Sitting of 25 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    MIDLAND METRO BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.

    CITY OF BRISTOL (PORTISHEAD DOCKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Kosovo
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Kosovo.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The special group on Kosovo within the international conference on the former Yugoslavia is working intensively with both Serbian and Kosovar representatives. We strongly support its efforts. We believe that the Serbian authorities should grant the Kosovars autonomy with full civil rights, and that the Kosovars should accept that.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Kosovo could be the next victim of Serb expansionism? What other measures does he think could be taken, as a matter of urgency, to reduce tension in the area and to protect the 90 per cent. of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who are being oppressed and denied their civil liberties?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. The issue of the Kosovars was addressed directly by the London conference, and it is now being discussed by the working group in Geneva. It has also been the subject of talks in Kosovo itself. As my hon. Friend may know, there is now a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe team in Kosovo, whose primary function is to try to defuse tension. We shall explore other possibilities in our attempts to reduce the risk of violence breaking out.
    Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give an assurance, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that on no account
    852
    will the Government permit the export of arms and military equipment to Albania—equipment that could be used to create a conflagration in Kosovo, thus giving support to the extreme nationalists on both sides of the divide in that troubled province?
    Mr. Hogg: We would be very disturbed if we saw any evidence that the Albanian Government were seeking in any way to foment trouble in Kosovo. That would be a very serious development.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the way in which the vast majority of the population in Kosovo are treated is utterly inexcusable and unacceptable? Does he further accept that many of us feel that, if the west had taken rather firmer and more united action last year, the tragedy of Bosnia could perhaps have been prevented? We now face possible tragedies not only in Kosovo, but in Macedonia. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of that?
    Mr. Hogg: Repressive action by the Serbian forces in Kosovo would indeed be a serious escalation of what is already a very grave situation—not least because of the risk that such action could pose to adjoining states. That fact would certainly be in the minds of Security Council members if they had to determine what might be the appropriate response to an outbreak of violence It n Kosovo.
    Sir Russell Johnston: At the end of his answer to the original question, the Minister said that the people in Kosovo must accept Serbian rule, given certain conditions on human rights. That, surely, is an indefensible position. If 90 per cent. of the population in a defined area want to assert self-determination, that is their right, and that is what we have signed up to in the United Nations. Will the Minister change his view?
    Mr. Hogg: That is not what we signed up to in the United Nations; nor is it a correct summary of what we signed up to in the CSCE. There is a serious problem: whether or not one is prepared to unstitch frontiers that have already been agreed and that have been in existence for a very long time. If we embarked on that policy, we would create many greater difficulties in central and eastern Europe more generally. We believe that the proper way to address the position of the Kosovars is by way of autonomy. That is what we are working towards.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only way to guarantee true peace to the people of Kosovo is to ensure that there are genuinely free and fair elections in Belgrade on 20 December? In that way, Mr. Milosevic could be toppled in his endeavours to carry on with his oppression. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore consider giving wholehearted support to Mr. Panic?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly agree that it is important that there should be fair and free elections on 20 December in Serbia, but one should not assume that such elections would not be won by Mr. Milosevic. He might well win them.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Minister was careful not to answer the question about the sale to Albania of arms which might be used in Kosovo. Could he possibly give a

    853
    straight answer now to what was a straight question? Did not the British ambassador to Albania send back a message and make it public that he believed that the situation in Kosovo was extremely dangerous? Today, the Financial Times says that the Minister of State
    "has not yet instilled into those working under him a strong sense of urgency."
    What can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to reassure the House that Kosovo will not be the next Bosnia?
    Mr. Hogg: I have made it plain, in answer to a variety of questions, that we attach great importance to trying to defuse the tension in Kosovo. If there were to be an outbreak of violence, it could involve a number of adjoining states. That is why we placed such a high priority on that subject at the London conference, why we are so firmly behind the talks now going on in Geneva and why we welcome the deployment of the CSCE team in Kosovo. We most certainly will seek to explore other ways of reducing the risk of an outbreak of violence in Kosovo.

    Cuba
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Cuba.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): We maintain normal diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba.
    Mr. Ross: Following yesterday's decision by the General Assembly that it did not accept the extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the United States and given that there have been 30 years of stick for Cuba, is it not time that the Government and our European partners began to extend a little carrot? For example, should they not support the decision of the national assembly in Cuba to hold, for the first time in 30 years, direct and secret elections for the municipalities and the national assembly? Is it not time that the Minister overcame his personal aggro against Cuba and got down to normalising relations with that country?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We are strongly opposed to the extra-territorial provisions in the Cuban Democracy Act. In company with the majority of our European partners, we abstained in the vote on the Cuban resolution. The hon. Gentleman must not be deceived, in his enthusiasm for supporting Fidel Castro, by the recent electoral reforms regarding multiple-candidate elections to the national assembly. They are purely cosmetic. President Castro has made it clear that there will be no change to the one-party system in Cuba. I do admire the hon. Gentleman—even the Soviet Union has now abandoned Fidel Castro's regime, yet he remains constant to it.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EC colleagues regarding the situation in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The situation in Bosnia has been discussed at every recent meeting of European
    854
    Community Foreign Ministers, most recently in Brussels on 9 November and with Western European Union partners in Rome on 20 November.
    Mr. Mullin: No one would wish to pretend that the situation in Bosnia is simple; far from it. Although we are arming dictatorships as far apart as Indonesia and Saudi Arabia—we were secretly training terrorists in Cambodia until the autumn of 1989—is there nothing that we can do to help the people of Bosnia to resist the ethnic cleansers?
    Mr. Hurd: Not by relaxing the arms embargo; but of course we must help. There are four things that we should do. One is to keep up the pressures to end the war, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the increase in sanctions and last week's Adriatic stop-and-search resolution. Another is to get the humanitarian help through, including food and medicines, which is what the Cheshires are doing. We can also provide that help; the United Kingdom's assistance to the former Yugoslavia is £79 million to date. We must also create the basis for a political settlement, which is what Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance are doing all the time on our behalf. Those are the four main pressures that we must continue to apply.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in his discussions with our EC partners, he has their agreement that, in seeking a solution to the problem in Bosnia, partitioning of that country is completely ruled out, as that would only marginalise the Muslim population and could lead to a holy war, which would drag in other countries?
    Mr. Hurd: It is, I hope, clearly understood that our European partners, the United States and the United Nations will not accept the partitioning of Bosnia-Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), telling the House on 16 November that the Government had no evidence of any breaches of the air exclusion zone over Bosnia? Has the Foreign Secretary seen the report in The Times yesterday where Mr. Cedric Thornberry, the deputy head of the United Nations protection force, says that there have been more than 100 breaches of the exclusion zone in the past month? Were the Government aware of those breaches? Now that they are aware of them, will they return to the Security Council and get effective action to stop them?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman are talking about two separate things. My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about attack missions—the use of planes based on airfields for attack. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a different category. If there are Serb air attacks from those fields, the hon. Gentleman is right—we will have to go back to the Security Council for further measures.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not unprecedented that the victims of aggression—the Bosnian Muslims—should be subjected to a United Nations arms embargo? Is it not the inevitable consequence of that policy that they will relentlessly be driven out of the positions that they hold and their positions will be overrun, adding to the number of refugees on the move in Europe which has been unprecedented since the second world war?
    Mr. Hurd: The arms embargo applies to all parties. If the embargo is relaxed for one party, in practice it will have to be relaxed for all. I do not believe that that would be a step forward in the search for either peace or justice in the former Yugoslavia.
    Dr. John Cunningham: As the whole case of the European Community and the United Nations in seeking a solution to the tragedy in Bosnia is based on the peace process and is buttressed by mandatory arms embargos and economic sanctions against Serbia, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of our European Community partners is breaching that embargo? Why are at least some of our European partners breaking the economic sanctions and turning a blind eye to the embargo? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take urgent steps to stop the breaches?
    Finally, in connection with the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia, is it not ominous that on three occasions this afternoon the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), refused to rule out the sale of arms to Albania?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Where there is evidence that either part of the mandatory embargo—the supply of arms to any of the parties, or trade in embargoed items to Serbia and Montenegro—has been broken, that evidence must be followed through, whoever pointed the finger, and those breaches must be stopped. I shall not add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the supply of arms.
    Mr. Marlow: Can we be a little less diplomatic and a little more blunt? Is not the reality that the Serbs are swimming in the arms of the Yugoslav army? They have the arms and they are the aggressors. The Bosnians are the victims and they have no arms. If there were any justice in this world, we would offer our support to the victims and allow them to defend themselves with arms, rather than sustaining the aggressors. Have we in this country lost our courage?
    Mr. Hurd: That is not what would happen. The whole country of Bosnia-Herzegovina is awash with arms. The arms are in the hands of central commands and warlords throughout the country and the various denominations who are not under any control. We would not do any service to the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, whatever their origins, if we increased the supply of arms into that chaotic country. That is the view of all our partners in the European Community and of the United States.

    Russia
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with President Yeltsin, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom, about the changes in Russian foreign policy which were announced in his speech to the Collegium of the Russian Foreign Ministry on 27 October; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed a wide range of current international questions with President Yeltsin on 9 November. Various foreign policy issues were also discussed during my meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister on 10 November.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Russian Government that any toughening of Russian foreign policy in the Baltic states, such as was envisaged in President Yeltsin's speech to the Collegium of the Russian Foreign Ministry, will be viewed with grave concern by Her Majesty's Government? Will he also assure the House that the Government will continue to press the Russian Government for the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic states as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: I always pay considerable attention to what my hon. Friend says about Russia. He is one of the few Members of Parliament who speaks Russian and has a long-standing knowledge of that country. The answer to his question is yes. We attach great importance to the early withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic states. That matter was raised on several occasions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. We shall continue to press the Russian Government on that point. Their response is that they intend to withdraw and the process of withdrawal has only been suspended.
    Mr. Winnick: Is there common agreement between Russia and the United Kingdom on combating racism and fascism in Europe? When the Minister meets hi; colleagues, including the Russian Foreign Minister, will there be an opportunity to demonstrate our horror at what happened in Germany at the weekend? A 51-year-old woman, a 10-year-old child and a 15-year-old child were burned to death for no other reason than that they happened to be Turkish. Is it not necessary for us to demonstrate once again that fascism and racism must be fought from the start, or we shall pay the penalty, as we have done recently?
    Mr. Hogg: The events to which the hon. Gentleman refers were indeed dreadful. That fact is fully appreciated by the German Government, who condemned the events as strongly as the hon. Gentleman does. Fighting facism and racism are major priorities of any civilised Government, including the Russian Government. Those principles are clearly enshrined in the CSCE agreements to which the Russian Government and, I am glad to say, the British Government fully subscribed.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most potentially destabilising regimes in the middle east is Iran, which is building up its military arsenal, especially with submarines, which come primarily from Russia? Does he agree that Boris Yeltsin must take every possible action to ensure that that flow of arms is stopped, so that what is already a hotbed in the region is not further destabilised?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no doubt that the Government of Iran have ambitions to become the dominant power in the Gulf region. It is also certain that they are in the process of acquiring arms to foster that strategic objective. My hon. Friend referred to the sale of Russian submarines. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explicitly raised that question with the Russian President, Mr. Yeltsin.

    Iraq (Exports)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of each meeting held by the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), with private sector companies concerning exports to Iraq, during his tenure of office.
    Mr. Hurd: So far as I am aware, the only official meeting that my right hon. Friend held with a private company about exports to Iraq was a presentation by British Aerospace on 8 June 1989 at the Ministry of Defence on a proposal for the sale of Hawk to Iraq. Permission for the sale was later refused.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not clear from the interdepartmental committee meeting of 1 November 1989 between the right hon. Member for Bristol, West, Alan Clark and Lord Trefgarne that, although the right hon. Gentleman tried to impose the condition that he did not want to have to answer awkward questions in Parliament, he was absolutely immersed in the problems of Matrix Churchill? In view of what he knew, how can it have been proper to allow the prosecution of three directors whom the right hon. Gentleman and many other people in the Government must have known had acted in concert with Government opinions and policy? How could those directors have been allowed to get very near to gaol?
    Mr. Hurd: Those matters were fully discussed in the House on Monday, and everything that the hon. Gentleman has said falls within the scope of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. That is the right place to carry those points further.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I have seen many Russian armaments in southern Iraq and, given the potential for conflict in Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Community would be best placed to make early decisions on peacekeeping missions to Iraq and other areas of the world once the Maastricht treaty has been accepted?
    Mr. Hurd: We shall certainly be better able to act together in the areas—this may be one—in which we all have a common purpose and can agree on a common way of achieving it. For exercises such as those to which my hon. Friend referred to have any validity, they would also need the support of the Security Council. Meanwhile, there is a crisis in southern Iraq, to which my hon. Friend has often drawn attention, which requires the kind of effort which we have been able to mount so far.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Everyone knows that, as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman had overall responsibility for the arms sales guidelines. We know that when those guidelines were fundamentally and importantly changed, he did not inform the House of Commons. Did he tell the Prime Minister of that important and fundamental change?
    Mr. Hurd: The guidelines were not changed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade took the House through the sequence of events—the meeting in July 1990 and the fact that the decision was never implemented.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory cop-out of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    Middle East Peace Talks
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken to assist the middle east peace talks; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current status of the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Hurd: The seventh round of bilateral negotiations between Israeli and Arab delegations ended in Washington on the 20 of November. The negotiations tackled substance. All sides are, in our view, seriously engaged. Our objective has been, and remains, to support the process. We have had detailed meetings with all the parties and have played an active role, through teams at each of the bilateral rounds and in all the multilateral working groups.
    Mr. Hicks: As the incoming United States Administration will understandably require time in order to formulate their position and policy, does that not make it all the more incumbent on European Community nations to ensure the momentum of the talks, not least to safeguard the requirements and position of the Palestinians?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly, we must try to ensure that the impetus of the talks is maintained even through the change in the United States Administration. The Israelis and Palestinians are now talking substance together and that is a huge advance. It is difficult for the Palestinians; they are being asked to discuss proposals for an interim self-governing authority. We hope that they will do that and that the discussions will succeed.
    Mr. Day: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains British policy to seek an end to the Arab boycott? Will he impart that information to Mr. Rabin when he makes his very welcome visit to this country? When will my right hon. Friend be able to report to the House about the response from the Arab states to British overtures on that point? If no progress has been made, will he be willing to raise the matter at European level?
    Mr. Hurd: We look forward to Mr. Rabin's visit which will be an important and welcome occasion. We are in action with our EC partners in Arab capitals to secure an end to the boycott. We think that that is justified, partly in response to the action of the Israeli Government in suspending settlements. That action has been only partial and it would be very helpful if they could completely suspend settlement activities, including those in eastern Jerusalem.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the President of the United States plays a vital role in

    859
    brokering an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will my right hon. Friend have urgent discussions with President-elect Clinton's transitional team to ensure that it is aware of the vital importance of obtaining a just settlement for the Palestinians without which no lasting peace is possible in the middle east?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. We will increasingly be in touch with Governor Clinton's transitional team and we will certainly want to discuss the need to keep up the impetus in the peace process and continue what President Bush and Secretary Baker have done in trying to strike, when preparing the meetings, a reasonable balance between the requirements of Israel, the Palestinians and other Arabs.
    Mr. Janner: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the Arab boycott? He is certainly right. Will he tell us what steps he has taken to achieve an end to the boycott and what results he has obtained?
    Mr. Hurd: We have pointed out to our Arab friends that we believe that the time has come to end the boycott and we await their reply.
    Mr. Skinner: Why should anyone in the middle east believe a word that the Foreign Secretary says when the guidelines regarding the Matrix Churchill affair were changed and when, in the House today, both the Foreign Secretary and his junior Minister refused to answer questions about whether they will sell arms to Albania? If he will not come clean on that and uses the weasel words, why should anyone in the middle east believe him?
    Mr. Hurd: We have dealt with arms for Albania to the extent that they are relevant. The other matter is a matter for Lord Justice Scott.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Before the debate on the Arab boycott gets out of hand, will the Secretary of State remind the House that there is an absolute difference between international law which says that the settlements on the west bank are illegal, as are deportations, and relations between countries no matter where they are? The two things are not exactly the same.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sorry, but I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. Either I am particularly slow, or the hon. Gentleman is not as lucid as he usually is.
    We believe that the settlements are illegal—we have said that—and that, quite apart from their legality or illegality, they have clearly proved over the years to be one of the main obstacles to the peace process.
    Mr. Batiste: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with our partners in the European Community his initiative to end the Arab boycott? Does he have their unanimous support in seeking that objective as well?
    Mr. Hurd: The answer to both parts of that question is yes.

    Gibraltar
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on deciding which elements of EC legislation applicable to Gibraltar are internal matters for the Gibraltarian Government.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The United Kingdom is responsible before the European Court of Justice for Gibraltar's
    860
    compliance with EC law. In practice, the bulk of EC legislation is implemented by local legislation in Gibraltar after consultations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969 led Gibraltar and a lot of us to believe that more self-government in respect of defined domestic matters would be given to the people of Gibraltar over the course of time and that it would be wholly wrong if such matters were prevented from being decided)n Gibraltar simply because of Gibraltar's membership of the European Community as a colony of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, but he will be aware that the 1969 constitution pre-dates not only the accession of the United Kingdom and, through it, Gibraltar into the European Community but the accession of Spain into the European Community. It is for that reason that the Chief Minister agrees that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We are having fruitful discussions with him to see how we can define those matters in a way that gives Gibraltar the widest autonomy possible consistent with meeting the EC obligations for which we are responsible before the European Court of Justice.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are complex issues because of the EC status of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom constitution, and that those items will have to be discussed with very great care, step by step on their own merits?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. The cornerstone of our discussions with the Chief Minister must be that Gibraltar's membership of the European Community, to which the Gibraltar Government and the Gibraltar people are very strongly attached, cannot be called into question.
    Mr. Beggs: Has the Secretary of State considered whether, under EC legislation, internal legislation in Gibraltar or United Kingdom legislation, the circumstances of the collapse of International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar) can be investigated, bearing in mind the fact that the vast majority of those who were defrauded were British citizens? Will he undertake to ensure that they ultimately achieve justice?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that the standards of financial propriety in Gibraltar are of the very highest. Indeed, the discussions that we are now having with the Chief Minister are to ensure that Gibraltar is able to implement the necessary standards of control of those matters that the single market will demand. I know that that is the intention of the Gibraltar Government and of Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that the protections that flow from that for investors will be properly seen to by the Government of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that—I have not precisely checked the mathematics—the total electorate of Gibraltar is rather fewer than the number of people in my constituency who voted for me? There are more than 80 million people in Britain and Spain, many of whose interests, together with those in the rest of Europe, are often obstructed by the Gibraltar Government's

    861
    dogmatic views on issues such as the airport. Will my right hon. Friend please bear it in mind that the people of Europe in general and the people of Britain and Spain in particular also have an interest in the matter?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not accept my hon. Friend's point. The position of Gibraltar inside the Community, as I have said, pre-dates Spanish entry. We have suffered in recent months, through the external frontiers convention, from an inability of Spain to accept that fact. It is fact which we are determined to uphold.

    Public Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's signing of public immunity certificates.
    Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made clear, public interest immunity must be claimed for departmental papers if they fall within a recognised class or contain material which it would in principle be contrary to the public interest to disclose. A Minister will only sign a certificate after he has personally considered whether papers fall within the claim. It is for the court to determine whether the claim is valid and, if so, to balance the public interest in confidentiality against the interest of justice in the particular case.
    Mr. Michie: In this intriguing "Who dun it?"—the inquiry taking place which has fairly serious consequences —does it not seem strange that the signing of the immunity certificates was left to what one could describe as a junior Minister, and that they were not signed by the Secretary of State or the Minister of State? We have to assume that either the Secretary of State and his side-kick were not very au fait with what was happening, that they did not want to know about it, or that they wanted a scapegoat if something went wrong. Those certificates were signed and could have sent innocent people to prison.
    Mr. Hurd: What the hon. Gentleman might assume is that I was abroad at the relevant time.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many times he has signed public interest immunity certificates in criminal and civil cases and how many have been overturned, as in the example of Mr. Justice Smedley?
    Mr. Hurd: Not without notice. I signed some as Home Secretary and some in my present position. I signed one relevant to my hon. Friend about which he has written to me over the years and I have explained to him that the basis on which I signed it, as Home Secretary, was similar to, and after taking similar advice, the action taken by my right hon. Friends in the present case.
    Mr. Trimble: The Foreign Secretary is in danger of misleading the House by his reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that Ministers must sign certificates. The Foreign Secretary is not an automaton and is under no obligation to sign automatically a certificate the minute that someone tells him that it comes within an area that might be covered by public interest immunity. Surely, he has to exercise his judgment as to whether he should claim public interest immunity in the circumstances of each case. There is a particular obligation
    862
    on him to exercise his discretion when the people involved are in danger of being sent to prison for carrying out the Government's wishes.
    Mr. Hurd: That is not the position as explained by the Attorney-General. Of course, Ministers have to read personally and carefully the papers involved in the proposal that they should sign a certificate. They do so in order that they can certify whether, in their judgment, the papers fall within a recognised class or contain material which it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose.

    Council of Europe
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he hopes to achieve during his period as chairman in office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The House will know that the United Kingdom assumed the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe following the ministerial meeting on 5 November in Strasbourg. During the six months of our chairmanship, we intend to give priority to the programmes for assistance to the new democracies of eastern Europe, and to the reform of the human rights machinery. We shall also encourage an objective look at the operation of the Council, in terms of its internal structures, its relationships with other organisations and its management procedures.
    Mr. Atkinson: I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will find that new role less onerous than the presidency of the European Community has proved to be. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to establish a new pan-European institution with a parliamentary assembly as part of the process of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, when the Council of Europe already has proven experience and is an almost identical body? Will he use his period as chairman in office to seek to convince his non-European counterparts the United States and Canada—of the common sense of the Council of Europe being the parliamentary assembly of the CSCE?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has made. It certainly is the case that the Council of Europe is already helping the CSCE on the human dimension and with its own technical expertise. However, the remit of the Council of Europe goes much wider than that of the CSCE and my hon. Friend will be aware that the memberships of the two are not wholly compatible. Although I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point about the proliferation of international organisations, I am not sure that his suggestion is ripe for taking forward at this stage.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give particular encouragement and assistance to the new member states and guest member states during the next six months to see whether we can secure implementation of some of the more important Council of Europe conventions? During that time will he also seek to ensure that those states give proper respect and support to the Vance-Owen initiatives, including those member states through which arms are still flowing today?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertakings that he seeks.
    Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend referred to the problems faced by the countries of eastern Europe. Does he agree that unless we indulge in much more liberal trading practices with the former dictatorships of eastern Europe, then, following the elections in Lithuania and Romania, there is a real risk that they will return to communism?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that we deal with that matter through the association agreements of the European Community. In a sense those agreements were invented by Britain, and through those agreements we press strongly for the most liberal treatment possible in trade with the new eastern European democracies.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Given the importance that the Minister rightly attributes to the Council of Europe and the fact that its plenary sessions are known one year in advance—as indeed are those of the Western European Union assembly—does he agree that it is insulting to our partners and inconvenient for hon. Members to arrange European debates in the House during those plenary sessions?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but the way in which the House chooses to run its business is a matter for the House. I know that a report has been produced by the Procedure Committee and all Members should look at it on a non-party basis.

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit southern Africa to assess the political situation in the region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development may visit the region early next year.
    Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister agree that the present situation in Angola is a cause of genuine concern and has the potential to destabilise all southern Africa? Can the Minister tell the House what steps he intends to take to ensure that UNITA not only accepts the result of the September general election, but abides by the terms of the peace agreement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, two days ago Mr. Savimbi said that the country must move forward on the basis of the election. That represents some progress. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the grave difficulties in that country. The important thing is to encourage both sides to refrain from violence and to continue to implement the peace agreement embodied in the earlier agreements.
    The United Nations Angola verification mission has had its mandate in that country extended until 30 November and it is important to note that the United Nations Secretary-General will again put proposals before the Security Council to carry forward the peace process in Angola before 30 November.
    Sir George Gardiner: When our right hon. and noble Friend next visits southern Africa does she have in mind a visit to Mozambique? In the meantime, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the progress made by the two sides, the Government of Mozambique and Renamo, in moving towards the goal set in the accords that they signed in Rome? Furthermore, will the British Government do their utmost to help both sides achieve a reconciliation that is in accordance with democratic principle?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Madam Speaker. The United Kingdom fully supports the general peace agreement that was signed on 4 October in Rome. We will be playing an active part in the process in future months because we will have representation on the peace process commissions established to monitor the implementation of the agreement.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As a partner in the United Nations brokering of the election agreement in Angola, do the Government accept that they must do much more than simply adumbrate the novel constitutional theory that those who lose an election are entitled to a coalition government? Does not that encourage Dr. Savimbi in his recalcitrance? Is it not time for the Government to stop pussyfooting about with even-handedness, saying that each side must refrain from violence, when the clear responsibility lies with UNITA to accept the election result and carry on a democratic Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the significance of what Mr. Savimbi said two days ago when he said that the country must move forward on the basis of the election result. Surely that is a great step forward.
    Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to me recently about British training of the South African police. Can my hon. Friend say whether any steps will be taken in the near future to offer such training? Does he accept that training in Britain would enhance the move towards full democracy in South Africa?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend any further information on the subject. There are several British policemen in South Africa as members of both the European Community observer teams—the one for the Goldstone commission and the European Community observer team generally. I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific point this afternoon.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister will be aware that the multi-racial Commonwealth, which encompasses most of the states in the region, has much credibility in South Africa among all the key players and can be a great force for good in South Africa. In those circumstances why do the Government continue to exclude themselves from the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on southern Africa?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have no intention at present of joining the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on southern Africa.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have an even-handed policy towards all groups in South Africa and southern Africa? To that end

    865
    does he accept in his position within the Foreign Office that when President Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana comes to this country—a man who has sought to establish meaningful democracy in his part of southern Africa—he should have the opportunity, like members of the ANC and other groups in South Africa, of meeting members of the United Kingdom Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The gentleman will be able to make his request in the usual way.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office aware of the important statement made the other day in Angola by the director-general of elections himself that in his view there were not enough international observers to make sure that irregularities did not take place? That is a moral which the Government should pass on to other African countries, notably Kenya, where elections are pending.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman refers to Kenya. Of course there are a large number of countries where the moral should be considered further. As he will know, the election on 29 December will be observed by monitors and observers from the European Community, from the Commonwealth, and from the United States of America.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister take the opportunity in the House today to acknowledge the verdict of all the observers to the Angolan elections that those elections were free and fair? Will he pay tribute to the Angolan people for conducting those elections after so many years of tragic violence? Will he now take steps, through the international community, to ensure that UNITA accepts the election results and the fact that it must obey the terms of the peace accord? In particular, will he ensure that UNITA attends the newly elected Parliament and that its deputies are there to play a full part in the new Angola?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, UNITA has accepted the elections in the form that I have indicated. We hope that the peace process will continue, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the elections. We fully support the determination of the United Nations special representative in Angola that both the legislative and presidential elections were generally free and fair.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be visiting Hong Kong to discuss relations with China.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alistair Goodlad): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Hong Kong. However, my right hon. Friend was able to discuss a wide range of Hong Kong issues with the Governor during his recent visit to London.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why unnecessarily antagonise the Chinese by adopting such a beligerent tone during the course of negotiations with China? Would not a little bit of subtle diplomacy in the historic tradition of this great country be far more beneficial to British and Hong Kong interests?
    Mr. Goodlad: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told Vice Premier Zhu Rongji in London last week, the Government fully support the Governor's proposals. We consider that they reflect the wishes of the Hong Kong people and are consistent with the joint declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law. The Governor's aim is to make the Hong Kong Administration more effective and accountable and the electoral system as fair, open and broadly based as possible. He is proposing a modest extension of democracy, consistent with the agreements that we have reached with China. Our policy in dealing with China over Hong Kong has remained the same. We want co-operation and a smooth transition in 1997. We remain ready to discuss the Governor's proposals and it will then be for the Legislative Council in Hong Kong to take a decision.
    Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Governor's proposals have been warmly endorsed by the Legislative Council and that opinion polls show that they are fully supported by the people of Hong Kong? If the Government and the People's Republic of China believe that those proposals are in any way incompatible with the joint declaration and the Basic Law, could they be invited to point out where those incompatibilities occur?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable about Hong Kong and what he says is absolutely right. It is now time for calm discussion.
    Mr. Rogers: Putting aside the issues of the Governor's style and timing, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will stand firm and support him against the substantial pressures that are being put on him? Does he accept that there is much support within the House for the proposals which, as the Minister said, extend the democratic process in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Of course, the Governor has the full support of the British Government and of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. David Howell: Given that the Beijing Government are showing the minimum possible understanding of what the Governor of Hong Kong is trying to achieve through his reforms, will my right hon. Friend encourage the Governor to explain to the Beijing Government that the moderate democratic reforms proposed are not just consistent—the word that my right hon. Friend used—with the Basic Law but necessary to make Hong Kong operate now and, after 1997, as a special administrative region as part of two systems within one country? Without those reforms, the success of Hong Kong will be jeopardised, to the great detriment of the world and the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend is right. It is in the interests of Britain, China and the people of Hong Kong that Hong Kong remains successful until 1997 and beyond. The best way to achieve that is through co-operation based on the joint declaration, which is what we are seeking to achieve in the proposals.

    Arms Sales (Iraq)
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with the United States about the sales of arms to Iraq in the 12 months preceding the invasion of Kuwait; and what information on the United Kingdom sales of arms to Iraq was volunteered to the United Kingdom's allies following the invasion.
    Mr. Hurd: There were discussions at various levels with United States authorities on issues arising from the Iraqi arms procurement programme in the year leading up to
    868
    the invasion of Kuwait. As part of the preparations for the liberation of Kuwait, there was a full exchange of information on all aspects of Iraq's military strength.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not a fact that in June and July 1990 the United States Administration requested that the British Government should co-operate in halting the export of two furnaces being constructed in Strathclyde on behalf of the Consarc Engineering Corporation of America? The request was made as the United States intelligence services advised the British Government that the furnaces were to be used to help in the construction of missile components in Iraq.
    Mr. Hurd: I would need notice of that question.

Citizens Charter (White Paper)
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the citizens charter.
The citizens charter White Paper, presented to the House in July 1991 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, launched a radical and far-reaching programme of reform and improvement of public services. I am pleased to be able to report today that we are delivering that programme and now developing it still further.
The White Paper "Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992", published today—copies of which are available in the Vote Office—reports much more progress than I can list in this statement. Just 16 months into the 10-year programme, more than 90 per cent. of the 150 or so initial commitments in the citizens charter White Paper have been met or are in hand; and there is a substantial future agenda of more than 80 pledges of further action. This is a formidable record.
I would like to give the House one or two examples of what the charter is delivering. In health, we set maximum waiting times of two years for admission to hospital. That target is being met virtually everywhere. In England, in the year to March 1992, the number of people on waiting lists for more than two years had fallen from more than 51,000 to less than 1,700.
In education, the parents charter is providing parents with more information than ever before about their children's schools, starting with written reports and league tables of exam results, and going on to national curriculum results and truancy rates. We have set up the Office for Standards in Education to ensure that schools are regularly inspected, that parents receive inspectors' reports and that inspection teams include people from outside the education profession who can look at the school from the parent's point of view.
British Rail now publishes punctuality and reliability targets, and performance against them. There is compensation when those standards are not met. Privatisation will open up opportunities for competition and innovation, and will make best use of the railways for the benefit of its passengers.
On motorways, private developers are being encouraged, through relaxation of the regulations, to build more service areas to give drivers more choice and more competitive services.
Services are being improved to meet what users say that they want: driving tests available on Saturdays; evening sittings in some courts; tax inquiry centres to provide local point of contact for taxpayers; utility companies moving towards fixed appointment systems.
We have brought in legislation where necessary to meet our objectives—for example, the Education (Schools) Act 1992, and the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 —and we will continue to do so where there is need. For example, the Local Government Bill currently before the House will, if approved, give council tenants a new right to repair and a new right to improve and to get compensation if they improve their own homes and then move. It will also extend compulsory competitive tendering to improve local authority housing management.
Many of those standards of service are set out—often for the first time—in the 28 charters now published for
870
users of the key areas of public service—for patients, parents, passengers, council house tenants, job-seekers, Benefits Agency claimants. The latest of these is the courts charter, announced today by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
Setting out the initial baseline of standards is therefore virtually complete for many of the main public services. This is part of the wider transformation of the way public services are run, moving away from the old command structures to more open, responsive management by clear and published contracts, which empower managers with the authority to run their organisations in the way that best suits the needs of those who actually use the service.
The emphasis will now shift to ensuring the delivery of standards and progressively improving them. We will do that in a number of ways. Performance-related pay is being introduced to make sure that good performance is recognised and poor performance identified. Many agency chief executives, for example, are on terms which include a performance-related element. Published information of performance against standards will be backed up by regular systematic surveys of the public's views of their public services.
Next, it is vital that public services be provided by the most competitive supplier—public or private—which offers the best quality of service and value for money for the user and the taxpayer. Wherever it is feasible and desirable, we will therefore continue to privatise services.
Where responsibility for services remains in-house, we shall market test them. I am pleased to announce today a fiftyfold increase in the targets set for the market testing of activities by central Government. In previous years, an average £25 million-worth of services were tested against the market. By next September, we plan to test services worth £1·5 billion.
We have made a formidable start on the objectives that we set ourselves, and the programme will continue to develop. The White Paper published today sets out a further extensive agenda of future action, including extending the patients charter into primary care; tightening targets from April 1993 to a maximum of 18 months for admission times to hospitals for treatment of hips, knees and cataracts; and publishing a further and higher education charter setting out for the first time the standards of service which students can expect when they attend university or college. Further action will also include updating and reissuing the parents charter later next year; setting new standards for British Rail; publishing of league tables so that people know how well their local authority is performing; and piloting a charterline telephone information service aimed to lead to a national service.
Good public services are essential for those who rely on them, and it is vital—never more so than today—that no money be wasted in their provision. The citizens charter programme of public service reform and improvement is at the heart of the Government's agenda for the 1990s. The White Paper will be a baseline from which to chart future progress. I commend it to the House.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: If the Minister were serious about quality public services, he would have announced a long-term commitment to the public sector. He has failed to do so. Instead, he has given us another glossy document full of regurgitated facts, many of them published a number of times already. The Government

871
have already spent £7,500,000 on the publication of the citizens charter and its departmental progeny, and I seriously question whether yet another glossy document represents value for money.
The Minister got one thing right in his statement—that consumers' and citizens' rights are crucial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am pleased that Conservative Members agree. Their problem is that the public agree too, but they view the Government's citizens charter as farce and hype. The bottom line is that that is all it is.
Does the Minister agree that people's daily experience of British Rail is not, contrary to what he has just stated, satisfaction with published punctuality and reliability targets but a slashing of the budget of the Department of Transport which has resulted in declining standards and, as we learned this morning, a question mark over safety?
The Chancellor of the Duchy has had the cheek to mention targets. Targets were set below the level that many train services were already achieving, yet the Government hold up the targets as an example of the charter's success.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that people's day-to-day experience of the health service is, again, a cut in spending? There is the two-year target for waiting lists, but the right hon. Gentleman has failed to tell the House that the number of people waiting for one year has increased phenomenally. The Government are playing with statistics. The people's experience is different from the picture that the Government paint, and they know it.
Will the right hon. Gentleman agree also that people's day-to-day experience of public utilities is not one of deep and sustained pleasure as a result of having appointment times and meeting people with name tags, important and helpful though those things are? Instead, there is deep dislike and distrust because the chairmen of public utilities have been having pay increases of 20, 30 and 40 per cent., yet the Government expect public sector workers to take a cut in pay. At the same time, they expect public services to improve. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged last week at Question Time that the morale of staff is crucial. When the Government are cutting wages of public sector workers, how can the right hon. Gentleman expect morale to be high?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our citizens need basic rights—for example, access to information and to opportunity—that the charter does not deliver? The Government have greatly cut legal aid budgets, and as a result 10 million people no longer have the ability to use legal aid to appeal for their rights. The Government have cut the funding of citizens' advice bureaux and of voluntary centres that give people the chance to appeal and make complaints. That is the reality of what the Government have done.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the public's sceptical view of the charter is a sad outcome because, as I have said, the basic idea is a good one? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am pleased that Conservative Members agree. It is a good idea for the simple reason that the Labour party proposed the citizens charter first.
I have recently completed a survey of all local authorities. I have found that more than a third of them had implemented many of the quality management aspects of the charter before the Prime Minister ever dreamed of making it the centre of his domestic policy. It is the only policy that he has left.
872
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that the Government have twisted the idea of the charter to provide another instrument or means of attacking local authorities and local democracy? The Government are against local democracy and public services. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear this afternoon, they are interested in privatisation and contracting out. That is the ideological dogma that drives the Government to say that the private sector is good and that the public sector, whatever it does, is bad.
Privatisation and contracting out was the agenda of the 1980s. We want to see quality public services, and that is the agenda of the 1990s.
Mr. Waldegrave: I warmly thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) for having had the courage to say—we do not often hear it said by Opposition Members —that we have a good idea and that she supports the principles of it. She even referred indirectly to President Reagan, who always liked to say, "If your opponents have a good idea, claim you invented it." I am extremely grateful to her.
The hon. Lady made the important point that both sides of the House are united in the campaign for better public services. Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. I am delighted that she shares the Government's long-term commitment to good public service.
I welcomed the hon. Lady's commitment to consumer rights. That is not the view expressed so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when I was last at the Dispatch Box, when he referred to "consumerist crap", if I may use the phrase. I apologise, Madam Speaker, but it is a direct quotation.
The hon. Lady talked about the daily experience of British Rail. I agree that it is unsatisfactory for too many of our fellow citizens. The way to get things put right, however, is to acknowledge honestly where the problems are, to put the spotlight on them and to drive up standards. That must be the first approach, and that is what the passengers charter is all about. There have been no spending cuts: there has been a major increase in spending. Total waiting lists and the two-year waiting list are down.
I agree with the hon. Lady, although her party has not shown much sign of agreeing with her and me on this, that information is absolutely vital for the consumer. That is why the campaign to publish education information is welcomed by my hon. Friends. I do not know whether Labour has done a U-turn on that or whether it has turned full circle. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is seated beside the hon. Lady, has a good record on information issues. For that reason we welcome the hon. Lady's support, if that is what it is, for the publication of education information last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
The hon. Lady said that legal aid had been cut. It has doubled over the past four years and will increase by 10 per cent. a year in the years ahead. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady was wrong about that, but let us not concentrate on the small elements that were wrong. We must welcome the lamb that joins the flock and say that we are grateful for her support for this campaign.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the Opposition's sour grapes, many people recognise the significant advances that have been made as a result of the charter? Some of

873
those advances have been better than others. Speaking from personal experience—I am sure that my experience can be replicated elsewhere—I know that the South Warwickshire health authority has had a considerable reduction in waiting times. It also has the appreciation of patients and a recognition by the staff that even greater targets will be achieved in the early part of next year.
Mr. Waldegrave: In my present job and in my previous one I was impressed by the way in which the health service was taking ownership of the patients charter. The best of the public services want to make their services better. In setting the standards, we have sought to find best practice wherever we can—for example, in South Warwickshire —and have then said that such standards should be spread across the service. That is the principle behind the setting of standards in the citizens charter.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister spoke about waiting times in the health service over two years up to March this year. What has happened to those times since the general election?
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the rail charter and new rail targets. Can he confirm that British Rail has asked for a relaxation of the original targets and say whether he will respond to that request?
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about his support for open information on Government activities. I understand that he pressed Lord Trefgarne and Alan Clark to make available the information on the revised guidelines on Iraqi arms sales. Why did that not happen and, as assistant citizens charter Minister, what does he propose to do to make sure that it happens in future?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, I can report further good news that will please the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair-minded person. The over-two-year waits in the regional health authorities as opposed to the special health authorities, which have a particular problem at Hammersmith hospital, are now down to five. Therefore, there have been major further improvements since April.
British Rail standards are being negotiated for next year with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Government presume that the standards will rise and not fall. That should be made clear.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am sure that he will agree that it is far better to leave such matters to Lord Justice scott.
Mr. Michael Jopling: The Secretary of State said that announcements were being made today about the legal system. Given the intolerably high costs of that system, does my right hon. Friend not realise that some parts of the citizens charter seem fairly hollow to those of modest means who fail to qualify for legal aid and who find themselves confronted on the one hand by people with massively greater means, or on the other by people who get considerable assistance through legal aid?
Mr. Waldegrave: The courts charter, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor published today, addresses in an extremely practical and sensible way a whole range of issues which, on my experience of constituency cases, greatly worry and upset people
874
occasionally. Those include, for example, long waits in court, unpredictability and opaqueness of procedures. It is important to deal with those matters.
My right hon. Friend asked about legal aid. The figures for public expenditure on all programmes in recent years show the extraordinary way in which the legal aid programme has expanded faster than almost any other. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is right to look with a radical eye at the growth of that programme.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The basic, fundamental citizens' right on which all other citizens' rights depend in a democracy is the right to vote. Why is there nothing in the citizens charter about the disgraceful state of electoral registration? Why have we not been fully informed of how many people are on the register, and of how many should be on it?
If we are serious about charters, let us return to the charters of the 19th century, which were intended to extend the franchise and to ensure that everyone had a say in a developing democracy.
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise particular points about how the registers are kept, it is perfectly legitimate for him to do so. If the subject is raised, however, some Conservative Members may wish to consider whether it is sometimes a bit too easy to get names on to the list without their being properly checked. Such matters should be examined from time to time, and they are examined.
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I especially welcome the line about competitive tendering. It is likely to prompt a small fracas of complaint, especially from some sectors of local government—although other sectors will be murmuring that it is about time, and asking why the move did not come a little earlier.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Is this a question?
Sir Paul Beresford: It will be, if the hon. Gentleman sits tight.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the complaints that will come from local government will relate to the responsibilities of the client side and its failure to put contracts in order rather than to the competitive tendering system? When he considers the length of contracts, will he seriously consider leaving the contracts long enough to justify the investment of contractors in both capital and training? I am thinking of a norm of five to seven years.
Mr. Waldegrave: Having led a well-known local authority not far from here, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of these issues. He was very successful in achieving better value for money from both public and private sectors, thus benefiting the citizens of Wandsworth.
My hon. Friend's final point is very important. Whether contracts are run by outside contractors or by an in-house team, there should be enough security in terms of length to allow capital and training investment when that is right. The length of contracts will vary from function to function.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the drastic reductions in

875
funding for urban programme inner-city projects—it is down to £176 million for next year, and will decrease further for the following year—will have a fundamental effect on access to information and advice about welfare benefits for people in deprived inner-city communities? Will not that increase the scepticism and cynicism with which poor people view the so-called citizens charter?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that there is scepticism and cynicism about a campaign to raise the standards of public service. The hon. Lady failed to mention the large increase in resources for city challenge. I was in Bolton and Wigan yesterday, and there was great rejoicing in both towns about the arrival of large quantities of city challenge money.
Sir John Wheeler: The public will welcome the continued progress of the citizens charter, while recognising that there is still a long way to go. Employees in the public service will also welcome it, because they are also consumers and because they will derive job satisfaction from the improvement in the quality of services.
The announcement of the courts charter is also welcome, but what can my right hon. Friend tell us about the 52 police forces? Are they included in the citizens charter?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right: all the evidence that I have received when meeting the staff of many organisations up and down the country shows that our ideas are very welcome. I acknowledge that we are taking those ideas from the staff of such organisations, and then spreading high standards throughout the public service.
The police are not directly accountable to Ministers as the civil service is, and it is for them to produce their own charters locally. Some police forces have already done so: I am happy to say that my own, the Avon and Somerset force, has produced a very good charter. I was present at its launch.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister accept that this is a PR gloss to cover the looting of public services by Tory business men who contributed to Tory party coffers? Does he not think that it lacks credibility when it comes from a Minister who talks about the need for information but who wanted to prevent information from going to the courts by signing a public interest immunity certificate? When does the Minister intend to produce a charter that defines the difference between the public interest and Tory party interest when Ministers sign public interest immunity certificates?
Will the right hon. Gentleman produce a charter that results in performance-related pay applying not just to chief executives but to Tory Ministers as well? Or would they not do very well?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think three out of 10, according to the hon. Gentleman's usual sneer score.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: As the grateful recipient of a refund from British Rail for a severely delayed train, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a charter that delivers the goods to one and all, including Members of Parliament? I urge him to continue with the
876
progress that he has already made. Can he say what percentage of the initial charter commitments has been completed before we embark on the second phase?
Mr. Waldegrave: I would much rather that there was no requirement for refunds and that all trains ran on time. In the meantime, however, it seems to me that refunds are a good way of signalling to the management of British Rail that services should improve and of bringing some help to people who have been inconvenienced.
The answer to my hon. Friend's second point is, about 90 per cent.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I have written to the Secretary of State today on behalf of a constituent who feels that, in the case of British Rail, the citizens charter is a sham. A year ago, there were six trains an hour that could take him to work; now there are three. The citizens charter, he believes, means that British Rail will devise a timetable to suit the trains rather than the trains to suit the timetable, and that people will be unable to get discounts.
Mr. Waldegrave: No, the latter technique would not be a satisfactory way of meeting targets and that is not how it will be done. I shall of course look at the hon. Lady's letter to me. I cannot guarantee, nor can the chairman of British Rail, that all British Rail services will remain at exactly the same frequency for the rest of time. It would be foolish of me to commit myself to that.
We should stop knocking British Rail. It is trying to raise standards and is being entirely honest about where it is not meeting proper standards at the moment. Investment in British Rail is at a record level—far greater than when the Labour party was last in power. Services should therefore improve.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I warmly welcome the tremendous list of achievements that the citizens charter has already brought about. I welcome also the increasing momentum for citizens charter aims for the future. In particular, I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said about market testing. Does he agree that the result will be that the public as taxpayers will get better value for money and that the public as consumers will get better services?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Having taken money from hard-pressed taxpayers, it must be our duty to ensure that we spend it in such a way as to obtain the right quality and quantity of services, at the right price. That is what market testing is all about. In many cases, as the smaller programme showed, the contracts will be won by the in-house team. Major efficiency gains of up to 25 per cent. have been made. Therefore, the citizen, both as taxpayer and as the user of services, will welcome the policy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, on page 25 of the citizens charter, we are told that, when telephoning the Employment Service, the average time taken to answer the phone is half a minute and that, if it takes longer, than that we can complain? Yesterday, while I was dealing with a constituent's case, it took a. quarter of an hour for the Department of Social Security office, just down the road, to answer my phone call. The reason is that the number of staff has been cut and that

877
there are so many people with complaints against the DSS and the Employment Service. Nearly 4 million people are out of work. That is why they cannot answer the phone.
As for the consumer crap to which the Minister referred, yes, pensioners want money, the homeless want houses and schools need to be repaired. That is what the Government should be doing instead of trotting out these glossy documents that do not add up to a row of beans.
Mr. Waldegrave: I give that perhaps five out of 10.
On the substantial point, I believe that the hon. Gentleman now has a standard against which to measure complaints. If the service is not good enough, I think that he has a measurable complaint to make. The hon. Gentleman has obviously read the White Paper closely up to page 25, which reports on the client satisfaction rating of the benefit services in integrated offices, benefit services in non-integrated services and jobcentre services. They all have high levels of satisfaction.
Mr Roy Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the establishment of arm's-length service providers is an opportunity for the Government to control the quality of services? Such control does not exist for in-house providers. Does he agree that the difference between him and Opposition Members is that he is concerned about the consumer, not the provider of public services?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, as a former chairman of the Association of District Councils, has great experience in such matters. It was not only on his side of the local government divide that people believed what he has said. I quote Sir Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Newcastle city council:
"The drawing up of specifications and tender documentation gave a fresh insight to members and officers alike in the consideration of what had often been taken for granted and, in terms of financing, dealt with on an incremental basis. Though it would be a mistake to push the argument too far, the purchaser-provider split and the development of Service Level Agreements between the provider of central services within authorities and client departments have caused a re-examination of performance, with generally beneficial results."
None of the Opposition Members I am looking at has run things for a long time. Those hon. Members on the Labour side who have run things know the truth of what I am saying.
Mr. John Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that the panoply of citizens charters is rather short on those which enable members of the public to complain about the effects of Government actions on their lives?
I received a letter from a constituent who runs an organisation called Belle Isle Elderly Winter Aid. It provides much help for the elderly in the area. It was encouraged to put in a detailed bid for work which needed to be done for the elderly through the urban programme. The bid was accepted by the city council as one of the new starts in the urban programme. The organisation wrote to me and asked me to bring to the attention of the Government its concern that the work which it does among the elderly has been short-changed by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to stop new work on the urban programme.
878
Does the Minister think that there should be some mechanism in the form of a citizens charter to enable those people who have done the work to bring to the Government's attention their anger and concern for the elderly who are their responsibility?
Mr; Waldegrave: I exempt the hon. Gentleman from my previous remarks about not running things; he was a distinguished leader of a local authority.
I said earlier that the huge additional resources which are being provided through city challenge to many of the same areas and objectives had perhaps been underestimated. Of course, that has meant a restriction on the growth of the main traditional urban programme. I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. John Butcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the ethos of what he has announced today, and especially his statement that he will provide us soon with an opportunity to compare the performance of local authorities on a like-for-like spending basis.
Will my right hon. Friend focus on the courts charter? There is a feeling among our people that access to the courts is now for the very rich or the very poor. People believe that justice delayed is injustice—and there is far too much delay; that lawyers seem to make large sums of money by causing delay; that crooks can too easily intimidate witnesses and that those witnesses who have the courage to go to court often come away feeling bruised and shaken by the whole experience. We are talking about the rule of law. I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises the rule of law as a top priority for his charter.
Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome both parts of what my hon. Friend said. First, the Audit Commission's work on comparative indicators for local authorities is essential and it will be strengthened. I predict with absolute certainty that, when the comparative tables are published, we shall have exactly the same uproar from all the provider groups represented by Opposition Members as we had about the education information. It will be as wrong then as it was on education.
My hon. Friend touched on important matters with regard to the courts. The charter attempts to deal with some of the difficult issues that he raised, such as explanation of what will happen before people act as witnesses. I have had constituency cases in which a great deal more could have been done in that respect. The charter also sets standards for some of the very matters to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us about the plans for an inspectorate of magistrates courts? We should like to know about the personnel and the control of that inspectorate. Is he aware that in Wales tens of thousands of people will lose their access to free legal aid? That is in a country of low pay and major pockets of poverty. When it is proposed to close magistrates courts, will the consumer —the community—be allowed to give a view? If courts are closed in large counties such as Clwyd, Dyfed and Gwynedd, that will impose long travelling times and great

879
expense on people who have to go to the court. We need answers; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some.
Mr. Waldegrave: The inspectorate of magistrates courts will be responsible to the Lord Chancellor. It will attempt to carry across best practice from magistrates courts around the country and ensure that standards are levelled up. That is a sensible way of proceeding. The magistrates courts are a pluralistic world.
On the second point, it is sometimes necessary to centralise courts. It is almost always unwelcome. Yesterday in Bolton—I draw this to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was shown an example of courts which are out of date and difficult to use. It is sometimes necessary to build new courts and sometimes to centralise them, if the services which modern standards require are to be available in those courts.
Mr. Richard Tracey: The Government are moving forward at an acceptable pace with this policy. That contrasts with the groaning and giggling that we have heard this afternoon from Opposition Members. How many Labour local authorities reached the necessary standard for a charter mark? Will he amplify what he said this afternoon about the pilot charterline?
Mr. Waldegrave: The South Yorkshire police is one authority that immediately comes to mind which reached charter standards.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Kent county council.
Mr. Waldegrave: Kent is not by any stretch of the imagination a Labour council, but it won a charter mark.
The charterline is an important initiative. I was asked about complaints being effective. A charterline with a single number which will key people into information and complaints systems across the public service will be a major gain for accessibility of the public service to the ordinary citizen.
Mr. John Fraser: The Chancellor will recall from his time as a Foreign Office Minister that people have to pay for visas to come to Britain. The visa service in many overseas posts is indifferent and 20 per cent. of all appeals against decisions of visa officers are upheld. How is it consistent with the citizens charter to remove the right of appeal against the refusal of a visa, as the Government will do under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill?
Mr. Waldegrave: As far as I can remember, the right of appeal was removed in cases where the right was technical and there was no chance within the rules of the appeal succeeding.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, representing as it does a fiftyfold increase in market testing. Does he agree that the new arrangements represent as profound a beneficial change in the delivery of our great public services in the 1990s as did those which we brought about in the private sector in the 1980s?
Mr. Waldegrave: What my hon. Friend says is right. The revolution in the method and standards of delivery for public services is not confined to this country. Most countries are addressing that agenda, but I genuinely believe that the United Kingdom is ahead, and that we have a more coherent and thoroughgoing philosophy in that respect. The international conference which we intend to hold next week in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre will bring together people from all over the world to discuss those issues, and it will show that that is true.
Ms. Mowlam: As the Minister has in some senses shown this afternoon, the reality behind the charter is that he has lowered the aspirations and has not secured the achievements. He has also misled the House: he said that 90 per cent. of the original charter aims had been met, yet he has no basis for that statement. He has not polled the consumers; nor has he written to all the local authorities, health authorities or police authorities so as to have any measure of the Government's success. We can answer the question whether Labour local authorities have delivered, because we have written to every body mentioned in the charter. We have a fund of information on what has and has not been achieved. The Minister has not even bothered to talk to many of the organisations.
Mr. Waldegrave: Many local authorities have sent me copies of the letter which the hon. Lady sent to them.
The whole basis of the operation is consultation with users and services. That is the principle on which we are working.
On the subject of our pledges, the original White Paper contains a range of things which we said we would do—and those are what we have done. I by no means say that every standard has been met. If that were so, it would prove only that the standards were too easy. In many respects, as with British Rail, there must now be a drive to correct the situation in areas where our work has shown that the standards are not being properly met.

Fuel Cost Credits
4.11 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow fuel cost credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund in order to assist those who are on low incomes, or who are otherwise vulnerable, with fuel costs; and for connected purposes.
My Bill would mean that all householders on benefit would receive a weekly fuel credit towards heating costs from 1 December to 31 March. The value of the credit would be graded into four zones according to climatic conditions. The Bill is identical to the Cold Weather Credits Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I agree with him and with the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits that such a system, linked to the urgently needed expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme, would begin to tackle fuel poverty. It would be a massive improvement on the present miserable scheme which can help only 200,000 people, not the millions who need help.
Later today, there will be much talk about pay freezes. Many Tory Members who earn three times their salaries by moonlighting will pontificate at length on the need to freeze the pay of low-paid employees. However, the freeze that I am talking about is of far more concern to my constituents—it is the cold this winter which many people, mainly the elderly, dread.
As I seek leave to bring in my Bill, it is warm and comfortable in the Chamber. When hon. Members leave the House tonight, they will go home to warm, comfortable flats and houses. That is not the case for the 7 million households in Britain where people live in fuel poverty, unable to keep themselves at the minimum standard for healthy living recommended by the World Health Organisation. The £50 million which the Government found so easily at the beginning of this week for the restoration of Windsor castle would have insulated about 250,000 of those households.
I ask hon. Members to consider how many death certificates in England and Wales mention hypothermia as a main or contributory cause of death. In 1991, there were 534—almost a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year. That is a shameful statistic. However, shocking as it is, it does not tell the full story. We should be asking how many people died for cold-related reasons, because often that does not appear on death certificates. However, it is clear from Government statistics that, between April 1990 and 31 March 1991, almost 500,000 people aged over 60 died. Of those, 230,000 died in the summer months from April to September and 270,000 died in the winter months from October to March. It is clear that there is a much higher death rate among that age group in the winter.
The Department of Social Security has created what it calls an "excess winter deaths" measure. In a comparative survey of winter deaths in 10 countries with similar cold climates, it was established that the number of deaths in January is generally 10 per cent. higher than average. In Scotland, it is 16 per cent. higher and in England and Wales it is a staggering 19 per cent. higher. By comparison, in Germany the increase in the number of deaths in January is only 4 per cent. In Sweden and Norway, countries that are known for their cold climates, the number of deaths in January is only 7 per cent. above average.
882
From the Government's evidence, I conclude that elderly people in Britain are at greater risk of dying in winter than elderly people living in other EC countries. I wonder how the Prime Minister will explain that to Ministers when they meet in Edinburgh in December. People who long for a white Christmas should reflect on the fact that, with Britain's current fuel poverty, for every degree celsius a winter is colder than average, there are another 8,000 "excess" deaths of old people.
Cold not only kills; it also causes disease and illness. The national health service spent £800 million on treatment for avoidable conditions—bronchitis, respiratory diseases, pneumonia and illnesses associated with, and created by, people living in cold damp conditions. The causes of those avoidable deaths and diseases are simple: low incomes and poor quality housing. It is a disgrace that, on the day when I have the opportunity to introduce my Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning has refused to visit a group of people living in system-built houses, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I visited and who are suffering particularly from inadequate housing, which causes so many problems.
There is a huge problem, but what do the Government do about it? They offer a totally inadequate cold weather payments scheme. If one is lucky, that scheme will provide a couple of £7 payments. The scheme costs 50p to administer for every £1 paid in benefit. It comes into operation once it has been triggered by a very complex system, which actually cheated 7,000 claimants in Calderdale last year because the weather station was situated 15 miles away.
The payments go only to some people on income support—not to all. In 1990–91, only 1·4 million households shared just £8·6 million of benefits. That should be compared to the £800 million spent by the national health service on cold-related diseases, and we should ask ourselves whether the Government spend our money wisely.
The Government have tried to sell what is, in fact, the Prime Minister's scheme, as it was introduced when he was at the Department of Health and Social Security. That scheme is a failure. It is simply a glossy public relations exercise. The Government overrule the trigger and make payments automatic only when it is cold on the Embankment and they are ashamed and embarrassed and forced to act. They then believe that the problem has gone away, but it has not if one is old and cold and relies on the benefits that the Government believe are adequate for people to live on.
My Bill is an opportunity to do something now rather than do too little, too late, as happens so often with the Government. Why was not reducing winter deaths and the number of people dying from hypothermia a target area in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper? It is appropriate that I should call for that matter to be included with special targets. For example, let us try to achieve the EC average by the year 2000. That is not too much to ask. We should also call for an interdepartmental committee of Social Security, Health, Energy and Housing Ministers —that is, if the Minister for Housing and Planning deems it appropriate to turn up—so that a concerted and co-ordinated effort can be made to tackle the problems of being old and cold.
I should also ask the question that thousands, if not millions, of people are asking at present. With the current

883
dispute in the coal industry, how can anybody justify one cold-related death when we have so much coal in the ground? We should aim to keep miners in work and let them dig the coal to stop the tragic and unnecessary cull of the elderly.
If the Department of Health, with its "Keep Warm This Winter" telephone helpline, which last year received more than 21,000 calls—mainly from elderly people asking for help with fuel bills and insulation costs—is serious, it will add its considerable weight to supporting the Bill. For all its public relations, the Department knows that not one person who called could obtain help with a fuel bill or with insulation costs, which is what the majority of them asked for.
We want real help for elderly people. We do not want what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) offered when she was at the Department of Health —advice that pensioners should knit woolly hats. We want real help. I call upon the Government to accept my Bill and to stop those outrageously unnecessary deaths.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms. Ann Coffey, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Eddie Loyden and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

FUEL COST CREDITS
Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to allow fuel cost credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund in order to assist those who are on low incomes, or who are otherwise vulnerable, with fuel costs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

House of Commons (Members' Salaries)
Madam Speaker: We now come to motion No. 1 on Members' salaries. May I remind the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)?
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A question arises over the absence of the Register of Members' Interests. During the debate, as in other debates, hon. Members will have to declare their financial interests outside the House. However, page 386 of "Erskine May" says:
"So far as voting in the House or a committee is concerned, and for this purpose only, the recording of an interest in the Register of Members' Interests is by itself regarded as sufficient disclosure"
to follow the resolution of June 1975 requiring disclosure. As no register is available, it is not open to hon. Members to rely on that.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to guide the House and to suggest to hon. Members that, on this occasion when we are dealing with Members' salaries, hon. Members who take part in the debate should actually declare the amount of their outside earnings, and that, if any hon. Member should so wish to do, they make their position clear on a point of order because there is no Register of Members' Interests, which is entirely due to the incompetence or ill will of the Government. That might help to remedy the position sketched out on page 386 of "Erskine May".
Madam Speaker: I expect all hon. Members who speak in the debate to declare their interests, but I cannot expect hon. Members to declare the amount of that interest. Should they wish to do so, of course they are perfectly at liberty so to do. It does not, of course, in a debate such as this, affect the way in which an hon. Member votes in the Division Lobby. I would expect hon. Members to declare their interests in the usual way.
4.23 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £30,854; and

(b)the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £23,227.

