exhibition is now on tour throughout the borough to schools, youth clubs, local business sites and others requesting the project for their own drug prevention purposes. It gives the people of Southwark a chance to speak in their own language about the effects of drugs on their community. The opening event, which I attended with the princess, also provided a splendid opportunity for some of the excellent local projects sponsored by the Southwark drugs prevention team to publicise their activities. I am confident that royal and ministerial attendance will have encouraged future activities, by providing a high profile focus for drugs prevention in Southwark.

  In European Drugs Prevention Week, I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of praising the exhibition. It is a splendid example of how the Home Office drug prevention initiative is mobilising all sections of the community—including the business community—both in recognising the major challenge which they face and in their commitment to work together to find solutions.

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing, for each police force area in England and Wales, the number of notifiable drug offences by category in each year since 1985 and the total for England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The only notifiable offence which is drugs related is that of "trafficking in controlled drugs". This information for 1985–90 is published annually in table 3.1 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables"; copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1991 is contained in the following table:

  Notifiable offences of trafficking in controlled drugs—1991

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  Avon and Somerset

  262

  Bedfordshire

  49

  Cambridgeshire

  79

  Cheshire

  315

  Cleveland

  86

  Cumbria

  133

  351

  Police force area

  Number of offences

  Derbyshire

  129

  Devon and Cornwall

  226

  Dorset

  221

  Durham

  85

  Essex

  238

  Gloucestershire

  123

  Greater Manchester

  868

  Hampshire

  391

  Hertfordshire

  179

  Humberside

  179

  Kent

  551

  Lancashire

  384

  Leicestershire

  65

  Lincolnshire

  141

  City of London

  20

  Merseyside

  506

  Metropolitan Police District

  2,096

  Norfolk

  217

  Northamptonshire

  93

  Northumbria

  143

  North Yorkshire

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  112

  South Yorkshire

  225

  Staffordshire

  117

  Suffolk

  247

  Surrey

  103

  Sussex

  546

  Thames Valley

  299

  Warwickshire

  78

  West Mercia

  160

  West Midlands

  300

  West Yorkshire

  608

  Wiltshire

  91

  Dyfed-Powys

  103

  Gwent

  117

  North Wales

  126

  South Wales

  268

  England and Wales

  11,379

  May Inquiry
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected total cost of the Sir John May inquiry; and what has been the cost to date.

  Mr. Jack
  The current projected final cost of Sir John May's inquiry is £1,930,000. As at the end of October 1992, the inquiry, which was set up in October 1989, had incurred expenditure of £1,357,000.

  Prisoners' Requests
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners' requests or complaints referred to governors are answered within seven days.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figure requested is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners' requests or complaints referred to area managers are answered within six weeks(a) in total and (b) in each prison service area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the period April to September 1992, 69 per cent. of area managers' answers to prisoners' requests or complaints were sent within six weeks. For individual areas the figures were:352

  Area

  Percentage

  Central

  73

  Chilterns

  57

  East Anglia

  74

  East Midlands

  76

  Kent

  81

  London North

  72

  London South

  39

  Mercia

  76

  North East

  92

  North West

  48

  South Coast

  82

  Trans-Pennine

  63

  Wales/West

  78

  Wessex

  81

  Yorkshire

  90

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the policy whereby all who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion may enjoy the full protection afforded by the Geneva convention on refugees.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are fully committed to meeting our obligations under the convention.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances his Department will issue more visas to victims of the war in Croatia who are currently displaced or refugees.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 3 November 1992, at columns 128–29. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary also made it clear in his statement of 5 November that the Government will be discussing with the international organisations the numbers and timing of the evacuation of certain categories of specially vulnerable cases to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made a decision on the 180 Bosnian refugees whose application for entry into the United Kingdom has been considered by his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary decided on 16 November that six members of this group, who have existing close family ties with the United Kingdom, should be issued with visas. One hundred and eighty cases who have insubstantial or no links with this country are to be refused and eight other cases, including two medical cases, are under consideration.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations Her Majesty's Government have had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his European Community counterparts about the future safety and well-being of refugees from Bosnia.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are in constant touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about arrangements for assisting those displaced
  353
  from their homes in Bosnia. We are finalising with the UNHCR arrangements and timing for the admission and reception of 150 ex-detainees from camps in Bosnia-Herzegovina plus their dependants. This is an initial group and the UNHCR is aware of the United Kingdom's readiness to consider other similar humanitarian groups, including detainees, whom the international organisations judge should be evacuated. The United Kingdom is in regular contact with our European Community partners about these matters.

  Vulnerable Prisoner Units
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons currently have vulnerable prisoner units; and how many prisoners were held in each of those units on the most convenient recent date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows which establishments have vulnerable prisoner units and the number of prisoners held in these units on 17 November.

  Establishment

  Population in VPU

  Albany

  142

  Brockhill

  47

  Channings Wood

  102

  Dartmoor

  173

  Durham

  101

  Frankland

  71

  Full Sutton

  85

  Littlehey

  109

  Liverpool

  171

  Maidstone

  80

  Risley

  187

  Rochester

  64

  Shepton Mallet

  27

  Usk

  118

  Wandsworth

  213

  Wayland

  93

  Whatton

  204

  Whitemoor

  239

  Total

  2,226

  Prisoners (Protection)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held on rule 43 or, in the case of young offenders, rule 46 for their own protection on the most convenient recent date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 17 November, 1,539 prisoners were being held on rule 43 or rule 46 for their own protection. The following list shows a breakdown of these prisoners by establishment type.

  Number

  Local prisons

  1,109

  Remand centres

  98

  Adult trainers

  288

  Young offender trainers

  23

  Female establishments

  21

  Offences in Prisons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions governors have invited the police to investigate alleged offences within prisons; and how many prosecutions have resulted since 1 April.

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

  Passport Fees
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about passport fees.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Privy Council has approved an Order in Council, the Consular Fees (Amendment) Order 1992, which gives authority for an increase in passport fees on 22 November. The fee for a standard 32-page passport will increase from £15 to £18, for a frequent traveller's 48-page passport from £22·50 to £27, for a British visitor's passport from £7·50 to £12 and for a British visitor's passport, including spouse, from £11·25 to £18. The fee for an excursion document to France rises from £2 to £3 and that for a collective passport from £30 to £40. The fee for amending a passport to add particulars of children goes up from £4 to £5. The fees for amendments involving the holder's name, photograph or description are increased from £3 to £5.

  This is the first general increase in passport fees for nine years and overall is well below the increase in inflation in that time. In relation to the cost of travel abroad, a fee of £18 for a standard passport or £12 for a British visitor's passport is still very good value for money.

  Drugs (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the reported drug finds in each of the London prisons for the period from 1 January to 1 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been a total of 492 recorded drug finds in prison service establishments in London from 1 January 1992 to 1 November 1992. The table shows a breakdown of the reported finds.

  Establishment

  Number of incidents

  Belmarsh

  37

  Brixton

  56

  Feltham

  123

  Holloway

  11

  Pentonville

  33

  Wandsworth

  127

  Wormwood Scrubs

  105

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making for consultations on wheel clamping on private land; and when he will expect replies to the consultation.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government intend to conduct a public consultation exercise on the problems associated with
  355
  wheel clamping on private land in England and Wales. For this purpose, a detailed discussion paper is being prepared. This will be issued as soon as possible and will include details about the closing date for replies to the consultation exercise.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to deal with the hard core of juvenile offenders who persistently reoffend.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government understand and share the current concern about what appears to be a comparatively small number of juveniles who persistently reoffend. We are therefore looking urgently at the powers available to the courts and to the other authorities who deal with young offenders as well as at the facilities available at the institutions and other places to which they may be sent in order to decide what new measures it may be sensible to introduce. I would also draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the recently implemented provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Inter alia, the Act places courts under a duty to bind over the parents of offenders under the age of 16 if they are satisfied that to do so would reduce the risk of further offending and it significantly strengthens their powers to determine what should happen to those juveniles who are refused bail and remanded to local authority accommodation. The effect of those provisions will be closely monitored.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of sexual abuse have been recorded at young offenders institutions in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current prison service policy is that details of all assaults are recorded, including sexual assaults. Investigations are made as appropriate, but the system at present does not allow for easy retrieval of information relating specifically to sexual assault.

  The reporting of incidents by prison establishments in England and Wales is currently under review, as is the system for the storage and retrieval of information about incidents. An improved system for reporting incidents, and for storing and retrieving information about incidents, is expected to be in place by the middle of 1993.

  It is envisaged that, when the new systems are in place, more detailed information will be available about all assaults, including those with a sexual element.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total certified and functional accommodation in the prison service; and what is the projected accommodation level for each of the next seven years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total certified normal accommodation—CNA—available for use in the prison service estate on 16 November was 45,650. The projected average CNA for each of the next seven years is as follows:356

  CNA

  1993–94

  47,573

  1994–95

  48,197

  1995–96

  49,334

  1996–97

  50,098

  1997–98

  50,216

  1998–99

  50,264

  1999–2000

  50,264

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include the compromise solution on shopping hours submitted by Marks and Spencer, Iceland Frozen Foods, Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs and other retailers, as one of the options for reform of the Shops Act 1950 to be presented to Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make a statement soon about our proposals for reform.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Wolds private prison will reach full capacity; and when he will conduct an assessment of the functioning of Wolds prison so that the feasibility of further private prisons can be assessed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements are being made to transfer to HM prison Wolds the catchment areas of Kingston-upon-Hull Crown court and committing magistrates courts. This change will take effect from 4 January 1993. I expect that Wolds will reach full capacity within a few months.

  There is continual assessment of the functioning of the prison by the controller and a two-year evaluation study at Wolds is being undertaken by Hull university.

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the certified normal accommodation will be at Strangeways prison when it becomes fully functional in 1993; and if he will give an undertaking that Strangeways will not be allowed to become overcrowded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The certified normal accommodation of Manchester prison will be 971 when it becomes fully operational. This level of accommodation may not be reached until June 1994. When the refurbished main prison is opened in September 1993, the old remand centre which is currently the only accommodation in use could be closed. This will be in order to refurbish K wing and to carry out security improvements.

  The prison service will aim to avoid the population exceeding 971 by arranging for sentenced prisoners to be transferred to serve their sentence in training prisons. But if it becomes essential to do so—for example, in order to avoid the use of police cells—the population of the prison could rise to 1,150.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest projections of the prison population for each of the next seven years.
  357
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest projections of the prison population, based on data available up to the end of 1991, were published in a Home Office statistical bulletin "Projections of long term trends in the Prison population to 2000", Issue 10/92, published 28 May 1992. These projections do not take into account any prison places saved as a result of extra resources to strenghen initiatives aimed at diverting offenders from custody which were agreed in the autumn statement 1992. A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Home Office has three agencies: the Fire Service College, the Forensic Science Service and the United Kingdom Passport Agency, and a fourth—the Prison Service Agency—is due to be launched

  Number of cautions, prosecutions and convictions for drug trafficking offences by police force area 1989, 1990 and 19911

  England and Wales 1991

  Police Force Area

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1989

  1990

  19911

  1989

  1990

  19911

  1989

  1990

  19911

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  8

  33

  122

  167

  169

  77

  92

  83

  Bedfordshire

  —

  4

  13

  35

  59

  50

  27

  50

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  18

  2

  84

  99

  76

  64

  79

  60

  Cheshire

  4

  4

  7

  99

  122

  174

  78

  77

  108

  Cleveland

  4

  —

  9

  37

  56

  50

  24

  29

  29

  Cumbria

  7

  3

  13

  45

  54

  58

  47

  37

  58

  Derbyshire

  —

  4

  3

  51

  83

  91

  38

  55

  64

  Devon and Cornwall

  4

  6

  21

  132

  122

  153

  108

  106

  105

  Dorset

  3

  —

  4

  58

  68

  74

  39

  52

  59

  Durham

  1

  —

  —

  15

  23

  39

  14

  17

  15

  Essex

  5

  14

  10

  252

  285

  393

  169

  167

  216

  Gloucestershire

  1

  3

  8

  26

  42

  27

  21

  25

  30

  Greater Manchester

  4

  2

  33

  407

  453

  534

  257

  321

  375

  Hampshire

  9

  22

  17

  200

  199

  269

  121

  156

  154

  Hertfordshire

  1

  12

  16

  79

  101

  89

  59

  90

  51

  Humberside

  15

  19

  14

  93

  91

  144

  77

  73

  99

  Kent

  46

  66

  25

  319

  361

  349

  286

  331

  357

  Lancashire

  —

  7

  5

  110

  179

  198

  77

  99

  133

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  2

  45

  34

  83

  39

  29

  so

  Lincolnshire

  7

  3

  14

  26

  42

  71

  19

  39

  38

  Merseyside

  5

  11

  14

  370

  483

  503

  208

  278

  263

  Metropolitan Police District2

  77

  34

  24

  2,000

  1,919

  1,887

  1,938

  1,773

  1,516

  Norfolk

  7

  9

  17

  92

  107

  140

  70

  95

  80

  Northamptonshire

  3

  6

  3

  55

  75

  71

  27

  53

  49

  Northumbria

  1

  5

  5

  114

  165

  161

  73

  110

  122

  North Yorkshire

  19

  5

  15

  21

  48

  60

  14

  23

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  5

  2

  79

  75

  122

  54

  47

  55

  South Yorkshire

  2

  1

  10

  122

  136

  152

  63

  75

  94

  Staffordshire

  5

  1

  5

  40

  45

  88

  45

  31

  76

  Suffolk

  5

  11

  17

  104

  108

  113

  70

  74

  73

  Surrey

  42

  25

  8

  60

  82

  91

  35

  44

  54

  Sussex

  2

  4

  6

  516

  396

  673

  473

  399

  375

  Thames Valley

  8

  23

  19

  110

  141

  147

  102

  107

  110

  Warwickshire

  2

  8

  19

  27

  23

  56

  22

  29

  37

  West Mercia

  14

  29

  31

  78

  102

  82

  72

  76

  60

  West Midlands

  6

  5

  18

  341

  333

  333

  263

  220

  244

  West Yorkshire

  13

  20

  38

  151

  231

  300

  95

  144

  191

  Wiltshire

  —

  5

  6

  25

  43

  38

  15

  34

  20

  Dyfed-Powys

  7

  4

  13

  52

  49

  50

  41

  27

  37

  Gwent

  2

  11

  1

  26

  43

  58

  15

  25

  29

  North Wales

  —

  5

  5

  38

  61

  46

  45

  46

  58

  South Wales

  7

  12

  5

  154

  180

  273

  109

  130

  177

  England

  344

  402

  506

  6,540

  7,152

  8,108

  5,280

  5,538

  5,563

  Wales

  16

  32

  24

  270

  333

  427

  210

  228

  301

  England and Wales

  360

  434

  530

  6,810

  7,485

  8,535

  5,490

  5,766

  5,864

  358
  in April 1993. As the then Prime Minister explained to the House on 24 October 1988, at column 14, the status of potential agencies is carefully considered before the agency is launched. The future status of an agency will normally be re-examined during the periodic review of an agency's framework document which is a standard part of each agency's arrangements.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police area in England and Wales for each of the last three years(a) the number of arrests for drug trafficking, (b) the number of cautions for drug trafficking and (c) the number of convictions for drug trafficking.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: Information on arrests is not collected centrally. The table shows the number of cautions, prosecutions and convictions for drug trafficking offences for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, which is provisional, by police force area.
  359
  1 Provisional data.

  2 Including City of London.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of wrongful conviction upon indictment have been received during each of the last 10 years by C3 division of his Department with a view to investigation and possible reference to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968; and, of those, how many cases in each year have been(a) investigated by C3 division, (b) sent to Ministers for a decision, (c) referred to the Court of Appeal and (d) resulted in the Court of Appeal finding that individuals had been wrongly convicted; and what was the average length of time between an allegation having been referred to C3 and a finding of wrongful conviction by the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: I regret that information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Number of representations received in C3 Division since 1 October 1984 in respect of allegations of wrongful conviction where a sentence of imprisonment was imposed

  Period

  Number received

  1 October 1984 to 30 September 1985

  654

  1 October 1985 to 30 September 1986

  601

  1 October 1986 to 30 September 1987

  560

  1 October 1987 to 31 March 1988

  1256

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  360

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  544

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  512

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  679

  1 April 1992 to 30 September 1992

  315

  1 A six-month period is shown because the procedure for collecting and collating these statistics was revised in April 1988.

  Number of cases referred to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the number of such cases in which the conviction was quashed.

  Year

  Number of cases1 referred

  Number of those cases in which the conviction was quashed

  1982

  4

  4

  1983

  3

  3

  1984

  12

  3

  1985

  4

  2

  1986

  4

  1

  1987

  6

  3

  1988

  2

  —

  1989

  3

  3

  1990

  7

  27

  1991

  10

  29

  1992 (up to 30 September 1992)

  7

  3—

  1 Some cases involve more than one defendant.

  2 Includes one case in which acquittal followed a retrial ordered by Court of Appeal.

  3 None of the cases referred in the period has so far been heard by the Court of Appeal.

  All representations received by C3 division are fully and carefully considered; and further investigations, for example, by the police are requested whenever it is considered that such action would be appropriate.

  Cautions and Discontinued Cases
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were cautioned in England and Wales during the first six months of 1992;

  (2) how many persons were subject to discontinuance from prosecution in the first six months of 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  No information is yet available on cautions or cases discontinued during the first half of 1992. The most recent information is for 1991 and was published in October 1992—Home Office statistical bulletin "Cautions, Court Proceedings and Sentencing".

  Remand Prisoners (Psychiatric Reports)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants charged with an imprisonable offence were remanded under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to a hospital for reports in 1991 and for the first six months of 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the year ending 31 March 1990—the latest information held centrally—283 defendants charged with an imprisonable offence were remanded under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to a hospital for reports.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each district office, the total social fund budget in each month, for the last 12-month period for which figures are available, for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; how much was left of each category by (i) November and (ii) December; and which offices (1) applied for and (2) received additional resources.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund grant and loan budgets are allocated on an annual basis. The Secretary of State announced an £8 million increase to the social fund budget on 2 November 1992. All districts received additional resources. Details of individual district budgets and expenditure are in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) what were the social fund grants and loans budgets for offices in the northern region for 1992–93; and what was the most recently available cumulative spend figure for the current year as a percentage of that total in each case;

  (2) if he will list the social fund grants and loans budgets for each office in the northern region in each year since the introduction of the social fund; and if he will also list these budgets indexed against (a) the retail prices index and (b) the social fund national spends;

  (3) what was the distribution of the extra social fund allocation between offices and regions in cash and percentage terms; and what this represented in each case as a percentage uplift of the base budget.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of allocations, expenditure and "real terms" expenditure, both nationally and by district and local office, are in the Library. My right hon. Friend the
  361
  Secretary of State announced an £8 million increase to the social fund budget on 2 November 1992. All districts have received additional resources, details of which are being placed in the Library.

  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Social Security if he will list the notional tariff of income assessements on relevant capital for benefit claimants for each year since 1986; and if he will now review these arrangements following the reduction in interest rates.

  Mr. Burt
  The tariff income rule in the income-related benefits was introduced in 1988 and has not been revised. The level of income assumed from capital is calculated by ignoring the first £3,000 and taking into account £1 a week for every £250, or part of £250, between £3,000 and the upper capital limit for the particular benefit.

  The formula for calculating tariff income is not linked to, nor is it meant to imply, any particular rate of return that could be secured from investment. The rule gives most help to people with the least savings.

  Estimated government expenditure on certain cash benefits,1 1989–90

  £ million and £ per head

  National insurance benefits

  Retirement pension

  Sickness and invalidity

  Widow's

  Unemployment

  Disablement

  Income support

  Child benefit

  War pensions

  Total benefits as slated2

  £ million

  United Kingdom

  20,558

  4,208

  862

  765

  477

  8,053

  4,718

  641

  40,281

  North

  1,083

  323

  47

  61

  55

  510

  256

  39

  2,376

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,803

  427

  73

  64

  54

  678

  414

  54

  3,567

  East Midlands

  1,374

  262

  56

  42

  29

  478

  337

  38

  2,618

  East Anglia

  738

  80

  28

  22

  16

  176

  163

  20

  1,243

  South East

  6,497

  831

  248

  178

  92

  2,171

  1,368

  197

  11,581

  South West

  1,915

  257

  67

  62

  26

  509

  360

  57

  3,252

  West Midlands

  1,715

  365

  77

  58

  49

  793

  449

  44

  3,551

  North West

  2,333

  593

  97

  94

  67

  1,083

  548

  81

  4,897

  England

  17,457

  3,138

  693

  583

  388

  6,399

  3,896

  530

  33,084

  Wales

  958

  350

  45

  45

  32

  442

  236

  36

  2,143

  Scotland

  1,689

  553

  92

  106

  43

  834

  406

  63

  3,786

  Northern Ireland

  453

  168

  32

  31

  14

  378

  180

  12

  1,268

  £ per head3

  United Kingdom

  359·2

  73·5

  15·1

  13·4

  8·3

  140·7

  82·4

  11·2

  703·8

  North

  352·5

  105·1

  15·4

  20·0

  18·0

  166·1

  83·4

  12·7

  773·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  365·0

  86·4

  14·8

  13·0

  10·9

  137·2

  83·8

  10·9

  722·2

  East Midlands

  343·6

  65·6

  14·0

  10·6

  7·2

  119·6

  84·4

  9·6

  654·6

  East Angiia

  360·9

  39·1

  13·5

  10·9

  7·8

  86·3

  79·6

  9·7

  607·7

  South East

  373·7

  47·8

  14·3

  10·2

  5·3

  124·9

  78·7

  11·3

  666·2

  South West

  411·6

  55·2

  14·4

  13·3

  5·6

  109·3

  77·4

  12·2

  699·0

  West Midlands

  328·7

  69·9

  14·7

  11·2

  9·4

  152·1

  86·2

  8·5

  680·7

  North West

  365·6

  92·9

  15·3

  14·8

  10·5

  169·8

  85·9

  12·7

  767·5

  England

  366·1

  65·8

  14·5

  12·2

  8·1

  134·2

  81·7

  11·1

  693·7

  Wales

  333·5

  121·7

  15·6

  15·5

  11·1

  153·9

  82·1

  12·5

  745·9

  Scotland

  331·8

  108·7

  18·1

  20·8

  8·5

  163·9

  79·7

  12·3

  743·6

  Northern Ireland

  286·3

  106·1

  19·9

  19·7

  8·7

  239·1

  113·8

  7·7

  801·3

  Source: Department of Social Security; Department of Social Security, Northern Ireland.

  1 The quality of these estimates varies between benefits. For some of them, including retirement pension, the regional breakdown in Great Britain is based solely on population estimates. Because of changes in method, the estimates might not be entirely consistent with those published for previous years.

  2 The benefits covered do not account for the total value of social security benefits paid.

  3 Based on mid-1989 population estimates.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the annual cost or saving, (b) the numbers of gainers or losers, (c) the
  362
  The tariff income rule is kept under review, but we have no plans for change at present.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a regional breakdown of the total budget of his Department for each of the past five years; and if he will give a regional breakdown of expenditure on each benefit for which his Department is responsible for each of the past five years, in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following table, which appears in "Regional Trends", presents an estimate of the regional breakdown of expenditure in respect of some major benefits. The table is for 1989–90, the most recent year available.

  average amounts of weekly gains or losses and (d) the maximum amounts of weekly gains and losses in individual cases, which would result from adjustments of the housing benefit taper from 65 per cent. to (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 55 per cent., (iii) 60 per cent., (iv) 70 per cent., (v) 75 per cent. and (vi) 80 per cent.
  363
  Mr. Burt
  The information requested for(a), (b) and (c) is shown in the table.

  HB taper (per cent.)

  Annual Cost £ million

  Annual Saving £ million

  Number of gainers (000s)

  Number of losers (000s)

  Average weekly amount of gain £

  Average weekly amount of loss £

  50

  340

  —

  1625

  —

  4·00

  —

  55

  210

  —

  1555

  —

  2·60

  —

  60

  100

  —

  1505

  —

  1·30

  —

  70

  —

  90

  —

  1465

  —

  1·20

  75

  —

  165

  —

  1465

  —

  2·20

  80

  —

  240

  —

  1475

  —

  3·10

  Figures have been provided from data from the 1987–88–89 family expenditure surveys and are modeled at 1992–93 prices. These figures are rounded

  Figures for (d) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of each benefit for which his Department is responsible in each region of the United Kingdom for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The available information on numbers of recipients by region is set out in the tables.

  Income Support Recipients of Income Support for the last three years by DSS regions

  Region

  May 1989

  May 1990

  May 1991

  Great Britain

  4,161,000

  4,180,000

  4,487,000

  North Eastern

  684,000

  674,000

  688,000

  London North

  607,000

  638,000

  735,000

  Family Credit Recipients of Family Credit for the last five years by DSS Region

  30 April 1988

  30 April 1989

  30 April 1990

  30 April 1991

  30 April 1992

  Region

  Midlands

  45

  51

  57

  64

  73

  Northern

  41

  51

  56

  61

  70

  London North

  25

  29

  35

  39

  44

  Wales and South West

  40

  43

  47

  49

  55

  North Western

  42

  51

  53

  58

  64

  Scotland

  30

  35

  37

  41

  46

  London South

  20

  25

  28

  30

  37

  Great Britain

  243

  286

  314

  342

  389

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Average number of Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit1 cases in Great Britain by standard region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Region

  Housing Benefit

  Community Charge Benefit

  Housing Benefit

  Community Charge Benefit

  Housing Benefit

  Community Charge Benefit

  Housing Community

  Community Charge Benefit

  South East

  696,000

  —

  683,700

  —

  490,400

  929,000

  530,300

  891,000

  London

  670,400

  —

  656,000

  —

  545,000

  724,400

  602,100

  732,700

  North

  385,200

  —

  377,900

  —

  296,600

  504,200

  296,800

  446,500

  Wales

  285,100

  —

  281,800

  —

  203,900

  383,700

  209,700

  324,600

  Scotland

  694,100

  —

  556,300

  850,300

  542,200

  590,600

  542,500

  640,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  529,200

  —

  519,000

  —

  387,800

  664,500

  397,900

  635,100

  East Midlands

  294,400

  —

  287,200

  —

  211,400

  430,300

  214,800

  392,000

  East Anglia

  197,800

  —

  192,000

  —

  142,200

  279,000

  150,900

  257,700

  South West

  348,700

  —

  345,400

  —

  247,600

  477,100

  265,800

  453,400

  West Midlands

  539,000

  —

  520,400

  —

  369,100

  687,800

  384,900

  691,000

  North West

  733,900

  —

  725,900

  —

  514,400

  960,300

  524,000

  875,500

  Total

  5,373,900

  —

  5,145,700

  850,300

  3,950,700

  6,730,900

  4,119,600

  6,339,700

  1 Community Charge was first introduced in Scotland in April 1989 and extended to the rest of Great Britain in April 1990.

  364

  Region

  May 1989

  May 1990

  May 1991

  South Western

  268,000

  274,000

  310,000

  Wales

  246,000

  248,000

  257,000

  Midlands

  668,000

  665,000

  699,000

  North Western

  662,000

  643,000

  669,000

  Scotland

  486,000

  481,000

  487,000

  London South

  540,000

  558,000

  641,000

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Annual Inquiries, May 1989–91.

  Caveat:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, hence they may not sum to the totals given.
  365

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Pensions1 or Pensions in lieu of gratuities current at the end of the Statistical Year for the last five years2

  Region

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1990

  1 April 1989

  2 April 1988

  4 April 1987

  Great Britain

  192,000

  191,000

  185,000

  183,000

  183,000

  Scotland

  17,000

  17,000

  17,000

  16,000

  16,000

  Wales

  19,000

  19,000

  17,000

  16,000

  19,000

  England

  152,000

  151,000

  148,000

  147,000

  143,000

  Northern

  22,000

  22,000

  22,000

  21,000

  21,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  20,000

  East Midlands

  14,000

  14,000

  13,000

  12,000

  12,000

  East Anglia

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  South East

  35,000

  35,000

  34,000

  33,000

  33,000

  South Western

  12,000

  11,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  West Midlands

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  North Western

  26,000

  26,000

  27,000

  27,000

  25,000

  Overseas

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  1 Please note that it is possible for an IIDB beneficiary to have more than one pension in payment.

  2 Figures do not take account of late awards notified.

  Source: Annual 10 per cent. sample. Table figures uprated.