I do not need to detain the House for a speech of great length. The motion is clear in content and in intention. It deals with 1993 only, and it provides for all hon. Members to receive the same pay next year as this. Thus, the full parliamentary salary would remain at the level in force since January 1992 of £30,854. That will also be the case for Members of the European Parliament, who are paid the same as Members of the House.
The motion specifically includes all those in receipt of a reduced parliamentary salary, because they also receive an official salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1985. That covers all Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip,

885
and those whom the Act describes as Officers of the House —Madam Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and both you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy.
The motion also includes those receiving a reduced parliamentary salary because they are also in receipt of a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, although the only person covered by that part of the motion is my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, as a former Prime Minister who is still a Member of the House.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Have any representations been made by MEPs on that matter? What power have they to resist such a regulation?
Mr. Newton: I have taken steps to ensure that the position is known. The hon. Gentleman will know that it has been well established that the pay of MEPs is linked to that of Members of Parliament, and I think that that is understood and accepted by all concerned.
The reduced parliamentary salary for Ministers will remain at the level in force since January 1992, which is £23,227.
For completeness, although it does not arise directly from the motion, I should of course add that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his autumn statement, Ministers will also not receive an increase in their official ministerial salary in 1993. As Madam Speaker is already aware, I can confirm that the Government will not be bringing forward for 1993 an order under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. So, for all those in receipt of the reduced parliamentary salary, there will also be no increase in 1993 in their official salaries.
The House is well aware of the context in which these propositions are put before it, and I will therefore touch on them only briefly. The Government's policy as regards public sector pay was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his autumn statement. Settlements in the year ahead across the whole of the public sector will be constrained within the range 0 per cent. to 1·5 per cent.
As my right hon. Friend made clear, restraint in current expenditure, of which pay forms so large a part, is a necessary condition of our ability to direct resources at areas of spending which should rightly have priority, including spending on capital projects. Only by exercising restraint on current expenditure can the inescapable pressures elsewhere in spending programmes be accommodated, and capital spending in particular be given the emphasis widely urged, while keeping to our published plans for public spending as a whole. Those plans form part of a coherent and responsible fiscal and economic strategy, and they were debated and endorsed by the House last week.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what amount will be saved to the Treasury if the motion is passed?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the sum involved is small. For reasons that I shall touch on, our recommendation is important.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Was that not a remarkably trivial intervention from the Liberal Benches? It is the principle that is at stake and not the actual cash.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear that we believe that it is right—I sense that she believes so too—for the Government and the House to give a lead in exercising restraint. I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have indicated their support for that view by signing early-day motion 834.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I would support him and vote for the motion if he could guarantee that the cash which should have gone to my pay rise would go to Oxfam or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and not to the Treasury. If not, I shall vote against it.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first half of his intervention. The Government have looked at what could be spent in certain areas of public expenditure, including those to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we felt that it was right to ask for the exercise of restraint on forms of current expenditure, including the pay that is under debate. In that sense, it could be said that that request is part of a range of decisions that have enabled more money to be spent in ways that the hon. Gentleman might prefer.
Hon. Members would expect me to say something about the Government's view of what should happen in future years. It has become clear that, in any event, a new resolution would be likely to have been needed because of the substantial changes that have taken place in the structure of civil service pay arrangements with the move to a much greater emphasis on performance-related pay.
The existing resolution defines Members pay in terms of
"89% of the rate which on I January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale)".
The last point, which is in parenthesis, is particularly important in this context because, by comparison with the previous structure, which provided a scale maximum and a higher range maximum—access to which was discretionary and performance related—the new structure, which has been in place since last August, no longer has a scale maximum, but a pay range defined by minimum and maximum points, with no fixed points in between. Individuals' pay within that range depends entirely on annual assessments of performance. In other words, in relation to the resolution passed by the House in 1987, the word "maximum" has, in effect, changed its meaning—having previously specifically excluded performance-related payments, it now includes such payments, and at the highest possible level.
In those circumstances, there appear to be two possible interpretations of the existing resolution. One is that it has simply become inoperable, with the result that it would provide no power for Members to have any pay at all, let alone an increase. The other is that its references to excluding performance-related pay should be ignored. That would produce an increase of more than 20 per cent. While there can be little doubt which interpretation the House would have preferred, I think there will be few who

887
would wish to argue that that would have been an appropriate outcome, against the current economic background.
In the light of this, and the fact that, in any event, we cannot know how any civil service pay settlement next year will affect the performance element of the new structure —that structure is in a state of transition itself—the Government's clear recommendation to the House is that it would be neither practical nor right to seek to decide, now, the precise terms for future linkage. That is why the resolution deals only with 1993. We should return to the position for 1994 and beyond towards the end of next year when the position is clearer. I can, however, give the House two clear assurances.
First, the Government entirely accept the case for re-establishing a clear and automatic linkage with the civil service, comparable with what the House intended when it passed the existing resolution. We have no wish to return to the situation in which the House has to decide on Members' pay each and every year. Rightly, that is, I think, a very important point for the House.
Secondly, we do not intend that Members should forgo the pay increase which civil servants already have—the 3·9 per cent. for 1992 paid in August, which would, in normal circumstances, have been expected to carry through to Members pay in January—as well as have no increase in respect of the forthcoming year. In other words, we do not intend that Members should be permanently disadvantaged by 3·9 per cent. in comparison with the civil service.
I turn lastly to pensions, about which I am aware that some concern has been expressed, and which are indeed the subject of an amendment by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), to whom I shall of course listen with care.
Before making some comment on that, however, I should first make it quite clear that the motion before the House has no effect whatever on pensions already in payment. Those pensions, and the arrangements for increasing them, remain precisely as they are. Parliamentary pensions in payment, like other pensions with the same uprating formula, will increase by 3·6 per cent. from April 1993, as announced by my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in his uprating statement two weeks ago.
However, I recognise, of course, that the amendment is directed at a different point, which is the effect on future pensions of the proposed restraint on pay. As I have said, I shall listen to the right hon. Gentleman with care, not least because I note that his proposal does not go down the path of seeking to draw a contribution from the taxpayer, which would not be available to other groups affected by restraint, in respect of payments related to a notional salary. It provides rather for Members to be able to make additional payments entirely at their own expense, to offset the effects of restraint. Perhaps though, I might make two observations which he, the House and other Members of the fund who have put their names to his amendment may wish to bear in mind.
First, since the parliamentary pension scheme is a defined benefit scheme—that is to say, benefits are based on the salary payable at the time of retirement—and since the longer-term position will not become clear until the House has debated and decided it at a later stage, hon. Members would not find it at all easy to determine whether and to what extent they wished to take advantage of what is proposed in the amendment, without some risk of
888
making payments which brought them no benefit. Secondly, taking account of that, it could be better to examine the alternative possibility of building on the general provisions introduced by the Government for additional voluntary contributions in pension schemes generally.
There are two ways in which that can be done. There is what is called in the occupational pension trade a free-standing additional voluntary contribution—that is, paying such contributions, which are tax-relieved within the Inland Revenue limits, to one of the many schemes available commercially. Secondly, there are AVC schemes which are provided through the occupational pension scheme, in this case the parliamentary scheme, which have advantages in simplifying administration and keeping costs down.
Should the trustees, or Members generally, feel that it would be helpful in the spirit of the amendment to explore the other possibilities more fully, I want to make it clear that I would be happy to assist. I hope that that is a constructive thought for the House and for the right hon. Gentleman. In ending with that thought, I commend the main motion to the House.
4.37 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The debate is a matter for the House of Commons as a body and for Members to make their decision on a free vote. For that reason, it is essential that, in the fairly short time allowed to us, as many hon. Members as possible should have a chance to speak. Accordingly, I shall seek to curtail my remarks.
What we are debating is not a small part of a coherent policy for pay, not even in the public sector. Like most matters to which the Government set their hand, it is a mess. Nor is the specific proposal as it relates to Members of Parliament a policy even for our pay. It is not a policy; it is a smokescreen. The Government have announced a wholly arbitrary limit for public sector pay and they hope, by including Members of Parliament in its provisions, to create an illusion of fairness and the impression that the highest paid are taking their fair share of a concept that is usually completely absent from their thinking or policy.
The highest-paid, even in the public sector, will not be affected by the proposal. Next year, the senior ranks of the civil service, judges and so on will, I understand, receive. more than Members of Parliament and more than the 1·5 per cent. which is supposed to be the general limit. We on these Benches object to the proposals for public sector pay.
During the election campaign some six months ago, the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister down, swore to the people that, because our economy was fundamentally sound, cuts in income tax could be afforded, as well as increases in public spending and improvements in public services, and that no cost-cutting measures and no revenue-raising measures, such as increases in other taxes or charges, would be needed.
Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Lady has just said that there should not be a limit on public sector pay. Is that correct, or does she believe that there should be a limit—in which case, what does she think that limit should be?
Mrs. Beckett: There should be a proper and fair—seen to be fair—policy for working out public sector pay along

889
the lines of the pay review bodies and other existing bodies. That is the Labour party's policy. Did the Conservative party manifesto tell people in the public sector what the Government's policy would be?
Now that the election is over, the Conservative party claims, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) just did, that public spending plans can be preserved only at the expense of pay levels and jobs in the public sector. For a married public sector worker on £10,000 a year, even an increase of 1·5 per cent. is equivalent to a reduction in income, equivalent to an increase in the basic rate of tax of 7p in the pound. So much for the argument that income tax cuts could be afforded and that there would be no penalty after the election.
Let there he no mistake: the Government's overall proposals will mean not pay cuts to save jobs, but pay cuts and job losses. It is no accident that the proposal for Members' salaries is not for a 1·5 per cent. increase—as many hon. Members thought after the first publicity—in place of the increase in payment from last August for the civil service grade with which our pay is linked, but for a pay freeze. A freeze is exactly what the Government's proposals imply for many low-paid workers in the public sector.
Local authorities have costed the effects on their pay bill of pay awards for the police, the fire service, the teaching profession and other services, already made and in payment. The combined effect of those existing awards and other employment costs leaves local authorities some £200 million short of the money that they already need to meet next year's pay bill—that is without an increase under the formula. With universal capping of expenditure, job and service cuts are likely to have to be made to balance the books.
Moreover, we already know that, where incremental pay scales are in place, by law those increments must and will be paid. if funding is geared to 1·5 per cent. of the total bill, increments for some will mean a pay freeze for others. That is why Members of Parliament are to have a pay freeze. If we had been given 1·5 per cent. and it later emerged that many public sector workers were facing a pay freeze, the Government would rightly be accused of sleight of hand on their own pay.
That is why I cannot support the Government motion tonight. Members of Parliament are being used not to set an example but as a stalking horse. It is not only in the matter of a freeze that I fear that we are being used to help set a precedent that I deplore. By moving the motion, the Government are breaking, at least temporarily, a linkage with a particular civil service grade. The House has voted for the principle of a linkage on no less than three occasions—a vote and a principle which the Government finally and reluctantly accepted.
Opposition Members are well aware that the history of the Government's term of office shows that there is nothing that they would like better than to break every pay formula and linkage, and to dissolve every pay review body and every independent and fair system of pay assessment in the public and private sectors. They would love to move away from any form of national pay bargaining or concept of a rate for the job. They tried repeatedly to persuade pay review bodies for nurses,
890
doctors and dentists to abandon national pay bargaining. They tried to break the pay formulae for the police and the fire service. The motion is all part of the same approach.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady try to persuade Labour-controlled local authorities to comply with the pay restraint, or will she encourage them to make whatever pay deals they care to arrange?
Mrs. Beckett: Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he did not understand the purport of what he heard. Local authorities are already underfunded for the pay settlements that have already been awarded and are now in payment. They will have a horrendously difficult job—[Interruption.]What is the hon. Gentleman's message and that of his Government? The Government are cheating local authorities on the funding that they have already given for the pay settlements to which they have agreed. Local authorities will have a horrendous job, and I do not propose to try to second-guess them in their difficulties.
The Government would love to break all pay formulae and abandon all pay review bodies. Most recently, in a move which I presume, from his remarks, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will not support, the Government are moving towards abolishing even the wages councils, the only protection still available to 2 million low-paid women in work.
At the outset, I reminded hon. Members that this was a matter for the House and individual Members. Each hon. Member has a duty to make up his or her mind—[Interruption.]Hon. Members have a duty to take account of the overall income and circumstances of their household.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I presume that the hon. Lady is doing that for hers.
Mrs. Beckett: I most certainly am, and my husband does not earn the salaries paid in the European Parliament.
Each of us has a duty to make up his or her mind on the matter. I presume that press reports that Conservative Members are on a two-line Whip are mistaken, as this is clearly a matter for the House. As it is a matter for individuals, I hope that all hon. Members will consider their individual responsibility.
I deplore and oppose the Government's policy, so I shall not vote for their motion. But I do not seek a special privilege for hon. Members which I cannot secure for other, often low-paid, public sector workers. Consequently, I cannot and shall not vote against the Government motion that we should be treated as others will be treated, and I shall not vote on the main amendment.
However, I have observed that many Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who I believe is a member of Lloyd's, have signed an early-day motion supporting Government policy, something which the Minister understandably applauded in his speech.
It is an unfortunate coincidence that the Government have found it necessary to stage this debate just before —I believe only days before—the setting up of a Select Committee on Members' Interests. We lack up-to-date information on the other earnings, fees or emoluments of Conservative Members. If they are new Members, like the

891
hon. Member for Ribble Valley, we lack any information at all about their personal financial circumstances. It must therefore be a matter of personal honour. As Madam Speaker said before she left the Chair, no honourable Member should speak or vote in this debate to support a pay freeze for others—
Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a wonderful smell of cooking coming from underneath the Benches. I do not know whether we now have to cook our own meals as well as listen to debates, but can you help by arranging for whoever is cooking to stop, because the smell of eggs, bacon and fried bread is rather appetising?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I am not sure that that matter falls within my competence, but I can certainly ensure that the message is relayed.
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that no hon. Member will speak or vote in this debate to support a pay freeze for others without declaring in full the extent to which they depend on the salary which they intend to freeze.
Among the Tory Back Benchers who signed the early-day motion to which the Lord President referred are more than 50 who have declared interests, but there are many new Members of whom we know nothing. Between them, the 50 share more than 120 directorships and consultancies. Some Back-Bench Conservative Members are fortunate enough to have inherited wealth and others —all credit to them—have made money. But we should be spared the lectures about our duty to set an example on such matters from those who have the means to evade the difficulties.
Mr. Bryan Davies: A reference to the Tory Whips Office might be helpful. Does my hon. Friend remember that, before the last election, the Whips were busy distributing largesse to their colleagues in the form of consultancies so that they could sustain themselves in the manner to which they appear to be accustomed?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall not be drawn further on that matter.
I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council intends to speak again, but one issue that is of concern to me and, I believe, the House became apparent when I looked into the background of today's debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a change in the arrangements of pay for the civil service grade with which Members' pay was previously linked, and that there was now a pay scale. I understand that the Treasury has refused to give the Fees Office any information about that pay scale. It has certainly refused to identify the point on the scale to which Members' pay might be linked.
Today, the Lord President did not even give us the minimum and the maximum of the pay scale to which Members' pay was previously linked; he merely said that the maximum would be far above our reach. It is important that we have any available information. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the relevant resolution, and some hon. Members may wish to look at the impact of the change on their pension contributions. It may be difficult for them to do so if they lack the basic information. The figure in the measure is based on the
892
average of 3·9 per cent. quoted for all public sector settlements. It does not necessarily bear any relationship to the grade to which Members' pay was linked.
I should be glad if the Lord President would clarify his further comments. We are talking about the consequences of last year's pay increase, and there is concern that, if civil service pay for the relevant grade is frozen for the year ahead, Members' pay might be frozen for two years. That is a source of particular anxiety to hon. Members who are nearing retirement, because of the impact on their pensions.
We deplore the Government's policy whereby cuts and savings will fall entirely arbitrarily across the public sector, affecting low-paid people in particular. We utterly reject the notion that what is happening to Members' pay should be used as a precedent to attack and undermine the position of other workers in the public sector. Above all, we reject the notion that the Government are saving jobs.
Jobs directly related to the public sector will be lost because the Government cheat on the funding, even of today's package. More generally, their pay policy is intended to remove £1·5 billion from the economy. It has been estimated that cutting current Government expenditure by £1·5 billion will mean that almost 90,000 jobs will be lost across the public and private sectors as demand in the economy is reduced. That is not even a coherent or consistent pay policy; it is an ill-thought-out shambles—gesture politics.
The only way in which the motion relates to the wider problems of the country and the economy is that it is one small part of the process whereby the Government demonstrate their incompetence, break their promises and betray the trust that so many have placed in them.
4.55 pm
Dr. John G. Blackburn: This is essentially a domestic debate—it is our only forum in which to discuss our pay and conditions and, I note from the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), pensions.. Although it is largely a private debate on the dealings of the House, I am delighted that it is open to public scrutiny.
I shall speak of a subject that, during my years in the House, I have never heard voiced. If my proposition is accepted, it will mean a reduction not in hon. Members' pay but in their disposable income. Today I am compelled to outline a policy that I pray will receive the constructive support of all hon. Members. It relates to the death of a Member in the service of the House.
I remember, as will other hon. Members, Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in the Grand hotel by an IRA bomb, and William Roberts, who all but died at the Dispatch Box as he addressed the House. Liberal Members, like everyone else, mourn the tragic Saturday morning when David Penhaligon suffered a fatal and horrific car crash. We also remember John Spence and Eric Heifer, who were loved by all hon. Members.
I see that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is present. The House mourned when Rev. Robert Bradford was shot dead in church while conducting his surgery as a Member of Parliament. We remember Donald Coleman, Spencer Le Marchant and a man whose spirit still pervades the place, Sir John Stradling Thomas, who was loved by all.
What is the response of the House towards the death of hon. Members in such circumstances? I do not think that

893
the response is very good—and I say that as an hon. Member. Even worse, we treat the death of our colleagues in an off-hand way. We perhaps think about them for a short period, then dismiss them from our memories.
I am open to correction, and shall give my interpretation of how we treat the death of other hon. Members—I am not talking about using funds from the Chancellor's purse. We do so by perhaps writing to the family, or attending funerals and memorial services at which we pay tribute. Seldom, if ever, are we asked to exercise benevolence to the bereaved families—I have never been asked.
Every day for the past 40 years I have read a book which describes the gifts and states:
"the greatest of these is charity".
I want the House to share and support my vision of benevolence. When a Member dies in the service of the House, we should be corporately invited to authorise the Fees Office in writing to deduct £20 at source from Members' salaries. In that way, we would exercise charity to the families of dead Members of the House, in the form of a sum of about £13,000. That is my proposition—and I believe that it could be done. It would be a practical expression of sympathy and affection for the family of a colleague who had served in the House.
I am conscious that I will not receive a positive response from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen or from Ministers, but I am entitled to my vision. I intend to sow the seed of an idea this evening. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider it and that it will be discussed—to use the mystic expression—through the usual channels. I shall not lay down my sword on this issue. I believe that we should exercise this benevolence, within the community of the House of Commons, for the benefit of the widows and children left behind by Members who die in the service of the House.
5.1 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at the end to add
'and that the Leader of the House should make regulations to provide that any pension which may become payable to or in respect of any Member of this House under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 should be calculated as if—

The salary specified in paragraph (a) were £32,057; and

The salary specified in paragraph (b) were £24,132;

if that Member pays supplementary voluntary contributions in 1993 of an amount which in the opinion of the Government Actuary is the average amount necessary to meet the full additional cost of the pensions so enhanced.'
The amendment is tabled, as the House will have noted, in the names of all the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Our purpose is to give Members the opportunity to make an extra contribution to the fund, so that any pension benefits payable either to them or to their dependants, if they leave the House during the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994, will be calculated by reference to the notional salary of £32,057. The amendment will also help widows and other dependants of Members who die between those dates.
With regard to the first substantive point made by the Leader of the House—about the parliamentary scheme,
894
being a defined benefit scheme—the amendment provides an option for Members to ensure that they or their widows and other dependants are not penalised if their service ends at any time in the period between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1994. This is an insurance against that contingency which it will be for each Member to decide in his or her case. Our submission is that they should not be denied that choice.
As for the second point that the right hon. Gentleman put to me this afternoon, it calls, in effect, for a separate and freestanding scheme for additional voluntary contributions—AVCs. While the right hon. Gentleman may argue that this would be desirable, I believe that our existing parliamentary scheme should itself provide all reasonable facilities for the protection of its members and their dependants. That is the basic rationale of, and justification for, the amendment before the House. In my view, all benefits should be integral to the scheme itself.
Sir Peter Hordern: I should just like to be certain about the right hon. Gentleman's point on additional voluntary contributions. Is he as clear as I am that it would be perfectly proper for the existing parliamentary scheme to take additional voluntary contributions, as that was the point that I think my right hon. Friend was making? If so, it is the most desirable outcome that we could hope to achieve.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My advice is that we need a separate and free-standing scheme to provide AVCs—that it would not be possible to make that provision within the parliamentary scheme as it stands, and that new regulations would be required.
It might assist right hon. and hon. Members for me now to explain how the calculation of salary for pension purposes is made. Benefits are based on the amount of gross salary due to a Member during his or her last year of service. For example, if a Member left the House on 30 June 1993, his or her salary for pension purposes would be the amount of gross salary due for the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993. Thus, the calculation of the pension or any other pension benefits would be based on the salary of £31,455·50, rather than the current salary of £30,854. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) fully understood that point.
The lump sum payable in the event of the death of a current Member is twice the Member's annual salary. Members will note that this figure will be higher if the notional salary of £32,057 is used in the calculation. I must also point out that, under our nomination procedures, this payment is often made directly to the widow or widower and without the need for grant of probate. Thus, financial help can be made available fairly quickly at a most difficult time for the bereaved family. Any widow's, widower's or children's pensions calculated by reference to the notional salary of £32,057 will also be higher.
I must emphasise that the cost of this facility will not fall on the public purse, in that Members who wish to avail themselves of it will bear the full actuarially calculated cost themselves. Speaking as chairman of the managing trustees and on behalf of all my colleagues, I am sure that all Members will agree that this is a reasonable proposition for the House to consider.
The fate of the Government's proposal to the House will be decided in the Division Lobbies this evening by Members themselves; but we must recognise that the

895
interests of widows and other dependants will also be affected by the proposals, and according to whether our amendment is accepted or rejected. Although their entitlements to benefit are clearly at stake, they cannot directly affect the outcome of the debate, and the managing trustees seek, by means of their amendment, to protect their interests.
Mr. Ashton: Can my right hon. Friend give me any quick, rule-of-thumb figures for the effect of the amendment not being carried on, say, a Member who spent 10 years in retirement drawing his pension, who was outlived by his wife by five years—women tend to marry younger and live longer—and who I believe might forfeit about £10,000 if this settlement is not agreed to?
Mr. Morris: There can be no definitive answer to that; it would depend on the last year's salary of the Member who had died or had to leave the House because of ill health. Our essential point is that Members and their dependants will be at risk, as between 1 January 1993 and 31 November 1994, unless we provide the opportunity for insurance that the amendment offers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is right to say that we should not limit our consideration of the amendment to the immediate future. The pension is based on the final year's salary of the individual Member who dies or for some other reason is no longer in the service of the House. We have heard this afternoon of Members who have died in circumstances of some hardship, and we have heard a proposal for helping them further by voluntary means. As my hon. Friend fears, the effect of not carrying the amendment could be long-term.
I hope that the House will agree that the amendment is a safeguard that we have a duty to provide. The additional cost if the option is used, will be voluntary. The amendment is aimed solely at protecting Members and their dependents who, because of ill health or death in service, end their service to the House between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1994.
5.10 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I shall speak in favour of the amendment. Before I do so, I welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we shall reconsider linkage before the end of 1993. I am sure that no hon. Member wants to return to what I would term the obscene practice of voting on our own salary, and inevitably coming face to face with media criticism every year. That was an invidious procedure for everyone. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend clarified the matter.
I am a relatively new trustee, and I wish to pay tribute to the chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), for the way in which he conducts our affairs. I am currently on a learning curve, but I support what he has said about the situation that could apply between 1 January 1993 and the end of 1994.
Perhaps it is morbid to dwell on the subject, but I am told that, in an average year, 12 Members will leave the House in one way or another. We have now been sitting for about five or six months in this Session and we are way behind our quota for the year. It would be intolerable if, between now and the end of 1994, a Member were
896
disadvantaged financially, as a result of death or retirement, in terms of the grant paid at the end of his or her period of service. A widow's rights for the rest of her life and the ex-Member's retirement life should come within the same category.
The amendment is well based and deserves support. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should consider it a bird in the hand. He said that there might be further discussions, but it seems that the amendment sets out the way forward. It is something tangible, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support it.
5.13 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Like the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), I shall declare an interest. I too am a new pension fund trustee. Again taking up the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, I commend the chairman of the trustees, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), on his work.
I hope that the House will consider the amendment with sympathy. It relates to the impact that the motion will have on the pension fund, the beneficiaries and others. It should be understood that the motion will have effect over a two-year period, all the way through to 31 December 1994, if it is accepted as it stands.
It is not impossible, for example, that there will be a general election between now and 31 December 1994. If that were to happen, the severance pay of any Member on leaving the House because of retirement or defeat at the polls would be affected. There would be some impact on the amount of money that he or she would be able to claim under the current schemes. If we make any changes, we should do so only after a great deal of careful consideration. Right hon. and hon. Members should understand the importance of—
Dr. Godman: Have the trustees received any representations from representatives of Members of the European Parliament on these matters? It seems that we have before us a curious form of the application of subsidiarity. It appears that the House is determining the pension rights of MEPs, their widows—God forgive me for saying so—and their widowers. It is a most curious form of the application of subsidiarity if MEPs have not been involved in the discussions.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am sure that those who occupy the: Government Front Bench have heard the point made so succinctly by the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware of any representations coming to the Committee that deals with the trustees of the pension fund. If any representations were made, they should have been made directly by MEPs to the Government.
Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a freeze for two years. I was under the impression, wrongly, that it was for one year. Perhaps he will explain.
Mr. Kirkwood: I knew that I should not have become involved in this. I am a new trustee. Calculations for severance pay are based on the two years of previous service. Until 31 December 1994, the calculation will take into account the period of the freeze that we are discussing in the light of the motion.
I have taken some advice—I did not just make up what I said—and I believe that I am right. The effect would not

897
be great, but there would be an impact on severance pay. It seems that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is already contemplating defeat at the next general election, and perhaps before 31 December 1994. He should not worry too much, because, if this Parliament lasts until then, the effect will not be great.
I have one or two additional—
Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kirkwood: I am not the best person to deal with these matters.
I have one or two further comments to make on the substantive motion. First, like everyone else, I am extremely nervous about breaking the link. Any breakage of the linkage that we have established would be unfortunate. I understood the Leader of the House to say that he was not really breaking the link, because he was holding fast to the principle. He said, in effect, that he was uncoupling it for 12 months.
I do not understand why the Government did not say, "We shall have a 1·5 per cent. increase just like everyone else." How did a freeze suddenly emerge? The small print in the autumn statement suggested that we were facing a 1·5 per cent. increase as a matter of pay restraint. I can understand that, but I do not understand—the Leader of the House will help me a great deal if he will explain—why we have moved from that restraint to a full-blown freeze.
When I intervened in the speech of the Leader of the House, he made it clear that not much money would be saved. That must be so. It seems that we are talking about saving £1,000 per Member under the terms of the substantive motion. That is about £700,000-worth of public expenditure. That is a flea-bite when set against public expenditure totals. The Government could look at many other areas, such as Ministers' country houses, if they want to save money on that scale.
I am a new member of the Liaison Committee which is working out how to spend £500,000 or £600,000 of taxpayers' money to inform Select Committees by sending Members abroad. I am in favour of travelling abroad, especially in relation to some of the reports about Europe. It is entirely reasonable for members of Select Committees involved in the study of detailed subjects to be able to travel when absolutely necessary. However, members of the Select Committees on Trade and Industry, on Home Affairs and on Defence travel to Washington and such places. A great deal of money could be saved there.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) raised an important matter when he asked what was to happen to the money. The answer given by the Leader of the House was unconvincing—it seems that it will return to the maw of the Treasury. Some of it may find its way to the Bosnian refugees or Somalia or to the miners' benevolent fund, and perhaps some of it will be used to supply arms to Saddam Hussein. The motion is a mere gesture and it would be far more effective to earmark the money. I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) would have suggested putting the £1,000 per head into the Members' benevolent fund. That commends itself much more to me than allowing money to flow back to the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) spoke persuasively about the Government setting an
898
example by freezing our pay. I shall listen carefully to the Leader of the House. If he is to gain my vote, he will have to guarantee that such freezing will not be used as a precedent in the formation of Government policy on public sector pay. It would be easy for the Government and the Chancellor to say that a pay freeze at Westminster is biting the bullet and that public sector employees will have to accept the same medicine. If that is in the Government's mind, it is iniquitous. If it is not their thinking, the Leader of the House should say so clearly in winding up.
Mr. David Nicholson: Like many other hon. Members, I have not been present for most of the debate because of other commitments. The hon. Gentleman raises important matters and, in coal industry terms, he is on what would be regarded as a good seam. What precedents are being established in the debate and what will be the link with civil service pay? It would be unsatisfactory for the House to decide Members' pay every year. Members' pay should be linked to a group in the civil service, although I entirely accept that the present group may be in the process of being phased out and that we will have to look at the arrangements again. The freeze should be temporary and we should look at these matters again soon so that we can quickly establish an automatic link.
Mr. Kirkwood: I think that in future I shall adopt the hon. Gentleman's technique of arriving late and making a speech without being called. I entirely support the thrust of his comments, but he may not have had the benefit of hearing the Leader of the House at the beginning of the debate.
This is a complicated matter, and some hon. Members are uncertain about precisely what is to happen. The motion states that, from 1 January 1993, pay will be frozen. I understood the Leader of the House to say that he intended to cling to the principle of establishing a link. I am not clear about what is to happen in 1993 to produce a pay level for 1 January 1994. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the reference group was no longer suitable for calculating pay. However, he did not outline the consequences that flow from that or how he would cope. Will he review the method of assessing Members' pay? If he does, he will he turning over ground that has already been ploughed by the Top Salaries Review Body, which studied all the comparators at great length.
The Leader of the House is aware of the pay of Senators and Congressmen in the United States of America and the pay of public representatives in France, Germany or even Italy, who all receive substantially more than we do. I hope that he will look at all these matters afresh, give them the fullest consideration and take evidence and publish reports rather than picking a figure out of the air.
The reference group that the Leader of the House mentioned may be subject to a 1·5 per cent. pay freeze, which may be increased or reduced. As Opposition Members have said, we do not even know the reference points in the civil service group. The right hon. Gentleman's only positive statement was that we would not lose twice. As far as it goes, that is reassuring; but does it mean that, if the average restraint is 1·5 per cent. in the calendar year commencing 1 January 1993, we can expect to lose the 3·9 per cent. civil service pay award that has already been made? The only way to make up that ground is by increasing our salaries by 5·4 per cent. from 1 January

899
next year. The Leader of the House will have to answer that question in specific terms before he can be confident that people will understand the full implications of the Government motion.
I suspect that there has been some gesture politics by the Government, and that is no substitute for an effective economic policy. Since 1979, the Government have had a £100 billion windfall in oil and gas revenues and have received £60 billion from privatisation. They are in a sorry mess if their only effective action on the economy is to freeze Members' pay.
I am much less concerned about rates of pay than about House facilities to enable hon. Members to do the job for which we were elected. That has been a hobby horse of mine since I was elected in 1983. The people whom we scrutinise in the civil service and elsewhere have the benefit of access to high-tech equipment. The sooner that the Leader of the House and the House authorities start to provide such facilities for Members to do their job effectively, the better it will be for us all. I hope that the Leader of the House will try to answer some of my questions, especially the one about what is to happen after 1 January 1994.
5.27 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: Much has been said about Members' pay since it was first granted in 1911, which was a little before my time, and I am sure that much more will be said about it in future. It is an emotive subject that is often clouded by Opposition Members who are far more interested in the incomes of Conservative Members than those of hon. Members generally. That typifies socialist thinking—if that is not a contradiction in terms —and flies in the face of a common acceptance over the years, as stated in the 1983 Top Salaries Review Body report, that hon. Members should not be driven to take on additional paid employment simply because of financial pressures. For their own reasons, many hon. Members take additional paid employment. Some Opposition Members have a fixation, driven by dogma and stirred by envy, that levelling is the name of the game. As usual, the levelling is downwards.
As the Leader of the House said, there is a problem with the current pay settlement, because a productivity element is being introduced into civil service remuneration. It has been suggested that that should apply to the pay of hon. Members.
Mr. Dicks: I hope that my hon. Friend will point out that civil servants receive both a non-contributory pension and a lump-sum gratuity when they retire. The Government never took that into account when Members' pay was linked to that of civil servants and we received 89 per cent. of grade 6 pay.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has made his point admirably, but I was going to make another point, in connection with performance-related pay. Who would judge the performance of Members of Parliament? I think that the electors would be the best judges: given that they supported the Conservatives in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and will do so again at the next general election, Conservative Members should feel quite safe about being paid according to performance—although I would feel extremely concerned about the prospect were I an Opposition Member.
900
The debate, however, is not about the remuneration of Members of Parliament in general; it is about their remuneration during a period of pay restraint. This year, I voted—along with some Conservative Members and most Opposition Members—for an increase in office cost allowances. That was not a particularly popular move, but I felt that it had to be made. As has been said, Members of Parliament need to have the tools for the job, and those tools are very expensive—especially for new Members, who incur the start-off costs of all the new equipment that they must acquire. Pay, however, is an entirely different matter; I do not think that Members' pay should be differentiated from that of other people.
My constituency has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, but I cannot be complacent. This week one of our major cement companies, Castle Cement, announced 70 redundancies. Other job losses, short working, pay freezes and—in certain circumstances, in the private sector—pay reductions have been commonplace for the past two years, and have become more so as the world recession has gripped. How would it look to the country at large if we, as a group, voted ourselves a pay rise while others suffered pay cuts? We should look worse than pickpockets, taking from others and hoping that they were looking the other way. The public, however, are not looking the other way; they are looking at the House.
I believe that the autumn statement was imaginative, realistic and a boost to confidence. It sent the nation a determined message that all possible measures would be taken to speed our journey to recovery. The public sector, which has enjoyed a real improvement in living standards since 1979, has been asked to restrict wage rises to 1·5 per cent. this year. That will help to ensure that resources are available for the capital projects that we have all pressed the Government to continue; it will also allow social security uprating, which the House will applaud.
This debate is not about gesture politics; it is about sending the public a message about the need for restraint on the part of the public sector, Members of Parliament and the private sector. The private sector has taken the brunt of the knocks from the recession: frozen pay is no stranger to companies whose profits have slumped and whose markets have shrunk. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked for pay restraint in the boardroom as well as in the toolroom. I echo those sentiments, along with the message that has been sent to the captains of our newly privatised companies and, of course, to the rest of us: there can be no conscientious objectors in the fight against recession.
Too many bosses of late have been grabbing double-figure pay increases. Some water bosses seem oblivious to what is happening around them. While other workers are forced to forgo their jobs, let alone pay increases, water bosses have been heaping riches on themselves. They should hand those riches back.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. May I draw his attention to the behaviour of the chairman of Yorkshire Water, who has just taken a substantial pay increase? I wonder what advice the hon. Gentleman would offer his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who is a paid director of Yorkshire Water—that constitutes part of his outside earnings. Would he advise his hon. Friend to tell the Yorkshire Water chairman not to take a pay increase at all?
Mr. Evans: According to figures that I have before me, the Yorkshire Water boss received a 40 per cent. pay rise this year. I shall comment on that but I shall leave it to hon. Members to decide what they ought to do with their own incomes.
As I have said, there should be no conscientious objectors in the battle against the recession, whether the battle is fought in the boardroom or in the toolroom. When the foot soldiers are in the firing line, the captains can be found in the mess swigging down the brandy and stuffing their pockets with cigars; but everyone must make a sacrifice for the country, and the sight of some top people raiding the war chest is certainly an unpalatable one. I hope that shareholders, in Yorkshire and elsewhere, will take note of that.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the essential point. What advice will he give his hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, who is a director of Yorkshire Water?
Mr. Evans: I have already responded to that question. As I have said, such companies have shareholders, and I hope that they will note exactly what bosses and others are being paid. I repeat that there can be no conscientious objectors.
In 1983, the Top Salaries Review Body stated that it would damage the national interest if the salary of Members of Parliament was allowed to remain too far below the levels available to able men and women in other walks of life. The current national average pay for men is about £340 a week—I realise, of course, that averages take extremities into account. Clearly, Members of Parliament do worse than some people, but we do a great deal better than others. My real reward will come in heaven; but I fully understand why some Opposition Members may prefer to receive their rewards now, on earth.
It is rumoured that some hon. Members will want to show solidarity with public-sector workers by abstaining this evening, or sitting on their hands. That, however, is hardly the response for which the public sector will look. The way in which to show support for both public and private sectors—the way in which to send clear messages to boardroom bosses and industrial leaders—is to vote for a pay freeze, and to support the Government's economic recovery package.
5.37 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The House will not be surprised to learn that I do not intend to follow too closely the rather naive speech of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Let me make one point about it, however. The hon. Gentleman described Opposition Members' criticism of moonlighters as the politics of envy; but did he not engage in the politics of envy when he—rightly, in my view—criticised company directors who had accepted huge pay increases? It does not quite add up.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I was asking for pay restraint in all sectors—public and private, boardroom and toolroom—in the next pay round, irrespective of current earnings. We should note, however, that the 49 companies that have been privatised since 1979 now earn the country £2 billion in taxation, year in, year out. Before they were privatised, they cost the Exchequer £50 million a week.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Each intervention has tended to be longer than the last. Sadly, long interventions are not the prerogative of either side of the House.
Mr. Hoyle: As a matter of fact, I was finding the hon. Gentleman's reply quite interesting. I take it from what he said that he will tell his hon. Friends who hold directorships and consultancies not to accept pay increases in the coming year.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes.
Mr. Hoyle: Let me make it clear where I stand. I am totally opposed to pay freezes, so I shall vote against the Government motion. The pay freeze for the public sector will not make matters better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, many people, because of the restrictions on local government, will lose their jobs. Far from improving things, the pay freeze will make matters worse. The restrictions on purchasing power will not lead to economic recovery. We shall be shoved deeper into recession.
We are linked to those in grade 6 who received their pay increase last August. We ought therefore, if there is any natural justice, to have got ours in August. It just so happens that our increase is due next January. We ought to be given that increase, for our pay is linked to grade 6. The Leader of the House was ambiguous. He referred to the link having been maintained. With whom is the link being maintained? It will be difficult to maintain that link, for the Leader of the House went on to say that those in grade 6 are to go on to performance-related pay. If Cabinet members were on performance-related pay, they would have to pay money to the Treasury for years to come. To whom, therefore, shall we be linked? Can the Leader of the House assure us that pay restraint will apply for only 12 months?
Mr. Andrew Robathan: What repayments were made by the Labour Government to the Treasury for their performance between 1974 and 1979?
Mr. Hoyle: That is a pathetic question. When we left office, the economy was in good shape. [Laughter.] I shall take the smile off the face of the man who hails taxis. When we left office, unemployment was very low and it was continuing to go down.
Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoyle: More than 30 per cent. of manufacturing industry has been destroyed by the Government's economic policies since 1979.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle: I shall not give way to any other hon. Members—
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Hoyle: —because it is very unfair to my hon. Friends.
Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoyle: I shall give way with pleasure to one of my hon. Friends.
Dr. Godman: Can I remind my hon. Friend that, in his motion, the Leader of the House appeals to my hon. Friend and to the rest of us to behave in a decent and

903
fair-minded way by refusing a pay increase? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House could respond in a decent and fair-minded way by ensuring that the money saved is given to those non-governmental organisations that seek to help people in the developing world who at this moment are starving?
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I hope the Leader of the House will take on board, though I doubt whether he will. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) asked a similar question, but he received no reply.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle: No, I am afraid that I am not going to give way to the hon. Member.
Mr. Richards: He is afraid.
Mr. Hoyle: That's a laugh, isn't it? A Whitehall farce, if ever I heard one.
We are being used as a stalking horse to justify the public sector pay freeze—people who are among the lowest paid in the country. The Government want to be able to say, "Look, now that we've frozen MPs' pay, we expect you to restrict your pay demands." The Government are playing gesture politics. That is entirely unfair and will not work.
The Leader of the House said that he would listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) had to say when he moved his amendment. I do not understand why the Leader of the House did not accept the amendment, particularly as my right hon. Friend said that it would be up to hon. Members to make supplementary voluntary contributions. Now that the Leader of the House has listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, I hope that he will say when he replies to the debate that he accepts the amendment.
To turn to the stench that is coming from the other side of the House and to the hypocrisy of those who signed early-day motion 834, it is difficult to get at the exact truth, for the new Register of Members' Interests will not be published until next January. However, only three of those who signed the early-day motion have no outside interests in the form of consultancies or directorships. All the others have, on average, four. I have informed all these hon. Members that I might refer to them, so I have complied with the conventions of the House.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) signed the motion. His directorships are Kenton and Middlesex building society and Global Satellite Communications (Scotland) plc. He has an office—John Watts and Co., Chartered Accountants. He is parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Actuaries and consultant to Rank Hovis McDougall and Wisdom Securities Ltd. There is one interest for which he might not be paid quite so much—as adviser to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. That really is going down market, but he goes up market after that. He is also parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. By playing at gesture politics, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will suffer too much.
Mr. David Winnick: He is too busy to be here.
Mr. Hoyle: Yes.
904
The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has 13 outside interests. He is the managing partner in Marshall Consultants and the chairman of Direct Business Satellite Systems. He is also a non-executive director of Integrated Information Technology Ltd. He is parliamentary adviser to British Aerospace—and, by God, it needs an adviser. He is also parliamentary adviser to Cable and Wireless, Comsat, Dynamic Engineering Inc., the Society of West End Theatres and Williams Holdings. Would you believe it, the hon. Gentleman is also a member of Lloyd's.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle: No. I am sorry if this is upsetting the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) has a few nice little earners. He is a director of Le Carbone Lorraine, Stirling Winthrop, the Small Business Bureau and Cape plc, whatever that means. It may have South African connections, but I am not sure. The hon. Gentleman is consultant to Digital Equipment Company Ltd., the Association of Authorised Public Accountants, Bywater Group Ltd., the Unitary Tax Campaign, Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd., Harlingspear Ltd., Allied Partnership Group plc and Freight Complex Development and Management Ltd. One of his clients—he lists this because of questions that were asked in the Select Committee—is Ian Greer Associates.
I do not think that the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) will feel the pinch. He signed the early-day motion. He has directorships with Nexus Marketing, Fairey Group, Leica plc, GEC Marconi and Carroll Group. He is a partner in Terrington Management, and he lists other clients. I do not think that he will go too short in 12 months.
I now refer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). At least he has—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an increasing tendency for dialogue to take place between Conservative and Opposition Members, which is not acceptable.
Mr. Hoyle: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is not dialogue. Government Members are all directors and consultants of different companies. It is certainly not a dialogue. I am simply trying to make the point—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood me. I was referring to sedentary comments being thrown across the Floor while the hon. Member is making his speech.
Mr. Hoyle: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that comment. I refer now to the hon. Member for Wirral, South. He has directorships of County Seeds Ltd. and Decision Makers Ltd. He is employed as parliamentary adviser to the Hearing Aid Association Wang (UK) Ltd. and Impac plc. He is a consultant to Air Boss Ltd. and Groen Ltd. He is also a solicitor with Fanshaw Porter and Hazelhurst.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy in giving me notice that he would put the stiletto between my ribs. Perhaps he might accept that my great failing in life is that no one has asked me to be president of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have no

905
doubt that the job would take a great deal of time outside the House, but I do not know whether there is much money in it.
The hon. Gentleman should note that my interests are properly declared. He should also accept that some of my interests in the manufacturing and service industries keep my feet on the ground while his head is in the clouds.
Mr. Hoyle: The simple reason why the hon. Gentleman has not been asked to be the president of the ASTMS is that, as I understand it, he is not a member of a trade union. I must remind him that the ASTMS no longer exists so it is not possible for him to be the president. The ASTMS has become a new union, and is still growing, with more than 6,000 members. So he could not possibly be the president of ASTMS.
Mr. Porter: I apologise, but I must go now, not to a board meeting but to attend a lobby of my constituents.
Mr. Hoyle: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is going. When I gave way to him I thought that he might have told us what these nice little earners bring in for him.
I am sure that there is one thing missing from the register: it does not say what people earn from their interests. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for those hon. Members who signed the early-day motion and whom I have mentioned—I could mention more of them —to support the Government's motion. They still have nice little earnings from moonlighting. The register does not tell us how much they earn. My point is that they certainly will not suffer by giving up the increase. The Government are asking us to give up the increase.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said from a sedentary position that some Opposition Members may have outside jobs. All I am saying is that all hon. Members should declare what they earn. If the hon. Member has any interests, I hope that he will register them. Perhaps alongside those interests he should show what they bring in for him. We can only guess what Conservative Members earn from their interests. However, it is clear from the register that many hon. Members must earn more from their interests than their parliamentary salary.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle: No, because many other hon. Members want to speak. It is a case of playing politics tonight so that the Government can impose pay restraint on many of the lowest paid in the country. I for one will have no part of it.
5.55 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I start by declaring my interest in the Hill and Smith Group, the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Sub Contractors, Port Enterprises Ltd, the Waterfront Partnership, Howard de Walden Estates, MinOtels and Dunn and Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much do you earn?"] I earn considerably less than I deserve.
The debate has thrown up one aspect which I had not expected to examine but I think that it is useful. It is not so much the question whether the gesture should be made
906
—I will not fight shy of that phrase—but it has thrown into debate the whole process by which hon. Members salaries are fixed.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others said that there cannot be a Member in the House who wants to go through the invidious business each year of debating our pay rise. It is unpleasant, it is uncomfortable, it is demeaning, and it does not serve any purpose.
Shortly after I became a Member of the House I was pleased to see a linkage established. We could all ask whether the linkage was appropriate. It certainly made the position of senior principal in the civil service one of the most unpopular positions that any civil servant would ever want to hold. To my knowledge, many civil servants hoped that it was a grade that they might be able to overstep at some stage. It is obviously a good idea to have the automatic linkage, whatever level is chosen.
As I understood my right hon. Friend, there seems to be an element of doubt about whether the linkage can exist in the future. I certainly hope that, when the matter is examined next year, the principle of linkage will be there and that the Government will honour, as it were, the spirit of it, if not the letter. So whatever grade we are linked to, I hope that it will not simply be a lower grade with a view to making savings.
There is nothing wrong in the Government expecting Members of Parliament to make a gesture on this occasion. However, I will be slightly saddened if, in the years to come, the principle of linkage is accepted but the link is made to some other grade which is even less than 87 per cent. of, to give one example, the deputy chef in the Members' Dining Room.
It is difficult to get any fix on what the level of pay should be. It is interesting that the Library has produced a paper which I think is one of the most helpful pieces of information that I have seen on the matter. The paper sets out the level of Members' pay from 1911 to the present day, but the levels are adjusted at 1992 prices. That shows that the pay in August 1911, adjusted to today's prices, was £21,300 as against today's figure of £30,900—obviously, I am rounding out the figures. So it looks as though the level of pay in real terms for a Member of Parliament in 1911 was about two thirds of the level today. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that we are going back 80 years and that there has been enormous social change, both in the profile of people elected and, indeed, in those who put themselves forward for election to the House. If that sort of differential has been maintained, it shows that we have probably been getting it right. I should like to think that we will bear that in mind when the linkage is restored in some shape or form.
This is an appropriate time to mention my next point; the nexus is fairly clear. Even if I take the view that the level of Members' salaries is about right, I certainly could not say the same for ministerial pay with which it is closely connected. A few years ago, the then Solicitor-General went to the 100th anniversary of a Conservative club in the west country. In his speech, he said that his salary in the 1980s was virtually the same as that of his predecessor 100 years before when he had opened the same Conservative club.
I do not say that we should restore ministerial salaries to what the Solicitor-General was earning then, relatively speaking, but something has gone wrong with the system. It is all very well to expect people who accept ministerial

907
office not to go into it for profit, but there comes a time when the gap between what Ministers are paid and what able people might expect to command in the outside market becomes so vast that the public interest is not served. I would say that whether the Conservative or the Labour party were in office.
There are former Labour Ministers in the House too, and they will know that a Minister receives a reduced salary in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. I do not understand how we can justify paying a Minister of the Crown less than a Member of Parliament simply because he is a Minister. There is no reason in principle for that.
There is never an ideal time to make such alterations—to restore ministerial salaries to what they should be and to stop the reduction in their salary as Members of Parliament—but it is clear that over the past 10 years, to take no longer period, there will have been opportunities for the problem to be addressed, and that those opportunities were not taken. I should like to think that at some time in the future they will be taken—although I have been in the House long enough to believe that it is highly unlikely that that disparity will ever be dealt with as it should be. To coin a recent royal euphemism, ministerial salaries are relatively insubstantial, bearing in mind the task that Ministers are expected to perform.
It is probably about right that in due course there should be a linkage for Members' pay. But what about the gesture which is being requested? There is a difference between gestures and gesture politics. It is difficult enough to say to a low-paid worker, "Here am I on £30,000 a year" —that may seem a relatively modest sum, but it is hugely more than the average constituent of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) earns—"but I think I should have my 3–9 per cent. this year, because that is what the linkage will be." I do not think that that would go down very well, and I can understand that.
The hon. Lady might say to her constituent, "I have struck a real blow for you today. I have really done something for low-paid workers in my constituency: I am prepared to abstain." She did not say whether she would take the money if her abstention meant that the money would be paid. Probably for reasons of malice and cynicism, I should like to see the hon. Lady say to a low-paid worker in her constituency, "Vote for me; I am the one who did not take a percentage increase on £30,000 a year." For many of our constituents, that is a huge amount of money, and I think that she would find that gesture difficult to sustain.
Sometimes gestures have to be made, even if they engender cynicism. It is fair to say that there is a limit to what the country can afford. We have been told in the autumn statement that the Government believe 1·5 per cent. to be the appropriate maximum increase in the public sector. I cannot prove that the Government are right or that they are wrong. Perhaps the figure should be 1·4 per cent. or 1·8 per cent.—none of us can say—but every penny that goes into the pockets of public sector workers such as ourselves has to come out of somebody else's pay packet, either through taxation or by borrowing, which in turn has to be paid for out of taxation. The Government have to estimate what the country can afford in recession.
Some may say, "I do not agree with that; I do not agree with pay policies at all." Fine. I do not agree with rain in summer, but it happens, and one has to cope with it. Members of Parliament constantly make a whole range of demands to Ministers on behalf of their constituents and
908
find, inevitably, that those demands cannot be satisfied. Against such a background, I do not see how the Government can do anything but set a fairly strict level, nor how Members of Parliament can expect not to make some contribution.
I accept that some Labour Members do not agree with the policy—I think they are wrong, but that is their view —but I do not understand how, even if he believes the policy to be wrong, an Opposition Member on £30,000 a year can say to a public sector worker who may earn £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 a year that he opposed the Government because he believed the policy to be wrong. One cannot abstain on the issue. That does not work; it is an issue on which one has to make some judgment.
Debates on Members' pay tend to follow a ritual pattern, as those who have listened to them over the years know. One idea, as expressed by the hon. Member for Derby, South and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), is that there is something hypocritical in a Member of Parliament with outside interests taking a view on the matter, or signing an early-day motion — [Interruption.] We hear the chorus of abuse again. One would have a little more confidence in the sincerity of that chorus if the hon. Member for Warrington, North, in his rambling researches, had hit upon the relatively few Labour Members who are employable in any other context. There are many who serve in such positions with great distinction—
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I fully understand why the hon. Member for Great Grimsbly (Mr. Mitchell) might not be here today: he has other things to attend to. He is a highly effective Member of Parliament, and so long as he declares his interests in the proper way, there is no reason why he should not be entitled to earn those sums. That makes him a rarity on the Labour Benches. So many Labour Members are unemployable in any capacity but that of former members of the polytechnocracy.
When reading reports of debates such as this one, it is interesting to examine the comments of those whose reflections on the way in which Conservative Members earn money are the sternest. Let us consider the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There is a man who, now that street cleaning has been thoroughly mechanised, is totally unemployable anywhere other than in this House. As recently as 13 July the hon. Gentleman made clear his attitude to being a Member of Parliament. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must tell the House that his remarks, which are recorded at column 835 of Hansard, were made on one of the relatively rare occasions when he was here after prime time television had finished at 4.30 pm. He made it clear that he saw the job of a Member of Parliament as a nine-to-five job, for which he was obviously quite content to receive £30,000 a year. If that is someone's attitude to his work, it is understandable why nobody would employ him to do anything else.
The fact is that what many Conservative Members—and all too few Opposition Members—bring to the Chamber is some knowledge of what goes on in the outside world. There is something thoroughly unsatisfactory about Members who have never gainfully earned their living in their lives, other than perhaps—
Mr. Bryan Davies rose—
Mr. Nicholls: I do not want to forget the hon. Gentleman. I know that we have a lot of time, so I shall be able to give way to him in a moment.
There is something thoroughly unsatisfactory about hon. Members who bring nothing to the Chamber but bile, biliousness, class hatred and a certain distaste for those of their colleagues who are capable of earning anything other than a Member's salary. It is thoroughly distasteful that the contributions which those few—and we many—can bring to the House should not be heard.
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify two matters? First, does he include his list of consultancies and outside occupations in his election address and tell his constituents that those must be taken into account while he is fulfilling his duties as their Member of Parliament? Secondly, when he talks about the sacrifices that we should all make, is he prepared to quantify the sacrifice, in terms of his income, that he will make if the motion is passed?
Mr. Nicholls: I assume—although one should not always make such assumptions when dealing with interjections from Labour Members—that the hon. Gentleman is capable of working out 3·8 per cent., or 1·5 per cent., or 0 per cent., of the existing parliamentary salary. So he will be able to work out—at a stroke, given sufficient time—the amount of income which I would forgo. The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not sound very much. Frankly, on £30,000 a year, it is not very much —but every little helps.
The hon. Member for Derby, South was making the same point when she said that people had to assess the worth of the pay rise in the light of their own personal circumstances. There may be many Opposition Members who, in their personal circumstances, see no necessity to seek additional employment. I have no objection to that, but Members should be entitled to make that judgment for themselves.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) wanted to know what was in my election address. I am flattered about that. I certainly mentioned in my election address the fact that I was a practising solicitor and that was publicised as I went through the selection process. I made it clear that I worked for a living and that I had not come up through the more traditional avenues with which the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton will be familiar. I had not come up through the unions, the polytechnocracy or the Labour party research department. I made it clear that I continued to work for a living and that I believed that I would bring to the House of Commons—and to that rarefied atmosphere in which hon. Members worked—experience of work in the outside world.
To cheer up the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton, I can tell him that a local newspaper produced a detailed profile of the various parliamentary candidates and listed their outside activities and consultancies. To confirm what I hope was the hon. Gentleman's assumption, I am delighted to tell him that I had a great deal more experience of the outside world than any of my opponents. Through my connections, I was able to show that I had a far wider range of knowledge of the issues that affected my constituents than any of the other candidates. I hope that that will reassure them.
910
I had expected to hear more in this debate about our recent debate on the increase in hon. Members' expenses. The debate was interesting in many ways, because the Government thought that it would be helpful to give a lead about what they thought hon. Members should do. That lead was very helpful and I examined it carefully. Had I been a member of the Government, I would probably have made the recommendation to the House that the Government had made. However, I am not a member of the Government and, in the end, I had to make what I thought was the correct judgment.
While I welcome guidance from the Government in many areas, I decided that I could not welcome guidance from the Government if that guidance told me that the demands that are rightly made on me as an hon. Member were not to be satisfied as I would not have the necessary funds to satisfy them.
Therefore, I thought that the issue should not be expressed, as it was so often expressed, as simply more expenses for hon. Members, but that instead there should be an upper limit against which an hon. Member could draw as necessary. I was one of the relatively few hon. Members to vote for that idea. A great many more, who are conspicuous by their absence today as they were then, did not turn up and vote for the proposal.
There is all the difference in the world between the expenses necessary to provide the kind of services to one's constituents that they are increasingly demanding and an increase in salary. Obviously, cynics in the Press Gallery and the cynics who write to hon. Members will say, "No, it's all the same really. An increase in expenses is the same as an increase in salary." A business man put precisely that point to me. When I asked him whether he thought that every time he gave his secretary a new word processor or an upgraded typewriter that increased his standard of living, I did not receive a reply. Expenses and salaries are entirely different matters.
When we come out of this recession, public pay will be dealt with as it was before. Whatever the complexion of the Government may be, every year they will tell us that times are hard and restraint is necessary. We will always be told that. That has been part of the Treasury abacus and word processor since Adam was a lad. Some people will negotiate, some will bargain, others will have linkages and others will have formulae. That is the normal world.
However, today's world is not a normal world. It is a world of recession. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have friends or relatives who have lost their jobs during the recession. People have suffered greatly. I doubt whether there are any Conservative or Opposition Members who do not have friends or acquaintances who have lost everything in the recession. At the end of the day, with people in that position, we must make a gesture and be prepared to take the lead.
Although 3·8 per cent., or even 1·5 per cent., of £30,000 is not very much, it sets a keynote. We must be prepared to say that that is what we are recommending for the country and that is what we are prepared to take ourselves. That should be agreed on both sides of the House.
6.13 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was absolutely correct when he said that the proposal is a gesture. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) called

911
it a smokescreen. However, the value of the hon. Gentleman's gesture would be greater if we achieved one or two objectives set out in the amendment that I tabled but which Madam Speaker did not select.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge made two points upon which I will comment. He said that we live in a world of recession. Opposition Members remember what Conservative Members were saying only seven months ago. Not one Conservative Member said then that there would be a public sector pay freeze. Did any Conservative Member state in his or her election manifesto that they would support a public sector pay freeze? Not one of' them did. They all said that it was possible to have tax cuts and more public spending and that we were coming out of recession. The green shoots were everywhere. They were on every election address—
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way with regard to my election address?
Mr. Fatchett: No. I am sure that that is a very important document and that it will be read by posterity.
Conservative Members made promises, but not one of them has been reproduced in reality because the recession continues. However, the Government are now implementing a public sector pay freeze which is a promise that they did not make.
Conservative Members are now starting to cry crocodile tears for the unemployed and the low-paid. Let us consider what has happened under this Conservative Government. More than 2 million more people are unemployed now than in 1979. In the face of that, Conservative Members supported the Government in the Lobby just a week ago when the Government removed wages council protection from the lowest paid. I do not want to hear arguments from Conservative Members about protecting the low-paid and the unemployed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was right. The proposal is a smokescreen and the Government are looking for a fig leaf as they stumble from crisis to crisis and policy to policy. The Leader of the House hinted—this point was picked up by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—that there will be a restoration of the amount of money that might be lost this year because of the loss of linkage on this occasion. At some time in the future, the pay of hon. Members will be restored in real terms to the value that they might have enjoyed if there had been no freeze on their pay this year.
Is that correct? If so, I point out gently to the Leader of the House that it is worth while re-reading the history of such matters. Every public sector pay freeze has created a dam that burst as the public sector caught up. If the Leader of the House is going to be consistent, can he tell us whether, if hon. Members' pay is to be allowed to catch up in real terms, the same will be true for teachers, nurses, doctors, low-paid public sector workers and school dinner ladies? Will the pay of all those people be allowed to catch up? That is an important message which should come from our debate.
There are two crucial points to be made about our annual debate on Members' pay. First, as hon. Members have said, we need an acceptable system to determine our
912
pay. In many respects, it is not appropriate for the House to have this debate. Not many hon. Members enjoy the debate. We need a system of linkage; in that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Teignbridge: it should be restored.
The details of that linkage may now be subject to further discussion or, to use the impolite term in this place, negotiation. Nevertheless, there must be a principle of linkage so that we do not go through this process every year. This is not gesture politics today; it is almost macho politics. We are showing whether we are prepared to make a sacrifice, and then we try to lead people into what is obviously an elephant trap in respect of our pay. That is an embarrassment, and it is foolish. If we are to have an orderly public sector pay system, I suggest to the Leader of the House that hon. Members could, as a lead, have an orderly system for their own pay.
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely that we should have an orderly pay system for Members of Parliament and that it should be linked. I am new to the House, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but I understand that we are to vote on the pay increase for the current financial year. I think that I am right in saying that the pay increase for nurses, teachers and civil servants for the current financial year has already been decided and awarded. This is a back-pay increase for us which we are forgoing.
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is not absolutely correct. He will find that there are many public sector pay increases that have to be determined, and whether they can be fully funded by local government and national health service money is a crucial question. There is an argument about linkage. I hope that we opt for linkage, establish it, keep it, and do not repeat this debate in future.
The second crucial principle for any system of Members' pay is openness. That is why I tabled my amendment. One or two Conservative Members have started to follow my lead. My amendment is a bridge-building, consensual amendment. It would make sure that, in the Register of Members' Interests, people disclosed the finances that they obtained from the outside interests that they pursued.
I am not saying for a moment that people should stop pursuing those interests. I am not saying that they should be unelectable in any sense if they have outside interests: that decision will be taken by the electorate. If electors feel that a Member of Parliament has such tremendous ability, enthusiasm and energy that he or she can hold 12 outside directorships and six consultancies and still do the job of a Member of Parliament and they vote for that person, so be it. I certainly do not object to that, although I might question the judgment of the electorate.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Fatchett: I shall develop my point further and then give way.
I spent a little time looking at the Register of Members' Interests—relating to the previous Parliament, unfortunately—and looked up Conservative Members' interests. My principle applies to all hon. Members. Before the previous election, on the Conservative Benches there were 359 directorships and 222 consultancies. Let us say that each one attracts a fee of £2,000 a year. That might be on the low side—
Mr. Hoyle: Very low.
Mr. Fatchett: I am a reasonable and modest man trying to build bridges across the House. Let us say that it is £2,000 a year. That amounts to £1·2 million going into Conservative Members' pockets.
An important constitutional question needs to be asked: what is that money buying? People who spend money on hon. Members want to buy something, and it is called influence over Government policy. We know that from the American system. The American system is corrupt. That is why they talk about pork barrels and the influence that corporations have on congressmen and senators. My amendment says to each and every Member of Parliament, regardless of where he or she sits in the House of Commons, "Declare all your interests in the register and say how much money is involved." That is a very simple principle.
Mr. Nicholls: I have considerable sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his point, but it is entirely fair that constituents, if they are interested, should know what interests are declared in hon. Members' entries. The hon. Gentleman will know at once that, the moment it comes out, the register is of great interest to the local press. Our salaries as Members of Parliament should be known to the public, because they are a charge on the public Exchequer. The amount of any other income is a matter between the person concerned and the Inland Revenue.
What extra information does the hon. Gentleman think constituents would get in knowing, in a list of outside interests, how much money was being paid? Surely, according to the hon. Gentleman's logic, they should know that those interests exist. Other than public prurience, what extra will constituents have in knowing what sums, if any—that is important—are paid?
Mr. Fatchett: Electors would know a great deal about our political system. They would know about its openness and genuineness. They would also know—I put it no higher than this—that when people speak in the House of Commons they are either free men or less free men. They would also know—it is the nature of life, and let us accept it as such—that, if people are receiving £100,000-a-year directorships, they might try to act in the interests of those directorships. If that is the case, the public have a right to know. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members say, "No, it doesn't happen," let us open the system and see what does happen.
The key to my proposal, which is obviously beginning to attract support among Conservative Members, has the support of the Prime Minister himself. I have not discussed the detailed amendment with the Prime Minister, but I know that he is in favour—[Laughter.] I would not discuss it with him because he might not remember it, so there is no point in my discussing it with him. The Prime Minister is in favour because he believes in open government, and this matter is part of an open democracy. We need to ensure that the public know what goes on in this place. That is the purpose of my amendment.
We have heard many arguments about making a sacrifice—a sacrifice that is equal to that of others outside. There are grades of sacrifice. If one is a £5,000-a-year school dinner assistant, there is one level of sacrifice. If one is a £30,000-a-year Member of Parliament with no other income, there is another level of sacrifice. But if one is a
914
£30,000-a-year Member of Parliament with 11 directorships and eight consultancies, there is yet another level of sacrifice. The hon. Member for Teignbridge lectured us about sacrifice. What amount of money is he earning from outside? Will he give a commitment today that he will take no further increase in those interests next year?
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Has the hon. Gentleman read today's issue of the Western Mail, the well-known national newspaper of Wales? It contains an interview with his former colleague, Mr. Leo Abse, who was a Member of Parliament for Torfaen. He expresses the view that the House is devalued by having so few Members of Parliament nowadays with outside interests. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a book that was published some years ago, Mr. Abse offered the observation that, throughout the time that he sat on the Labour Benches, he earned more money than the Prime Minister of the day earned and felt that that freed him from the influence of his own Whips?
Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman strongly makes my case for my amendment, if it had been selected. My amendment does not relate only to Conservative Members—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, as her interventions are always a treat for the House.
My amendment relates to all hon. Members, regardless of political colour. We need to know whether outside experience has an important bearing on people's judgments of legislation. Let us look at the extent of that and the amount of money involved so that there is no corruption. That is why we need openness—so that we know that there is no corruption and that people are representing the interests of their constituents. That is what my amendment is intended to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, although that subject is relevant to the debate, his amendment was not selected.
Mr. Fatchett: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always defer to your judgment, and quite rightly. I was putting forward a principle for a general pay system for Members of Parliament. I hope that what I have offered so far will win widespread acceptance.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made some scathing references to family income. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) omitted to mention that he has a number of directorships—for example, in West Highland Publishing Co. Ltd.—and very substantial declarable shareholdings. Many Opposition Members have husbands or wives who are highly paid trade union officials. Should such facts be declared as well?
Mr. Fatchett: I have two comments in response. All directorships and consultancies, regardless of political party, would be declared under the system that I think is fair. Spouses and partners are irrelevant to what goes on.
Mr. Nicholls: So the hon. Gentleman's wife is a wealthy girl.
Mr. Fatchett: The answer to that is no. The issue is for the House to decide, but I think that that is an irrelevance.
I have some ideas on how we can achieve a better system for Members' pay. We need to discuss our democracy, openness, the information made available and ways to reduce corruption so that the public can have confidence in the system.
The Government have degraded our constitution and our democracy. Too often, the only characteristic taken into account when someone is appointed to public office, either in the national health service or in other places, is that he or she should be "one of us"—a card-carrying member of the Conservative party.
I believe in openness and democracy. We must end corruption, and that is why we need an open system in the House so that we know what people are paid, where it comes from, and what interests they represent.
6.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) interesting. I agree that Members' pay should be linked to some grade. I am not sure that I agree with much more, and I do not agree that Members can be bought. Should I ever have a directorship, I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I shall not be bought.
This is a good time to declare that I have no pecuniary interests. I have a small military pension, which I hope Opposition Members will not deny me. It will not buy me much, although I worked for it for 15 years, and I shall get it every day for the rest of my life, whether I am underneath the arches at Charing Cross station or here.
I find it distressing and disappointing that any hon. Member would vote against the motion. Opposition Members should consider their consciences. We all know that Members of Parliament are not overpaid. I have only been a Member for about seven months, and I am astonished at how hard I have worked. I never thought that it would be like this—I find it extraordinarily hard —[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but by God it is hard. We are not overpaid—I know that and Opposition Members know it. My contemporaries from university are generally earning a great deal more than I am, but I do not mind; I chose to come to this place, as did Opposition Members.
The job should be rewarding, and it is. Our salaries should be similarly rewarding and fixed to some other pay scheme and we should not have to face the unedifying spectacle of hon. Members voting on their pay.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned outside interests, but I do not know how hon. Members find time to do other things. Opposition Members are pointing at the Conservative Benches, but when the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) talked about the "stench" from our Benches, I thought that that showed some hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members. I have the Register of Members' Interests here and I have made one or two notes. I shall not mention names, as that would be invidious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I shall not.
The director of West Highland Publications Co. Ltd. is not sitting on the Government Benches, nor is the parliamentary adviser to the National Market Traders
916
Federation, the director of Ladbroke plc or the person who gets the £2,000 consultancy from the National Union of Teachers.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I am well aware that Members in every corner of the House have outside interests. During the last Parliament, 14 per cent. of Opposition Members had outside interests, but 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members had paid outside interests.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the question is: who would employ Opposition Members? I do not want to be uncomplimentary about the Opposition Member who is the parliamentary adviser to Merck, Sharp and Dohme, and also a member of the conciliation board of the European Space Agency. As Opposition Members know, there are lawyers and Queen's counsel on both sides of the House.
I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is a Queen's counsel, which I find interesting. I am sure that he gains enormously from the experience of being a good lawyer—or not, as the case may be.
Many hon. Members have union sponsorship and its meaning is indistinct; often, the register states "no pecuniary interest", but I understand that the unions assist greatly in the constituency, by running the office and the political side of things.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend not find it interesting that, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that, because Conservative Members were in receipt of funds from companies, they were somewhat tainted and could not be independent? As my hon. Friend has just intimated, some Opposition Members are sponsored by trade unions. Does that mean that they are tainted, that they are not independent and that they put their unions before their constituents? I have here a list of all Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all those Members are tainted?
Mr. Robathan: As I said, should I ever be a director I would be independent, and I hope that Opposition Members who are sponsored by trade unions take the same line.
The work done by Conservative Members is often related to work that they have done in the business world. It is important for us to understand that world, especially at this time of recession. It is no good sitting back with no experience and saying how much hon. Members know about business, when they know nothing. It is important for Members to have up-to-date knowledge of the business world. My up-to-date knowledge of it is not immense, but I try to get out and to learn a little.
Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman said that it is important to have outside interests and to be aware of the business world. I can fully accept that, but why do not he and his hon. Friends do it for free?
Mr. Robathan: I had better answer that—it is an interesting argument. I do it for free when I am trying to find out what is going on, but hon. Members have a busy life and perhaps they feel that such work should be rewarded.
Mr. Bill Walker: With my accent, I do as little as I possibly can for free. Throughout my life I have taken the view that something that is worth nothing, is worth nothing. The worth of an individual—a Member of Parliament or whoever—is the worth that he can earn in the marketplace, and we ought not to be ashamed of that, whatever Opposition Members say.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interjection and assistance.
Members' interests are not the subject at issue. The motion is important, and Opposition Members degrade it by talking about who is earning threepence for doing what, and who is sponsored by which union or is a director of what company. It is Opposition Members who tell us what terrible trouble the country is in and it is no secret that we are in a severe recession. All of us discover how severe it is when we go around our constituencies.
I have just been sitting on the Employment Select Committee and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. We were listening to evidence on the problems facing the horse racing and the coal industries, which are costing this country jobs.
I know—as do Opposition Members—what a catastrophe it is to lose one's job. The recession is a catastrophe to people who have lost their jobs and, yes, the motion is a gesture. It is about leadership.
Mr. Kirkwood: Oh.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may scoff, but perhaps that is because the Liberals know nothing about leadership.
The country is looking to us for leadership. [Laughter.] The Opposition may laugh, but that is because they never get the opportunity to lead, and I am not surprised. The people look to us for leadership, and it is obvious that they would get the leadership that they deserved if they voted for the Labour party.
The motion is a gesture, but leadership is about the perceptions of being led. We must be seen to lead by forgoing the pay rise that was awarded before I entered the House.
The private sector, of which the Opposition appear to know very little, has made pay cuts—de facto pay cuts through short-term working and a shortage of overtime.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Rubbish.
Mr. Robathan: It is not rubbish. You should go and talk to your constituents, but perhaps you never do.
Those people who have no pay except for unemployment benefit are facing a real disaster, and they are looking to hon. Members to see how we will behave. Those in the private sector are suffering real pain, and it is worth hon. Members sharing that pain, if only a tiny part, by forgoing this pay rise.
In these times, public sector wage restraint is necessary. The Opposition may expose their bleeding hearts to public view when they say how they would deal with nurses and teachers, but tonight we are dealing with our pay, not that of teachers or nurses. We must set an example—that is not a dirty word—and show leadership, for that is what we are paid to do. I am absolutely astonished that the Opposition have never heard about leadership or example. [Laughter.] They may laugh, but tomorrow they should go to their constituents, look them in the eye and tell them how they voted tonight.
918
Public sector pay restraint is linked to the private sector because, surprising as it may be to the Opposition, the private sector provides the money to pay the public sector. Public sector money does not grow on trees—it comes from the toil of those in the private sector. I note that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) appears to be convulsed with laughter once more; he obviously understands little at all. I also note that he is sitting on his own, as usual.
The Opposition do not understand about the link between the public and private sectors because they have no experience of real work. Public sector pay restraint is necessary because the money for that pay comes from the private sector. If the Opposition speak to those of their constituents who work in the private sector, they may come to understand that.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Before I became a Member, I spent all my working life in the private sector. I should be interested to know how many years the hon. Gentleman spent working in that sector.
Mr. Robathan: I have already said that I have no experience of working in the private sector, which is why I receive a military pension. That is why I do not presume, unlike the Opposition, to lecture the private sector on how to run its businesses. I suggest that British industry has been too much influenced by people who have no experience of working in it, let alone any idea of how to run it.
Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend and I represent Leicestershire. Has he taken the opportunity to read the Leicester Mercury in the past month, which has singled him out for leading the campaign in the county in favour of the motion? Does my hon. Friend accept from me that the readers of that newspaper, who number several thousand—[Interruption.]—support the campaign that has been conducted for pay restraint, led from the front by Members of this House, such as my hon. Friend and myself?
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour. The Opposition may scoff, but each evening about 130,000 people read the Leicester Mercury.Many of its readers vote Labour but all of them believe that we should vote in favour of the motion.
I want to be able to go to my constituents and look them in the eye. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to do the same with their constituents. I want to be able to say, "I may still be employed and I may be earning nearly £31,000, but I understand your problems and I shall try my best to make those problems a little better." At least that will show that I understand that my constituents look to the House of Commons for leadership and for example. That is what is sought tonight, and I commend the motion to the House.
6.46 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I have found tonight's debate interesting, if very confusing.
I apologise to the Leader of the House for not being present when he moved the motion, but, because of Government policies, I seem to spend a lot of time meeting people who come here to lobby hon. Members to let us know how bad things are for them.

919
It was interesting to listen to Conservative Members telling us about free enterprise. They have sought to explain that it is satisfactory for them to have four or five jobs, but I do not accept that when nearly 3 million people are unemployed. That explanation might be satisfactory legally, but it is not satisfactory morally. Conservative Members should remember that when they cast their vote tonight.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Etherington: No; I shall not give way because I have been listening to you for long enough and I have just 10 minutes for my speech.
Mr. Nicholls: Oh, come on, try.
Mr. Etherington: No.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While I have been in the Chair, the debate has been good-humoured. I appeal to the House to allow the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) a chance to express his views without interruption.
Mr. Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attempts by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to intervene prove one thing; that the old Chinese proverb
"He on thin ice shouts loudest"
is appropriate. Tonight, Conservative Members are showing the electorate exactly what they are.
It is all very well to talk about the £31,000 that hon. Members earn. I happen to be one of those who believe that that is more than enough. Before I became a Member, I was a trade union official, and I took a reduction in salary to come here. I would willingly do so again if that would help the people who will suffer most as a result of the 1·5 per cent. pay limit that has been imposed by the Government.
Tonight's motion is about the failure of the Government's economic policies. Since 1979, they have carried on as the handmaidens of the City, the Confederation of British Industry and other similar interest groups. Their policies have been a dismal failure. Instead of asking those who have done extremely well in their 13 years of rule—the top 5 per cent. who have received almost as much in tax relief as has been earned from North sea oil revenues—to make some contribution to the state, now that the country is not doing so well, they expect the lowest-paid in society to bear that burden. That is not on.
I hope that everyone in the country realises just what you are doing and what you are about. You are about what you have been about for the past 13 years—making the wealthy, wealthier and the poor, poorer. You have robbed old age pensioners, you have reduced the standard of living of the unemployed and the disabled and you are now seeking—
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is launching a grossly unfair attack on you, and I do not believe for one moment that you have done any of those things. If you have, you may feel that you want to clear the air now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, hut I note that he did not give that advice
920
when his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was making the same mistake. I always hesitate to intervene when new Members are speaking, but. I remind all hon. Members that it is not the practice in the House to use the word "you" when hon. Members are not addressing the Chair. That applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that advice.
I was, of course, referring to Conservative Members. I still have a little humility in my soul, unlike many of them. If they had a little humility in their souls, they might realise what was involved in the proposal in the Chancellor's autumn statement. When I heard the first part of the statement, I thought that it was good and that the analysis was excellent. I accept that there are international factors over which the Government have no control, but I also believe that the Government have been responsible for much of their own misfortune by their policies.
It is unfair for Conservative Members to expect the least able in society to bail the Government out, but in many ways that shows what they believe. Many of the people on whom the Government intend to impose a 1·5 per cent. maximum pay rise are among the lowest paid and are living below the subsistence level determined by the EC.
It would have been better if the Government had considered the introduction of progressive income tax. They do not believe in it, but the important thing about progressive income tax is that, if more money is available to the poorer people, it gets back into the economy and is not invested abroad or put into property, thus raising property prices.
The reason I shall vote against the motion is not that I am concerned about my salary. It will make very little difference to me whether I get 0 per cent., 2 per cent., 4 per cent. or 10 per cent. more. I am not concerned about a pay rise. It may concern Conservative Members because they have proved that they are concerned about trying to acquire wealth. That seems to be their main reason for existing. They do not want to distribute wealth; rather, they want to exploit those who create it.
That is what the motion is about. If I were to vote for the motion, I should be betraying the people in the public sector who are poorly paid, those who support the policies that I support, because they are the people who would suffer. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to snigger and grin. I do not mind that. I quite enjoy the entertainment which they give me from time to time. I do not want to be churlish about it, but it is time for Conservative Members to think about what they are doing, because the Government will never regenerate the economy as long as they keep to their present policies.
The motion is the precursor to carrying out those policies. I ask Conservative Back Benchers to consider their constituents. We have heard some mealy-mouthed references to looking our electors in the eye. I shall not have any problems in facing my constituents and explaining to them what I have done, because I work on their behalf. We do not need lectures from Conservative Members about how good they are and about how they could be employed when Opposition Members could not.
I know one thing: if I happened to end up on a desert island, I certainly would not be looking to the Government Benches to find the admirable Crichton. If some

921
Conservative Members who are so keen to taunt us when we are genuinely trying to look after our constituents could not find a bank, an estate agent or a solicitor on the desert island, they would have to do what they have done all their lives—look around to see who they could exploit, because they are not capable of doing anything on their own.
6.54 pm
Ms Joyce Quin: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate, both because I support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and because I share many of the anxieties voiced by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members about what the Government are doing via the motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I also tabled an amendment, which unfortunately was not selected. However, I am glad that the concerns expressed in my amendment have been covered in the debate. I should like to refer to them in the next few minutes.
My main concern was that the Government, through the motion, were effectively destroying the linkage between our salaries and the salaries of the civil service grade. It is inconsistent of Conservative Members to argue on the one hand that they are in favour of linkage and on the other to support the Government's proposal effectively to break the linkage. They should think about that inconsistency and illogicality in their argument.
I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said about securing the linkage for the future and to the assurances that he gave us. I would have felt more reassured if he had brought forward for debate an examination of the link in the light of the changes in the civil service and had not simply put the motion forward as part of the measures which the Government had previously announced in the autumn statement. That is the weakness of the Government's position.
I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friends have done, that I do not support what the Government said in the autumn statement about public sector pay. The Government are using us as a smokescreen in order to keep down the pay of the most vulnerable in society. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am not willing to take any lessons from Government Back-Bench Members about concern for low pay when the Government are abolishing wages councils, are refusing to accept Maastricht's social chapter and are presiding over a period when the gap between top earners and the lowest earners has widened so dramatically.
Ministers are out of touch with ordinary Members of Parliament on both sides of the House on the issue. They do not seem to value properly the work of a Member of Parliament who exists on a Member's pay. Recently I came across a flagrant example of that in an article written by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Ridley, in the Evening Standard. In the article he described what it is like when a Minister loses his position or has to resign:
"Resignation from ministerial office is traumatic. Suddenly you are alone. There is no office, no private secretary, no chauffeur-driven car, no income and nothing to
922
do. Is one's whole political career at an end in one day's fateful decision, and will one have to find a new occupation in life?"
I understood that when a Minister ceased to be a Minister, he or she remained a Member of the House, on the salary of a Member of Parliament and with the job of a Member of Parliament to do. I agree with the Top Salaries Review Body's analysis of an MP's work, which, found that a full-time Member was on average doing 63 to 69 hours of work a week and that the work of a Member is a full-time job. It worries me that Ministers treat a full-time Member's job in such a dismissive way.
Much of the debate has been concerned with outside interests. They are important, but I agree with the view already expressed in the debate that there is no reason for Members to be paid for outside interests. Indeed, many of us have outside interests and have our feet firmly on the ground in our constituencies. We feel very much involved in the life of the community but do not want pay for our outside interests.
I urge the Leader of the House to give us far more assurances about the linkage and timing of our pay decisions in his reply than he did in his opening speech. I hope that he will respond seriously to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is wrong for the Government, in such a cavalier way, unilaterally to break the consensus on Members' pay, which has been built up over a long time.
6.59 pm
Mr. Newton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
On one or two occasions, I thought that the debate had become one on Members' interests rather than Members' pay. I shall not go into all the arguments that have been expressed, as some of them were fairly partisan. I am glad to say—I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was aware of it—that the Select Committee on Members' Interests was reconstituted at the end of last week. I understand that it will meet next Tuesday, which should pave the way for the publication of the Register under aegis of that Committee. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that.
There has been much discussion about what some Members have termed "gesture politics". That is an unreasonable description of a policy that is concerned with some £1·5 billion of public money and is directed to maintaining priority programmes and giving capital expenditure the emphasis which hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly think it should have.
I make no apology for saying plainly, as some of my hon. Friends have done during the debate, that in circumstances in which, for reasons that I have just explained, the Government think it right to ask for pay restraint in the public sector, it would be wrong if the House were to proceed as if no difference should be made in respect of its own pay. It is not reasonable to describe the Government's proposal as gesture politics.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others have commented on pensions. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I remain convinced, not that he is wrong to wish to deal with the problem that he identified, but that his resolution would not be an effective or justifiable way of seeking to do it. It would be much better if he were willing to accept my offer to undertake discussions about an

923
alternative way of seeking to meet that objective through additional voluntary contributions associated with the parliamentary pension scheme.
May I repeat what I said in my speech in explaining why I doubted whether the amendment was an appropriate way to proceed. I said that, as the long-term position will not become clear until the House has debated and decided the longer-term linkage issues, Members would not find it easy to determine whether and to what extent they wished to take advantage of what is proposed in the amendment without some risk—I think that it is a substantial risk—of making payments from which they would derive no benefit.
I have suggested considering a system of additional voluntary contributions operating through the parliamentary pension scheme, which would not be free standing and separate from the scheme, as some hon. Members seem to have thought. It would have the advantage that any benefits that Members bought with those additional contributions would not be limited to the period of pay restraint but would bring a money sum not linked to such a period. They would therefore be better value for money and could be better tailored to a Member's individual circumstances.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree to withdraw his amendment and allow us to look at what I strongly believe would be a better way to proceed. I do not dismiss the need to which he has drawn attention but suggest that we can and should seek a more satisfactory way of dealing with the need. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment as it stands.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House is aware that there was detailed consultation among the trustees before the amendment was drafted and tabled in my name and theirs. We seek to ensure that the parliamentary scheme itself provides all reasonable protection that Members seek for themselves and their dependants. I emphasised in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that it will be for the individual Member to decide whether he or she wants the insurance offered by the amendment.
The Government's proposal for a system of additional voluntary contributions will also require regulations. If the Leader of the House wants that provision outside the scheme, I see no reason why he could not discuss with the trustees the possibility of making AVCs an additional provision.
I do not want to let the opportunity pass for making it certain that people who may end their service to the House next year or in 1994, through death or ill health, do not leave their dependants at a disadvantage. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the trustees gave very careful consideration to this whole matter before submitting the amendment?
Mr. Newton: I repeat what I have said in the past few minutes. I am not suggesting that it would not be right to see whether a sensible approach to that problem can be identified. However, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's resolution, as distinct from my suggestions about possible alternatives, will achieve effectively what he wants. Hon. Members will find it extremely difficult to make judgments in circumstances in which, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, they are being offered the chance
924
to make substantial insurance payments, which they might well get. The vast majority would get no return whatever but the money would simply disappear.
I suggest the development of additional voluntary contributions, which would both meet what the right hon. Gentleman wants and ensure that hon Members would get a return for their money. I wish to make that difference between us absolutely clear.
Mr. Ashton: Will the Leader of the House offer to bring the matter back to the House and introduce a scheme which he thinks would be better than the amendment?
Mr. Newton: It was implicit in my opening remarks, and acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), with whom I have also spoken on the matter, that if the trustees and Members generally felt that it would be helpful to explore the possibility that I raised—the one to which I have just adverted—I should be happy to assist. I would be making that point in bad faith were I to rule out—or not rule in—doing something about it if a satisfactory arrangement could be made on the basis of those discussions.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I ask the Leader of the House to accept that this is not a moment for exploring opportunities: it is an occasion when we can provide protection that may be essential to the dependants of hon. Members. If he is giving the House, as it were, a bankable assurance that there will be provision to meet the problem that I documented in my speech, we will consider the position.
Mr. Newton: I think that I made it clear to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that there is a better way of achieving what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I should like the opportunity to obtain the necessary further advice, discuss the issue with the trustees and then, if we can find a solution that meets the objectives of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I shall present it to the House in the appropriate form.
Mrs. Beckett: I am closely following the argument of the Leader of the House, but I have some concern. I accept his good faith in suggesting that his proposal would be better for hon. Members. However, if I understood the position correctly, when Lady Thatcher retired, having not taken her full salary, the taxpayer made up her pension. My right hon. Friend is not suggesting that; he is suggesting that each Member should have the right to choose.
I find it hard to envisage a scheme under which it would not be better to maintain the value—the full entitlement —of the underlying pension than to adopt any conceivable system of additional voluntary contributions. I should be surprised if a case could be sustained that a better return for the same money could be obtained through additional voluntary contributions than by maintaining the basic scheme.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe may not have taken in my basic point in a difficult argument. The basis on which the resolution is tabled is that the House will need to return to the issue of long-term linkage with civil service pay at the end of next year. Until that longer term issue is resolved, hon. Members will be unable to judge what it is that they are seeking to protect themselves against.

925
Under the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, hon. Members will be offered an opportunity to place significant sums of money—up to £200 or £300—into a scheme from which they may ultimately receive little or no benefit. I sense that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) understands what I am saying. I am talking about a defined benefit and final salary scheme in which the amount that hon. Members receive is determined by their salary in the last 12 months of their term of office.
In order to deal with the problem which, I accept, could arise in the short term, and about which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is anxious, hon. Members will be offered the opportunity to invest significant sums of money that they may find will buy them nothing. I am arguing that a proper additional voluntary contributions system, discussed and agreed between us, would be a much better way to solve the problem and would ensure that hon. Members received a return on whatever money they invested.
Sir Jim Spicer: I do not want to prolong the debate more than a few minutes, but the trustees' anxiety is clear —that some people could fall into the trap. They may depart this life, and while discussions are taking place, their dependants will be left without additional benefit and their widows will suffer in the long term. If we can have an assurance on that key issue—the short-term period before discussions are finalised and a resolution found—I shall be happy.
Mr. Newton: In the very short term—some weeks—but not in the long term, it may be necessary to consider the role of the Members' fund in relation to certain circumstances. However, although I acknowledge the purpose of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I do not believe that it could achieve its purpose in a way that Members would find helpful. I sense that one or two other Opposition Members are now in agreement with me. I believe that we should find a more satisfactory way of seeking to achieve the right hon. Gentleman's objective. That is the offer that I am extending.
Mrs. Beckett: Now that I am able to follow more clearly the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I shall put it in words of one syllable. The impact of freezing salaries, possibly over a sustained period, will be so serious that, although in normal circumstances it is always true that it is better for someone to place a defined sum of money in a defined benefit scheme, in this case it might be better to use additional voluntary contributions. That is true in this case because the net loss suffered from freezing is greater than the net gain from additional voluntary contributions.
Mr. Newton: That is almost the exact opposite of what I am saying. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is offering Members a short-term insurance policy in which the overwhelming majority of hon. Members would invest money for no return. I would rather devise a scheme into which they could place money if they wished and from which they were guaranteed a return. That is a more sensible proposition, which is why I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I take it from the Leader of the House that he is prepared to meet the managing trustees at an early date to determine the timing of the regulations required by his proposals for additional voluntary contributions?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I made it clear in the very last words of my opening speech two to three hours ago that I was suggesting meeting the managing trustees to discuss the issues. Those discussions will have to take place on the basis of seeking to identify an acceptable scheme to deal with the sort of matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, I would take steps to enable the House to take action on any proposal resulting from the discussions. Is that a reasonable suggestion?
The issue of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment has taken much longer than I anticipated and I sense a feeling of impatience among Members. Therefore, I shall simply repeat two crucial issues for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not able to be present when I first spoke. First, the Government entirely accept the case for re-establishing a clear and automatic linkage with the civil service, comparable with what the House intended when it originally passed the resolution. We have no wish to return to the position whereby the House has to decide Members' pay each and every year.
Secondly, we do not intend that Members should forgo the pay increase that civil servants have already received —3·9 per cent. for 1992 paid in August which, in normal circumstances, we would have expected to be carried through to Members' pay in January—as well as receiving no increase for the forthcoming year. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends attach importance to the issue, and we do not intend Members to be permanently disadvantaged by 3·9 per cent. in comparison with the civil service.
I hope that, with those reservations in mind, my right hon. and hon. Friends, in the context of the overall policy for which they voted after the autumn statement, will support the Government tonight
Amendment negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 103.

Division No. 93]

[7.17 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Booth, Hartley

Aitken, Jonathan

Boswell, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Amess, David

Bowden, Andrew

Ancram, Michael

Bowis, John

Arbuthnot, James

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Brandreth, Gyles

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Brazier, Julian

Aspinwall, Jack

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Baldry, Tony

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Budgen, Nicholas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burns, Simon

Bates, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Batiste, Spencer

Butcher, John

Beggs, Roy

Butler, Peter

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Butterfill. John

Bellingham, Henry

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

927

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Hannam, Sir John

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cash, William

Harris, David

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Haselhurst, Alan

Chapman, Sydney

Hawkins, Nick

Churchill, Mr

Hawksley, Warren

Clappison, James

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Congdon, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Connarty, Michael

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Conway, Derek

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Horam, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

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

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Dafis, Cynog

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Davidson, Ian

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunter, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Dicks, Terry

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dowd, Jim

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Duncan, Alan

Kilfedder, Sir James

Duncan-Smith, Iain

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dunn, Bob

Kirkhope, Timothy

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Elletson, Harold

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

Emery, Sir Peter

Knox, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Evennett, David

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Faber, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fabricant, Michael

Legg, Barry

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lidington, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Lightbown, David

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Forth, Eric

Lord, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Luff, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Freeman, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

MacKay, Andrew

Fry, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gallie, Phil

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gardiner, Sir George

Madel, David

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garnier, Edward

Major, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Malone, Gerald

Gillan, Cheryl

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marlow, Tony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Merchant, Piers

Grylls, Sir Michael

Milligan, Stephen

Hague, William

Mills, Iain

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moate, Roger

928

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Monro, Sir Hector

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Spink, Dr Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Sproat, Iain

Needham, Richard

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Nelson, Anthony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Steen, Anthony

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stern, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Streeter, Gary

Norris, Steve

Sumberg, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Sweeney, Walter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sykes, John

Ottaway, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paice, James

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thomason, Roy

Pawsey, James

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Pickles, Eric

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, David (Waveney)

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

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Tracey, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Tredinnick, David

Purchase, Ken

Trend, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Redwood, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Richards, Rod

Viggers, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Walden, George

Robathan, Andrew

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wallace, James

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waller, Gary

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Ward, John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Waterson, Nigel

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Watts, John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wells, Bowen

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wheeler, Sir John

Sackville, Tom

Whitney, Ray

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Whittingdale, John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Widdecombe, Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wigley, Dafydd

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wilkinson, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Willetts, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilshire, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shersby, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Sims, Roger

Wolfson, Mark

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Yeo, Tim

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Speed, Sir Keith

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Spencer, Sir Derek

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Allen, Graham

Dixon, Don

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ashton, Joe

Eagle, Ms Angela

Barnes, Harry

Eastham, Ken

Barron, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

Bell, Stuart

Fatchett, Derek

Bennett, Andrew F.

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Betts, Clive

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradley, Keith

Foulkes, George

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

Galbraith, Sam

Caborn, Richard

Galloway, George

Callaghan, Jim

George, Bruce

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Godsiff, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Gordon, Mildred

Cryer, Bob

Graham, Thomas

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

929

Gunnell, John

Murphy, Paul

Hall, Mike

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hanson, David

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hardy, Peter

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Harvey, Nick

O'Hara, Edward

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Neill, Martin

Henderson, Doug

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pope, Greg

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Prescott, John

Hoyle, Doug

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Radice, Giles

Hutton, John

Randall, Stuart

Illsley, Eric

Raynsford, Nick

Johnston, Sir Russell

Rooney, Terry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Kirkwood, Archy

Short, Clare

Leighton, Ron

Spellar, John

Livingstone, Ken

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McAllion, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McKelvey, William

Stott, Roger

Maclennan, Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McMaster, Gordon

Wareing, Robert N

McNamara, Kevin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Madden, Max

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wilson, Brian

Maxton, John

Wise, Audrey

Meacher, Michael

Wray, Jimmy

Meale, Alan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Tellers for the Noes:

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Mudie, George

Resolved,
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £30,854; and

(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £23,227.

Orders of the Day

  Car Tax (Abolition) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.30 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements one of the principal measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement—the abolition of car tax.
  The Bill continues and completes a measure of tax reform that was begun in the Budget this year, when car tax was reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. It does away with another tax. It will rebalance the taxation of motoring away from the taxation of purchase towards taxation of ownership and use. It ends the discrimination against cars in the indirect tax system whereby previously they alone —apart from the traditional high excise duty goods—were singled out for additional tax on top of value added tax. It will enable the trade to reduce the price of a new car by about 4 per cent., saving the customer about £400 on a typical small family saloon costing about £10,000.
  The Bill will help boost the motor industry, and it has been widely welcomed in the industry. It provides a reform that it has long sought. It will benefit business generally, as about half of new cars are bought by businesses.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: It seems that there is some misunderstanding about the sum that accrues to the Exchequer through the car tax. The sum of £750 million has been quoted recently, but I understand that earlier it was thought to be a much higher figure. Why is there confusion?
  Mr. Nelson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall deal with that later in my remarks. The receipts this year are affected by the earlier reduction of car tax from 10 to 5 per cent. Clearly that will affect the accrual for this year compared with last year. Also to be considered is the number of cars on which the tax is paid, and the value of those cars. I shall deal in some detail with past and future tax yields—the yield in future, of course, will be nil—and the estimate of the yield forgone.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Minister has said that the abolition of the tax will give a boost to the motor car industry. Is he aware that most of those who are involved in the industry—both wholesale and retail—consider that it will be an exercise of damage limitation and not a boost? Can the Minister give us an assurance that there will be a significant increase in car sales over the next year as a consequence of the measure?
  Mr. Nelson: Yes, I hope and believe that there will be. The hon. Gentleman need not take my word for it. He need only reflect on the warm welcome that has been given to the abolition by the motor manufacturing and retail industries generally, about which more in a moment.
  I shall explain in a little more detail what the Bill does. Clause 1 abolishes car tax with effect from midnight on 12 November 1992. Clause 2 contains a number of consequential amendments to the Car Tax Act 1983. These

  931
  include allowing traders' car tax registration to be cancelled when Customs and Excise are satisfied that all the tax due has been paid. They restrict Customs' powers relating to car tax for the future by enabling them to be exercised only in respect of cars on which tax became due on or before 12 November, to ensure that such tax is properly accounted for. There are no new powers for Customs and Excise in the Bill.
  Clause 3 provides two transitional reliefs. One relieves from car tax vehicles ordered by customers from retailers on or before 12 November. provided they were invoiced to, paid for in full and collected by customers after that date. The other relieves vehicles held by dealers as tax-paid stock and unsold to final consumers on 12 November.
  Clause 4 deems never to have been enacted legislation which was due to take effect on 1 January 1993 to enable car tax to be collected on chargeable vehicles brought to the United Kingdom from other member states after that date under the single market transitional arrangements, which is now, of course, unnecessary.
  Car tax was introduced in 1973 to compensate for the replacement of the then 25 per cent. rate of purchase tax by the imposition of VAT, which was then 10 per cent. Car tax receipts last year—I answer the question of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—amounted to about £.1·24 billion. It is estimated that this year, following the reduction to 5 per cent. and now the abolition, it will amount to about £510 million. The cost of abolition for the rest of the year is estimated at £100 million within that figure and the £750 million for next year.
  I am the first to acknowledge that forward estimates —it is to be hoped that they are good estimates—will inevitably be slightly "questimates". We have some indications from the industry of what turnover levels will be. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, the cost of the measure after this year will have to be met by higher motoring taxes in the next Budget. Other motoring taxes include duties on petrol, both leaded and unleaded, and diesel. There is also vehicle excise duty. The House will understand that it would not be right for me to anticipate how the cost will be recouped in that Budget. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend's Budget strategy.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Minister confirm that, if the cost were to be met by vehicle excise duty alone, it would increase from £110 to £135?
  Mr. Nelson: Yes, it would be about that. I shall correct myself if I am wrong but I think that the increase would be £31 if the total cost were borne by VED.
  It is difficult to forecast accurately the extent to which the measure will stimulate car sales, but retailers put it at about 70,000 cars, or an increase of about 4 per cent. in the United Kingdom market, which now amounts to 1·6 million new registrations.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the maximum benefit is to be derived from the abolition of car tax, we must consider the number of cars produced and the production of car components as well as car sales. That benefit must be passed on to the consumer, to ensure that the producers of cars and components similarly enjoy the maximum benefit from the action that the Government are taking.
  Mr. Nelson: I agree that that is important. Fortunately, the car industry—especially now—is extremely competitive. I note that some car dealers are already announcing substantial reductions in the offer prices of their cars. They are not mentioning the abolition of car tax but are taking the benefit for themselves. I am happy to enable them to do so by that marketing technique. There are certainly reductions in the price of new cars, which will be invoiced. Clearly no car tax will be added. I imagine that there will be an impact on the second-hand car market, where there is a differential all the way down the line. It decreases the more that the value of a car diminishes.
  Mr. Richard Burden: I think that the Minister said that retailers within the motor industry predict that sales will increase by about 70,000 a year. Will he confirm that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimate that the increase will be about 60,000? It stresses that it cannot be confident or that until we rid the country of the fear of unemployment. It takes the view that we shall not be able to regenerate the. industry until then. People do not buy new cars when they think that they will lose their jobs. Does the Minister accept that we require an industrial strategy of the sort which has been advocated by the Engineering Employers Federation and which the Government, so far, have singularly failed to provide?
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman says that people will not buy cars until they have job security, but in a sense the converse is more persuasive: revival of the car industry is a necessary precondition for the security of many jobs. I shall later explain the central importance that I and, I think, many hon. Members attach to the car, automotive and components industries, which are crucial.
  Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) spoke about representations by the Engineering Employers Federation. To the best of my recollection, the federation asked for a reduction in interest rates. The Chancellor has reduced them three times since September. It asked for investment allowances, which were contained in the autumn statement, and it asked for the preservation of capital projects. The industry has done rather well. It is odd for the hon. Gentleman to complain when the representations have been met almost to the letter by the Government.
  Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. The change has been welcomed by industry generally and by the motor industry in particular. The abolition of the car tax was warmly welcomed by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and many industrial leaders. That warm welcome was in marked contrast to the grudging reaction of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) suggested that the money should have been put towards prizes in the national lottery. That is not the sort of reaction that one would expect from industry, or, indeed, from the Opposition.
  I recognise that the industry has been going through a tough time, with lay-offs and short-time working. Following this and other measures, especially the reductions in interest rates, we believe that there is every prospect of a much brighter economic outlook which will benefit the car industry. I think that we all recognise that

  933
  that industry is of great importance to the United Kingdom's economy. Production of motor vehicles and parts accounts for about 5·5 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing output. Producers employ 250,000 people, and distribution and servicing employ a similar number. That means that about 500,000 people are employed in the industry.
  Output grew rapidly during the second half of the 1980s but fell with the onset of the recession. The most recent figures show that car production was up by 3·7 per cent. in the first 10 months of this year compared with the same period in 1991. Much of the increase in domestic production can be attributed to Japanese car manufacturers, who were one of the key sources of inward investment in Britain in the 1980s. I remind the House of the central importance of attracting and retaining that inward investment, not just for the car industry but for manufacturing generally. For example, Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd has an investment exceeding £800 million. Planned car production next year is more than twice that of last year and the company has just won a Queen's award for exports.
  Toyota has spent £840 million on its United Kingdom operations, and that includes a £140 million engine plant in Shotton in north Wales to produce up to 200,000 engines. Honda is investing £300 million in its car manufacturing plant at Swindon. It currently employs 786 people, and that could rise to 2,000 at full capacity. This is not just a Japanese success story, because British car manufacturers have their successes. For example, in the past two months Land-Rover has increased production of its new model.
  None of us must lose sight of the importance of the European dimension. There is much loose talk about the effects of imports on the car industry, but more and more of the components used in the assembly of cars are produced throughout the European Community. One obvious, although high-market, example of car production is Mercedes-Benz. Its current procurement of components from the United Kingdom is valued at £25 million, and it will rise to £75 million. The procurement of the Daimler-Benz group generally is worth about £240 million in addition to that.
  That means that procurement by a German manufacturer of United Kingdom components, some of which are then imported to Britain, amounts to almost one third of a billion pounds. Similarly, many British companies have subsidiaries and operations in other parts of the European Community producing components that are used by United Kingdom car manufacturers. As I say, we must remember the European dimension. The legislation will be of material benefit in increasing the car industry's turnover. It has been widely welcomed in the industry, and I hope that it will be welcomed by the House.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The Bill seems to be longer than the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, but I trust that we shall deal with it more quickly and with greater agreement. Labour welcomes the abolition of the car tax, and I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily on this legislation to carry the abolition into effect.
  934
  Motor manufacturers, trade unions in the industry, retailers and component suppliers have said for some time that this tax must go. I and some of my hon. Friends, especially those who represent motor manufacturing constituencies, have said the same. The measure will be especially welcomed by Rover and other United Kingdom producers, because the level of indirect taxation in a producer's home market clearly influences the strength of domestic demand, which is the foundation of company strength and of success in other markets.
  The old level of car tax was 10 per cent., but VAT at 17·5 per cent. and the double imposition of VAT on the special car tax itself, an anomaly that was greatly resented, meant that British producers faced total sales taxes of 29·25 per cent. in their main domestic market. That compares with 22 per cent. in France and 14 per cent. in Germany. Therefore, it is good that the tax is to go.
  The Opposition have two important concerns. Although the measure is welcome, it will not provide the stimulus that the motor industry needs, but neither will the rest of the autumn statement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said that consumer confidence remains shaky because of the fear of unemployment and outstanding debt, especially on housing. Car dealers have already been heavily discounting models and offering interest-free finance. The reduction in interest, about which the Economic Secretary spoke, can be beneficial only through its impact on general consumer confidence. We have yet to see that confidence returning.
  Even if the abolition of the tax resulted in an extra 70,000 sales a year, it would, as I said in the debate on the autumn statement, still leave sales about 670,000, or 29 per cent., lower than in 1989. That is a measure of the scale and depth of the recession and its adverse consequences for the motor industry, which, as the Economic Secretary conceded, has had to impose lay-offs and short-time working. We clearly need a recovery programme that will reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence, but the Government are a long way from that.
  We welcome the inward investment about which the Economic Secretary spoke. He was right to mention the extent to which the motor industry is pan-European and, indeed, global. In that context, he should have regard to the importance of stability and proper co-ordination and co-operation in our economic relations with Europe. After the devaluation of the pound, the SMMT said:
  "there is great uncertainty … over the future direction of Britain's economic and European policy. Inflation is still feared, the pound is regarded as unstable at its present level (which is much too low—the industry was competitive at DM2·90—£1) and there is great concern lest the industry again be subjected to taxation to help the Government fund the PSBR. A two-speed Europe would speedily negate the purpose of the foreign investment so that new capacity would replace rather than add to existing capacity".
  I hope that the Government will end the semi-detached attitude that they have been taking in regard to Europe. If they do not, they will damage the prospects for jobs and growth in the motor industry and in other industries.
  The Economic Secretary has confirmed the Chancellor's statement that he—or, rather, the motoring public—will pay for the abolition of car tax by means of higher motoring taxes after the end of the financial year. That is the Opposition's second worry. Despite repeated demands from me, the Government have given no answer

  935
  to our questions about why the cost of abolition is being put at £750 million, and not at a lower figure that would take account of the additional VAT revenue to which extra sales will give rise. Were there to be 70,000 extra sales—as we hope there will be—they would bring in some £122 million extra in VAT, thus reducing the real cost of abolition to £628 million.
  Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out earlier, recouping the revenue in the way that the Government propose will not give any overall extra fiscal stimulus. It amounts, in effect, simply to shifting the burden of tax from those who can afford to buy new cars to those who cannot.
  As the Minister will no doubt confirm, it is unusual for the Chancellor to commit himself to extra motoring taxes in next year's Budget. He would not normally speculate on what was going to happen until he had presented his Budget proposals: indeed, he frequently says as much when he is pressed on different aspects of the Government's overall fiscal stance. Let me make it clear that Labour is not committing itself now to the extra motoring tax; first, we shall want to know exactly what the Chancellor proposes.
  As well as telling the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), what it would cost in terms of vehicle excise duty if the Chancellor chose to recoup the cost in that way, perhaps the Minister will tell us by how much petrol duty would rise if he chose that option. Given that the Chancellor has announced that motorists will bear the cost, I feel that the public and the industry have a right to know what he has in store for them.
  Although we welcome the abolition of car tax, we do not feel that, in itself, it can provide anything like the boost to confidence that is necessary to stimulate the growth, jobs and future success of the motor components industry, whose future is so vital to this country.
  7.53 pm
  Sir Michael Grylls: The abolition of any tax is a happy development, and the abolition of car tax is no exception. We should be smiling and throwing our hats in the air—if we were wearing them, that is. The proposal proves, if proof were needed, that the Government and the Conservative party are dedicated to the lowest possible taxation.
  Manufacturing industry is enjoying the best of both worlds. The Chancellor has introduced the new investment allowances, albeit on a temporary basis; I believe that we also have the lowest corporation tax in the world. That will enable companies to keep their profits and use them to expand—and the only way in which small and medium-sized firms can expand is generally through the use of their own internally generated profits. The motor industry—not just the distribution side, but the components side—contains many successful small and medium-sized businesses. I wish that there were more, and I think that we should try to encourage such a development.
  As I think most hon. Members would agree, a few years ago the components industry was not very competitive; it was fairly flabby. One of the best things that Japanese inward investment has done for this country is to compel the component firms to pull their socks up and become really competitive. Japanese motor representatives have
  936
  told me that some of our best component manufacturers are among the best in the world. We can be proud of what has been achieved; but there is a long way to go. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out, this is an international industry: throughout Europe, buyers will look to different sources, and we need to win our share of the market.
  As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will recall, some years ago we were in the depths of gloom about the state of our motor industry. The British-owned industry had shrunk as a result of various disasters and incompetences—and, dare I say, intervention by a Labour Government, who had not helped by forming the botched-up company that later became British Leyland. That is all history, but they were depressing days. We had American investment, but no investment from Japan.
  Since then, there has been a twofold transformation. First, the British-owned industry—what used to be called British Leyland, and is now Rover—has been successfully returned to the private sector, where it should always have been, and is thriving within the British Aerospace empire. Secondly, there has been massive inward investment by Japanese firms. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that that investment has virtually no negative aspects. Not only has it brought much-needed employment to areas where unemployment has been, and still is, high; it has provided a spur for efficiency in our motor car and component firms.
  I hope that the House will pass the Bill with enthusiasm. I consider it another sign of the Government's commitment to British manufacturing industry: it is an industry that, with the right encouragement—which the Government are now providing—can beat all comers. The British motor industry has much of which we can be proud, both in British-owned concerns such as Rover and Rolls-Royce and in the smaller component firms and the foreign-owned businesses. Its success is already having a dramatic effect on our balance of payments: exports, for example, rose by 50 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. That will lead Japanese firms to gear up and sell into Europe.
  I congratulate the Government on the Bill. I hope that we shall never bring back the car tax, which was art aberration. Admittedly, it was introduced by a Conservative Government, but even Conservative Governments make mistakes occasionally, and we hope. that that mistake will never be repeated. I rejoice, and throw my hat in the air.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) and disagree with another. I shall deal with the disagreement first. It cannot possibly be claimed that the Bill—which I support—shows that the Government believe in the lowest possible taxation; as the Government have made clear, it is a tax-neutral measure. I shall list some ways in which the cost could be recouped, but I do not think that the Government have claimed that the Bill does what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Back Benchers had better stick to the brief.
  The Economic Secretary referred to the Japanese motor industry's inward investment in Britain. We hope that it will be one of the beneficiaries of this measure. The north-east takes pride in the success that Nissan has enjoyed there. Not everyone expected that to happen. Old

  937
  scars, the result of memories of the war with Japan, take a lot of healing, but the arrival of Nissan in the north-east, its great success and the great commitment of its work force are matters in which we take great pride. If one goes into a Nissan plant, one sees few Japanese workers there.
  The large north-east work force has adapted to methods brought here from Japan—methods that themselves were adjusted to meet the British climate. They have set new standards, not just for the motor industry but for other industries. The result is that Nissan can claim that it has the best of a large available work force. Many people want to work for that company. They know that it is a good place to be.
  The Bill will abolish an indefensible tax—a peculiar left-over from the old purchase tax system. Sooner or later, somebody has to get rid of it. It is arguable whether this is the best measure to choose at this time, but since the motor car industry needs help, it was a reasonable choice to make and therefore counts as one of the better points in the autumn statement.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at unusual pains to make it clear that there would be a comeback. He was uncharacteristically, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, able to anticipate his Budget statement by suggesting that the money would be clawed back. In a normal Budget, there is often valorisation of excise duty on petrol or of vehicle excise duty. Although it does not occur in every Budget, the price is normally increased. Even if we ignore the possibility of the Chancellor doing that this year, we have to anticipate that this change will have a significant impact.
  The Economic Secretary told us that he thought that vehicle excise duty might be increased by £31, if that route were chosen, which is slightly above my estimate. My estimate of what would happen with petrol was also an understatement. I reckoned that there would be 8p a gallon on petrol, if the increase were to be wholly obtained from petrol duty. It may be 10p a gallon. Opprobrium was heaped on the Liberal Democrats from time to time because we argued that, in order to tackle pollution, it might be necessary to increase the purchase price of petrol; we can now put all those remarks in context. If the Government combine some element of valorisation with recouping the cost of this measure from petrol tax, there will be a significant petrol tax increase in the next Budget.
  The Government could consider company car taxation as another way of meeting the costs of this measure. By widespread consent, company car taxation is below the real value of the benefit that many company car users obtain from their car. If the money has to be found from some other form of vehicle taxation, it might be better to find it from company car taxation rather than from those who have the greatest difficulty in affording the cost of motoring.
  I think in particular of many of my constituents; they live in a rural area, but the same can be said of people in other areas. They can only just afford to keep their old car going. For them, the annual bill for tax and insurance is the annual decision about whether to keep their car on the road. The decision about whether to keep their car also involves a decision about whether they can keep their job, or whether their wife can continue to work, or whether their son or daughter can continue with further education,
  938
  because they need transport too. The people who find it hardest to run a car are the ones who most depend on it because of where they live.
  The Government must be careful to avoid transferring the tax that they have abolished on new cars, bought by people who can afford them, on to the backs of people who cannot afford it. It would be more logical if the tax were transferred to company cars where under-taxation is significant, as the Government have recognised by seeking to address that problem in recent Budgets.
  We hope that this measure will have a significant impact on the future of the car industry. However, several hon. Members have pointed out that many people will not buy cars unless they have confidence in their own economic well-being and that of the country. It would be foolish to assume that this measure will have a dramatic effect. Only the growth of confidence in the economy can bring that about. We all hope that that will happen, but different views have been expressed here regarding whether the autumn statement will bring about a real growth of confidence in the economy.
  To return to Nissan, inward investment has been based on the belief that this country will remain within Europe and the single market and, if it ever comes about, the single currency. The choice of this country by Japanese investors was based on our position within Europe, together with the particular advantages that we enjoy. One of those advantages is the English language, which is the primary foreign language for Japan.
  Japan will not invest in this country if there is real doubt about our future in Europe. That is why we voted for the Maastricht treaty. That is why we find it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Labour Front Bench that they share our concern regarding the real dangers to the motor industry from a two-speed Europe.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I welcome the measure. We all take pleasure in the abolition of a tax. I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the way in which this tax might be recouped in the coming months. His point about company vehicles very much echoes the representations that many hon. Members received only today from Transport 2000, the environmental group. I trust that the Government will seriously consider the impact of their decision on how they choose to recoup their lost revenue.
  I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance about the price of new vehicles. We no longer have a special car tax; there will therefore be a consequential decrease in VAT. Should not the price of new vehicles manufactured within the European Community, either in this country or on the continent, be the same, wherever one happens to purchase a new car? The argument about the complications of the British taxation system leading to price differentials will no longer wash. Differences in the rates of exchange mean that, from time to time, there will be differences in the nominal price of vehicles, but that does not alter the real cost of a car. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be an end to customers being pushed into importing their cars in order to take advantage of lower prices for similar vehicles, particularly in Belgium.That will encourage people to return to British car showrooms.