  Invalidity Benefit The number of Invalidity Benefit Beneficiaries for the last five years by Standard Statistical Region (The Statistics given are at a point in time)

  Region

  30 March 1991

  31 March 1990

  1 April 1989

  2 April 1988

  4 April 1987

  Great Britain

  1,306,000

  1,208,900

  1,126,000

  1,047,500

  967,900

  Scotland

  181,400

  169,300

  157,900

  146,900

  135,200

  Wales

  146,600

  137,500

  131,800

  126,900

  122,000

  England

  970,600

  895,500

  829,100

  766,600

  704,000

  Northern

  126,300

  116,900

  110,000

  102,700

  96,600

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  124,500

  118,400

  107,500

  98,000

  89,100

  East Midlands

  74,200

  66,200

  61,000

  55,700

  50,400

  East Anglia

  28,800

  26,300

  23,600

  20,700

  19,300

  South East

  219,200

  204,600

  192,000

  179,200

  163,700

  South Western

  71,900

  66,100

  60,200

  57,400

  53,400

  West Midlands

  105,900

  97,300

  90,300

  85,400

  76,200

  North Western

  219,800

  199,700

  184,500

  167,500

  155,300

  Overseas

  7,400

  6,600

  7,200

  7,100

  6,700

  Source: Annual 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit.

  [Table figures updated].

  Sickness Benefit The number of Sickness Benefit Beneficiaries for the last five years by Standard Statistical Region (The Statistics given are at a point in time)

  Region

  30 March 1991

  31 March 1990

  1 April 1989

  2 April 1988

  4 April 1987

  Great Britain

  109,600

  103,400

  109,200

  117,500

  109,600

  Scotland

  14,800

  13,300

  12,900

  15,800

  15,400

  Wales

  11,700

  10,300

  8,900

  9,600

  9,500

  England

  83,000

  79,600

  87,300

  92,100

  84,700

  Northern

  9,000

  9,800

  9,500

  9,700

  10,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11,700

  10,100

  11,600

  12,500

  10,500

  East Midlands

  5,900

  7,200

  7,500

  8,800

  6,200

  East Anglia

  3,000

  2,200

  2,800

  3,300

  2,900

  South East

  20,000

  17,600

  20,700

  22,900

  21,200

  South Western

  5,500

  6,500

  6,200

  6,500

  6,000

  West Midlands

  8,700

  8,900

  10,400

  9,200

  9,900

  North Western

  19,200

  17,300

  18,600

  19,200

  17,300

  Overseas

  100

  200

  100

  Nil

  Nil

  Source: Annual 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit. [Table figures uprated].

  Severe Disablement Allowance The number of Severe Disablement Allowance Beneficiaries for the last five years by Standard Statistical Region (The Statistics given are at a point in time)

  Region

  30 March 1991

  31 March 1990

  1 April 1989

  2 April 1988

  4 April 1987

  Great Britain

  293,300

  284,600

  274,500

  263,200

  260,100

  Scotland

  33,900

  33,600

  32,600

  32,300

  31,700

  Wales

  21,900

  22,100

  20,900

  19,800

  18,800

  England

  237,300

  228,700

  220,900

  211,000

  209,500

  Northern

  19,200

  19,500

  18,400

  18,200

  17,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28,800

  27,000

  26,800

  25,200

  24,900

  East Midlands

  19,800

  18,600

  18,000

  17,100

  16,100

  366 367

  Region

  30 March 1991

  31 March 1990

  1 April 1989

  2 April 1988

  4 April 1987

  East Anglia

  9,000

  8,900

  8,400

  7,500

  7,300

  South East

  69,000

  66,800

  65,100

  63,600

  64,500

  South Western

  24,100

  23,400

  22,900

  21,900

  22,300

  West Midlands

  24,000

  23,600

  21,600

  20,600

  20,000

  North Western

  43,400

  40,900

  39,700

  36,900

  36,700

  Overseas

  200

  200

  100

  100

  100

  Source: Annual 1 per cent. sample of claims to benefit [Table figures uprated].

  Unemployment Benefit Number of unemployed claimants in Great Britain in receipt of Unemployment Benefit at May of each year by Standard Statistical Region

  Thousands

  Region

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Great Britain

  636

  378

  299

  555

  669

  South East

  135

  74

  69

  160

  210

  East Anglia

  18

  9

  9

  19

  23

  South West

  45

  25

  19

  43

  53

  West Midlands

  59

  32

  27

  59

  75

  East Midlands

  44

  26

  22

  39

  47

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  69

  41

  31

  55

  58

  North West

  86

  55

  40

  57

  77

  North

  55

  37

  24

  36

  38

  Wales

  39

  24

  17

  28

  28

  Scotland

  86

  56

  40

  52

  58

  Source: Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

  Sample size: 100 per cent.

  Due to rounding, component parts may not sum to totals.

  Independent living fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the expenditure of the independent living allowance was represented by VAT payments in 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund is an independent charitable trust administered by trustees. Matters of policy and administration are issues for the trustees of the fund.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how premiums available to disabled income support claimants assist low-income disabled persons unable to claim support.

  Mr. Burt
  Premiums that are available to income support claimants are also included in the calculation of housing benefit and community charge benefit. This increases the level of those benefits for low-income disabled people not entitled to income support.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will introduce legislation to provide a determination of an individual disabled person's financial needs, based on the additional costs associated with disability; (2) how present benefit systems provide financial support to disabled persons with special dietary needs; (3) what additional measures he is considering to meet the income requirements of the disabled; (4) if he will review benefits available to the disabled in order to consider degrees of disability.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1984–85 the Department of Social Security commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out a major independent survey of the circumstances of disabled people. On the basis of the 368
  OPCS findings, the Government announced in the 1990 Command Paper, "The Way Ahead", a phased package of measures aimed at improving provision for people with disabilities.

  The improvements were targeted at those identified by OPCS as most in need: people with moderate to severe disabilities who did not qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance; those disabled early in life; and people who wished to gain independence by going out to work.

  The Government introduced disability living allowance and disability working allowance as the most important element of the package of improvements, which also included adjustments to the qualifying criteria and improvements in the level of certain benefits.

  A system of disability benefits which attempted to cover a whole range of specific needs would be far more complicated than the existing structure, both for claimants to understand and for staff to adjudicate and administer. A system based on the severity of a person's disability, taking no account of levels of need for help would be poorly targeted and would produce an unacceptably high number of losers.

  The Government believe that the new structure of benefits for disabled people is the most appropriate to their needs and provides a more coherent and comprehensive system of disability benefits than ever before.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to revise the 80 per cent. disability test for severe disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission a study into the effectiveness of the current range of disabled persons' benefits in meeting needs previously addressed by supplementary benefits additional payments.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.
  369
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will take to increase the take-up of disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be continuing the campaign to promote awareness of the benefit by writing individually to people receiving some of the qualifying benefits; offering advice and training to employers, advisers and welfare organisations and placing features in the specialist and local press.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are currently outstanding on disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  On 16 November there were four appeals outstanding on disability working allowance.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost of providing a carer for every disabled person; and what is the actual annual expenditure made available for non-professional carers.

  Mr. Scott
  Invalid care allowance provides an income maintenance benefit, at a cost of £262 million in 1991–92, for carers who forgo the opportunity of full-time employment to care for a severely disabled person who receives either the highest or middle rate care component of disability living allowance or attendance allowance. It is not possible to estimate the cost of providing a level of care in the unspecified circumstances described by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend payments of disablement living allowance to persons under the age of five years and over the age of 65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. There are no age limits for the receipt of disability living allowance once it has been awarded and the care component is already available to children under the age of five years. Attendance allowance is available to those becoming disabled after the age of 65.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will abolish the residency test for severe disablement allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend community care grant regulations to extend claimant rights to those in local authority establishments, including mental rehabilitation units.

  Mr. Scott
  No. There is no need to amend the social fund legislation because people who are receiving income support and who leave the establishments mentioned are already eligible for community care grants, which are discretionary, and each case is decided by a social fund officer on its own merits.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend community care grant regulations to include low-income groups, other than income support recipients, such as invalidity benefit recipients and pensioners.
  370
  Mr. Scott
  No. The current income support rule focuses the available resources on those most in need of this type of assistance. The rule is clear and simple to understand and has always been used in this type of scheme.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made with the inquiry into the arrangements for family credit claims by self-employed persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Progress of the research being undertaken by the social policy research unit at York university into family credit and the self-employed has been slower than expected. Results are not expected to be published until spring 1993.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the level of the Christmas bonus for pensioners which would be required to match the equivalent purchasing power of the £10 bonus of 1974;

  (2) what is the total estimated additional cost of fully indexing the pensioners' Christmas bonus to achieve the same purchasing power as the £10 bonus paid in 1974.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Christmas bonus, which is paid regardless of need and which no Government have increased since its introduction in 1972, would now be worth £49·75 had it been increased annually since 1974 in line with prices. The additional cost would be approximately £489 million.

  Income Support
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families with one or more wage earners qualify for family income support.

  Mr. Burt
  At April 1992, a total of 369,000 families, with one wage earner, received family credit and 19,000 with two wage earners.

  Mr. Ken Vince
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the case of the late Mr. Ken Vince about whose claim for mobility allowance the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe wrote to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency on 20 July and who died two months before the chief executive replied to the right hon. Member on 4 November.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 18 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Mobility Allowance Claim of the late Mr Ken Vince.
  371
  I am now in a position to confirm that a decision has been made on the late Mr Vince's claim and this has been notified direct to his next of kin. I have replied to you separately in greater detail about this.

  Clearly, your constituent's claim was not handled as efficiently as it should have been. I offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Vince's family for the distress this must have caused and also for the delay in replying to your correspondence. You will be aware of the problems the Benefits Agency has faced since the introduction of Disability Living Allowance in April and the effects this has had on outstanding Mobility Allowance and Attendance Allowance claims. My letter of 19 October to all Members set out the measures we have taken to resolve these problems successfully.

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

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy (Ordination) Measure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what information the Commissioners hold on the number of applications made for a faculty under the Measure, following the passing of the Clergy (Ordination) Measure, and the number granted; and whether he will break this down according to whether or not the applicant had commenced approved theological college training before the Measure was given Royal Assent.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  None. This is not a matter for the Commissioners. Faculties under this Measure are granted by the archbishop of the appropriate province.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the health and safety policy of each of the agencies within his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for health and safety is delegated to the chief executives of Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Intervention Board executive agency, which is a separate Government Department responsible to the four United Kingdom Agriculture Departments. I have asked each chief executive to write to the hon. Member to ouline their policy and have also asked them to place any relevant documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 November 1992:

  ADAS is in the process of developing its own Health and Safety policy, which will be placed in the Library of the House when it is available.

  The current situation is covered by the reply given to Dr. David Clark MP (South Shields) on 8 July 1992, Official Report, column 234.

  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. John McAllion, dated November 1992:

  In its Annual Business Plan 1992–93, The Central Science Laboratory gave a commitment to issue its revised health and safety policy statement by the end of December 1992. The
  372
  statement, which represents a major revision of the previous document in force prior to agency status, is in its final stages of preparation and on target for completion by the end of the year. When the policy statement has been agreed, it will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Dr. T. W. A. Little to Mr. John McAllion, dated 19 November 1992:

  As you know the Minister has asked that Chief Executives of executive agencies for which he is responsible write to you direct with their answer to your question.

  I am arranging with the Ministry's Parliamentary Clerk for a copy of the Central Veterinary Laboratory's Health and Safety Policy Statement to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons forthwith.

  In his reply to your question about executive Agencies in MAFF, the Minister said that as health and safety was a matter delegated to Chief Executives, he would ask them to write to you and to arrange for a copy of their policy to be placed in the Library of the House. I am doing so as Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

  The VMD health and safety statement is set out in Section 4 of the VMD Personnel Charter, a copy of which is provided to every member of staff. One has now been placed in the Library of the House. As part of a review of the Personal Charter which is currently under way, the health and safety statement is being updated. I will arrange for a copy of the revised statement and Charter to be placed in the Library of the House once this has been completed.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. John McAllion. dated 19 November 1992:

  I am responding to your Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the health and safety policy of executive agencies. Although the Intervention Board is a separate Government Department, I am responsible to the four Agriculture Ministers and as the subject of your question is a matter within my operational responsibility, the Minister has asked me to reply.

  I attach a copy of the health and safety policy statement for the Intervention Board as it appears in the Agency's staff manual to which all staff have access.

  Together with our Trade Union Side (TUS) we are currently reviewing this policy statement in the light of recent and forthcoming legislation, and guidance from the Civil Service Occupational Health Service (CSOHS) about the development of health and safety policies. Our intention is not only to update the policy statement, but also to issue a health and safety booklet to all staff which will bring together in a convenient format all necessary guidance on health and safety matters.

  We implement our health and safety policy through a joint committee with the TUS which normally meets twice a year. In addition we:

  (a) Carry out regular joint workplace inspections and organise training through the CSOHS;

  (b) Issue guidance to staff on the control of hazardous substances which are covered by the inspections at (a) above;

  (c) Carry out checks on all electrical equipment to ensure that it complies with statutory requirements;

  (d) Have introduced a no smoking policy in work areas earlier this year;

  (e) Have offered voluntary health screening in 1991 and over 700 staff participated. As part of this year's programme advice seminars on stress, smoking, alcohol, healthy eating and heart care will be provided.

  Preparations are well in hand to meet the obligations of the VDU Directive which comes into operation on 1 January 1993. Further EC Directive on health and safety issues are expected in the near future and the Agency's objective will be to embrace those changes within its policy and procedures.

  I am sending a copy of this letter and enclosure to the Library of the House.

  Caterpillars
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to grant funding for research projects on the use of caterpillars to counter the spread of bracken.

  Mr. Curry
  We are currently reviewing our research priorities in this area.

  Agri-environmental Measures
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action he is taking to ensure speedy and effective implementation of the agri-environmental measures agreed as part of the common agricultural policy reforms during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to extend existing mechanisms for the support of environmentally friendly farming to include all wildlife-rich agricultural habitats in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  We are working on the development of a new nitrate reduction programme especially where this is necessary to protect drinking water sources, a new scheme to encourage organic farming, a new scheme to reduce livestock numbers where this will be environmentally beneficial, measures to increase the environmental benefits of set-aside and payments to manage land for public access and recreation. Details of these proposals will be issued for consultation this winter. They are in addition to plans to introduce a series of new environmentally sensitive areas. This combination of measures will greatly increase the coverage of schemes to support environmentally friendly farming.

  Organic Agriculture
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made at the EC Agriculture Council on the provision of financial encouragement for organic agriculture.

  Mr. Curry
  The UK pressed for the inclusion within the agri-environment programme of provisions for the payment of aid to organic farmers. Such provisions were adopted at the EC Agriculture Council in June.

  Monetary Compensation Amounts
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press the EC to phase in any monetary compensatory amount adjustments due to take effect from 1 January.

  Mr. Curry
  Monetary compensatory amounts are due to be abolished when new agrimonetary arrangements compatible with the single market are put in place on 1 January 1993. Under the new system, the green exchange rates used to convert EC prices into sterling will be kept in line with market exchange rates. The Government have phased in the adjustment to the new system by asking the Commission to propose a 7 per cent. devaluation of the green pound. This was agreed at the Agriculture Council on 16 November. If the present market exchange rate for sterling continues until the end of the year, a further devaluation of the green pound will be necessary.

  Ostrich Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ostrich farms have been set up in the United Kingdom; and if will list their locations.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally, and could be prepared only at disproportionate cost.

  Money Compensation Amounts
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the effect of the recent devaluation of the pound sterling and the resulting effect on the monetary compensation amount scheme on the average food bill of a family of four.

  Mr. Curry
  Monetary compensatory amounts are due to be abolished when new agrimonetary arrangements compatible with the single market are put in place on 1 January 1993. Under the new system, the green exchange rates used to convert EC prices into sterling will be kept in line with market exchange rates. If the present market exchange rate for sterling continues until the end of the year, a further devaluation of the green pound will be necessary, in addition to the 7 per cent. devaluation agreed at the Agriculture Council on 16 November. While the recent devaluation will increase farm support prices, food prices will not increase proportionately. EC price support arrangements only affect a limited range of commodities and the cost of raw materials is only a small proportion of the cost of many foods. It is estimated that the 7 per cent. devaluation will raise the food price index by less than 1 per cent. It is too early to say what the effect of any further devaluation food prices would be.

  Wild Boar
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many units are producing European wild boar in the United Kingdom for the meat market.

  Mr. Curry
  No official records are kept on the number of farms producing wild boar, but we estimate there are currently about 40 units in the United Kingdom.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has decided how entitlement to suckler cow premium should be allocated among new entrants.

  Mr. Curry
  There is provision for new entrants to have some claim on the national reserve of suckler cow premium quota. We are currently considering the detailed implementation, and interested parties will be consulted before final decisions are taken.

  Food Publications
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost was to public funds of editing, publishing and printing the series of publications "Food Safety" PB0551, "Food Sense" PB0549, "About Food Additives" PB0552, "Understanding Food Labels" PB05523, "Food Protection" PB0554 and "Healthy Eating" PB0550; and what financial contribution was made by the food or retailing industries.
  375
  Mr. Curry
  The "Food Sense" series of booklets was launched in August 1991, as part of a three-year campaign, to provide attractive and easily understood information in response to public concern about food issues. Some 12·5 million booklets, in the series referred to, have been printed so far. The costs for production and print have been met from within the Department's paid publicity budget and are as follows:

  Numbers printed millions

  Production costs £

  Print costs £

  Food Sense

  7·40

  115,551

  460,270

  Healthy Eating

  1·05

  38,077

  61,230

  Food Safety

  1·15

  38,077

  63,785

  About Food Additives

  1·10

  38,077

  67,352

  Understanding Food Labels

  1·05

  38,077

  59,310

  Food Protection

  0·80

  38,077

  59,760

  There have been no contributions from the food or retailing industries.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Mr. and Mrs. Rupert Everitt of Hemsbrook farm, Newton road, Littlehempston, Totnes, can expect to receive the first instalment of sheep premium; why there has been a delay in processing this claim; and whether Mr. and Mrs. Everitt will receive compensation for the loss of money they have suffered.

  Mr. Curry
  A payable order for the first instalment under the 1992 scheme was issued to Mr. and Mrs. Everitt on 5 November 1992. Applications from producer groups have been subject to additional checks this year in order to meet new European Community requirements and there has been no unreasonable delay in processing this claim.

  Epping Forest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase awareness of Epping forest, Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Epping forest is owned by the Corporation of London. It is managed under the terms of the Epping Forest Act 1878, which requires the conservators of the forest to preserve the natural aspect and the varied vegetation of the forest as well as the public's right to use it as an open space for recreation and enjoyment. It has a large variety of habitats of high nature conservation value and most of the forest has been designated a site of special scientific interest. A balance therefore has to be sought between public use and the protection of the forest's environment.

  We are satisfied that the forest is well known to the general public—they already make good use of it and the
  376
  conservators provide several facilities for visitors—and we do not consider that it is necessary to increase awareness of it any further.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will approve and press for a phase-out of methyl bromide at the Montreal protocol negotiations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he is taking to phase out the use of methyl bromide in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 5 November,Official Report, column 372.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions have been issued to safeguard persons using methyl bromide.

  Mr. Soames
  The information that has been issued to safeguard persons using methyl bromide is as follows:

  1. Guidance Note CS12: "Fumigation using methyl bromide", available from the Health and Safety Executive.

  2. Approved Code of Practice (ACOP):

  "Control of substances hazardous to health in fumigation operations"

  (ISBN 0118854690), available from HMSO.

  Detailed instructions relating to individual product use and any necessary precautions that must be taken will be found on the product labels.

  Crop Plantings
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the percentage of United Kingdom plantings of winter wheat, spring wheat, spring barley, winter barley, oats, rye, sugar beet, potatoes and oilseed rape of(a) the most popular variety, (b) the two most popular varieties and (c) the three most popular varieties; if he will name the varieties; and whether the percentages of plantings to the top three varieties covers a greater or lesser proportion of total plantings to that crop than was the case 10 years ago.

  Mr. Curry
  Although actual planting by variety is not recorded for cereals and oilseed rape, the tables show figures based upon information collected under certified seed production records. The use of seed retained on the farm outside this system is not recorded.

  For potatoes, the three most popular varieties of potatoes planted in 1992 in the United Kingdom were Maris Piper (12 per cent.); Record (10 per cent.) and Estima (9 per cent.) accounting in total for 31 per cent. of the crop, compared with 1982 when they were Maris Piper (17 per cent.), Desireé (14 per cent.) and Record (8 per cent.), accounting in total for 39 per cent. of the crop.

  United Kingdom certified seed for commercial crop production for harvest in 1992

  Per cent. of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Riband

  22

  Spring wheat

  Axona

  38

  Spring barley

  Blenheim

  21

  Winter barley

  Marinka

  21

  377

  Per cent. of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Oats

  Image

  43

  Rye

  Halo

  25

  Sugar beet2

  Celt

  24

  Oilseed rape

  Falcon

  22

  Per cent. of volume

  The two most popular varieties

  Names

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Riband, Beaver

  38

  Spring wheat

  Axona, Tonic

  72

  Spring barley

  Blenheim, Alexis

  39

  Winter barley

  Marinka, Puffin

  40

  Oats

  Image, Solva

  60

  Rye

  Halo, Sentinel

  45

  Sugar beet2

  Celt, Saxon

  44

  Oilseed rape

  Falcon, Envol

  42

  Per cent. of volume

  The two most popular varieties

  Names

  Per cent.1 accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Riband, Beaver, Haven

  51

  Spring wheat

  Axona, Tonic, Canon

  86

  Spring barley

  Blenheim, Alexis, Tyne

  51

  Winter barley

  Marinka, Puffin, Pastoral

  53

  Oats

  Image, Solva, Aintree

  77

  Rye

  Halo, Sentinel, Conrah

  56

  Sugar beet2

  Celt, Saxon, Rex

  61

  Oilseed rape

  Falcon, Envol, Libravo

  55

  United Kingdom certified seed for commercial crop production for harvest in 1982

  Per cent of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Avalon

  20

  Spring wheat

  Timmo

  49

  Spring barley

  Triumph

  24

  Winter barley

  Igri

  49

  Oats

  Peniarth

  61

  Rye

  Rheidol

  53

  Sugar beet2

  Monoire

  25

  Oilseed rape

  Jet Neuf

  72

  Per cent of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Avalon, Bounty

  38

  Spring wheat

  Timmo, Broom

  93

  Spring barley

  Triumph, Golden Promise

  44

  Winter barley

  Igri, Sonja

  83

  Oats

  Peniarth, Pennal

  98

  Rye

  Rheidol, Lovaszpatoinai

  64

  Sugar beet2

  Monoire, Nomo

  45

  Oilseed rape

  Jet Neuf, Rafal

  89

  Per cent of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter wheat

  Avalon, Bounty, Brigand

  49

  Spring wheat

  Timmo, Broom, Sicco

  98

  Spring barley

  Triumph, Golden Promise, Koru

  54

  378

  Per cent of volume

  The most popular variety

  Name

  Per cent. accounted for

  Winter barley

  Igri, Sonja, Maris Otter

  94

  Oats

  Peniarth, Pennal, Maris Quest

  100

  Rye

  Rheidol, Lovaszpatonai, Dominant

  74

  Sugar beet2

  Monoire, Nomo, Monotri and Salohill

  69

  Oilseed rape

  Jet Neuf, Rafal, Elvira

  95

  1 Apart from winter wheat, these percent figures are all less than for 1982.

  2 The information for sugar beet relates to actual commercial plantings in 1992 and 1982.

  Veal Calves (Transport)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long veal calves transported from the United Kingdom may be sealed in transporters; what length of time United Kingdom regulations allow for animal transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Currently calves for export are not sealed in transporters. Regulations in Great Britain require farm animals to be offered food and water at intervals not exceeding 12 hours, unless the journey can be completed within 15 hours. For export journeys over 18 hours., a licence to export is issued when the exporter has made arrangements to feed and water the animals at suitable intervals.

SCOTLAND

  Land Transactions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps he is taking to prevent the speculative sale of Scottish land to owners and developers furth of Scotland;

  (2) what record is being maintained of private land transactions in Scotland in which ownership of land is transferred furth of Scotland;

  (3) what estimate has been made of land in Scotland currently owned by (a) Germans (b) Americans and (c) Belgians; and if he envisages a limit being placed on foreign ownership of Scottish land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific record is maintained for the purpose of identifying the nationality of the owners of land in Scotland. General information on land transactions is, however, available from the Registers of Scotland executive agency.

  We have no plans to impose restrictions on the market for land. In a free society, sellers must be allowed to dispose of their possessions as they think best.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a percentage figure for the present financial year equivalent to the figure of 10·66 per cent. stated as applying from 1993 for the public expenditure change formula based on the 1991 census population count results, as indicated in his press notice of 12 November.

  Mr. Lang
  The equivalent percentage figure applied to the current financial year in the 1991 public expenditure survey was 11·76 per cent.

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department's buildings in the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the results of his Department's research evaluating the effect of compulsory competitive tendering on Scottish local authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has today published the report "Evaluation of Compulsory Competitive Tendering for Scottish Local Authority Services". The research examined a selection of case study services in a small sample of local authorities to determine the costs and results of providing certain services before and after CCT. The report identifies a number of savings and increased efficiency in the provision of these services after tendering.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate has been made of the number of awards of sequestration for each of the five years immediately following commencement of operation of the provision of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, as amended; and whether he will take steps to ensure that access to the sequestration process is not restricted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: The number of awards of sequestration in future years will be subject to a wide variety of factors, including the response of debtors and creditors to the legislation currently before Parliament. It is not, therefore, yet possible to estimate accurately the number of awards for the period requested.

  The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill already provides for access to sequestration in appropriate circumstances, subject to certain necessary safeguards to balance the interests of debtors and creditors.

  Courts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the courts which(a) have undergone renovation in the past four years and (b) are being refurbished at this moment; if he will give the cost of such work; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: The information requested is as follows:
  380

  (a) Major Projects Completed 1989–92 (inclusive)

  Project

  Completion

  Cost £ million

  Forfar Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1989

  0·10

  Falkirk Sheriff Court, New building

  1990

  6·3

  Arbroath Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1991

  0·55

  Fort William Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1991

  0·15

  Hamilton Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1991

  7·00

  Aberdeen Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1992

  9·0

  Lochmaddy Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  1992

  0·25

  Parliament House: Extension, New building

  1992

  14·0

  (b) Major Projects Under Construction

  Estimated Final Cost £ million

  Alloa Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  0·13

  Dumfries Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  2·70

  Edinburgh Sheriff Court, New building

  51·40

  Greenock Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  4·30

  Lanark Sheriff Court, Refurbishment

  0·15

  Vulnerable Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the courts which have live closed-circuit television links and associated equipment for the purpose of taking evidence from those deemed to be vulnerable witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Facilities for closed circuit television links for child witnesses have been provided on a pilot basis at the High Court in Edinburgh and Glasgow and at Edinburgh and Glasgow sheriff courts. Extension to other court houses will be considered in the light of experience of use of the system in the pilot courts.

  Open Air Events
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current powers for local councils or the police to prevent open air events taking place on private land if there is a reason to expect that they will lead to disturbance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: District and island councils may licence public entertainments under section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, provided that the local authority has previously resolved to license the particular activity in question. Where an unlicensed activity takes place in an area subject to licensing controls, the organiser is liable on conviction to an exceptionally high summary fine of up to £20,000 or up to six months imprisonment or both. If alcoholic liquor were to be sold at such an event, a liquor licence would be required under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. A local authority could prevent such an event taking place by refusal to grant a licence or the suspension of an existing licence under either the 1976 or the 1982 Acts.

  Quayle Munro
  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office paid the firm of Quayle Munro for its report on the future of the Scottish water industry.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 26 October, at columns 530–31.

HEALTH

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the results of the first quarter monitoring of the patients charter; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities, as purchasers of services, are required to publish annual reports giving

  Spending on personal social services

  Local Authority

  Budget 1991–92

  PSS SSA 1991–92

  Difference £ million

  Difference Per cent.

  Budget 1992–93

  PSS SSA 1992–93

  Difference £ million

  Difference Per cent.

  Bolton

  25·2

  24·1

  1·1

  4·6

  27·4

  26·1

  1·4

  5·1

  Bury

  15·3

  13·3

  2·0

  15·0

  15·5

  14·4

  1·1

  7·8

  Manchester

  66·3

  71·9

  -5·6

  -7·8

  64·6

  76·8

  -12·2

  -15·8

  Oldham

  22·3

  22·0

  0·3

  1·4

  24·7

  23·3

  1·4

  6·2

  Rochdale

  24·8

  21·1

  3·7

  17·5

  23·7

  21·8

  1·88

  8·6

  Salford

  27·1

  28·0

  -0·9

  -3·2

  30·1

  30·3

  -0·2

  -0·7

  Stockport

  24·4

  22·7

  1·7

  7·5

  27·4

  23·9

  3·5

  14·5

  Tameside

  23·2

  20·4

  2·8

  13·7

  23·1

  20·5

  2·6

  12·8

  Trafford

  17·7

  18·3

  -0·6

  -3·3

  19·3

  19·8

  -0·5

  -2·6

  Wigan

  24·0

  22·9

  1·1

  4·8

  25·9

  24·4

  1·5

  6·3

  Knowsley

  14·8

  20·7

  -5·9

  -28·5

  16·1

  22·3

  -6·2

  -28·0

  Liverpool

  64·0

  70·9

  -6·9

  -9·7

  74·9

  75·6

  -0·7

  -1·0

  St. Helens

  19·5

  15·1

  4·4

  29·1

  22·1

  15·9

  6·2

  38·9

  Sefton

  25·0

  24·4

  0·6

  2·5

  27·6

  25·9

  1·7

  6·6

  Wirral

  30·8

  33·1

  -2·3

  -6·9

  34·6

  34·7

  -0·1

  -0·1

  Barnsley

  16·1

  17·7

  -1·6

  -9·0

  18·7

  18·9

  -0·2

  -1·1

  Doncaster

  21·9

  22·9

  -1·0

  -4·4

  24·2

  25·6

  -1·4

  -5·3

  Rotherham

  23·7

  20·4

  3·3

  16·2

  25·2

  21·8

  3·4

  15·6

  Sheffield

  60·5

  54·6

  5·9

  10·8

  65·8

  57·7

  8·1

  14·0

  Gateshead

  22·4

  20·7

  1·7

  8·2

  24·5

  21·8

  2·7

  12·3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  36·9

  33·5

  3·4

  10·7

  37·7

  34·7

  3·0

  8·5

  North Tyneside

  22·8

  18·6

  4·2

  22·6

  24·5

  20·1

  4·4

  22·1

  South Tyneside

  16·6

  17·4

  -0·8

  -4·6

  17·5

  18·1

  -0·6

  -3·3

  Sunderland

  27·6

  27·1

  0·5

  1·8

  30·9

  28·5

  2·4

  8·4

  Birmingham

  127·6

  124·9

  2·7

  2·2

  137·6

  131·2

  6·4

  4·9

  Coventry

  34·4

  31·5

  2·9

  9·2

  37·7

  32·8

  4·9

  15·1

  Dudley

  22·2

  20·9

  1·3

  6·2

  24·2

  22·5

  1·7

  7·7

  Sandwell

  36·0

  32·7

  3·3

  10·1

  38·3

  34·4

  3·9

  11·3

  Solihull

  17·3

  14·3

  3·0

  21·0

  18·1

  15·6

  2·5

  16·2

  Walsall

  21·6

  21·8

  -0·2

  -0·9

  23·0

  23·2

  -0·2

  -1·0

  Wolverhampton

  30·7

  29·1

  1·6

  5·5

  32·5

  30·4

  2·1

  6·8

  Bradford

  50·0

  49·9

  0·1

  0·2

  54·7

  52·5

  2·2

  4·2

  Calderdale

  21·0

  18·4

  2·6

  14·1

  22·3

  20·2

  2·1

  10·6

  Kirklees

  32·3

  34·2

  -1·9

  -5·6

  36·0

  36·9

  -0·9

  -2·4

  Leeds

  82·1

  71·6

  10·5

  14·7

  84·1

  76·2

  7·9

  10·4

  Wakefield

  27·8

  24·3

  3·5

  14·4

  29·3

  26·2

  3·1

  11·7

  Camden

  48·0

  41·6

  6·4

  15·4

  45·3

  44·0

  1·3

  3·0

  Greenwich

  40·6

  32·2

  8·4

  26·1

  45·1

  34·6

  10·5

  30·3

  Hackney

  53·3

  55·5

  -2·2

  -4·0

  57·7

  59·3

  -1·6

  -2·7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  36·9

  38·9

  -2·0

  -5·1

  38·2

  41·2

  -3·0

  -7·3

  Islington

  41·9

  43·0

  -1·1

  -2·6

  48·9

  46·7

  2·2

  4·7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  30·1

  30·2

  -0·1

  -0·3

  33·0

  32·3

  0·7

  2·3

  Lambeth

  72·4

  71·2

  1·2

  1·7

  79·2

  75·9

  3·3

  4·4

  Lewisham

  47·2

  43·8

  3·4

  7·8

  47·5

  47·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Southwark

  44·4

  51·0

  -6·6

  -12·9

  55·7

  56·3

  -0·6

  -1·0

  Tower Hamlets

  31·4

  41·0

  -9·6

  -23·4

  39·3

  44·7

  -5·4

  -12·2

  Wandsworth

  57·7

  54·9

  2·8

  5·1

  60·7

  58·7

  2·0

  3·4

  Westminster

  50·3

  43·1

  7·2

  16·7

  57·9

  46·1

  11·8

  25·5

  382
  details of the performance against all relevant patients charter rights and standards achieved by their providers. The national health service management executive will give an overview on performance in the chief executive's annual report for 1992–93.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the(a) actual and (b) percentage difference between the social services budget estimate and standard spending assessment in 1991–92 for each social services in England;

  (2) what was the percentage difference between the personal social services budget estimate and standard spending estimate (a) in 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93 for each social services authority in England;

  (3) what is the personal social services standard spending assessment for each social services authority in england in 1992–93.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is as follows:
  383

  Local Authority

  Budget 1991–92

  PSS SSA 1991–92

  Difference £ million

  Difference Per cent.

  Budget 1992–93

  PSS SSA 1992–93

  Difference £ million

  Difference Per cent.

  City of London

  3·295

  0·5

  2·8

  559·0

  3·3

  0·5

  2·8

  566·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  19·5

  18·3

  1·2

  6·6

  20·2

  20·0

  0·2

  1·1

  Barnet

  32·6

  29·2

  3·4

  11·6

  36·6

  31·6

  5·0

  15·7

  Bexley

  18·5

  16·7

  1·8

  10·8

  20·4

  17·8

  2·6

  14·6

  Brent

  47·3

  42·5

  4·8

  11·3

  45·5

  45·6

  -0·1

  -0·2

  Bromley

  23·4

  25·6

  -2·2

  -8·6

  25·7

  27·1

  -1·4

  -5·2

  Croydon

  37·9

  34·0

  3·9

  11·5

  40·8

  36·6

  4·2

  11·6

  Ealing

  38·7

  37·7

  1·0

  2·7

  39·2

  40·8

  -1·6

  4·0

  Enfield

  30·3

  26·7

  3·6

  13·5

  32·1

  28·7

  3·4

  11·9

  Haringey

  33·8

  40·4

  -6·6

  -16·3

  36·6

  44·5

  -7·9

  -17·8

  Harrow

  20·5

  16·0

  4·5

  28·1

  21·5

  17·3

  4·2

  24·2

  Havering

  21·0

  17·2

  3·8

  22·1

  24·9

  18·5

  6·4

  34·4

  Hillingdon

  25·5

  20·3

  5·2

  25·6

  28·3

  21·5

  6·8

  31·7

  Hounslow

  30·8

  23·0

  7·8

  33·9

  33·5

  25·2

  8·3

  33·1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  16·1

  13·0

  3·1

  23·8

  17·5

  13·9

  3·6

  25·7

  Merton

  20·9

  18·6

  2·3

  12·4

  21·2

  20·3

  0·9

  4·6

  Newham

  39·9

  38·9

  1·0

  2·6

  44·9

  41·8

  3·1

  7·5

  Redbridge

  24·1

  21·7

  2·4

  11·1

  24·6

  23·9

  0·7

  3·1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  17·8

  17·1

  0·7

  4·1

  17·5

  18·6

  -1·1

  -5·7

  Sutton

  17·6

  15·3

  2·3

  15·0

  18·4

  16·4

  2·0

  12·0

  Waltham Forest

  37·2

  33·2

  4·0

  12·0

  40·5

  35·5

  5·0

  14·0

  Avon

  83·6

  76·4

  7·2

  9·4

  92·8

  81·5

  11·3

  13·9

  Bedfordshire

  42·2

  38·7

  3·5

  9·1

  44·6

  41·6

  3·0

  7·2

  Berkshire

  60·6

  51·8

  8·8

  16·9

  68·1

  55·7

  12·4

  22·2

  Buckinghamshire

  49·2

  39·9

  9·3

  23·3

  52·4

  43·1

  9·3

  21·6

  Cambridgeshire

  50·7

  44·6

  6·1

  13·7

  53·6

  48·1

  5·5

  11·3

  Cheshire

  73·3

  65·9

  7·4

  11·2

  77·7

  70·3

  7·4

  10·5

  Cleveland

  53·3

  52·4

  0·9

  1·7

  57·8

  55·3

  2·5

  4·5

  Cornwall

  33·0

  33·4

  -0·447

  -1·3

  34·8

  36·1

  -1·3

  -3·6

  Cumbria

  36·9

  37·4

  -0·5

  -1·3

  40·5

  39·7

  0·8

  2·0

  Derbyshire

  86·5

  68·4

  18·1

  26·5

  89·1

  72·9

  16·2

  22·3

  Devon

  70·0

  79·1

  -9·1

  -11·5

  78·9

  84·7

  -5·8

  -6·8

  Dorset

  39·7

  53·5

  -13·8

  -25·8

  42·3

  57·4

  -15·1

  -26·2

  Durham

  42·5

  50·9

  -8·4

  -16·5

  45·8

  53·3

  -7·5

  -14·2

  East Sussex

  59·0

  69·2

  -10·2

  -14·7

  67·1

  73·3

  -6·2

  -8·4

  Essex

  112·8

  111·2

  1·6

  1·4

  123·4

  120·8

  2·6

  2·2

  Gloucestershire

  34·5

  38·7

  -4·2

  -10·9

  38·7

  42·1

  -3·4

  -8·2

  Hampshire

  90·0

  111·7

  -21·7

  -19·4

  99·2

  119·6

  -20·4

  -17·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  45·9

  44·4

  1·5

  3·4

  50·7

  47·2

  3·5

  7·4

  Hertfordshire

  74·4

  69·8

  4·6

  6·6

  82·5

  77·2

  5·3

  6·9

  Humberside

  79·4

  72·5

  6·9

  9·5

  84·9

  76·8

  8·1

  10·6

  Isle of Wight

  10·1

  10·6

  -0·5

  -4·7

  10·7

  11·3

  -0·6

  -5·4

  Kent

  111·8

  117·8

  -6·0

  -5·1

  129·1

  126·7

  2·4

  1·9

  Lancashire

  125·4

  113·9

  11·5

  10·1

  138·3

  120·3

  18·0

  15·0

  Leicestershire

  70·7

  69·4

  1·3

  1·9

  74·4

  75·5

  -1·0

  -1·4

  Lincolnshire

  38·3

  41·2

  -2·9

  -7·0

  40·2

  45·0

  -4·8

  -10·6

  Norfolk

  48·1

  56·2

  -8·1

  -14·4

  54·3

  59·6

  -5·3

  -8·9

  Northamptonshire

  44·1

  42·0

  2·1

  5·0

  47·9

  45·3

  2·6

  5·7

  Northumberland

  25·9

  21·9

  4·0

  18·3

  26·9

  23·2

  3·7

  16·0

  North Yorkshire

  45·0

  49·1

  -4·1

  -8·4

  48·7

  52·2

  -4·1

  -7·8

  Nottinghamshire

  96·3

  87·6

  8·7

  9·9

  99·5

  93·9

  5·6

  6·0

  Oxfordshire

  43·6

  40·1

  3·5

  8·7

  47·7

  44·0

  3·7

  8·4

  Shropshire

  28·2

  27·3

  0·9

  3·3

  30·6

  29·8

  0·8

  2·7

  Somerset

  32·1

  33·0

  -0·9

  -2·7

  34·2

  35·5

  -1·3

  -3·8

  Staffordshire

  66·4

  69·6

  -3·2

  -4·6

  78·9

  74·9

  4·0

  5·3

  Suffolk

  42·2

  45·7

  -3·5

  -7·7

  47·9

  49·4

  -1·5

  -3·1

  Surrey

  58·3

  71·4

  -13·1

  -18·3

  70·2

  78·4

  -8·2

  -10·5

  Warwickshire

  33·7

  32·5

  1·2

  3·7

  35·7

  35·1

  0·6

  1·8

  West Sussex

  44·8

  54·3

  -9·5

  -17·5

  501

  58·7

  -8·6

  -14·7

  Wiltshire

  38·7

  37·2

  1·5

  4·0

  41·9

  40·1

  1·8

  4·5

  Isles of Scilly

  0·1

  0·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  -0·1

  -28·0

  Notes:

  It has been assumed that "budget" and "budget estimate" both refer to the budget submitted by authorities to central Government at the beginning of the financial year. It has also been assumed that "standard spending assessment" and "standard spending estimate" both refer to the final SSAs issued by DOE following the local authority settlement debate.

  The difference shown is calculated by subtracting the SSA from the budget for each year.

  Budget data has been adjusted to exclude expenditure directly funded by specific grants to make it comparable with the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage change in(a) net and (b) gross expenditure on personal social services from 1985–86 to 1991–92 adjusted by the personal social services deflator.
  384
  Mr. Yeo
  The latest estimates for revenue expenditure in 1991–92 represent real terms increases of 30·4 per cent. for net expenditure and 22·5 per cent. for gross expenditure over expenditure in 1985–86.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost in England in 1990–91 and 1991–92 of treating(a) an in-patient case in an acute hospital, (b) an out-patient in an acute hospital, (c) a day case in an acute hospital and (d) an accident and emergency patient in an acute hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. Expenditure on in-patients and day cases is no longer separately identified. Expenditure on day cases is now combined with that for in-patients to form a new category: patients using a bed. Expenditure is also identified by specialty rather than the type of hospital in which a patient is treated. Figures for 1990–91 are given in the table. Figures for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  1990–91 £

  Acute in-patient and day case

  815

  Acute out-patient attendance

  41

  Accident and emergency attendance

  24

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of treatment of osteoporosis patients, both in hospital and the community, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. However, the office of health economics has estimated that hospital in-patient expenditure on osteoporosis was £128 million in 1985–86 in England and Wales. In 1991–92 prices, this figure would be of the order of £200 million. These estimates do not take into account the cost of out-patient treatment and the costs of general practitioner services, including the prescribing of hormone replacement therapy and other drugs.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of recorded cases of osteoporosis in the years 1985 to 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested, as there is no requirement to record the diagnosis in general practice and many patients with osteoporosis will not be admitted to hospital. The estimated number of discharges and deaths with a main diagnosis of osteoporosis was 2,000 in England in 1985, according to the hospital in-patient inquiry. The estimated number of completed episodes, ordinary and day case admissions, with a main diagnosis of osteoporosis was 3,700 in England in 1989–90, according to the hospital episode statistics. The effect on the figures of the change in definition cannot readily be quantified, but it is believed to be of a relatively small order of magnitude.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the level of capital spending on hospital and community health services in net terms after deducing proceeds from land and property sales, in each year since 1974–75(a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator and (c) adjusted using the relevant index of NHS prices;
  386
  (2) to ask the Secretary of State for Health, what was the level of (a) total NHS expenditure, (b) current expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (c) capital expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (d) expenditure on the family practitioner services, (e) expenditure on centrally funded NHS services and (f) expenditure on personal social services, in each year since 1974–75, (i) in cash terms, (ii) adjusted using the relevant pay and prices index and (iii) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 November]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The last figure in the HCHS capital net table was incorrectly calculated. The revised table is as follows:

  HCHS capital net expenditure (including trusts' capital expenditure)

  Cash

  Adjusted by GDP 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted input unit costs 1990–91 prices

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1974–75

  —

  242

  —

  1,100

  —

  1,043

  1975–76

  —

  326

  —

  1,181

  —

  1,075

  1976–77

  —

  355

  —

  1,133

  —

  1,046

  1977–78

  —

  314

  —

  881

  —

  809

  1978–79

  —

  357

  —

  904

  —

  824

  1979–80

  —

  392

  —

  850

  —

  749

  1980–81

  —

  536

  —

  983

  —

  814

  1981–82

  —

  646

  —

  1,080

  —

  950

  1982–83

  —

  676

  —

  1,055

  —

  979

  1983–84

  —

  685

  —

  1,022

  —

  972

  1984–85

  —

  760

  —

  1,080

  —

  1,035

  1985–86

  —

  796

  —

  1,072

  —

  1,024

  1985–86

  888

  —

  1,195

  —

  1,142

  —

  1986–87

  892

  —

  1,162

  —

  1,093

  —

  1987–88

  902

  —

  1,115

  —

  1,051

  —

  1988–89

  906

  —

  1,044

  —

  998

  —

  1989–90

  1,191

  —

  1,288

  —

  1,202

  —

  1990–91

  1,372

  —

  1,372

  —

  1,372

  —

  1991–92

  1,427

  —

  1,331

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  1,856

  —

  1,660

  —

  —

  —

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend to doctors working in trusts the existing rights that hospital doctors have in paragraph 330 of their terms and conditions of service to speak out in the interests of their patients' health; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for national health service trusts to agree terms and conditions with doctors and other staff whom they employ. However, I am currently consulting widely on a proposal to issue guidance to the national health service—including NHS trusts—on the rights and responsibilities of managers and staff in this matter.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to allow trust hospitals to sell off pathology or related services to the private sector; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for trusts themselves to decide whether it would be better to provide their own pathology services or to subcontract with other national health service or independent providers of such services. Whatever they decide, trusts must include pathology costs in the overall price of the relevant contract with their
  387
  purchasers, and must not charge individuals for pathology services which are provided as part of national health service treatment.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing national health service pay expenditure in 1990–91, 1992–93 and her best estimate for 1993–94, showing the figures both in millions of pounds and current prices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the best available figures for expenditure on pay in the national health service in 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94. The figure for 1992–93 is the latest esimate available and the range for 1993–94 is consistent with a zero to 1·5 per cent. pay increase in public sector pay, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement.

  £ billion

  Financial year

  Nominal

  1992–93

  1990–911

  13·9

  15·6

  1992–932

  17·0

  17·0

  1993–943

  17·0 to 17·3

  16·5 to 16·8

  1 Best estimate from available data.

  2 Latest estimate.

  3 Provisional range to reflect the 0–1·5 per cent, range of pay increase for the public sector contained in the autumn statement.

  Hospitals (Advertising)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on her plans to allow advertising in hospital out-patient departments; what guidelines she intends to issue on such advertising; and whether the advertising of certain products will be prohibited;

  (2) what contracts have been negotiated in relation to the use of advertising in accident and emergency and out-patient departments; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities may allow commercial advertising in hospitals in order to generate additional income. General guidance on income generation activities by hospitals is included in a "guide to local initiatives" issued to health authorities in March 1989.

  Responsibility for income generation schemes is for national health service managers. But the guidance advises health authorities that specific schemes should be congruent with the goals, culture and objectives of the health service and should certainly not contradict them. It would not be in an authority's interest to be involved in activities which are in conflict with its own aims or detract from its image in the community.

  I do not intend issuing any specific guidance on advertising in hospitals.

  Information on contracts for advertising in hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Health Authorities (Property)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, at current prices, was raised from the disposal of property in each regional health authority in each year 388
  since 1990; what is the current projection of funds to be raised by such disposals in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 18 November at column 279. Figures are not available for all regions beyond 1992–93. However, the national health service is expected to realise some £155 million from land and property disposals in 1993–94 which will be reinvested in patient care.

  Health Survey
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement giving details of the health survey presently being carried out by the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, including sample size and completion date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The health survey for England, currently being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Department of Health, is a part of a continuing programme of surveys to monitor the nation's health. It is a central part of our health of the nation initiative and focuses on cardiovascular disease and associated risk factors.

  The first survey took place in the autumn of 1991 and achieved a sample size of 3,100 adults. A report is due in mid-1993. The fieldwork for the 1992 survey is running from September to December. It is aiming for a sample size of 4,000 adults. The target sample size for 1993 is 17,000 adults. Results will be published annually.

  Medical Audit Initiative
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 349, what guidance has been given to those involved in the medical audit initiative on (a) expenses to be claimed and (b) the standard of travel and hotel accommodation to be used consequent on their duties; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Where national health service or Department of Health staff attend meetings or events which entails an overnight stay, expenses may be claimed in accordance with standard rates and conditions set by the Treasury which reflect the seniority of the staff involved.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure(a) that there is available a sufficient supply of potassium iodate tablets for distribution to the population living within 25 miles of Sizewell A and B nuclear reactors for use in the event of there occurring a major accident and (b) that the tablets can be distributed within 24 hours of an accident occurring.

  Mr. Sackville
  The detailed emergency planning zone around the Sizewell nuclear power station extends to a radius of 2·5 km. The size of such zones is formally approved by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and is based on a "reference accident" for the reactor type in question. The reference accident is the maximum size of an accident that can
  389
  reasonably be foreseen. While accidents worse than the reference accident could occur, this probability is so remote that detailed emergency planning against their consequences is not justified.

  The provision of potassium iodate tablets is one of a number of countermeasures for which local emergency plans must make provision. Responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of arrangements for responding to nuclear emergencies in respect of particular nuclear installations currently rests with the operators, in consultation with local authorities, health authorities, the emergency services and other interests. The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of Nuclear Electric for further information about the arrangements at Sizewell power station.

  Smoking
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take to tackle the incidence of smoking among children with special educational needs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are committed to the continuation of the existing programmes on teenage smoking and to developing material aimed at parents who smoke.

  We are encouraging progress towards a situation in which all educational establishments have an effective smoking policy governing not only young people but staff and all other adults using the premises.

  Education in schools on the harmful effects of smoking is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  Superannuation Branch
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards establishing her Department's NHS superannuation branch as an executive agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are pleased to announce that the NHS superannuation branch will be established as the NHS Pensions Agency on 20 November. The agency will administer the NHS occupational pension schemes for England and Wales. Its detailed objectives and functions are set out in a policy and resources framework document, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The chief executive has been set the following key performance targets for the remainder of 1992–93:

  1. Service Standards

  a. Pension awards to be cleared:

  (i) Within four weeks of receipt of application from employer: 89 per cent.*

  (ii) Within eight weeks of receipt of application from employer 99 per cent.*

  b. Pension age estimates for non-practitioners to be cleared:

  (i) Within four weeks of request: 68 per cent.

  (ii) Within eight weeks of request: 99 per cent.

  c. Pensions age estimates for practitioners to be cleared:

  (i) Within six weeks of request: 71 per cent.

  (ii) Within eight weeks of request: 99 per cent.

  d. Transfer payments to he made:

  (i) Within eight weeks of application: 95 per cent.

  (ii) Within 10 weeks of application: 99 per cent.

  * for incapacity awards the periods start from confirmation of medical incapacity.

  2. Efficiency improvements
  390
  To deliver at least 2 per cent. efficiency gains in keeping with agreed 1992–93 running costs budget.

  3. New efficiency indicators

  By January 1993, to develop at least one of the output measures needed to construct an overall corporate efficiency indicator for the agency.

  4. New quality indicators

  a. By 31 January 1993, to develop a statistical sampling method to provide a sound indicator of the level of accuracy in award and transfer calculations.

  b. By 31 December 1992, to complete a customer satisfaction survey for major agency outputs.

  5. Value for money review

  By 31 January 1993, to undertake a review of agency activities, and services used by the agency, to determine a market testing programme for inclusion in the 1993–94 business plan.

  6. Organisational effectiveness review

  By 31 January 1993, to complete the first review of agency structure and organisation and to identify a preliminary programme for improving effectiveness for stakeholders in he Agency's services.

  7. Support systems review

  By 31 January 1993, to provide an information systems strategy to support the agency's corporate, business and management objectives.

  8. Citizen's charter

  By 31 March 1993, to propose new mechanisms for registering stakeholders' views on agency services.

  Social Services Grants
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what personal social services specific grants will be made in 1993–94.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For 1993–94 specific grants totalling £86·6 million will be available, which represents a £3·1 million or 3·7 per cent. increase, over the 1992–93 total. The specific grants for 1993–94 will be £34·4 million for mental illness, £31·8 million for social services training, £12·4 million for AIDS/HIV, £5·7 million for the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service and £2·3 million for alcohol and drugs misuse.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in England and Wales in 1991 and the first half of 1992 chose medical abortion in the first nine weeks of pregnancy with Mifepristone and prostaglandin.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between July 1991, when Mifegyne (Mifepristone) was licensed, and December 1991, the latest period for which figures are available, the chief medical officers of England and Wales were notified of 109 abortions where the Mifepristone and prostaglandin method was used.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she is taking to impose the 1·5 per cent. pay increase ceiling on senior and general managers in the national health service, from what date the pay ceiling will be effective; and if she will make a statement;
  391
  (2) what plans she has to impose the public sector pay ceiling of 1·5 per cent. in NHS trusts; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what steps she is taking to enforce the 1·5 per cent pay increase ceiling on all provider units in the national health service; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) what account will be taken of the earnings of those who work in the national health service on performance-related pay in imposing the 1·5 per cent. pay increase ceiling; and if she will make a statement;

  (5) how she intends to impose the 1·5 per cent. pay increase ceiling on dentists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the chairmen of all health authorities and NHS trusts setting out the arrangements for implementing the policy of restricting public sector pay settlements to a maximum of 1·5 per cent. in the coming year.

  As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to the chairmen of the NHS review bodies amending their remits and asking them not to make recommendations on overall levels of pay, fees and allowances for 1 April 1993. For other staff whose pay
  392
  and conditions are determined by our approval following negotiations in the Whitley councils and other central negotiating bodies the settlement remit will be restricted to between zero and 1·5 per cent. for each group. For those staff whose pay is not subject to central arrangements, chairmen have been asked to ensure that all settlements are restricted to between zero and 1·5 per cent. in the coming year with the pay bill increase being held as near zero as possible.

  Payments under existing peformance pay schemes will continue and, under the existing pay arrangements for NHS general and senior managers, the policy will be implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's direction with effect from the next review point —1 September 1993.

  The dental rates study group will, as usual, be asked to recommend general dental practitioners' fees, using the target average net income (TANI) determined by Government which will be subject to the 1·5 per cent. maximum. This will take account of the recommendations of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's fundamental review of dental remuneration which is due to be presented to Ministers by the end of the year.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Murder: Mandatory Life Sentence
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are no plans at present to change the existing legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that the general case against the mandatory life sentence for murder was effectively deployed in this House last April by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Richard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, among others during debate on an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill? My reason for pressing the matter today is the growing understanding of the state of mind of women who are subject to physical and mental violence in the home. Surely it is wrong that such women should be subject to the same life sentence as vicious murderers, mass murderers or sadistic murderers. So will the noble Earl please try to persuade the Government to think again on this issue and bring another place in line with the progressive thinking of this House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is quite right. The committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, put forward a very powerful argument which was discussed in your Lordships' House. Another place did not agree. Of course these matters are enormously sensitive, but at the moment the Government take the view that the worst of crimes must receive the most condign of sentences. That remains the position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that for a very long time murder—the taking of somebody's life—has been regarded as an especially dangerous and terrible offence? Is he also aware that many people regard it as right that there should be a special penalty exclusive to murder in order to mark the particular abhorrence of society for that offence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is quite right. Whatever the arguments may be, and there are powerful arguments, public opinion would take the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Therefore we do not propose to make any changes as yet.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that in the absence of any categorisation of murders it
712
is quite impossible to lump them all together under one heading and say they are the most heinous of crimes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an expression which has frequently been used about murder. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, may take a different view but not everyone would go along with it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the noble Earl consider the recent case of the doctor who administered a lethal injection to his suffering patient? Does he appreciate that if the result of that injection had been to shorten that patient's life, by however short a time, the doctor would have been convicted not of attempted murder but of murder? Does the noble Earl agree that the doctor would have been sentenced to life imprisonment in circumstances in which the British Medical Council took the view that his act was so venial that no professional penalty was necessary? Is the Minister really happy for a law which is so discredited to continue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that the law is discredited. Nor do I consider it profitable to argue the pros and cons of one particular case across the Floor of the House at Question Time. The noble Lord quite rightly drew attention to a case which has serious implications but the fact is that the law should remain as it is.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that if I were to shoot at the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack I should be liable to the death penalty if I hit him because that would be treason? If, on the other hand, I were to shoot at anybody else in this House and hit him that would result in a mandatory life sentence, but if I missed it would not. Does not my noble friend occasionally have a flicker of doubt as to whether there is any sense in the belief that murder is a uniquely heinous crime? Does not the law of homicide need clearing up, not merely as to sentence but also as to definition?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has the advantage of a vivid imagination, which he occasionally shares with your Lordships. I should have thought that his main concern would be not whether he shot the Lord Chancellor but whether someone else had shot the Lord Chancellor while my noble and learned friend himself held that position. In either event it would be a tragedy. However, that should not happen and has not happened.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, amid all the uncertainties surrounding this very serious matter, including the advice of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, does the Minister agree that we should give the greatest and most serious weight to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice? Quite recently he has been quoted as saying:
"There may be a great deal to be said for the mandatory life sentence going".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we attach great and serious weight to anything said by the noble and learned Lord

713
the Lord Chief Justice, as indeed we do to the opinions of your Lordships' House. The fact is that the Government have to make decisions and at the moment they are not persuaded that the law needs to be changed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I return to the example given by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Does the Minister accept that it is wholly absurd that a doctor in that situation whose patient had died should be subject to precisely the same penalty as the man who blew out of the sky at Lockerbie 200 or more people? Does the Minister realise that the present law is an infernal mess and the sooner it is changed the better?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable view. I do not feel that it is appropriate to discuss individual cases because one must always act on the dictum that hard cases make bad law. There are so many cases that go right across the spectrum of murder and homicide that they cannot be taken individually. One has to try to make a law which covers them all. At the moment we take the view that the crime of murder is a particularly serious one.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although the mandatory life sentence may be kept as a minority member of the Select Committee referred to, I agreed with its retention—at the same time, during the time after the murder and after conviction, the period of imprisonment can be adjusted according to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of repentance as well as the possible danger of that person to the public?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Platt took a very worthy line, even though she might have been in the minority. She is perfectly correct to say that the tariff applied and the length of time a person spends in prison can be altered and adjusted. Indeed, there is one person who is still in prison after 40 years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister take into account the fact that the contrary view was expressed by your Lordships' House, a House of which he is a Member? Its overwhelming opinion was that the mandatory sentence should go. Does he agree that this is a case where your Lordships' House has a right to reassert its view that the mandatory sentence, as recommended, should be abolished?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perfectly correct. Your Lordships did come to that conclusion. The other place came to a contrary conclusion.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend answer the question put by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham? Is it not the case that the law of homicide is in a mess and something should be done about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law of homicide is kept perpetually under review.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government believe that public relations or justice is the most important issue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one cannot encapsulate a complex problem such as this into a choice of two sentences.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I wonder whether we may now move on. We have had a very good go at this Question.