  939
  This measure, by itself, will not regenerate the motor car industry, but it is a step in the right direction. I trust that the House will respond enthusiastically to this measure and that it will encourage the Minister to look for other ways to reduce the tax burden. With a request that he examine closely the way in which the revenue will be recouped and for an assurance of equal prices across our open frontier market, I welcome the Bill.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I did not intend to participate in the debate. However, on behalf of my constituents, I was legitimately aggrieved when I heard the Minister, supported by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir. M. Grylls), imply that this measure was a great step forward and would boost motor car sales in this country. I am not aggrieved because the Government are deluding themselves. I should be happy for them to continue to do so, were it not for the fact that their delusion is leading to a continued decline in Britain's manufacturing industry, especially the motor car industry.
  I represent an area in which there is a Ford plant. The workers at the Aveley plant face the prospects of job losses, relocation and redundancy; also, many of my constituents work at Dagenham. Workers at Dagenham and other Ford plants have greatly contributed to increased productivity, only to find that their enthusiasm and dedication to promoting their industry has resulted in their being kicked in the teeth by a complacent Government who preside over a recession which has resulted in a significant decline in the motor industry.
  I am concerned about the short-term working at many Ford plants. Vauxhall has also introduced short-time working because of the fall-off in demand. Short-time working is an enormous blight on the local economies which surround those plants. There is no doubt that the Dagenham plant and the Ford plant in Aveley were a major stimulant to the local economies in good times. However, short-time working and job losses not only depress the incomes of those who are laid off or put on short-time work; they ricochet through the local economy. We see that not only in the factories and small industries which supply the main plants but in the high street shops and corner shops.
  The motor car industry in Britain must compete in a difficult environment to sell its products. That is having a deleterious effect on the economies of Essex and east London and is resulting in job losses for other people in the constituencies in those areas. It is unacceptable that the Government pretend that this measure is a great step forward and a great boost for the motor car industry. At the very most, the measure will limit the damage that has been done to such an important industry.
  In case hon. Member twist my words or suggest that I am being ambiguous, I make it clear that I welcome the abolition of the tax. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West said that the Labour Government had not imposed the tax; indeed, the Conservative Government imposed it. We must ask this question: if the abolition of the tax is to make such a significant contribution in boosting car sales, why was it not abolished weeks or months ago? Since we have fallen into a recession—or perhaps it is a depression—many people in and around my constituency have lost their jobs as a consequence of the decline in the motor car industry.
  940
  Many of us had a bruising experience on the night and morning of 9 and 10 April. The Government should bear in mind the fact that many Ford workers and other workers in the motor car industry were persuaded by the lie that to vote Labour would cost them about £1,250 a year. That was a downright electoral lie. It is legitimate tonight to say that, since 9 and 10 April, thousands of workers in the motor industry have lost much more than £1,250 as a result of short-time working. They will lose much more. Unhappily, some people have lost their jobs as a result of the continuing recession.
  If the outcome of the election on 9 April had been different, we would have a Government who sought to stimulate demand in the economy. A Labour Government would have paid attention to the necessary promotion of the motor car industry, which would have been stimulated by the public works that that Government would have sponsored to create demand in the economy and get the building and construction industry back to work. Clearly, that would have had an immediate impact on demand in the motor car industry.
  I feel most aggrieved on behalf of my constituents that the President of the Board of Trade promised at the Conservative party conference this year to intervene on behalf of manufacturers at breakfast, lunch and tea time. However, we must legitimately charge him this evening with not demonstrating any interest in creating new job opportunities in the motor car manufacturing industry in and around constituencies in Dagenham, east London and Essex, including Thurrock and Basildon, in which there is rising unemployment.
  The President of the Board of Trade and the Government seem to be complacent. That has been demonstrated by Conservative Members who paraded this measure as some great breakthrough to create new job opportunities and to stimulate and promote the main industry in east London and Essex. It is nonsense. It would be wrong if I let the Minister get away with introducing the Bill without expressing the concern of my constituents—the Ford workers and workers in other motor manufacturing plants who have done much to increase productivity over the years only to find that they face a loss of income and job losses as we look forward to 1993.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I will not detain the House for long because I know that it wants to make progress. Conservative and Opposition Members are unanimous on one point: we welcome the abolition of the tax. There is no doubt about that, and there is no fudging it.
  We welcome the abolition of the tax. Industry in the west midlands, where I come from, has called for this measure for a long time. Trade unions and both major political parties have called for it for some time. So the abolition of the tax is welcome. I have little doubt that it will give a necessary boost to the motor industry. However, the size of that boost is highly debatable. Today a figure of 70,000 cars has been bandied about. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders gave a figure of about 60,000 cars. But they are only estimates.
  There is no doubt that the price of a car alone does not determine whether the motor industry thrives. We have already had a substantial reduction in prices. We saw the first reduction in the special car tax in the Budget, and a

  941
  price reduction arose from the VAT on top of that. Many deals were undertaken over the summer. All of them have provided some boost to the industry. I will not deny that, and I am sure that the industry will not deny that. But it is not enough, because in a climate of recession and rising unemployment the idea that the removal of the special car tax, or any other tax, will regenerate either the car industry or manufacturing industry in general is totally misguided.
  The car industry has been doing a magnificent job. The investment that Rover has put into the Longbridge plant, in Northfield, is magnificent, as are the efforts of the work force in changing their working practices. The training initiatives are to be applauded, too.
  Both sides of the industry are keeping up their end of the bargain. Component manufacturers have been mentioned tonight, and they, too, have been doing what they can to compete and to thrive. But in a climate still dominated by the dead hand of recession, what they can do is limited.
  After the autumn statement, growth will still be pitifully low during the coming year. Unemployment will rise; even the recorded level will rise to more than 3 million. Investment has plummeted in recent years, and at best is likely to stagnate next year. In such a climate, the efforts of the industry and of the people who give their lives to that industry can be only partially successful.
  In an earlier intervention I mentioned the recent launch of a campaign by the Engineering Employers Federation. I had not intended to mention that again, but I feel that I must, because it is worrying that either Conservative Members have not bothered to read what the federation says, or they have not been able to understand it. So I shall quote from the press release by the director general of the federation—not a body which historically has been over-supportive of the Labour party—about whether his interpretation of the document is the same as that of Conservative Members, who believe that the federation applauded what the Government are doing.
  Referring to the Department of Trade and Industry, the press release says:
  "We need a department with vision and a clear commitment to the success of UK plc. We stand ready to give such a department, which should be part of the DTI, our full and enthusiastic support, but in recent weeks industry itself has been doing the job of the DTI—fighting for a voice and fighting for action within Government. I believe we have a right to expect a more effective and committed champion. If the DTI lacks the vision, the competence or the determination, or if it is simply too busy with short-term issues to deal with long-term strategy, perhaps we should look to the creation of a specialist Treasury section to do that vital work".
  There are two possible interpretations of that press release. I suppose that it would be possible to say that the Engineering Employers Federation is very unhappy with the DTI, yet totally happy with the performance of the Treasury—but I do not think that that would be correct. It would certainly suggest an unfortunate division in the ranks of the Government. The only other interpretation is that a major representative organisation of manufacturing industry considers that the Government are not delivering or keeping their side of the bargain—that they are not doing what is necessary to stimulate manufacturing industry.
  The Government are still obsessed with short termism. They are not developing the kind of long-term strategy
  942
  which manufacturing industry needs. To continue in that way is a recipe for disaster, not only for big manufacturers such as Rover and Ford but for hundreds and thousands of smaller firms—component manufacturers and so on —which depend on manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Engineering Employers Federation welcomed the autumn statement as a substantial boost to the economy?
  Mr. Burden: I have read the document from the Engineering Employers Federation launch, which took place this week, after the autumn statement. Its purpose was to suggest that the measures in the autumn statement, welcome though they may be—the Opposition have welcomed some of them tonight—were nowhere near enough to provide the boost or, more importantly, the long-term strategy which manufacturing industry needs. That was the message of the Engineering Employers Federation.
  There is nothing new in that, although the document is new. The federation has been saying such things for months—in some cases, for years. The trade unions have certainly been saying such things for years. If the Government ever intend to listen to what industry says, they need to start listening now.
  If we are to develop such a strategy, it must be done at local, national and European level. I have said something about national strategy, and it is worth recalling that efforts are being made even now by local authorities. My local authority, Birmingham city council, and others are trying to do what they can to work with the component suppliers and with firms such as Rover to improve product development, training and research and development. Those efforts need support from central Government. At the moment there is at best a hands-off approach and at worst something even worse: those are the same local authorities which suffer from Government restrictions on local authority autonomy, and on their spending—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with the local authority dimension, because the subject of the debate is very specific—the removal of car tax.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not dwell much longer on the issue. Work is being done at local authority level to regenerate manufacturing industry, and it is being co-ordinated through organisations such as MILAN—the Motor Industry Local Authority Network. I believe that such organisations deserve support from central Government.
  Such a strategy also has to be adopted at European level. Work is going on in the European Parliament—spearheaded by the socialist group. Reports produced by a working party headed by Carole Tongue MEP are aimed at producing the kind of European strategy which the motor industry needs. I hope that our Government do not adopt a hands-off approach but will become involved and will contribute.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about possible ways in which revenue lost as a result of the abolition of the car tax could be recouped, and mention was made of company car taxation. It is fair to say that the overall level of company car taxation in Britain today has still not completely managed to grasp the

  943
  level of perks, where perks exist. Yet the approach to such taxation in recent years has singularly failed to tackle genuine perks; the people who use company cars as a tool of their trade have been the hardest hit.
  The simple reason for that is the way in which the tax has been progressively jacked up on the mere possession of a company car. That is where the biggest tax burden has fallen. Tax on the use of such cars has not increased especially, so that a company director who gets all his private mileage paid for suffers some taxation, but he does reasonably well on his real gains, because he is taxed only at the same level as a sales rep or someone similar who has to pay for every private mile that he does.
  If we are to tackle the issue of company car taxation and perks, it is important that our efforts should be targeted on the perks and not on people who happen to have a company car yet who contribute to every private mile that they drive. It would be fair to sort out the company car taxation system to take account of that. The debate is about much more than fairness; it is about effectiveness, efficiency and the regeneration of manufacturing industry.
  I shall close as I started. The abolition of the lax is welcome, but it does not go even half far enough. We need a major fundamental change in Government policy to provide the kind of long-term support, the strategy and the intervention that manufacturing industry in the midlands and elsewhere so desperately needs.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I will be brief as other hon. Members wish to speak on a range of issues. I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, it is worth pointing out that although the abolition of car tax is welcome, it would be more welcome if the revenue was to be gained by restoring some of the £26 billion of tax concessions that have been given to the wealthy top few per cent. by successive Conservative Governments.
  There are difficulties about abolishing car tax. The proposal is designed to stimulate manufacturing industry. Since 1979, we have lost 2·5 million jobs in manufacturing industry. The abolition of the car tax should have been coupled with a 100 per cent. tax allowance in respect of corporation tax on investment in plant and machinery. That was the position under the last Labour Government. This Government are very fond of making comparisons, but they must be aware that we allowed 100 per cent. tax allowances for specific investment. The allowances were therefore targeted.
  A problem with abolishing car tax is that it will benefit not only cars manufactured in this country but imported cars. So far this year, we have a balance of trade deficit of approximately £10 billion. The proposal will therefore have an adverse effect as well as a beneficial effect. However, I believe that the beneficial effect will be marginal because there is such a fear of debt in the nation that people are very hesitant about incurring further debt to buy new cars or any new commodity. Fear of mortgage repossession is also widespread. People now realise that an English man or English woman's home is not always their castle if they fall into the hands of the wrong building society.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to Japanese investment and whether the abolition of the car tax would stimulate that investment.
  944
  The Japanese invested here because of relatively cheap labour. They did not necessarily invest here because of Maastricht. Maastricht has not gained us one extra job —nor will it.
  We must recognise the dangers of such an approach. Design and development, which are crucial in our engineering industry, will be left to another nation. The power trains of Japanese cars are designed in Japan, not in this country. Incidentally, the Japanese can invest so heavily in manufacturing industry and in car design and development because they do not waste money on a defence industry as we do. While we spend 4 per cent. of our gross domestic product on defence, the Japanese spend less than 2 per cent.
  It is potentially damaging for any country to invest in manufacturing here because the decision making is carried out in the nation state that is investing. In addition, our people are not necessarily trained in design and development, because that may be carried out in the manufacturer's main base. If, as is the case in Japan where car manufacturing companies are retrenching because the investing country is experiencing a recession—although, in
  comparison to ours, a very minor one—the main manufacturing plants will not be diminished. That will happen to plants held in other countries—for example, in the United Kingdom.
  We hope that the abolition of the car tax will stimulate our engineering industry in general. If our engineering industry diminishes, and in particular the machine tool industry, that will affect the machines that make the machines. Our manufacturing ability would therefore be badly damaged.
  If overseas companies invest in the United Kingdom, local component manufacture will not be confined to the United Kingdom. It will be extended to all the EC member states. I remind the Minister that there are still many hidden subsidies in those member states which produce unfair competition against which our manufacturers cannot compete.
  Although the abolition of the car tax may have a marginal effect, and we will certainly not vote against this modest stimulus, I believe that it will not be sufficient. The engineering industry, which is such an essential part of the car manufacturing industry, will still lie in the doldrums. There is testimony to that virtually every week as there is a haemorrhage of jobs in all kinds of industries—in services, banking, finance, component manufacture and in the car industry itself. Until that trend is reversed, abolition of the car tax will not produce the necessary consumer-led demand, because there is simply not sufficient confidence in the Government.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Nelson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. Hon. Members have welcomed the proposal. There was a warm welcome from the Conservative Benches and a miserly one from Opposition Members. I regret that, because this proposal is a considerable element of the autumn statement and it has been widely welcomed by industry generally and by representative bodies of the motor industry.
  I will try to answer as briefly and as directly as possible a number of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has an important car interest in his constituency, He accused the

  945
  Government of a semi-detached stance on Europe. If the Government's stance is semi-detached, the Opposition's stance is positively schizophrenic. The hard-fought agreement on Maastricht was the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought and wanted and we obtained a majority in the House for it. In the recent debate, the Opposition went back on their commitment for the basest of political, opportunist reasons.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East said that the proposal provided no extra fiscal stimulus. As I said in my opening remarks, the proposal was intended as a transfer towards a tax on use rather than on purchase. The tax yield forgone in the remainder of this financial year is £100 million and that is not being recouped by additional motoring taxes.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East expressed surprise at the novelty of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing that he would seek to recoup the revenue in motoring taxes next year. I believe that my right hon. Friend was being responsible. He would not want to give the impression in the current circumstances that fiscal policy can be relaxed unduly. The substantial package of measures that he announced in the autumn statement, including the abolition of car tax, has a cost tag attached to it next year and beyond that will have to be met.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wanted to know the cost if the cost of abolition were added to petrol. The answer is 2·2p on leaded petrol and 1·8p on unleaded and diesel.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Is that a litre or a gallon?
  Mr. Nelson: A litre.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) gave a warm welcome to the Bill. He referred to the revival of the car industry which has undoubtedly taken place, the importance and size of inward investment and the importance, to which I also referred, of the component sector. He said that the car tax must never return and he, like others, poured some scorn on the existence of the tax.
  No tax is welcome. However, it is fair to point out that the car tax has been a fairly cost-effective tax to raise. it cost £700,000 a year to administer and involved the full-time employment of four staff and 20 man years. Considering the yield, in years gone by and even in this year, that is relatively cost-effective.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the implications of recouping and said that it might be better to put the cost in part or in whole on company car taxation. That point was also made by other hon. Members. That is, of course, a judgment for my right hon. Friend, but what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be noted.
  I warmly concur with the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that Britain's future in Europe is essential if we are to maintain and attract inward Japanese investment. There must be no question of that, given the flows of investment, and there really must be division across party lines on the importance of that investment. Despite what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said about design of manufacture, there
  946
  must be no doubt that this is a welcome haven for world-wide investment. I mentioned north Wales, but there are other examples, particularly in the north of the country. The extent to which investment has revitalised those areas is very exciting for the future. It has been a great success story, and we should welcome and applaud that investment and succour it for the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) would like the cost of cars to be on a more similar basis throughout the EC. The Government are currently reviewing car prices throughout the Community and are keen to encourage the industry to co-operate with current European Community initiatives to produce greater price transparency. Abolition of the tax means that we will have almost the lowest rates of tax on cars in the European Community. The rates range from those in Denmark, which has a VAT rate of 25 per cent., plus an additional sales tax of 105 per cent. on the first 34,400 krona, and 180 per cent. tax on the balance, down to those in Germany, which has a 14 per cent. rate of VAT and no additional car tax.
  With the minimum rates of VAT that are being introduced, we will see a standardisation of the minimum rates, but at the moment there is considerable variation in those basic rates and in the supplementary additional sales taxes, but we are looking at that matter.
  Dealing as expeditiously as I can with the remaining important points, the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) felt that the measure would not boost industry. The hon. Member for Northfield, who has Rover Longbridge in his constituency, felt, as did others, that the measure alone would not suffice and that a broader regeneration and inspiration of manufacturing industry were necessary.
  The last thing that industry needs at this time is a public expenditure programme which will increase its burden of taxation and borrowing. Any Chancellor has to make a major judgment about the size of public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has come forward with a major package to restore confidence in the housing market, to promote exports, and, in particular, to target the car manufacturing industry.
  Mr. Andrew Smith indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nelson: The hon. Member for Oxford, East shakes his head, but major amounts of public money have been allocated for the revitalisation of British industries. We all hope that they will have the effect we intend.
  The hon. Member for Northfield spoke about company car taxation and urged us to hit the perks rather than continue with the present regime. Again, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend's judgment in the Budget, but what the hon. Gentleman said will have been noted.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke about capital allowances, which he said should have been raised to 100 per cent. He will be aware that, in the statement, tax incentives for investment included an increase in capital allowances in the first year to 40 per cent. for 12 months for most plant and machinery. The Chancellor spelt out very clearly why the Government retain the view that they have held for some years, that they do not wish, by reintroducing capital allowances, to introduce artificialities into the spending and investment decisions that people make. It is far better to keep down the overall burden of taxation and, in a more perfect market, enable people to

  947
  take decisions about the allocation of capital and investment which will earn sufficient return and promote profitability.
  Abolition of the car tax will have a very good stimulus upon the market. If the House does not accept my intentions in that regard, I refer to the statement of Mr. David Gent, director general of the Retail Motor Industry Federation, who said:
  "The motor industry and its customers can now look forward to a more certain future and an increasingly brighter 1993."
  Sir Hal Miller, the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd., said:
  "we now look forward to leading the way out of recession."
  Those are important leaders of a major industry for our country. They welcome the measure that was announced today. I am sure that it will have a beneficial impact, and I hope that the House will approve it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The effect of subsection (5)(1A) will be to require certificates relating to vehicles leased to the handicapped to be retained. Why is that? What does it mean? Will the Minister assure me that that in no way adversely affects access to and use of cars by disabled people?
  Mr. Nelson: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Manufacturers of vehicles which are leased to the handicapped, as is done through Motability, are required to hold a certificate issued by the lessor, which is exclusively Motability, that the vehicle is intended to be supplied zero-rated for VAT purposes, in which case the vehicle can be supplied free of car tax. But if the vehicle is later supplied in other circumstances—for example, within three years—the taxes would become payable. Therefore, it is necessary for the certificate to be retained as proof of the tax-free status of the vehicle. It is really for VAT purposes rather than for car tax purposes and will not have any impact, adverse or otherwise, on the availability of such cars to the disabled.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITIONS

  Pit Closures
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am delighted to be able to present this petition against pit closures, which has been collected by members of the Bradford, South Labour party and has reached nearly 5,000 signatures. The boxes that have just been brought into the Chamber are not connected with my petition, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  On 31 October, in the centre of Bradford, in just over two hours we collected more than 2,000 signatures from people who willingly signed the petition and enthusiastically supported it as a gesture of support for the miners. It reads:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom, particularly the citizens of Bradford and the surrounding areas—
  Showeth that the closure of more pits in Britain will cause terrible hardship and destroy many mining communities and tens of thousands of jobs in industry; that Britain's manufacturing strength was built upon coal; that coal reserves are available that would last for hundreds of years and are essential for our industrial renewal; and that British coal is the most suitable coal available for the generation of electricity.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will instruct the Government to reverse the pit closure programme at once, to stop the importation of subsidised coal from abroad, to suspend opencast operations and to adopt new policies that put people before profits and protect the environment and the quality of life that depends upon it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Devonport Dockyard
  8.50 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition containing 33,661 names of the residents of the Plymouth area. The House will be aware of the uncertainty over the future of the royal dockyards as we await the award of the contract for nuclear submarines. That contract is vital to the maintenance of jobs in Devonport, Plymouth and the south-west of England. The petition reads:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled, The humble petition of Plymouth area residents sheweth: Devonport Dockyard is the largest industrial complex in the south west of England and is responsible directly and indirectly for 22,600 jobs in the Plymouth area and as such is crucial to the economic well being of the region. The future survival of the Devonport Dockyard is dependent on the actions of Her Majesty's Government.
  Wherefore your humble Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges Her Majesty's Government to guarantee the continued survival of Devonport Dockyard and Naval Base in its present form.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Electoral Districts (Shetland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  8.52 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the proposed boundary changes in electoral districts in Shetland and the proposal to incorporate the existing Bressay island division into one of the Lerwick burgh wards—a move that has generated resolute opposition among the islanders. It is fair to say that they have enjoyed support for their cause from many people throughout Shetland.
  The island of Bressay is opposite Lerwick and is the piece of land that makes Lerwick harbour such a good natural haven. It has a population of 353 and an electorate, on my calculations, of 255. Their case may seem small, given the great affairs of state that are often debated in this Chamber, but local government electoral divisions are a responsibility of the House, and it is not an unreasonable test of the health of our parliamentary democracy to find out how it manages to discharge that responsibility and how sensitive it can be to the legitimate democratic interests of a small community in one of the furthest extremities of the United Kingdom.
  First, I give a brief history of the background to the debate. It starts with the review of local government boundaries required by section 16(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. That review was initiated by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, which expressed an initial view that Bressay should be incorporated within the Lerwick division because its electorate was 60 per cent. below average. That view was widely rejected locally and a considerable number of representations were received by the commission in response to it and to some of its other proposals.
  Given the contentious nature of the proposals, the assistant commissioner, Mr. Archibald Martin, was appointed. He visited the area and a local meeting was convened in Lerwick in June 1991 when interested parties and organisations—myself included—gave evidence to Mr. Martin.
  On that occasion, Shetland Islands council made a formal and reasoned submission against the proposed linkage of electoral divisions, as did the local councillor, Mr. James Irvine. A careful study of today's Order Paper will reveal early-day motion 868, in which he secures an unsought tribute from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and another.
  Dr. Jonathan Wills gave evidence on behalf of the Bressay community council, as did the chairperson of the Bressay school board, Mrs. Anne Bateson, and the convenor of Shetland Islands council, Edward Thomson; and, significantly, the chairman and vice-chairman of Lerwick community council also voiced their opposition to the proposed change.
  Notwithstanding the force of those representations—it is significant that no one was prepared to defend the boundary commission's proposals—the commission unfortunately accepts the assistant commissioner's recommendation that Bressay should be linked with the Lerwick Harbour division.
  950
  After the statutory period, during which appeals were made to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he tabled the Shetland Islands Area (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1992, giving effect to the boundary commission's proposals. That order comes into force for all preliminary proceedings in connection with the islands council's elections on 10 October 1993. It will take full effect on the date of the next islands council election on 5 May 1994. It will be apparent that there is ample time for the Minister and the Secretary of State to reconsider the terms of the order without giving rise to any administrative disruption or inconvenience.
  I shall summarise the case for Bressay's separate representation, notwithstanding its relatively small electorate. First, Bressay is predominantly a rural area, while Lerwick is a town and obviously an urban area. The interests of a rural division do not necessarily accord with those of a town division. I have no doubt that any councillor elected would work hard to reconcile those competing interests. During the public hearing the councillor to be elected was frequently described as a "hybrid councillor". Nevertheless, a 2:1 weighting of electors in favour of the Lerwick town ward would be a fact of electoral life.
  It is not too fanciful to think of an issue that could easily split on a rural-town divide. Housing, economic development and environmental health were all cited at the local inquiry as examples of where there could be ready conflicts of interest. If a councillor chose to side with his or her majority in a town part of the ward, and even if every elector in Bressay voted against that councillor at the ensuing election, they would still find themselves greatly out-voted. That is no recipe for providing local confidence in an effective local democracy.
  Secondly, Bressay is a thriving community with a distinctive community identity. The first election for the Bressay ward took place 101 years ago. Although the island's population fell dramatically in the years after the first world war, it retained its separate representation—something which I suspect may have been instrumental in no small way in helping to sustain the islands community's distinctive identity. On local government reorganisation and the inception of the Shetland Islands council in the mid-1970s, Bressay continued to secure its separate representation to the council, albeit that at that time the size of the population and electorate of the island was smaller that it is today.
  The island has its own community council, its own school board and its own distinctive social and community events. Its sons and daughters, who leave the island to work "overseas"—perhaps as close as Lerwick, but often further afield—still retain a tremendous loyalty to their native isle. In recent times, there have been signs of increased house building and a rising population, something that has been assisted by a first-class ferry service.
  In contested local elections, the turnout is traditionally high, which speaks eloquently for the vitality of civic life on the island. Moreover, when a public meeting was called on the island on the eve of the assistant commissioner's hearing to debate the commission's proposals, some 30 per cent. of the electorate turned out. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can do a quick relative calculation: I wonder when he was last aware of a

  951
  public meeting in Edinburgh, West that managed to attract the attention of 17,700 of his electors to debate a matter of public policy.
  In addition to those considerations, one must also consider the legal position. Schedule 6 to the relevant statute, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, requires the boundary commissioners to provide that
  "the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral area".
  It also states that regard is also to be had to
  "the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable"
  The schedule specifically states:
  "The strict application of the rule"—
  the numbers rule—
  "may be departed from in any area where special geographical considerations appear to render a departure desirable"
  Can there be any more obvious geographical consideration than a rural island community separated by water from a busy county town?
  The arguments that I have advanced so far provide a substantial case for Bressay's separate representation on the Shetland Islands council. I recognise that I am asking not only for that argument to be accepted but for the Secretary of State to bring forward a new, revised order. I am asking him to go against the recommendations of the boundary commission in this case, and I appreciate that he would not do so lightly. However, I believe that, under section 17(2) of the 1973 Act, the Secretary of State has the power to modify proposals made to him by the commission.
  In my submission, there are three compelling reasons, in addition to those to which I have already referred, why the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion and modify the commissioners' proposals to allow Bressay to continue as a separate electoral division.
  First, the issue does not give rise to any partisan political dispute. The reluctance of a Secretary of State to interfere with the recommendations of the independent boundary commission would be proper and understandable if, by doing so, he opened himself to the charge of gerrymandering for party political advantage. That is not the case here, because Bressay has a long tradition of electing independent councillors, and the position of the islanders has attracted cross-party support.
  Secondly, if, as the assistant commissioner has maintained, the clinching argument is Bressay's low electorate, it might be wise to ask the simple question: who would be most prejudiced by a decision to maintain an electoral division of 255? The answer is those wards with a much higher electorate where, arguably, voters could claim that their vote in returning an island's councillor was disproportionately devalued in relation to the vote of a Bressay elector. Hon. Members may think that most of those voters live in Lerwick, where divisions can be between two and three times as large as that in Bressay. However, far from complaining about that, the chairman and vice-chairman of Lerwick community council, and its members, went along to the public inquiry to support the islanders' claim. As I have already said, Bressay's case enjoys support throughout Shetland.
  The third and most important reason why the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion is what has happened since he received the boundary commissioners' report, because the same Local Government Boundary Commission, under Lord Osborne's chairmanship, has produced a report on the electoral arrangements for
  952
  Orkney Islands council. It proposes, one ward, Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre, with an electorate of 225, and another, Shapinsay, of 268, which is similar to that being argued for in Bressay.
  Indeed, if I may pursue the Shapinsay parallel, the original proposal was to incorporate Shapinsay in a Kirkwall burgh ward. That was rejected, admittedly by a different assistant commissioner, in the following terms:
  "The case for separate respresentation having been accepted in the past, I have approached this matter on the basis that the question to be answered is whether circumstances have changed to an extent justifying a different conclusion on this occasion. In my view they have not. The general perception in Orkney is that the islands have special interests and community ties which can properly be distinguished from those of the mainland, even those parts of the mainland separated from them by relatively narrow stretches of water. It would be difficult to devise any system of linking the islands to parts of the mainland which did not imply that the island electorate would be in a minority in the new divisions, and this would be widely regarded as unsatisfactory and as undermining some distinctive characteristics of Orkney society."
  The commissioners accepted that recommendation and decided that Shapinsay should not be linked with the mainland, and that Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre should be maintained in their current constituted division because of the strong reasons put forward in the report. Those strong reasons, which I have quoted, will not be lost on the House, and I trust that they will not be lost on the Minister.
  Clearly, what the commission was prepared to support strongly in the case of Orkney it has rejected in the case of Shetland. I need not labour the point because it is reasonably self-evident. Instead of highlighting the inconsistency of the boundary commission, I would rather that the Minister would draw the positive lesson from that; the Secretary of State's attention should be drawn to a contemporary finding of the boundary commission in almost identical circumstances which would be sufficient to justify him revising the order.
  The arguments in favour of Bressay's separate representation are overwhelming. I ask the Minister to consider them seriously. There is nothing wrong with admitting that he perhaps got it wrong. If the Minister were to change the order, it would be widely acclaimed throughout Shetland. After all, this is the Government which, in recognising the paramount wishes of certain islanders in the south Atlantic, incurred more than £3 billion of post-conflict public expenditure. Separate representation on Shetland Islands council is a small price to pay to meet the wishes of the islanders of Bressay and to give victory to the campaign of the Bressay residents to "let Bressa be".
  9.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on winning the ballot for the Adjournment debate and on the assiduous manner in which he has represented the interests of his 255 constituents on the island of Bressay. We do not normally debate the orders which implement new local authority electoral arrangements, because Parliament has decided that the final stage of the lengthy and detailed consultation process should be undertaken by executive action by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  953
  I welcome the debate, however, because it is proper that Parliament should give attention to such important matters from time to time, and it is only right that doubts about the commission's conclusions should be aired in this way.
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has been engaged for almost four years now in conducting reviews of local electoral arrangements for all the regional and islands authorities in Scotland. As hon. Members will appreciate, that was a massive task as these have been lengthy and painstaking reviews which have involved an enormous amount of public consultation and debate. The commission should be congratulated on the way in which it carried out this difficult task, especially in view of the resistance which changes of this sort often generate.
  I recognise that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be unhappy at what they perceive as an unjustified change recommended by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. But, as I shall explain, there is a wider interest involved. I am confident that the commission has been pursuing that wider interest for the benefit of all electors in Scotland and of all electors in Shetland.
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has been set up by Parliament with the task of conducting regular reviews of local electoral arrangements. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that those regular reviews apply to the whole of Scotland. The commission's recommendations must be consistent, as they apply in for example Dumfries and Galloway, the city of Glasgow, Fife or the Highlands, just as they apply in Shetland. There are no grounds for saying that one part of the country should be treated specially or differently from the rest, because Parliament has laid down the rules that the commission must follow. Those rules are designed to achieve a balance in the best interests of the whole electorate, not the special interests of a particular faction or community.
  Those clear criteria laid down by Parliament make it possible for the commission to discharge its duties with a minimum of political pressure and interference, which is important to allow us to maintain the basic structure of our democratic traditions. The commission has a right to interpret the rules as it sees fit and it is answerable to the courts in that respect, but it has no right to disregard the rules. If it does so, it will be answerable to the courts, although there is no way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be willing to countenance recommendations that do not conform to the rules.
  One of the main purposes of the rules that is measurable and unambiguous is to achieve electoral parity. It is important that, in the election of members of a local authority, the weight of one resident's vote should be broadly the same as that of another. Obviously, it is impossible to get precise arithmetical parity every time, as other factors must be taken into account. Community interests would rank highly among those but they in turn should not be allowed to distort that fundamental democratic objective.
  At the start of the review, Bressay was 60 per cent. below parity while the seven Lerwick divisions were on
  954
  average 19 per cent. above parity. I shall explain that by looking at the electorates taken from the current electoral register for that part of Shetland.
  At present, the smallest electoral division in Lerwick has more than 600 voters. Two electoral divisions have more than 1,000 voters. But Bressay—separated by about half a mile of water from Lerwick—has just over 250. That is hardly fair. It should come as no surprise that the commission took a long, hard look at that situation. Put another way, if that were maintained, the weight of a Bressay elector's vote would continue to be three times that of a Lerwick elector, which would hardly be fair. As a consequence of the review the nine divisions covering Lerwick and Bressay together are estimated to have electorates on average just 2·5 per cent. above parity. That is much more equitable and the commission has done well to achieve such a balance, which also benefits all the electorate throughout Shetland.
  The commission thought long and hard about that proposal before it was published. One of the considerations that doubtlessly weighed heavily would have been the community one. The commission would also have been aware that it can take account of special geographical considerations when formulating its proposals. In that regard, however, the Commission would have noticed that, although Bressay is an island, it is separated from mainland Shetland only by a very short distance and there is a five-minute ferry service every hour from 7 am until 11 pm on weekdays and until 1 am Friday and Saturday nights. That service has recently been significantly improved by a new and bigger vessel. In addition, all the secondary school children from Bressay attend school in Lerwick, and the health and emergency services are all provided from Lerwick.
  There are therefore strong grounds for the commission having seen Bressay as much more closely involved now with Lerwick in the community sense than it has ever been in the past. Nor do I have any fears that Bressay voters' interests will be rendered secondary to those voters who live in Lerwick and with whom they will share a representative on the Islands council. In my experience, such councillors are particularly sensitive to the needs of such sections of their constituents, especially if they are in a minority.
  Bressay is now a dormitory unit of Lerwick in terms of transport, employment and education. I assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that I have every reason to suppose that a councillor representing Bressay will be every bit as sensitive to their interests as the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wallace: I have listened to what the Minister has to say. He must have heard the quote that I gave from the Orkney boundary commission review, and the almost identical circumstances of Shapinsay in relationship to Kirkwall. Assuming that the boundary commission has worked consistently in the interests of Scotland, as the Minister said, how is it that the two boundary commissions reached almost diametrically opposed decisions within four months of each other?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is easy—the circumstances are entirely different. The ferry service between Bressay and Lerwick on a new and bigger ferry takes five minutes and runs hourly from 7.15 am to 11 pm, and to 1 am on Fridays and Saturdays. The ferry between

  955
  Shapinsay and Kirkwall takes infinitely longer—30 minutes—and occurs only six times a day, between 9.45 am and 5.30 pm. Therefore, there is no possible comparison in terms of access and transport.
  The hon. Gentleman sought to make a comparison between Bressay and Shapinsay, but the commission decided that the different considerations justified a separate electoral division with a below-quota electorate. Such a comparison only serves to demonstrate how dangerous comparisons can be because of the essential difference between the nature of the ferry services.
  Having made its proposals, the commission provided every opportunity for local discussion and consultation, as required under the legislation. All the representations and comments submitted to the commission were considered carefully. As a consequence of those representations and as a sign of how seriously they were viewed, the commission requested the Secretary of State to appoint an assistant commissioner. Mr. Martin, a former regional council chief executive, with extensive relevant experience in such matters was appointed assistant commissioner. The inquiry took place in Lerwick on 27 June 1991.
  Every opportunity was provided for views to be expressed and comments made. The assistant commissioner is entirely independent of the commission and he submits his report according to how he assesses the case. He does not always agree with the commission. The inquiry also considered another of the commission's recommendations for Shetland that dealt with an adjustment to provide a division of Tingwall, Nesting and Lunnasting, and another consisting of Whiteness and Weisdale, on which the assistant commissioner disagreed with the commission. The commission subsequently accepted his advice.
  However, the assistant commissioner concluded that the proposal to link Bressay with the Lerwick Harbour division was "appropriate and practical". The assistant commissioner's detailed report, which also includes the written statement submitted to the inquiry by Dr. Jonathan Wills on behalf of Bressay community council, has been included in full in the commission's report to the Secretary of State. That allows the full picture before the commission to be available to the public and shows that the assistant commissioner attached significant weight to Bressay now being a commuter region for Lerwick. The Commission's final recommendations to the Secretary of State maintained that proposal.
  As the legislation requires, the Secretary of State allowed some time for further representations to be made. Representations were made but they did not say anything new or add to what had already been presented to the commission and the assistant commissioner at the public inquiry. As the commission had carried out its statutory function according to the legislative requirements and as its recommendations, had been endorsed by the assistant commissioner following a public inquiry, my right hon. Friend concluded that he had no grounds for overturning its recommendations, for two reasons.
  956
  The first reason concerns the commission's independence. My right hon. Friend recognises the fundamental importance of the commission being free of political control. Were that not so, we could not have confidence in our democratic arrangements. Provided that the commission carries out its duties correctly, its conclusions must command support; otherwise, there is no justification for its existence.
  Mr. Wallace: Since Parliament has given the Secretary of State the power to modify the boundary commission proposals, in what circumstances would the Minister envisage the Secretary of State using those powers?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: They would have to be extremely serious circumstances, possibly involving irregularity. The Secretary of State has such powers, but I am not aware of his ever having used them. If the hon. Gentleman can cite an example, I shall be happy to consider it. In this case there are no grounds whatever for him to exercise the powers, because of the need for consistency.
  Changes, particularly those of the sort generated by boundary commissions, are often initially deeply unpopular, as they are in this case with the hon. Gentleman's 255 constituents; but if the Secretary of State were prepared to overturn recommendations that have been made after due process of the correct procedures, simply as a result of special pleading from whatever quarter, he would be abandoning every prospect of consistency. We would quickly reach an impossible situation if the Secretary of State gave way to such pressure.
  Similar pressures and claims would arise in other parts of the country, and the Secretary of State might find himself subjected to legal challenge if he did not give way in every case. How would he handle conflicting claims from special interests, none of which were in agreement with the commission's recommendations? The result would be chaos. There would be little justification for the commission carrying out its role at all.
  As I said at the outset, I recognise the strength of local feeling which a change of this sort can generate; and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on pursuing his constituents' interests as far as is possible. Broader issues are, however, involved, and the commission must have due regard to them. I have confidence that the revised arrangements for local representation will be to the benefit of electors generally in Shetland. I am also confident that, when all the reviews of the electoral arrangements for the whole country have been completed, while there will be parts of the country where some people might want the commission to have acted differently, the consensus will be that the commission has carried out a difficult task effectively, with tact and diplomacy and with the best interests of local government voters throughout Scotland at heart.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  9.20 pm
  Ms. Rachel Squire: I begin by offering my thanks and by paying tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the other Deputy Speakers and to Madam Speaker for allowing this debate to take place. Last week, Madam Speaker generously granted a debate on Rosyth dockyard but, for reasons of which everyone is aware, it was not possible for it to occur. I know, however, that everyone involved has been working to ensure that it takes place tonight. It is only fair that I should thank all right hon. and hon. Members, and the Whips on both sides of the House, for their assistance in ensuring that the debate takes place. In many ways, tonight could not have been a better time for this debate, as Parliament was lobbied today by workers from all the dockyards involved in defence.
  I am here to speak not just for myself or on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown); nor am I here to speak only for the work force of Rosyth—for its 4,100 direct employees and its many thousands of indirect employees. No; I am here to speak out for every man, woman and child in Scotland.
  Over the years, the industrial giants of Scotland have disappeared. The only one left is Rosyth dockyard, Scotland's largest industrial complex. If the Government do not secure Rosyth's future, we in Scotland will be left with nothing but an industrial history, former employment and bitter memories.
  I want to cover three main areas in this speech—employment, industrial strategy, and the strategic, security and cost implications for Rosyth. The people of Scotland fear that the Government will break their promises. Since 1985, Rosyth royal dockyard has been promised that it will be the prime submarine refitting yard. In 1985, a senior member of the Government told us that the yard could look forward with high hopes. We were told that work on the refitting of Trident submarines was guaranteed. He added that the Government would complete the building of the massive facilities required to support Trident submarines, which would be refitted at Rosyth. That Minister is still a member of the Government; indeed, he is now an even more senior member—the right hon. Gentleman is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ask the Minister of State for Defence Procurement whether the Chancellor still holds the views that he expressed in 1985, and I ask him also to give us his own opinion.
  I shall talk about the jobs that were guaranteed by the Government, jobs that now seem so insecure. In the dockyard, there are 4,100 direct employees. In Fife, there are certainly another 4,000 to 5,000 indirect employees. It has been estimated in a study produced by the Fraser and Allander Institute and St. Andrew's Economic Services that overall job losses throughout Scotland as a result of the closure of the dockyard, which would take place if it was not awarded the Trident refitting contract could be up to 18,000. Sub-contractors would collapse, as would small businesses, 80 per cent. of which have 50 or fewer employees.
  There are 245 companies providing supplies or subcontracted services to the dockyard. A further 250 provide services to the naval base. Throughout Scotland, an additional 835 companies have some sort of business with the dockyard. What future will the Government
  958
  promise 1,330 companies in Scotland if the dockyard is closed? What future will the Government promise the naval base, and especially 4,000 naval personnel, if the dockyard closes? What future will they offer 18,000 employees and their families in Scotland if they do not fulfil their promises to Rosyth? Those people are like the 18,000 who comprise the population of Buckhaven, like the 18,000 who live in Balerno and Baberton, which are in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, and like the 18,000 who live in Huntingdon and Godmanchester, in the Prime Minister's constituency. What will happen to those people if the dockyard has no future?
  Fife does not have low unemployment; it has the second highest unemployment in Scotland. If the dockyard closes, it will certainly come top of the list. It will have an overall unemployment rate of 17 per cent. In the Dunfermline area, we shall be talking of up to 30 per cent. unemployment—one in every three people out of work.
  We are aware of the plight of many young people. At present, Rosyth dockyard still brings some hope—for example, it still trains 65 per cent. of all Scottish engineering apprentices. If it closes, the Government will be telling those apprentices and engineering firms that there is no future for them.
  If the yard closes, it will cost the Government a great deal. We reckon that redundancy costs will be about £102 million. Clean-up costs will amount to £2 million and unemployment costs will reach £280 million; that is not to mention writing off the £125 million that has already been spent on the new Trident fitting work. I am suggesting to the Government that they can save more than £500 million. They can save jobs and their own reputation by adopting Babcock Thorn's proposal to have two dockyards with one management.
  That proposal is for a dual-site option of submarine refitting at Rosyth and surface ship refitting at Devonport. That option would save the Ministry of Defence more than £260 million and would save the Exchequer an additional £250 million. It would preserve local economies and employment and provide a safe solution for submarine refitting. Babcock Thorn has made a fixed-term bid to the Government of £267 million. It offers Rosyth new equipment and fabric which are designed with low maintenance in mind. It offers facilities and special skills, efficiency and throughput, more jobs and minimal cost to the Exchequer.
  It is not just Rosyth's management who are arguing for two dockyards and one management. Just last week Professor Donald MacKay, the chairman of Edinburgh consultancy PIEDA Ltd., said that savings of up to £440 million in defence spending could be made if submarine work was carried out at Rosyth and work on surface ships was carried out at Devonport. He estimated that the two yards could produce cost benefits of between £320 million and £438 million over the next 30 years.
  Other worldwide studies demonstrate that the best savings are made by adopting a multi-site focused approach rather than a large-scale single-site operation. Safety, decommissioning, lay-ups, operational availability and location considerations all favour the dual-site approach, with Rosyth dealing with submarines.
  I have just received a report from Price, Waterhouse —hardly a firm of which I would normally speak well. About Rosyth it said:

  959
  "As a result of our analysis of the projected operational costs to the MOD estimated by BTL under the two options and the sensitivity analysis which we have undertaken on certain material figures and assumptions, we conclude that costs are marginally balanced in favour of a dual site option.
  In addition the MOD have a potential opportunity to save approximately £120£140 million by concentrating nuclear submarine refitting and decommissioning at Rosyth. These savings represent the differential cost of Rosyth's ability to accommodate the full nuclear programme earlier than Devonport."
  The Rosyth proposals are intrinsically safe. Rosyth is much more remote from the public than Devonport, where 38,000 people live within 2 km of the dockyard. Rosyth is capable of meeting all modern safety standards and its work force have an impeccable track record in submarine refitting and technical expertise. Its safety record on nuclear refitting is second to none.
  The site for a new refit facility was chosen not by Babcock Thorn but by the Ministry of Defence after intensive investigation in the early 1980s. The design of the new facilities at Rosyth is at an advanced stage. They will be built on bedrock, which is more secure than any other kind of rock anchor. Rosyth's results have been audited by the nuclear installations inspectorate.
  Let me say something about industrial strategy. The Fife economy is very fragile, because of such factors as long-term structural change, peripherality and a lower level of company formation; yet the dockyard has been innovative. It has developed defence diversification up to 15 per cent. of its work load. The most famous example is probably its work on London underground carriages.
  None of us is under any illusion: the new era of peace and the peace dividend is in danger of creating an economic desert in parts of the country—particularly in Fife, where 30 per cent. of all businesses are defence related. In Rosyth, 10 per cent. of regional gross domestic product is provided by the dockyard; the dockyard, together with the base, has a turnover of £394 million, the vast majority of which is spent in Fife; and the Scottish economy is further affected by related expenditure of £380 million a year.
  Let me ask the Minister some questions which I should particularly like him to answer. When does he believe that Rosyth will be ready to undertake the first Trident refit? When does he believe that Devonport will be ready? What Government savings will result from the closure of Rosyth, given the massive increase in unemployment benefits and the reduction in tax and national insurance receipts? When will a decision be made and announced? Hon. Members want specific dates, rather than further generalities such as "before Christmas" or "early in the new year".
  Would Rosyth be given a lifeline, just to delay its closure? Does the Minister see a future for the naval base, which I visited on Monday, if the dockyard closes? Is it true that the Navy Board has come out in favour of Devonport? Why has the Ministry of Defence rejected Babcock Thorn's proposal to take over all nuclear refitting work three years early, in 1994, which would save £150 million? Does the Minister accept that Rosyth could handle the whole operation from 1995? Are the Government in favour of a dual site or a single site? As far as the Minister knows, does the Chancellor still hold the views that he held in 1985, and does the Minister share those views?
  Finally, let me ask a question that was given to me to ask tonight:
  960
  "When the Government privatised the Royal dockyards…it announced that, in addition to securing better value for money, it also wanted to achieve 'scope for expansion of employment opportunities in the regions concerned' and 'an assured long-term future for the Dockyards' … It is clear that the proposal put forward by Babcock Thorn is consistent with these objectives. Can Ministers confirm that these are still aims of Government policy?"
  Let me be honest: I never thought that I would stand in this Chamber arguing for nuclear submarines that would assist the Government. I am prepared to do so because think that people are most important—the Rosyth work force, their families and the people of Fife and Scotland in general. It does not come easy to me, but I propose that the Government increase their popularity with the people of Fife and Scotland by retaining Scotland's largest industrial complex. I do not need to tell any hon. Member what will happen if Rosyth dockyard closes, nor do I need to tell any hon. Member that this is not just a local campaign or a Fife campaign. It is a campaign throughout Scotland, and possibly even further, by all those who care about the defence of this country.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) on, first, attaining this debate and, secondly, being kind enough to agree—as have my hon. Friends—to my speaking in the debate. I have no hesitation in contributing to debates on defence matters. Many hon. Members know that for many years it has been my job to defend the reasons why we maintain our nuclear capability on the Clyde. I have believed in deterrence for many years, and I still do. We must examine how to maintain the submarines that will be based in the Clyde for the next 30 years.
  The Minister will be aware that the Babcock Thorn proposals which he and the Government have received, as well as the modified versions, are financially sound. Babcock Thorn's two-dockyard proposal was not dreamed up simply to save jobs. It is a management proposal made on sound management lines that clearly demonstrates that one can manage two facilities more effectively and efficiently than one.
  Another huge and important advantage of having the submarines serviced at Rosyth and the surface ships serviced at Devonport is that the proposals are environmentally sound. A purpose-built, earthquake-proof dry dock facility for nuclear submarines at Rosyth must surely be safer than a modified facility at Devonport. The absence at Rosyth of a high-density population makes it a much better choice. It cannot be wise to put nuclear submarines into a modified facility right in the centre of a large, waterfronted city, particularly when a more suitable, less populated site at Rosyth is available.
  Can the Minister confirm that this aspect of the environmental considerations will be fully and adequately addressed before any decision is made? Can he also confirm that the Babcock Thorn single management proposals for both dockyards will be fully and properly examined, again before a decision is taken? Will the independent report that supports these views also be considered?
  Furthermore, can the Minister confirm that the real and full cost to the public purse, in the event of that facility being closed, will be made known? I refer to the money already spent at Rosyth as well as to that which has been committed and that will not be recouped. There will also

  961
  be the cost of redundancies and the unemployment and social security costs. Will the Minister ensure that the figures submitted by Fife regional council and the Fraser of Allander Institute are part of the package that the Treasury must properly examine before just a military decision is taken? My view, and that of independent experts, is that the cost to the public purse of closing the Rosyth facility would be far in excess of the cost just to the Ministry of Defence.
  Can the Minister also confirm that, before any decision on the future of the Rosyth dockyard is made, proper consultations will take place with all those involved? I have particularly in mind the trade unions and the management.
  I remind my hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Dumfermline, West drew attention to this—that at present not so many engineering apprentices are being trained as one would wish. In Scotland the number of engineering apprentices is slightly more than 600. When one remembers that more than 300 of those apprentices are trained in the dockyard at Rosyth, one realises that the cost in the training budget would be massive if we had to find alternatives. That is important. Such matters must be taken properly and fully into account before any decisions are made. One should be in no doubt what the economic consequences will be for central Scotland if the dockyard closes. The consequences will be horrendous. One should have no doubt about that at all.
  I have no hesitation whatever in standing behind my hon. Friend and saying that I do not need to be persuaded that it is wise to keep Rosyth. I have always believed that Rosyth is one of the great jewels in the crown of defence, and I still believe that. That is why I argued in 1985, and earlier, that we must keep both the dockyard and the naval base. I still believe that the retention of the dockyard and the naval base is an essential military requirement.
  It is worth noting the proposal of Babcock Thorn to have submarines serviced at Rosyth. That is sensible because submariners have their homes in central Scotland and the submarines are based on the Clyde. Anyone who has studied such matters knows that submariners spend a lifetime in the service. Many of them buy homes in central Scotland and put down roots there. If submarines are required to be serviced, it makes sense to have them serviced in a convenient place so that submariners do not have to move from home. They can travel daily because Rosyth is as near to where many of them live as the base on the Clyde. That matter must be taken into account. It is equally true that the service fleet is largely based in the south of England. The sailors who man the surplus ships have their homes in the south of England, so it makes sense to have the ships serviced in the south of England. That must be another important matter.
  I now turn to yet another important matter. [Interruption.] It is not a matter about which anyone should mutter or be foolish. I refer to one of the most important defence decisions that we will make, probably this century. It is also one of the most strategic and economic decisions that Scotland will face. If we do not retain the facility, the consequences are too horrendous to contemplate.
  As the Conservative Member who has been charged with the responsibility of looking after defence matters on behalf of the Conservative party, I ask my hon. Friend to
  962
  bear in mind, as the Government will, the fact that there are bound to be political costs which I would hate to contemplate if we considered closing Rosyth. The peace movement has given free reign in Scotland to oppose the location of a nuclear deterrent on the Clyde. The big factor that has undermined from the beginning the peace movement's campaign against nuclear deterrence—the hon. Lady put her finger on it—has been the jobs at Rosyth. The jobs at Rosyth were our deterrent. When I say "we", I refer to those of us who believe in nuclear deterrents. The Rosyth jobs were the trade-off for trade unions supporting the retention of nuclear deterrents on the Clyde.
  We must examine the matter carefully, together with all the other political considerations. I would not look foward to appearing on radio and television to defend the retention of the nuclear base if I could not constantly remind people of the massive number of jobs that generated from the maintenance of submarines at Rosyth.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few sentences in support of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), who introduced the debate with great skill and considerable conviction. One should acknowledge her persistence in ensuring that the debate took place.
  It would also be wrong of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It appears that he is impervious to change. Prime Ministers come and go and reshuffles take place, one after the other, but still he ploughs an occasionally solitary furrow as the guardian of the defence interests of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association in Scotland. That is a rare achievement and, even on a serious occasion such as this, one should perhaps acknowledge it.
  My interest in the debate stems partly from the fact that my constituency lies within Fife. Although the economic consequences of the closure of Rosyth might not affect north-east Fife with quite the same severity as it would undoubtedly affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, any substantial reduction in economic activity that would occur as a result of closure would have a significant effect on the economy of Fife as a whole and, indeed, on the economy of central Scotland.
  The military justification for the retention of the dockyard is overwhelming. Before I deal with that, I should like to note that, if the dockyard closed, the military arguments for retaining the base would be less strong than at present. It is not unreasonable to assume that if the dockyard closed, in due course the base would also go. The economic and employment consequences would be extremely severe.
  It cannot be right from a military or security point of view to put all one's ship repairing resources and facilities in one location. I ask the House to think about it in terms of something as simple as sabotage. Let us suppose that all the facilities were located on the south coast of England. The technology of ballistic missiles is now so advanced that some countries in the middle east have the ability to put ballistic missiles into western Europe and the mainland of the United Kingdom. That may seem improbable, but only a couple of years ago we were engaged in a conflict

  963
  with someone who would have had no compunction, if he had had the capacity to do it, about firing ballistic missiles at the mainland of the United Kingdom.
  If perchance or even by design such a missile landed on the sole ship repairing facility, the damage to the ability of the United Kingdom to conduct its defence affairs could be substantial. It cannot make sense for the moment to concentrate all our facilities in one location. If the proper defence of the United Kingdom is to be achieved, it is inevitable that there must be two separate locations.
  I have no discomfort in arguing for Trident submarines to be refitted at Rosyth, because I believe in the independent nuclear deterrent. I believe in a four-boat Trident fleet. The more boats in the fleet, the better opportunities there will be for refitting. The Minister should also bear it in mind that it would be a strange irony if the economic advantage to be derived from refitting nuclear submarines at Rosyth was taken away while the facilities at Rosyth were used for the storage of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines for which no final resting place has yet been found.
  For the reasons that I have given and in view of the powerful arguments made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I support the proposal that surface fleet work should be located at Devonport and the refit of nuclear submarines should be sent to Rosyth, where the facilities are available and the skills and the capacity of the work force are well proven.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) on her speech about Rosyth dockyard. I am grateful to her for allowing me and my hon. Friend the Minister to participate in the debate. I was an apprentice at Rosyth dockyard. My home town was Dunfermline. The hon. Lady commented on the value of those apprenticeships to young people nowadays, and I endorse every word that she said on that subject.
  Rosyth dockyard has played an important role in Britain's defences over many years, especially during the past 50 years, and I believe that it still has an important role to play in the future. During the Falklands war, it certainly rose to the occasion. Throughout the past 20 or 30 years, Rosyth has played a vital role in maintaining the Polaris fleet, which has been right at the centre of British defence policies. Trident is at the centre of those policies for the future, and the nuclear deterrent has operated from Scotland over the years, as it will in the future. It is right to expect that the nuclear deterrent fleet, which has been maintained so well at Rosyth, will continue to be maintained there.
  Since Babcock Thorn took over, Rosyth has changed considerably from the dockyard I knew. It has won more than 40 per cent. more work than others through competitive tenders—a remarkable achievement. Its labour utilisation has improved by about 22 per cent.—that, too, is remarkable. Its cost overruns on Ministry of Defence budgets have been virtually eliminated. That fact must weigh heavily with my hon. Friend the Minister when he considers Rosyth's future.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, and for all the reasons that he mentioned, it is important that at least two naval bases be maintained in the United Kingdom.
  964
  Rosyth dockyard now has tremendous skill and knowledge within the base, and I ask that that skill and knowledge be put to good use for the future of Britain's defence systems.
  9.57 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): This has been a useful and timely debate, and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) not only on her good fortune but also on her tenacity in securing it. I pay her a genuine tribute, because for months she has campaigned with commendable vigour on behalf of her constituents through correspondence and by coming to see Ministers —and now by securing this Adjournment debate.
  I took especial note of the fact that the hon. Lady, with the leader of Fife regional council and other local authority leaders, and with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is on the Opposition Front Bench tonight, came to see me last week to argue on similar lines and with great force the case that she has made so eloquently tonight.
  I have visited both Rosyth and Devonport to see for myself their facilities and plans and their blueprints for the future, and I have been impressed, as it is easy to be, with the efforts and the determination of the management teams and the work forces at both dockyards.
  Like all my colleagues in the Government, I am deeply conscious of the great importance of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth to the economies of their areas. Both employ several thousand people and sustain employment for many thousands more in firms throughout their regions. The companies are also among the largest trainers of apprentices in their areas; and I was glad to hear the personal contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who speaks with the experience of a former apprentice at Rosyth royal dockyard.
  We are conscious that when we make our proposals in due course we shall be taking some important decisions, and we recognise the enormous significance for Fife and for Scotland of the issues which have been raised tonight.
  However, we must also recognise that the subject generates strong emotions in the other part of the country likely to be affected. As I shall make clear to the House, our future plans for ship refitting and repair will have great and wide implications for the communities both of Devonport and of Rosyth. We have to be very careful how we reach our decision.
  At the end of the day, we can be influenced only by hard facts of the kind that we have heard tonight. We are approaching the decision with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. To some extent, I am almost in purdah tonight because we are fairly close to reaching our decision and, as far as Ministers are concerned, this debate must be something of a listening exercise. However, I will answer all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West.
  Ms. Squire: Will the Minister be more specific about the dates involved in reaching a decision and making it public?
  Mr. Aitken: I will answer the hon. Lady's question about the dates. However, before I respond to her questions, which I recognise are important, I want to pay tribute to the—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Mr. Aitken: Before responding to the questions of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I want to pay a genuine tribute to the work forces at both dockyards who have given long and devoted service to the Crown over many years. Rosyth has carried out all the refits of Britain's Polaris submarines, including that of HMS Renown whose rededication ceremony took place a few days ago. In particular, I pay tribute to both companies which have reacted positively and enthusiastically to a requirement to complete warship refits ahead of time and to convert vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to war time use in preparation for the Gulf conflict and, before that, the Falklands conflict. The whole country has good reason to be very grateful to all those who work in the royal dockyards.
  I want now to respond to some of the specific questions that have been raised in the debate, and I will do so in reverse order. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, whose contribution as I said, was very valuable from his perspective as a former apprentice at Rosyth, quite rightly highlighted improvements in productivity and competitiveness at the yard. He praised the great reservoir of skill and knowledge in Rosyth dockyard. I entirely accept his points.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) set out eloquently the military and security case for two locations. We are well aware of that. However, I thought that he was a little far-sighted when he envisaged the possibility of missiles raining down on Devonport. I suppose that stranger things have happened in the military world and it was perfectly valid for him to make out his case about the importance of two locations rather than one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who has long been a staunch and vociferous champion of strong military defences of this country—more so than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, who acknowledged her recent Damascus-like conversion to Trident submarines—ran through a list of questions. He asked whether we would take into account environmental considerations, and the answer to that is yes; whether we would properly consider the dual-site proposal, and the answer to that is yes; whether we would take into account the recent special reports, particularly that from Fife council, to which the answer is yes; whether we would take into account the money that has already been spent on the RD57 project at Rosyth, to which the answer is also yes; whether we would take not just a military decision but a wider decision, and the answer to that is also yes, we will take all those broader factors into consideration. Finally, he asked whether I would be willing to receive consultations, and the answer to that is also yes.
  We do not seem to have done much but receive representations from every possible viewpoint. In addition to representations in respect of this debate, I met a delegation this afternoon from Devonport and, a few minutes before the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West opened her debate, we heard a petition tabled from
  966
  Devonport. We are trying to carry out a genuinely even-handed approach. Lack of consultation has not been a problem.
  I want now to consider the specific questions of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, many of which referred to dates. She wanted to know when Rosyth and Devonport would be ready to undertake the first Trident refit. We are confident that the facilities at either Devonport or Rosyth will be ready in time for the first Trident refit. We estimate that Devonport could take over all nuclear work at approximately the end of 1996 and that Rosyth could do the nuclear work nine months earlier, in the spring of 1996.
  The hon. Lady asked what Government savings there would be if Rosyth was closed. Given the unemployment increases that she predicted, I cannot give her a precise figure, but, as I said in answer to a question from her on 27 October, all relevant considerations will be taken into account. The amount of spending that might be necessary on unemployment benefit will be roughly the same in both areas.
  The hon. Lady asked me when the decision will be made and announced. It is our firm aspiration and intention to announce our proposals by the end of the year, but I should enter the caveat that, if more time is needed to get those proposals right, we will take it, because it is a decision of some complexity and wide significance. If we need to take a little longer in the interests of checking more carefully, I do not think that the House would begrudge such extra time, but we hope that it will not be necessary.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will agree that the loyal work force in Devonport and in Rosyth are on tenterhooks on this issue. I should like it to be recognised that at least one west country man is present who has constituents in Devonport. The loyal work force to whom the Minister rightly paid tribute recognise that it is an extremely important decision and that it must not be rushed, but it has gone on for a very long time and patience is wearing thin.
  Mr. Aitken: There is no question of any kicking for touch or unreasonable delays on the part of the Government. As I have said, it is our firm aspiration and intention to reach a decision and to publish our proposals before the end of the year. I entered the caveat because more information is still coming in and further representations are being made. Only this afternoon, I saw people from, I presume, the hon. Gentleman's constituency or from neighbouring constituencies, and it is only fair to make sure that everyone has his say. I accept that we have already tarried some time in reaching this stage in our considerations.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West asked whether there would be a future for the naval base if the dockyard closed. That is a hypothetical question. The decision that we have to take is primarily about the future location of nuclear refitting work. Of course we will take into account the implications for all other installations at Devonport and Rosyth, but those are not directly germane to the issue.
  I was asked about reports from the Navy Board. I cannot comment on advice that the board might or might not have given in confidence to Ministers, particularly as that advice is still continuing. We receive advice from a variety of sources, and some of it is still in progress. I was asked by the hon. Lady why the Ministry of Defence had

  967
  rejected Babcock Thorn's proposal to take over all nuclear refitting work three years early in 1994 and to save, allegedly, £150 million. We have neither accepted nor rejected any proposal, although we had reservations about a timetable from Babcock because it would have involved deferring the refit of one SSN.
  The hon. Lady asked whether I accepted that Rosyth could handle the whole operation from 1994. We accept that Rosyth would have the facilities available from the end of 1994 to handle all nuclear refitting work, but a key factor would be the nuclear programme of the other yard which might be continuing for some time.
  I have done my best to answer those broad questions. I hope that I have not left out anything. However, let me say a word about the reasons for and the conduct of the review, because the crux of the matter is our review of future refitting strategy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the former Secretary of State for Defence, made it clear in his original statement on "Options for Change" in July 1990 and in his statement on fleet support in July last year that there has been a fundamental change in the level of readiness, infrastructure and support that we now need to defend this country and our overseas interests.
  Against that background it would be irresponsible if the Government failed to give the most careful consideration to whether the investment that we make in defence is giving good value for money to the taxpayer. That applies as much to the support area as to the front line, and we have, as the House knows, engaged in a thoroughgoing assessment of our future needs in the fleet support area, including the dockyards.
  A particular factor has been the consideration of the future size of our nuclear submarine fleet, which now comprises 13 hunter-killer submarines besides the four ballistic submarines, which carry Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.
  Our original intention was, as the House knows, that Trident submarines should be refitted at Rosyth. The hon. Lady reminded the House of statements made by Ministers some years ago, but they were made when our submarine force levels were rather higher, and there was no doubt that two refitting facilities would be required.
  However, studies done in my Department, on the basis of proposals by each of the existing dockyard contractors, have shown that it would be feasible and cost-effective to concentrate nuclear refit work at one dockyard.
  Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend concede that, if Rosyth were selected, its experience and knowledge are sufficient to maintain the fleet without the movement of resources from elsewhere, but if Devonport were selected expertise and knowledge would have to be moved there from Rosyth to maintain the Trident submarines?
  Mr. Aitken: That is a fair point, but it is debatable. Others might make out a different case. We listened
  968
  carefully to all those points of view and are considering whether to have two sites or one and whether there will be only one nuclear refitting site.
  We have reached the point when we must consider the best way forward in the light of all the evidence that has been given to us. That evidence has covered a broad range of issues, including military, financial and other factors, and we want to get the process right.
  The hon. Lady referred—as she would, given her constituency—to the proposal that we received recently from BTL. We recently received further proposals from both dockyard contractors and the parent company of the management contractor at Rosyth, Babcock International Ltd., has proposed that it should manage both dockyards, with nuclear refitting concentrated at Rosyth. That is known as the dual-site approach. We have had a similar proposal from Devonport Management Ltd., but it would be wrong for me to discuss the details of the proposals made by Babcock or Devonport because they contain so much commercially confidential information.
  Both proposals are extremely constructive. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the Price, Waterhouse report, which she introduced as though it were a rather ill-smelling piece of fish, even though it seemed to substantiate her case and its conclusions. I gather that she does not have much love for accountants, even when they serve her cause.
  All the documents and reports have been helpful and constructive and have assisted us to find the best way forward. They will be wholly taken into account when we announce our eventual package to the House.
  The Government are fully aware of the momentous importance of the decision. As we are discussing Rosyth, we recognise how crucial it is not merely to Rosyth dockyard and its immediate surroundings, but to the people of Scotland and the economy of Fife. That importance is reflected in the good attendance at this late hour.
  The impact on the local economy—on jobs and industrial strategy, to which the hon. Lady drew attention —is one among the many factors that we have to consider as we seek to balance the needs of the Navy and the taxpayer against those of south-west England and eastern Scotland, and against the more general needs of the defence of the United Kingdom and the cost-effective use of taxpayers' money and public funds.
  As soon as we have proposals, we shall announce them, and we shall then be able to discuss their wider ramifications with hon. Members, local authorities, trade unions and other interested parties. That process will be immensely important in the consultation period in ensuring that we reach the right conclusion in the end.
  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me this chance to set out the Government's plans and proposals on this important matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

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

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information on reports produced by external consultants working in the Home Office during the past three years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) hows many unaccompanied children aged 1 under 18 years applied for refugee status in 1991; and what was the country of origin of these children;

  (2) how many unaccompanied children under 18 years have applied for refugee status on a monthly basis since 1 January; and what was the country of origin of these children;

  (3) how many asylum applications made by unaccompanied children aged under 18 years were determined in

  Table B. Unaccompanied1 children2 applying for asylum on their arrival in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Afghanistan

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Angola

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  1

  —

  6

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —-

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Iran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Iraq

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  2

  4

  2

  4

  —

  2

  9

  5

  3

  Sri Lanka

  4

  3

  3

  2

  1

  3

  1

  4

  5

  Turkey

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Uganda

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Zaire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  15

  14

  14

  8

  11

  8

  14

  16

  15

  1 Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and not known to be joining a close adult relative in the United Kingdom.