European Convention on Human Rights
3.17 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend that Parliament should incorporate the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, and if not, why not.
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords. The Government are fully committed to the principles of human rights but we consider that it should be Parliament rather than the judiciary which determines how human rights are best secured.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which was predictable. It reflects the Government's long-standing view. Does the noble Earl agree that a person who has made his submission in the United Kingdom domestic court at considerable expense to himself and feels aggrieved can take his case to the Commission of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where the judges are able to invoke the articles of the convention? Does he further agree that as a consequence that submission is frequently upheld and then, in the United Kingdom context, his submission is sustained? Will he accept, therefore, that on the one hand our judges have one hand tied behind their back and, on the other, the aggrieved person has too much difficulty in seeking justice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the individual person can always seek justice. It may be difficult if one has to go to a European court or commission but it can be done. The view we take is that the incorporation of the convention would undermine our constitutional tradition. Parliament has supreme responsibility for enacting and changing our laws. Therefore, while we are in accord with the convention and have signed and ratified it, because Parliament is supreme we do not believe that it is right to put it into legislation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I accept completely what my noble friend says about the position of Parliament and the duties of the judiciary. Will he accept that it would save a great deal of time and money were British judges able to give effect to some of the provisions in the human rights convention? Would they not then be able to do it with a knowledge of British conditions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that could well be the case but the fact is that Parliament makes the laws. If we were to put such a procedure into our laws we would

715
end up with judges in the High Court determining whether or not matters which Parliament has decided are within the European legislation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at present British citizens who believe that their rights have been infringed can appeal to the European Court and the Commission? In that sense Parliament already acknowledges that human rights are protected by a court. The problem is that the court is in Strasbourg and it takes hundreds of thousands of pounds and many years for British subjects to have their rights redressed. Might not the rights of British subjects be more immediately and inexpensively redressed in British courts by British judges?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is true that to go to the European Court takes a long time and is sometimes expensive. However, that is the route by which the European Convention is applied. It would be a difficult process to try to change that method and introduce it into our courts.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, this is a complicated subject which we have debated on a number of occasions. Is the Minister aware that some of us agree with his comments about remaining uneasy about the responsibilities which this would put on our judges, rather than on Parliament, to say what a new law is "on the spot", as it were? Does the Minister agree that as a consequence there is a risk that, as in America, the social and political views of our judges might become matters of public interest?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is, not for the first time, 100 per cent. right. If the judges have to determine matters of political substance, which is normally determined by Parliament, they could find themselves in an uneasy and uncomfortable position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Minister and the Government agree that Parliament is supreme, why are they proposing to bring back the Maastricht Bill, which will make Parliament less supreme?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was wondering how on earth the noble Lord would manage to introduce the Maastricht Treaty. If Parliament is supreme and I believe that even the noble Lord will agree that it is and if Parliament decides to agree to the Maastricht Treaty, Parliament will remain supreme.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the light of the case reported last Saturday in which, apparently under pressure from the European Court, British taxpayers were obliged to fork out the preposterous sum of £8,000 to compensate someone for having been caned on one occasion at a private school nine years ago, does the Minister agree that there is something to be said for distancing ourselves from the European concept of justice rather than binding ourselves more closely to it, given that our concept of what is right and wrong evidently differs considerably from the continent al concept?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know that we want to distance ourselves from European justice, but the noble Lord might want to distance himself from the result of one particular case.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the United Kingdom is the only one of the 23 member countries of the Council of Europe which has no written constitution or enforceable Bill of Rights? Should we not be taking appropriate and rapid steps in that direction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord's figures may be correct. However, other countries in Europe have different constitutions, but we find that the way in which we run our country is the best.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, does the Minister recollect that the United Kingdom was the first signatory to the convention? Does he agree that the perhaps unfortunate consequence of the articles of the convention being outwith the United Kingdom domestic court jurisdiction causes the frequent overturn of our judges' decisions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we were one of the first to sign the convention. Indeed, we played a major part in drawing it up. All legal arrangements have their own complexities and problems. We believe that the way that we use the European Convention suits this country best without involving ourselves with the legal problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred and by not incorporating a Bill of Rights within our constitution.

GCSE
3.25 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the General Certificate of Secondary Education.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) will continue as the examination marking the end of compulsory schooling at age 16. The Government are taking firm action to correct deficiencies revealed by the recent HMI report on GCSE examining standards and to secure those standards in the future. A mandatory code of practice will be introduced to regulate the conduct of GCSE examinations from 1993. Compliance by the examining groups with that code will be a condition for the continuing approval of their GCSE qualifications.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As in the past few years there have been so many changes in what is expected of teachers and students as regards the contents of and preparation for the GCSE, and with no research to back those changes, will the Minister assure the House that in future the Schools Examination and Assessment

717
Council will be responsible for the examination and that there will not be the interference of Ministers, as has been the case during the past two years?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the school curriculum will be kept under constant review by the Schools Examination and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, did the Minister note that in the recently published list of schools there was a special school in my former constituency, the pupils of which could not possibly take the GCSE? As a result yesterday's published list read, "0, 0, 0". Does the Department of Education know what special schools are for and that the GCSE is not a judgment on such schools? Somebody ought to be sacked.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is well known that the special schools in the system had no results for the GCSE because there are special schools which do not offer that examination. That is known nationally and it is certainly known locally.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend assure me that while the GCSE exists results will be published annually, as was done recently? Will she also advise me why up and down Whitehall all kinds of private and confidential government documents can be leaked to newspapers but the most secret information appears to be the results of school examinations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is now an end to that absolute secrecy. The examination results are rightly the preserve of parents and from now on that information will be made available to them every year.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new examination places greater emphasis on written work? Does she also agree that when people with special educational needs such as dyslexics apply for special dispensation they will have printed on the bottom of the examination certificate the fact that the examination was taken with a concession? That is seen by many staff and pupils as a disincentive to applying for the special provision which allows them to take the examination. Does the Minister further agree that that matter should be considered because there is a great danger that pupils will not take the examinations using the correct methods and therefore will have less chance of passing them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that information is not put into the public domain but is printed on the certificate which is particular to an individual. It is important that we continue to make available help and assistance to people who have difficulties with the written and spoken word.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, while I strongly support the publication of such information, might it not be sensible to exclude from the list those schools which for good reasons do not sit the examinations rather than including figures which give the wrong impression?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point, as did the noble Lord, Lard Merlyn-Rees. We need to take note of it. This is the first exercise of its kind. It is important to get the information into the public domain. A number of lessons will be learned from this first attempt. I shall certainly draw your Lordships' remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the worst feature of the matter is the constant chopping and changing? That seems to be inspired by the Government and, as my noble friend said, is often based on inadequate research. Is the noble Baroness aware that when any change is made, it is sheer common sense for that change to be given a fair trial? Is she further aware of the effect that these provisions are having on parents, governors, pupils and not least on teachers who are quite dismayed at what is happening as regards the GCSE at present?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord overstates the case. In education the lead-in time for change is considerable. It will be 2003 before the first cohort of children leave school at the age of 16, having taken GCSEs and having studied the national curriculum from the age of five. That is an extremely long lead-in time for change.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that no fewer than four schools in my old constituency are at the top of the list as published? They are proud and grateful for being able to preserve their grammar school status.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is rightly proud of those achievements. There are schools which many people would have written down in their expectations for example, schools in inner city areas —which have performed extremely well. The object of publishing the results is to make public those achievements.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Minister should realise by now that what teachers, parents and governors are asking for is a period of stability. People are sick and tired of the changes that have been taking place. I know that changes must take place. However, will the Minister not realise that the time has come for a period of stability so that people can look at the situation and work on it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying when he refers to implementation of the national curriculum. However, the most recent changes have been as a direct result of talking to teachers and making implementation easier for them. We shall continue to do that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe it is time to move on. We should be fair to all those who have tabled Questions.

Museums Policy
3.34 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to implement the proposals in the report Museums Matter by the Museums and Galleries Commission.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government very much welcome the report, which recognises the important role that museums and galleries have as part of our cultural heritage. We shall take careful account of the views expressed by the commission in the report in so far as they relate to government policies.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Since the report Museums Matter places such emphasis on the role of local authorities, is the time not now ripe for the Government to include and set up realistic components for museums in the standard spending assessments for local authorities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was a distinguished chairman of that august institution—the Museums and Galleries Commission from 1985 to 1990. Local authorities play an important role in the provision of the museum service. However, it is for local authorities to provide adequate support for their local museum service. I am sure that they recognise the important role which museums play throughout the community.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has studied the report in great detail. As it is hoped that the national lottery Bill will he introduced before Christmas, will my noble friend pay particular attention to, and comment on, the recommendation that under that legislation museums and galleries with nationally acclaimed collections which are not supported by central or local government should be given either a special endowment or at least an assured source of income?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, clearly museums and galleries will benefit from the proceeds of a national lottery. It is too early to say what will be the amount of such benefit. We must wait for the Bill to be published.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that page 47 of that excellent report says that eight out of 19 of the national institutions —galleries and museums—are now charging for admission? Is it not the case, as the report says, that the institutions have reluctantly decided to impose an admission charge because of shortage of proper funding? Will the noble Viscount suggest to his colleagues that, if the museums are funded properly, it will not be necessary to charge for admission, which discourages people from visiting those institutions?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is absolutely not the case. It is for the museums and galleries to decide whether or not they wish to charge. It is their choice.
720
Of course, receipts of national museums and galleries from trading and other activities have risen from about £3 million in 1979–80 to an estimated £48 million this year; that is a considerable sum of money.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most urgent problems to which the report refers is the future funding of the 300 university museums and collections? Does he accept the suggestion in the report that the change in the funding of universities which is due soon will be an excellent opportunity to tackle the problem?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Universities Funding Council is providing special factor funding of £5.8 million for selected university museums and galleries in 1992–93. The new Higher Education Funding Council for England has been reviewing all special factors. It has recently agreed in principle that special factor funding for museums and galleries should continue and intends to consult on proposals for special factor funding with a view to announcing decisions in January.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the new flexibility given to national museums and galleries in the Autumn Statement is at first glance welcome. However, is it not also misleading? A single grant-in-aid to cover running costs, purchase grant, building and maintenance looks attractive. But does the Minister agree that that depends entirely on the amount of funding? According to the tables in the Autumn Statement, in the next three years the museums will receive something in the region of 2 per cent., which is totally inadequate. May that not mean that in some cases purchase grants will be cut because of the huge demands made by maintenance?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Baroness is correct. The funding for museums and galleries has increased from £181 million in 1991–92 to £192 million in 1992–93. Of course, museums and galleries will be given a new flexibility to help them to manage better and to secure value for money. They will not have to seek permission from the department before re-allocating funds from one category of expenditure to another in any year.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word about sustenance this evening. As your Lordships will be aware, dinner was arranged in the Dining Room. However, I understand that only one table has been booked so far and that there is plenty of space available in the Barry Room. It is therefore proposed that dinner will not be served tonight in the Dining Room, although your Lordships desirous of sustenance will be able to have recourse to the Barry Room, as will those who had booked into the Dining Room, at no extra charge.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offences to which this Part applies]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) No order shall be made under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested that if it were proposed to alter the list of offences to which Part I applies, that should be done by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament rather than by the negative resolution procedure, as the Bill at present proposes. I undertook to consider that. In a nice, helpful kind of way I came to the view that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is right.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Wigoder, have tabled Amendment No. 2; I have tabled Amendment No. 1. They have the same effect, but I am advised that mine is the better—of course. Amendment No. 1 uses conventional words whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, omits the word "resolution", which I am assured is a vital ingredient of the effective wording of such an amendment.
I hope that the Committee will agree to incorporate my amendment into the Bill and that the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Wigoder, will not move Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On an occasion such as this my noble friend Lord Wigoder would not want to argue the merits of his amendment rather than that of the noble Earl. The noble Earl surprises us a great deal in saying that he prefers his amendment to ours when both have exactly the same effect. However, on this occasion we are glad to meet him more than half way and accept his amendment. At the same time we express our pleasure that he tabled it.
Baroness Mallalieu: From these Benches perhaps I can say that the amendment of the noble Earl is extremely welcome. The addition of any offence to the list covered by the Bill which in effect renders conduct liable to criminal prosecution when that would not otherwise be the case is a matter which we believe should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny by Parliament. We are grateful that the noble Earl paid heed to the anxieties expressed at Second Reading. We support his amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for such happy sentiments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved]
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Mallalieu: My agreement with the noble Earl comes to an end. I oppose the Question that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so, I hope, in order to be helpful not merely to the noble Earl, but also to those who will have to try to work with, and understand, the legislation in due course. I hope that I understand what the noble Earl is trying to do in this part of the Bill. If I correctly understand it I believe I support his intentions.
It was clear as long ago as 1986, when the fraud trials committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, reported, that jurisdictional problems were arising from frauds committed across national boundaries. Under the present law, in the case of substantive offences—offences which are actually carried out—none of the participants can be prosecuted in this country unless the last event which makes up the crime occurs in England and Wales. At the stage of preparation—where the crime has not actually been committed but is at the attempt stage, is a conspiracy or is an incitement—and where those concerned are detected before they have completed their purpose—it is unlikely at present that they will be prosecuted where they plan to reap the benefits. At the moment they cannot be prosecuted here either because the underlying crime has not yet been committed here. I therefore fully support what the noble Earl is trying to do to improve the law in that respect. In part, in the Bill as it is presently drafted, he has achieved that object.
In relation to the substantive offences of dishonesty and blackmail—what the Bill classifies as Group A offences—I am entirely with the Minister. Such offences should be triable in this country if any part of the conduct or any of the results forbidden by such crimes take place here. In the Bill as presently drafted the Group A offences are set out with commendable clarity so that anyone, lawyer or layman, who wants to know what offences are covered by the legislation, can read them with ease in Clause 1(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Clause 2 goes on to tell him, again with clarity, when the courts have jurisdiction to try such offences here in relation to those Group A offences. So far so good.
The confusion arises in the Bill as presently drafted when one comes to the Group B offences. The Bill is clear in regard to the list of Group B offences down to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 1(3), which set out clearly the conspiracy, the attempt and the incitement offences which are covered by the legislation. The difficulty arises when one comes to paragraphs (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) states,
"an offence which is triable by virtue of the new section 1A inserted in the Criminal Law Act 1977 by section 5(1)".
That adds to the list of Group B offences.

723
The Criminal Law Act, Section (1), merely defines the law of conspiracy. Subsection (1) states,
"Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall he pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question".
Clause 5(1) of the Bill goes on to define the circumstances where an agreement relating to a Group A offence falls within that section. Much the same thing happens in relation to paragraph (f) of Clause 1(3) in relation to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The Criminal Attempts Act, Section 1, simply defines an attempt to commit an offence as follows:
"If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence".
Clause 5(2) of the Bill then goes on to deal with jurisdiction in relation to certain attempts.
I therefore ask the noble Earl why paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 1(3) appear in the Bill. What do they add except confusion? I ask him to indicate what additional offences are added to the Group B List by paragraphs (e) and (f). It appears to me that there are only two possibilities. The first is this. Notwithstanding the Title of the Bill, which claims quite specifically that it is to,
"make provision about the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wales in relation to certain offences of dishonesty and blackmail"
paragraphs (e) and (f) in fact extend the jurisdiction to all attempts and all conspiracies. With respect, that cannot be intended. Indeed, it would be a nonsense if substantial offences which are not on list A and therefore cannot be tried here are nonetheless included when they form attempts or conspiracies and in that way come under the provisions of Group B.
The alternative is that the additions in paragraphs (e) and (f) simply relate to Group A conspiracies and attempts, in which case they are already plainly covered in the existing provisions of subsection (3). The clarification of the new jurisdiction position in relation to conspiracy, to attempt and to incitement, could be neatly and clearly set out in accordance with what appears though in a jumbled form—in the later Clause 5. It is done with commendable clarity for conspiracy to defraud, though again it is tucked away in subsection (3) of the clause. There seems to be no reason why it should not be done with commendable clarity for the other Group B offences.
If it is necessary to draw attention to the existing provisions of either the Criminal Law Act 1977 or the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, that could surely be done with a single clause which simply states that in relation to the Group B offences the existing provisions of both those Acts should be extended in relation to jurisdiction.
The noble Earl is not wholly to blame, I suspect, for the jumbled wording. It is a wording which originated from the Law Commission in its draft Bill. It may be that it was included in this way in order to tie up loose ends in existing legislation. I hope that simply from a reading of the provisions Members of the Committee
724
will see that the result is a jumbled mess. This is a lawyer's Bill, drafted for lawyers, and which can only in reality be understood—and then only with considerable difficulty by lawyers.
I ask the noble Earl to look again at these provisions, because they can be both clarified and simplified and still achieve the noble Earl's desired object without causing what will ultimately be, if this part of the Bill is not later changed, a great deal of grief and public and private expense in years to come as laymen have to seek legal advice to understand these provisions and lawyers clock up huge fees advising on what these words really mean.
Earl Ferrers: When the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that this is a lawyers' Bill which will be considered by lawyers and that it will only be understood by them, she evoked a certain chord of sympathy with me. I am also glad she said that this is supposed to be a helpful measure. To remove Clause 1 from the Bill is an exceedingly unhelpful measure because it would completely kibosh the whole of Part I and make it inoperative. I am grateful to her for explaining the reason why she tabled her opposition to this clause. When I first saw it it caused me a great deal of concern.
If the clause were not approved, it would emasculate the whole of Part I of the Bill. That would be quite wrong. I do not believe that Part I extends our courts' jurisdiction in an unacceptable or draconian way. It simply provides that, as regards specified substantive offences of dishonesty, our courts will have jurisdiction if any necessary component of the offence took place in England and Wales, rather than just the last offence; and that, in relation to the related conspiracy, attempt or incitement which are in Group B, our courts will have jurisdiction either if the offence was aimed at the commission of an offence in England or Wales or if the conspiracy, attempt or incitement took place in this country but was aimed at the commission of an offence abroad. If there is no link with this country then it would obviously be inappropriate for our courts to have jurisdiction and this Bill would not give it to them.
The noble Baroness's alternative is clearly the correct one. Clause 5 deals with plots here and offences committed overseas. It deals only with Group A offences and not with all offences. There is a difference between a conspiracy to steal, which is covered by Clause 1(3) (a), and conspiracy to commit what would be theft if it were committed here. That is covered by Clause 1(3) (e). The noble Baroness has made a number of legal points and they were entirely justified. I would like to consider those rather than give her an off-the-cuff answer which would probably be erroneous. I shall consider her points and get in touch with her later about them.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am most grateful for that encouraging indication from the noble Earl. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my objection.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction in respect of Group B offences
. A person may be guilty of a Group B offence if any relevant event occurred in England and Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: I can take this matter shortly because it follows on from the arguments which I have already addressed to the Committee as regards Clause 1. It is essential that one should be able to look at this Bill without reference to other legislation and to read at a glance in what circumstances the courts of this country have jurisdiction. The Bill does it clearly as regards Group A offences. It may be necessary to have separate clauses relating to the other aspects that are covered by Group B; in other words, conspiracy, attempt, conspiracy to defraud and incitement.
The matters are set out, but in an unclear form and linked to other legislation, in the existing Clause 5. I invite the noble Earl, when he comes to look at not only the way in which the Group A offences are described, but also the way in which the Bill deals with the jurisdiction which it now gives as regards each of those groups' offences, to consider inserting clauses in relation to them with the same degree of clarity as that which at present appears in Clause 2 of the Bill for the Group A offences. The intention of this amendment is that there should be such a clause. It may be that Amendment No. 3, which I now move, deals rather globally with the position and that it should be dealt with in rather more detail. I invite the noble Earl to give a similar indication to that which he has already given. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: When I first saw the noble Baroness's amendment I was not sure whether it was intended simply to assist the Government by overcoming a problem which we in fact recognised in the new Clause 3, which misleadingly refers to the relevant event in the context of a Group B offence, but which does not define what a relevant event is; or whether it was intended to change the basis on which Part I of the Bill will give our courts jurisdiction over Group B offences.
I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern over this amendment but it would create insuperable difficulties if it were accepted by the Committee. That is because the idea of a relevant event is appropriate only in the context of a substantive Group A offence where our courts would be given jurisdiction provided that some necessary element of the completed offence occurred in England and Wales. As regards what is called an inchoate offence of the type listed in Group B, there is no completed offence but rather a conspiracy, an attempt or an incitement to commit an offence. In that kind of case the court's concern is not simply with what has actually happened, but with what might have happened if the conspiracy, attempt or incitement had achieved its object.
Part I of the Bill gives our courts jurisdiction over Group B offences which are aimed at the completion of an offence in England and Wales whether or not the Group B offence itself took place here. For those
726
reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall take into account what she has said and will read it with rather more care.
Baroness Mallalieu: In the light of that indication, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. When the noble Earl has had a chance to consider the position, I hope that he will feel it right to spell out with clarity the jurisdictional position as regards each of the groups of the Group B offences so that they can be read in the same clear way which the draftsman has already achieved as regards Group A offences. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 3 [Questions immaterial to jurisdiction in the case of certain offences]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("the time of the relevant event") and insert ("any material time").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No.5. These are simply drafting amendments which are not intended to affect the substance of Clause 3, but to clarify it. Some of your Lordships may have been puzzled by the reference in subsection (1) to "the relevant event" when, of course, in relation to a Group B offence there will be no relevant event, while in relation to a Group A offence there may be more than one relevant event. This amendment makes clear what this subsection really means, and that there is no time at which citizenship is relevant to jurisdiction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("that") and insert ("any such").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Conspiracy, attempt and incitement]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 7, after ("if") insert ("the incitement").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for this amendment because his Amendment No. 9 brought to my attention the drafting difficulty which appears in Clause 5. I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the phrase "in respect of" in line 9 adds nothing to the subsection and ought to be deleted. Indeed, my own amendments go somewhat further in simplifying this subsection and will remove the need to retain even the phrase "a charge of incitement". I hope that the noble Lord will agree that my amendments do all that his does—and a bit more too. These amendments simply tighten up the drafting of subsection (4) without affecting its meaning and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I am grateful to the noble Earl and am much obliged for what he has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 5, line 8, leave out ("the incitement").
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("a charge in respect of incitement").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Sentencing policy
After subsection (3) of section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be inserted the following subsection
"(3A) Where an offender has been convicted of one or more drug trafficking offences, a court sentencing the offender may exercise its discretion to mitigate the sentence by taking into account any such matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant in mitigation of sentence to the same extent as in the case of an offender who is convicted of one or more offences other than drug trafficking offences." ").
The noble Baroness said: As this Bill deals with a number of other aspects of criminal legislation and as Part II, to which we now come, deals with drug trafficking offences, I move this amendment to deal with the problem which has arisen in relation to the sentencing of drug trafficking offences and which is giving rise to considerable concern in a number of quarters.
The amendment deals with the question of sentencing and, in effect, underlines the court's discretion to take into account mitigating factors when sentencing a drug traffic offender to the same extent that that discretion is available in relation to other criminal sentencing. It may seem that such a provision is unnecessary because in sentencing an offender a judge has total discretion within the legislation to impose what sentence he feels fit in the light of the offender's circumstances and the circumstances of the offence. However, what has happened—no doubt as a result, quite properly, of expressions of concern about inadequate sentences and the gravity of drug trafficking offences—is that increasingly judges and courts have felt bound by guideline cases from the Court of Appeal. I suppose that it is fair to say that, in this area rather more than in almost any other, there have been a number of guideline cases which, in effect, set a clear tariff to judges of the sentences which they can impose.
Those sentences in themselves may well be totally justified when one is dealing with the main offenders —people who have organised large-scale importations of drugs into this country. This amendment arises in particular from the widespread concern that is being expressed by welfare organisations about the position of men and women—and particularly women—from countries such as Nigeria who are currently receiving long prison terms, often ranging from four up to 14 years, for drug smuggling. They are usually from poverty-stricken areas—people of no substance who are induced to act as couriers by the organisers of the drugs trade.
In typical cases the Court of Appeal has said, for example, that eight years is an appropriate sentence for the importation of something of the order of three kilograms of heroin. In other cases, the court has said
728
that sentences of 10 years and more are justified. There would, of course, be widespread support for the imposition of long sentences on people who plan, direct or organise drug trafficking, but those guidelines are also applied in the sad cases when naive, often poverty-stricken people have been manipulated (often for very little reward) and have succumbed to a one-off apparent opportunity to alleviate their particular economic troubles.
The rigidity with which the courts are currently applying those guidelines means that such offenders are today routinely receiving sentences which are much longer than their personal culpability would appear to justify. What is more, the Court of Appeal has on more than one occasion indicated that the usual factors which mitigate sentencing in criminal cases—for example, the good character of the courier and any particular economic difficulties should seldom, if ever, apply in cases of this type. It seems that the thinking behind that view is that drug couriers are likely to be deterred by knowing that if caught they are likely to receive very long terms of imprisonment here. In fact, however, all the evidence shows that they are people who, on the whole, are profoundly ignorant of the British legal system or the sentences that are likely to be imposed. Indeed, they have often been assured that the only possibility if they are caught is of being returned to their own country and of the drugs being confiscated.
An extensive survey into the position has been carried out in the past two years. Research has been published by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Dr. Penny Green, a lecturer in law at Southampton University, studied some 900 imprisoned drug importers, interviewing about 50 of them in depth, of whom it appeared only five were what could be classed as professional drug smugglers with previous criminal records. The majority seemed to be people of the type that I have already described.
A further difficulty is arising in relation particularly to women. Very often the women involved are mothers either with children at home, in which case the lengthy terms of imprisonment are having a disproportionate effect both on them and on the children from whom they are separated for long periods, or they are pregnant, in which case the length of the sentences means almost inevitably that at some stage they have to be parted from their children during the sentence. The children are then either fostered or placed in local authority care.
Those involved can also be people who come to this country to carry out the courier job with their children in attendance—no doubt on occasions in order to provide a better blind for the Customs. In those circumstances, the children tend to be separated from their mothers and placed in the care of strangers, the mothers being reluctant for their families back at home to know what has happened to them. The children suffer not merely the initial separation from the parent but, at the end of the lengthy sentence, they are then removed from the foster parents with whom they may well have settled and returned to the natural mother who may be a stranger to them. It is telling that, as I understand it, in the past three years all of

729
the children taken into care by Hillingdon social services, which covers the area of Heathrow Airport where many of the arrests take place, have been Nigerian children who have come to this country with these women.
So the purpose of the amendment is really to underline something which may be implicit but which has in a sense been lost sight of in the sentencing for these offences. Although the Bill does not as it stands at present have within it provisions in relation specifically to sentencing in this connection, dealing as it does with the confiscation order aspect of drug trafficking offences, it would seem appropriate that something of this nature should be inserted. I do not in any way intend to indicate that one wishes to be lenient with those who bring drugs into this country, but our efforts should be directed primarily at those who are chiefly responsible and who stand to gain from the organisation of this wicked traffic. I beg to move.
Lord Windlesham: The noble Baroness has done the Committee a service in bringing forward this new clause. It draws our attention to the sentencing of certain couriers who have been convicted of drug trafficking offences. We can all agree that organised drug trafficking for profit is an appalling trade and one that has devastating social consequences. Most of us, I suspect, can also agree that severe sentences are fully justified for those who plan, direct and organise the trafficking in the most harmful drugs. But what happens when we come to interpret that general proposition? We find that, although the statute law allows the courts discretion to sentence up to a prescribed maximum—the levels of penalty set by Parliament—the guideline judgments in the Court of Appeal have limited the use that is to be made of that discretion in practice in a number of particular categories of offender. The noble Baroness has explained what those are as they relate to drug trafficking offences.
Whatever the gravity of a criminal offence, a fixed sentence can lead to a wrong sentence if it does not allow for particular circumstances. Your Lordships exchanged opinions yet again earlier this afternoon on the indefensible anomalies which have arisen because of the mandatory penalty for murder, one of the very few mandatory fixed penalties—indeed possibly the only mandatory fixed penalty—on the statute book. But because of guideline judgments and the very inflexible way in which the guideline judgments by the Court of Appeal have been interpreted, these are coming very close to being fixed sentences of imprisonment.
I have been struck, as have those noble Lords who visit prisons, by the number of West African women in women's prisons. They are a very noticeable group —certainly in prisons in the south of England. Many of them have come from Nigeria. They are usually passive and uncomprehending. As the noble Baroness said, many of them do have very young children with them in prison, either because they have been pregnant at the time of their conviction or because they had young children with them. They can keep
730
those children with them only for a few months until the age of 18 months. But since they are serving sentences of up to 10 years' imprisonment, or perhaps shorter periods of six to eight years—colossally long periods—there is very little possibility of those children remaining with their mothers throughout the sentence. So the children are removed, as they must be, and they are either fostered in this country or they are taken into the care of local authority social services.
I too have seen the report to which the noble Baroness referred. It is one of the most devastating comments that have been made that in the London borough of Hillingdon, where the local social services have the responsibility for Heathrow Airport, all the children taken into care over the past three years 100 per cent.—have been Nigerians whose mothers, in almost every case, have been convicted for this type of criminal offence. It is true that these women have often been exploited and manipulated by the real organisers of international drug smuggling. It is the ironical fact that they are likely to evoke sympathy should they be caught that may make it more desirable to the organisers to use them as couriers. So, for pitifully small sums of money, these naive and often desperate people—I speak especially of the women couriers are persuaded to carry quantities of dangerous drugs —sometimes highly dangerous drugs—usually as a solution to their own acute problems and with little appreciation of what it is that they are doing, of the risks that they are taking, of the harm which will be caused to others and the consequences to them should they be apprehended.
The noble Baroness referred to a profound ignorance on the part of couriers of this kind of the British legal system. There is no evidence whatever that these couriers are deterred by, because normally they are not even aware of, the prospect of very lengthy prison sentences in the United Kingdom and it is only too easy for the professional organisers to replace them. Therefore what the amendment proposes in the form of a new clause is that, without altering the maximum penalties which should stand on the statute book as an indication of the gravity of this kind of criminal offending, which should properly be condemned by the legal system, the courts should have a discretion to mitigate the sentence by taking account of such matters as would normally be considered to be relevant as mitigating factors where the charges do not relate to drug trafficking.
When he replies, the Minister may tell us that this is not a matter for legislation and that it is not a matter which would fit easily into the Bill. I would accept that answer. But I hope that he will also tell us that this is a serious matter relating to sentencing policy which the Home Office is aware of and which it is prepared to discuss with the higher judiciary.
Lord Ackner: The noble Baroness, as always, was perfectly right when she indicated that she wondered whether this clause added anything at all. It is my respectful submission to the Committee that it adds precisely nothing. The judges have a discretion to sentence as is appropriate. The guidelines do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, seemed to

731
indicate, provide a fixed sentence or any fixed sentences. They are indications to judges as to the considerations which should be taken into account in sentencing in order that sentencing should achieve the necessary consistency and precision so that persons are not treated differently by chance arising from their appearance in different courts.
The noble Baroness may have great substance in her submissions that that class of offender should be treated more leniently. I can understand another school of thought which says that the more leniently one treats that class of offender, the more one plays into the hands of the organisers of a crime which, next to terrorism, is the most serious and vicious that one can come across. If the noble Baroness has wisdom and justice behind her submissions, the proper place for the submissions to be made is the Court of Appeal.
If a judge rigidly applies sentencing guidelines that produce the wrong result, the proper avenue for dealing with that is the Court of Appeal, and, if it is considered that the guidelines go too far in a particular direction, it is for the Court of Appeal to change them. The Court of Appeal is perfectly capable of saying, "We have a new problem. We have read a new and detailed report. We have had the benefit of careful advocacy, explaining to us that we need to moderate or further explain the position". If that is justified, I have every confidence that the Court of Appeal will do so.
The new clause places no pressure on the Court of Appeal to do anything. It merely tells the Court of Appeal the obvious: that a judge has discretion in imposing sentences. I respectfully submit that the proper approach and the proper recipient of the noble Baroness's moving appeal is not the Committee, it is not the Bill; it is the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I strongly support the noble Baroness and the amendment and disagree as strongly as I can with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has just said. The reason the noble Baroness, supported so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has had to bring forth the amendment is the mischief caused by the Court of Appeal's increasing tendency to lay down tariffs for specific offences. The noble and learned Lord said that the court has complete discretion. It does not have complete discretion because the cases establish guidelines of three to six years' imprisonment for importing medium quantities of cannabis and 10 years or more for large scale importations.
Lord Justice Watkins, in a case in 1989, said that there are certain cases in which the court can act with mercy, but he did not see this as such a case. He further said that once a person knowingly acted as a courier bringing heroin into this country, there was seldom, if ever, room for mercy. With the greatest respect to the Court of Appeal, it is, is it not, here setting itself up in the role of legislator? Parliament has not said, and would never, I hope, say, that there is no room for mercy in any case which comes before the criminal courts.
As has been said, these cases involve women who are often impoverished, unsophisticated and open and
732
vulnerable to blackmail in Nigeria. They are uneducated and unable to understand any of the court proceedings. The trouble and mischief which arise from laying down tariffs—I say this without any disrespect—result from the fact that it is the view of two or three judges in the Court of Appeal which lays down the tariffs for all courts to follow. It is an example of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, so strongly emphasised in his report: that it is essential in this day and age for all parts of the criminal process, and those involved in it, to understand and know about the other parts.
The trouble with older members of the judiciary is that they are often unaware of the results of what they lay down in the Court of Appeal. All of us in this place who are aware of what goes on in the women's prison at Holloway, where the vast majority of those on remand are women from Nigeria who overcrowd the prison and make conditions insupportable, recognise that that is the direct result of the tariffs being laid down in the Court of Appeal by judges who—I say this with the greatest respect have no idea of the results of the tariffs they lay down. For those reasons, I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will pursue the amendment as far as she possibly can.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was franker in the grounds he gave for supporting the amendment than was the noble Baroness who moved it. He brought out with complete clarity that the purpose of the amendment is to overrule the advice and guidance which the Court of Appeal has been giving in this type of case. The noble Baroness was more tactful—perhaps a little more adroit—in that she did not spell that out. It is a serious thing to do. After all, with all respect to Members of the Committee, we do not have the knowledge of these cases which the higher judiciary has had to acquire. We are discussing the matter for a few minutes this afternoon. Members of the higher judiciary have sat on cases—many cases, I am sorry to say—when they have seen the whole situation and when, as a result, they have come to the conclusion that in general severe sentences are called for. I therefore suggest that the Committee should hesitate before seeking to overrule them, especially over offences of this nature.
It is all very well to be sympathetic with perhaps uneducated people who smuggle for reward dangerous drugs into this country; but surely one should have even more sympathy for those people in this country who become hooked on these drugs and whose whole lives are ruined. We are dealing with a subject which results in serious consequences for many people in this country—far too many at the moment —who are induced to take to these drugs and who thus ruin their lives. There again, I hesitate to support any proposal which reduces the penalties which fall upon those who cause them the trouble by importing these dangerous drugs.
This is a serious matter. If we have to balance the hardship caused to uneducated people who are induced to smuggle those drugs and the interest of those people who are foolish enough to buy them, and in many cases ruin their lives, I take the view that we

733
should err, if we do err, on the side of severity. The habit is terribly dangerous. Earlier this afternoon, we had a discussion on murder. After murder, perhaps the sale of drugs comes almost next in heinousness. It is terrible that people should make money solely out of ruining other people's lives.
If the Court of Appeal's judgment is that severe sentences are necessary then we should be taking on a serious responsibility by approving an amendment which seeks to mitigate them. The story will get about quickly in those countries—Nigeria was quoted as an example—that the House of Lords had laid it down that the courts are to be less severe on those caught smuggling. Therefore, some of the deterrent effect of the sentences that have been imposed would be lost.
I hope therefore that on balance the Committee will decide that the interests of those whose lives will be damaged by taking drugs are the most important consideration and that we should follow the line of maintaining the severest sentences on those who bring that about.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the Committee will allow me a brief intervention from my personal experience of sentencing in such cases over the years when I sat as a recorder and from my experience as an advocate, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.
I stress that although well intentioned—and, if I may say so, the noble Baroness does us all a great service by having put the matter before the Committee —the amendment is an attack upon the guidelines. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, although in a sense it is an attack on the guidelines, in effect it does nothing because it does not affect the way in which the guidelines are applied at the moment.
I make the further point that, so far as I am aware, there is no public disquiet as to the way in which the guidelines are applied at present. I accept the point made against me that no deterrent operates on these unfortunate carriers. They suffer a desperate, sad human misery. But to me it is an insoluble problem. If we relax the rigour of the sentence too far, then we act contrary to the public interest of this country.
There is no perfect answer, but for once it is refreshing for me to be able to say that I agree—I think for the first time ever—with every word the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said. Although I accept that this is a serious problem and a well-intentioned amendment, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In any argument on sentencing policy, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. But on this occasion I do not find myself in that situation. Certainly, if the matter is pressed to a Division I shall abstain for one clear reason. I do not think that passing the amendment would have the slightest effect, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out.
734
However, there are more substantial issues involved. I begin by saying, on the various issues raised by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend, that I agree with them. It is wholly true that a substantial number of West African women are in prison in this country. They have been induced to import large quantities of Class A drugs into the country. It is true that many of them are no doubt ignorant of the possible consequences. It is also true that their imprisonment for long periods leads to tragic circumstances arising for their children.
It is also right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, that the people we should like to get our hands on are the organisers of the trade. But those organisers go to considerable lengths to ensure that they never come within the jurisdiction of the British courts.
We are therefore left with the situation of what we do with the people who are bringing substantial quantities of Class A drugs into the country. Without going into the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Windlesham, on mandatory life sentences (both of whom touched on the issue at Question Time today) I take the view that in many cases the importation of large quantities of heroin and cocaine into the country is a more serious offence than the murder of a single individual. The case of the doctor was cited by my noble friend earlier today and I wholly agree with him. That is why I disagree with mandatory life sentences.
It seems to me an absurdity that we have a situation in which at Question Time today the noble Earl said something to the effect that the offence of murder was the worst crime of all; yet that could be a loving husband who helps his wife to kill herself, exposing himself to the risk of being sent to prison for life. Contrast that with someone who brings in several hundred thousand pounds worth of heroin and cocaine which we know as a fact is likely to cause the eventual deaths of a number of young people in the country. That, bluntly, is the reality.
There is a second reality, as I attempted to point out during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The trade is growing at an alarming rate. Year after year the quantity of Class A drugs being imported into the country rises steeply. People involved in the trade are now involved not simply in trafficking in drugs but in armed robberies and many other extremely serious criminal offences. There is an inter-relationship between the drugs industry, the armed robbery industry, and so on, which is having a profound effect on the quality of life of many of our fellow citizens and also on the lives of many people.
I do not believe that there is any easy solution to the problem; none whatever. I feel just as strongly as others who have spoken about the tragic consequences of women who find themselves in this position. But I am also aware that one does not want to have a situation where one makes things easier for those who organise the importation of the drugs into the country. If the amendment were phrased differently, no doubt one might take a different view.

735
I come back to the point which I made at the outset. I cannot see what the effect would be of passing the amendment. I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It seems to me that the effect of passing it would be precisely nothing except to indicate in some form or another that we believe that a different attitude should be adopted towards people who are convicted of committing this offence.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I refer to the point about the amendment having no effect. The amendment says that the court:
"may exercise its discretion … to the same extent as in the case of an offender who is convicted of one or more offences other than drug trafficking offences".
As I pointed out, the Court of Appeal has said that discretion should not be exercised; seldom if ever should it be exercised in a case of this kind. So what the amendment is clearly doing is trying to make drug trafficking offences come into exactly the same class as all other offences as far as the discretion of the court is concerned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am much obliged to my noble friend, but of course the effect is that the Court of Appeal will still set the guidelines on conviction for an offence of this character. It would still be at its discretion to determine the appropriate length of sentence. There is nothing in this form of words which leads inexorably to a situation whereby there would be shorter sentences. Quite apart from that, as I indicated, I have considerable concern at the moment about the scale of illegal drugs importation into this country. I am doubtful whether this is an appropriate or prudent moment to change our attitude towards offences of that kind.
Earl Ferrers: This has been an interesting debate and a number of different strands have emerged. The noble Baroness expressed her concern, as she did on Second Reading, about the sentencing of drug couriers and particularly women from third world countries. Some, she said, were pregnant; others were separated from their families. I would not deny that there are some pretty traumatic cases. I would not dispute that some people are duped or are driven by economic necessity to attempt to bring drugs into the country. At the same time there are the professional traffickers who are well aware of the consequences of their activities. Parliament has provided the courts with high maximum penalties for convicted drug traffickers in recognition of the seriousness with which the offence is viewed.
I am glad that my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to the matter. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter described the drugs we are discussing as the most terrible and awful things, and he was right to lay that emphasis. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that they were against the public interest, which is perfectly true. But my noble friend Lord Windlesham came on to the same tack as the noble Baroness, saying that these were pitiful people engaged in drug smuggling for small sums of money,
736
that they little appreciated what they are doing, and therefore, I suppose, that they should be treated more lightly.
My noble friend said that in Hillingdon all the women are Nigerians. That may be, but my answer to that is, so what? If all these people have been convicted for bringing in drugs and are put into a prison, and my noble friend finds to his distaste that they are all women from one country, what is he suggesting? That the sentence should be more lenient? That cannot be right. Obviously the sentencers have to be firm and tough.
The next interesting strand was the guidelines. We witnessed the spectacle of what might be described as the double act between the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is always fascinating. Not only do they never agree; they always disagree. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was right. He said that sentencing is a matter —at least he did not say it but I am saying what I think the noble and learned Lord would agree with—for legislation and the courts, and it is right that there should be tariffs.
Why are there tariffs? It is because in the past people have said that there is too much disparity in sentencing and therefore the Court of Appeal should lay down some tariffs. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that if the tariff is to be altered, that is a business for the Court of Appeal and those who are professionally motivated and who know about it. But the tariff is only a tariff. It is not set in tablets of stone.
We then come to the amendment itself. The noble Baroness seeks to put into the Act that,
"a court sentencing the offender may exercise its discretion to mitigate the sentence by taking into account any such matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant in mitigation of sentence".
She wishes to put that into the Criminal Justice Act 1991. If she looks at the Criminal Justice Act 1991, Section 28(1), she will see:
"Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from mitigating an offender's sentence by taking into account any such matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant in mitigation of sentence".
The noble Baroness's amendment does virtually the same as what already appears. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the amendment is not necessary.
I go further—and here I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—and say that because the courts have the power already to sentence and to mitigate the sentence, the onus of the problem that the Committee has been discussing is already covered. The courts can mitigate the sentence. They can take into account individual conditions and circumstances, whatever the tariff may be.
The noble Baroness has opened an interesting subject, but I think she will agree at the end of it that what she is trying to do is already covered in law.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am sad that there was no crumb of comfort from the noble Earl. However, on some aspects of the matters that have arisen in the course of this short debate his department might feel

737
it right to discuss concerns with senior members of the judiciary. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was wholly wrong in describing this as an amendment that in any way seeks to overrule the Court of Appeal. It does not. Guidelines clearly have an important purpose and point in avoiding disparity of sentence, but they are merely guidelines. Unfortunately, because of the way in which they have been operating in the Crown Courts and because of the way in which the Court of Appeal has reacted when test cases have come before it, they have assumed the status of tablets of stone with all but the strongest and most independent-minded judges. That applies in particular in relation to drug trafficking offences. It is not something that appears to be the approach of the courts in relation to other offences.
Nor is it right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicated, that there is no public disquiet about these matters. It may well be that most people are not aware of the large numbers, particularly of Nigerian women, who have been hit —many would say excessively—by the effect of the guidelines. They are after all in prison. They are not known or seen by the majority of members of the public. But those who do have to deal with them, those who are involved in our prisons and in the welfare organisations with their children, are deeply concerned about what is happening and what appears to be an increasing trend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? She referred to my observations. Has she not in the last few moments admitted that I was right inasmuch as she indicated that there were these guidelines and that the only purpose of the amendment was to overrule them?
Baroness Mallalieu: What the noble Lord is saying precisely illustrates what has gone wrong. People are assuming that the guidelines set out a position that must be followed. Therefore, the noble Lord is assuming that the amendment is intended in some way to undermine them. The guidelines are intended to be no more than guidance to judges. They are being treated by most judges as if they are rigid rules.
The amendment simply seeks to restate the position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, put it, I fear, correctly. It is in effect expressing the obvious or what ought to be the obvious, but an obvious that needs to be restated because we have lost sight of it. I am greatly concerned by the Government's lack of concern as expressed by the noble Earl, but I am cheered by the expressions from all sides of the Committee about the disquiet created by the present guidelines as regards the way in which they are being used and their effect on our courts. I therefore propose to test the opinion of the Committee on the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Just before the noble Baroness does that, perhaps she would be kind enough to have a look at her amendment and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Is not her amendment phrased in virtually the self-same words as those in the Act?
Baroness Mallalieu: I accept that the part of my amendment to which the noble Earl referred expresses what is contained in the Criminal Justice Act, but the amendment goes on to deal with the matter by stating:
"to the same extent as in the case of an offender who is convicted of one or more offences other than drug trafficking offences".
The amendment restates that drug trafficking offences should be dealt with in precisely the same way as the Criminal Justice Act anticipated that other offences would be dealt with. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly said in guideline cases that the usual rules do not apply to drugs couriers and that it would be rare, if ever, that matters such as good character might affect sentence and that mercy might be applied to a drugs courier. The amendment restates the position; namely, that it is up to the judge, in drug cases as in other cases, to look at all the facts regarding the offender and the offence. That would take into account the anxieties about drugs that have been expressed by all sides of the Committee and would allow the judge to make a decision based on the individual aspects of the case in which he has to sentence.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make two points in response. First, do not the comments of the noble Baroness that the guidelines given by the courts are to be used in cases other than drug cases I believe that is what she said totally accord with what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said; namely, that the amendment is designed to undermine the courts' guidelines?
Secondly, I ask the noble Baroness to consider the point—I ask the Committee also to consider this point before it divides, if that is what the noble Baroness wishes the Committee to do—that according to the law nothing in this part shall prevent a court from mitigating an offender's sentence,
"by taking into account any such matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant in mitigation of sentence".
That is at present an obligation on the court and I cannot see why we need to insert almost the self-same words. I advise the Committee that that would not be desirable.
Baroness Mallalieu: The Committee hears what the noble Earl says, but the courts of this country make a clear distinction when they sentence drug offenders. The guideline cases in relation to drug offenders—there are three main cases—set down with great particularity the sentence that is to be attracted in relation to each of the particular drugs and each of the particular quantities. Those guidelines are therefore very much more specific in relation to drugs offences than they are in relation to most other criminal offences where the Court of Appeal has made such pronouncements.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness therefore seeks to undermine the Court of Appeal's guidelines.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Earl does not appreciate what I am saying. That is clearly my fault because I am not putting it clearly enough. Those guidelines were never intended to be anything other than guidelines. They are, in effect, used as if they

739
carry the same weight as statute. I am anxious that we should not lose the opportunity in this Bill to restate the position; namely, that a judge must sentence an offender for any offence on the basis of the facts before him and the circumstances of that particular offender. The amendment restates that position and in effect adds that drug offenders must be put in the same position as other offenders. It therefore adds in an important way to the Criminal Justice Act.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to say whether she is suggesting that drug offenders are not a special category. Is she saying—I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, quoted from Lord Justice Watkins—that a person who knowingly acts as a courier and brings heroin into this country is not to be treated as a special category of offender?
Baroness Mallalieu: He or she is not to be treated in any way other than as an offender who has deliberately committed a criminal offence. The gravity of that offence will obviously be a matter for the learned judge who sentences. He will no doubt take account of the maximum penalties and of the guidelines in deciding the degree of severity of the sentence that he must impose. However, where a judge is faced with an offender, it must surely be wrong for him to be faced, as at present, not only with the guidelines which effectively set out the sentence of imprisonment that he must impose, but with guidelines which state that he must shut his ears to particular special factors which may relate to that offender. Having listened to those factors, a judge may take the view taken by the noble and learned Lord; namely, that this is an offence of such seriousness that those factors should not weigh in his sentence. The amendment simply restates the sentencing judge's right to look at those matters and make use of them if he feels that it is right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness mentioned my name and challenged my assertion by which I stand; namely, that, as far as I was aware, there was no public disquiet at the way in which the law is administered in that regard by the Court of Appeal and the courts generally. In answer to the challenge, she said that disquiet had been expressed in this Chamber. Perhaps I may respectfully ask the noble Baroness whether, apart from the disquiet that has been expressed here this afternoon, she has any other information on the subject.
Baroness Mallalieu: Indeed yes—from the welfare organisations to which reference has been made; from NACRO, which deals with the care of offenders and the prevention of crime; and from other sources which deal with those women in prison.
As the noble Lord referred to his experiences in the courts, I am bound to say that I too could draw on my personal experiences as regards my feeling that the level of sentencing imposed on some of those women is wholly disproportionate to the nature of their involvement. I believe that to be a general view among those practising at the criminal Bar in this field.
Earl Ferrers: Is the purpose of the amendment to seek to give lesser sentences to those who are involved in drug running?
Baroness Mallalieu: The amendment seeks to enable the courts to take into account the particular factors in each case so that, if the sentencing judge thinks it appropriate to depart from the guidelines, he may do so secure in the knowledge that, enshrined in statute, is his right to take that view. Further, he may do so secure in the knowledge that it is not merely enshrined in the earlier legislation but that Parliament has once again said that drug offenders are to be treated in precisely the same way as other offenders. In other words, the seriousness of their offence must be considered in the context of whatever mitigation they personally are able to produce before the court.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Diamond, L.

Mulley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Palmer, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Foot, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ackner, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Ailesbury, M.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Astor, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cox, B.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Blyth, L.

Denham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Donegall, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dudley, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elibank, L.

Byron, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Caldecote, V.

Falkland, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ferrers, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Finsberg, L.

Carnock, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carr of Hadley. L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

741

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Harvington, L.

Rennell, L.

Haslam, L.

Rodger, L.

Healey, L.

Romney, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sandford, L.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kitchener, E.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Layton, L.

Strange, B.

Liverpool, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Lytton, E.

Swansea, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tebbit, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Tryon, L.

Morris, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Nelson, E.

Wakeham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Walton of Detchant, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wharton, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wigram, L.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.6 p.m.
Clause 7 [Confiscation orders]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 11, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 20. These amendments are what I would term burden of proof amendments. Clauses 7 and 24 of the Bill amend the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which applies to offences relating to sex establishments, video recordings of unclassified work and the use of unlicensed premises for cinema shows which require licences. Both these clauses relate to confiscation orders that come into effect once the defendant has been convicted of the offence.
Under Section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act the court, in assessing the value of proceeds from drug trafficking which the defendant may have benefited from, may make the assumption that in defined circumstances property which the defendant has is the proceeds of drug trafficking. The defendant may rebut that presumption by showing that the assumption is incorrect. Under Section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 the court may make a confiscation order against the offender if it is satisfied that the person has benefited from the commission of the offence. Both Clauses 7 and 24 of the Bill make it clear that the standard of proof on the defendant is the civil rather than the criminal standard. The purpose of
742
these two amendments is to delete the proposed clause, which would mean that the criminal burden of proof applies.
The courts have considered this matter already in relation to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act in the case of Dickens, which was reported in 1990. That case established that in relation to confiscation orders under the 1986 Act an item must not be included as one of the offender's assets which is subject to confiscation unless the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the item is indeed part of the proceeds of drug trafficking. So Clause 7 in this Bill seeks in effect to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dickens.
I stress that these amendments, Amendments Nos. 11 and 20, are intended so far as the Drug Trafficking Offences Act is concerned to leave the position in law the same as it is at present following the case of Dickens and to bring the Criminal Justice Act into line with it.
I make it clear from these Benches that there is no intention on my part to make it in any way easier for a convicted drug trafficker or an offender under the Criminal Justice Act to keep his ill-gotten gains or to put any unnecessary difficulty in the way of the courts recovering the proceeds of crime. But I do not believe that these two amendments would have that effect. I do not believe that judges applying the present criminal standard are finding any difficulty in resolving that assets are indeed the proceeds of drug trafficking in appropriate cases following conviction.
What does concern those of us on these Benches is that the confiscation of assets is such a severe penalty that the use of anything less than the criminal burden of proof for this purpose is deeply disquieting. In practice it frequently involves an offender's house, in which often his wife and children are living while he is in prison serving a prison sentence.
It is a central principle of the English criminal law that it is for the Crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where a confiscation order is made in a criminal case, the burden should, we say, remain on the prosecution to show that property was acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking. In practice, once there has been a conviction the courts have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that otherwise unexplained assets are the result of an earlier successful drug transaction and thus in confiscating them.
What is troubling is that there is a real fear that legitimately acquired assets in respect of which suitable accounts or receipts may not be available—and the sort of people who are subsequently involved in drug trafficking and convicted in relation to those matters tend not to be the sort of people who keep careful accounts in relation to their income and expenditure—may well be wrongly confiscated. If this part of the Bill is permitted to stand, the law will be changed following Dickens to apply the civil standard and there is a real fear that injustice may result. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I should like to support the amendment. First, why does the subsection not set out what it means instead of sheltering behind the words that the standard of proof:
"shall be that applicable in civil proceedings"?
Every person is presumed to know the law. There is a corresponding duty upon Parliament, in respect of statutory matters in particular, to make the law as nearly as possible understandable by the ordinary citizen. Ever since Lord Chancellor Gardiner arrived on the Woolsack we have made special efforts to try to make the statutes understandable to ordinary citizens. If the noble Earl went out into the street and said to somebody, "Can you tell me the standard of proof applicable in civil proceedings?" the answer would probably be, "No". But if he said, "Do you understand what is meant by the balance of probabilities?" the answer would probably be, "Yes". Therefore why does that not appear in the subsection? I suspect that it is because it would look rather naked in a Criminal Justice Bill to have the balance of probabilities appearing.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to Rumpole's "golden thread". The noble Lord knows that it was not Rumpole but Lord Chancellor Viscount Sankey, delivering the judgment of the House of Lords in a 1935 case, who explained the presumption of innocence in criminal cases. He described it as:
"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen".
He did not say that it was always to be seen unless the Government, having, after a series of spectacular miscarriages of justice, set up a Royal Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference to delve into the administration of criminal justice—and I believe that we are on the eve of the Royal Commission report —instead of waiting for the report and digesting it, rush in and start tampering with the burden of proof. They did that in the last session in the inelegantly phrased Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill and now they are at it again.
If I were in a position to advise the Government on how to proceed in matters such as this, I should tell them to stop meddling with the burden of proof, to wait for the report of the Royal Commission and see what it says and then to have another look at the matter.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This amendment, like its predecessor, is designed to make a little more gentle the penal provisions of the Bill in so far as they affect drug traffickers. The personal affairs of many of those drug traffickers must be very difficult to sort out. As we heard most vividly from the noble Baroness, they are often people who have come from West Africa, bringing sometimes large and sometimes small quantities of dangerous drugs with them. It must be extremely difficult to sort out whether or not their assets derive from drug trafficking.
I can therefore well understand that the Government feel that, in order to operate this provision as successfully as possible, the ordinary civil standards of evidence should suffice. Unless a much
744
stronger argument can he brought against that, I personally shall find myself opposed to the amendment.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to support the amendment. I do so on the simple ground that, although I can see a case for making an exception to the general rule in the case of the tracing of assets from drug trafficking, I am against making exceptions to the general rule unless the case is overwhelmingly proved. Every time we make an exception we weaken the principle and before we know where we are there will be movements afoot to weaken the general standard of the burden of proof in criminal cases. I therefore suggest that we ought not to make any exceptions at all unless the case is quite overwhelming.
As to whether the case is quite overwhelming, here perhaps I may ask the noble Earl one question to which I do not know the answer. To what extent have there been representations by judges to the effect that, at the end of a case, they endeavoured to decide whether assets were the proceeds of drug trafficking and, had the burden of proof been the balance of probabilities, they could have found for the prosecution and against the defendant, but because the burden of proof happens to be the criminal standard they were unable to find against the defendant and make the order which they thought appropriate? If there is a widespread feeling among the judiciary that the present standard of proof is seriously hampering their activities, I should certainly be prepared to reconsider the position that I take at present, which is that I am opposed to what seems to me a possible thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
Lord Ackner: Much emphasis has been placed upon the general presumption and the general weight of the burden of proof. Those are directed at establishing a criminal offence. As I understand the particular amendment, we are not concerned here with the establishment of a criminal offence; that has already been established. We are concerned purely with the task of proving that the defendant has benefited from the drug trafficking, and the amount of such benefit. That seems to me to be an entirely different category of situation. I do not see why in those circumstances the ordinary principle that a crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, to which there are many exceptions, has any application to the matter currently under discussion.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that he could not understand why we could not put simple words into a Bill so that everyone could understand it. I can sympathise with that. He said that if he went out and asked anyone in the street whether he knew what the standard of proof was, the answer he would get was that that person had not the slightest idea. I suppose that if one goes up to any man in the street and asks him to read a will which a lawyer has made for him and then asks him whether he understands it, he will probably say, "No, I don't understand it", because that is not his profession.
There has been no difficulty, either in the courts or with practitioners, over the way in which the standard