  2 Age 17 or under.

  652
  1991; and how many of these were determined (a) by the granting of refugee status, (b) by the granting of exceptional leave to remain or (c) by the refusal to either;

  (4) how many asylum applications were made by unaccompanied children aged under 18 years in the calendar year 1990; how many of these applications have now been determined; and how these were determined.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information on unaccompanied children applying at the ports in 1991 and in January to September 1992 is given in tables A and B. Corresponding information for 1990 is not available. Information on in-country applications by unaccompanied children is not available in this form.

  Information on decisions on applications by unaccompanied children is not readily identifiable and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Table A. Unaccompanied1 children2 applying for asylum on their arrival in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1991

  Number

  Afghanistan

  5

  Angola

  5

  Bangladesh

  1

  Ethiopia

  13

  Ghana

  1

  India

  1

  Iran

  1

  Somalia

  22

  Sri Lanka

  66

  Turkey

  7

  Uganda

  1

  Yugoslavia

  2

  Zaire

  3

  Total

  128

  1 Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival and not known to be joining a close adult relative in the United Kingdom.

  2 Aged 16 or under. Information on those aged 17 is not available.

  999 System
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received regarding proposed changes in the 999 system; and if he will make a statement;
  653
  (2) what discussions he is having, and with whom, regarding proposed changes in the 999 system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The review of the 999 system is primarily a matter for the Director General of OFTEL. Any representations that we have received against OFTEL's proposals for a call handling agency have therefore been passed to his office. Some organisations have represented to us that changes should not lead to any deterioration in the service to the public. We share their views, as does the Director General of OFTEL.

  Matters relating to 999 calls are discussed by the Home Office's 999 liaison committee which has representatives from the emergency authorities and the public telecommunications operators as well as from OFTEL. There are also bilateral discussions, as appropriate, between the Home Office and the police and fire services.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the adequacy of the powers of the courts to deal with juvenile offenders; what proposals he has for a change in the law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received a number of representations about juvenile offending, especially about frequent offending by what appears to be a comparatively small number of youngsters. My right hon. and learned Friend and I understand and share the concerns that have been expressed. We are therefore looking urgently at the existing arrangements for responding to this kind of offending behaviour before deciding what new measures, including possible changes in the law, it might be sensible to introduce.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for permanent residency in the United Kingdom have been refused under the primary purpose rule in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on reasons for refusal, and thus on refusals under the primary purpose rule, is only available centrally for the Indian sub-continent and is given in the table. It is known that the vast majority of refusals under the primary purpose rule relate to persons applying in the Indian sub-continent.

  Number of persons refused1 entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom under the primary purpose rule, 1986–92

  Number of persons

  Primary purpose refusals

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  1986

  1,080

  130

  1987

  1,090

  210

  1988

  1,240

  420

  1989

  1,550

  1,170

  1990

  1,280

  1,040

  1991

  1,260

  550

  1 Refusals minus successful appeals.

  Prisons (Payphones)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the London prisons which now have payphones that can be used by inmates.
  654
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Cardphones are available for prisoners' use at all the London prisons save Wormwood Scrubs, where installation work is in progress and should be completed shortly.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted entry to the United Kingdom from former Yugoslavia (a) in the two weeks prior to 5 November and (b) from 5 November to 19 November.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Comprehensive information on admissions of passengers to the United Kingdom is collected on a monthly, but not a weekly basis.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Department has carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Deregulatory measures have been taken to improve immigration controls.

  Service standards for the time taken for passenger clearance at Heathrow and Gatwick were published in July 1992. A separate channel for the rapid clearance of cars occupied by European Community nationals was introduced at Dover on 1 July 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No measures increasing regulation have been put into effect since 9 April 1992.

  Oxford Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has as to the long-term future role of Oxford prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Oxford prison is currently being used on a temporary basis to hold prisoners from London establishments while refurbishment work is carried out, and from Cardiff prison to avoid use of police cells. It is intended to return the buildings to Oxford county council but no decision has yet been taken on when this will be.

  Music
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to treat live and recorded music in pubs in the same way in respect of licensing.
  655
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At present, music and singing may take place without a public entertainment licence in a public house where they are provided solely either by the reproduction of recorded sound, or by not more than two performers. We have no plans to amend this exemption.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been charged with attempting to smuggle drugs into prisons while visiting a prison inmate at a prison in England or Wales during the period 1 January to 1 November.

  Jack
  Information is not available on the number of persons charged. The number of visitors suspected of involvement in such offences and apprehended by the police in this period is 202.

  House Burglaries
  Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many house burglaries were recorded in the Blyth and north Tyneside areas in 1990 and 1991; and how many arrests were made in each of those areas in each year in connection with house burglaries.

  Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally for the Blyth and north Tyneside areas. The table shows the number of prosecutions at Blyth Valley and north Tyneside petty sessional divisions for burglary in a dwelling in 1990 and 1991 (provisional).

  Number of prosecutions at Blyth Valley and north Tyneside magistrates courts for burglary in a dwelling, 1990–911

  Petty sessional division

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Aggravated burglary in a dwelling

  Blyth Valley

  1990

  80

  2

  19911

  43

  5

  North Tyneside

  1990

  122

  1

  19911

  106

  10

  1 Provisional.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he now expects to be the total cost of Operation Container in looking after remand prisoners in police cells in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the following table which relates to the whole police cells operation in England and Wales. Separate figures for remand prisoners are not collected centrally.

  Financial period

  Payments to Greater Manchester police £

  Payments to other police forces £

  1990–91

  15,931,767

  37,581,143

  1991–92

  20,522,278

  74,217,700

  Current year to 27 October 1992

  10,225,349

  32,374,518

  Total

  46,679,394

  144,173,361

  Immigration (Members' Inquiries)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review process has been undertaken of the direct telephone answer service for right hon. and hon. Members who have inquiries relating to immigration and asylum applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of the direct telephone answer service to Lunar house for Members who have inquiries relating to immigration and asylum applications were outlined in my letter of 26 May to all Members.

  I am not aware of any problems arising from those arrangements which might call for a review and I encourage my colleagues to make full use of this facility.

  Interpretation Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory obligations the prison department lies to provide interpretation services to serving prisoners in appropriate circumstances in gaols in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service is not under any statutory obligations to provide interpretation services to prisoners, but makes every effort to meet such needs where they arise.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory obligation the police authorities in England and Wales lie to provide interpretation services in appropriate cases for persons being interviewed in pursuance of criminal investigations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 prescribe that a person who has difficulty in understanding English may not be interviewed by police officers except in the presence of an interpreter.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory obligation the Crown or magistrates courts lie to provide interpretation services in appropriate circumstances in criminal proceedings in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  Section 3 of the Welsh Courts Act 1942 allows the Lord Chancellor to make rules for the provision of interpreters of the Welsh and English languages for the purposes of proceedings before courts in Wales, while section 1(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1967 requires that provision for interpretation shall be made in legal proceedings in Wales. In other circumstances the provision of interpreters is not governed by statute. I understand, however, that an interpreter is provided as a matter of course when required and that a trial of a defendant who was unable to speak or understand English and who was not provided with a suitable interpreter would be a nullity.

  Emergency Underground Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the underground facilities for war-time or emergency use in the regions of England and Wales which are to be(a) retained and (b) sold.
  657
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are two protected sites in each of the nine home defence regions in England and Wales, except for London (region 5), which has one. We do not plan to retain any. Only four can be sold; the other 13 are leasehold.

  Regional Crime Squads
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each regional crime squad in England and Wales the dates of publication of each report.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Before April 1992, reports of inspections of regional crime squads were confidential.

  The first published report was that of the inspection of No. 8 regional crime squad. It was published on 15 September 1992. The inspection report of No. 9 regional crime squad is expected to be published on 27 November 1992.

  Sirens
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sirens are being disposed of as a result of reviewing civil defence requirements; and of these, how many are hand-held and how many are fixed units.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are some 6,700 power sirens and 9,760 hand sirens. All will be disposed of except for an estimated 300 power sirens which are used for flood warning purposes where the local authorities concerned wish to retain them.

  False Statements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 for false statements made in witness statements, taken pre-trial, or under any similar legislative provision re-enacted in the 1980 Act since 1980.

  Mr. Jack
  The information, available centrally for the years 1980 to 1991 (provisional), is given in the table. It is not possible to distinguish offences under section 106 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, from other offences of perjury involving untruthful written statements or unlawful statements under oath.

  Number of prosecutions for perjury involving untruthful written statements or under oath1 1980 to 19912

  England and Wales

  Number of prosecutions

  1980

  57

  1981

  84

  1982

  75

  1983

  59

  1984

  85

  1985

  55

  1986

  48

  1987

  72

  1988

  86

  1989

  120

  1990

  37

  21991

  89

  1 Perjury Act 1911, Section 1; Criminal Justice Act 1967, Section 89; Magistrates' Court Act 1980, Section 106.

  2 Provisional.

  658
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many underground facilities for use in wartime or emergencies in England and Wales are to be(a) retained and (b)disposed of.

  Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: I plan to dispose of as many as possible of the 17 sites.

  Departmental Records
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many years his Department holds files before shredding or other means of disposal.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The Home Office reviews and disposes of its records in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958 and 1967. The majority of files are destroyed after five to 10 years and most of the remainder after 30 years.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each of the past six months; and in what circumstances.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: I signed two certificates, one in June and the other in September, in connection with the proceedings in R. v. Henderson and Others. They related to the disclosure of any oral or documentary evidence relating to certain aspects of the work of the security and intelligence services. In July, I siged a certificate relating to communications between police forces or prosecuting authorities in connection with the detection and investigation of crime and the apprehension of offenders, in proceedings brought for judicial review of a decision by magistrates to commit a defendant on charges of dishonesty. I signed another certificate in July, relating to the disclosure of certain categories of information contained in the Prison Service Control and Restraint Manual, in proceedings for damages for personal injuries brought by prison officers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in employment in Northern Ireland are covered by wages council agreements.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 34,310 at 31 December 1991.

TRANSPORT

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has used private investigators and similar firms:

  (a) to hand serve summonses when taking prosecutions for failure to pay vehicle excise duty;

  659

  (b) to hand serve papers on people who have trespassed on the Department's land and to photograph trespassers;

  (c) to establish the whereabouts of people believed to have caused damage to the Department's roads and structures for the purpose of making claims against them;

  (d) to trace former employees who were overpaid before they left the Department's employ and

  (e) in one case to investigate the activities of an employee

  Several firms have been used and the full cost for each year could be established only at disproportionate cost but the cost of tracing an individual is usually in the range of £60 to £90 per case.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: As far as can be established without disproportionate cost, my Department has engaged a private detective on only one occasion since 1979 to investigate the activities of a British citizen. A detective was employed in 1992 to investigate a member of staff following complaints received from members of the public.

  M3, Winchester
  Mr. Malone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the contracts for the work of the final link of the M3 at Winchester are able to proceed effectively;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the progress on the measures to preserve the ecology on the M3 road scheme at Winchester.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This work is not progressing as well as we would have expected. Work to facilitate the removal of valuable plant material from the Itchen valley water meadows and replanting at an alternative site in the Test valley has been completed, but similar rescue work in the Dongas has been hampered by protestors. If this rescue work is not completed, valuable plants will be lost, and damage is already being done to these plants by the trespassers on the Dongas site.

  It is of much regret that these disruptive forces are now affecting our main works contract which started on 19 October. The schedule for completion is very testing for our contractors in line with our aims of completing this missing section of the M3 motorway, reducing the harmful effects of congestion and improving road safety. In respect of both the ecological rescue work and the main construction, we and our contractors will be using all reasonable means to remove trespassers.

  Illegal action of this sort jeopardises effective rescue and puts both workers and protestors at risk.

  Untaxed Vehicles
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to change the law relating to untaxed vehicles parked or abandoned on the public highway so as to allow them to be removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Local authorities and the police have powers to remove vehicles that are illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, abandoned or broken down. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 660
  works closely with local authorities in cases where unlicensed vehicles appear to be abandoned. We have no plans to introduce powers to enable untaxed vehicles to be removed from the road.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (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 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;

  (3) 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.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Records are not kept centrally for the disposal of controlled waste. The Department's policy is to comply with the duty of care which came into force on 1 April 1992 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The duty makes producers of controlled waste responsible for ensuring that it is disposed of safely and legally.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the departmental green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; which possible measures have been considered and rejected; and on what grounds.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department participates in interdepartmental discussions about measures to protect the ozone layer. Our Procurement Manual specifically covers the need to avoid ozone—depleting substances. These substances will also be covered in the environmental guidance which we are preparing for the management of our properties. It is already our policy to phase out all halon fire extinguishers in the accommodation we occupy.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon installations are contained within his Department's buildings; and how many CFC domestic fridges are contained within his Department buildings;

  (2) what quantity of HCFC 22 is purchased by his Department per annum;

  (3) how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems;

  (4) if he will provide details from the maintenance arid 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;

  (5) what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department does not keep central records of plant and equipment installed or held in premises used by its staff; or items subject to local
  661
  procurement and recycling arrangements. It is the Department's policy to phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals as soon as possible.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes for the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department of the Environment is the main source of guidance. Its advice is circulated to all procurement and property managers in the Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals;

  (2) which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department's policy is to phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals as soon as possible. The Department is reviewing the detailed application of the policy with the managers responsible for property and procurement.

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  Measures to reduce the consumption of ozone-depleting substances are included in the Departments general maintenance programme. The costs are not recorded separately.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department buildings in the last five years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department does not have records going back five years. There was a failure at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea in May 1991. An air-conditioning unit failed and released 800 kg of refrigerant R12 into the atmosphere.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to make representations to the car industry concerning the installation of mechanical speed limiters on all new cars.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. This should be a decision for vehicle manufacturers and purchasers.

  Rail Services (Franchising)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation document, "The Franchising of Passenger Rail Services"; and if he will publish a summary of the views expressed by each respondent, within the limits of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Freeman
  In inviting responses to the consultation document, we undertook that all responses would be 662
  treated as strictly confidential. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to list those who have responded or to summarise their views.

  Shipping Records
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy for new arrangements for the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen to include requirements which specifically protect the whole range of interdependent records currently held by the office in their entirety and in perpetuity.

  Mr. Norris
  The records are retained under Public Records Office (PRO) rules and we will want to ensure that this continues to be the case in the future.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the need to satisfy the provisions of the Acquired Rights directive and the protection of employment rights in the event of any transfer of undertakings operated by his Department or responsible to his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The provisions of EC Directive 77/187 ("The Acquired Rights Directive") are given effect in the United Kingdom by the Tranfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, 1981. These regulations provide that transfers which fall within their scope will not operate to terminate the employees' contracts of employment, which will continue as if made between the transferee and the employees. Whether any particular transfer is covered by the regulations will depend on the circumstances of each case.

  Disabled Passengers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific protection he intends shall be provided for disabled people in the event of any change in the organisation, structure or funding of the rail network.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our privatisation proposals envisage a duty on the rail regulator to take into account the interests of persons with disabilities which would be reflected in obligations imposed on railway operators through the regulator's licensing regime.

  British Rail
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government were informed of British Rail's decision to make 5,000 staff redundant.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department was aware that the British Railways Board was considering a voluntary severance scheme to enable it to reduce costs in line with falling income. The specific plans were advised to my Department on 19 November 1992.

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the planned subsidy for British Rail for each year in the period 1993–94 to 1995–96 in real terms.

  Mr. Freeman
  The specific allocation of the planned external financing limits for British Rail for 1993–94 to 1995–96 between grant and borrowing has yet to be agreed and will be announced, as usual, in due course.
  663
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the Government's current plans for the privatisation of the British Rail network.

  Mr. Freeman
  We continue to make good progress on the detailed arrangements for rail privatisation based on the principles set out in the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways" (Cm. 2012). Legislation will be introduced in this session.

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to abolish the subsidy for Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend will be discussing in due course with the chairman of British Rail objectives for the board in the period from 1 April 1993. Our policy is to invite the private sector to operate BR services through franchising. This will bring greater responsiveness to passengers' needs, better services and improved efficiency. Should subsidy still be required for socially necessary services it will be provided.

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of Government subsidy to British Rail in real terms in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is in the following table:

  £ million—1992–93 prices

  PSO grant

  Level crossing grant

  Total

  1987–88

  1,031

  31

  1,062

  1988–89

  676

  29

  705

  1989–90

  592

  31

  623

  1990–91

  669

  32

  701

  1991–92

  930

  28

  958

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to subject the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen to market testing.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The registry will be market tested in line with the White Paper Cmnd 1730, "Competing for Quality", which set out the Government's intention to give new impetus to the drive for better value for money and improved service to the public.

  The functions will be tested against the quality of service and value for money available from alternative sources and the tender process will follow the Department's normal rules for competitive tendering.

  The existing staff at RSS will have the opportunity to put forward an in-house bid on the same basis and timescale as outside bidders.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy for market testing which involves any part of his Department or a body responsible to his Department to include the status quo as one of the options, against which any other options are to be measured before any decision is taken.
  664
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend will follow the procedures for market testing Department of Transport functions set out in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", (Cmnd 1730).

  Road Schemes, East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the prospects for road schemes in Suffolk and Norfolk in 1993–94, particularly the A12 and the A47, in the light of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The settlement announced in the autumn statement should enable my Department to maintain spending on new trunk road provision at record levels. While I expect all schemes planned to start works next year to go ahead I cannot at this stage confirm the exact position on individual schemes as other factors, such as the completion of any remaining procedures, have to be taken into account.

  Schemes to improve the A12 and A47 in Norfolk and Suffolk are currently at varying stages of development largely at the beginning of processes. The timing of future events could be influenced by this and by competing demands on available resources.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take on the representations he has received from the Magistrates Association for stronger enforcement and penalties for overloaded and unsafe heavy goods vehicles, including penalty points on operators' licences.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]:I am concerned to ensure that enforcement in respect of heavy goods vehicles, including the penalties imposed on offenders for overloading and operating vehicles in a mechanically unsafe condition, should provide an adequate deterrent. I will give careful consideration to proposals I receive from the Magistrates Association which will help to ensure that operators fulfil their obligations under the Licensing regime.

  Road Signs (Tourism)
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons his Department has not yet responded to(a) applications made in September 1991, for permission to have tourist directional signs erected saying Historic Harwich and Harwich Redoubt on the roadside at the Parkeston junction A120 and (b) an application made in April 1992, for signs at Main Road/Barrack Lane A136 in Harwich; if he will now give permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: On 13 August this year my Department received a request from Essex County Council for authorisation of a tourist sign saying "Harwich Redoubt" to be erected at the junction of Main road and Barrack lane in Harwich, not at the A120 Parkeston roundabout. Authorisation was given on 28 August.

  The Department has received no other applications for similar signs but we understand that Essex county council

  665
  has been in correspondence with the promoters of such signs, and the county surveyor is writing to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for permission to erect tourist directional signs are currently pending with his Department; and if he will state for how long each has been pending.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: There are currently 22 applications pending. Applications frequently call for detailed negotiation with the tourist board, the local highway authority, and the attraction operator. These negotiations can take some time; successful conclusion requires the agreement of all parties. At present pending applications have been with the Department as follows:

  Applications

  Less than 1 month

  9

  Between 1 and 3 months

  5

  Between 3 and 6 months

  3

  Between 6 and 12 months

  3

  Over 12 months

  2

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he considers when asked to approve or reject applications for tourist directional signs to be erected.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: To be eligible for signing, tourist attractions must be recognised by the appropriate regional tourist board and the highway authority. The criteria used to consider applications are set out in the Department's circular, Roads 1/91, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Nuclear Material
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had concerning the principle of unlimited and absolute state liability for damage to citizens and the environment in the event of an accident involving the proposed shipment of plutonium from Sellafield to Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  No arrangements have been made at this stage for the shipment of plutonium from the United Kingdom to Japan. Liability for an accident arising from shipments of plutonium would be governed by relevant domestic and foreign law.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Delyn of 15 July, acknowledged on 1666
  September, concerning the rights of claimants of the disability living allowance under the citizens charter where there is a delay in processing their application for disability living allowance.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This case was referred to the Department of Social Security on 22 July and acknowledged by them on 1 September. Any further questions should be directed to that Department.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government funding is available for research into leukaemia.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related research in the United Kingdom, is funded by grant-in-aid from the science budget through this Department, and is an independent body which normally decides its research priorities on its own expert judgment. In the last financial year, 1991–92, the council's expenditure on projects directly on and related to leukaemia research was £5·4 million. Information on expenditure on leukaemia research by university departments and medical schools or health departments and authorities is not collected centrally.

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress toward the implementation of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A White Paper on the citizens charter will be published today. This will give details on progress so far. I shall be making a statement this afternoon.

  Research Centres
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) the interdisciplinary research centres established to date by each research council and those planned to be established in the future, (b) the percentage of the total budget of each research council spent on interdisciplinary research centres each year since the programme began and (c) the total number of staff employed in interdisciplinary research centres and the percentage of those staff who are seconded to interdisciplinary research centres from universities; and if he will make a statement on interdisciplinary research centres.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: The Government recognise the value of interdisciplinary research across classical discipline boundaries, and have already provided substantial additional funding of £75 million for such research through the interdisciplinary research centre (IRC) initiative.

  The information requested is as follows:
  667

  (a) Interdisciplinary research centres established to date

  Research council

  Name of interdisciplinary research centre

  Date established

  Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC)

  Centre for Genome Research, University of Edinburgh

  January 1990

  Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

  Human communications research centre, Edinburgh and Glasgow universities

  April 1989

  Centre for research on micro-social change, Essex university

  April 1989

  Centre for economic performance, London School of Economics

  April 1990

  Medical Research Council (MRC)

  Molecular science, Oxford university

  April 1989

  Centre for protein engineering, Cambridge university

  January 1990

  Cell biology, University College, London (UCL)

  January 1992

  Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

  Centre for population biology, London university

  April 1989

  Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)

  Superconductivity in Cambridge, Cambridge university

  March 1988

  Surface science, university of Liverpool

  June 1988

  Centre for molecular sciences, (15 per cent. funded by Medical Research Council), Oxford university

  October 1988

  Engineering design, Glasgow university (closed November 1991)

  February 1989

  IRC for semiconductor materials, University of London

  April 1989

  Process engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London university/University College, London

  August 1989

  Polymer science and technology, Leeds, Bradford and Durham universities

  October 1989

  High performance applications, Birmingham university

  October 1989

  Optoelectronics research centre, Southampton university and University College, London

  October 1989

  Biomedical materials, University College, London

  October 1991

  Advanced centre for biomedical engineering, university College, London

  October 1991

  Centre for neuroscience, Sussex university

  October 1991

  Only the MRC has current plans for additional IRCs. The human toxicity IRC at Leicester university is due to open in March 1993, and an IRC in brain repair is planned for Cambridge.

  (b) Percentage of total budget each Research Council spent on IRCs

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  AFRC

  —

  —

  1·00

  1·20

  1·20

  ESRC

  0·17

  3·20

  5·80

  6·30

  6·30

  MRC

  0·19

  0·72

  2·28

  3·80

  3·23

  NERC

  —

  0·75

  1·07

  0·45

  0·47

  SERC

  0·43

  2·78

  3·84

  2·41

  3·70

  1 Provisional.

  (c) 868 staff (in full-time equivalents) are employed in IRCs. These are generally employees of the host university.

ENVIRONMENT

  Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take on the decision of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to allow public access to emissions data of power stations run by PowerGen and National Power.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 19 November 1992,Official Report, column 304.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many spaces have been provided at sites for travellers, under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, in each local authority area since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 23 November 1992,Official Report, column 536.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total capital expenditure on the provision of sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, listed by local authorities since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not available in the form requested. A total of £56·2 million was expended on the provision of local authority gipsy sites in England between 1979–80 and 1991–92 inclusive. £12·5 million has been allocated for gipsy sites grant in England for the current financial year.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the changes to the urban programme will have on voluntary organisations in Lancashire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Commitments arising from voluntary sector projects approved as part of Blackburn, Burnley and Preston's urban programmes in 1992–93 and previous years will be honoured.

  In addition, the urban partnership fund, part of the capital partnership programme which was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment on 13 November 1992, will provide up to £20 million in 1993–94 in uncommitted urban programme resources to support capital and directly linked revenue projects in the 57 urban priority areas. It is open to local authorities to involve voluntary organisations in particular projects.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources have been made available, under the Government's urban programme, to meet the housing needs of Wythenshawe.

  Northern region

  1992–93 Annual Capital Guideline, Estate Action new and continuation resources, and Energy Efficiency Programme

  1991 Local authority stock

  Allocations per local authority dwelling

  Local authority

  £ thousands

  Number

  £

  Alnwick

  2,316

  2,556

  906

  Berwick

  470

  3,238

  145

  Blyth Valley

  1,891

  8,888

  213

  Castle Morpeth

  478

  3,600

  133

  Chester-le-Street

  1,254

  6,499

  193

  Darlington

  953

  7,681

  124

  Derwentside

  5,925

  11,201

  529

  Durham

  3,403

  9,852

  345

  Easington

  6,685

  16,087

  416

  Gateshead

  5,527

  31,387

  176

  Hartlepool

  6,368

  9,674

  658

  Langbaurgh on Tees

  3,897

  14,143

  275

  Middlesbrough

  3,995

  15,960

  250

  Newcastle

  16,683

  42,201

  395

  North Tyneside

  9,268

  24,874

  373

  Sedgefield

  2,027

  13,291

  152

  670
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The urban programme has offered substantial help with the regeneration of run down private sector housing and local authority estates but it is not the Government's policy that UP resources are used for direct housing investment. The urban programme has complemented other initiatives such as support for environmental improvements and enterprise initiatives on estates benefitting from estate action or equivalent treatment, and to secure benefits for the community as a whole rather than individual households.

  This year over £700,000 has been specifically marked from the urban programme for Wythenshawe of which £17,000 is to fund a strategic action plan for the economic regeneration of the Benchill area to complement estate action work. The action plan will recommend a range of measures to improve local resident's access to employment and training.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the(a) gross and (b) net capital allocation in outturn figures for local authority housing in each district council in the north-east, expressed as a cost per dwelling unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The table shows the allocation of annual capital guideline and estate action resources in 1992–93 to local authorities in the Northern region and expresses this as an amount per local authority dwelling (based on 1991 estimates). Allocations reflect the varying condition of local authority stock throughout the region, and the impact of targetting resources on the worst housing estates through the estate action programme.

  The table does not include resources allocated during the year under other special initiatives such as the rural housing initiative and "Living over the Shop", which are channelled through the local authority to enable housing associations to develop new or improved dwellings. Allocations are also made to local authorities to deal with the improvement of the private sector stock.
  671

  1992–93 Annual Capital Guideline, Estate Action new and continuation resources, and Energy Efficiency Programme

  1991 Local authority stock

  Allocations per local authority dwelling

  Local authority

  £ thousands

  Number

  £

  South Tyneside

  5,276

  26,483

  199

  Stockton on Tees

  6,451

  16,750

  385

  Sunderland

  15,315

  47,077

  325

  Teesdale

  246

  1,227

  200

  Tynedale

  633

  4,218

  150

  Wansbeck

  1,087

  8,234

  132

  Wear Valley

  1,562

  7,007

  223

  TOTALS

  101,710

  332,128

  306

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the raising borrowing limits on local authority housing activity in real terms for the financial years 1979–80 to date, excluding the use of capital receipts.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The available information, which relates to housing investment programme (HIP) allocations, is given below. The figures for the years up to 1989–90 are borrowing approvals for housing capital expenditure. Changes were made to the capital control regime at the beginning of 1990–91 which mean that borrowing approvals are no longer issued for capital expenditure on specific services; borrowing approval is now conveyed by a single, all service credit approval. The HIP allocations are now an assessment of relative need for housing capital expenditure. The table also gives figures for local authority housing capital expenditure.

  Housing investment programme allocations and local authority gross housing capital expenditure, England, 1979–80 to 1992–93

  £ million

  Allocations1

  Gross capital expenditure2

  Cash

  1992–93 prices3

  Cash

  1992–93 prices3

  1979–80

  2,544

  6,144

  2,947

  7,117

  1980–81

  2,203

  4,496

  2,729

  5,569

  1981–82

  1,795

  3,341

  2,632

  4,898

  1982–83

  2,192

  3,808

  3,235

  5,619

  1983–84

  2,233

  3,708

  3,571

  5,929

  1984–85

  1,852

  2,927

  3,501

  5,532

  1985–86

  1,605

  2,406

  3,023

  4,529

  1986–87

  1,459

  2,117

  3,017

  4,380

  1987–88

  1,400

  1,926

  3,272

  4,502

  1988–89

  1,331

  1,707

  3,604

  4,623

  1989–90

  1,095

  1,318

  5,126

  6,169

  New capital finance system

  1990–91

  1,889

  2,105

  3,164

  3,526

  1991–92

  1,861

  1,940

  42,720

  42,836

  1992–93

  1,827

  1,827

  52,600

  52,600

  1 Allocations for the years up to and including 1989–90 are final allocations, ie the initial allocation plus any increases to the initial allocation made in-year. The allocations figures for 1990–91 and subsequent years are the HIP allocations (housing annual capital guidelines plus specified capital grants) issued prior to the start of the financial year. They exclude any subsequent increases approved through the issue of supplementary credit approvals (SCAs). SCAs issued for 1990–91 and the provisional total for 1991–92 are £216 million and £317 million respectively. A total of £464 million has been set aside for 1992–93 for distribution as SCAs.

  2 Includes housing capital expenditure within the Urban Programme.

  3 Cash figures converted to 1992–93 price levels by excluding the
  672
  effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP market prices deflator.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Estimated.

  Housing for the Elderly
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Ernst and Young management consultative study commissioned by his Department into the housing needs for the elderly to be completed and published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department anticipates that the study of the housing needs of elderly and disabled people currently being undertaken by Ernst and Young management consultants will be completed by the end of this year. It is expected that there will then be a series of reports covering different elements of the study with the first being published at the beginning of next year. The Department does not consider it necessary to make a statement at this stage but may do so when the first report is published.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a mortgage benefit or mortgage-to-rent scheme to assist home owners who are in arrears with their mortgage and who face the prospect of their homes being repossessed and the prospect of homelessness.

  Mr. Baldry
  Lenders have introduced a range of measures this year, following the discussions between the Government and the Council of Mortgage Lenders in December 1991, including mortgage-to-rent to help borrowers at risk of repossession. Lenders estimate that these measures will save some 55,000 repossessions this year.

  Interest rates have been reduced by 3 per cent. in the last two months, bringing the total reduction since October 1990 to 8 per cent. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement a package of £750 million for the purchase of empty properties overhanging the housing market.

  We have no plans to introduce a mortgage benefit scheme.

  Housing, North-west England
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regional housing needs indicator figures published by the Housing Corporation for the north-west; and how far the housing investment programme is meeting the urgent need for local authority homes to be improved and repaired in the Wythenshaw constituency.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation recently published the Housing Needs Indicator (HNI) for 1993–94. The score for the corporation's north-west region has risen from 10·39 per cent. this year to 10·8 per cent. next year. After compensation for the differing costs between regions, the share of the corporation's annual development programme (ADP) allocated to the north-west will be 9·21 per cent. in 1993–94 compared with 8·92 per cent. this year.

  The HNI is a composite, relative indicator of the incidence of housing needs in different geographical areas in England. It is reviewed annually by a working group of the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations.

  Manchester's housing investment programme allocation for 1992–93 was £34·867 million. The need for local authority homes to be improved and repaired is taken into consideration when determining the size of this allocation. It is for the Manchester city council to decide how best to distribute these resources to meet the needs of the city.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a current estimate of the numbers of sheltered housing units which exist in England; how many more units will be built in the years 1993–94 to 1994–95; and if he will provide details of how many of these units will be provided by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report numbers of their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns of their own sheltered dwellings, and estimates of those owned by housing associations, by other public sector organisations and in the private sector.

  The estimated total of such dwellings in England at 1 April 1992 appears in column A2a5 of "1992 HIP1—Regional Grossing", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Department has no information about future provision.

  Urban Development Councils
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban development council the budget now to be provided for 1993–94, compared with the budget for 1992–93 and previously planned budget of 1993–94; and what changes have been made in the planned lifespan of any urban development council.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The allocation of resources among urban development corporations has yet to be finalised. No changes have yet been made to the planned lifetimes of the corporations.

  West Midlands (Grants)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which parts of Staffordshire currently fall within the west midlands intermediate area for assisted area status; how much grant was awarded to these areas for each of the last three years; how that money was spent; and how much assistance from EC funds was subsequently available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: Assisted area status applies to those parts of Staffordshire lying within the Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley travel-to-work areas.

  RAS grant is awarded to support capital investment projects which create or safeguard jobs and grant offered to the above areas over the last three years was as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  986,500

  1990–91

  991,500

  1991–92

  89,500

  totalling £2,067,500 in all.

  None of these awards has been assisted from EC funds.

  Superstore, Greenwich
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations will affect his decision to order a public inquiry into the planning applications for superstores at(a) Well Hall and (b) Shooters Hill in London SE9.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The general approach to calling in applications is as stated in circular 2/81. Applications will in general be called in only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in our opinion could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of national security or of foreign Governments may be involved.

  PSA Projects
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can now give final details of the sums paid for the purchase of PSA Projects.

  Mr. Redwood
  Final details of the sums paid in respect of the purchase of PSA Projects will not be available for some considerable time as this will depend on the number of transferred staff remaining with the business for more than five years from the date of the sale.

  When contracts were exchanged for the sale of PSA Projects to Tarmac, the negative consideration payable to Tarmac at completion was estimated at £49·75 million, subject to changes in the net liabilities to be transferred which should be finalised by October 1993. The most recent changes will mean that at completion Tarmac will receive the benefit of a cash subscription for shares in the privatised company of £44·4 million and a cash asset of £13·3 million for which Tarmac will pay the Government £2·8 million—a negative consideration of £54·9 million.
  675
  The net cash asset of £10·5 million relates to the excess of the estimated value of amounts owed by PSA Projects to sub-consultants and others for work done up to the point of sale over the estimated value of assets being transferred to Tarmac.

  These assets exclude the estimated £40 million owed by customers to PSA Projects at the point of sale which will be collected by PSA and retained in Government. In addition to the net liabilities at the point of sale, the negative consideration reflects PSA Projects' requirements for financing working capital, investment in new systems, marketing and training and forecast losses on existing work pending PSA Projects restructuring itself to become fully competitive.

  The negative consideration will be adjusted pound for pound upwards or downwards as appropriate, after preparation of a completion statement to compare actual net liabilities at the point of sale with the estimate o f£10·5 million. It will be further increased by between £3·1 million and £6·3 million after one year depending on the number of ex-civil service staff still in the business. The sale agreement also provides for the completion statement to be reopened for up to two years after the sale in the event of late submission of sub-consultant bills for which accruals were not included in the completion statement as the income for any related work would have been retained within government.

  The Secretary of State's liability for severance payments to PSA Projects staff now in the business, whether or not they transfer to Tarmac, is limited to £40·33 million. Of this, severance payments by the Government to staff not willing to transfer permanently with the privatised business are likely to fall in the range of £30 million to £35 million and therefore the balance of payments to Tarmac to reimburse severance payments for up to approximately 165 ex-civil servants who did transfer are expected to fall in the range £5 million to £10 million.

  The Government have previously announced their commitment to guarantee the redundancy entitlements of transferring staff against the purchaser's bankruptcy for up to five years post-sale. The maximum value of this contingency liability is now estimated at £30 million. The departmental minute laid on 26 June 1992 indicated that the maximum contingent liability to be undertaken in the course of sale negotiations was estimated not to exceed £70 million.

  The replacement pension scheme will be fully funded as at the point of sale. The value of the bulk transfer from the principal civil service pension scheme is not yet known, as it depends on the number of staff opting to transfer their pension rights to the new scheme. PSA will add 6 per cent. of the transfer value to the pension fund to take account of differences in the forecast average retirement age and commutation arrangements.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific resources have been made available to local authorities to assist them in meeting the special needs of the elderly and physically disabled people, drug and alcohol misusers, people with learning disabilities, and people with HIV or AIDS under the community care legislation which comes into force in April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.
  676
  A special transitional grant of £539 million will be made available to local authorities in England next year for their new responsibilities for community care. This covers all relevant client groups, and will be additional to authorities' general funding through the revenue support grant and specific grants for mental illness, HIV/AIDS and alcohol and drugs misuse of £34·4 million, £12·4 million and £2·3 million respectively.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if briefing material for the Ministry's folder for Question Time while he was(a) Chief Secretary to the Treasury, (b) Foreign Secretary, (c) Chancellor of the Exchequer and (d) Prime Minister still exists; and if he will make it available to the Scott committee of inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  The briefing material prepared for my use at Question Time while I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer and since I have been Prime Minister is still in existence. Not all the briefing material prepared for me for Question Time while I was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been retained, although that which relates to Iraq still exists. Material which is asked for by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry will be made available to him.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister how the Iraqi defence procurement network's activities in relation to United Kingdom-based companies were monitored by the Government in the period(a) 1985 to December 1988 and (b) since December 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: It is not the Government's practice to comment on intelligence matters.

  Devaluation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of(a)the degree to which the sterling price of imports has been maintained and (b) the change in demand for imported manufactures, following the fall in the value of sterling.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible to separate the impact of the recent fall in the value of sterling from other factors influencing the sterling price of United Kingdom imports. Nevertheless, improved competitiveness is expected to restrain the growth of manufactured import volumes in 1993.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits of devaluation to the financing needs of the coal industry.

  The Prime Minister
  The new external financing limits for British Coal announced last week, which are provisional pending decisions on the coal review, already take account of recent changes in exchange rates.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what account he took in agreeing to the pit closures of the expenditure implications as regarding unemployment
  677
  benefit; if he will publish a table showing for each mine in the current year and for each of the next five years (a) the estimated direct and indirect costs to the Exchequer of those made unemployed, (b) the estimated operational loss at each mine in 1991 and in the current year to date and (c) the estimated loss in 1993 of disposing of surplus production on the international market at the world price.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: I had regard to the likelihood that, in the light of market assessments, continuing to mine coal for which there was no economic market would involve a substantial ongoing cost to public expenditure and that we were proposing a wide range of measures to help those made redundant secure new jobs and to enhance job prospects in the areas affected. I have asked the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member about the information at (b). On (c), this too would be an operational matter for British Coal but even in the event that a suitable contractual arrangement could be established on commercial grounds there would also be the matter of compliance with the United Kingdom's GATT and other international trade obligations.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Prime Minister how many public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers(a) from 1974 to 1979 and (b) since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers periodically throughout the period in question, but no central record is held of the number involved.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Budget Figures
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the figures for his budget for 1992–93 broken down by the arts, heritage, sport, film, broadcasting, tourism and departmental administration.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is as follows:

  1992–93

  £ million

  Museums and galleries

  214

  Performing arts

  236

  Libraries

  141

  The heritage

  200

  Sport

  50

  Film

  22

  Broadcasting

  19

  Tourism

  46

  Administration

  10

  Central Government total

  938

  Local authorities credit approvals for sport and recreation

  30

  Total departmental programme

  968

  However, provision for 1992–93 is subject to amendment by winter Supplementary Estimates and changes to cash limits. In particular, subject to
  678
  parliamentary approval, a Supplementary Estimate of £42 million is being sought to provide funds for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, as well as an Estimate for an increase in administration costs. Assets accepted in lieu of tax will continue to be a claim on the Reserve.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a list of all the new capital projects in the royal parks referred to in his Department's news release of 12 November, together with the estimated cost of each such project.

  Mr. Key
  Final decisions have not been taken yet on next year's programme of capital projects in the Royal parks, and design work is still in hand in some cases. However, I envisage that as a result of the additional allocation of funds announced on 12 November it will be possible to carry out the following projects:

  map and signposting in all the parks;

  restoration of Speakers corner, Hyde park;

  floodlighting the lake in St. James's park;

  subject to satisfactory design and acceptable costings.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Department has carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage took over responsibility for a small number of regulations when it was formed after the last general election. Although the Department's responsibilities in this area are not extensive, officials are reviewing the modest scope for deregulation and simplification of regulation in consultation with the deregulation unit of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Key
  I am the Minister responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of the Department of National Heritage.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April.

  Mr. Key
  None.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Guyana
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of assistance provided by the United Kingdom Government to Guyana; what additional assistance was already committed or programmed prior to the elections; and which additional types and levels of assistance Her Majesty's Government expect to offer as a consequence of Guyana achieving democratic status.
  679
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Between 1989–90 and 1991–92 we provided to the Government of Guyana £13·7 million in programme aid and a continuing programme of technical assistance running at approximately £1·5 million per year. For 1992–93 no new capital aid commitment was made because of delays in holding free and fair elections. The technical assistance programme continued, albeit at a slightly reduced level. We also contributed £60,000 to the Commonwealth Secretariat Guyana elections monitoring mission. We have started discussing future assistance with the new Guyana Government, but no decisions have yet been reached.

  Iraq
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessments of humanitarian needs have been conducted for Iraq outside the safe haven and Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and of the numbers of people affected; what funding his Department will provide; and by what mechanisms aid will be delivered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: In September of this year, the director of UNICEF and the under-secretary for the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs visited Iraq to assess needs in preparation for a United Nations plan of action covering the whole country, which was published in November. In view of the grave difficulties of access to many areas of southern Iraq, the United Nations has been unable to conduct a detailed needs survey in the south, or to provide detailed estimates of the numbers of people in need of assistance.

  But the United Nations needs to further consider how to channel assistance to the more inaccessible areas, following their signature of a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Iraq. WHO and UNICEF have procured drugs and medical supplies for distribution in the south.

  We maintain regular contacts with the non-governmental organisations, which are able to gain access to parts of the south. They report that conditions are grim, particularly in the marshes, mainly due to the actions of the Iraqi armed forces.

  We continue to support the work of NGOs such as Iraqi civilian aid and the Amar appeal which provide valuable, though of necessity small scale, assistance to some of the most needy people in southern Iraq, and in the refugee camps of Iran. So far in 1992 we have provided nearly £2 million to such agencies, including a recent contribution of £255,000 to the Amar appeal for work in the marshes. We have agreed with Iraqi civilian aid that they will spend the final portion of their £625,000 grant to buy winter clothing for refugees. We are currently considering further medical aid through NGOs to the south. We stand ready to respond to further requests for assistance if conditions permit.

WALES

  Phosphate Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in Wales that have been damaged by phosphate pollution.
  680
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Three terrestial SSSIs in Wales have been subjected to phosphate pollution. These are Rhyd y Foel (Clwyd), Coedydd a Chorsydd Aber Teifi (Dyfed) and Gweunydd Ty-brith (Powys).

  Road Safety
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources he has set aside for local safety schemes for trunk roads in Wales for 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend will shortly decide the allocation of resources for 1993–94.

  Forestry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities currently have structure plans including policies on afforestation; and how many such policies give guidance on the types of species to be planted.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd, Gwynedd, Mid Glamorgan and Powys have policies dealing with afforestation in their approved structure plans. All counties in Wales have policies relating to tree planting in forests and woodlands in their approved structure plans. None give guidance on the types of species to be planted.

  Rural Parishes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many classified rural parishes there are in Wales; how many such parishes do not have(a) a permanent shop, (b) a post office, (c) a school, (d) a village hall and (e) a daily bus service; and if he will publish the equivalent figures for (i) 1961, (ii) 1971 and (iii) 1981.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of civil parishes in rural districts in Wales in 1961 and 1971 was 899. Rural districts and civil parishes were abolished in 1974. Information on amenities is not collected centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils there are in each grant-maintained school in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Pupils on roll 1September 1992

  Cwmcarn grant-maintained school

  330

  Bishop Vaughan catholic comprehensive school

  927

  Brynmawr comprehensive school

  477

  1 Provisional.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those district health authorities that have requested Welsh Water plc to increase the fluoride content of water supplies, indicating (i) those that have had their request met, (ii) those whose applications are pending and (iii) those whose applications have been refused.
  681
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Gwynedd health authority have a long-standing agreement with Welsh Water dating from 1955 to fluoridate water supplies on Anglesey. They have requested Welsh Water plc to replace the equipment used to fluoridate the water supply on Anglesey which has not been in operation for about four years. The company has not yet acceded to that request. The Department is not aware of any other requests of Welsh Water plc by health authorities concerning fluoridation.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide specific funding for citizens advice bureaux in Wales to launch local publicity campaigns to enable the general public to know which general dental practitioners are taking on new national health service patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This action is not necessary nor would it be appropriate. The management of general dental services is the responsibility of family health services authorities which have up-to-date information on the services available in their areas. That information is readily available to members of the public and citizens advice bureaux. The decision on whether a publicity campaign is required rests with the authority in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued by health authorities and family health service authorities in Wales to ensure that the ratio of community dentists to salaried dentists is appropriate throughout Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for the district health authorities to determine the appropriate number of community dentists in the light of local needs. The number of salaried dentists employed by family health services authorities is dependent on local circumstances and endorsement by the Department in the light of the criteria laid down in WHC(92)55, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Both authorities are expected to liaise with one another in considering appointments needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it a requirement of family health service authorities in Wales to inform all national health service patients de-registered by a general dental practitioner of the locations and operating times of the community dental service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This decision is one which should he taken by family health services authorities in the light of local needs and circumstances. Normally, authorities would direct "de-registered" patients to another general dental practitioner still accepting patients under the NHS. Only if this option is in some way unsuitable or impracticable would authorities direct patients to the community dental service in its "safety net" capacity. In those circumstances, authorities would supply patients with all relevant information.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will summarise the decision-making process which determines whether family health service authorities employ a salaried dentist or the area health authority employs a community dental officer.
  682
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for the family health services authority to decide whether to apply to the Department for permission to employ salaried dentists. Each application is considered in light of the criteria outlined in circular WHC(92)55. Briefly, these are that the numbers of independent practitioners are not sufficient to ensure adequate provision of general dental services and that the FHSA should give a clear indication of the geographical area where the deficiency exists, along with reasons why the deficiency cannot be met by other methods. Similarly, a district health authority is responsible for determining the number of community dental officers it employs. I expect the authorities to liaise with one another in considering appointments which should be made in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to attract more dentists to the county of Gwynedd who are able to treat national health service patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the Gwynedd family health services authority. The authority has applied for permission to employ salaried dentists and my right hon. Friend has given permission for four whole-time equivalent salaried dentists to be employed. The authority has also attracted general dental practitioners to its area by utilising the Department's location incentive grants and by local initiatives.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists in Gwynedd currently provide services under the national health service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 30 June 1992, the latest available date, there were 63 general dental practitioners in contract with Gwynedd family health services authority.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Gwynedd are unable to register with dental practices.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to re-open the emergency dental treatment centre in Bangor, Gwynedd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is the responsibility of general dental practitioners to ensure that emergency treatment is available for those patients registered with them. Discussions are now taking place between the Gwynedd family health services authority and Gwynedd health authority with a view to providing a weekend emergency service in Bangor for those patients who are not registered with a general dental practitioner.

  National Museum
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the director of the national museum of Wales to discuss the continuance of the museum's school lending service.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am aware of the Director's views on funding for the museum school service in Wales. In considering this matter in the public expenditure round, I am taking into account that five local education authorities already fund the service, and the possibility of continued support from these and other sources.

  Bad Smells
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints have been made to environmental health officers in Wales concerning bad smells in each of the last 10 years; and what are the numbers of such complaints relating to(a) industrial processes and (b) agricultural practices.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office does not hold this information.

  Pollution Monitoring
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to designate additional monitoring sites in(a) urban and (b) rural areas of Wales to assess levels of (i) sulphur dioxide and (ii) nitrogen oxides.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In line with the commitment in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) the Government recently extended the United Kingdom's urban air monitoring network. Among new urban stations opened was one in Cardiff which became operational in May 1992. More stations are planned and will monitor sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide as well as other pollutants.

  There are no plans to extend rural monitoring from its present level which, on the basis of current expert advice, is considered adequate.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures for emissions of(a) sulphur dioxide, (b) black smoke, (c) nitrogen dioxide, (d) volatile organic compounds and (e) carbon monoxide in Wales, by sector and, where appropriate, by fuel type.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on these emissions, by sector and fuel type, is available for the United Kingdom as a whole only. The latest published data is in the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 14, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether Welsh local authorities will be allowed to use capital receipts from the sale of council houses for the purposes of new build.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We do not encourage authorities to undertake new build themselves when better value for money can be obtained by other means.

  Pen y Gelli Quarry
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what costed proposals Clwyd county council have forwarded to his Department in relation to proposals to develop Pen y Gelli quarry, Lloc, near Holywell, as an itinerant transit camp; and what has been his response to date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Clwyd county council applied in September 1990 for approval in principle of grant aid for the establishment of this transit gipsy site. They were asked to reconsider the proposals and are currently doing so.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what commitments his Department has given with regard 684
  to the costs of the compulsory purchase order and the potential public inquiry with regard to the proposal to develop Pen y Gelli quarry, Lloc, near Holywell, as an itinerant transit camp; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such order has yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend and no commitments have been given.

  Pensioners (Transport)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities in Wales who(a) allow pensioners to travel free of charge on public transport in Wales, (b) allow pensioners to travel at discounted rates and (c) offer no concessions to pensioners travelling on public transport.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All local authorities in Wales operate concessionary fares schemes which give discount rates to pensioners. Those allowing free travel are Cardiff city council for persons over 75 years of age and Rhuddlan borough council which provides a free bus service for pensioners holding concessionary passes.

  Sand Dredging
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the volume of sand dredged off the Welsh coast over each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the volume of sand dredged off the Welsh coast is not available. Figures on the amount of all sea-dredged aggregates entering Welsh ports are given in the table.

  One-port traffic: sea-dredged aggregates entering Welsh ports1

  Thousand tonnes

  1982

  1,230

  1983

  1,504

  1984

  1,503

  1985

  1,412

  1986

  1,400

  1987

  2,305

  1988

  2,019

  1989

  2,450

  1990

  2,161

  1991

  1,687

  Source: Department of Transport and British Ports Federation.

  1 One-port traffic comprises off-shore traffic, sea-dredged aggregates and materials shipped for dumping at sea. Sea-dredged aggregates comprise dredged sand, gravel etc. landed at a port for commercial purposes.

  Road Repairs
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to meet local authorities in Wales to discuss the financing of repairs to Welsh bridges and minor roads.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to do so. Local authorities fund such projects from unhypothecated resources.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the results of the consultation on the role of the Welsh language development committee of the Welsh joint education committee.
  685
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Nearly 30 organisations and individuals responded to the consultation paper issued in August, representing a broad range of opinion. I will be announcing our conclusions very soon.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage applications for THERMIE programme money from companies involved in energy saving and renewable energy sources in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  For the past five years my energy efficiency office has held annual seminars on THERMIE which have attracted large audiences from all sectors of the economy. Prior to this year's seminar, held in July, they also wrote to all engaged in energy research in Wales promoting this programme in particular. After the event they followed up with a further letter to offer further assistance in particular cases if required.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which geographical areas of Wales are currently served by water supplies that have been fluoridated.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Parts of Mid Glamorgan, Powys and Anglesey are served by water supplies which have previously been fluoridated. However, none of these water supplies are currently fluoridated.

  Child Protection Registers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children appeared on child protection registers in Wales in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of children in Wales on child protection registers was not centrally collected prior to 1988. Information for the years from 1988 to 1991 is given in the following table:

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of children

  1988

  1,903

  1989

  2,062

  1990

  2,302

  1991

  2,460

  Information on the registers is used by local authority social services departments to manage their child protection work. It is not intended specifically to establish the extent of child abuse and comparisons between years may be affected by changes in the administrative arrangements of local authorities.

  Housing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will appoint a representative from Welsh district councils to serve on the board of Tâi Cymru.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Appointments to the board of Housing for Wales are not made on a representational basis.

  A55
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what improvements he intends to make to roads which feed onto the A55 in north Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Plans for improvements are set out in the 1992 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Police
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the organisations and individuals who have(a) responded to his invitation to be consulted or (b) submitted comments, suggestions or representations about the future structure and funding of police authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These matters are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Future arrangements for the police, following local government reorganisation in Wales, were, however the subject of advice submitted to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government by the Home Office and electoral issues sub-group. Copies of that advice are in the Library of the House.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what mechanism his Department uses to ensure that the 1992–93 waiting times initiative moneys allocation to area health authorities is not used for extra contractual referrals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The allocation of waiting times initiative funds in Wales are based on application from district health authorities which specify the nature and amount of treatment to be purchased for their residents, and indicate the effect upon immediate hospital waiting times for those residents.

  The exact way in which this is achieved is a matter for the authorities themselves. An evaluation of the expenditure is undertaken on behalf of the Department at the end of each year.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned allocation of funds by his Department for each health authority in Wales for the waiting times initiative for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No decision has yet been taken on resources for waiting times initiatives in Wales in 1993–94.

  Nature Reserves
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of public money was spent by the Countryside Council for Wales for the purchase of national nature reserves in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Countryside Council for Wales expenditure on the purchase of national nature reserves was £631,562 in 1991–92 and is expected to be £201,000 in 1992–93.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of grant was made by the Countryside Council for
  687
  Wales under section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to voluntary conservation bodies for the purposes of land purchase in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was repealed on 1 April 1991. The Countryside Council for Wales operates its land purchase grant scheme under the provisions of section 134 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and section 9 of the Local Government Act 1974, which enable the Countryside Council for Wales to provide grants to partners in the voluntary and public sectors to purchase land for nature and landscape conservation. The amount of grant for land purchase provided in 1991–92 to voluntary conservation bodies was £232,106. Grants totalling £333,325 have been offered for 1992–93.

  Emergency Medical Treatment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the Welsh health authorities the number of patients who received(a) emergency in-patient treatment and (b) any emergency treatment who resided outside the particular health authority area where they

  Duty Unit

  Duty Rates

  1978–79

  1992–93

  Percentage changes in real terms

  Hydrocarbon oils

  Leaded petrol

  pence per litre

  6·60

  27·79

  120·2

  Unleaded petrol

  pence per litre

  6·60

  23·42

  95·4

  Derv

  pence per litre

  7·70

  22·85

  73·6

  Sparkling wine of fresh grape

  £ per hectolitre

  87·22

  208·00

  51·8

  Cider and Perry

  £ per hectolitre

  5·32

  21·32

  112·6

  Tobacco

  Cigarettes

  £per 1,000

  17·70

  67·53

  105·4

  Cigars

  £ per kilogram

  20·94

  67·89

  83·9

  Hand rolling

  £ per kilogram

  20·28

  71·63

  94·8

  CFCs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the use of fiscal incentives in connection with capital costs involved in the phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The existing tax regime provides relief for capital investment on machinery and plant, including equipment used in the production of CFC-free products. By providing a broadly neutral tax system for businesses, with a common rate of capital allowances for investment in most equipment, we allow businesses to decide where investments should be made. The increase in first-year capital allowances from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. which was announced in the autumn statement, will provide an additional incentive for investment by businesses in the year to October 1993.

  Statistical Returns
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the range of penalties possible under section 4 of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 for failure to make 688
  were treated in the quarters of 1990, 1991 and the first three quarters of 1992; and if he will divide up the figures by specialty.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: In the light of the size and number of tables of information which are available, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the information in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes and Duties
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all indirect taxes and duties which have increased by more than the rate of inflation since 1978–79, giving for each(a) the rate in 1978–79 and 1992–93 and (b) the real increase since 1978–79.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is given in the table. The question is taken to refer to specific excise duties rather than ad valorem taxes and duties. Exceptionally the figures shown for cigarettes comprise both ad valorem and specific duty. Aviation gasoline was not subject to duty in 1978–79.

  statistical returns; and in how many cases in the year 1991–92 action was taken on his behalf that could have led to such penalties being incurred.

  Mr. Nelson
  The maximum penalty under section 4 of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 for failure to make statistical returns is a fine of a £1,000.

  The number of cases taken on the Chancellor's behalf in the year 1991–92 that could have led to such penalties being incurred was 884. Of these, 877 responded to this action and only the remaining seven were prosecuted.

  Taxation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and percentage of standard rate and higher rate taxpayers in(a) each county, (b) each region and (c) the United Kingdom for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1989–90 are as shown in the table. Married couples are counted as one unit in this last year before independent taxation.
  689

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1989–90

  Regions and counties

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Thousands

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  20,100

  92·0

  1,750

  8·0

  North

  1,020

  96·2

  40

  3·8

  Cleveland

  141

  95·5

  7

  4·5

  Cumbria

  189

  96·8

  6

  3·2

  Durham

  209

  95·4

  10

  4·6

  Northumberland

  107

  95·6

  5

  4·4

  Tyne/Wear

  374

  96·8

  12

  3·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,670

  94·0

  106

  6·0

  Humberside

  295

  92·0

  26

  8·0

  North Yorkshire

  266

  91·6

  24

  8·4

  South Yorkshire

  411

  94·9

  22

  5·1

  West Yorkshire

  694

  95·3

  34

  4·7

  North West

  2,140

  94·0

  136

  6·0

  Cheshire

  355

  91·6

  33

  8·4

  Greater Manchester

  824

  94·3

  50

  5·7

  Lancashire

  513

  94·6

  29

  5·4

  Merseyside

  445

  94·8

  24

  5·2

  East Midlands

  1,350

  92·7

  107

  7·3

  Derbyshire

  319

  92·4

  26

  7·6

  Leicestershire

  317

  92·2

  27

  7·8

  Lincolnshire

  214

  94·7

  12

  5·3

  Northamptonshire

  188

  90·0

  21

  10·0

  Nottinghamshire

  317

  93·9

  21

  6·1

  West Midlands

  1,780

  93·9

  116

  6·1

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  251

  92·4

  21

  7·6

  Shropshire

  143

  93·6

  10

  6·4

  Staffordshire

  403

  95·1

  21

  4·9

  Warwickshire

  189

  89·2

  23

  10·8

  West Midlands

  793

  94·9

  42

  5·1

  East Anglia

  767

  93·5

  54

  6·5

  Cambridgeshire

  255

  92·9

  19

  7·1

  Norfolk

  280

  94·3

  17

  5·7

  Suffolk

  232

  93·2

  17

  6·8

  South East

  6,260

  88·0

  850

  12·0

  Bedfordshire

  176

  88·1

  24

  11·9

  Berkshire

  245

  86·4

  39

  13·6

  Buckinghamshire

  210

  82·0

  46

  18·0

  East Sussex

  287

  92·1

  25

  7·9

  West Sussex

  314

  89·3

  37

  10·7

  Essex

  534

  89·0

  66

  11·0

  Greater London

  2,480

  88·5

  321

  11·5

  Hampshire

  546

  90·2

  59

  9·8

  Hertfordshire

  397

  85·5

  67

  14·5

  Kent

  517

  89·8

  59

  10·2

  Oxfordshire

  161

  87·2

  23

  12·8

  Surrey

  337

  80·6

  81

  19·4

  Isle of Wight

  53

  93·6

  4

  6·4

  South West

  1,590

  92·9

  121

  7·1

  Avon

  303

  93·1

  23

  6·9

  Cornwall

  149

  95·8

  7

  4·2

  Devon

  383

  95·6

  18

  4·4

  Dorset

  240

  93·5

  17

  6·5

  Gloucestershire

  190

  89·7

  22

  10·3

  Somerset

  146

  89·4

  17

  10·6

  Wiltshire

  180

  90·8

  18

  9·2

  Wales

  903

  94·7

  50

  5·3

  Dyfed

  106

  93·4

  7

  6·6

  Clwyd

  161

  96·3

  6

  3·7

  690 691

  Regions and counties

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Thousands

  Percentage

  Gwent

  142

  92·8

  11

  7·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  165

  95·9

  7

  4·1

  South Glamorgan

  132

  95·3

  6

  4·7

  West Glamorgan

  99

  95·8

  4

  4·2

  Gwynedd

  69

  92·8

  5

  7·2

  Powys

  29

  91·9

  3

  8·1

  Scotland

  1,940

  93·9

  126

  6·1

  Border

  44

  91·9

  4

  8·1

  Central

  96

  92·4

  8

  7·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  46

  92·6

  4

  7·4

  Fife

  135

  95·7

  6

  4·3

  Grampian

  231

  92·7

  18

  7·3

  Highland

  69

  97·3

  2

  2·7

  Island Authorities

  17

  90·3

  2

  9·7

  Lothian

  312

  93·4

  22

  6·6

  Tayside

  138

  95·3

  7

  4·7

  Strathclyde

  849

  94·1

  54

  5·9

  Northern Ireland

  453

  93·8

  30

  6·2

  Duty Free Allowances
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in revenue which will result from the changes in duty free allowances from 1 January 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The completion of the single market on 1 January 1993 will not result in any change in duty free allowances for excise goods. The main change for travellers will be the abolition of duty paid allowances for intra-EC travellers. As shown on page 56 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1992–93 published in March 1992, we expect the increase in personal importation of drink and tobacco products will result in a revenue loss to the United Kingdom Exchequer of around £250 million.