745
of proof is dealt with or indeed how it is described. It is described in different ways. One can talk about the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. The fact is that when these words are put into Acts of Parliament, it does not give any cause for difficulty among those who have to use the provision.
I return to the noble Lord's friend in the street whom he was going to ask what he thought. If he were to ask him this particular question, I would have thought that this would be one of the easier parts of the Bill and that his friend might be able to understand it. But if he were to pursue him and ask him to consider some of the other aspects of the Bill he would find them a good deal more complicated. Therefore I do not believe that there is any necessity to change this part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness's amendment suggests that the civil standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities, or more likely than not, is an unacceptable erosion of the rights of defendants. The Committee should remember that Clause 7 does not affect decisions as to whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of a drug trafficking offence. That question will continue to be decided on the criminal standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt.
I believe it is wrong to suggest, as the noble Baroness did at Second Reading, that the Government are bending the law because the Crown does not have enough evidence to secure convictions, or to imply that we are in any way affecting innocent people's chances of being acquitted on any criminal charge which they may face. There is no question of that. This clause simply concerns the confiscation hearing which is held after the defendant has been found guilty; he will have been found guilty of one or more drug trafficking offences. This part concerns only the financial questions which arise at such a hearing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether there are any cases where there has been difficulty and the judges have said that they would prefer a different standard. All this has arisen because the provisions which we put into the Bill and which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, seeks to alter make clear what was originally intended but was not previously stated on the face of legislation. We do not believe in this context that the civil standard is unfair.
It all comes about as a result of the Court of Appeal case of Dickens to which the noble Baroness referred. In Dickens it was said that, taking into account the Act as it was, the criminal standard should be the one that is implemented. That was in fact different from that which was intended when the Act was brought in. We are simply making it perfectly clear what the standard is. In this case we believe that the standard should be the civil standard. We believe that allowing the criminal standard to remain in these provisions risks undermining the whole purpose of the 1986 Act, which was to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those found guilty of drug trafficking.
Clause 7 seeks to reinforce Parliament's original intention that the courts should have the strongest possible powers with which to deprive those who
746
profit from the benefits of drug trafficking. What is at issue here is not whether or not that person is guilty. He is guilty. That would have been already decided by the court—and to the criminal standard of proof. What is at issue is whether the assets which the trafficker has are the proceeds of drug trafficking. If they are, they ought to be confiscated. That should be decided by the civil standard of more likely than not, just as it is in the nature of any normal property dispute.
There may be difficulties in sorting out a person's financial affairs. There is nothing unusual in that. The person will have gone to the court and explained to the judge what he has and what he does not have, and the judge will have to come to his conclusion. But that is not a criminal offence and therefore should not have the criminal standard. It is much more a civil offence. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness that the civil standard of proof is the correct one.
Lord Airedale: Has the noble Earl reflected that if the accused person is to be fined, the case will have to have been proved against him beyond reasonable doubt? But if his money is to be confiscated, under this Bill it can be done on the balance of probabilities. That is rather a fine distinction, is it not?
Earl Ferrers: It is a perfectly normal distinction in a civil case. The criminal aspect of this person's case will have been decided and decided on the criminal standard. How much money he has and whether or not his house in the Bahamas is a result of drug trafficking is a straightforward civil question.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Earl is intransigent on this matter. He has not in fact looked closely at the effects of such a provision. It is not strictly true to say that by the time these provisions come into force decisions about guilt or innocence will have been completed. Certainly the defendant will have been convicted of the drugs offence in relation to which he is currently charged. But at that point the judge who is dealing with the inquiry will have to form some assumptions about the origins of the property that he is known to have.
It may be that during the course of the trial evidence has emerged that he was paid, say, £500 for being the courier and bringing the drugs in and that £500 is found on him. In those circumstances there is little difficulty in concluding that the £500 is the proceeds of drug trafficking. But in many other cases the defendant has assets which may involve a house or lesser matters, assets for which, on the face of it, there can be no legitimate explanation. In those circumstances, in effect, the judge has to make a finding that the defendant has on previous occasions been engaged in drug trafficking, occasions when he has been successful in committing the crime, and that those are the proceeds, unless the defendant can rebut that assumption.
So the judge often has to make a further decision as to guilt or innocence in relation to often unspecified earlier transactions. That is where the danger comes in. Somebody has been convicted on the evidence and on the appropriate criminal standard of committing

747
one offence. Once that has happened, on the basis of these provisions the burden shifts and the judge may well have to make decisions about the man's previous culpability and how he came by things that seemed to be beyond his apparent means on the basis now of a civil standard.
I find it somewhat ironic that a very short time ago a matter of less than an hour I was castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for trying to overrule the Court of Appeal. That is precisely what this provision in the Bill introduced by the noble Earl proposes to do.
I notice an overt change in the Government in respect of this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Wigoder, who expressed their support. I propose to withdraw the amendment but I shall return to it at a later stage in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 12 [Revaluation of proceeds of drug trafficking and discovery of further assets]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("six") and insert ("five").
The noble Baroness said: I can deal with the amendment briefly. This provision gives us some anxiety. It deals with the ability of the Crown, following the resolution of a case, to return to it again and again if further assets which were not assessed by the court at the time of the original hearing come to light.
It must be right that, if assets were concealed and knowledge of their existence later comes to the prosecutor, the defendant should not be able to retain what I have already described as his ill-gotten gains. That important feature has to be balanced against the need for a final resolution of such matters. In other words, there must be a limit to the time during which the defendant who has already been sentenced for his offence can be brought back to the court. Surely there must be some resolution to the number of bites at the cherry which the Crown can have.
For a reason which I cannot anticipate but which I hope the Minister will explain, the clause as presently drafted fixes a period of six years during which such further applications can be made. It is important that if a prison sentence is imposed, which is almost invariably the case in such matters, there should be a final resolution so that if there is to be rehabilitation the offender can, when released, carry on with his life. There must also be a question of balance. We believe that six years is too long. If there is a good reason why that period has been chosen I shall willingly seek to withdraw the amendment. However, the amendment proposes to reduce the period to five years, which appears to be at the outer limit of what is reasonable in the circumstances. Perhaps the Minister can indicate the reason for the six-year period. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: At Second Reading the noble Baroness warned us that she was worried about the length of time during which people can he chased for their assets. I explained that the period of six years appeared in the Bill. Perhaps that had escaped the noble Baroness's attention but it had not escaped the attention of her noble friend Lord Richard, who reminded her. I was obliged to remind her too; so she was told, as it were, from both ends.
The noble Baroness now says that six years is too long and is asking for five years. I find the situation curious because the amendment on which we voted sought to give more lenient sentences to drug traffickers. The previous amendment which the noble Baroness moved attempted to ensure that drug traffickers would be more likely to retain more of the money which they had acquired from their ill-gotten gains. Now the noble Baroness comes along and says, "We do not want to be able to chase them for six years, only for five years. After that they can keep whatever they have. If any other assets appear after five years they cannot be confiscated".
Six years is considered to be a reasonable limit on these powers because we believe that it is long enough to make the new provision worth while but not so long as to leave the offender under an indefinite threat of further assets being confiscated. Members of the Committee will note that the six-year period already plays a part in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 in the assumptions provided for in Section 2. The court may assume that any property which appears to the court to have been transferred to the offender at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him or her is received as a payment for drug trafficking.
The noble Baroness suggests that that period is too long but that she will be happy to withdraw her amendment if there are good reasons for the provision. I have given one good reason but another is the interests of consistency as well as justice. It was decided that six years was the most appropriate limit because that period was originally decided when the 1986 Act was being discussed, as it corresponded with the provisions of the Finance Act 1985 providing that value-added-tax traders must retain their records for six years. Six years is also the ordinary period of limitation applying to most actions in tort and contract law and actions to cover arrears of rent or to enforce a judgment or a mortgage. There are good precedents and I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that, in terms of consistency, justice and fairness, six is better than five.
Baroness Mallalieu: After that explanation, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Effect of imprisonment for default]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Mallalieu: I oppose Clause 13 standing part of the Bill. I expressed anxiety about the clause at Second Reading. Under Section 6 of the Drug

749
Trafficking Offences Act, provision is made for terms of imprisonment in default of compliance with a confiscation order. In effect, the clause enables the prosecution to have its cake and eat it. When a man has served a term of imprisonment for failing to pay the compensation order he is under this clause still obliged to pay the money. I am unaware of any precedent for such a provision in any other compensation, confiscation or fine provision. I should be grateful if the Minister could draw my attention to it. The very wording of the Bill suggests that these are alternatives. This is a sentence of imprisonment in default.
As I have said already—the noble Earl never hears me, so I repeat it—of course it is not our intention to prevent the recovery of the proceeds of drug dealing. I do not accept the noble Earl's contention, which he expressed at Second Reading, that offenders are choosing in effect to do the time and keep the money. That certainly is not my experience. Even if it were correct, the proper course would be to increase the penalties which could be imposed in default. But again in my experience they are already extensive and involve lengthy terms of imprisonment.
Where there is a conviction for an offence of this nature the likelihood is that there will be a lengthy term of imprisonment for the offence. The period in default of payment will then be added to that if confiscation is not met. As I said in relation to the previous clause, there must be an end if reform and rehabilitation are to play any part in sentencing. We contend that a provision of this nature is, in ordinary language, "plain unfair". In so far as I am aware it is also a novel departure and I ask the noble Earl to think again about it. If there is a precedent for it I should be grateful if he will draw the Committee's attention to it.
Lord Ackner: The case of Dickens has been referred to and it might be convenient if I read two or three sentences from The Law Reports 1990. It is in the second volume of the Queen's Bench Division, at page 105, dealing with the 1986 Act. The noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, said:
"It is plain that the object of the Act is to ensure, so far as is possible, that the convicted drug trafficker is parted from the proceeds of any drug trafficking which he has carried out. The provisions are intentionally Draconian".
If that philosophy is right—and I suggest that it is —I do not see anything wrong with this provision at all. As I sought to point out on an earlier amendment, we are dealing here with what is essentially a civil situation. A person ex hypothesi has property; he will not part with it so he is sent to prison. In a civil case a person commits contempt of court if he fails to hand over property when an order directs that he should do so. If he continues contumaciously to insist on refusing to comply with the order he is sent to prison. That does not wipe out the obligation either to pay the debt or to hand over the money.
As I understand it, what has been done here is once again to apply the civil analogy and ensure that the convicted drug dealer is not in a position to say, "It would suit me better to enjoy Her Majesty's
750
hospitality in prison with, of course, the realisation that I shall get remission and possibly parole. When I come out I can unearth my sizeable nest-egg and live happily ever after". That is not a scenario of which I hope this Committee would approve. It seems to me that, very sensibly, this clause seeks to make that not practical.
Earl Ferrers: The fact is that some convicted drug traffickers are opting to serve extra months in prison in order to avoid paying their confiscation orders. Any such extra term of imprisonment in default would also, under the rules, attract remission for good behaviour. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, agrees with me. This cannot be right. It undermines the original intentions of the 1986 Act; namely, that illicit profits should be removed from circulation and that those convicted of drug trafficking should not keep their ill-gotten gains.
At Second Reading and again this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, opposed Clause 13 on the grounds that it runs counter to the principles of imprisonment for debt; that it runs counter to English criminal law in general; and that it runs counter to fairness. She said today that the prosecution is trying to have its cake and eat it. I thought that that was rather a curious expression. However, she went on to say that she is against drug traffickers, and I am glad to hear that.
The Government are not forcing a drug trafficker to serve a period of imprisonment in default and meet the cost of the confiscation order. The offender has a simple solution open to him: he can and should pay the confiscation order before default becomes an issue. The fact of the matter is that the court would not have made a confiscation order if it was not satisfied in the first place that the offender had enough realisable property to meet it. If the defendant believes that the value of his realisable property is lower than the court assessed it to be, it is always open to him to apply to the High Court for a downward variation order. Moreover, the courts will not commit an offender to imprisonment in default unless they are satisfied that he or she has the resources to pay the outstanding order.
What we are seeking to do is to make the offender pay up. If he does not do so, he then goes to prison for failing to do what the court has told him to do. The term in prison does not release him from the requirement to forfeit his proceeds. What we do not wish to do—but the noble Baroness does—is to give him a choice: "Either pay up or go to prison. If you go to prison you can hang on to your money". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, agrees that that is wrong. I believe it is wrong.
Contrary to what has been said by the noble Baroness, this is not an unprecedented provision, especially for a civil type debt, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred. Income tax, community charge and maintenance debts all remain in force even after a term of imprisonment is served. Confiscation is not a punishment as such. It is a debt which must be paid. The offender should not be permitted to choose whether or not to pay.

751
On reflection I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that Clause 13 is correct.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Earl has not allayed my anxieties about the provision. He has not been able —and I am not surprised that he has not been able to draw attention to any precedent within the realms of the criminal law. Yet he is proposing to insert this provision into a Criminal Justice Bill.
It troubles me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, considers that legislation of this type, which he described as draconian, is appropriate. I suspect that that is because the provision deals with the highly emotive matter of drug dealing about which we all-and I repeat this—feel strongly. If the object of the provisions is to make a convicted offender pay up and disgorge the money which he obtained by drug dealing, the proper means of doing so, if he does not do so willingly, is to face him with a term of imprisonment which is so long that he will pay up. Those provisions are available. If they are not being used, it is about time that the Court of Appeal issued one of its famous guideline cases in relation to this matter to make sure that the provisions are properly used.
The noble Earl says that there is evidence that people are choosing to serve a further term of imprisonment and then collect the money at the end. I can only query his evidence for that. He produced no evidence in support of his contention. It runs contrary to all that I have seen, given that any drugs offender faces an extremely substantial term for the offence itself, quite apart from what is imposed in relation to these matters. I may well return to this matter on Report.
On Question, Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of drug trafficking: Scotland]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 15, line 29, after ("conduct") insert ("custom of trade or profession").
The noble Baroness said: I do not move this amendment and in due course I shall not move Amendments Nos. 19, 23 and 25. They arose from anxieties which the Law Society of Scotland had about aspects of the Bill relating to Scotland. It is giving further consideration to the amendments. Therefore, I shall not move Amendment No. 13.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Offences in connection with laundering money from drug trafficking]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 34, leave out ("suspects") and insert ("believes").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg wishes to apologise to the Committee that he is unable to be here.
In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 21 and 26. In one form or
752
another they all deal with the deletion of the words "suspicion" or "suspects" and the substitution of the words "believes" or "belief". There are essentially three reasons for replacing "suspicion" with "belief" in the Bill. First, to provide that a person is guilty of an offence if he suspects something is to legislate for an offence which is easy to prove but extremely difficult to refute. In answer to the comment, "I suspected nothing", it is easy to say, "Well, you should have done". That line of reasoning imparts an objective test when the test should be subjective. Miscarriages of justice are only too likely to result.
Suspicion sets the necessary state of mind too low for a criminal offence, which in this Bill carries a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment. Indeed, juries are told daily in our courts that suspicion is insufficient. Clearly the standard of proof is much higher.
Secondly, the proposed offence will make it difficult, for example, for the conscientious bank employee to decide whether or not he should disclose any payment into an account above a certain amount —say, £2,000. If he felt obliged to do so that might well destroy the relationship of trust which normally exists between banks and their customers.
Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 makes it an offence to handle stolen goods "knowing or believing" them to be stolen. Juries are directed that they must be satisfied that the defendant knew or believed that the goods were stolen; suspicion is not enough. The proposed offence is analogous and the same provisions should therefore apply. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I note a distinction between Clauses 18 and 28. In Clause 18 the single word "suspects" appears; in Clause 28 we find the words,
"having reasonable grounds to suspect".
I should have thought that the words in Clause 28 were the appropriate words to be used in both cases.
Clause 18 creates a criminal offence. A person who "suspects" money laundering will be under a duty to go to the police and say so. Lawyers will make play with those differences in wording and say that mere suspicion of money laundering for which one has no reasonable grounds is nevertheless an offence. They will say that if reasonable suspicion was intended under Clause 18, it would have been included as it is in Clause 28.
The result will be that people with suspicions but without reasonable grounds for them will be committing an offence if they do not go to the police and explain their unfounded suspicions. Droves of people will be arriving at police stations, wasting enormous amounts of police time to no purpose.
I urge the noble Earl to consider whether or not it is intended that the words,
"having reasonable grounds to suspect",
should be included in Clause 18 as well as in Clause 28. Lawyers will have a field day discussing the matter unless the position is resolved.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support the amendment and the comments of my noble friend, having some knowledge of field days in this area. "Suspect" is far too dangerous a word; it depends

753
entirely on the subjective judgment of the specific person. Policemen suspect everybody's behaviour the whole time. One person is suspicious while another is not. For instance, I am sure that the noble Earl "suspects" that I speak only when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, says something with which I can disagree. However, I am quite sure that he does not believe that, which is a completely different matter.
The question of suspicion can arise, as my noble friend said, without any basis whatever. Any self-respecting person can be asked, "Did you not suspect this? Was it not suspicious?" Suspicious behaviour to one person is not necessarily suspicious to another. It must be tied down. Experience of handling stolen property cases, as the noble Baroness said, and of the words, "knowing or believing", leads us to believe that that is what is justiciable in a court of law, whereas the word "suspicion" is far too wide.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that lawyers would have a field day discussing the difference between "suspects" and "believes". It will not only be lawyers who have such a field day. It is difficult to understand exactly what the difference is between the two. However, it is significant. The question of the mental test which should attach to new offences invariably raises differences of opinion. It may be helpful for me to set out the background and reasons for the tests in the Bill.
In Clause 18, which makes it an offence to fail to disclose knowledge or suspicions of money laundering, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant actually suspected that money laundering was occurring. It is quite a high test, but certainly not as high as expecting the prosecution to prove that the person actually believed that money laundering was occurring, which is the effect of the amendment.
It is a difficult question for any prosecution to have to prove that a person "believes" something, and totally different to prove that he "suspects". I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that imposing such a high test would have severe implications for the reporting requirement being introduced by the clause and would seriously reduce the reports made to the enforcement authorities. As a result, detections of drug traffickers could be expected to decrease and the amounts which criminals succeeded in laundering could be expected to increase. We cannot allow that to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that streams of people would go to police stations saying that they suspected people of drug trafficking or money laundering. I believe that that may be an exaggeration. Even if it were not, it would be a good thing for people to go to police stations and say, "I suspect that someone is money laundering". It would then be up to the policemen, the professionals, the investigators to decide whether or not that was true. If we say that one should only go to a police station when one "believes" that a person is money laundering, then the number of people reporting their belief will be considerably reduced.
754
Clause 26 is identical to Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. It introduces an offence of assisting another to retain the proceeds of criminal conduct, as does Section 24 for drugs. The knowledge, or mens rea, test in Clause 26 therefore comes from Section 24 of the 1986 Act, which has so far worked perfectly well. We see no reason why the same test should not apply to the new all-crime money laundering offence, particularly as applying the higher test of "belief" will make it less effective and benefit those who participate in crime and those who help to launder the proceeds derived from crime.
With regard to the amendment in relation to Clause 28, I should say again that Clause 28 replicates an existing drug money laundering offence, this time one found in Section 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, of concealing or transferring the proceeds of criminal conduct. Under Section 14 and the new offence in Clause 28, the prosecution is required to prove that the defendant knew or had "reasonable grounds to suspect" that the property involved was the proceeds of criminal conduct. The "reasonable grounds to suspect" test is an objective one, whereas the proposed "belief" test is a subjective one and therefore more difficult to prove.
The existing test in the Section 14 offence has worked well in practice. The lower test was used because the offence centres on the fact that the concealment or the transfer of property is done with the intention of avoiding prosecution or the making or enforcing of a confiscation order. Bank employees and other such people could not therefore fall foul of the offence unless they actually set out with the intention of helping a drug trafficker to avoid prosecution.
Were the amendments to be moved into the Bill they would severely handicap the law enforcement authorities in their task of combating money laundering. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not seek to press them too hard.
6 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: Perhaps I may make one comment to the noble Earl. On Amendment No. 14 as it stands, the Committee is being asked to decide between the words "suspects" and "believes". I appreciate that that is the decision before us today. My noble friend Lord Airedale raised a matter which is not at present the subject of an amendment; that is, that instead of "suspects" it would be better to use the phrase, "has reasonable grounds for suspecting", as occurs in a later clause in the Bill.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to consider that matter or comment upon it. We appear to be creating the same offence whether he "suspects" or "has reasonable grounds for suspecting", but putting it in a form which is intelligible to a jury. If a jury is asked, "Did the defendant suspect?", and the defendant says, "I did not suspect", what is the jury to decide? It will be asked by the judge, "Should he have suspected? If he should have suspected, why should he have done so?". The answer would be, "Because of the following grounds on which the prosecution say he should therefore have suspected". As I say, at the moment I accept that this is not a matter for immediate

755
consideration as an amendment. As my noble friend has put it forward, would the noble Earl care to comment on its feasibility?
Earl Ferrers: I would prefer not to comment on it now, but I shall certainly look at the matter. These words are very much a matter of fine tuning. One wants to see their effect, but I shall certainly look at the point.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am unhappy particularly with the illustration which the noble Earl gave as regards a person having to know before he can go to a police station to make a report of suspicious conduct. The offence with which we are dealing makes a person guilty if he knows or suspects that another person is engaged in drug money laundering and does not make such a report. Here we are not talking about information being given to the police or information which might assist the authorities in the ordinary course of events. We are talking about people being guilty of a criminal offence if they do not make such a report.
In the light of the answer which the noble Earl has given to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I hope that the noble Earl will also look at the totality of the wording in these provisions. It is deeply troubling that the concept of suspicion should be imported into the criminal law in the way in which it is in these measures. In the light of the noble Earl's indication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 41. after ("constable") insert ("or, in case of a person in employment, to the appropriate person,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The reason for deleting Clause 18(5) and putting the substance of it in subsection (6) in the form of a definition of "appropriate person" is that the failure to disclose on the part of the employee should be part of the offence; in other words, the prosecution would have the burden of proof rather than the defence where the burden would fall on the employee. It seems wrong that the employee should bear the burden of proving that he did disclose something when the essence of the offence is a failure to disclose. Accordingly, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the prosecution bears the burden of proof in relation to the proposed offence. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purposes of these amendments. If we were to accept them they would alter the very nature of the new offence which we are creating of failing to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering. We are doing that in order to implement an EC directive. As drafted, the clause makes it an offence not to report to a constable a knowledge or a suspicion of money laundering which is gained in the course of trade, business or profession.
A key defence to this offence is having a reasonable excuse for failing to make a report. After we had representations from the banking community a
756
further defence was added of making a report to the appropriate person in accordance with the procedure laid down by the defendant's employer. As Members of the Committee will know, the banking community has already established fairly effective systems for the internal reporting of suspicions to supervisors. That has happened with the support and co-operation of the police.
These amendments would make it more difficult for the prosecution to prove that the offence had been committed. It would be for the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard of proof that the person who held the knowledge or suspicion had not disclosed that either to a constable or, as it were, up the line. It is very difficult for the prosecution to prove that. However, the Bill as drafted would allow for the defence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the person did so disclose.
The Bill already requires the prosecution to prove that the person knew or suspected another person's involvement in drug money laundering, that this information came to notice in the course of trade, business or profession and that the person with the knowledge or suspicion did not disclose that information to a constable as soon as reasonably practicable. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it would not be right to compromise our armoury in the battle against drug trafficking by requiring the prosecution to prove yet more matters which are fundamentally within the knowledge of the defendant. It is difficult for the prosecution to be able to prove that, whereas, as the Bill is drafted at the moment there is both the possibility for the prosecution to prove an easier matter and for the defendant to show that that was not the case.
Baroness Mallalieu: I sometimes despair of the noble Earl's replies. He appears to base the justification for much of the legislation which he is introducing on the argument that it is important not to make things difficult for the prosecution. If the intention of legislation is to make it easy for the prosecution to obtain convictions, then one might as well abandon the whole principle of the burden and standard of proof.
The noble Earl says that this is a particularly difficult instance because these are matters which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defence. That is so as regards countless criminal offences; for example, all those where the prosecution is required to prove intention. I believe that there is no suggestion, even from the noble Earl, that in cases where intention has to be proved the law should be altered to make it easier for the prosecution to establish guilt.
As regards this legislation—particularly when one is dealing with emotive matters such as the noble Earl has placed before us in his answers to almost every matter that we have dealt with—it is important that we should not lose sight of the fact that this statute is creating criminal offences and it should abide by the usual rules of the burden of proof. As regards matters such as the amendment that we are now dealing with, it should be made clear that the burden lies throughout on the Crown. I do not detect any sign