  As an unrelated issue, negotiations have been taking place for some time with our EC partners over an increase
  692
  in the "other goods" allowance for non-excisable projects, currently set at 45 ECU (£32). An objective of our presidency has been to make progress in this area. A provisional agreement has now been reached increasing the allowance to 175 ECU (£139) for third country travellers and to 90 ECU (£71) for intra-EC travellers, subject to reserves by Germany and Denmark. These increases would cost the United Kingdom exchequer around £35 million in a full year.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to seek to remove from liability for VAT payments made for the private care of elderly persons.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to change United Kingdom VAT law relating to the domiciliary care of elderly people by private care agencies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency, Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the full range of furniture and household goods which social fund officers in the York Benefits Agency office were being advised to treat as high-priority items in October in each year since 1988.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 24 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 priority levels for furniture and household goods in the Agency's York office.
  Social Fund Officers (SFO) decide the overall priority of individual applications by looking at all the circumstances of the case. They are obliged to take account of guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Social Security, and by the District Manager acting as Area Social Fund Officer (ASFO).
  Since 1988, guidance issued by the Secretary of State has indicated that only those items of furniture and household equipment that are essential to the applicant, should be afforded high priority. Over the same period the ASFO has also indicated that high priority should generally be afforded to essential items. However, I should point out that, since SFOs look at all the circumstances surrounding an application, what is an essential item for one applicant may not be for another.
  Budgeting Loans are aimed at those on Income Support who find it difficult to budget for intermittent expenses, but Community Care Grants are targeted on specified circumstances. The Secretary of State guidance on the level of priority for grants is therefore in terms of the circumstances of the applicant, rather than the item requested. No advice is therefore provided on the level of priority accorded to grant applications for furniture and household equipment. This is for the SFO to decide.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the benefits agency district covering Kilmarnock and Loudoun qualify for payment under the cold weather scheme.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. William McKelvey, dated 24 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in the Benefits Agency District covering Kilmarnock and Louden qualify for payment under the cold weather scheme.
  694
  Kilmarnock and Louden is covered by the Agency's Irvine and Kilmarnock District. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how many customers would qualify for a Cold Weather payment except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in August 1992 it is estimated that approximately 11,000 customers in that District may qualify for a Cold Weather payment should the area be triggered. Parliamentary Constituencies and District boundaries do not correspond however and therefore a proportion of these may live outside the constituency.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were made in each region in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Scott
  All the information available on cold weather payments made since 1987 is held in the Library.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the annual costs in each year since 1988–89, along with estimates for 1992–93, of the national insurance rebates, tax refunds and other incentives paid in respect of personal pensions used for contracting out of SERPS.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 23 June,Official Report, columns. 138–39. Estimates for 1992–93 are in the table.

  £ million

  NI rebates

  Incentives

  Tax refunds

  Total

  1,950

  650

  225

  2,825

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the proposed family credit ceilings in 1993–94 for(a) a married couple with one child aged under five years, (b) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years, (c) a married couple with two children aged over 11 years, (d) a married couple with three children aged under 11 years, (e) a married couple with three children aged over 11 years and (f) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years and two children over 11 years.

  Mr. Burt
  At the new benefit levels proposed for April 1993 the family credit ceilings represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant income a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p will be as follows:

  £

  Married couple with one child under 5 years

  144·36

  Married couple with two children under 11

  159·71

  Married couple with two children over 11 (but under 16)

  180·00

  Married couple with three children under 11

  175·07

  Married couple with three children over 11 (but under 16)

  205·50

  Married couple with two children under 11 and two children over 11 (but under 16)

  210·71

  Industrial Diseases
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report on bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners and metal production workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid the council's report before Parliament (Cm 2091). As with all IIAC reports, we will give it careful consideration. We will announce our decision about implementing the recommendations once the medical, administrative and financial issues raised by the report have been examined.

  Pensioners Resident in Spain
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from groups representing British pensioners resident in Spain; what reply he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received two representations concerning British pensioners resident in Spain, including the one from the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe dated 22 October. This was transferred to the Secretary of State for Health as the matters raised were mainly for her consideration.

EDUCATION

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to develop the comparative tables of school performance in future years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  Under the parents charter, the information about schools' performance made available to parents in comparative tables will build up systematically over the remainder of the decade.

  Public examination results

  The Department published this month the first comparative tables of GCSE and A/AS examination results in all maintained schools and those independent schools which volunteered to take part. From 1993, the published information will cover all secondary schools in England, including all independent ones. The Department will also be considering how to incorporate information about the vocational qualifications obtained in each school as increasing numbers of pupils try for these.

  National curriculum test results

  The Department will shortly publish the national results of the 1992 national curriculum tests of seven-year-olds in English, mathematics, science and technology and an analysis of the results in each LEA. The results in each LEA will be set alongside information about expenditure per nursery/primary pupil in the LEA so that judgments can be made about value for money at local level. Equivalent national and LEA analyses of the results of NC tests will be published every year after this as the assessment arrangements are extended to new subjects and key stages. The Department is also publishing this year a national analysis of the results of the 1992 pilot tests of 14-year-olds in mathematics and science in which 75 per cent. of secondary schools took part.
  696
  The Department published for consultation on 21 October proposals for the inclusion of information about the results of the tests of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds in the comparative tables of school performance. Under these proposals information will be published annually, school by school, about the proportion of pupils in each age group reaching or exceeding a target level. The information will cover every maintained school and those independent schools which participate in the tests.

  This means that the publication of comparative information about NC test results will be introduced to the following schedule:

  from 1993 and subsequently:

  the results of 7-year-olds in English, mathematics, science, technology, history and geography;

  the results of 14-year-olds in English, mathematics, science and technology.

  from 1994 and subsequently:

  the results of 11-year-olds in English, mathematics, science and technology;

  the results of 14-year-olds in history and geography;

  from 1995 and subsequently:

  the results of 11-year-olds in history and geography;

  the results of 14-year-olds in modern foreign languages.

  The proposals do not envisage the publication of comparative information about results in music, art and PE because these subjects will not be assessed on the NC 10 level scale.

  Comparative information about the enhancement of pupils' learning over time achieved by schools

  The Department's October proposals also foreshadow the publication in comparative tables of a standard measure of the extent to which schools have enhanced pupils' attainments between one key stage of the National Curriculum and another—the "value-added". These measures will be phased in as and when pupils assessed at one age are assessed again at another. This implies the following timetable:

  from 1995 and subsequently:

  the enhancement between testing at seven (key stage 1) and at 11 (key stage 2);

  the enhancement between testing at 14 (key stage 3) and at 16 (key stage 3).

  from 1997 and subsequently:

  the enhancement between testing at 11 (key stage 2) and 14 (key stage 3).

  from 1999 and subsequently:

  the enhancement between testing at 11 (key stage 2) and 16 (key stage 4).

  Attendance rates

  From 1993, it is intended that the comparative tables will contain information about the annual unauthorised pupil absence, and the numbers of pupils involved, in all maintained and independent schools.

  Pupils' routes to further and higher education, training and employment

  From 1993, it is intended that the comparative tables will contain information about the routes taken by pupils at age 16. The information published will cover both maintained and independent schools.

  Further information

  In addition to the comparative tables, each maintained school is required to produce a prospectus each year. The school can include any information which it feels would be helpful, but must include:

  full details of all public examinations taken by pupils, including vocational qualifications, broken down by

  697
  subject and gender;

  rates of unauthorised absence for each term and each year group;

  and, from 1993, we propose:

  national curriculum test results;

  routes taken by pupils once they reach school leaving age.

  The prospectus must also summarise curriculum and examination policies and arrangements made for pupils with special educational needs. We propose to require in addition a statement about how the school promotes the moral, spiritual, social and cultural values of pupils.

  From September 1993 full inspection reports on every maintained secondary school will be published every four years. Four-yearly inspections of other maintained schools will start in 1994. The inspections will be arranged by OFSTED (the Office for Standards of Education) and will report on the quality of education, standards achieved, efficiency of management and development of values in the school. All parents will be sent a summary of the report on their children's school. The full report on each school will be available at the school and in local libraries.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what criteria have been used for the selection of those being currently trained as registered secondary school inspectors;

  (2) how many registered secondary school inspectors are to be appointed for the school year 1993–94;

  (3) how many registered secondary school inspectors currently being trained and employed are currently (a) local educational advisers and (b) former local educational advisers.

  Mr. Forth
  The training and registration of inspectors under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, and the arrangements under which they will carry out inspections under section 9 of that Act, are all the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.

  Pupil Assessments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the children who are tested at the key stage one national curriculum assessment are aged(a) seven and (b) six at the time of the test.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally. In 1992 teachers were able to administer the end of key stage 1 tests from the mid-point of the spring term until the mid-point of the summer one. Estimates based on quarterly birth rate statistics recorded by OPCS reveal that by the end of this testing period less than 25 per cent. of pupils tested would not have reached their seventh birthdays.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many hours of teacher time he expects to be allocated to the administration and management of key stage one tests in primary schools(a) currently and (b) when the full range of national curriculum subjects is tested.

  Mr. Forth
  The test of reading expected, teachers were able to administer the 1992 statutory tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science in 24 hours, on average, for each class. This was well within the maximum of 30 hours allowed for. In addition teachers took on average nine hours to test individual pupils'698
  reading ability by hearing them read aloud. Teachers were able to choose to administer the tests at any time between the mid-point of the spring term and the mid-point of the summer term.

  The 1993 tests in English, mathematics and science will be to the same model and should take the same time.

  Assessments in the other foundation subjects will be based on teachers' own assessments of pupils' school work, although teachers will have available voluntary tests in technology, history and geography to use at their own discretion.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils received free school meals in Blyth Valley and Northumberland at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  Information for schools in Blyth valley is not available centrally. The numbers of children taking free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in Northumberland local education authority for each year from 1988 to 1992 (provisional) are given in the table.

  Pupils taking free school meals

  Northumberland LEA

  1Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  21992

  3,210

  2,403

  5,613

  1991

  2,814

  2,162

  4,976

  1990

  2,563

  2,017

  4,580

  1989

  2,512

  2,036

  4,548

  1988

  2,181

  1,991

  4,172

  1 Primary figures 1989 to 1992 include pupils in nursery schools. Primary figures in relation to 1988 do not include such pupils.

  2 Provisional.

  Education Associations
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the number of different schools he expects to be conducted by a single education association constituted under section 194 of the Education Bill.

  Mr. Forth
  The number will vary according to factors such as the timing of the identification of failing schools and their location. The Education Bill sets no upper limit.

  "15000 Hours"
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what public funding was used for Professor Sir Michael Rutter's study "15000 Hours" into successful schools; and if he will list the names of the schools in the study.

  Mr. Forth
  The report on this project was published in 1979. The Department made grants of £71,045 to support the work which was also supported by the former Inner London education authority. The identities of the schools involved in the study were not made known to the Department.

  Parents Meetings
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of annual parents' meetings; and if he will make a statement.
  699
  Mr. Forth
  Annual parents' meetings are an important aspect of involving parents in the life of their children's schools. Research commissioned by the Department has added weight to anecdotal evidence that, in general, parental attendance is disappointing, whilst also finding instances of very successful meetings. We are considering how this might be followed up.

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

  Mr. Forth
  A total of £4,911 has been spent in the current financial year to replace halon fire extinguishers with environmentally friendly alternatives.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Property Holdings, or their appointed contractors, maintain all the Department's refrigeration and air-conditioning plant, under their standard option arrangements. The Department depends on these arrangements to control the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, and to introduce suitable alternative or substitute materials in our premises.

  In addition, for more general applications like the use of cleaning materials etc, the Department adheres to guidance and advice disseminated by the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within departmental buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.

  Mr. Forth
  There are 45 portable halon fire extinguishers contained within the Department. All these extinguishers will be replaced by the end of 1992 and be properly recycled.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within departmental buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  A replacement programme for Halon fire extinguishers will be completed by the target date of December 1992. All other ozone-depleting chemicals which have to be replaced are properly recycled under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within Department buildings in the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (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;
  700
  (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. Forth
  The disposal of controlled waste is governed by the Duty of Care Regulations which came into force on 1 April 1992 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These regulations make producers of controlled waste responsible for ensuring that it is disposed of safely and legally. There is no Crown immunity from these regulations and the Department takes care to observe them.

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

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals;

  (2) which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. Forth
  Both the Montreal protocol and EC regulations seek to control the production but not the use of substances which deplete the ozone layer. However, the Department is helping to phase out ozone-depleting substances by refraining from purchasing or using them unless no suitable alternative is available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally. Property Holdings, or its appointed contractors, maintain all the Department's refrigeration and air-conditioning systems and keep associated service records, under its standard option arrangements.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many CFC and HCFC installations are contained within departmental buildings; and how many CFC domestic fridges are contained within departmental buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  Property Holdings is responsible for the maintenance of the air-conditioning and refrigeration plant in all the Department's buildings. Technical information on these installations is not held by the Department.

  The Department has 57 CFC domestic fridges.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what quantity of HCFC 22 is purchased by his Department per annum.
  701
  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not make any direct purchases of HCFC22. Property Holdings, or its appointed contractors, is responsible for making purchases of such material for the Department under its Standard Option arrangements.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how the departmental green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; which possible measures have been considered and rejected; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's policy is not to purchase new materials which are known to be harmful to the ozone layer as set out in the Montreal protocol and its revisions. Where existing equipment containing substances harmful to the ozone layer is to be renewed or subject to major maintenance it will be replaced by materials which are understood to be ozone friendly wherever this is possible.

  No specific measures have been considered and rejected.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list teachers' salaries as a percentage of average non-manual earnings for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures are given in the table:

  Table 1: Trends in school teachers relative pay 1974–92 Average gross weekly earnings (£) at April each year of full-time men and women workers on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence.

  Teachers £

  All non-manual £

  Teacher/non-manual ratio

  1974

  47·0

  43·4

  108

  1975

  65·2

  56·2

  116

  1976

  81·4

  67·5

  121

  Numbers of students and net institutional expenditure per FTE student in further and higher education1 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1989–90

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1989–90

  UGC/UFC-funded universities

  FTE students (thousands)

  266·1

  274·2

  304·8

  Unit funding per FTE student (£ cash terms2 3)

  3,215

  5,335

  6,410

  LEA maintained establishments4

  FTE students (thousands)

  735·1

  794·1

  692·0

  Net institutional expenditure per FTE student (£ cash terms2)

  1,725

  2,590

  2,790

  PCFC institutions4

  FTE students (thousands)

  —

  —

  297·7

  Unit funding per FTE student (£ cash terms2)

  —

  —

  3,910

  1 Territorial coverage is as follows: LEAs and PCFC—England; UGC/UFC—Great Britain.

  2 Rounded to nearest £5.

  3 Includes funding for research.

  4 Figures reflect the transfer of a number of institutions formerly maintained or assisted by local education authorities to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) in April 1989.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the level of expenditure in 1992–93 on tertiary and further education and those related services to be transferred from local authority responsibility in 1993 by each local authority; and what reduction in standard spending assessment for each local authority will occur in 1993–94 as a result of this transfer of responsibility.
  702

  Teachers £

  All non-manual £

  Teacher/non-manual ratio

  1977

  86·2

  73·6

  117

  1978

  94·2

  82·5

  114

  1979

  98·1

  92·2

  106

  1980

  115·5

  115·4

  100

  1981

  156·9

  133·6

  117

  1982

  159·4

  145·7

  109

  1983

  172·2

  159·1

  108

  1984

  180·8

  172·2

  105

  1985

  191·2

  184·6

  104

  1986

  211·0

  200·9

  105

  1987

  225·2

  217·4

  104

  1988

  259·4

  240·7

  108

  1989

  277·7

  264·9

  105

  1990

  305·7

  291·2

  105

  1991

  349·8

  312·5

  112

  1992

  394·2

  335·0

  118

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students in further and higher education there were in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available; and what was the average amount of money spent by the Government per student in each of those years.

  Mr. Forman
  Data are shown in the table for financial years 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1989–90, the latest year for which data are available. Further details are available from table 8 of Statistical Bulletin 10/92, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not currently available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing shortly his proposals for the 1993–94 local government settlement, including proposals for standard spending assessments. He also intends to announce proposals to specify a relevant notional amount for each authority to be used as the basis of comparison for the exercise of his capping powers for 1993–94 reflecting, inter alia, his estimate of authorities'
  703
  budgeted expenditure in 1992–93 on those functions which will become the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council from 1 April 1993.

  Examination League Tables
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amounts were paid to(a) Bath university and (b) PMS Communications Ltd. for compiling the recently published schools examination league tables.

  Mr. Forth
  The value of the contracts for the compilation of the school performance tables was as follows:(a) Bath university, £90,046; (b) PMS Communications Ltd., £65,000. These sums are exclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the contract to compile the schools examination league tables was advertised; how many organisations submitted tenders to carry out the work; which body carried out the tender evaluation; who drew up the tender specifications; and who was responsible for the award of the contract.

  Mr. Forth
  The procedures adopted in inviting tenders for this work and deciding on the award of contract were fully in line with established Government purchasing policy. It is not the Department's policy to advertise all contracts. In the case of the school examination results data preparation contract the Department was aware, through extensive supplier research, of 18 potential tenderers with the right level of expertise to undertake the work. This was felt to be a sufficient number to ensure a high level of competition and good value for money, without the need to advertise.

  The tender specifications were drawn up by officials from a number of branches within the Department, who offered professional guidance on specific issues. Eighteen invitations were sent out, and five tenders were received for the work. These were evaluated by a project board comprising Departmental officials, also from a number of branches. The decision to award the contract to PMS Communications Ltd. was taken by the project board.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is considering against Bath university and/or PMS Communications Ltd. under their contract for the compiling of the schools examination league tables in relation to inaccuracies in the work carried out.

  Mr. Forth
  All alleged inaccuracies in the examinations data for individual schools are being investigated individually. Where definite inaccuracies are proved to be the fault of the contractors, these will be rectified free of charge, in accordance with their contractual obligations. As at 24 November, this has happened in five cases only. About half the alleged inaccuracies have been supplied or agreed by schools themselves; the others relate to cases where the amendments sought were invalid, unsubstantiated or arrived after the given deadline.

  "Choice and Diversity"
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a list of the respondents to the White Paper "Choice and Diversity".

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has today placed in the Library a list of respondents to the White Paper 704
  "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", and to the two related consultation documents on special educational needs and religious education.

  As well as those included on the list, a further 750 responses were received from governing bodies, head-teachers, teachers, parents and members of the public. It would not be appropriate to list such respondents, some of whom may not wish their names to be disclosed.

  Delinquency
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current per capita spending on children in special schools for delinquents in London; and if he will outline the measures taken to reduce delinquency and its consequences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is one young offender institution in the London area, at Feltham, Middlesex. The per capita cost of running that establishment was £456 per week in the 1991–92 financial year.

  Measures taken with juvenile offenders at Feltham YOI to help them to avoid further offending include group work on drug and alcohol abuse, temper control and sexual behaviour and relationships. In addition, members of a local victim support scheme come in to discuss the effects of offending on its victims, and members of inmates' families are invited in once a month to engage in discussion groups which deal with offending among other issues.

DEFENCE

  Contractors
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the top 100 contractors to his Department in terms of size of the total contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information for 1990–91, which is the latest available, is published at table 1.17 of the 1992 edition of "Defence Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the future sales potential of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  We expect that the EFA project will result in an even more exportable aircraft than Tornado which has created tens of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the capacity of the United Kingdom defence industry to construct the European fighter aircraft on its own.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are confident that our requirement for a new fighter aircraft can continue to be met through collaboration with our European allies. In the now unlikely event that this is not possible it would be technically feasible to complete the project on our own, although the cost implications would need careful consideration.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution Ministers or officials of his Department will make to the forthcoming seminar held by the Export Control Organisation on a practical guide to United Kingdom export controls.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's officials regularly attend such seminars to provide guidance to industry on the export of defence and defence-related equipment. They participated in the seminar held on 20 November for this purpose.

  Unexploded Bombs
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the past five years and for each maritime county in England, Scotland and Wales the number of unexploded bombs and shells that have been rendered safe by units within his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the capital cost of the new installation at Fylingdales moor and (b) the annual running cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total capital cost of the modernised ballistic missile early warning system at RAF Fylingdales was £160 million. It is estimated that the annual running cost will be around £15 million.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will support the transfer of responsibility for inspections under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty from the International Atomic Energy Agency to a United Nations special commission under the direction of the Security Council.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government believe that the IAEA continues to be the appropriate agency to verify that states meet their commitments for the safeguarding of nuclear materials under the NPT and similar treaties.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the United Nations Security Council concerning improved intelligence-gathering procedures in world-wide nuclear proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made no representations to the United Nations Security Council on this issue.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the Government of North Korea regarding obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.
  706
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no personal contacts with representatives of North Korea. The United Kingdom continues to stress in international forums the importance we attach to North Korea abiding by her obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We also did so in talks with North Korean officials in June.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the non-proliferation regime is based on the possession of nuclear explosive materials as distinct from completed nuclear devices.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no need for such a step. The treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons represents the cornerstone of the non-proliferation regime and the obligations it places on states parties cover both nuclear devices and nuclear materials.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Quotas
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what steps she is taking to encourage employers to meet the disability quotas of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944;

  (2) if she will list the criteria to be met by an employer before a permit to engage people not registered disabled can be issued; and in what circumstances such a permit can be renewed;

  (3) how many permits to engage people not registered disabled are issued by her Department each year.

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

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 25 November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the steps being taken to encourage employers to meet the disability quota of the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944 and two Parliamentary Questions about permits. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  We put a considerable amount of resource into persuading employers to recruit and retain suitable registered disabled people that is people who count towards the 3% quota under the Disabled Persons Employment Act.
  My Disability Advisory Service (DAS) and the Disablement Resettlement Officers (DROs) have been brought together to form Placing Assessment and Advisory and Advisory Teams (PACTS). These teams provide a professional integrated and trained network of help and advice for both employers and people with disabilities.
  There are seventy one Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTS) nationwide. An important part of their duties is to encourage employers to try to recruit registered disabled people thus helping employers towards meeting the 3% Quota. PACTs can offer employers practical assistance towards helping employers recruit registered disabled people through our Special Schemes. Two schemes give specific help to employers through:

  (i) grants of up to £6,000 to enable employers to adapt their premises or equipment to employ a person with a disability;

  707

  (ii) a Job Introduction Scheme providing a grant towards a person's wage for a trial period of usually six weeks.

  Other Special Schemes provide particular help for the individual through:

  (i) assistance with fares to work for people with disabilities who are unable to use public transport;

  (ii) special tools and equipment that a person needs to do their job;

  (iii) financial aid for certain visually handicapped people towards the cost of setting up a business.

  We also produce the Code of Good Practice for employers which is available from the PACT. This is a reference document which gives guidance about recruiting and retaining people with disabilities.
  Our Disability Symbol was launched in September 1990. It helps employers who are committed to good practice in employing people with disabilities to communicate that fact to potential job applicants. The Symbol is being strengthened both by the addition of a strap line "Positive about Disabled People" and from the 1 June 1993 requiring employers who use the symbol to make five specific commitments to action.
  There is a press advertising campaign under way aimed at raising employers interest in employing people with disabilities. The campaign aims to encourage employers to adopt good policies and practices in the recruitment, training, career development and retention of people with disabilities and to generate more vacancies for people with disabilities. The campaign is backed up both by advice and information including a new booklet "Employing People with Disabilities".
  I enclose copies of both the Code of Good Practice and Employing People with Disabilities for your information.
  I now turn to your questions about the criteria for issuing a permit and the numbers of permits issued each year.
  There are two types of permit. The basic test applied for both is whether suitable registered disabled people are available. An individual or immediate permit authorises the engagement of one or more people who are not registered disabled, to fill actual vacancies when no suitable registered disabled people are available. Bulk permits give the employer authority in advance to engage a specified number of people who are not registered as disabled (usually based on the employer's estimate of their likely vacancies), in particular occupations for a specific period of time. Bulk permits are issued on the understanding that, the employer will notify vacancies to the Jobcentre and will sympathetically consider the engagement of any suitable registered disabled people who may become available. These conditions apply whether an employer is applying for a first or a subsequent permit.

  We do not keep centralised records of the numbers of permits that are issued and I am unable to say how many permits are issued each year. However I hope it will be helpful if I give the total number of employers issued with permits during each of the last five years for which data is available. The figures relate to a twelve month period ending 1 June each year.

  Employers issued with permits in twelve month period ending 1 June

  Number

  1987

  18,577

  1988

  18,594

  1989

  18,530

  1990

  18,038

  1991

  17,649

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive Replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
  708
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will list the local authorities to which permits to engage people not registered disabled have been issued this year;

  (2) for how long permits to engage people not registered disabled have been issued to Barnsley metropolitan borough council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It has been the policy of successive Governments to treat as confidential, information about the issue of permits in accordance with the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 to individual employers, and not to disclose such information without their agreement.

  Ingol Rehabilitation Centre
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received regarding the proposed closure of Ingol rehabilitation centre; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has recieved representations from some hon. Members and from Lancashire county council. Preston borough council and one or two groups representing people with disabilities suggesting that the proposed closure of Ingol rehabilitation centre be reconsidered.

  I believe that the major changes we are making in employment rehabilitation, of which the proposed closure is part, will lead to a better service for people with disabilities. Those changes involve replacing most of the Employment Service's network of centres with a network of local rehabilitation agents which has wider geographical coverage and which harnesses sources of commitment and expertise in the community. Adequate alternative provision, including residential provision, is now available, through agents, for clients of Ingol rehabilitation centre, and we are therefore satisfied that the closure should proceed.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many checks were carried out by the wages inspectorate which found workers underpaid in each region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22 May 1992 to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden),Official Report, columns 339–46, tables 7 and 8.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments in each region since 1979 have been(a) found failing to post wages council notices, (b) found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid, (c) found failing to keep adequate records of hours worked and (d) the subject of criminal prosecutions against employers under the Wages Act 1986.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is shown in the tables. In most cases the information is divided into two tables of changes in divisional boundaries in 1986.
  709

  Table 1

  Establishments found failing to post Wages Council notices 1979–1986

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  London (East)

  620

  612

  413

  415

  295

  429

  288

  700

  London (West)

  346

  365

  277

  343

  314

  375

  438

  1—

  South East

  623

  843

  457

  759

  906

  1,058

  859

  1,108

  Southern

  529

  534

  375

  302

  295

  548

  591

  433

  Eastern

  358

  580

  683

  425

  414

  652

  616

  644

  South West

  846

  981

  783

  647

  756

  853

  781

  670

  Midlands (East)

  444

  485

  420

  434

  652

  473

  347

  258

  Midlands (West)

  451

  451

  243

  374

  406

  695

  781

  504

  North West (East)

  555

  419

  240

  296

  367

  388

  447

  688

  North West (West)

  621

  558

  376

  340

  489

  629

  605

  685

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  990

  770

  675

  726

  934

  763

  638

  668

  Northern

  389

  540

  421

  267

  271

  394

  466

  528

  Scotland (East)

  644

  689

  370

  437

  489

  495

  524

  409

  Scotland (West)

  530

  679

  394

  299

  371

  329

  386

  289

  Wales

  609

  682

  695

  502

  429

  444

  603

  473

  TOTALS

  8,555

  9,188

  6,822

  6,566

  7,388

  8,525

  8,370

  8,057

  1 Included in London (East) figure.

  Table 2

  Establishments found failing to post wages council notices 1987 to 1991

  Divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  London

  480

  540

  304

  371

  672

  South East

  1,049

  725

  910

  575

  629

  Eastern

  935

  1,127

  863

  692

  474

  South West

  983

  1,265

  1,354

  1,297

  1,185

  Midlands

  512

  928

  1,145

  1,075

  1,350

  North West

  894

  1,395

  1,686

  2,223

  1,710

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  485

  673

  857

  803

  934

  Northern

  413

  474

  593

  693

  932

  Scotland

  524

  821

  887

  929

  1,052

  Totals

  6,275

  7,948

  8,599

  8,658

  8,938

  Table 3

  Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid 1979–1986

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  London (East)

  446

  377

  226

  144

  214

  150

  85

  128

  London (West)

  143

  122

  82

  72

  62

  54

  89

  1—

  South East

  361

  459

  242

  368

  375

  270

  148

  190

  Southern

  440

  358

  200

  138

  159

  161

  144

  69

  Eastern

  224

  270

  324

  159

  140

  181

  152

  129

  South West

  223

  268

  176

  137

  117

  114

  96

  66

  Midlands (East)

  127

  125

  94

  90

  121

  127

  77

  37

  Midlands (West)

  160

  166

  94

  137

  128

  139

  83

  51

  North West (East)

  244

  163

  118

  102

  134

  71

  69

  81

  North West (West)

  220

  135

  117

  59

  86

  93

  82

  106

  Yorks and Humberside

  514

  428

  354

  312

  583

  193

  136

  99

  Northern

  231

  210

  159

  92

  86

  54

  131

  141

  Scotland (East)

  143

  174

  91

  120

  106

  96

  84

  81

  Scotland (West)

  206

  264

  124

  95

  131

  105

  123

  111

  Wales

  376

  409

  350

  292

  158

  91

  99

  44

  Totals

  4,058

  3,928

  2,751

  2,317

  2,600

  1,899

  1,598

  1,333

  1 Included in London (East) figure.

  Table 4

  Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of wages paid 1987–1991

  Divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  London

  47

  32

  18

  20

  73

  South East

  348

  304

  301

  240

  273

  Eastern

  155

  211

  207

  119

  58

  South West

  108

  183

  155

  181

  266

  Midlands

  71

  120

  175

  176

  235

  North West

  168

  258

  336

  324

  399

  710 711

  Divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  133

  161

  184

  197

  259

  Northern

  95

  97

  127

  152

  228

  Scotland

  124

  181

  196

  139

  182

  Totals

  1,249

  1,547

  1,699

  1,548

  1,973

  Table 5

  Establishments found failing to keep adequate records of hours worked 1979–86

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  London (East)

  1,522

  1,326

  911

  693

  752

  686

  349

  899

  London (West)

  707

  628

  486

  585

  615

  625

  829

  1—

  South East

  1,180

  1,465

  790

  1,302

  1,631

  1,558

  1,277

  1,739

  Southern

  1,718

  1,609

  947

  814

  779

  1,003

  1,056

  771

  Eastern

  821

  985

  1,124

  658

  680

  1,001

  942

  903

  South West

  1,474

  1,538

  1,172

  940

  1,229

  957

  924

  659

  Midlands (East)

  652

  671

  576

  438

  513

  695

  564

  338

  Midlands (West)

  581

  527

  449

  513

  508

  597

  630

  485

  North West (East)

  782

  687

  453

  474

  473

  448

  490

  713

  North West (West)

  1,031

  828

  451

  381

  588

  738

  650

  733

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,771

  1,380

  1,185

  1,070

  1,240

  1,108

  854

  877

  Northern

  1,049

  907

  664

  434

  452

  478

  687

  734

  Scotland (East)

  1,008

  957

  676

  594

  798

  847

  917

  780

  Scotland (West)

  1,099

  1,065

  575

  437

  470

  408

  448

  395

  Wales

  1,045

  1,202

  1,048

  879

  638

  467

  618

  432

  Totals

  16,440

  15,775

  11,507

  10,212

  11,366

  11,616

  11,235

  10,458

  1 Included in London (East) figure.

  Table 6

  Establishments found failing to keep records of hours worked 1987–1991

  Divisions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  London

  430

  269

  111

  151

  310

  South East

  1,404

  1,010

  1,141

  808

  963

  Eastern

  1,011

  1,119

  1,009

  732

  460

  South West

  759

  970

  911

  743

  771

  Midlands

  511

  649

  675

  714

  995

  North West

  926

  1,254

  1,211

  1,189

  1,162

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  548

  647

  609

  686

  825

  Northern

  432

  422

  487

  580

  857

  Scotland

  722

  889

  816

  757

  1,048

  Totals

  6,743

  7,229

  6,970

  6,360

  7,391

  Table 7

  Prosecutions under the Wages Councils Act 1979 and the Wages Act 1986 for the period 1979 to 1991

  Divisions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  London

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  4

  2

  0

  Eastern

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  South West

  4

  2

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  0

  1

  North West

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  2

  8

  Northern

  1

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Scotland

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Totals

  12

  8

  10

  7

  2

  2

  2

  3

  8

  11

  10

  9

  17

  Training
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 17 November,Official Report, column 155, on work-related training programmes, if she will give figures for every year since 1985.
  712
  Mr. Michal Forsyth
  The information is shown in the following table.
  713

  Participants on work-related government training programmes as a percentage of the civilian workforce in employment by region

  June 1985

  June 1986

  June 1987

  June 1988

  Region

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  South East2

  31,000

  0·4

  36,000

  0·4

  47,000

  0·6

  50,000

  0·6

  Greater London

  10,000

  0·3

  12,000

  0·3

  15,000

  0·4

  17,000

  0·4

  East Anglia

  6,000

  0·7

  7,000

  0·9

  10,000

  1·2

  10,000

  1·1

  South West

  13,000

  0·7

  17,000

  0·9

  24,000

  1·2

  25,000

  1·2

  West Midlands

  19,000

  0·9

  30,000

  1·4

  41,000

  1·9

  41,000

  1·8

  East Midlands

  16,000

  1·0

  17,000

  1·0

  25,000

  1·5

  26,000

  1·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  18,000

  0·9

  22,000

  1·1

  34,000

  1·7

  40,000

  1·9

  North West

  23,000

  0·9

  31,000

  1·2

  45,000

  1·7

  49,000

  1·8

  North

  10,000

  0·9

  20,000

  1·6

  26,000

  2·1

  30,000

  2·4

  Wales

  10,000

  1·0

  13,000

  1·3

  18,000

  1·7

  21,000

  1·8

  Scotland

  21,000

  1·0

  24,000

  1·2

  34,000

  1·6

  44,000

  1·9

  June 1989

  June 1990

  June 1991

  June 1992

  Region

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  WRGT S1

  Per cent. of CWIE

  South East2

  64,000

  0·7

  67,000

  0·8

  56,000

  0·7

  57,000

  0·7

  Greater London

  29,000

  0·7

  31,000

  0·8

  25,000

  0·7

  29,000

  0·8

  East Anglia

  12,000

  1·2

  9,000

  0·9

  8,000

  0·9

  8,000

  0·9

  South West

  31,000

  1·5

  27,000

  1·3

  23,000

  1·1

  22,000

  1·1

  West Midlands

  52,000

  2·2

  44,000

  1·8

  37,000

  1·6

  32,000

  1·4

  East Midlands

  32,000

  1·8

  31,000

  1·7

  22,000

  1·2

  22,000

  1·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  57,000

  2·6

  48,000

  2·2

  38,000

  1·8

  34,000

  1·6

  North West

  65,000

  2·3

  55,000

  2·0

  46,000

  1·7

  46,000

  1·7

  North

  50,000

  3·9

  45,000

  3·5

  35,000

  2·9

  32,000

  2·6

  Wales

  31,000

  2·6

  28,000

  2·4

  21,000

  1·8

  20,000

  1·7

  Scotland

  59,000

  2·6

  56,000

  2·5

  46,000

  2·0

  43,000

  1·9

  1 Includes all participants on Government training and employment programmes who are receiving some work experience on their placement but do not have a contract of employment.

  2 Including Greater London.

  Gas Regulations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to start the process of consulting publicly about the new edition of the Gas Installation and Use Regulations; how long she expects the process to take; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is expected that the Health and Safety Commission will publish a consultative document about the revision of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 in spring 1993 and that the consultative document will allow for a three-month consultation period.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when copies of the discussion document on the reorganisation of Scottish local government were sent to(a) the Scottish press and (b) Scottish hon. Members, giving the exact time and date of dispatch in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  Copies of the consultation paper on the structure of local government in Scotland were sent out by first class post to all right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies on Monday 12 October, the date on which the paper was published. Copies were made available on arrival to members of the press who attended the public launch of the paper at 3 pm that day.
  714
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the dangers at open disused quarries, particularly those which are filled with water; what further representations he has received regarding the incident at Bellrock quarry, resulting in the deaths of two schoolchildren; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Apart from the hon. Member's own representations in September, only one other letter has been received about the Bellrock quarry incident. There have been no representations about the dangers generally of open, disused quarries. As my letter of 21 October to the hon. Member confirmed, local authorities in Scotland already have sufficient powers under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897. Indeed, I understand that Kyle and Carrick district council has now erected fencing around the quarry.

  Police (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the police are from ethnic minorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 December 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 0·2 per cent. of police officers in Scotland were from ethnic minorities.

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

  Sir Hector Monro
  As the green Minister at the Scottish Office I have overall responsibility for the environmental aspects of policies and programmes and for progressing initiatives which relate to the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200). I am assisted by a Division within The Scottish Office Environment Department which has a general co-ordinating role on environmental issues. However, because of the diverse nature of the work of The Scottish Office, all its officials contribute either directly or indirectly to the environmental aspects of its responsibilities. Full details of the financial provision for environmental programmes are contained in the departmental report published each year.

  Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collates centrally on the political affiliations of appointees to public bodies and quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Renfrew (Development)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote the strategic economic development of Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's principal agents for the promotion of local economic development are the local enterprise companies. Their business plans, completed

  Education authority schools (including nursery and special schools)

  1992

  1991

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present Per cent.

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present Per cent.

  Pupils present on census day

  695,201

  —

  698,554

  —

  Pupils taking school meals:

  On payment

  227,740

  32·8

  230,378

  33·0

  Free

  107,186

  15·4

  101,915

  14·6

  Total

  334,926

  48·2

  332,293

  47·6

  Pupils bringing their own food to school1

  115,681

  18·5

  106,110

  16·9

  1 Excluding Grampian region, for which results for 1991 are not available.

  NB

  A number of pupils took neither school meals brought food to school. These pupils would generally either have gone home for lunch or have eaten out locally.

  A detailed statement of the returns from education authorities from which these national figures are derived is being placed in the Library.
  716
  each year and covering a three-year rolling period, set out their strategic and operational aims and objectives for their area.

  The local enterprise company responsible for Renfrew district, Renfrewshire Enterprise, is involved in a range of initiatives and activities—often with other public and private sector bodies—to promote the development of skills, employment and economic prosperity in the area. The Glasgow airport initiative, which has very substantial potential employment and economic benefits for the area, is one example of the enterprise company working with others in a co-ordinated, complementary and strategic way to the benefit of the local community. I am sure the local enterprise company would be happy to discuss with the hon. Member the other aims and activities for the area set out in its business plan.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to give enterprise zone status to any part of Renfrew district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The district does, however, have the advantage of development area status; and, of course, the full range of powers and functions available to the local enterprise company, Renfrewshire Enterprise, are deployed to the benefit of the district.

  School Meals
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of the annual census of school meals in Scotland held in January 1992; and what changes these show compared with the corresponding 1991 results.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. The number of pupils taking school meals has continued to increase, despite a fall in the number of pupils present on census day. Almost half the pupils present on census day took school meals with a further estimated 19 per cent. bringing their own food to school. Free meals formed 32 per cent. of the total meals provided. Cafeteria style meals remain more popular than two-course fixed meals.

  The following table shows, as a percentage of pupils attending their respective sectors, those primary and secondary pupils taking meals or bringing their own food.
  717

  Primary1

  Secondary2

  1992 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  1992 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  Pupils taking school meals

  52·9

  52·9

  46·1

  44·2

  Pupils bringing own food3

  27·6

  25·0

  6·8

  6·5

  1 Includes 14 special departments in 1992 and nine special departments in 1991 where data have been included in primary school figures.

  2 Includes 17 special departments in 1992 and 10 special departments in 1991 where special data have been included in secondary school figures.

  3 Excluding Grampian for which 1991 comparisons were not available.

  Almost 70 per cent. of meals served are cafeteria style:

  1992

  1991

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Per cent, of pupils present

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Per cent, of pupils present

  Pupils taking fixed meals

  71,824

  35,260

  107,084

  15·4

  76,252

  33,849

  110,101

  15·8

  Pupils taking cafeteria meals

  155,916

  71,926

  227,842

  32·7

  154,126

  68,066

  222,192

  31·8

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is his policy on contacts between officials of his Department and private sector firms and other bodies about water and sewerage services in Scotland before a decision on the future of these services is announced.

  Mr. Lang
  The day-to-day work of my Department necessarily involves contact with a wide range of private sector firms and other bodies about aspects of water and sewerage provision. These contacts will continue. The future structure of the services is discussed in the consultation paper I issued on 17 November. The preparation of this document has required contact with a number of bodies and, now that it has been issued, consideration of the options it sets out will involve discussions and exchanges of views with a variety of interested parties, whether at the initiative of the Department or of those parties themselves. These contacts are likely to take a variety of forms. A list of those responding to the consultation paper will be available in due course in the usual way.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make his policy to publish the waiting times at Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS trust for(a) removal of gall bladder, (b) removal of bunions, (c) trigger finger, (d) varicose veins, (e) hip joint replacement, (f) knee joint replacement, (g) trapped nerve in hand or foot, (h) haemorrhoidectomy, (i) peptic, gastric or duodenal ulcers, (j) cataract removal and (k) hernias;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to publish the waiting times at Woodend hospital, Aberdeen for (a) removal of gall bladder, (b) removal of bunions, (c) trigger finger, (d) varicose veins, (e) hip joint replacement, (j) knee joint replacement, (g) trapped nerve in hand or foot, (h) haemorrhoidectomy, (i) peptic, gastric or duodenal ulcers, (j) cataract removal and (k) hernias.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: It is our intention to publish waiting times for these, and other hospitals in Scotland, for (e) hip joint replacement, (f) knee joint replacement and (j) cataract removal. These, and geriatric assessment, are the procedures for which all
  718
  health boards in Scotland have set maximum waiting time guarantees for their residents in pursuance of the commitment given in the patients charter.

  Postgraduate Awards
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many postgraduate students received an award from the Scottish Education Department for the academic year 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: In session 1992–93 to date, the Scottish Office Education Department has offered awards to 3,385 postgraduate students under the postgraduate students' allowances scheme and to 158 students under the Scottish studentship scheme, which caters for postgraduate higher degree study.

  Offshore Hydrocarbons Unit
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had about the future ownership of the offshore hydrocarbons unit and the British geological survey core store and the implications for employment in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 12 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from what previous figure the formula for setting Scottish expenditure relative to provision in England has been raised to 10·66 per cent.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The figure, previous to 10·66 per cent. by which changes to the Scottish block were determined in relation to English provision was 11·76 per cent.

  Patients (Mileage Rates)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the current mileage rate paid to patients travelling by car by each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The existing guidance explains that, in general, travel expenses should be restricted to the cost of travelling by the cheapest

  719
  form of public transport available. In certain circumstances, health boards may reimburse patients travelling by private car on the basis of the lesser of the estimated cost of petrol actually used or the equivalent public transport cost. Information is not collected on mileage rates but a survey undertaken in 1991 showed that some Boards had not been adhering to the guidance given but had been using a standard mileage rate varying from 5p to 8p per mile. Boards were reminded again in June 1992 of the guidance on the calculation of costs.

  Tendering
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria laid down for the acceptance of bids from organisations tendering as part of compulsory competitive tendering and in particular the grounds on which a local authority can select a bid other than the lowest.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 November 1992] It is for local authorities in the first instance to decide on the award of a contract. In doing so, they must have regard to the compulsory competitive tendering provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988, and particularly to the requirement not to act in a manner having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition. The Scottish Office Environment Department issued guidance to local authorities in March 1991 (Scottish Office Environment Department Circular 6/1991) on what does or does not constitute anti-competitive practice, and guidance regarding the non-acceptance of the lowest bid. That guidance will be superseded by new guidance and regulations, the terms of which have recently been the subject of consultation.

  Nursing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the quality and the objectivity of the civil service nursing advice provided in respect of(a) the national nursing audit development project and (b) the recently funded £120,000 nursing diagnosis/nomenclature project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: These projects seek to improve the information available about nursing treatments and to improve patient care by helping nurses to develop ways of critically reviewing their work. The relevant funding decisions were taken with the benefit of a range of advice from both within and outside the civil service.

  EC Aid
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions he has sought aid for(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde in each of the past nine years under the terms of article 92(3) (a)> of the treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Article 92(3)(a) of the treaty of Rome sets out one of the grounds on which state aid may be considered to be compatible
  720
  with the Common Market. It does not provide a means of seeking EC assistance, and the question of seeking aid under its terms does not therefore arise.

  GP Vacancies
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of applicants for vacancies for general practitioner posts in Scotland every year since 1989.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: This information is not available centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Lens Cleaning Solutions
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer manufacturers of contact lens cleaning solutions to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading referred the supply of contact lens cleaning solutions to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 30 April 1992. The Commission was asked to report by the end of February 1993.

  Computer Games
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer computer games manufacturers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Investigation of anti-competitive practices or monopolistic behaviour is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. The director general makes references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where he considers it appropriate.

  Directors' Emoluments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to examine a sample of company accounts for compliance with the Companies Acts requirements for disclosures on directors' emoluments.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 439, what action he has taken against Ernst and Young for the audit failures identified by the inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Copies of the reports have been forwarded to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek to amend the Register of Auditors and Information about Audit Firms Regulation 1991 to require the recognised supervisory bodies to record criticisms by the DTI inspectors against the relevant firm's name.
  721
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Total £

  Fees £

  Disbursements £

  D. Donaldson, QC

  328,000

  285,000

  43,000

  I. G. Watt, FCA, CBE

  1,435,000

  1,185,000

  250,000

  Transcripts of trials (paid direct)

  30,000

  —

  —

  Total cost of inspection to end October 1992

  1,793,000

  1,470,000

  293,000

  All figures include VAT. The fees paid to Mr. Watt include charges for support services provided by KPMG Peat Marwick.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 3 November,Official Report, column 139, if he will provide the names of the three companies whose accounts he has referred to the financial reporting review panel; and what has been the outcome of such referral.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. In the interest of fairness the panel does not disclose the names of the companies it inquires into while the inquiries are in train and it normally announces its findings only when it has reached an adverse conclusion. I understand that in one of the three cases the panel concluded that no action was called for and the other two are under consideration. A copy of the procedures of the panel was placed in the Library of the House in June 1991.

  Auditing Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to appoint an inquiry into the setting of auditing standards in the United Kingdom.

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Group

  131·3

  173·5

  257·5

  335

  269

  Letters/Parcels

  101·3

  131·4

  197·8

  257

  —

  Royal Mail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  189

  Parcelforce

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Post Office Counters

  13·3

  21·6

  21·3

  40

  44

  Girobank

  13·6

  12·6

  10·2

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Separate accounts for Royal Mail and Parcelforce first published in 1991–92.

  2. Girobank sold in July 1990.

  Projected capital expenditure of the Post Office Group for 1992–093 is £344 million in total the breakdown between the principal constituent businesses remains commercially confidential.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Me. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he was first informed of the costs of the liquidation of BCCI.

  Companies Acts Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 310, if he will indicate the amount paid to each of the Guinness inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The amounts paid are as follows:

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for legislation under which company auditors would owe a duty of care to creditors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such proposals.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the present methods of financing capital expenditure employed by the Post Office and its subsidiaries; and what changes are proposed following the autumn statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Post Office and its subsidiaries finance capital expenditure from internally generated funds. No changes are proposed following the autumn statement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the capital expenditure of the Post Office and each of its subsidiaries for each of the last five years; and what are the projections for the current year.

  Mr. Leigh
  Capital expenditure of the Post Office group and its principal constituent businesses for each of the last five years, as stated in the annual accounts, was as follows:

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My officials have been made aware at various times since the winding-up order on 14 January 1992 of some of the detailed aspects of the cost of the liquidation of BCCI. Detailed figures given to the House by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 6 November 1992,Official Report, column 593, were supplied to my officials by the Touche Ross liquidators on 5 November 1992.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives have been taken by the Government since 1990 to encourage the arms and defence industries in the north west region to diversify into other areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Diversification is essentially a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned. My Department helps them with its wide range of programmes, including those in the enterprise initiative and "Managing into the 90s". A special seminar was held in Blackburn on 12 May 1992. The north west is benefiting from four projects under the European Community's PERIFRA scheme.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning his discussions with British Coal and the power generators on the provision of British Coal mined coal for the generating market prior to the announced closure of 31 coal mines.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear to the House on 19 October,Official Report, columns 205–7, he was advised by British Coal before the closures were announced of the need to end production at the pits concerned in order to bring supply in line with demand.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the recent planning application by British Coal to demolish certain buildings at Easington colliery while this colliery is in the review procedure.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that British Coal made an application on 15 October to demolish certain buildings at Easington colliery; and that following my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's announcement on 19 October of a moratorium in respect of 21 pits, which include Easington, British Coal has suspended further action in respect of this application.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the mining consultants Boyd's was requested to assess the viability of the 10 collieries currently in the review process and due to close in January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Last year John T. Boyd Company was asked to assess the viability of 28 collieries, chosen by British Coal on a representative basis. Of the collieries studied, five are among the 10 collieries which have subsequently become subject to statutory consultation. The five pits are Betws, Parkside, Trentham, Grimethorpe and Houghton Main.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of opencast coal produced in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total amount of opencast coal produced since 1979 was as follows:724

  Opencast production

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  1979

  12,862

  1980

  15,779

  1981

  14,828

  1982

  15,266

  1983

  14,706

  1984

  14,306

  1985

  15,569

  1986

  14,275

  1987

  15,786

  1988

  17,899

  1989

  18,657

  1990

  18,134

  1991

  18,620

  Source: Table 12 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1992.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of coal from deep mine operations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of deep-mined coal produced during the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Opencast production (thousand tonnes)

  1987

  15,786

  1988

  17,899

  1989

  18,657

  1990

  18,134

  1991

  18,620

  Source: Table 12 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1992.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of coal from deep mine operations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of deep-mined coal produced during the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Deep-mined production (thousand tonnes)

  1987

  85,957

  1988

  83,762

  1989

  79,628

  1990

  72,899

  1991

  73,357

  Source: Table 12 of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1992.

  Development Area Status
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the request for the restoration of development area status from Wansbeck district council before the conclusion of the current coal industry inquiry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am considering all the representations that have been submitted in the current review of the assisted areas map, including the request by Wansbeck district council. Our decision about the Morpeth and
  725
  Ashington travel-to-work area, about which the council is concerned, will be announced when the new assisted areas map as a whole is designated.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his timetable for his review of the assisted area status map; what parliamentary proceedings will be involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 October 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the consultation document on the review of the assisted area map issued on 9 June 1992.

  Section 1(7) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 specified the necessary Parliamentary proceedings. Subject to this minimum requirement the Government will decide on the most appropriate parliamentary proceedings in due course.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received regarding the outcome of the London-Cardiff review of the Export Credits Guarantee Department carried out by the ECGD board of management; when he expects to make a decision on the board's recommendations; and if he will make a statement;

  United Kingdom Imports of Tobacco

  Unmanufactured Tobacco1

  Manufactured Tobacco2

  £ million

  kilos

  £ million

  kilos

  1979

  305·5

  187,119,000

  45·4

  13,776,700

  1980

  179·0

  124,236,000

  56·0

  13,266,500

  1981

  219·7

  139,914,500

  49·7

  13,236,600

  1982

  250·3

  127,787,300

  68·9

  13,145,700

  1983

  279·9

  130,304,700

  64·7

  14,864,700

  1984

  320·0

  131,073,000

  87·1

  21,674,200

  1985

  273·3

  120,406,800

  113·8

  26,338,900

  1986

  219·1

  101,123,700

  119·7

  26,363,900

  1987

  213·0

  109,257,900

  107·1

  23,737,200

  1988

  216·3

  120,059,000

  109·0

  26,359,300

  1989

  238·4

  114,082,100

  107·1

  23,829,700

  1990

  251·0

  128,176,800

  126·5

  26,824,700

  1991

  323·0

  138,946,300

  148·3

  29,966,000

  1 Unmanufactured Tobacco includes Tobacco Refuse and is defined as item 121 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  2 Manufactured Tobacco (whether or not containing Tobacco Substitutes) is defined as item 122 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his best projections of the impact of the single European market on tobacco imports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given on 9 November 1992 by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), Official Report, column 544.

  Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the initiatives which he has taken on EC regional policy during the British Presidency of the EC; and if he will make a statement.
  726
  (2) what consideration is being given to the board of management of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's review concerning the London-Cardiff review of ECGD operations.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: I have endorsed the recommendation of the ECGD management board that three should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how many years his Department keeps records of export credit guarantees before shredding or other means of disposal.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The Export Credits Guarantee Department keeps records of each of its guarantees for as long as it has a potential liability under that guarantee, and for a period thereafter which varies according to the nature and details of the case.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the volume of tobacco imports in pound million and kilos for each year from 1979–80.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: The information is given in the table.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The immediate and overriding issue concerning EC regional policy is the size of the budget for the cohesion and structural funds for the period from January 1994. The United Kingdom Presidency hopes that agreement on this and the other aspects of the future financing of the Community from 1993 will be agreed at the Edinburgh European Council on 11–12 December.

  Steel
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total production of liquid steel in Great Britain in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: Steel production is usually measured in terms of "crude steel production". This measure the crude output that can

  727
  go forward for further processing, and is typically 1–2 per cent. less than the initial output of liquid steel. Information about crude steel production is regularly published by the Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau in "Iron and Steel Industry Annual Statistics", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total quantity of steel imports for(a) the part-year from 1 January 1992 to the most recent record available, (b) the equivalent part-year period for 1991. 1990 and 1985 and (c) the percentage change year oil year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Imports

  Average annual percentage change over previous period

  1985

  2,700,692

  n.a.

  1990

  3,820,593

  7·2

  1991

  4,011,752

  5·0

  1992

  3,979,761

  -0·8

  Covers imports of all United Kingdom steel industry products. n.a. = not applicable.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Engineering
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to introduce to strengthen the United Kingdom's engineering industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: I refer the hon. member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade gave the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), on 16 November 1992, Official Report, columns 71–72, which described Government action to help manufacturing. Engineering represents a very large proportion of our manufacturing GDP and I hope it will benefit in full measure from the policies my right hon. Friend set out in that reply.

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the proportion of the United Kingdom oil and gas reserves which have so far been taken from offshore fields.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Section 2.4 and table 7 of the Brown Book (Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom) published in April 1992 set out my Department's latest estimate, at 31 December 1991, of total potential recoverable reserves of oil and gas in the United Kingdom. These showed that remaining reserves could be up to 3·9 times as much as cumulative production to the same date in the case of oil and up to 4·2 times as much in the case of gas.

  Nuclear Programmes
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specifically-allocated financial contributions have been made in 1991–92 to 1992–93 by Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear and British Nuclear Fuels plc to the Atomic Energy Authority fusion programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: None.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects a commercial prototype fusion reactor to enter service in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on its current development progress.

  Mr. Eggar:
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Nuclear fusion is not expected to provide the basis for a commercially viable source of energy at least until the middle of the next century. There are no current plans for the development of a commercial prototype fusion reactor in the United Kingdom.

  Photovoltaics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current programme of assessment studies into photovoltaics being undertaken by his Department; what is the cost of the programme; and if he will list the location of the studies.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: There are three assessment studies currently ongoing:

  1. "A feasibility and design study for a photovoltaic building demonstration" by the university of Cardiff (at Cardiff).

  2. "Grid connection of photovoltaic systems" by Halcrow Gilbert Associates (at Swindon).

  3. "Photovoltaic modules as a cladding for commercial building" by British Petroleum (at Leatherhead).

  The total cost of these studies is £232,000.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to launch a programme of demonstration projects into photovoltaics.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: I have no plans to launch a programme of demonstration projects into photovoltaics, but my officials are giving consideration to a proposal for a particular project which would be located at the university of Northumbria.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he intends to meet the new owners of the Severn bridge to discuss toll charges.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no plans to do so. The charges are governed by the provisions of the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

HEALTH

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

  Mr. Sackville
  None of the agencies in this Department is being considered for privatisation or contractorisation
  729
  at present. As announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary Office of Public Service and Science on 17 November at column 104 privatisation and contractorisation are always considered as alternatives to agency status before any agency is established, and would normally be re-examined as options during the course of each agency's periodic review. Any major change in the status of an agency would be the subject of an announcement.

  Salaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what remuneration has actually been paid by each health service trust in England to chairmen and non-executive directors in 1991–2;

  (2) what was the total cost of remuneration of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service authorities and trusts in each year since 1988–89;

  (3) what remuneration was actually paid to chairmen and non-executive directors in 1991–92 by each regional health authority in England and Wales;

  (4) what remuneration was actually paid by each family health service authority in England to chairmen and non-executive directors in 1991–92;

  (5) if she will provide by district health authority in England details of remuneration paid to chairmen and non-executive directors in 1991–92 detailing (a) fees, (b) other emoluments, (c) pensions and (d) the total.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information from the 1991–92 annual accounts of health authorities, NHS trusts and family health services authorities in England will be available later in the year. Figures which are separately identifiable in the formats of the annual accounts for the earlier years are shown in the table. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  £000 (cash)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Health authorities

  Chairmen's remuneration

  2,753

  2,832

  4,875

  Family health services authorities

  Chairmen's remuneration

  430

  450

  1,003

  Members' remuneration

  —

  —

  2,234

  Notes:

  1. The figures for health authorities relate to regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. Arrangements to remunerate—essentially to compensate—members of family health services authorities—formerly family practitioner committees—for their time spent on FHSA business were introduced only during 1990–91.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide, by individual health authority in England, details of the increases in management and administrative expenditure together with the variations in in-patients, out-patients, day patients and accident and emergency patients treated since 1 April 1989 and the percentage variations thereof.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information from the annual accounts of health authorities and the relevant statistics for 1991–92 730
  will be available later in the year. This will then enable comparisons to be drawn with the expenditure and activity data held centrally for 1989–90.

  Henderson Hospital, Sutton
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with Wandsworth council social services on the possible effects on that Department of the threatened closure of the Henderson hospital, Sutton, Surrey; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have had no such discussions.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 80, if she will provide the regional breakdown of figures for (a) the incidence of and (b) mortality as a result of non-melanotic and malignant melanoma; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her policy in respect of the supply to hospitals of plasma products produced from plasma unscreened for hepatitis C at the individual donor level after 1 January 1993;

  (2) whether plasma products by Bio Products Laboratory conform to the committee on proprietary medicinal products' requirements in terms of source material having been fully screened for hepatitis C at the donor level.

  Mr. Sackville
  Plasma products supplied in this country will meet the requirements of the UK licensing authority and of the EC in relation to screening for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the Bio Products Laboratory is bound by commercial criteria in its policy on pricing products; and whether it is required to provide a commercial return on its activities.

  Mr. Sackville
  Our intention is that the Bio Products Laboratory should compete fairly in terms of the service, quality and price of its blood products within the Government's policy that this country should be self-sufficient in blood products derived from plasma donated by our voluntary unpaid donors. The Central Blood Laboratories Authority, which is responsible for the Bio Products Laboratory, accounts for its performance and publishes an annual report and financial statement.

  Research Units
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her reply of 3 July,Official Report, columns 743–44, what is the status of the report on the review of research units; who is being consulted; what is the closing date for any comments; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am considering this report and shall make an announcement shortly.

  Ambulance Responses, Northumbria
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the emergency response times for the Northumbria ambulance authority for each year since 1988 showing the percentage answered within eight minutes and within 25 minutes.

  Total emergency calls1

  Response within eight minutes2

  Response within 14 minutes

  number

  number

  percent

  number

  percent

  1988–89

  61,559

  35,655

  57·9

  59,650

  96·9

  1989–903

  37,355

  19,649

  52·6

  35,637

  95·4

  1990–91

  67,309

  35,674

  53·0

  61,588

  91·5

  1991–924

  66,098

  38,998

  59·0

  64,115

  97·0

  1 Figures for 1991–92 are based on emergency patient journeys.

  2 Figures prior to 1991–92 are based on response within seven minutes.

  3 As a result of industrial action in this period, a complete year's return could not be provided. The figure shown represents approximately half the calls received.

  4 Figures for 1991–92 are provisional.

  Original Pack Dispensing
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the consultation document on original pack dispensing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 13 July at column 518.

  Pensioners (Spain)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from groups representing British pensioners resident in Spain; what reply she has given; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have recently received a copy of the right hon. Member's letter of 22 October to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. We shall be responding as soon as possible to the points raised for which this Department has responsibility.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing, for men aged 65 years and over and women aged 60 years and over, the number of deaths from hypothermia in each region for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is in the table.

  Number of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate for men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over by Regional Health Authority of usual residence for the years 1987 to 1991

  Regional Health Authority

  Men aged 65 years and over

  Women aged 60 years and over

  1987

  Northern

  11

  22

  Yorkshire

  15

  19

  Trent

  14

  25

  East Anglian

  4

  14

  North West Thames

  13

  18

  North East Thames

  11

  31

  South East Thames

  8

  33

  South West Thames

  8

  12

  Wessex

  10

  11

  Oxford

  8

  25

  732
  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not collected in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Regional Health Authority

  Men aged 65 years and over

  Women aged 60 years and over

  South Western

  9

  18

  West Midlands

  11

  23

  Mersey

  4

  12

  North Western

  5

  25

  Wales

  10

  28

  1988

  Northern

  6

  12

  Yorkshire

  8

  24

  Trent

  8

  20

  East Anglian

  5

  14

  North West Thames

  8

  15

  North East Thames

  17

  16

  South East Thames

  10

  18

  South West Thames

  4

  14

  Wessex

  7

  9

  Oxford

  7

  11

  South Western

  16

  20

  West Midlands

  11

  22

  Mersey

  4

  10

  North Western

  8

  16

  Wales

  10

  16

  1989

  Northern

  4

  8

  Yorkshire

  3

  20

  Trent

  11

  16

  East Anglian

  5

  7

  North West Thames

  4

  14

  North East Thames

  11

  25

  South East Thames

  13

  18

  South West Thames

  6

  19

  Wessex

  5

  12

  Oxford

  9

  10

  South Western

  7

  20

  West Midlands

  11

  14

  Mersey

  2

  10

  North Western

  7

  14

  Wales

  6

  13

  1990

  Northern

  3

  12

  Yorkshire

  14

  21

  Trent

  12

  14

  East Anglian

  4

  9

  North West Thames

  7

  18

  North East Thames

  8

  18

  South East Thames

  10

  14

  South West Thames

  6

  9

  Wessex

  9

  11

  Oxford

  5

  6

  South Western

  5

  17

  West Midlands

  11

  25

  733

  Regional Health Authority

  Men aged 65 years and over

  Women aged 60 years and over

  Mersey

  1

  9

  North Western

  10

  10

  Wales

  6

  15

  1991

  Northern

  7

  20

  Yorkshire

  7

  18

  Trent

  12

  26

  East Anglian

  13

  13

  North West Thames

  12

  21

  North East Thames

  10

  20

  South East Thames

  13

  22

  South West Thames

  5

  24

  Wessex

  2

  21

  Oxford

  6

  16

  South Western

  19

  21

  West Midlands

  23

  37

  Mersey

  2

  10

  North Western

  7

  14

  Wales

  7

  23

  Mid-year population estimates

  (thousands)

  Males aged 65 +

  Females aged 60+

  Year

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  11991

  1987

  1988

  1989

  11990

  1991

  England and Wales

  3,132·8

  3,167·6

  3,203·3

  3,228·8

  3,271·1

  6,116·0

  6,119·7

  6,129·1

  6,127·2

  6,164·1

  Regional health authorities—

  Northern

  186·7

  188·9

  191·3

  192·8

  197·9

  374·0

  374·2

  375·0

  374·8

  381·4

  Yorkshire

  221·0

  223·5

  226·0

  227·5

  232·6

  439·9

  440·1

  441·2

  440·6

  445·3

  Trent

  290·0

  293·7

  297·4

  299·8

  311·7

  546·9

  548·8

  551·4

  552·8

  564·1

  East Anglian

  138·2

  140·8

  143·2

  145·2

  147·9

  247·8

  251·0

  253·7

  256·0

  258·5

  North West Thames

  199·7

  200·4

  202·2

  203·7

  199·2

  383·4

  380·9

  380·1

  378·9

  374·3

  North East Thames

  229·2

  230·4

  231·7

  233·3

  223·6

  446·0

  442·9

  440·3

  438·6

  421·3

  South East Thames

  244·1

  245·3

  246·7

  247·2

  245·4

  486·1

  483·5

  481·4

  478·5

  472·4

  South West Thames

  193·9

  195·0

  196·3

  197·5

  194·3

  388·4

  386·2

  384·9

  383·2

  379·1

  Wessex

  198·6

  201·7

  204·1

  205·9

  212·0

  378·6

  381·5

  383·5

  384·9

  390·7

  Oxford

  133·5

  136·4

  139·2

  141·9

  138·1

  247·8

  250·8

  253·6

  256·0

  253·6

  South Western

  230·9

  233·8

  236·9

  238·4

  246·0

  438·9

  441·6

  444·0

  444·9

  453·5

  West Midlands

  306·5

  311·6

  316·1

  319·5

  328·3

  591·1

  593·3

  595·7

  597·3

  613·1

  Mersey

  139·2

  140·7

  142·4

  143·4

  146·6

  289·3

  289·1

  289·1

  288·2

  294·0

  North Western

  237·5

  238·8

  240·0

  240·6

  248·0

  492·5

  489·0

  486·7

  483·6

  487·8

  Wales

  183·8

  186·6

  189·8

  192·0

  199·4

  365·2

  366·8

  368·3

  368·8

  375·3

  1 The estimates for 1991 have been provisionally rebased using early 1991 census results. Those for 1987–90 are based upon 1981 census data, with allowance for subsequent births, deaths, and migration. They are not consistent with the 1991 estimates, and will be revised next year after final rebased 1991 estimates have been prepared using more complete 1991 census information.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 November,Official Report, column 566, on NHS redundancies, if she will list such figures as are available.

  Reason for Redundancy

  Region

  1989–90

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  Northern

  33

  —

  41

  3

  5

  82

  Yorkshire

  38

  —

  139

  1

  1

  184

  Trent

  6

  —

  167

  3

  3

  179

  E Anglia

  43

  —

  40

  —

  2

  85

  NW Thames

  63

  —

  154

  —

  7

  224

  NE Thames

  72

  —

  66

  2

  10

  150

  SE Thames

  6

  —

  92

  —

  8

  106

  SW Thames

  43

  —

  10

  1

  5

  59

  Wessex

  20

  —

  75

  1

  2

  98

  Oxford

  15

  —

  39

  —

  5

  59

  South Western

  6

  1

  132

  1

  6

  146

  West Mids

  14

  —

  75

  1

  4

  94

  Mersey

  63

  —

  86

  1

  6

  156

  Hospitals (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those hospitals in England with 100 or more acute beds that do not have a specialist full-time accident and emergency consultant.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available centrally.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the numbers of men aged 65 years and over and women aged 60 years and over in each region for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The data available relate to those redundancies where a benefit is immediately payable under the National Health Service (Compensation for Premature Retirement) Regulations 1981. The table gives numbers by region and by reason for each of the financial years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92.
  735

  Region

  1989–90

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  North Western

  176

  —

  75

  4

  3

  258

  Wales

  30

  —

  29

  6

  4

  69

  Special Hospitals

  33

  —

  17

  —

  4

  54

  Trusts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  Region

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  Northern

  47

  —

  58

  4

  6

  115

  Yorkshire

  18

  —

  144

  3

  7

  172

  Trent

  9

  —

  152

  2

  3

  166

  East Anglia

  21

  —

  22

  2

  —

  45

  North West Thames

  37

  —

  113

  —

  4

  154

  North East Thames

  32

  —

  155

  2

  4

  193

  South East Thames

  4

  —

  89

  2

  4

  99

  South West Thames

  4

  —

  97

  1

  2

  104

  Wessex

  21

  —

  129

  2

  4

  156

  Oxford

  —

  —

  23

  1

  3

  27

  South Western

  2

  —

  89

  1

  1

  93

  West Midlands

  15

  1

  81

  —

  2

  99

  Mersey

  12

  —

  81

  —

  1

  94

  North Western

  137

  —

  70

  4

  3

  214

  Wales

  17

  —

  34

  4

  —

  55

  Special Hospitals

  —

  —

  47

  —

  1

  48

  Trusts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  Region

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Total

  Northern

  28

  —

  61

  11

  4

  104

  Yorkshire

  21

  —

  215

  13

  —

  249

  Trent

  —

  —

  106

  11

  —

  117

  East Anglia

  1

  —

  56

  6

  2

  65

  North West Thames

  30

  —

  169

  11

  3

  213

  North East Thames

  48

  1

  162

  9

  6

  226

  South East Thames

  42

  —

  197

  10

  1

  250

  South West Thames

  34

  —

  87

  10

  1

  132

  Wessex

  —

  —

  57

  11

  3

  71

  Oxford

  23

  —

  60

  16

  3

  102

  South Western

  2

  —

  143

  15

  2

  162

  West Midlands

  25

  2

  254

  8

  —

  289

  Mersey

  10

  —

  117

  5

  1

  133

  North Western

  4

  4

  57

  10

  2

  77

  Wales

  107

  —

  151

  9

  2

  269

  Special hospitals

  1

  —

  43

  1

  4

  49

  Trusts

  68

  —

  233

  3

  4

  308

  1 Competitive tendering.

  2 Patients first. (Voluntary redundancy within the General Whitley Council 1982 arrangements.)

  3 Redundancy. (Due to closure of place of employment.)

  4 Interest of efficiency of service.

  5 Achieving a balance. (Replacement of Senior Consultants posts.)

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her best estimates of the proportion of NHS staff who receive annual service pay increments; what was the cost of such increments in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what is the projected cost in 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Arts for Health
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 86, if she will provide details of Government funding for the British Health Care Arts
  736
  Centre; and if she will now make it her policy to provide funding by her Department for Arts for Health in recognition of its advisory work on a national scale.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no knowledge of the funding arrangements for the British Health Care Arts Centre. The Department's policy on the arts is as contained the reply I gave the right hon. Member on 19 October, at column 86.

  NHS Estates, an agency of the Department, commissioned advice, on a fee-paying basis, from the British Health Care Arts Centre and others during the preparation of the guidance referred to in my earlier reply.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the Reed report on mentally disordered offenders; and if she will make a statement.
  737
  Mr. Yeo
  Soon.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetic Resources
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that intellectual property rights should not be extended to genetic resources except in accordance with the international undertaking on plant genetic resources.

  Mr. Curry
  It is already the Department's policy to oppose the extension of intellectual property rights to plant genetic resources.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is currently being undertaken by his Department to persuade other countries to join(a) the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and (b) the international undertaking on plant genetic resources.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government continue to argue for increased international collaboration on the conservation of plant genetic resources, in the context of the Food and Agriculture Organisation's commission and international undertaking and in other international forums.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to encourage the adoption of formal national plant genetic resources programmes throughout the world.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government, through the Overseas Development Administration, are a major funder of the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources and supports the international centres in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The United Kingdom is also active in the European co-operative programme on crop genetic resources and we shall continue to participate in international efforts to establish networks of ex-situ plant genetic resource collections.

  Mink
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to lay the next Mink (Keeping) Order following the expiry of the existing Order.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink Keeping Order 1992 has been laid before Parliament today.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the value of reduction and percentage reduction of agricultural output in each EC country and overall based on constant yields and prices resulting from the MacSharry proposals for CAP reform.

  Mr. Curry
  The package of reform measures, based on the MacSharry proposals and agreed by Ministers in May, is expected to result in a reduction in agricultural output in the EC. Precise estimates of the impact will not be possible until the detailed implementation procedures have been finalised and will in any case depend on how individual farmers react in the light of changes in the 738
  economic environment. The Commission is to bring forward a paper dealing with the compatibility between CAP reform and the GATT outline agreement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kenya
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress toward free and fair elections in Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We warmly welcome the Kenya Government's commitment to the holding of free and fair elections, as we do their decision to invite both international and domestic observers.

  United States (Trade)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times he and his Ministers have spoken to the United States Government on trade matters in the past six months.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in regular touch with the United States Government in trade matters. The frequency of these contacts has increased during the British presidency of the EC, particularly in the context of the GATT Uruguay round negotiations, to reinforce the efforts of the European Commission.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the prospects for the development of democracy in Hong Kong in the light of the Governor's recent proposals.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Governor's proposals respond to a widespread wish in Hong Kong to sec a broadening of democracy. They have been widely and warmly welcomed. We support them as the best way forward for Hong Kong. It will be for the Legislative Council to form a view on them early next year.

  EC (Enlargement)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the negotiations to enlarge the EC to include members of EFTA.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The UK Presidency intends to report to the Edinburgh European Council on the completion of the Community's preparatory work for the opening of accession negotiations with EFTA applicants. It will be for Heads of Government to decide there how to proceed with enlargement.

  South Africa
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with Commonwealth and EC colleagues about assisting in meeting the problems of post-apartheid South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in touch with our EC partners and other members of the Commonwealth to
  739
  identify ways in which we can assist South Africa during and following the transition to non-racial democracy. Discussions take place bilaterally and in a variety of fora, for example within European political co-operation, through the offices of the secretary-general and at periodic meetings of Commonwealth officials.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on constitutional reform in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The hon. Member will recall that my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey visited South Africa in September. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President de Klerk on 14 November in London.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had in the Council of Ministers about the situation of the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had in the EC Council of Ministers about the situation of the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation in Bosnia has been discussed at every recent meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers, most recently in Brussels on 9 November and with W EU partners in Rome on 20 November. There are also regular discussions between officials of European Community governments.

  President-elect Clinton
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to advise President-elect Clinton of terrorist threats in the United Kingdom and the impact of electoral statements on them.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our ambassador in Washington and his staff are in touch with the president-elect's foreign policy advisers about a range of matters of mutual interest, including security issues.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from other EC countries on the progress of Britain's ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty in all member states was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 9 November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs explained that the Government are committed to ratifying the treaty, and will make a start on the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill before the Edinburgh European Council.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to inform the United Kingdom public about the treaty of Maastricht and the single market in the EC.
  740
  Mr. Garet-Jones
  The Government have published the text of the treaty, two memoranda to Parliament and, on 10 November, a short booklet on the Community and the Maastricht treaty, including a section on the advantages of the single market. This is being distributed free on request. A further memorandum explaining the main elements in the treaty will be available to Parliament before the Committee stage starts.

  British Tourists
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to improve information services for British tourists planning visits to potentially dangerous foreign destinations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Travel advice, issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in consultation with overseas posts, is kept under constant review both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  It is disseminated quickly throughout the travel industry (and thus to the general public) by electronic information systems, and a selection of notices is available on BBC (Ceefax). Advice is also offered promptly in response to individual enquiries.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made towards ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Five member states have already ratified the Maastricht treaty: Luxembourg, France, Italy, Ireland and Greece. Others are in the process of ratification. Denmark will hold a second referendum next year, provided the member states can agree a satisfactory means of addressing Danish concerns. The Government will begin the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill before the Edinburgh European Council.

  European Summit (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the main subjects under discussion at the European summit in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The main items under discussion are likely to include the single market, ratification of the Maastricht treaty, subsidiarity, and openness, future financing, the size of the European Parliament, enlargement, the Community's relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and the GATT negotiations.

  EC and ASEAN Countries
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the prospects for developing relations between the European Community and the Association of South East Asian Nations countries.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The ASEAN countries are of growing importance to the Community, both in terms of regional stability and trade. We have devoted considerable attention to them during the United Kingdom Presidency; My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has personally attended two
  741
  ministerial meetings with ASEAN in Manila. The outcome of the EC/ASEAN ministerial meeting last month will boost co-operation in a range of fields, including trade, environmental protection, technical co-operation and human rights.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The House will know that the United Kingdom assumed the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe following the ministerial meeting on November in Strasbourg.

  During the six months of our chairmanship, we intend to give priority to the programmes for assistance to the new democracies of eastern Europe, and to the reform of the human rights machinery. We shall also encourage an objective look at the operation of the Council in terms of its internal structures, its relationships with other organisations and its management procedures.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other foreign ministers regarding GATT; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had several such discussions, most recently at the Foreign Affairs Council on 9 November, when Ministers urged the Commission to work for agreement with the United States.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with other member states of the Western European Union the contributions to the WEU Assembly of the former Minister for Defence Procurement on 5 December 1990.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Turkey
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister of Turkey to discuss the relationship between Turkey and the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Turkish Prime Minister paid a bilateral working visit to London on 23 November, accompanied by the Foreign Minister. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed with him the future development of the relationship between the Community and Turkey, as part of a discussion of a wide range of issues of mutual interest. We have no plans at present for further bilateral meetings with the Turkish Government.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit southern Africa to assess the current political situation.
  742
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey visited southern Africa in September. We have no immediate plans to make further visits to the region.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he has placed on the agenda of the next General Affairs meeting of the EC Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The major item on the agenda of 7 December Foreign Affairs Council will be preparation for the Edinburgh European Council (including enlargement and future financing). I expect that there will also be discussion of the Uruguay round, former Yugoslavia, migration and central and eastern Europe.

  Cyprus
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent round of talks on Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The set of ideas produced by the UN 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, and we are disappointed that some Turkish Cypriot positions are 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.

  Israel
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the peace process in Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The seventh round of bilateral negotations between Israel and Arab delegations resumed in Washington on 9 November after a break for the US elections. The atmosphere remains good. The negotiations are addressing substance. All sides are in our view seriously engaged. The incoming US Administration have declared their commitment to the process.

  Mr. Allan Nicklin
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest meeting in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi Arabian authorities to discuss the case of Mr. Allan Nicklin.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Riyadh discussed the Nicklin case with the Saudi Minister for Foreign Affairs on 15 November and again with a senior official of the Saudi Ministry of Foreign affairs on 22 November. The Ambassador expressed the deep concern of Her Majesty's Government at Mr. Nicklin's continuing distraint and asked that he be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia as soon as possible.

  Foreign Policy Achievements
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the foreign policy achievements of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community; and what further achievements he foresees before the year-end.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The London conference convened in August established a new framework for a negotiated settlement for the former Yugoslavia. We have ensured a substantial EC input to the middle east peace process and on humanitarian aid for Somalia. We have strengthened EC links with the countries of eastern and central Europe, notably through holding a successful EC summit in London last month with the leaders of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We have put EC relations with Japan and with the countries of the Association of South East Asian nations on a more constructive footing through the EC/Japan summit in London in July and the EC/ASEAN Ministerial meeting in Manila last month. We have put in place arrangements for an enhanced political dialogue between the EC and Turkey. On GATT, the Presidency's contacts with the negotiating parties served as a catalyst to obtain the recent EC/US deal on agriculture. We are now working for early agreement in Geneva on the Uruguay Round. Before the end of the year, the Presidency will hold EC summits with the United States and Canada which will enhance joint co-operation with both countries. We expect further to strengthen EC relations with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and to make further 744
  progress towards opening accession negotiations with applicant countries from the European Free Trade Association. At the Edinburgh European Council we also aim to bring to fruition other priorities for the United Kingdom Presidency which I outlined to the House on 24 November.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in Cambodia with the international peace accords and in particular with the cantonment and disarming of the troops of the various factions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There has been considerable progress towards the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict. Despite occasional ceasefire violations, peace has returned to most of Cambodia. More than 170,000 refugees formerly in the camps on the Thai-Cambodian border have returned to Cambodia without a single fatality as a result of mines; and preparations are well in hand for the holding of free and fair elections in April-May 1993, with more than 1·5 million Cambodians now registered.

  By the end of September some 50,000 soldiers of these factions had been contoned by UNTAC. We regret that so far the Kymer Rouge has not begun to meet its obligations under the Paris agreements to canton 70 per cent. of the forces.

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

Independent Living Fund
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
For how long they expect the Independent Living Fund to continue to operate fully and to continue to make new grants, and what will be the shape and scope of its successor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the trustees have decided that in order to complete action on all outstanding applications by 31st March, no further applications will be accepted on or after 26th November. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced yesterday, we have decided to legislate in the current year to establish a new fund to help the most severely disabled people of working age to live independently in the community.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome that constructive reply by the noble Lord, but it raises a number of questions of great importance to severely disabled people. Will the money for existing cases be increased, as required, in line with inflation and the changing circumstances of individuals? Will the budget for new cases be sufficient, together with the criteria, to enable all severely disabled people to live at home, if they wish to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome which he has given to my Answer. As regards existing cases, they will be protected. As from next year when the changes are introduced we shall be bringing in a new successor body to look after existing cases in receipt of funds from the ILF. As to whether they will be uprated, it will be for individuals to apply to the successor body to have increases made according to their needs, taking into account inflation or whether their circumstances have changed. Certainly, existing cases will be able to go back to the successor body if their circumstances have changed. As regards the budget for the new cases as from 1st April next year, I am afraid that the noble Lord will have to wait for further announcements.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me what will be the position of those who would have applied to the fund from tomorrow onwards but who will not be able to do so from next April? Will it be possible to put their names on a waiting list and will any payments be backdated to tomorrow?
Lord Henley: My Lords, payments will not be backdated, just as ILF payments have not been backdated in the past. Payments have been dealt with only as and when they have been dealt with by the ILF. Obviously those who miss out on the closure of new claims to the ILF as from midnight tonight will have to wait until 1st April next year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister please amplify yesterday's press statement which indicates that the ILF continues until April 1993; a second and successive fund takes over existing ILF claims from April 1993; and a third fund, in partnership with local authorities, cares for new clients after 1st April 1993? Will the Minister confirm that neither local authorities nor the ILF have been consulted about that new partnership? Finally, how much money do the Government expect to save by those arrangements? If it is very little, why do they not continue with the ILF, as clients and local authorities wish? If it is rather a lot, is it not coming from the most disabled members of our community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as regards funding, I have already answered that question in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Further announcements will be made. As regards the two successor funds coming in next year, they are not a matter for the ILF but obviously my right honourable friend the Minister for disabled people will wish to hear its views and the views of all other disabled people and those representing them as we develop our ideas on the two successor funds. As I said, the new funds will be working with the local authorities and local authorities will be expected to make a contribution by way of services equal to what would have been spent on either residential or nursing care. The new successor fund will provide cash in addition.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the essential element of the existing fund which makes it so successful is the cash payments made to individuals? Therefore, will he ensure that that is a central feature of any future funding?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is something that I have been trying to make quite clear. Any new successor body will be making cash payments over and above the services provided by local authorities. As I said earlier in answer to the noble Baroness, local authorities will be making available services equal to what would have been spent on residential or nursing care. The new fund will be making cash payments over and above that.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in view of the fact that the cost to the successor bodies of maintaining the administration necessary to care for the ILF's existing clients will be nearly as high as the cost now to the existing ILF, and given that it is estimated that the cost to local authorities of maintaining an administration to provide for clients will range from 20 per cent. to 100 per cent. above the costs of the ILF per client handled, how can the Minister justify not maintaining the ILF in existence if only on the basis of an economic use of public

953
resources? Will he not, even at this late stage, reconsider what seems to many of us to be a deplorable decision so that the ILF need not back off from the marvellous job that it has done so far?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and echo his sentiments regarding the marvellous job done by the ILF over the past four years. However I must stress that expenditure on the ILF has increased by leaps and bounds. In the first year it was approximately £1 million although there was provision for £5 million. Provision this year has increased to £97 million, which is a 20-fold increase. We said that we would give a guarantee to existing cases that their provision will be met. As regards provision for the other successor body and the new cases, I tried to make clear that further details will be announced in due course. Additional resources will be made available to local authorities in respect of the changes and further announcements regarding resources generally will be made shortly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I and perhaps others are concerned about two points. The first relates to the hiatus which will exist from tonight and next April when people who otherwise would apply and perhaps have been successful will not be able to apply and will therefore lose out. The second point concerns the administrative arrangements after 1st April. Have the local authorities been consulted about the arrangements? Have they agreed to them? Are they satisfied with them and will they be able to carry them out satisfactorily?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the ILF has 6,500 outstanding cases. It is important that it processes those before 1st April to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements when community care comes into effect next April. As I tried to stress, two new funds will be introduced from next April; one will deal with existing cases—those we are discussing—and one will deal with new cases thereafter. Of course we shall consult the local authority associations on the matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister clarify his reply to the question of my noble friend Lady Kinloss? He said that local authorities and the successor body to the Independent Living Fund will be helping people who are disabled or who become disabled. Local authorities are not allowed to give cash grants, as the Independent Living Fund, I understand, is. Will the successor body be able to give cash grants over and above the contribution of local authorities, particularly for people living in their own homes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made that perfectly clear. It will be for local authorities to make surplus provision up to the equivalent of nursing or residential care. It will be for the successor body to make cash grants over and above that.

Channel Rail Link: Freight Capacity
2.46 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the final alignment of the route for the high speed Channel railway link will enable it to carry freight.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Union Railways were asked to submit proposals that would enable freight to be carried, should demand warrant it.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with proper alignment it should be possible for the high speed railway line to carry freight on the basis of two tracks and passing loops? Will the Minister undertake that when the proposals on the line of route are advanced to the Government they will be immediately published to enable public discussion to take place on these difficult issues before final decisions are taken?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. The primary transport objective of the link is to provide a comfortable and fast passenger service. It will have freight capability. Passing loops could facilitate that dual capacity. The Government will make a decision as soon as possible after they have reviewed the Union Railways' report. An announcement is likely to be made in the spring of 1993.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what does that answer mean? I had understood that Stratford was supposed to be the link for the high speed trains and that there was to be an underground tunnel from Stratford direct to King's Cross. When are we to hear an announcement from the Government that all that, including the ability to carry freight, will happen?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the announcement will be available for public consultation and will be published in the spring. It will be accompanied by a report on the main options that were considered. The Government remain committed to King's Cross as the location for the terminus.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that while moving passengers from England to France through the tunnel is important, in the national interest the movement of freight is almost more important? The purpose of the tunnel should be to move freight from the manufacturing industries of this country into the markets of Europe. Can that not be facilitated by an improvement in the freight line?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord regarding the importance of taking freight to and from Europe. British Rail has stated that existing lines have sufficient capacity for freight traffic well into the next century, given the upgrading works in process. The rail link will remove passenger trains from existing lines and release further capacity for freight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether what he said applies equally to

955
continental freight? Do the Government support the idea that there should be harmonisation of railway lines to enable continental freight to be taken? If so, what will be the cost? What will be the effect of privatisation in that regard? Is it not wholly undesirable that continental freight should be carried, if no change emerges, almost exclusively on roads? Would that not be an immense disadvantage for the environment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, regarding the harmonisation of freight, it would be sensible to build to a large gauge as on the continent so as to keep all options open for the future. The Government have asked Union Railways to plan for UIC gauge B plus, which is sufficient at least to take what is called "unaccompanied piggy backs". The Government recognise the environmental advantages of carrying freight by rail wherever commercially possible.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether the Government have any plans to carry freight from the Channel Tunnel to Scotland?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have great plans to carry freight from the Channel Tunnel on the high speed link. Freight can then be transferred to the existing routes to Scotland.

Full-time Adult Higher Education
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to encourage adults to undertake full-time higher education.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there are a variety of measures in place which will provide pathways for adults into higher education. These include the Government's further education reforms, which have been given a firm stimulus in the public expenditure plans; the abolition of the binary line in higher education, which will help promote equal status between academic and vocational education; and the student support arrangements, including student loans, which make more resources available to most full-time students entering higher education.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the increase in the number of mature students is to be welcomed? Does she further agree that many more will be required, aiming at high qualifications, when the economy finally begins to improve? Is the noble Baroness also aware that the main obstacle to adults undertaking education is finance? The Minister did not really mention finance. I accept that the avenues to adult education have been increased, but does the noble Baroness agree that unless adequate grants are made for adults they will simply not undertake the courses?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for welcoming what is being done. Given the very
956
difficult times in which we find ourselves at present, nevertheless further education expenditure increased at more than twice the rate of inflation, as it did on higher education. That is both to recognise the point which the noble Lord made—that is, the extra numbers—and to make sure that finance keeps pace with those extra numbers. There are 25 per cent. more students in further education alone.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the great success now being revealed as regards the policy of helping to increase the numbers of mature students going into full-time education will not be at the expense of encouraging mature students to go into part-time higher education? Is it not the case that, as the economy picks up, it will be very important that people can contribute to the economy at work, contribute to their family budget, and at the same time engage in part-time higher education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The available statistics do not suggest that part-timers are deterred by a lack of funding. On the contrary, demand is very buoyant and many part-time students are also in employment. They can sometimes look for support from their employers. As colleges are freed from local authority control they are being much more imaginative in ways of helping people into part-time education and using it as a stepping-stone to full-time education.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in many places the number of students has fallen off considerably over the past few years? In particular, I have in mind Reading college where the number of students has fallen from a peak of 9,000 down to 6,000. Does the noble Baroness agree that undoubtedly that has something to do with, first, fewer employers being prepared to send students there and, secondly, to the sharp and stark increase in fees?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply do not know where the noble Lord gets his figures. There is a record number of young people and mature students in both further and higher education. I quote from a press release which was sent out from my department only yesterday. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
I have deliberately placed further education at the heart of the half-billion pound boost to education announced in the Autumn Statement.
Increased funding will raise the number of students in further education radically by a quarter of a million. Within two years we expect, for the first time in England alone, to have over one million people studying in further education.
"This will help lift us to the top of the international league table for 16 to 19 year olds staying on in education within the next three years".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, why are staff being made redundant at Reading?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many medical colleges are very glad to take on mature students and that in many cases they do extremely well? Is she further aware that many

957
medical schools discriminate against women and that mature women find it much more difficult than men to get places in medical schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if what I say has to be subject to any correction. My understanding is that the number of women entering medicine is past the 50 per cent. mark compared with the number of men. The point which the noble Lord makes may well be that mature women find it more difficult. I do not think that that is surprising because it is a very long and demanding course and that may present a particular difficulty. If there is anything else I can add on the subject I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness pay tribute to the new universities for their success in taking in adult students? For example, in the past few weeks I have conferred degrees on many adults, and not all in connection with their careers. In one or two cases the students have been in their 70s. I believe that this provision is very good and I hope that it will be encouraged.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very happy to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said. I too have recently been involved in a degree award ceremony. I hope the day will arrive when we stop calling them "new universities". They are universities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, taking her reprimand to heart, will my noble friend agree with me that the universities in the wider form are encouraging adult entrants who did not have the entrance qualifications that the universities demanded the first time around? Is she aware that in the universities where that is the policy the success rate of those students is very good? Does my noble friend further agree that that is particularly important in areas of deprivation, where it is quite clear from the exam result that youngsters are not being given the proper opportunity the first time round?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Considerable progress has been made by those universities in widening access into the world of higher education. I notice that my noble friend Lady Perry is not in her place. Certainly the work of the South-Bank University and its imaginative ways of producing access courses, which improve the qualifications of young and more mature students to come into the world of higher education, is very significant.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on this occasion the Minister may be surprised to hear that she and I are in complete agreement on the fact that there have been very substantial increases in the number of mature students, both full-time and part-time. However, is she aware that part-time mature students, however poor they are, are required to pay fees out of taxed income? Whereas it is true that there has been an increase in the numbers of such students, it may well be that this inequity is deterring other potential mature students from undertaking such courses.
958
Therefore, will the Minister consider discussing with her colleagues whether it would be right to allow such students to set the cost of their university tuition against tax?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I believe that the whole House will agree that this is not a political issue, but a situation which we all welcome. However, the noble Baroness will know that there is a price tag attached to her suggestion. The Government must do what governments have to do, which is to determine priorities. The important factor is that as many young people as possible who are qualified—and those who are not should be helped to become qualified—are able to take advantage of further and higher education. We are doing that. It is a matter of priorities. Clearly such students are not only at a disadvantage in terms of having to pay fees, but they are also not part of the student loan system. At the end of the day it is a matter of priorities.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, can my noble friend say how one judges maturity as regards a lady? I have always found it very difficult.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a scientific definition of maturity, but I am told that it is anybody over 21 years of age.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, from what the Minister has said in her replies, can I assume that the Government would welcome a big expansion in adult education? If that is so, does she agree that the best avenue, among the number of avenues which have been mentioned, is through the former polytechnics (which are now the universities) and for a number of reasons? Does she agree that not least among the reasons is that most adult students could reside at home when they are undertaking a course? The example given by my noble friend Lord Glenamara illustrates perfectly what can be done at the so-called "new universities".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we not only welcome the expansion but, as I think I have said, we have funded an expansion. We expect places to expand by over 25 per cent. in the further education sector. We know what the record is of the former polytechnics —now the new universities—and what they have done to increase expansion. I believe that we are doing everything that the noble Lord has mentioned.

DHA Mergers: Consultation
3 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Secretary of State for Health consults representative bodies when she considers an order to vary the area of a district health authority when there is no statutory duty for her to do so under the National Health Service Act 1977 as amended by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, because this is a matter of good practice.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that organisations which are consulted spend a great deal of time and go to a great deal of expense to produce a reply to the consultation paper, and that it is extremely disheartening for them to learn that they need not have bothered? The Minister will know the particular case that I am talking about: the amalgamation of Kidderminster with Bromsgrove and Redditch district health authorities. Papers for that amalgamation were signed several days before the consultation was complete. Is this not a pseudo-democratic function?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when she makes her decision on mergers, the Secretary of State has to take a number of factors into account: the improvement of services to patients, the efficiency of the organisation and better value for money. She also takes into account local views. On the specific case that has been raised, 34 organisations and individuals were formally consulted, including local authorities, local medical and nursing bodies, local Members of Parliament and the surrounding health authorities. Of these, 11 opposed and 23 did not oppose. We had inconclusive replies from others. But there was full consultation and people had a say in what was going on.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not somewhat unusual to criticise a Minister for consulting representative bodies? On the contrary, is not the Minister to be applauded for consulting these bodies, even though not statutorily so bound?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling that interests of economy rather than local needs have been taken into account in some of these mergers? Is she aware that there is great disquiet that local needs are not being met when such mergers take place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there have been 11 mergers since the 1990 Act and only one that I am aware of has caused great disturbance. It is perfectly proper and right that the Secretary of State should take into account the efficiency of an organisation, particularly in the health service, which consumes so much of taxpayers' money.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we debated this on 9th November she said:
"There is no statutory requirement to consult but a reasonable expectation that there should be consultation".—[Official Report, 9/11/92; col. 47.]
What machinery does her department have to ensure that "reasonable expectations" are met?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is through the review system operated by the management executive that regions and districts are accountable.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, with regard to the supplementary answer, is it not right to assume that the Secretary of State, being head of a large department, has a perfect right to consult local authorities about any objections to such matters in order to be quite sure that she has all the information necessary to be able to come to a proper decision?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that. Clearly, that is the case. Although there is no legal obligation, the Secretary of State ensures that regions do consult before mergers take place.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness does not seem to get my point. In the case of Kidderminster with Bromsgrove and Redditch, the decision had been made before all the consultation papers had been received. To say that only 11 were against the merger is not true. Only about five were for it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the decision was taken after consultation. The application for a merger was put out to consultation. Clearly, there has to be an application before a decision is made. That is the time to consult the public.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Unemployment
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to call attention to the case for a strategy to reduce unemployment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it gives me no pleasure to address this House once again on the subject of unemployment. We on this side of the House have always endeavoured to make sure that unemployment and its consequences have been brought to the attention of your Lordships, but we are now in a truly crisis situation.
We are all aware of the problems facing the coal industry. The issues have been debated in this House and the Government were defeated when it came to a vote here. The Government betrayed their insensitiv-ity by agreeing to the closure of 31 pits and the loss of a minimum of 30,000 jobs without apparently realising that so massive an attack upon a great industry, employing thousands of people either directly or indirectly, would result in a public outcry

961
which would include numbers of their own supporters. undancy notices despite the inquiry, and some pits are already closing.
There are still major problems arising from the policies that have been pursued in regard to energy by previous Conservative administrations, but the coal industry debacle simply adds to current and prospective miseries. The recession is now affecting everyone and all industries. One in 10 of the UK population is now without employment. Major industries are in crisis. The building industry is said to have lost 450,000 jobs in the past decade, and the Building Employers Confederation has been forecast-ing more job losses —perhaps as many as 50,000— despite the measures indicated in the Autumn Statement, to which I shall return later. The Engineering Employers Federation has predicted further job losses, in addition to the 110,000 lost this year.
Thousands of employees in banking and in insurance will be facing redundancies in the coming months. According to the press, 25,000 jobs are likely to go in banking. I can well remember when a job in banking meant, if not a job for life, at least reasonable security—but no longer. Exceptionally, adverse claims experience, plus the knock-on effects of recession, have had a disastrous effect upon sections of the insurance industry.
Ford and Lucas have both intimated that there will be widespread redundancies. Industries that were once great local institutions are now facing difficulties and sometimes closure.
What is happening in the aerospace industry (and in the defence industries generally) is of crucial importance. The unions with membership in these industries tell me that the situation is very serious. The defence industries, they say, are collapsing. Over 120,000 jobs have gone since June 1990.
But it is not only about jobs. Technology vital to the UK's manufacturing future is in danger of being lost. This is a very highly skilled workforce. An enormous amount of Ramp;D is tied up in the defence industries. Everyone welcomes the end of the cold war, and there was much talk at one time of a "peace dividend", but there has to be a diversification programme. The unions have called for the creation of a new defence diversification agency but, for this, government leadership and support are required and neither has been forthcoming so far.
During the past week we have had the shock announcement of possibly 5,000 jobs going in British Rail. I should have thought that both Underground and railway staff had been reduced to the point where they are scarcely visible—to the point where further cuts were neither conceivable nor desirable. But the Government seem intent upon their privatisation programme no matter what. There seems to have been a reprieve as far as the projected industrial dispute is concerned (and everybody must be grateful for that), but the problems have not disappeared.
The Government's privatisation policies in the Civil Service also are likely to result in more redundancies.
962
Again, that was an area in which a degree of security could once have been anticipated by the people working in it, but no longer.
In this recession, everyone is affected. It is hardly surprising that in this situation people who do have a little money are not spending it. Even those who still have jobs are frightened of losing them. We had a debate in this House recently about small businesses. Where are these small businesses to get their customers when those they once had are trying to survive on unemployment pay and there are no new customers in sight? Bankruptcies continue at an increasing rate, bringing tragedy to numbers of people who have invested their savings—and sometimes their redundancy pay—as well as their energy and enthusiasm in what they thought was an entrepreneu-rial culture. But they have not been able to cope with the recession. They have simply gone under.
I am sure that I do not need to tell the House that for most people unemployment causes total disrup tion of their lives and often brings ill health and the break-up of families. Encouraged into the housing market in the 1980s during the so-called boom years, many find themselves, if not repossessed—and that has happened to far too many people —saddled with what is euphemistically called "negative equity". They cannot afford to continue living in houses they bought during the credit boom and the houses are unsellable at the prices originally paid, so they cannot even trade down. All this is creating despair among people who would not normally have expected all this to happen to them. For the first time in their lives many are having to come to grips with the intricacies of the social security system and a desperately worsening life-style.
It is surely clear now that the so-called successes of previous Conservative administrations have been illusory. The target was low inflation at all costs—zero inflation eventually. Everything was to be left to "market forces"—there was to be no government intervention—and a far reaching privatisation programme was embarked upon, which is apparently still very much the objective. Perhaps the greatest folly of those years was the neglect of manufacturing industry. Without a strong manufacturing base recovery is bound to be slow; and if and when confidence does return there is the danger that imports will be sucked in with further damage to our balance of payments. We have now had the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, and although there are welcome signs that the Government are departing from some previous policies, it scarcely justifies, in my view, the praise heaped upon it by certain members of the party opposite. A certain Member in the other place may have described the Chancellor as "Franklin D. Lamont", but the measures enunciated scarcely amount to a New Deal.
So what do we think should now be done? Clearly, there are no easy, short-term solutions, but first let me say what I think should not be done. The Government still seem determined to make the poorest pay the price. While I was relieved that social security benefits have in the main escaped the axe this time, I am

963
appalled that the Government still seem to think that the creation of a low wage economy in the UK will somehow assist in ending unemployment.
The Government intend to abolish wages councils altogether. The councils have given at least some protection to poorly organised workers in a number of industries. Many of these workers are women from ethnic minorities who, without some kind of protection, will be totally vulnerable to exploitation. If all protection is removed from low paid workers, the rest of us will be subsidising exploitative employers through family credit and other social benefits. I fail to see why we should do that. It will not assist the unemployed or anyone else if the Government proceed with the creation of "sweatshop Britain".
Then, again, public sector employees are to have to take a wage cut, for this is what a ceiling of 1.5 per cent. means in real terms. Privatisation has meant that public sector employees no longer have the security that they once had and they remain poorly paid relative to the private sector. The Government may find that this policy is no more popular with the public than the Coal Board's attitude to the mine workers. The public sector includes people like nurses and fire fighters, who are generally highly regarded and certainly not overpaid.
The cut in interest rates is of course welcome, but it comes too late and in the opinion of many is insufficient to provide the stimulus so badly needed. One hopes that the capital projects envisaged will help the building industry, although the industry's leaders so far do not appear to think that what has been done is enough. In particular, there needs to be a Europe-wide initiative to invest in growth and to deal with unemployment. The unions and employers at European level have been co-operating to lobby for a change of policy to boost jobs and output. The UK should welcome Jacques Delors' plan for a major programme of infrastructure projects and one would hope that the UK presidency, which does not seem to have won many plaudits so far, would regard this as a worthwhile and important initiative. I shall listen with some interest to what the Minister has to say about that.
In the EC there is at least an acceptance of the fact that unions can play a positive role—hence the use of the term "social partners" to describe them. The UK Government, however, who must by now be the most anti-union government in Europe, still intend to proceed with another trade union Bill which is quite irrelevant to the UK's current economic needs and will be seen by the unions as yet another attempt to make their continued existence as difficult as possible. Support of the unions and their members is necessary if there are to be co-operation and consensus to pull us out of the recession and its attendant miseries. Co-operation is necessary in regard to a training programme, which everyone agrees is absolutely necessary for our future.
I should like to draw attention to the industrial strategy document issued this week by the Engineering Employers Federation. The EEF stresses the need to rebuild our manufacturing base in the way that I have already stressed. It says—and I agree—that the UK is
964
an industrial nation with an anti-industrial culture. It points out that the 1980s saw a vast expansion of banking and financial services, accompanied by a shrinkage in the UK manufacturing base. It says—and I absolutely agree—that the UK manufacturing sector is now too small. It urges the Government to adopt a comprehensive strategy for manufacturing industry, which includes extending capital allowances for plant and machinery permanently to 100 per cent., support for technological development and the establishment of interdepartmental task forces, including representatives from industry and financial institutions, to identify priority and long-term infrastructure projects.
The EEF has understood that there must be co-operation between the financial services sector and manufacturing industry, as happens in other countries normally regarded as having successful economies. It believes that a government initiative would help to bring that about. It may seem strange that I, as a trade union official, should come to the Dispatch Box to praise a document from the Engineering Employers Federation. However, I commend this document to the Government because it sets out many things which I believe are sensible and in everyone's interests.
I hope that the Government will consider the advice being offered. The situation is very serious. No one pretends, least of all those of us on this side of the House, that there are any quick-fix solutions. However, I wish that the Government and some of their supporters would not talk as though the recession were some kind of natural disaster for which they and their predecessors have no responsibility. In fact, what we are now witnessing is the result, as I said earlier, of previous mistaken, ideology-driven policies. Similar policies have been followed, admittedly, in other parts of the world, but they are increasingly seen as misguided. They have consisted of a belief in the supremacy of market forces, opposition to interven-tionist policies and neglect of manufacturing industry in favour of an expansion of financial services. It was never going to be possible to be prosperous on the basis of a service sector economy alone. That is now increasingly recognised.
We cannot go on as we are. I hope that the Government will now come to that conclusion and will embark upon an imaginative strategy designed to lift the UK out of the crisis and restore jobs and confidence. I do not have a great deal of hope that the present Government will take the appropriate steps, but it is in the interests of us all that an alternative strategy to the one followed for the past 12 years is adopted.
Finally, perhaps I may say how gratified I am to see that a large number of noble Lords have indicated their interest in this subject by putting down their names to speak in the debate. In particular, I look forward to listening to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has chosen an important topic for debate. I welcome the opportunity to outline the Government's strategy to reduce unemployment. First, I should like to reflect upon Britain's economic situation. That has a direct bearing on employment.
Our economy has been going through a difficult period. But this is not a localised phenomenon. No country has been immune from the effects of global economic problems. There are 17 million unemployed in the EC alone. The structure of employment is also changing. Just as there was a move from agriculture to production there is now a move from industry to services. Investment in machinery, computerisation, and robotisation have had a significant impact and improvements in productivity continue to be made. Those developments are wholly desirable. Growth in output and in jobs depends upon our success in competing with the world's best. At a time of recession, however, it is harder to accept the need for change. Change is always easier when the economy is growing and when new jobs are more readily available.
Nonetheless, change has to be accepted. Government's job is to help people make the transition from one industry to another, from one job to another, and from one set of skills to another. So the underlying theme of this Government's policies is to help individuals. That is what the Prime Minister has called the privatisation of choice. What does that mean in practice? It means removing burdens that stop people getting new jobs or that destroy existing jobs. The House is familiar with the reforms in industrial relations we have already made. The United Kingdom now loses fewer days in strikes than at any time since records were first kept in 1891.
We have given the trade unions back to their members. Women and young people are no longer prevented from working when and where they wish. And the House will shortly debate further deregula-tion of the labour market when the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill is put before it. What is more, allowing greater choices to individuals does work. For example, the UK and Denmark have the least restrictive employment legislation in the European Community. Noble Lords may laugh. But they also have the highest share of their population in employment. The proportion of women working in those two countries is particularly high. What is more, partly because there is a greater diversity of work allowed, the UK is the only EC country where the female unemployment rate is below that of men.
Britain's future as a successful trading nation lies in its ability to be competitive with the rest of the world. The single market, for example, gives Britain a home market of some 340 million people. That offers both a challenge and an opportunity. I believe that British industry will rise to that challenge.
There are many signs that give me encouragement for the future. Unit wage costs have moved much closer to those of our main competitors; and
966
manufacturing productivity is at a record high. Our interest rates are the lowest in the EC. We now have a highly competitive exchange rate. There is unmistakeable evidence of victory in the battle against inflation. This country's retail prices index inflation has been below the European Community average in each of the past 14 months, and the Government remain committed to matching the inflation perfor-mance of the best of our competitors. All that gives us a vital edge over our competitors. It will also help our domestic construction and manufacturing industries as well as exporters. It will help boost investment and confidence, and lead to more employment.
There are those who doubt industry's ability to grasp those opportunities. They are wrong. Inward investment in the car industry, for example, has helped to increase car production by over 50 per cent. in the past decade. The chemical sector grew by 3.5 per cent. per year over the decade, 1980 to 1990. As those examples show, British firms can, and do, take on the best competition in the world, and beat it.
The Department of Employment has a vital role to play in carrying forward the Government's economic strategy. That we do by helping to ensure a skilled and productive workforce; by developing a more flexible and competitive labour market; and by making sure that unemployed people have the help that they need to find jobs. The present situation is one of high unemployment and very tight public expenditure constraints. So it is more important than ever that we obtain the best possible value for money from our programmes to help unemployed people. An extensive package of new measures has recently been announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am sure that those will be widely welcomed. They build on our existing successful programmes while widening the range of help available. Priority will be given to the long-term unemployed and to those particularly disadvantaged in the labour market. Those are the groups most in danger of being marginalised and who can benefit most from the help available. Next year we expect there to be nearly 1.5 million opportunities in all. That is a total of around 500,000 more than this year.
Those policies will bear fruit. The underlying strengths of British industry remain, despite recession. As the policies announced by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement are put into effect, the recovery will become firmly established and the present unemployment pattern will revert to that of the decade to 1989 when employment in Britain grew faster than in any other major country.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I too should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for the way in which she introduced the Motion. She could hardly have done so at a more opportune time. We look forward also to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
A strategy to reduce unemployment cannot be divorced from an overall economic and industrial strategy, and I shall approach the subject accordingly.

967
We cannot escape from asking the three questions posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in the debate on measures needed for sustainable economic recovery that he initiated earlier this month. He asked:
"What about the new emphasis on growth? … Is it to be given a new priority over inflation? If so, how is that to be achieved?"—[Official Report, 4/11/92; col. 1432.]
My answer must remain the one I have sought consistently to argue in the House over the past 15 or 20 years; namely, that inflation is still public enemy number one. That means that in supporting, and congratulating, the Government on their conversion to the need for additional borrowing in the short term to extricate us from the current recession and to safeguard our manufacturing base, I accept also that when the upturn comes countervailing measures may have to be taken if that proves necessary to balance the nation's books.
As to how prices are to be kept stable in the longer term, I notice that in a recent speech the Governor of the Bank of England argued that the best way of ensuring that inflation did not retard long-term growth would be to establish a national consensus requiring the Government to keep the annual rate of inflation at 2 per cent. or less. The Governor said that otherwise there would always be some who would argue that whatever the present rate of inflation, a bit more would do no harm. I find that proposition persuasive.
Only a few weeks ago, following the coal mines debacle, I thought that perhaps in the field of industrial relations at least the Government might be thinking on the same consensual lines. It was reported that the introduction of yet more legislation to reform trade unions—and I should remind your Lordships that we from these Benches supported much of the earlier legislation—was to be delayed.
At about the same time, it transpired that in contrast with the earlier decision to abolish NEDO —the National Economic Development Office—the Chancellor was to listen to the views of the TUC on how economic recovery might be stimulated. I began to think that in our present national predicament the Government, instead of antagonising the trade unions still further, might actually be considering how they could encourage management and employees to engage in constructive co-operation. In that way they could enhance employee involvement—in my view, an essential element of any employment strategy.
In his speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last week, the Prime Minister stressed the need for the partnership between government and industry. He called it,
"a true partnership for prosperity".
I have to ask whether he envisages partnership as a relationship only with employers, from which employees and their representatives are excluded. To widen that concept of partnership need not involve a return to outdated notions of corporatism. Rather, it would demonstrate a willingness before taking decisions to take account of the views of all those affected by the decisions.
So far I have talked in the most general terms. As to specific measures that might be taken to alleviate
968
unemployment, at the CBI's annual conference in Harrogate the other day I was pleased to hear the chairman of its economic committee advocating measures very similar to those suggested by my party and now accepted, at least in part, by the Government. I am here thinking of much needed short-term expenditure on such items as transport, housing, education and training. However, I do not believe that the Government's measures are as far reaching as they may appear at first sight. For example, it has been decided to allow local authorities to increase their capital expenditure on the basis of future sales of capital. But capital projects cannot be started until sales have been carried out. Those sales will have to be made at a time when the market and the prices that can be obtained in it are at their lowest.
Much the same can be said about projected expenditure on transport. Next year, that on roads allows only for the protection of expenditure already planned. An extra £130 million is to be made available to British Rail and the Jubilee Line is to be built. But this appears to be at the expense of development work on London Underground. Now we hear of 5,000 BR job losses and the prospective closure of parts of the system because of inadequate provision for mainte-nance. The basic question I have to ask, therefore, is whether what purports to be an increase in expenditure on the infrastructure is in reality no more than cosmetic.
As regards training, I am glad to see that TECs are to have more flexibility to decide how best to use their resources in line with local labour needs. I am also relieved to learn that plans for the Department of Employment provide for real growth of 1 per cent. over the planned level in 1992–93. But I am unclear as to how much of the total expenditure planned for the department will be available specifically for training. I should be grateful if, when he replies to the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will say whether I am right in thinking that the training budget for 1993–94 is to be held at £2.8 billion. In real terms, that surely represents a cut of 3 per cent.
In her recent interview with The Times, the Secretary of State acknowledged that the recession has led to a shortage of places in the youth training scheme and, in her own words, that "a lot of work" has to be done to help those involved. I should stress here that I am genuinely seeking enlightenment rather than trying to score party points. I shall welcome any further information that the Minister can give.
What else can the Government do, in the face of the present torrent of redundancies, to maintain employment in manufacturing industry? The increase in capital allowances for machinery, plant and buildings, announced in the Autumn Statement, is most welcome. But I could find nothing in the public expenditure figures directed specifically towards helping the small businesses which were the subject of a debate in this House two weeks ago. I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who rightly places great emphasis on the need to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, has any observations to make on this point.