757
that the noble Earl will approach this matter with an open mind and look at it again in the interval between now and Report stage. At this stage I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but it may well be one to which I shall return later.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness a little because she said that she despairs of me. That is a very traumatic and disagreeable thought. Of course I shall consider everything that she has said. When the noble Baroness tables an amendment I believe that this one was tabled only last night so we were not given that much time—one has to consider what it means and its effect. I give the noble Baroness what is our considered view. But that does not mean to say that our minds are closed, although by saying that I am not inviting her to raise her expectations too greatly.
Of course I shall consider anything that the noble Baroness says between now and the next stage. I do not believe it is very likely that I shall come round to her point of view for the reasons I have tried to explain, but I shall consider what she said.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for those crumbs of comfort and I shall make what use I can of them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Offences in connection with laundering money from drug trafficking: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Confiscation orders]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 18, leave out ("suspecting") and insert ("believing").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 22. I have already addressed some arguments to noble Lords on the matter of suspecting and believing, but in relation to Clause 26 I should like to add just this: the clause as drafted provides a defence in subsection (4) (a)—in other words, that the defendant did not know that the arrangement related to the proceeds of crime. The effect here is to reverse the normal onus of proof. Under the existing provision, the defendant would have to prove that he did not know.
I am perhaps repeating matters, but I shall do so briefly. The usual rule is that the prosecution should prove all matters relating to the defendant's guilty knowledge. I can see no justification for departing from the principle in this case. The effect of the amendment would clearly be to put the burden on the prosecution. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The offence created by Clause 26 reproduces in all its elements the offence found in Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 —the offence of assisting another to retain the proceeds of drug trafficking. Section 24 has worked perfectly well and has proved to be a well drafted and well balanced provision. To have one offence of laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking and a materially different one of laundering the proceeds of criminal conduct would be rather odd, to say the least, as well as confusing to the courts.
The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would have the effect of making the job of the prosecution far harder—I know that she does not want to do that, but that would be one of the effects —in proceedings which are brought under this provision. An adequate defence of neither knowing nor suspecting that the arrangements related to the proceeds of criminal conduct is provided by subsection 4(a). As in any other defence, the onus is on the defendant to prove to the civil standard of proof (about which we have already heard a great deal today) that he had such a defence.
The amendments would mean that the knowledge or suspicion that the arrangement related to the proceeds of criminal conduct would become part of the offence and the prosecution would therefore have to prove to the criminal standard that that was the case. I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that this would be an unnecessary additional burden to place on the prosecution. Under the clause as drafted, the prosecution already has to prove that the retention or control of a person's proceeds of criminal conduct was facilitated by the arrangement, that the defendant actually participated in the arrangement and that the defendant knew or suspected that the person owning the proceeds had been or was engaged in criminal conduct or had benefited from such conduct.
The intention of this clause is to criminalise the laundering of criminal proceeds. The amendments would severely restrict the effectiveness of a provision that has proved its worth in cases where the laundered money is the proceeds of drug trafficking and would make life much safer for those who launder the proceeds of crime. I do not think that the noble Baroness would wish that to be the case, but I think that that is how it would turn out in fact.
Baroness Mallalieu: I propose to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 21, as I did earlier with similar amendments relating to this subject. As with those amendments, I shall in all probability return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Acquisition, possession or use of proceeds of criminal conduct]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Concealing or transferring proceeds of criminal conduct]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 31 [Meaning of "securities", "issuer" and related expressions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 34, line 19, after ("local") insert ("government").
The noble Lord said: In rising to speak to a series of amendments which, as I have already advised my noble friend the Minister, are probing amendments, I have to declare an interest, in that I have been advised on them by the Confederation of British Industry. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to the Committee for not having taken part in the Second Reading, but my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon did and substantially put forward the views that the CBI agreed with.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 seek simply to improve the wording of the clause. In the case of Amendment No. 27, I propose that the clause should read:
"a local government authority in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
This is really because of the "or elsewhere". This may be a small point, but perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the term
"local authority in the United Kingdom"
is well known but it could well be that when one is talking about "or elsewhere" it would be more appropriate to say "a local government authority". I hope that my noble friend will see that there is some point in this and that he may be able to give some thought to it between now and the next stage of the Bill.
With regard to Amendment No. 28, I am suggesting that it may be necessary over time to have other definitions for public sector bodies, especially those outside the United Kingdom, and that the extra flexibility that will be ensured by giving authority to the Treasury to designate additional bodies may be found useful. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): We now have a change of batting the first batsman having retired with, I am glad to say, his wicket totally intact.
I should like to take my noble friend's two amendments in succession. I turn first to Amendment No. 27, which seeks to insert the word "government" after the word "local". I must advise him that the term "local authority" is used in the EC treaty and in many Community institutions. It is a well understood phrase and is free from ambiguity. I must advise my noble friend that it is not apparent at this stage that his proposed amendment would add to the clarity of the legislation.
I find myself in an unusual position with regard to Amendment No. 28. It is usually I who from this Dispatch Box am asking for these very words to be inserted and who is having to battle with your Lordships. This time I am on the defending end. We believe that we have covered all the necessary institutions which the amendment embraces: the Government of the United Kingdom and other
760
governments, local authorities, international organisations, the Bank of England and central banks. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide the power to extend this definition, and I imagine that that will be welcomed by some of your Lordships. There is no point in putting an "asking power" into an Act if we do not believe that we are going to make use of it.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend, especially for his first point that the European Community uses the phrase "local government" in the same way as the British. Of course, as time goes on other people who are not within the Community may creep into insider dealing. That is not a very strong point, however.
With regard to Amendment No. 28, I am delighted that the CBI thought the Treasury would like the provision. I do not know whether it was trying to butter up the Treasury. Whatever it may be, I take the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill because I want to raise a general question. In fact I had prepared a whole series of amendments on this point but I decided not to put them down. It seemed to the CBI and to me that although Clause 31 defines "person" pretty thoroughly in relation to a public body as a person, subsequent clauses of this part of the Bill do not identify where it is referring to an individual human being as a person. The general line of the amendments which I did not put down was to change in those places the word from "person" to "individual". I did not put down those amendments partly because an enormous number of amendments would have been needed and also because I have a feeling that I have seen before in other legislation that there is not any doubt about this point. However, in the case of insider dealing, it seems that in some cases, in the narrow sense where it refers to a human individual who commits, or is alleged to have committed, an offence, it would be worth making sure that it is not muddled with a body doing the same kind of thing.
I should be grateful to hear whether my noble friend can unequivocally say that there is not a place for this. If there is, I should be very happy to put down the amendments at the next stage of the Bill. If my noble friend agrees, perhaps he may like to put them down and change the relevant persons into individuals where that is appropriate.
The Earl of Caithness: I have to admit to my noble friend that I was a little surprised to see that he intended to oppose the Question but I am grateful to him for letting me know his purpose in doing so. The paper which he was able to submit allowed me to focus on the particular point of his concern.
The word "person" as used in the Bill can apply both to natural persons individuals—and to legal

761
persons, such as companies. At different places the Bill needs to refer to individuals because the offences can only be committed by them. But it also needs to refer to persons, legal and natural, to ensure, for example, that an insider cannot deal through a legal person and evade the legislation.
It may be helpful to my noble friend to illustrate this by example. To remove "person" from Clause 32 would require it to be amended to read:
"an individual deals in securities if he procures … an acquisition or disposal of the securities by any other".
The effect of replacing the first person in Clause 32 would be to blow a hole in Clause 36(2), which relates to encouraging another to deal. If Clause 32 were restricted to dealing by individuals, it would allow an insider to encourage a company or other legal person to deal without there being an offence. Again, that would create an enormous loophole in the legislation which could readily be exploited. Further, in Clause 32, who would be "any other" if the amendment were made? It is not clear but it is certainly arguable that it must be any other individual. That is not an effect that would be desirable. It would leave an insider free to deal through a company he controls. There would of course be no ambiguity if the reference to "any person" were retained.
That is why the word "person" can refer to both individuals and companies. I have been advised, because I did ask exactly this question, that lawyers would not find it difficult to determine the difference between the two.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend very much for that full explanation which I hope will set at rest the minds of those who were worried about reference in the Bill to "person".
On Question, Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Meaning of "dealing"]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 35, line 3, at end insert:
("() A person is not to be regarded as procuring an acquisition or a disposal of securities by another merely because he refrains from prohibiting that other from acquiring or disposing of the securities.
() For the purposes of this Part, a person does not deal in securities if the acquisition or disposal of the securities is carried out by another on his behalf acting under discretionary investment authority in the course of carrying out or exercising that authority.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 29 I am trying to bring out a particular point I am trying to bring it out in relation to other clauses—on the definition of key phrases relating to insider dealing. The CBI is uneasy that individuals who deal professionally and honestly in securities in accordance with accepted practice may be inadvertently caught by the Bill unless the definitions are expanded in appropriate cases. Amendment No. 29 is an example of that. It provides specifically for two situations when an individual is not to be considered as dealing for the purposes of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Both situations referred to in my noble friend's amendment relate to situations
762
where someone possesses inside information, but there is no legitimate use by him of the inside information. I can say to my noble friend that there would be no breach of the law in either case.
Taking the part of the amendment which relates to procuring, the concern is that someone may possess inside information about a company which he has kept to himself but may nonetheless find himself guilty of an offence if, without his knowledge, someone else dealt in the shares for his benefit. There is no question that he would commit an offence in those circumstances. In order for there to be an offence there would have to be a positive act. Without it —and there is no doubt that there is no positive act in the example my noble friend gave—there is no offence.
Likewise, a client under a discretionary management agreement who possesses inside information about a stock in which the manager deals would not in any sense be intending to make a profit or avoid a loss from the information he possesses. It is difficult to see how it could be argued that this was not the case given that the person who made the investment decision—the fund manager—did not possess the inside information. Clause 37 makes it quite clear that there is no offence in such circumstances.
Further, the situation stressed by the amendment could arise under our existing legislation—the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985—but there has in practice been no difficulty. I hope that that is of reassurance to my noble friend. Part IV carries forward the approach taken in that legislation. This should provide additional reassurance that there will not be problems in those areas in future.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that very full explanation. I shall need to read it with some care to see whether it meets all the worries that have been suggested to me. There is a possibility that I may come back at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Meaning of "inside information"]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 35, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 31. It seems that subsection (1) (c), which I am seeking to remove, is too brief. More explanation is required of the circumstances when the information is to be regarded as having been made public, on the one hand, and not made public on the other. I propose the introduction of the concept that information is not to be regarded as inside information if the information is publicly and readily available to members of the public in the United Kingdom. However, information which is only available overseas should be regarded as inside information. It should be made clear that publication by a regulated market in the United Kingdom makes the information public and is not inside information. It should also be made clear that, to be inside information, information should be true and not mere rumour or speculation. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: As my noble friend explained, the amendment seeks to make two changes to the definition of "inside information". Let me take the two elements of the amendment in turn. The first would itself contain two distinct elements: that the information is true and, a different matter, that the information is not rumour or speculation. It is not the case that information has to be true to be capable of being used for insider dealing. What matters is not whether it is true but whether the market will believe it to be true. Thus, it would be possible for there to be insider dealing on the basis of a company's unaudited figures which subsequently had to be revised.
There is no requirement in the directive that information be true, so this is not an area where there can be discretion in our legislation if it were considered desirable.
The prohibitions do not apply to actions based on rumour and speculation on two counts. First, information has to be precise or specific: that excludes mere rumour. Secondly, there can be an offence only if an insider or tippee knows that he has inside information; someone cannot be in that position if all he knows is a rumour. There is therefore no need to include an additional reference to rumour into the clauses.
The second element of the amendment—that is, new subsection (f)—relates to what is in many ways the most difficult single element of the part. It seeks to replace with a narrower definition the provision in the directive that for information to be inside information it must not have been made public, in the hope of providing more certainty than does the directive.
The amendment would, if adopted, render illegal actions which are properly regarded as being quite legitimate. For example, what about the position of a diligent research analyst who makes a recommendation based upon disclosure in an obscure Japanese journal which is not available in the United Kingdom? That is an obvious criticism of the amendment.
More fundamentally—here I put another example to my noble friend—what about the position of an analyst who makes a recommendation based on his combination of expert knowledge of a sector and a research report which was only available at great expense? The information in such a report could hardly be said to be readily available to the public. Is the analyst to be liable to prosecution? That is surely not the intention behind the proposal but it could well be the result.
Those problems arise because the amendment does not make clear when information is readily available to the public, nor what is meant by members of the public: all the public, actual or potential investors or a narrower section of the public and, if so, what?
The amendment includes a single example of when information is to be deemed to be made public: when it has been disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant market on which the securities are traded and the trading takes place after the information has been published in accordance with its rules. That example does not take matters any
764
further forward. It is inconceivable that information which has been disclosed in that way would not be considered to have been made public.
Those comments help explain why the Government have not provided in the Bill an explicit definition of when information has or has not been made public. Any attempt to do so would serve either to address situations where there can be no real doubt that information has been made public or would impinge upon legitimate activities of analysts and the like.
There is a third possibility. The publication will be defined in a narrower way, perhaps in terms of it being available to only some but not all potential investors in a security. However, that would run the risk of undermining completely the effect of insider dealing legislation because it would allow those with access to the information to deal to the disadvantage of those who are not in such a privileged position.
I have given my noble friend a full explanation because he has put his finger on an important point. I thought it only right to explain why the Government have drafted the Bill in the way that they have.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for that full explanation which I am sure will be read with great care by the people concerned. He made a point about an analyst, which I hesitated to do. I was talking to a friend in the City, independently of the CBI, on that point. The points that my noble friend said the Bill, unamended, would protect with regard to an analyst who has special knowledge were the ones that my friend in the City thought that it did not cover. However, neither did he believe that the CBI's proposed amendments did so. It is a tricky area. I am grateful to my noble friend for dealing with it so fully. If I return to it, it will be because we have found a loophole which we hope to close at the next stage. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 ["Insiders" and "Tippees"]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("a tippee") and insert ("as one who received or obtained it directly or indirectly from an insider").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading the expression "tippee" contained in Clause 34 found little favour. Indeed, it attracted some ridicule. It was pointed out that the word was unknown to the statute book; that it did not appear in the European Community draft directive co-ordinating regulations on insider trading which are implemented by the Bill; and that it was unnecessary anyway since a tippee was no more than a person who received or obtained information from an insider.
My pleasure in seeing my noble friend Lord Caithness at the Dispatch Box speaking for the Government on a Criminal Justice Bill which he has done in the past when he was at the Home Office is, I must confess, mitigating to some extent the absence of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In reply to the debate on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers was candid enough to reveal that he too had originally

765
thought the word "tippee" to be "a perfectly awful word". He had questioned whether it was a good or suitable name. He had been given some justifications by officials, but they did not seem to be compelling justifications. He did not say whether he had been persuaded by those arguments.
My noble friend undertook to take those anxieties into account before the next stage, and those Members of the Committee who took part in the Second Reading debate and who are here today will be waiting with keen anticipation to see whether that anxiety has been transmitted through the Whitehall network from the Home Office to the Treasury.
The word "tippee" has attracted a clutch of amendments from different parts of the Chamber, as my noble friend Lord Caithness will have seen. My noble friend Lord Renton drafted the amendment which stands in his name and in mine. He asked me to apologise on his behalf for his inability to be here tonight to move it himself.
Each of the amendments provides an alternative form of wording which would enable the Government to dispense with the word "tippee", described, we must not forget, by no less a figure than my noble friend Lord Ferrers as "a perfectly awful word". I should be happy to accept any of the other formulations if the Government were prepared to dispense with the word "tippee". I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 33 which is grouped with Amendment No. 32. My suggestion is to substitute "secondary insider" for "tippee". It is short, it is self-explanatory, and it has the virtue of being English. I do not mind what word or expression is substituted for "tippee" so long as "tippee" is shot stone dead. There is no such word. It is not English and, in my respectful submission, it would be undignified to send to the other place a Bill containing such a monstrosity.
Lord Wigoder: Now that we have reached the real crux of the Bill, I wish to add some comments in speaking to Amendment No. 34 and also Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 42 which are part of this group. Amendment No. 40, which I have tabled, deals with Clause 34(3), the definition clause. At the moment, it reads:
"A person has information as a tippee if he has received or obtained it from a person who is an insider; or whose direct or indirect source of information was an insider".
In order to remove any doubt, I propose that the subsection should begin with the words, "For the purposes of this Part", or "For the purposes of this Act", whichever is more appropriate, in order to make it clear that whatever word we use has a definition which only relates to the Act.
We are then left with a definition subsection which is perfectly clear. I tried to explain to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—it caused him, I am afraid, to be not very well when I tried to do so just after Second Reading—that provided there is a clear definition subsection, it does not matter what word we use. Instead of "tippee", we could use the word "elephant",
766
"umbrella", or whatever. Provided we say, "For the purposes of this part, this is what the word means", the actual word is not of great importance.
The reason I propose the word "recipient" instead of "tippee" throughout is threefold. First, whatever the word used it ought to be in the English language. That eliminates "tippee" straightaway. Secondly, it ought to be a word or phrase which is not entirely inelegant. That certainly eliminates "tippee" again. I am not sure that one would call the phrase "secondary insider" entirely elegant, although I appreciate that it is clear in concept.
The third consideration I suggest is that the word we choose should have some conceptual relationship to its meaning. That is why the words "elephant" or "umbrella" would be highly unsuitable, whereas the words "secondary insider" or "recipient" are totally suitable because they relate to the meaning being given to the words by the definition subsection.
In those circumstances I venture to suggest that provided the definition subsection is clear and it is made plain that the word we are defining in that definition is limited to this Bill and cannot be used in construing any other statute, then all we need is a suitable word to replace "tippee". I suggest that either "secondary insider" or "recipient" qualifies for that privilege.
Baroness Mallalieu: From these Benches, we are in agreement with all Members of the Committee who have spoken in saying that "tippee" has got to go. I hope that under the great pressure of numbers and the weight of argument, the noble Earl will see the force of that. From these Benches, we respectfully support the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has just made. Surely the shorter English word must be the better and the meaning is then clear.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be that I am the only defender of "tippee" left in the Chamber. I was rather surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said about "tippee". Perhaps I may refer him to the Oxford English Dictionary which defines "tippee" as,
"one who receives inside information about a company or business and uses it to trade profitably in stocks and shares".
That is an elegant turn of phrase to define a word that has a certain ring to it. I do not hold the same objection as my noble friend Lord Ferrers to it. Indeed, the word is not new. Its first recorded use was in 1897, although it was then used to describe the recipient of a gratuity. Its first use in the context of insider dealing dates from 1961. Nor is the word one which is used infrequently. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has a spare moment this weekend, perhaps I may ask him to peruse Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law, or perhaps Palmer's Company Law. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to Gore-Brown on Companies; and my noble friend Lord Windlesham to Boyle and Bird's Company Law; Mayson Frence and Ryan on Company Law; and Pennington's Company Law. All of them have this delightful little word readily available.
The word is also used in books which relate specifically to insider dealing such as Hopt and

767
Wymeersch's European Insider Dealing; Hannigan's Insider Dealing; Ashe and Counsel's Insider Trading; and Rider's Insider Trading. That list is by no means exhaustive. I should have thought it was a word that all Members of the Committee would welcome in the Bill. It is a word of long standing and aptly describes what we seek to describe.
However, the weight of objection rests heavily on my shoulders. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, did not like it at all; the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that the word "has got to go." If "tippee" has got to go, I think we had better think it out again and come back to it.
Lord Windlesham: It is for me to thank the noble Earl for his good-natured reply. Clearly, an enormous amount of work has been done in the Treasury on the origins and provenance of the word "tippee", which is still inelegant. We are grateful for the reply. The noble Earl has taken the mood of the Committee. There are various ways of redrafting the clause: the government draftsman needs to look at it. Perhaps one of the two alternative words could be inserted or maybe there is a third. Or we could use the device of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of simply omitting it altogether.
However, if the noble Earl, in the light of the reply he gave us, can see what he is able to do and come back at Report stage, I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 34:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("tippee") and insert ("recipient").
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to move the amendment. I merely wish to say that most ordinary people, asked what they thought a "tippee" was, would volunteer that it was the supervisor of a rubbish dump.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 35, line 25, leave out ("director, employee or shareholder") and insert ("shareholder, director, servant or employee, or being engaged under a contract for services").
The noble Lord said: I have no views about "tippee"; my amendment deals with a different subject. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 36. These are simple little amendments to improve the Bill and make it clear that self-employed persons and those who acquire inside information by virtue of business contact or relationship are included in the definition of an insider. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The short answer to my noble friend is: yes, they are included. Perhaps I should expand on that. Someone engaged by an issuer under a contract for services will have access to information because of his employment, profession, office or duties. Someone who has access to information by virtue of a business relationship with a company will have it because of his employment by
768
another company. The same would be true of someone who was undertaking business negotiations with a company or working for it under contract. The same is true of the other examples addressed in the amendments. I hope that my noble friend can rest assured of that.
Lord Mottistone: I must confess that I suggested that that might be so, but I was not given chapter and verse as to why what my noble friend said was covered by the Bill. I do not think he was either. So, grateful though I am to him, I shall have to look further at the matter and I may come back at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I should point out that if Amendment No. 37 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 38 to 40.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Dealing in securities]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 36, line 10, after ("the") insert ("inside").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 43 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 54 and 55. The purpose of these amendments is to make sure that where the Bill means specifically to refer to inside information and not to information in a general sense it should say so; except, of course, in Clause 33 where "inside information" has been defined in the first place. It seems to me that this is a sensible improvement because "information" has a wider sense than just this specific one in other parts of the Bill, and indeed in other parts of this part. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Before answering my noble friend it might be worth pointing out for the benefit of the Committee that in his Amendment No. 45, to which he is also speaking, I believe the word "information" should have read "inside".
Lord Mottistone: That is quite right. I am afraid it is a typing error. It was not there in the original.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the raison d'être behind these amendments, which seek to improve the clarity of the legislation. It is not apparent that these amendments are necessary. For example, the amendments seek to change two references to "information" in Clause 35(5) by references to inside information. But it is already clear at the beginning of the subsection, at page 35 line 35, that the information being referred to is inside information, and the same argument applies to Clause 36. I agree with my noble friend that it would be a different matter if there were ambiguity about the fact that the information being referred to is inside information, but I am advised that there is not. The amendments, therefore, would only seem to lengthen the Bill without improving its clarity.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his explanation. We shall look at it most carefully and might come back at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Disclosing inside information, etc]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 36, line 17, after ("profession") insert (", agency or the performance of his contract of services").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment to make the clause more comprehensible and I think improve its clarity. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My answer to my noble friend will be similar to the one I gave for Amendments 35 and 36. Someone working as an agent for another person, or who is working under a contract for services, will be performing a duty, and accordingly will not be covered by the prohibition on disclosure as it is already drafted. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I think it does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Defences]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 36, line 30, after ("if") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, with which I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 51, provides a necessary protection to persons who have to effect a dealing in securities in order to complete or fulfil an outstanding contractual obligation. It also establishes a defence similar to that contained in the 1985 Act, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred, at Section 3(2). I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendment moved by my noble friend and its consequential Amendment No. 51 seek to import into the part provisions in the existing insider dealing legislation under which there is no offence where someone acts to facilitate the carrying out or completion of the transaction. In our existing law this provision only applies in limited circumstances such as where someone connected with a company only has price sensitive information, which relates to information about a transaction involving two companies or a company and the securities of another company.
The amendment does not carry forward any such limitation and it would therefore legitimise dealing by an insider who has inside information and uses it to make a profit, because the inside information would undoubtedly relate to his transaction and the dealing would clearly facilitate its completion. Although this cannot be the intention behind the amendment it is hard, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, to imagine a more damaging amendment.
770
It is perhaps appropriate to say a few words on why the provision in our existing law has not been carried forward. In some respects it is not wide enough. For example, it is not apparent that it would protect the position of a person who took a very large number of a company's shares and sought to hedge the position by dealing in a separate transaction in related futures. That would not involve any mischief, but it is not clear that the provision in our current law is wide enough. Accordingly, rather than carry forward the provision in our existing legislation, this Bill contains the exemption in Schedule 2 for legitimate use of market information.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I shall read it with great care. At first sight it appears to me to be convincing and I shall not need to carry it any further. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 36, line 34, leave out ("if").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 52 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53. In subsection (3) of Clause 37 the word "if" appears at the end of the lead in to paragraphs (a) and (b). It does not appear after (a), but there is an "if" after (b). It seems to me that the word "if" should appear after (a), as it does after (b), in order to match the English in paragraph (a) to that of paragraph (b). That is the point of these two amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with my noble friend that the clause as drafted looks odd, but I have to say to him that it is correctly drafted. There is no mistake. The "if" in line 34 relates to both paragraphs (a) and (b). Although there is another "if" in (b) that is part of a sub-phrase. In other words, if we accept this amendment a second "if" would have to be inserted in paragraph (b) so that it would read,
"a person lacks the necessary intent if he has such an expectation, if he does not intend".
However, I think my noble friend is on to a point about drafting. I hope he will permit me to take this away to see whether it can be improved.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: This is rather a longer point. As the Bill stands at present, my advisers and I believe that much clearer explanation and guidance are required, either in Clause 37 or perhaps in Schedule 2, as to the circumstances in which an individual is and is not to be guilty of the offences set out in Clauses 35 and 36 and as to the defences available to an individual as set out in Clause 37.

771
First, clearer explanation and guidance are required as to when an individual is to be regarded as taking advantage or not taking advantage, as the case may be, of inside information and when an individual is to be considered as lacking or not lacking, as the case may be, the necessary intent. Secondly, greater clarity and explanation are required as to what information does and does not constitute "inside information" for the purposes of Clause 33. Thirdly, the meaning and effect of the exemptions for,
"dealers whose information is market information".
referred to in Schedule 2 and incorporated in Clause 37 by subsection (5) is also far from clear.
In order to deal with this I tabled amendments to Clause 37 to introduce us to examples set out in Schedule 2. Although there are cases of legislation which include examples in schedules, I was advised that, because the examples that I put forward were not precise enough, they could not be accepted for inclusion as an amendment. Hence my speech now in protest, as it were, against Clause 37.
If for the record I could give some illustration of the kind of examples that I believe should not be regarded as constituting an offence for the purpose of this part of the Bill, they would be as follows. First, the exemption for market information should include individuals engaged in or concerned with underwriting or agreeing to underwrite issues of securities. Secondly, there should be legitimate communications between directors of a company and its shareholders, including institutional shareholders and investors, and legitimate communications between directors and investment analysts and institutional fund managers. Thirdly, employees of a bank or finance company involved in a debt-for-equity swap in the course of a rescue operation may be held liable as their company will be acquiring shares while also holding inside information about the company to be rescued. Fourthly, information gathered about a take-over target should not be regarded as inside information. Fifthly, an individual's knowledge of his company's intention to launch a take-over and the company's dealings in the target company's shares prior to launch of a take-over should not he regarded as insider dealing. Sixthly, the position of solicitors, trustees, liquidators and insolvency practitioners requires attention. They could well be guilty of insider dealing while carrying out their legitimate and lawful duties and responsibilities.
Those are just six of very many situations in which individuals might fall foul of the provisions in the Bill as it stands and be guilty of the offences of insider dealing without there being an appropriate or valid defence or exemption available to them. I therefore submit that the Bill should be amended to incorporate examples of the meanings of the main terms, phrases and concepts used in the Bill for clarity, certainty and the innocent person's peace of mind. It is not sufficient for the Treasury to offer guidelines, as I believe it has, particularly when breaches of the criminal law are involved and a person's career and livelihood are at stake.
The Bill must be amended and I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would consider
772
whether examples along the lines of those that I have suggested could be inserted in either a new schedule or perhaps in a third part of Schedule 2, which seems to be a possible suitable repository for these examples. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out so clearly the reason why he does not want Clause 37 to stand part of the Bill. In implementing the directive the Government have gone to considerable lengths to set out in our legislation the circumstances in which someone does not take advantage of inside information. Part IV provides a general defence where someone does not intend to make a profit or avoid a loss and specific defences relating to market making, price stabilisation and circumstances in which someone possesses market information.
I must tell my noble friend that it is not practical to incorporate into the legislation particular examples of behaviour which is and is not prohibited to deal with every possible circumstance. No such attempt to do so could ever be comprehensive. There are simply too many different types of information and courses of conduct for that to be possible. Providing illustrative examples in a Bill would be unprecedented and with good reason. Either the examples provided would have to fall clearly on one side or the other of the dividing line between what is and is not prohibited, in which case they would not serve any useful purpose, or they would confuse the boundary between what is and what is not prohibited.
Nor is an approach which seeks to illustrate the difference between what is and what is not prohibited by way of examples necessary. The proposals being discussed today are in many ways similar to our existing legislation. That has worked without including examples, and I believe that the Committee will wish the new legislation to continue in the same mode.
However, the Government have said that in one area where they do not believe it is possible to provide a detailed definition in the legislation as to when information has and has not been made public, without making illegal perfectly legitimate activities or risking creating loopholes which could be readily exploited, they are considering issuing guidance, as my noble friend said, about how they believe the term "made public" is to be properly interpreted.
That is a different matter from incorporating definitive examples in to legislation which, as I have said, would either be of little practical use or would cast doubt on the definitive provisions which they seek to illustrate. However, guidance should help to soothe concerns about the effects of the legislation in practice.
I know that my noble friend will agree that insider dealing will always be a difficult area in which to legislate. The Government have said that they will listen to representations very carefully and make amendments to improve clarity where necessary. I shall write to my noble friend about the detailed points that he has raised in his example, but it would be totally wrong and inappropriate to insert practical examples into the Bill.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his full reply and for his promise to write to me about the examples that I produced. I fully understand the points that he makes.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Professional Intermediaries and Exemptions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 46, line 10, after ("employed") insert ("or engaged").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. These are purely drafting improvements and I hope that my noble friend will see them in the same light. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The market-maker defence in Part IV of the Bill carries forward the defence in our existing insider dealing legislation. This refers only to someone whose business is being a market maker or who is employed by a market maker. The Government have received no representations which suggest that there is a need to extend the defence to persons who are engaged but not employed by market makers. Nor have there been any representations from market makers that the provisions in the schedule need extending in this respect. Although I listened carefully to my noble friend, I did not feel that he made a convincing case and I do not think that adding the words he wants would in any way clarify what we are seeking to achieve.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 47, line 13, at end insert:
("(4) It is not to be regarded as unreasonable for a person to deal in securities having market information at the time of dealing if the information is about one or more of the following

(a) his own intentions;

(b) the intentions of others in relation to transactions in which he and those others are jointly concerned;

(c) the intentions of someone or some body under whose instructions he is acting.").

The noble Lord said: I propose this amendment as a necessary protection for, for example, the director of a company in connection with a takeover transaction that his company is undertaking or contemplating, and to other persons and agents acting on behalf of a company in such a situation. It seems to me that at this stage there is room for this addition to Schedule 2. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend's amendment is an interesting attempt to specify circumstances in which it is reasonable for someone to deal when he is in possession of inside information. I have to say to him that the amendment illustrates the difficulties associated with doing this, as the following example shows. The amendment would make it possible for someone acting for a person who was making a large purchase of shares to deal on his own behalf in advance of the purchase and then sell his holding at a profit after the market had reacted to the
774
major transaction. In other words, the consequence of my noble friend's amendment would be to legalise "front running". The directive requires such conduct to be prohibited even if, for some reason, we wished it to be allowed—but that is not the case.
Lord Mottistone: It seems to me that I was asking for something which was terribly wicked. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Territorial scope of offence of insider dealing]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 37, line 24, at end insert ("or if he was not within the United Kingdom at such time he was nevertheless at such time regularly or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 60, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. I am proposing these amendments so that individuals who have a connection with the United Kingdom through residence cannot escape liability by carrying out their insider dealing on a foreign stock exchange through a foreign professional intermediary. The shares of many large companies are quoted not just on the London Stock Exchange but on a number of stock exchanges around the world. Under the wording of the present clause individuals are guilty only if they carry out their insider dealing when in the United Kingdom or through a professional United Kingdom intermediary. This will leave considerable scope for abuse, which my proposed amendments seek to rectify. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The approach taken by Amendment No. 60 and the other amendments to which my noble friend talked, Nos. 61 and 62, claiming jurisdiction over an offence on the basis that a person is normally resident in the United Kingdom, is inconsistent with the approach which the United Kingdom takes to jurisdiction over offences both generally and elsewhere in this Bill.
It was made clear in the Second Reading debate that the approach the Government proposed to take in relation to jurisdiction over insider dealing offences is a territorial one. This accords with the approach we have agreed with other members of the Community in negotiating the directive which Part IV implements. The proposals in the Bill provide a framework for preventing insider dealing in the United Kingdom. So far as acquiring and disposing of securities is concerned, for example, they will catch insiders in the United Kingdom who deal on markets which operate here or through professional intermediaries who are based here.
This territorial approach to jurisdiction over offences also underlies Part I of the Bill, which amends jurisdiction over such criminal offences as theft, false accounting, blackmail and forgery. It reflects the

775
approach which is taken to jurisdiction over offences in this country. For there to be an offence in this country you have to do something wrong here.
In her speech on Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, wrongly suggested that Part I of the Bill would lead United Kingdom law to apply to Mexican fraudsmen for frauds committed wholly in Mexico. The amendment appears to be suggesting that, so far as insider dealing is concerned, we should adopt such an approach. The amendments would make it an offence under United Kingdom law for a Frenchman in France with inside information about a company listed only on the Paris Bourse to deal in a company's shares through a French stockbroker simply because he worked in London and was thus normally resident in the United Kingdom. I am sure that my noble friend would agree on reflection that that cannot be right. It must be for French law to address such wrongdoing, as it is obliged to do under the directive. Indeed, if the amendment were adopted, it might well turn out to be a unique form of jurisdictional claim. Although some countries make jurisdictional claims on the basis of nationality our researches have not revealed any examples of criminal offences which are based on residence.
That was a long answer to my noble friend but it was an important point to get across. I should like at this point to thank my noble friend for tabling all his amendments and for probing this very important area. Perhaps I may say to him that, if he wishes to discuss any matter between now and a later stage of the Bill, my door is always open to him.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend particularly for those closing remarks. As regards what he has said here, for the first time I am not entirely sure that it covers the ground. The modern world is very mobile. People get about terribly quickly and communications are frightfully good. I think we may he forced to consider the position of somebody who lives here and periodically goes abroad—several of my own relations have jobs which allow them to live with their families here and then spend a great deal of time in Europe, America or elsewhere. There is so much mobility now that I am not sure that the area which I have touched upon in this last set of amendments does not need further study, but I shall he very interested to hear what my advisers tell me when they read what my noble friend has said. I very much take the point about my noble friend's open door, and I may come knocking on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Mallalieu: I oppose the Question, That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill, really because I seek enlightenment as to the use to which it is intended to put Clause 40. Clause 35, as your Lordships have seen, prohibits insider dealing in securities. Clause 36 prohibits the disclosing of inside information and Clause 40 in effect gives immunity in relation to either
776
of those activities to those acting on behalf of the Bank of England and other public sector bodies. It would be helpful to know from the Minister why officials of the Bank of England and other public sector bodies are exempt from those charges if they are using information to manage public debt.
It would seem to me that it could mean that a local authority officer could with impunity deal in shares in a company which had won a local authority contract to decrease the council tax or a Bank of England official could sell shares in order to reduce the PSBR. I wonder whether the noble Earl will tell us whether this position is included in the Bill to cover some specific circumstances and in particular whether he can give us an example of circumstances in which someone in this position might be in breach of Clauses 35 or 36 in circumstances where he should have immunity from prosecution. I should be grateful for his help.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: So would I. I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Although the noble Earl, who responded for the Government, dealt, as always, very thoroughly with all the points which had been raised during our debate I am not sure that he touched on this particular issue.
Like the noble Baroness, I find this public sector immunity rather strange. This Government, in so far as they have any doctrinaire obsession, tend to be in favour of the private sector as against the public sector. Curiously, here for some mysterious reason the roles are reversed. Some of the information is very sensitive. To take only one example, the publication of the foreign exchange reserves could have the most profound effect both on the gilts market and on the stock market. Some of the other information in the public sector can, likewise, have profound implications. Thus, the question is: why is there public sector immunity? We should be very interested to hear the answer.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I can set the minds of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at rest. The clause sets out certain limits on the prohibitions laid down in this part of the Bill. It removes from the scope of the legislation the activities of government in managing the economy. The provision reflects the fact that the Government necessarily possess information which is highly price sensitive and which cannot be made public. Examples of such information include security matters, knowledge of the Government's policy with respect to interest rates or the Government's knowledge of other governments' intentions. Without the provision it would be impossible for the Government to discharge their responsibilities, and therefore it is essential.
However, the exemption is limited. It does not apply to private dealing as opposed to public activity. Nor does it apply to the activities of the Government undertaken other than for the purposes of economic management. It does not apply, therefore, to government share sales.

777
The exemption reflects an exception in the directive which all member states recognised was necessary for the purposes of managing the economy. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied.
Baroness Mallalieu: I am enlightened and satisfied. I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Clause 40 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Export Credit Guarantees
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the present arrangements for the guarantee of export credits.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are two reasons why this short debate on ECGD was postponed last Thursday. The first is that 11 o'clock at night is not a particularly popular time to debate an Unstarred Question after punishing legal discussion. Secondly, and equally important, was the fact that the Autumn Statement had been made that day and the delay has given those who are to take part, and my noble friend who is to reply, time to reflect and to obtain further information on the effect of that Statement on this particular issue.
The delay has cost us a few speakers. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is unable to participate, but we have gained my noble friend Lord Selsdon. I am delighted that he is able to take part in view of his expertise. I should also like to thank those who have indicated that they are to speak as I shall not be able to do so at the end of the debate.
The last occasion on which this subject was discussed in this House was the passing of the Bill reforming the ECGD and privatising its short-term business. That day, 11th June 1991, was a notable day for two reasons. First, my noble friend Lady Denton was introduced as a new Member of this House. She is now an established and valued member of the Front Bench. Secondly, the Second Reading debate attracted one of the most powerful all-party groupings of barons of industry, who collectively exhorted the Government to give better support to our export companies and who cast doubt on the wisdom of reforming the ECGD.
That was an illuminating debate. My noble friend Lord King summed up the matter very well when he said that it was the responsibility of government to establish for the exporting companies of the United Kingdom an environment in which they could compete on terms that are both fair and reasonable. I support that concept wholeheartedly, as I am sure do other noble Lords. I am sure that my noble friend will also support that concept when she replies to the debate.
The purpose of my Question tonight is to examine what has happened since 11th July 1991. The ECGD —in fairness to its considerable experience—has been governed by the policy known as the portfolio management system. As noble Lords will be aware,
778
that system was introduced in January 1991. It was a radical change. Some may say that it was a victory for the Treasury in openly reducing the cost of support to our exporters by charging increased premiums. It was justified on the back of increasing claims on the Exchequer arising from the international debt crisis. It was argued, as all good bank managers would argue, that it was a prudent way forward and that other countries would follow our lead.
I do not believe that anyone, from the board of ICI to the smallest export company in the country, believed that other countries would follow suit, despite the endless talks in Brussels. Each country values its export drive in different ways. All recognise the value of competitiveness in the support they can give.
The balance between the national interest in terms of our exporting projects versus the potential costs to the Exchequer has been an issue since the establishment of the ECGD in 1919 by Sir Winston Churchill. Unless the cost of debt has risen out of all proportion to the amount of business written and in comparison with other credit agencies that cost is, in my view, a good investment. To penalise exporters looks more and more like a thoroughly bad policy.
The CBI has disturbing evidence, which it has submitted to the Government, of lost export opportunities due directly to the PMS. I find that very disappointing. The PMS had its first annual review last April. Despite the chorus of pleading from exporters, the overall rates did not move very much downwards. They were still uncompetitive. Exporters still find premiums, cover and capacity unfavourable compared with what their competitors in other countries are offered. That is so much so that British companies with foreign subsidiaries are now considering whether those subsidiaries should bid for exports to benefit from the support offered by other countries' national credit agencies.
I submit to my noble friend that this is a sad by-product of the PMS. I think there is a very strong case for the Government to review the PMS and to accept that other countries will not follow in the near future and revert to competitiveness. This does not mean that the objective to harmonise the system in Brussels need be lost. But let us not jeopardise our exporters at a time when a drop in the pound opens up a window of opportunity and when everything possible should be done to fight out from the recession. Our export policy deserves this special priority.
Turning to the privatising of the short-term business, about a year ago the NCM took over the business. It offered 550 jobs for staff who previously were employed by the ECGRE. I think it has worked from the staff point of view very well. Britain has this year the same level of business as the previous year —about £14 billion—covering both commercial and political risk. That is, I believe, a very healthy sign. But the arrangement with the Government at the time of privatisation was that they would underpin the political risk business certainly for up to three years. That is what other governments do anyway. But there is a need for this Government to underpin political

779
risk because it results in lower premiums. I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to confirm that the Government do not intend to opt out of supporting the private sector in that key risk area.
I turn briefly to the Autumn Statement. The £700 million earmarked to increase the cover availability, the capacity, over the next two years for ECGD not only sends out a very encouraging signal, and indeed indicates support by the Government, but it will greatly help to satisfy the demand in important markets. There is some question as to what are important markets. Obviously, China and Indonesia are two examples. But I hope success in those countries in that area will not penalise the capacity just because the cover is judged to be too concentrated.
At the other end of the scale, it is equally important for ECGD to promote UK exports where there is no significant presence at the moment. My noble friend will no doubt take this opportunity to clarify more precisely points under the Autumn Statement.
Finally, I turn to the ATP (the aid and trade provisions under the aid programme). I am sure my noble friend will agree that ATP is a necessary support for the major projects in developing countries. It is a concessional finance that is essential for tendering processes. Without it, in fact, there is no tender. As the House will know, the ATP budget was exhausted a few months ago. This is a very important market in the developing countries where our contracting companies over the years have thrived and where we have won good reputations. Also, I hope my noble friend will have something positive to say about ATP. It is an important area of the whole subject under discussion tonight.
In conclusion, I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to reassure us that the Government take very seriously the balance of support needed for our exporters and the vital role they play in our economy.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I shall begin by declaring an institutional and maybe a commercial interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for allowing me to join my Scottish kinsman in the list of speakers. My interest in this subject is great. I wish your Lordships to know that I shall promote my self-interest this evening. I am president of a body called the British Exporters' Association. I am also chairman of the export side of the Engineering Industries Association which represents some 2,000 small engineering companies in the manufacturing sector. I was chairman of the CBI Export Credit Committee. I was on the British Overseas Trade Board. I was chairman of the Committee for Middle East Trade and served on the East European Trade Council. I had the privilege of serving with my noble friend Lord Aldington on his committee on manufactures. With that background I recognise that I am a has-been, because all that is in the past.
Let me first make a form of upbeat statement on where we are now, not where we have been. Those of us with an economic background may well disagree about how we got to where we are. But that is history. Where we are now is extremely interesting. Ten years
780
ago things were different. I shall concentrate my efforts not on lawyers charging £350 an hour but on manufacturers who cannot afford to pay their staff almost the going rate for the job. Today we find industry slimmed down dramatically. In a moment I shall refer to one sector of industry where one company in Northern Ireland used to employ 18,000 people and now employs 350. I shall refer to other sectors where in the past our skill and technology, when we were prime producers, led to machinery that was unbeatable in the world.
Today those companies which were uncompetitive 10 years ago and were going cap in hand to government demanding subsidy, grants and aid in order to compete no longer need to do so. They are competitive. They are probably also more competitive at this point in time than they have been at any time in the past 50 years.
I should like to issue a few caveats and warnings because the Government will say that, although manufacturing industry has been slimmed down, it is more efficient and we have a strong manufacturing base. But many of the products that we manufacture have a high import content and therefore, as our currency has weakened, so the cost of purchases rises —not so much of raw materials but semi-finished products or things which are not made here.
We have always asked for stability. We need stability of currency at whatever level because we are a buyer and a seller. Instability causes problems. I know that my noble friend will give us the assurance that we now have a stable pound, albeit at a lower level.
We also need competitiveness on all fronts. If we are to be competitive in manufacturing industry today, we must have with us a government who are competitive. Ten years ago it would have been reasonable to say that in terms of support for trade our Government were as competitive as any other government in the world. Today it is reasonable to indicate that, as the manufacturing sector has become more competitive, our Government have become less and less competitive and are perhaps the least competitive government among the OECD nations in terms of the support and encouragement that they give to trade. It is as though the Department of Trade and Industry was felt to be no longer necessary. Perhaps we do not need Ministers of departments if they do not provide any support and there is no government involvement in trade.
There were thoughts that perhaps the Government would wish to close down export credit departments entirely. With our presidency of the Council of Ministers, it was hoped to stop the beggar-my-neighbour attitude among the developed nations. Be that as it may, we go into the end of this year and the start of the single European market in a position that is potentially strong if the Government can recognise that they have a role in international trade, as they have had for 1,000 years.
I should like to give a number of examples and make several suggestions. Through what I call my own usual channels, I happen to know that the

781
Government are currently reviewing all matters relating to export credit and to trade and are being more and more positive.
We are asking not so much for subsidy as for support to permit us to trade with the markets where there is a real demand. At this time among the G7s or, if we were to leave soon, the G6s there is not real demand because we are in recession. That real demand exists in countries which have primary products and plant and machinery could help them to give increased value without creating competition for the United Kingdom.
The Government are now looking at which countries should have a priority for our trade. The support is there. The British Overseas Trade Board, on which I served, has many weapons at its disposal and the Government have always set out to try to provide support and encouragement. We do not really need the Government except for their political skills and in the field of what we call political risk. The three areas of activity which I wish to talk about are declining industries—but they have stopped declining.
The first is the textile machinery industry, where, from high production and a large number of manufacturers, there are now perhaps only 110 companies and 6,000 employees. The industry is creating a wide range of jobs with total sales of about £400 million a year, of which £300 million-worth are exported. That is not bad even in this climate. Of those exports, approximately 85 per cent. go to OECD nations. That is significant because it indicates that we can compete with other industrialised nations without government support or subsidised credit.
Today those companies are looking to expand in the OECD countries but, more importantly, in the third or the second world, where there are raw materials such as cotton, wool and so forth. I shall give as examples two countries to which I shall return: Vietnam and Iran.
The second group is the mining machinery manufacturers. There are some 50 major companies employing about 23,000 people and creating jobs down the line. Their annual sales are about £900 million, of which £400 million-worth is exported mainly to the OECD nations, where they have not required government support.
The textile machinery industry had to live with a decline among our manufacturers of textiles as we ceased to be competitive with lower labour cost countries. The mining machinery industry has had to suffer a decline in mining. Perhaps I may refer in not too serious a way to the fact that the mining industry in the United Kingdom looks set for further decline and therefore the home market will be eroded still further. Those industries themselves need support, encouragement and development.
The third sector covers the oil and gas industries. As a result of the North Sea discoveries we have developed perhaps the most advanced technology of its kind in the world as regards oil and gas. But, if we are to believe some of the projections, as oil and gas run out the home demand from our industrial
782
manufacturers will fade away and we shall need to fill that gap or we shall once more have a declining industry.
Those three sectors together represent a large chunk of the most important companies in the United Kingdom. They are able to compete on price, perhaps even more readily at present. But, when some of them have to import foreign plant and machinery because what is needed is no longer available at home, problems begin to emerge if we do not have a stable currency.
The Government should now be looking at manufacturers and how in co-operation with specific industries we can help to sell products to people and countries where there is a genuine need to create added value. We are not talking about subsidised orders; we are talking about the ability to provide credit to countries which have the raw materials to which our plant and machinery could add value; and could do so today.
I return to the subject of Iran. Only today I have had discussions with the Iranians. Although I represent these bodies and was a merchant banker I prefer to regard myself today as a merchant and, if I dare add to that, a venturer. Iran is a country to which, when I chaired the committee on Middle East trade, we sold almost £1 billion of goods per year. Let us ignore its politics; let us look and say that it is a country producing oil, gas, cotton and textiles. It would like to place orders with us for some £200 million-worth of textile machinery and has already made provisional indications for orders of perhaps £20 million. An exhibition is taking place at the end of this month which is sponsored by Her Majesty's Government—in the shape of the British Overseas Trade Board—and which will be attended by all the manufacturers. They will receive good orders but, if we cannot have ECGD backing for loans by banks, those orders will go to our industrial competitors. Of that there is no doubt. As anyone who goes out there will tell your Lordships, all our industrial competitors have been more successful and more active than us.
As regards mining machinery, an agreement has been signed in principle with the Ministry of Mines and Metals to set up a venture which will lead to the supply of £200 million-worth of mining plant and machinery, beginning with a £20 million order. There are £400 million-worth of orders available, and again I declare my interest because I am involved in that.
If one moves further down the oil and gas field and asks where are the potential markets, one can look at the markets of central Europe. There, our know-how fund, which is an extremely innovative and excellent idea of Her Majesty's Government, is already providing support for development in those fields. If we are providing that kind of support, we must be able to provide the covenant to permit the loans to sell the machinery to help develop oil, gas and coal in those areas and, again, textile and mining machinery.
The market in those areas and the demand is genuine. There may be political reasons why we should not work and trade with those countries but in the past the Government always bowed to trade. I for one should prefer us to devote all our attention to

783
reversing a scenario which, when I was on the BOTB, arose for the first time when defence equipment sales outstripped all sales of manufacturers world wide. That to me seemed wrong and still seems wrong. The sale of manufacturers' plant and machinery must relate to genuine demand which exists in the Middle East and in central Europe. If one moves on to countries such as Vietnam, which has a big rice production and textile potential, or to Indonesia and to the whole of South East Asia, one sees that the potential is enormous.
I cannot speak for the whole of British industry but I genuinely believe that today we have a very productive manufacturing base. However, the Government have ceased to be competitive in trade. I ask once more that they give thought to recognising how serious these issues are at this time. As I have asked previously in this House, will the Government agree to call a meeting of the Board of Trade at once? I suggest that the Department of Trade should ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Industry to he made members of the Board of Trade. In the Autumn Statement and in some of the information relating to it, the Government called for closer co-operation between the private sector and government in the redevelopments at home. We do not need to call for that co-operation abroad. All we need to do as a result of this debate is to ask Her Majesty's Government to give serious consideration to performing their covenant, with all their knowledge and experience of politics and political risk, to support manufacturing industry with genuine demand in countries where good added value can be created.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this subject tonight. It is one that we have moved around a number of times during the past few months. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is right and there are new developments in government, I look forward to what the Minister has to reveal about them. My intervention will be relatively brief because I have made so many speeches on this subject in your Lordships' House that I do not wish to repeat what I have said.
I make only three points. First, we must recognise that we are running a balance of payments deficit of £1 billion per month. Therefore, the promotion of exports must be a major government objective. If it is not, I should like to know what other objectives the Government have.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, says that we need a stable pound. Clearly, we have not had a stable pound since Black Wednesday. It is right that industry needs a stable pound. I should like to know what view Her Majesty's Government have on the exchange rate so that exporters can plan properly for their future.
Thirdly, I believe—and I have said this more times than I can remember—that the Government must ensure that, whatever our obligations are, under whatever treaty it may be, we must be competitive in
784
our support for our exporters. It is no good saying that the Treasury says we cannot do this and we cannot do that. We must ensure that if we are competing, even with our colleague countries in the Community, our competitors are not getting better terms than we are.
There are two areas within that where I believe we are at a disadvantage. I believe that COFACE and Hermes give better support for long-term projects—not short-term projects—than ECGD. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could assure me that I am wrong, but I believe that to be the case.
Secondly, as noble Lords will know, we were opposed to the privatisation of short-term credit insurance. I ask the noble Baroness whether the privatisation, to which the noble Earl referred, has resulted—because a Dutch company now provides the bulk of our short-term credit insurance—in any preferential terms being offered to Dutch exporters as opposed to UK exporters. That was the fear that I expressed when we debated the Bill to privatise short-term ECGD arrangements. I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that my fear was unjustified. If she can so assure me, I shall be grateful.
It is quite essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, that we afford our manufacturers proper and sensible credit arrangements for exports. It is equally essential that we afford our long-term construction industries proper credit in order for them to gain their fair share—not more than their fair share —of third world projects. That can only do us good and do them good.
I hope very much that we shall have a positive response from the noble Baroness this evening. As I said when I started, I have been on about this—and other noble Lords have been on about it—for a long time. We feel that the United Kingdom has been disadvantaged by the Treasury's attitude. I hope the reply of the noble Baroness will sound a different note.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for bringing this matter again to the attention of the House. As all speakers have said, it is of absolutely key importance to the economy. The Government give this matter the highest priority. I thank my noble friend for changing the date of the debate so that at least the hour is somewhat more reasonable, but I share my noble friend's anxiety that we have lost some valuable contributions to our debate. However, there can be no doubt about the quality, if not the quantity, of speakers. It is always a great pleasure to hear my noble friend Lord Selsdon on these matters. His contribution is based on enormous experience. It was kind of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull to point out the notability of 11th June 1991. I must confess that it now seems a long time ago.
As your Lordships know, earlier this month the Government revealed their present arrangements for making available export credit guarantees. I am pleased to announce that, following the review, the President of the Board of Trade was able to announce, in conjunction with the Chancelllor's Autumn

785
Statement last Thursday, arrangements under which some £700 million of additional export guarantees are to be made available for a number of important markets. As your Lordships recognise, that is a significant statement. It will provide a welcome increase in the amount of cover available for UK exports of projects and capital goods in markets where ECGD exposure is already high and closely controlled. I am delighted to say that those countries include China, Indonesia and Hong Kong.
However, I should point out that ECGD's £3 billion deficit with the Consolidated Fund serves to highlight the very real risks in this business, and we need to continue to exercise prudence in underwriting. I can confirm for my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that the Government attach great importance to aid and trade provision and will continue to allocate significant resources to it. Detailed decisions will be taken shortly about the future outline of that scheme.
Together with substantial reductions in ECGD premiums which were announced in April following the last annual review of premiums, I believe that those measures will serve to raise the competitiveness of UK export credits relative to those credits provided by other countries. That is tangible evidence of this Government's commitment to ensuring a viable export credit regime.
Export credit insurance is also critical to companies outside the project field selling on cash or short credit terms the vast bulk of UK exports. The Government are no longer involved in the direct provision of export credit insurance for exports sold on short terms. However, that does not mean that they are any less active in their support for exporters. ECGD is providing 100 per cent. reinsurance support to the new company to enable it to maintain facilities in those few countries where the risks are simply not acceptable to the private market in the present circumstances. As a result, there are only three countries for which short-term cover is unavailable; that is, Iraq, Libya and Zambia.
In addition, although well over 90 per cent. of the new company's requirements for reinsurance have been met by the private market, the Government are providing top-up reinsurance support to the new company to supplement the cover obtained in the private market. As my noble friend said, that top-up cover is being provided for a transitional three-year period in order to ease that move into the market.
While continuing to enjoy the benefit of government support in that way, UK exporters have been able to take advantage of the increase in flexibility which the new company enjoys in the private sector. An example of that is the new company's facility providing not only export but also domestic credit insurance under a single policy—a facility which small companies in particular appreciate.
In addition to its continuing support for export credit insurance, the Government continue to assist the efforts of UK exporters by providing a range of
786
export promotion services. Without those many exporters, especially small firms, might be unable to benefit from profitable export opportunities.
The debate provides me with an excellent opportunity to pay tribute to the achievements of British exporters in difficult markets. My noble friend Lord Selsdon singled out three areas where there is much to admire. In 1991 UK exports reached record levels and it can be clearly seen that Britain continues to be one of the world's great trading nations. Visible exports in 1991 amounted to £104.8 billion, equivalent to some 19 per cent. of our total GDP, a higher proportion than in the USA, Japan and France. At more than £117 billion, Britain's earnings from invisibles were second only to the USA. Our share of world trade in manufactured goods rose for the third successive year, outstripping the performance of both Germany and Japan. That points to the great credit of British manufacturing, and although my noble friend Lord Selsdon rightly identified that, I would suggest that some slimming down was part of companies remaining globally competitive. Enormous strides have been made. But the Government are certainly not complacent; hence the extra finance announced last Thursday.
Without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, I should like to answer some of the points raised. Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that the ECGD is not seeking to recoup past losses by increasing premium rates on new export business, and good progress is being made in the EC and OECD discussions on premium rates. Agreement has just been reached to create a special expert group so that work can he accelerated.
The Government have said that the national interest reinsurance facility is not time limited. It will continue, subject to satisfactory financial performance, for as long as the Government consider it essential to meet the reasonable needs of exporters. I hope that that reassures my noble friends.
In the annual review which resulted in the introduction of new rates last April, 36 countries showed rate falls of substantially more than 25 per cent. Those included important countries for manufacturers such as Malaysia, Taiwan, Mexico and also Iran. The opportunity for our people to offer their skills and products to those markets is important. There were also further countries such as Indonesia where the rates fell by at least 10 per cent., and even in the more marginal areas, which included the important new market of China, there was a fall in rates.
I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety regarding the competitiveness of our rates as against other European countries. As regards the OECD premium initiative on political risk-only premium rates in the USA, the most expensive Community country is Germany; in Israel the most expensive is France and in South Africa it is Italy. There are several other countries where the UK is certainly not uncompetitive.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was anxious in regard to the support from Hermes and COFACE. The ECGD premium rates are towards the top of the

787
international league for some high-risk countries but the average premium rate is around the same as Hermes. For some countries COFACE rates are higher than ECGD's. They are different market assessments. I am delighted to say that there is no question of NCM operating to the disadvantage of UK exporters by favouring the Dutch customers. NCM UK is fully committed to its UK customers and has expanded its facilities available to them.
Turning to the question of Iran, ECGD reopened medium to long-term cover on Iran some time ago. However, discussions between the Iranian authorities and all the major export credit agencies are taking place over payment security to be offered by Iran for those projects. The discussions will need to be satisfactorily resolved before export credit agencies as a whole will be able to support export credits at a substantial level to Iran. It is that and not ECGD's unwillingness to give cover on Iran which is causing delay.
I can confirm that the Government see stability in currency, inflation and interest rates as the message we hear strongly from industry as a major requirement. I am pleased to say, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Selsdon will be pleased to hear, that part of the important reorganisation of the DTI was to open a division focused entirely on identifying what made a nation competitive, where we were less so than other member states, and what we would need to do not just to become level with them but to overtake them. We know that it is not a short-term activity but we shall have the information on which to build those facts.
We are determined that when our manufacturers go overseas to negotiate major contracts it will not be a
788
French, German or other nationality adviser sitting next to the purchaser. It will be a British adviser; an expert who will understand the needs and be able to act as a communicator. I shall take back the message, delivered by my noble friend Lord Selsdon before in this House, that the Board of Trade should be put into action. I can assure him that the door of my honourable friend the Minister for Trade will always be open to him to discuss some of the special needs he identifies. I am sure that he will be delighted to take benefit from his enormous experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, identifies the problem of the balance of payments. I can assure him that not only are we determined that the promotion of exports shall stay at the top of our priorities, but also that we will encourage the quality and design which means that goods manufactured in this country will attract from the purchaser the pound out of his or her own pocket so that we work at the problem from both sides.
Perhaps I may conclude by referring to what my noble friend Lord Selsdon said in the debate held on 11th June last year. He said that if the Government reduced inflation to 5 per cent. by the end of the year and no longer had interest rates at more than double the rate of inflation, then the need for such historic support would begin to fall away. We are not taking support away even though much has been achieved. We have just added £700 million towards export credit guarantees. I believe that we have got our priorities right.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  CHELATION THERAPY
  CHELATION THERAPY
  WATER ABSTRACTION: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION
  WATER ABSTRACTION: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION
  SERVICES HOME SAVINGS SCHEME
  SERVICES HOME SAVINGS SCHEME