969
I cannot sit down without applauding the deal on agriculture reached last week between the European Community and the United States. It is fervently to be hoped that before long there will be a comprehensive GATT agreement. More than anything else, that would improve employment prospects and help our exporters.
There is one further matter relating to the question of a long-term strategy to reduce unemployment to which I should like to refer. It could hardly be more fundamental. It is the problem of whether, and if so how, with the relentless advance of new technology, it will be possible to offer work to anything like the number of people who will be seeking it, or indeed who are now in employment. I have no answer to that basic question to put forward today, except to say that in my view it adds considerable weight to the need somehow to establish a national consensus in these matters if social stability is to be maintained in our country.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, the House will not want me to comment on matters political or economic or to struggle with statistics. However, I am grateful for the courtesy of noble Lords in calling me at this early moment in the debate because I believe that there are issues which the House would be grateful if I were to articulate and which underlie everything of which we speak. There are two issues, both relating to human dignity.
In this country, in the culture in which we live, the second question that a man or woman is asked after, "What is your name?", is, "What is it that you do?" The work which occupies our time is not simply, as we all know, a matter of earning ourselves our daily living. It is a matter of identifying us in relation to those around us and also to a marked degree in our relationship to ourselves. It is there that we frequently find our neighbours and our friends; it is there that we find a structure to our day. It is there that many of us find the ability to be stretched against the challenges with which our work presents us; and it is there that we find ourselves.
When a man or woman finds themselves without work—and that happens additionally sometimes when a man or woman retires—they are frequently devastated, lost, covered with a sense of guilt (unjustified guilt), shame (unjustified shame), anger, sadness and what I can only describe as a cycle of sadness. As we all know, this washes off on the family. There is nothing new about this. That is the way things have been for the whole of time. Many years ago Archbishop Temple, who was a notable supporter of the underprivileged in this country, spoke in this noble House of the unmitigated evil of long-term unemployment. In 1982 the Economic Intelligence Unit spoke of character changes that were noted in those who had been studied which manifested themselves within three months of those people finding themselves unemployed.
Current figures which are being produced by Relate, for example, refer to a 15 per cent. increase
970
year by year over the past five years of those who seek counselling. I do not wish to oversimplify the correlation between the one issue and the other but clearly there is a connection. Most of all, we all know from our own experience what the effects of unemployment and redundancy are.
The churches, I would suggest, are in one of the strongest positions of all sections of society to be able to observe this matter most accurately, not simply in terms of noting that there are fewer faces present at the workplace, nor simply in terms of seeing more people present in benefit queues, but in terms of observing people's domestic and home lives and the effects of unemployment on people in their own homes with their own families. The churches already perform stalwart work in encouraging individuals and groups who find themselves in this situation. The churches have the ability and the perception to observe this situation clearly and it is no surprise to me that the churches' action with the unemployed—I stress with the unemployed and not for the unemployed; there is a subtle but very significant distinction there—has led them this week to initiate a call for a major commission to consider matters of unemployment.
I believe that the churches foresee the phenomenon that my noble friend referred to a moment ago which I believe is known as structured unemployment. Structured unemployment means that even as the recession lifts some jobs will no longer be available as technology advances. There is a need for a strategy to deal with that position. I hope that if a plan for a strategy is developed, the factor I have just referred to will also be borne in mind. I believe that the churches' action with the unemployed and their call for a commission are not very distinct from the terms of the Motion of the noble Baroness.
That leads me to my next point. The churches are stressing that if any study of this issue is to be carried out and any realistic, comprehensive and successful action is to be undertaken, it needs to be undertaken by people representing as broad a base as possible. Action should not be undertaken simply by government, although clearly government have their place, but by as many representatives coming from as broad a base of the community as is possible. That matter concerns the dignity of man. My first point is that human dignity and human worth are at stake in this matter and my second point is that our human dignity relates not just to ourselves as individuals but to ourselves as members of society. One of the great traditions of this noble House and another place is that we belong to each other. We are a community committed to one another. When a situation arises where one section of the community can allow itself to benefit at the cost of another section of the community, such a situation is below the standards and below the ideals of our nation. I believe and would claim that that issue is fundamental to our nature as human beings.
Therefore I would urge that any strategy that is developed is developed upon that basis, with representatives coming from as broad a base as possible and representing all sections of the community who are affected by unemployment. One

971
could cite many examples of that but I have no wish to do so. They will no doubt be mentioned later in the course of this debate. However, I claim that one of the sectors in society which may have a voice to express which may be worth hearing and which may have a contribution to make—indeed, it has already made a contribution—is the churches themselves.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, my first words to your Lordships' House today are words of sincere thanks and gratitude for a very warm and kind welcome and for all the help I have received since my introduction to your Lordships' House some five weeks ago. I have known great friendship from all parts of the House and I am very grateful for that. I also wish to thank the staff and the Officers of the House who have been most helpful in smoothing my path.
I start with a story of a theatrical friend of mine who witnessed my introduction. When I asked him what he thought of it his answer was most revealing. He said, "The set was absolutely immaculate. The script was word perfect but the players looked badly under-rehearsed". Under-rehearsed I may be in introductions to your Lordships' House but I am certainly not under-rehearsed on the question of unemployment.
I can remember vividly in 1972 when, in my early days as a Member of another place, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, in his role then as Secretary of State for Employment was very distressed on the day on which unemployment breached 1 million in this country for the first time since the early 1930s. So accepting have we become of unemployment that there are many who say, "Oh for a return to those days of only 1 million". I hope in all sincerity that I never fall into that trap. My aim in life has always been that there should be work for all. I hope that will be the aim of each and every one of us. The temptation in a debate such as this is to span over almost every aspect of unemployment. Your Lordships will be most relieved to know that I do not intend to do so because I wish to concentrate my remarks on one specific issue.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for announcing to the House from the Government Dispatch Box that it is part of the Government's strategy to prevent the destruction of existing jobs. It is to that aspect that I wish to relate my remarks today. Over the past 15 years my country, Scotland, has seen some major closures beginning with the car plant at Linwood, the British Leyland truck and tractor division at Bathgate, followed quickly by the closure of the pulp mill at Corpach and the aluminium smelter at Invergordon, and followed recently by the tragic closure of Ravenscraig steelworks in Lanarkshire. Tragically, we have only one deep mine left in the whole of the Scottish coalfield.
All of those closures have one common factor; they all began with doubts being expressed about the future viability of the particular plant. Those doubts were followed by the usual three or four month period—in the case of Ravenscraig it was over a year—of rumour
972
and counter rumour. There then followed the closure announcements. I paint that picture to your Lordships to illustrate my deep concern about the issue I wish to address for a few brief moments today; namely, the future of Rosyth dockyard.
Here again we have heard doubts expressed about the future viability of Rosyth dockyard. We have seen the rumour factory operate almost night and day as to whether or not Rosyth dockyard has a future. Let me say at once to your Lordships that it is no part of my argument, or that of the workforce at Rosyth dockyard, that the dockyard at Devonport should be closed. On the contrary, it is part of the Rosyth argument and my argument that the Ministry of Defence, in considering the future of servicing and refitting of all its vessels, both submarine and surface, should go for the dual option of Rosyth doing what Rosyth does best—refitting and servicing nuclear and Trident submarines—and Devonport doing what Devonport does best—refitting and servicing surface vessels—under one single management. I accept, and it is widely accepted by economists who have examined the argument, that the cost savings to be made in having one single management are far greater than the Treasury has yet appreciated.
Rosyth dockyard, which down the years, in war and peace, has served this country well, has an expertise which I know is widely appreciated in all parts of this House. It is almost the only organisation in Scotland at the present time which is doing any degree of skilled training. Six hundred engineering apprentices are being trained in Scotland and 50 per cent. of those 600— 300—are being trained in Rosyth dockyard. I have cause to know that. I should declare an interest in that I have a son and three nephews presently working in the dockyard, and I have long family connections with Rosyth dockyard.
Up to the present £150 million has been spent on the Trident nuclear refitting facility. It is rumoured by the rumourmongers that the Secretary of State for Defence, in making his announcement towards the end of this year, will come up with some form of shoddy compromise which keeps Rosyth open until 1996, until such time as Devonport has built up the nuclear expertise it lacks at the moment, and then close Rosyth on a slow death basis. Any compromise that is announced by the Government towards the end of this year will be judged on whether the Trident nuclear refitting facility at Rosyth is to be completed or the work is to stop. I say to the Minister—and I know that he will transmit this to his colleagues—that an announcement which puts an end to the Trident refitting facility at Rosyth will be seen as an announcement putting an end to Rosyth altogether. Your Lordships' will understand that Scotland simply cannot stand another closure of that nature and magnitude.
In those few brief moments I hope that I have said sufficient to the Government to persuade them that, on all those grounds, Rosyth should be retained.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, on his maiden speech. The House will have listened with pleasure to the beguiling opening moments of his speech and will have heard with deep attention the effective and, be it noted, noteless way in which he presented the case for Rosyth dockyard. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise, however, that any government face difficult decisions. He does so recognise.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord had to say, having sat opposite him for some years in another place. I recognise that in his career he has played a prolonged part in the co-operative movement. I have often paid tribute to the innovative part played in our economic and social life by the initiators of co-operation in this country all those generations ago. I wish that that spirit of innovation still existed and that the co-operative movement could have remained as important a part of the economy as it then was. We certainly welcome the noble Lord to the House and look forward to hearing him many times in the future.
I do not for one moment minimise the miseries which unemployment causes. Nor do I flinch from admitting the background to our present economic plight. It was a misjudgment of the overheating of the economy in the mid and late 1980s by the Conservative Government of the time. It would have been more becoming if the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, had admitted, in her catalogue of woes, that Her Majesty's Opposition had backed the judgment of Ministers in their error of neglecting overheating. In fact, Her Majesty's Opposition urged the Government to go even further in allowing the boom to continue.
I am glad, however, that the noble Baroness recognised on two occasions that there is no easy short-term solution. I have to correct one thing she said. Not for a moment do the Conservative Government want—any more than a Labour government would want—a low wage economy. It is a low unit cost economy, a competitive economy, as my noble friend the Minister rightly emphasised twice in his speech. We can have, as other countries have, a high earnings economy, made internationally com-petitive and profitable by higher productivity in services and manufacture. That is surely the aim of all in this House.
I fear that the solutions offered by opposition speakers in today's debate will tend to make matters worse rather than better. I hope that I am proved wrong. I guess, however, that they will mostly propose extra spending of one sort or another to be paid for by more taxes, by more borrowing or by cutting existing spending in some way. That is no solution whatever. It is no solution to find a job for Peter by sacking Paul. Yet to put up taxes, to increase borrowing or to cut existing government spending—desirable though that may be in general circumstances—would produce precisely that result. It would produce jobs for some at the cost of loss of jobs for others. Therefore, I would adopt a different method.
974
I want to spend my short ration of time on one or two suggestions. I wrote a pamphlet 14 years ago on conditions for fuller employment. Much of its analysis, I am glad to say, is now taken for granted. I acknowledge that the climate for fuller employment is a stable economy, profitably competitive internation-ally, with an encouraging tax framework and sensible safety nets. We have certainly not had stability in the last few years. However, whatever the climate—grim, as now, or benign—the number and quality of jobs will depend on one characteristic above all, namely, adaptability.
It will depend on the adaptability of entrepreneurs. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was right in saying that I would not fail to introduce that word. It will depend on the adaptability of entrepreneurs to see market opportunities at home and abroad. It will depend on the adaptability of designers, managers and workers to co-operate in serving that market in terms of value for money and yielding a profit to investors, who may well include occupational pension funds.
In addition to the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs who exist and are in action there are probably hundreds of thousands of potential entrepreneurs in this country. They are people who have perceived market opportunities and who would like to be self-employed and perhaps to employ others. What prevents those men and women who see market opportunities that most of us cannot see from doing what they want? Such research as there is, and there is not much, suggests that it is lack of access to money or credit to launch their particular project.
If anyone doubts that in our present economic climate there are business opportunities, let them consider the record of some immigrant groups. Research here and in the United States shows that immigrants tend to find or make jobs for themselves and their families proportionately more than does the indigenous population. During the ups and downs of the 1980s newcomers fared better than average. Why should that be so? I believe that it is because immigrant groups tend to be adaptable. In the case of immigrants it has often been adaptability both in entrepreneurship and in co-operation with entrepre-neurs.
Noble Lords may well ask what the Government can do. There is not much that the Government can do directly. I would however point out that a firm was set up decades ago by the banks called 3i. One of our colleagues in this House, my noble friend Lord Caldecote, was chairman of 3i some time ago. That company has been the midwife to thousands of new companies or the enlargement of small companies. I know that the banks have their problems, but what a blessing it would be if they set up firms on the lines of 3i in some parts of this country. In many cases very small loans would suffice. Some new enterprises would fail, and some would grow. I shall be told that banks already have branches everywhere. Yes, they do. But that did not stop the banks setting up 3i to specialise in encouraging entrepreneurship. So what can the Government do? They can talk to banks about the idea.

975
But adaptability is crucial in all sectors of the community eager for jobs, including workers. I note —I hope I am right—that when firms get into trouble and there is fear of bankruptcy, there is sometimes, perhaps often, a spurt of adaptability. Efforts to raise productivity or quality are volunteered in order to save jobs.
The fact is that people can price themselves out of jobs. That is, and has been, all too clear. No one can deny it. But there is another truth which is not so widely recognised. People can price themselves into jobs.
I ask why groups of unemployed, salaried and waged, in an area cannot offer their services to existing and potential entrepreneurs or firms on the understanding that they will co-operate in every way practicable to keep unit costs down, in terms of productivity as well perhaps as wage rates and value for money, in order to capture and hold a new or ill served market at home or abroad.
The right reverend Prelate spoke very effectively of human dignity. It cannot be a service to human dignity to wait upon an unemployment queue if one has not only a strong desire to work but also a sense that one can form a voluntary group to offer to be employed if a project would be made competitive, profitable and practicable by the co-operation of very willing workers. I know that that raises problems. If I had time I would speak of the problems that such initiatives have to overcome and nevertheless the scope of such initiatives. I realise that I am up against time but I have one or two other points to make.
I realise that the trade unions and many individuals will be horrified that earnings might be lower than normal. However, I repeat that adaptability, including acceptance of pay which is less than usual but still far above benefit, is a crucial factor in fuller employment. I repeat that people can price themselves into work as well as price themselves out of work.
In the interests of time I shall conclude. I hope that the Government will succeed with the people in liberating and putting into action more of the entrepreneurship that is latent in our society and more adaptability. Both will be necessary if we are to get unemployment lower.
4.4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I rise to speak with the full standard issue of trepidation and crave your Lordships' indulgence. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for having initiated this debate. I think it is a fairly good subject to come in on, and I am not the only one to be making a maiden speech today. I am sure I should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, on his maiden speech. I hope that mine is as well received.
Two weeks ago we had an interesting debate to call attention to the contribution made by small businesses to the economy. Many noble Lords pointed to the difficulties caused to small businesses by late payment of invoices. I thought that the treatment of this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was perhaps the best of the day. It seems to me common ground that late
976
payment is undesirable, but not necessarily in the same sense as it is understood in your Lordships' House. Whether the business is large or small the problem of extra costs arising from late payment is well understood. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the domino effect of this problem.
Let us consider a fictitious small packaging firm struggling to survive the recession. Sales have fallen but costs have been reduced, with much less overtime worked and some natural wastage of staff. However, financial reserves have fallen and now the firm is well in debt with the bank. The firm is still profitable and solvent, but let us suppose that one of its major customers unexpectedly goes into liquidation. Naturally, in order to survive that customer has stretched payment to at least 12 weeks. The damage caused to the balance sheet is enough to make our firm insolvent. Of course, it is a double whammy having to write off a large chunk of current assets and to work with a reduced turnover. An optimist would think that with a helpful bank and a redundancy programme the firm might survive. A grimmer view is that the rug is pulled from under it and the firm goes into liquidation. The workers, of course, will become unemployed.
Let us now consider the packaging firm's own suppliers. They are already enjoying payment at 12 weeks. Should the packaging firm collapse, the suppliers will suffer the same problems as the packaging firm. If any of the suppliers collapses, more will become unemployed. Thus there is the domino effect of companies collapsing in succession.
That is clearly not the only factor causing businesses to collapse and unemployment to increase. But the problem can be seen in large and small businesses alike. Voluntary regulation does not seem to work. In my scenario our packaging company is bound to delay payment even more; and who would criticise it? I feel that we need a regime where the principle is that everybody pays by the end of the month following the month of invoice. It needs to be backed by civil legislation to make it quite uneconomic to pay suppliers late.
I am well aware of the great difficulty of such legislation and the fate of the Interest on Debts Bill in February 1990 in another place. I shall not abuse my privilege or tax your Lordships' patience by putting the argument more forcefully, detailing how a decent payment regime could be achieved or even who should be responsible for promoting it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his maiden speech, especially as a spokesman for small businesses. No doubt he will be renowned for that and with his specialised knowledge of that subject no doubt the House will want to listen to him again on future occasions. I suppose he will be relieved that his maiden speech is over and that he can now regard himself as "fully fledged" and able to participate in every activity in your Lordships' House. My personal congratulations are conveyed to him in the same spirit as when his grandfather congratulated me on entering another place in March 1953.

977
The Government must surely be constantly embarrassed and ashamed at the remorseless, non-stop rise in unemployment for the 30th consecutive month. Now 2,867,000 people are on the dole—one out of every 10 people in the country. The underlying trend has been an average increase of 40,000 every month since May 1990, and it looks even worse for this November and December. Soon 3 million people will be on the industrial scrap heap. That is what it means when one realises that about 1 million people have been on the dole for more than a year. What also must be taken into account is that 30 changes have been made to the official count by this Government compared with the pre-1979 accounting method. Using the latter method, unemployment would now stand at over 4 million. According to the Employment Unit those excluded from the count total 1,145,000. If that is true, it is an appalling state of affairs.
Unemployment has low priority in Government policy, and yet here are 4 million human beings, most of them suffering daily, living on or below the breadline. They suffer the indignity of state benefits and need handouts to survive. There is so much poverty, unhappiness and family distress; and there are thousands of youngsters with no hope of work. There are so many men who are losing pride. We have 16 and 17 year-olds kidded into training and then finding there is no work. Vacancy levels have fallen to 97,000, the lowest level for 11 years: just one job for every 29 unemployed people. Youngsters are now shunning training and the system is breaking down.
The same is true of manufacturing industries, to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred. We now employ only 4,300,000 in manufacturing industries, almost half the figure we had in the early 'seventies. From June to September of this year 128,000 jobs were lost: that is the worst quarter since 1981. That is why we are now importing more manufactured goods than we export. Industrialists are losing faith in the Government. The country's industrial infrastructure is being torn apart. Business confidence is being shattered, and the Government cannot disguise the fact that the nation is not in deep recession but in fact is in a slump. I believe the Government are destroying our manufacturing base and therefore undermining our economy. It is galling to note that keeping 3 million people on the dole costs the country £24,000 million, when we reckon the payment of benefits and the loss of tax revenue: an estimated cost of between £8,000 and £9,000 per person per year. What a price to pay.
With this awfully depressing picture in mind, Government plans and policies for a national revival and recovery programme are urgently needed. Beyond our frontiers, if GATT is successful and tariffs are lowered, and more markets become available in the longer term, we should benefit provided that we can compete. Within the European Community, and indeed at the Edinburgh summit, leaders are coming under increased pressure to tackle the jobs crisis. The European Community sees a worsening recession, with western Europe drifting into a slump and another
978
1 million unemployed forecast for next year. The situation necessitates an injection into the European Community's economy. It needs a co-operative Community package. It needs a major bold initiative to jerk us out of an impending European jobs crisis. It is well to remember that the European Community is Britain's biggest market, and if Europe is slumping then we sink with it.
At home our Secretary of State for Employment is planning to spend £75 million on career guidance, job clubs and work travel permits, etc. Those are candy floss measures. Would it not be better to spend that money on supporting a public investment pro-gramme? I felt that the Autumn Statement was nit-picking, with the Chancellor hoping to boost the economy in 1993. I believe it needs a bigger and bolder outlook than that. On the present basis, unemploy-ment will continue to rise next year.
What of the regions? In South Yorkshire the pace of steel and pit closures has hit us hard. Barnsley has lost 18,000 mining jobs since 1981. There was another net loss of 1,000 last year, and now there is another sickening blow with Grimethorpe and Houghton Main mentioned as being among the first 10 pits to close in the new closure programme. Nationally, if the announced pit closures go ahead the total job losses, according to the Henley Centre for Forecasting, will add 95,000 to the dole queues in 1993 and a further 110,000 in 1994. In Barnsley the closure of Grimethorpe and Houghton Main, taking into consideration those jobs dependent upon coal, will put 6,000 out of work. That will take local unemployment from 13 per cent. to 20 per cent. overall, and 30 per cent. for men. In Grimethorpe itself unemployment among men will rise to 40 per cent. if the pit is closed. In areas like South Yorkshire and Barnsley the coalfield communities will need help and extra regional financial assistance.
These communities are destined to be hit again. They need action plans from the Government, involving the local authorities, the TECs, British Coal Enterprise, the regional offices of the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry, with a Ministerial head channelling moneys from Brussels earmarked for the areas with long-term unemployment. That should be allied with enhanced regional status to plan the development now of the infrastructure in these run down mining communities. We should be given new industrial sites, incentives for inward industrial investment and environmental improvements. We can see the problems now and it is therefore of the utmost urgency that we plan the economic and social regeneration of those areas soon. Let us do that before it is too late.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have one feeling in common with the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, concerning his reference to the admirable maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mason, I also made my maiden speech in another place when the noble Earl's grandfather was Prime Minister. With his habitual kindness—because he was an extremely kind and

979
indeed very likable man—he made some kindly reference to me which I have always remembered. I therefore share the appreciation which the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, feels. I am sure that his grandfather would have been delighted to know that the noble Earl is now in this House and that he had made the admirable speech he did today.
I turn once more to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, who, no doubt by a slip of the tongue, got some quite important figures wrong. He said that one-tenth of our population were out of a job. That is not so. It is one-tenth of the registered workers—a very different figure from that of the population. If it were really one-tenth of the population, it would mean that the unemployment figure was 5,500,000, which mercifully it is not. It is necessary for the sake of the record to get that quite clear, lest the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, should mislead opinion outside.
No one is happy about the level of unemployment. I share fully the views that have been expressed as to the personal misery and humiliation that it imposes on large numbers of our admirable fellow citizens. There is no difference of view on any side of the House that unemployment is a terrible thing; that it is right that your Lordships' House should debate it; and that it is very right indeed that your Lordships' House should put forward any suggestions that it can make to help.
Of course it is foolish also not to remember that unemployment, recession, depression, call it what you will, exists throughout the world. Indeed, there is the interesting fact that a higher proportion of our adult population are in jobs in this country than in any other European Community country except, as it happens, Denmark. Therefore, the misery and difficulties that we are facing are not a uniquely British sensation. It is a worldwide problem and one which is particularly strong among our European colleagues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, expounded, perfectly understandably, on the misery of unemploy-ment. Where, however, their speeches did not go further was in describing the effective remedies to be applied. It is extremely easy to denounce the levels of unemployment; anybody can do that. What is important is to get clear the measures that we should take in order to help rather than hinder the situation. I believe that the Government are acting on the right lines. I do not believe that they will cure the heavy level of unemployment for a considerable time, but I am pretty certain that most of the alternative courses that have been offered would not only not cure unemployment but would indeed inflate it. In addition they would bring back the equally great curse of inflation.
It is therefore sensible for your Lordships' House to make any suggestions that can help the steady process that the Government have initiated and, I hope and believe, will continue to deal with this evil. It is particularly important that we should get clear that quite a number of the courses that are being outlined and suggested would make unemployment worse rather than better. I am sure, for example, that the Government are right to deal with the wages council
980
problem. I am certain that one of the ways of increasing unemployment is by fixing minimum wages either by a legal or a social inhibition.
if you fix a minimum wage you are certainly dooming to unemployment those men and women —there are a great many —who are partially disabled, who have a certain weakness or physical lack of stamina and who suffer occasional complaints arising from inherent diseases, who cannot earn a full week's work at current wage levels but who, if allowed to work a shorter week at a lower wage level, have a job, have the satisfaction and self respect of having a job, and equally have some earnings. It is a great mistake, as suggested within the European Community and as still operates to some extent in a limited area in this country by way of wages councils, to fix a minimum wage. If someone with a handicap is able to work for less than a statutory wage, it is wrong to prevent him or her doing so. I hope therefore that the Government will proceed firmly and resolutely with their proposals which are, I understand, making their way from another place, to deal with wages councils.
The other point that I leave with your Lordships is this: high taxation, however worthy the purpose for which it is proposed to apply the funds, if it makes our products less competitive in the markets of the world, adds to unemployment. It is therefore essential that the Government should maintain a firm control over public expenditure, should see to it that we do not inflate our costs by heavy taxation, and that therefore we have restraint in that respect. In that context I would point out the inflationary effects of VAT.
VAT at 17.5 per cent., charged not only on products but on services, makes our industry less competitive. It would be highly desirable in the interests of increasing our competitiveness if VAT could be reduced. It is a bad tax and it does a certain amount of harm in the vital area of our competitiveness. It is only by this country maintaining a highly competitive industry and highly competitive activity that we shall deal with the curse of unemployment. The fact that your Lordships care so much about it is perhaps a reassurance to us, and suggests that your Lordships generally will support any measures that will seriously reduce the burden of unemployment and the hardship it imposes.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there was a time when most of us would have said in framing this Motion, "A strategy to abolish unemployment"; but we have learnt better, or at the very least we have learnt that unemployment cannot be abolished while continuing to think in the outmoded terms of conventional economics. The reasons are many and varied, and I am sure that a large number of Members of this House will have their own. But I believe that we must come to terms with the fact that the world ran out of growth somewhere in the 1960s.
There is not going to be quantitative growth again. Of course the rich are going to get richer, but in the global balance sheet the gains will be at least balanced by the depletion of global capital caused by the rape of the planet and by pollution. This may seem rather

981
airy-fairy when compared with the topic of unemployment in this country, but it has a spillover to the economies of any given country. We have to rethink our economics from scratch.
The challenge of a change of paradigm is to devise new remedies to meet the new problems. If we do that we no longer need to limit ourselves to reducing unemployment. We could go back to what we would like to do—and what a number of your Lordships have said this afternoon that we should do—and that is to devise a strategy for giving everyone employment.
If we are to do that we must start from certain basic beliefs. The Government of this country have a duty to see that none of their citizens starves. That is one.
But also every person, in order to be wholly human, needs to have a worthwhile job: not necessarily a paid job—that is the old economics—but worthwhile in that he or she feels that they contribute something to the welfare of their fellow men and women. Those are the tasks which we, as the legislature of this country, must set ourselves.
The first aim of preserving citizens from total penury and starvation is obligatory. The second aim of providing worthwhile jobs for everyone must be regarded as slightly Utopian because it has never been achieved by any country. However, that should not stop us from pursuing it. The need to pursue the first task—preservation from the extreme life-threatening forms of poverty—is urgent. Our streets are full of what a member of Church Action on Poverty has called the rubbish of the rich; the human detritus that we pass every day on our way to your Lordships' House.
The way forward to deal with that is fairly clear. The policies of the Basic Rights Income Group for a modest citizen's income are the first step. That at least is no Utopian dream. The detailed work of Hermione Parker, a highly regarded professional who in the last Parliament was a research assistant to the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, will be known to many of your Lordships, not least to my colleagues on these Benches who have adopted the work as part of their basic policy.
The extra advantage of a basic income—and this may be the only part of my speech which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—is that it should be possible to do away with minimum wages. You can offer people jobs which they want to do and pay them wages which are less than were considered necessary in the old economics. People may decide not to take those jobs, but that is a spur which is offered to society as a whole: to produce jobs which are worth doing. They are genuinely attractive because they are genuinely worthwhile. Young people in this country will know exactly what I am talking about. A great many of them take such jobs because they believe in them rather than for any other reason.
I do not deny that that appears to be revolutionary, but my party has very farsightedly accepted it. I have little doubt that the other political parties must eventually follow suit. I merely plead that we do not continue talking and kidding ourselves that economic
982
growth as we have been used to it through the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s is possible, because it is no longer possible.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned that we should have confidence in what he called the steady progress of government policy in relation to unemployment, my thoughts immediately turned to the steady downward spiral which has continued for no less than two-and-a-half years during which unemployment has increased. I thought, "How steady can you get?"
That downward spiral started in May 1990, since when the number of jobless people has increased each month to over 2.8 million. During the past two-and-a-half years we have constantly been told, first, that the unemployment situation was caused by recession in other countries and the British Government's policies have little or nothing to do with such a disastrous situation; and secondly, that in spite of the difficulties thrust upon us by those incompetent foreigners matters would improve. Those improvements have been described in well worn phrases over the months: "Things are now in place for recovery. There are stirrings in the economy. The green shoots are now showing". We have heard those comments ad nauseam. The fact is that the recession in this country, which has given rise to what will undoubtedly become a record number of unemployed, has been longer and deeper than in any other industrial country.
All unemployment is cruel. It brings poverty and ill health and has other adverse effects on family life. It causes an increase in crime and the loss of self-respect. The Government do not seem to appreciate that.
Worst of all is long-term unemployment. It is that aspect of the problem on which I wish to concentrate for most of my contribution to the debate. Unemployment figures announced this month show that long-term unemployment has soared to almost 1 million. They show that the number of people out of work and claiming benefit for more than one year— that is the definition of long-term unemployment— has almost doubled since unemployment began to increase in May 1990. An increase of no less than 50,000 in the three months to October took the total to a four-and-a-half year high of 956,000. It is worth mentioning also that in the total number of jobless, no fewer than 1.52 million have been without work for six months or more. Six months is a long time in which to be unemployed.
In spite of all the fine phrases which we still hear from the Government, there is no doubt that unemployment will continue to increase. In his Autumn Statement two weeks ago the Chancellor said that it would increase, "for some time to come". That means that the figure will be more than 3 million. I mention that figure because when some of us forecast that a year ago Ministers trotted out the phrases which I quoted earlier. It also means that the number of long-term unemployed will inevitably increase.

983
hope that the Government have studied a report published this year by the Council of Europe entitled The role of employment and training services infighting long-term unemployment. If they have read it, I hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships whether any or all of the proposals contained in the report are being implemented. Those proposals appear to me to be very valuable.
Time does not permit me to deal with all the recommendations but perhaps I may briefly mention some of them. Early intervention is needed in order to prevent an unemployed person becoming long-term unemployed. That sounds simple and obvious but it is manifestly not being carried out in this country. I must say in all honesty that I believe that the screening process involved can present difficulties, but that should not prevent the task being carried out.
The report also says that measures should be tailored rather than established provisions being taken off the shelf. The long-term unemployed often suffer from a wide range of problems so that measures involving other agencies may be required to be used in assisting them. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt whether that is being implemented.
There is another practical and vital proposal; that is, it is important that the financial incentives and the way in which the unemployment insurance system operates work together—that is crucial—to reinforce the individual's wish to participate in his rehabilita-tion. I hope that those examples demonstrate the importance of special measures being required to deal with long-term unemployment.
I am glad that the Council of Europe has felt it necessary to study the problem. As far as I know, this is the only study to be carried out by the Council of Europe or the EC. But a study without action by member nations will be of little use. I hope that Britain, with its massive long-term unemployment problem, will take it seriously.
Long-term unemployment also carries the danger that the people concerned become more and more out of touch with the skills and attitudes which employment requires. It goes almost without saying that not only is training necessary but retraining is also required. I go further and say that courses longer than the normal training and retraining courses are required. The colleges and former polytechnics, now universities, have an important role to play in that. I made that point at Question Time today. I hope that the Government will place more emphasis on that aspect of the problems associated with long-term unemployment.
Your Lordships will know that the scheme known as Employment Training has as its main purpose helping the longer-term unemployed to acquire appropriate qualifications and skills. Those are laudable aims. But the scheme in detail is only a shadow of what is required to meet a huge problem. For the current financial year, 1992–93, the scheme has a budget of £807 million, which is a reduction in real terms from the previous year and which is required to meet the needs of up to 250,000 trainees. Those figures are taken from the government publication,
984
Employment in Britain, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. If one compares that figure of 250,000 trainees with the figure I mentioned a moment ago of 956,000 long-term unemployed, one finds the clearest indication of the real lack of concern for the long-term unemployed. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he can deal with the point when he replies.
Can the Minister say what happened to the other 700,000 who have been without a job for a year and some for two or even three years? Last week we had a valuable debate on the economy of the North East. I shall repeat only one point I made in that debate, which is often forgotten when the improvements in the region are discussed. I refer to the fact that the rate of unemployment in the region remains the highest in the United Kingdom, outside Northern Ireland. I say "remains" because it was ever thus since regional statistics were first issued. Your Lordships may not be surprised to learn that the North has the highest rate of long-term unemployment, nor that long-term unemployment is the highest among former miners. The main reasons for that are that so many pits have been closed in a relatively short space of time and alternative employment has not been available.
The recent government announcement that a further 31 pits were to close met with unprecedented protest from all parts of the country, so much so that a review was promised. There will be little or no change as a result of that review. My cynicism can be illustrated by the following example. Two pits in my former constituency are in the review. Yesterday I was told that British Coal has already gone ahead— already gone ahead—with its planning application to demolish the entire surface workings of those pits. I possess a copy of that application. Around 3,000 miners will lose their jobs at Easington and Vane Tempest. I shudder to think how many of that number will join the ranks of the long-term unemployed.
The recent Autumn Statement will hardly touch the problem of long-term unemployment. The measures are an admission that previous policies failed. They do not begin to match the problems facing the country. In particular, the Government still have no long-term economic strategy for rebuilding our manufacturing base, on which so much depends, including the stimulation of employment. I regret to say that many of our long-term unemployed are unlikely to work again. Those who are fortunate enough to obtain jobs will carry the scars of long-term unemployment for the rest of their lives.
The Labour Opposition chose this subject for debate today not only because we are acutely aware of the scale of unemployment but because of the sheer scale of it at the present time. It is difficult to understand why the Government do not appreciate the misery and desperation caused by unemployment. Let us hope that the debate will be a turning point not only for their policies but for their attitude towards what many of us believe is the greatest problem for any human being.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this topic this afternoon. Unemployment is a great human and social problem but it is also an economic problem of the most challenging kind. I wish to turn to that aspect this afternoon.
What is called "Keynesianism" has long been out of fashion. But a few facts are worth pondering. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, mentioned earlier a number of them in his moving maiden speech. Between 1950 and 1970 when Keynesian policy was in the ascendant, the average annual rate of unemployment in OECD countries was 3 per cent. In the 1970s, which were half Keynesian and half monetarist, it went up to over 4 per cent. In the 1980s, when governments gave up the attempt to maintain full employment, it averaged 6 per cent. over the whole of the OECD world. In Britain it averaged just over 8 per cent.
Therefore, despite the many mounting problems of the Keynesian era, including the tendency of inflation to rise, from the employment point of view it was a golden age. Today we seem to have lost our belief in our capacity to regain it. I sometimes hear the argument that our economy will never again provide enough jobs for all those who want to work. If so, it is a failure of design both nationally and globally of colossal proportions. When all reasonable wants the world over are satisfied, then we shall look forward to a life of leisure and increasing variety. That is the ultimate object of all economic striving. But to suggest that we have reached that Utopia already is absurd.
Noble Lords will recall that between 1979 and 1990 the British economy generated nearly 2 million new jobs—a net increase in the total of employment. There was no sign of any exhaustion of wants in that story. The tragedy is that many of those who lost their old jobs were never re-employed. But we must remember that the great rise in unemployment in the early 1980s took place in the context of a massive restructuring of British industry, and particularly a large shake-out of labour from the overmanned industries rendered bloated and uncompetitive by the massive public subsidies which were being pumped into them in the 1970s. In my view, the Conservative governments were quite right to end that system which simply hid from us the weakness of our competitive position and the true gravity of our unemployment problem.
I should like to turn to the problem of pay because it seems to me that that will be crucial in the months and years ahead. In his memoirs, my noble friend Lord Lawson, wrote that,
"Britain's wage inflexibility remains the biggest avoidable cause of unemployment".
That is largely true though I would add that avoidable monetary mismanagement also played its part in producing the present slump. It is wrong to attribute the big increase in unemployment that has occurred since 1990 to wage inflexibility and ignore the role of the policy of high interest rates which were needed to bring down inflation.
The instant adjustment of wages to prices takes place only in the pages of economic textbooks; not in real life. Nevertheless, there was one interesting result
986
of the downturn of the past year or two. When the inflation rate falls, the real wages of those in employment tend to rise. That is exactly what happened between 1990 and 1992. That means that those who remain in employment are receiving an unearned increase in the value of their take-home pay at the expense of those being made redundant. That was particularly striking in 1991 when productivity was flat. It is that legacy of an unearned increase in the average real wage that we must overcome as we set our sights on recovery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, attacked the concept of a low-wage economy. Of course everyone agrees with that. She condemned the public sector wage freeze which the Government announced. But she did not explain how employment can be increased without a fall in the average real wage. A high wage economy must be earned; it cannot simply be announced. That means that as prices start to rise—as they certainly will in the next year or so—money wages must rise less than prices. That is the meaning of the Government's public sector wage freeze. The Government are saying that public sector wages must rise less than the selling prices of public sector services if public sector employment is to increase. That makes perfectly good economic sense.
If private employers were able to secure a similar wage restraint in the private sector, we would be back to a classic incomes policy. That is already happening in individual plants. But I am not advocating a full-blown incomes policy of the sort that so often came to grief in the 1970s.
The problem of our wages system can be stated very simply. It is unable to generate rates of pay consistent with sustainable full employment. If past experience is any guide, wage inflation will start up again as soon as people feel that the recession is behind them. If the Government refuse to accommodate it by printing money, as I hope that they will, the employment recovery will soon be aborted.
Perhaps I may quote my noble friend Lord Lawson again:
"Our long term aim was decentralised wage bargaining which took account of local market forces, productivity, regional differential, job security and profitability".
It remains to be seen how far the supply side reforms of the 1980s, including the very necessary trade union reforms, have permanently influenced wage behaviour.
Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, I welcome the Government's decision to abolish wage councils. Wage rates should respond flexibly to local labour market conditions and not to arbitrary wage-fixing arrangements. We need to build on some of the imaginative reforms of the 1980s. By the end of 1991, as a result of tax incentives, there were 3,000 profit-related pay schemes covering 600,000 workers. When it comes, the upswing will provide the best possible climate for extending that scheme. I hope that the Chancellor will consider further incentives to promote its spread.
Another crucial requirement for more flexible pay is the spread of bargaining at plant level. We have to get away from the notion of the going rate for the job independent of local conditions and company

987
profitability. We need to improve labour mobility. One of the biggest obstacles remains the lack of low-cost private, rented accommodation. I wish the Government would take their courage in their hands, and sweep away the remaining rent control legislation; a survival of earlier conditions which no longer apply. It will cost the Treasury something, but it would be a price well worth paying, actually as well as symbolically.
Finally, I wish we could find some way of disaggregating prices indices so as to highlight regional variations in the cost of living. That would be an important help to sensible wage bargaining. That does not exhaust the possibilities of supply side policy —though it exhausts the possibilities of my speech. The steps I have outlined are directed towards increasing the efficiency of labour markets. Just as important is the improvement in the level of skills, to which many noble Lords have alluded, which should be the most important immediate object of our education and training policy.
Perhaps it is not too visionary to look forward to a situation in which improvements in efficiency are shared between money wages modestly rising and prices of products modestly falling, so that the price level on average does not change much from decade to decade. A government which can achieve that kind of culmination will have deserved well of the country.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for having drawn its attention to the comparative success in the United Kingdom of Keynesian economics. In following those economics—which was the avowed policy of the coalition government as reproduced in their famous 1944 White Paper, Statement of Government Policy on Employment—the maintenance of full employment was the first priority of the government and remained so for some time.
What the noble Lord has successfully proved in his speech is that leaving everything to market forces has in fact resulted in comparative disaster. A degree of democratic intervention by the government of the day in the economy is in fact a prerequisite of the attainment once again of full employment in the United Kingdom. By that I mean a percentage of unemployment which only allows for normal frictional unemployment.
This afternoon we are discussing a strategy for the lowering of unemployment. The first necessity when formulating a strategy is to convince all who are to take part in the vital need to have a strategy at all. That means that no longer should unemployment be referred to in abstract or statistical terms. It is a very real and personal problem to those who endure it and particularly to those with very low, diminutive incomes. It is how they experience it and what effect it has on their family life, health, and the maintenance of normal law and order in the United Kingdom.
We must first convince people that unemployment is a problem and not an abstract thing; it is something which vitally concerns us all. The noble Lord opposite mentioned (as indeed is the case) that there are 17
988
million unemployed in the European Community. That is a figure which should send shudders down our spines. It was precisely the onset of unemployment in Europe, particularly in Germany, that preceded and caused the strengthening of the Nazi movement. At the moment we are getting some slight symptoms of that occurring again.
So anyone who considers unemployment in abstract terms as implied, for example, in "unemploy-ment is a price well worth paying" or "if it isn't hurting, it isn't working" had better think again. As is his custom, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put forward the absolute necessity for controlling public expenditure and lowering taxation as far as that is feasible. We are well accustomed to the noble Lord formulating those doctrines.
There is no better way of lowering public expenditure than by reducing unemployment because the latter imposes a terrific fiscal constriction and burden on the United Kingdom in terms of about £8,000 per annum per unemployed person, apart from the extra costs that are bound to be incurred by the National Health Service due to physical and mental ill-health that is caused by a lack of work and the emotional and family distress arising directly from unemployment. So to reduce unemployment makes fiscal sense. Moreover, it is quite clear that any person who is in receipt of state aid, whether by way of unemployment benefit or through the other various social services available to him, and who produces nothing is, by his own inertia, contributing to inflation. It is not so inflationary to produce something for which one is paid as it is to produce nothing and to be paid something. That is absolute common sense.
A number of suggestions for reducing unemploy-ment have been made this afternoon. Perhaps I may commend one to your Lordships which is immediately practicable. I shall mention costs and must therefore answer a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when referring to wages costs. What is vital is that unit labour costs should be reduced. The wage part of unit labour costs is not the only factor; investment is also a factor. If there is no or very low investment, unit labour costs are bound to increase. One of the main troubles in the United Kingdom since—
Lord Joseph: My Lords, perhaps—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Lord in a moment.
One of the main weaknesses of the United Kingdom since 1972, as enunciated by the then Mr. Edward Heath in 1972, has been the reluctance of investors in this country and the unwillingness of manufacturers to invest. That has been a continuing trouble in the United Kingdom. There must therefore be long-term investment—if necessary, by the Government themselves, as advocated in the original White Paper by the coalition government. I shall give

989
way now to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, but I trust that he will realise that I am subject to a time constraint.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, almost as important as investment is productivity. That is all that I was trying to say.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. As a practising accountant, I have just given the House the accounting aspect and there are two ingredients—investment and labour.
There is one way in which an immediate kickstart could be given to the economy. I could not agree more that there needs to be investment—and long-term investment—on the supply side, but investment plans take time to formulate. Plans take time to make. Quotations and planning approvals have to be obtained. It is about two years before large-scale capital investment ultimately materialises, as Sir Stafford Cripps found out in his time.
What is required is a kickstart now—and that kickstart should be in the building industry in order to relieve the shortage of housing in the United Kingdom. That is what should be done because the building industry is an assembly industry. It requires very little further investment. It involves the assembly of the end products of 100 different trades. The labour and the materials are available and, in most cases, the plans are available. There is no reason at all why 100,000 or 150,000 workers in the building trade could not be employed tomorrow if the Government had the will to do that—and they could do it without any inflationary effect whatsoever. Moreover, the multi-plier factor would apply. As more workers in the building industry go back to work, so there is more demand in the local shops. The multiplier factor adds about two-and-a-half times the original number to those employed in the labour force.
That is one group of measures that could be taken straightaway. There is a vast need for houses, and masses of people in the building industry who are unemployed. All the materials—bricks, timber and everything else—are in situ. Why do the Government not get on with the job?
5.4 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, we can all be warmly thankful today to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for initiating this debate and to the two maiden speakers. But I must confess that I found the Government's contribution one of the most disap-pointing and discouraging that I have ever heard in an economics debate. That was not due to any personal fault of the Minister but to the failure of the Government generally.
Those of us who have been calling in these debates for the past two years for a more competitive exchange rate and for lower interest rates must at least be thankful that the Government have abandoned the misleading arguments to which we listened during those years. Until now we have constantly been told that leaving the exchange rate mechanism would not
990
permit lower interest rates and might even mean higher interest rates. Now we are told by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement:
"Outside the ERM, I have been able to rebalance policy by cutting two percentage points off interest rates. That, in itself, will provide a significant boost to the economy".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col. 992.]
That is what some of us have been saying all along. Then we were told by the Government that a lower exchange rate would not be of any material help to exporters, but now we are told by the Chancellor—and I quote again from the Autumn Statement:
"The reduction in the exchange rate has offered immense opportunities to exporters".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col. 997.]
We are all glad of that conversion—or most of us, at any rate.
Unhappily, however, the evidence accumulates every day that the deflationary forces that had been working have until now been pushed so far that the Autumn Statement's relaxations are not nearly enough. Evidence for this comes from the Government themselves. The official forecast in the Chancellor's Statement is that real GDP, having fallen by 1 per cent. in 1992, will rise by only 1 per cent. in 1993. But that means, on the Government's own showing, that unemployment—so far from even flattening out in 1993—will actually go on increasing until 1994. We are also told by the Central Statistical Office that total GDP has fallen by 4 per cent. since we joined the ERM two years ago. This means that real GDP in the present year is about 8 per cent. worse than it would have been if we had had the normal 2 per cent. over those years. But 8 per cent. of GDP now means a real national income of nearly £60 billion a year, and the loss of it—the reverse side—is the 3 million unemployed.
It is now all too miserably clear that the decision two years ago to imprison ourselves in the ERM at a blatantly over-valued rate was one of the worst mistakes in the United Kingdom's post-war economic policy. During the two years that we were members of the ERM, UK unemployment increased by 1.2 million. The main reasons that the Government got their forecasts all wrong and led us into this disaster are, first, their forgetting that whenever 10,000 miners, factory workers or any other workers are thrown out of work they will cut their spending by anything up to 50 per cent. and throw another group of workers out of a job. Deflation, like inflation, is cumulative. Secondly, the Government forgot that a balance of trade deficit is itself deflationary because both exports and another slice of the home market are lost to British industry.
Now that all these mistakes have been made, what should we do henceforth if we genuinely desire recovery? We can all sincerely thank heaven that the GATT Uruguay Round at least appears to have been almost successfully concluded, and we can congra-tulate our own Government on having resisted the French efforts at sabotage. Perhaps we should also congratulate our own Parliament on having kept up the pressure on the Government to stick to the job. But, of course, we must not underestimate either the ability or the wish of the French Government to

991
sabotage the whole enterprise even now. The Uruguay Round gives us the opportunity for recovery but of itself does not automatically generate that recovery. If world demand can be reflated, the opportunity will be seized. But freer trade on its own in a deflationary situation would have disappointing results.
Since on the Government's own showing unem-ployment is estimated to go on rising until 1994, further steps are clearly essential. First, we must not shrink from letting the exchange rate fall to a competitive level. There is no other way left now to correct our disastrous balance of payments deficit. Incidentally, the Government now estimate that the deficit will be £15 billion in 1993. Of course there has been some increase in import prices but that is surely the price we pay for national soverency and for full use of capacity. It is the only way in which excessive imports can be restrained. A rise in the price of some imports which we do not need would be positively desirable. Therefore we should avoid fixed exchange rates like the plague.
Secondly, interest rates must come down further until recovery begins. Depressions do not end automatically, as the Government still seem to think, by the will of providence. They end when governments and central banks change their macro-economic policies, as happened in 1933 at the time of the greatest depression of all. Those who believe in market forces should also remember that in the classical Victorian trade cycle the bank rate normally fell to 2 per cent. before any recovery began.
I am not surprised that the Government are scared of budgetary expansion of demand, because their policies have produced a situation in which both the budget and the balance of payments are in huge deficit at the same time. But the reason for the high deficit, apart from high unemployment, is the reckless sacrifice of budget revenue by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his tax give-away in the summer of 1988. I do not myself blame the noble Lord for his reductions in interest rates in 1987. We still do not know whether there might not have been a much more severe slump if he had not done that. What I think was wrong was to give away large sums of revenue, which would now be greatly valued, to the wrong people at the wrong time at the top of a boom.
One does not atone for that fault now, in a pit of depression, by making damaging cuts in capital spending like the little disguised cuts which are now being made in respect of British Rail and London Transport. To make crippling cuts in public services which are already suffering acute arrears of maintenance—not to mention modernisation—is a deplorable mistake. In the case of London Underground, which is used by several million people every day, where undermanning and arrears of maintenance have already increased journey times by around 50 per cent., it is a huge burden on the productivity of London's economy. To make those cuts will be highly damaging. What is the good of having a Passenger's Charter if the train is cancelled because there is no driver and no rolling stock? That is the kind of thing that is now happening regularly.
992
What is the use of an EC £40 billion or £50 billion growth fund for capital spending if we are acting in exactly the opposite direction in this country?
The time for balanced budgets and repayment of debt is when and if boom times return. To make excessive false economies now is to kill those green shoots of recovery even before they have appeared above the ground.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am delighted to express very strong agreement with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Joseph, and with Lord Jay, on the GATT. I especially enjoyed the tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, from his unexpected position above the Bishops' Bench. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as a historian, had to say from the viewpoint of an unrepentant market economist although I feel I should seek the indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, and allow him, if he wishes, to depart.
There should be wider grounds for hope in examining what light fundamental market analysis can throw on today's appalling scourge of unemploy-ment. I have been much encouraged in the past decade to detect a spreading appreciation of market economics—to give credit—even among Labour spokesmen when they are on their best behaviour. Alas, I fear that so far few speakers from the Labour Benches have been in a market mode.
Today, instead of relying on Adam Smith, Hayek, Friedman and other once unmentionable gurus, I should like to put my best Keynesian foot forward. This is not the prelude to approving a massive boost to already excessive government spending financed by still more reckless borrowing, which my old adversary, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, seems to be up to again. If we go back to Keynes' general theory, we find that deficient demand was not the only cause of unemployment diagnosed by the great man, as many one-eyed Keynesians suppose. Indeed, in chapter 2 Keynes rehearsed the classical analysis, which distinguished two further categories that are relevant to our present pickle. The first was "frictional" unemployment arising from the geo-graphical or occupational mismatch between people without work and changing job opportunities. What was said about rent control and so on had some relevance. If we ignore altogether the dreadful recession, we must accept that the hectic pace of change in modern technology and world trade would account for a sizeable fraction of frictional unemployment in a total labour force of 28 million.
The second category acknowledged by Keynes was "voluntary" unemployment, which, in the sense Keynes defined it, accounts for a large part of a total fast approaching 3 million. Before risking arrest for lack of compassion, I would ask noble Lords to judge from Keynes's own words. Since it is quite a mouthful, I am tempted to say, "Listen carefully, I shall read this only once." He wrote that,
"'voluntary' unemployment [is] due to the refusal or inability of a unit of labour, as a result of legislation or social practices, or of combination for collective bargaining, or of slow

993
response to change … to accept a reward corresponding to the value of the product attributable to its marginal productivity".
If that sounds like what Keynes sometimes called Cherokee, I would say that Keynes was acknowledg-ing that unemployment can be caused by people pricing themselves out of jobs or being priced out of jobs. That is very different from the one-eyed Keynesian obsession with aggregate, macropolicy.
It will not do for critics of liberal economics to scoff that markets are fine in theory but do not work very well in practice. There will always be large imperfections, but the most stubborn imperfections are often the fault of well-intentioned policy. For example, it took less courage 60 years ago for Keynes to deliver himself of the following verdict:
"The existence of the dole undoubtedly diminishes the pressure on the individual man to accept a rate of wages or a kind of job which is not just what he wants or what he is used to".
How much greater the resistance these days to accepting a low-paid job when take-home pay, after tax, travel and other work expenses, may be less than social benefits, now topped up by high rent or mortgage interest payments. But the relative attractiveness of social benefits is not the only cause of Keynes's voluntary unemployment. His category would also include wages councils, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. It would include the annual automatic wage round, and all formal and informal practices for raising pay without concern for market demand.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord stresses the role of voluntary unemployment. How does he explain the long period throughout the 40s, the 50s and half way through the 60s when unemployment remained below 3 per cent? Where was all the voluntary unemployment then?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, we have become used to inflation and the bad habits that follow inflation. I shall say something about that immediately. The persistent refusal of unions to price their members into work in present conditions by moderating wage claims led one-eyed Keynesians of all parties to attempt to spend their way out of unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, bravely called a halt after 1967, as did the noble Lord, Lord Healey (with the help of the IMF) after 1976. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe (with the help of a certain lady and of a Professor Walters) most successfully called a halt in the early 1980s. But the hallmark—this is my answer in summary to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—of the post-war, one-eyed Keynesian era has been accelerat-ing inflation, alternating with periods of savage disinflation that were never sufficient to arrest the progressive devaluation of the currency.
The resulting destabilisation of the entire economy has been at the root of all our troubles. It has disrupted company planning and investment, especi-ally in manufacturing industry. It has played havoc with public budgeting, raised interest rates, and dislocated the exchanges. It has put a premium on
994
short-termism, reduced personal savings and upset family budgeting. After such prolonged political buffeting and battering throughout the post-war years, I find it somewhat remarkable that as many as 25 million people are still at work.
Of course, we need a medium-term financial strategy but under a Treasury team that inspires confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, once did. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I believe that we also need a fundamental re-direction of labour market policy. To reduce the moral hazard of social benefits, taxation on low incomes should be phased out and universal benefits made more selective. To encourage market-clearing labour costs, all statutory minimum wages should be ended: better low pay than no pay. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, talked of a sweat shop. I should rather see people sweating than shivering from want of work. Above all, to enable employment to be maintained in the face of varying economic fortunes, companies should take a leaf from the Japanese book by negotiating flexible wage and salary contracts. Basic pay, including that of top management, should be set at a rate appropriate to hard times, such as the present, and in the place of automatic annual wage rounds, all subsequent increases should be conditional upon the state of the market for each firm's output.
There has been much talk of crisis, but hitherto all parties, business organisations and trade unions have shrunk from such a radical reconsideration of policy. Today we should at last have learned that without downward flexibility, as well as upward flexibility, of labour costs in bad times, the brunt of adjustment to all economic fluctuations will continue to be borne by higher unemployment, followed by faster inflation, excessive rates of interest and an endlessly depreciat-ing currency.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I was interested to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and, in particular, his exposition of voluntary unemployment. It reminded me of a 26 year-old lady who, earlier this summer, having worked for one of Gerald Ratner's emporiums for a number of years, was required to work on a Sunday for no extra pay. It is bad enough for people to be required to work on a Sunday—the accepted payment rate for Sunday work is double time—and it would be pretty bad if an employee were offered ordinary time for Sunday working, but this young lady was required to work on a Sunday for no pay. She left that employment. One could argue that that was voluntary unemployment, but I would argue that she was within her rights to refuse that employment as it was nothing approaching satisfactory.
The debate, initiated, I am pleased to say, by our side of the House, is about unemployment. Realistically, we need to think of it in terms of two positions: either that unemployment is an acceptable requirement to achieve sound money or in terms of full employment. The object of our society, government policy and every decent member of our society should be to achieve full employment. Why?

995
Because human beings are important. I hope that it would be regarded as fundamental in a democracy that human beings are more important than money.
There are more discrete reasons why full employment is so important. The first is the waste of resources. At the moment 10 per cent. of our productive resources are effectively not in production. Society is wasting 10 per cent. of its effort. Next, we should consider the effect on individuals and the damage caused to the individual's mental or physical health, something that is now well documented, and the mental and physical health of the families of unemployed people. Another factor we must consider is the damage to the very fabric of our society.
How do we achieve full employment? First, we do it by defending existing productive organisations that are meeting needs; and, secondly, by harnessing the resources that exist in society to meet the needs of our society. Above all, we must learn from experience. We need to learn from the experiences of our fathers and grandfathers in the 1920s and 1930s. We need to recognise the essential international dimension of the problem that faces us.
From the 1940s to the 1970s, as a number of speakers have said, we had virtually full employment. For 30 years there was a consensus, right across our society. The Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and even the Liberal Party I think at that time, espoused a policy of full employment. That policy was broadly achieved. Yes, full employment is achievable. In a democracy, anything is possible if there is a general consensus that something is to be achieved.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, speaking for the Government, said that industry was dying and that services were the future. Fighting inflation was the most important thing. It should have come as no surprise to us that the Front Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Party supported the Government. That is only a carry-over of their support for the Government on the miners a few weeks ago. The Government said that inflation was the most important enemy. What we are talking about is a modern version of the gold standard. We need to recognise that in the 1920s and the 1930s adherence to the gold standard did this country and the international community no good at all. It is an attitude that does us great harm now.
As I said, war resulted from the problems that the international and national communities faced in the 1930s. There is the breakdown of social order, not only within regions and within nations but also internationally. We need to look at our present experience and what is happening in our society. We can see the rise of what used to be described as inner city violence, but it is no longer merely the hard core of the inner cities that erupts in violence which is virtually uncontainable by our police forces. If we look at the international situation, we see that largely because of the incredible rise to what I believe is a figure of 18 per cent. unemployment in Yugoslavia that nation state has disintegrated and violent civil conflagration is the order of the day there. If we look at what is happening in the former Soviet Union—the
996
conflicts that are erupting almost daily, progressively between the different republics and within them—we see a horrendous international dimension.
A little closer to home, we see what is happening in Germany. With unification, the economy of the eastern part of Germany virtually collapsed overnight. Mass unemployment was the result and we are now seeing the product of the social disintegration of that society daily on our television screens. There are the attacks on immigrant hostels, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and memorials to the Holocaust, and the antagonism that is engendered within German society towards what are perceived to be scapegoats.
What can we do? We must defend the jobs we have; we must take a strategic view. In the House we have debated the future, to a limited extent, of the mining industry. We have had a terrific contribution this evening from my colleague and noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford, demonstrating in his maiden speech the need for, and the importance and the validity of, retaining Rosyth dockyard. I pay tribute to him as one of the first speakers in the debate who mentioned full employment. We must match need with resources.
We have a housing crisis in the country. We have the ability to build and improve housing for people. We have a transport problem. We are opening the Channel Tunnel. Yet little is being done to ensure that our manufactured goods can reach the markets in Europe. I think I read an estimate that £40 billion needed to be spent by the water industry over the next 10 years to improve standards of drinking and bathing water in this country. Why should we have to wait 10 years for clean water? Why cannot we commit those resources in a much shorter timescale and put people back to work? Finally, I make the plea that we recognise that full employment is a possibility and dedicate ourselves to achieving it.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Labour Benches for bringing this debate to our attention. I feel it is a pity that in the Motion they used the wording "to reduce unemployment". One of the real evils this country is now beginning to face and to accept as a fact of life is that one of the bases of unemployment is structural unemployment. That is what I wish to address in my speech.
The recession has caused a great deal of unemployment, but it has masked the growth in structural unemployment which has been with us for a number of years. The Minister quite nicely sidestepped the issue when he talked about choice. Coming from the North East, where in certain areas male unemployment is running as high as 50 per cent., I feel that, although his view is laudable, there is no choice. There is no choice even in getting the lowest paid work in some areas. Some of the fast food chains in the area used to have work which people did only if they were really desperate, but now they have long waiting lists. I know that for a fact.
In his speech earlier the right reverend Prelate discussed what it means to be unemployed, to find that one's parents have been unemployed and to hold the

997
view that one's children will probably also be in the same boat. A story came recently from Newcastle from a friend of mine who is a teacher there. She asked a little girl in primary school what she would do for a job. The answer was, "I don't need a job. I'll just go down to the Post Office". It is not easy to agree with the viewpoint that living on the dole is an acceptable solution. I am sure that many people, given the opportunity to work, would do so. It is not that easy to live on the small amount that one can get from social security.
Even if quite soon we come out of the recession which we face at the moment, that will not combat structural unemployment. We must look at what the boom in the 1980s was built on. It was built on a growth in the City, a growth in tourism and in services. The City has retracted almost as fast as it expanded; tourism, because of the worldwide state of recession, has fallen off dramatically; and services have also been affected.
The Government have put forward two choices on the way to get out of the recession at the moment, both based on confidence. One is based on houses: when the recession first started many people talked about it being ended by people buying houses; when the housing market picked up again, that would happen. We now all realise through the figures on negative equity that this will not happen. People who do not have a job now and are worried that they will not have a job in the future will hardly go out and buy a house. Those families where both the man and the woman have a job, even if they are considering moving, are seeking a mortgage that they can afford if one of them is put out of work. I do not believe that the housing market will change and pull us out of the recession. Even if it does, I do not see it taking off in the same way as it did in the 1980s.
The other area which we have been given to believe will take us out of the recession is consumer spending. I agree that we shall be taken out of the recession if massive consumer spending takes place. But at the moment consumer spending will be based on credit, which, as we all know, is a trap, and many people will not be able to meet the repayments. Also, if I went into the shops today and decided to get us out of the recession by spending on certain items, as likely as not I should buy imports, which would only add to our foreign debt.
I have been asked quite pointedly why during the debate on the economy of the North East I did not press the Government further on unemployment. Unemployment is a fact of life but it is not one that we must accept, as a number of people seem to do. Several speakers have pointed out that unemployment should not be a fact of life; while full employment may not happen in the foreseeable future, employment can be brought about. One way of helping to end the recession and reduce unemployment is to kick-start the economy. The Government have proposed many areas where this could occur, for example in spending on roads. However, it seems that the Government are set not to spend any money on the railways. Indeed,
998
through the introduction of privatisation it appears that the Government are set to destroy the rail network.
if the Government could make a firm commitment to renew tracks and to reverse the trend of disinvestment in rail, and if they could make a firm commitment to shift goods from the roads to rail, that would admittedly constitute a large expense but would represent an investment in our future. Such a step would also represent an investment in the future of the European Community because we could transport our goods from their places of manufacture into Europe. Europe's rail systems especially are far better than ours. The Government always talk about a level playing field and perhaps this is one area where they could achieve such a level playing field.
It would be rather nice if the Government would consider investing in our own industry. That process has already been started through the development corporations. In the 1980s many held the view that there was no point in investing in manufacturing industry as they considered it had already died. Many thought it was better to consider other areas where the country could grow. Perhaps that attitude has to be reversed and perhaps the Government should put millions, perhaps even billions, of pounds into specific firms. Without that injection of capital big companies will become small companies and small companies will face extinction. Small companies have already had the fat cut off them in the previous recession. This recession has meant that they either shelve their workforces or go out of business. They will not be able to expand when the boom comes and even when the upturn occurs it will happen very slowly and the banks will want to recoup the money they have lent out as quickly as possible. That will hinder the growth of small businesses.
If the Government could give a commitment to manufacturing industries and start pumping money into them that might in the long run cut down on our structural unemployment. There has been a retraction of our industries. There has been a great movement away from large heavy industries, the great monoliths of the past, but now we have made that transition perhaps it is time to invest in an industrial revolution along different lines for the future.
5.42 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating our two maiden speakers in this debate. Noble Lords on this side of the House have, of course, known the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, for a long time and we are pleased to welcome him. We also knew the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for even longer and we welcome the present noble Earl today. In the fine biography of Attlee, written by Kenneth Harris, the author talks about how towards the end of his life Attlee became ever more laconic, particularly when speaking in the House of Lords, and ever further to the Left. When Kenneth Harris asked the noble Earl why he had become ever more laconic and had progressed ever further towards the Left he used to reply "not much time". Whether the present noble

999
Earl moves further to the Right or to the Left, we have a great deal of time for him. We hope he will make many more speeches.
I also wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for giving us an opportunity to discuss the Government's economic strategy. The details of what that strategy has meant in terms of unemployment were well laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and I do not wish to comment further on that and on all the figures he gave. However, I should remind the House that we now have a worse rate of unemployment than any other country in the OECD except for four countries. Our employment rate is significantly below the EC average and has been so for quite some time. The situation is getting worse. That leads me to the question of what the Government are doing about it.
One could look upon the Government's economic policy and its effect upon employment in two ways. One could first of all look at the short term. What are the Government doing in terms of short-term job creation? I have raised my following point before, but the Government have never fully explained or defended their position. I am not contrasting the Government's policy with what the Labour Government did, but rather with what this Conservative Government did in the early 1980s. They took over policies which were introduced by a Labour Government but they greatly extended them. The Conservative Government were proud of the fact that by the years 1981, 1982 and 1983—I see this point is mentioned in the memoirs of a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—they were taking 750,000 people off the unemployment register. However, we cannot see that today. We see no sign of a new community programme. All the promises, statements and claims that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Howe, as he now is, and others in the early 1980s about what the Conservatives were doing for short-term unemploy-ment and as regards taking the long-term unemployed off the register are not now made.
We used to think the excuse was that the Government did not believe the present recession was a real one. They thought the green shoots were coming through. However, even they cannot say that today. We all know that unemployment will continue to rise for at least another 12 months. However, there is no sign whatever of any significant emergency pro-gramme to take people off the register. According to my calculations, the present employment action programme has up to now dealt with about 5 per cent. of the long-term unemployed. That is not a policy in terms of the Government's own previous policies. I ask the Minister once again to try to explain that position to us today.
However, as regards longer term matters there are two aspects of government policy which could be helpful in relation to unemployment. One is the Government's policy towards pay—I shall come to that—and the other is their policy towards the exchange rate which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned earlier. There have been five phases of exchange rate policies. I would argue that almost all of them have been destructive from the point of view of
1000
employment. First of all, between 1979 and 1982, we had the over-revaluation of 33 per cent., which helped to double the rate of unemployment, in an attempt to cure inflation that was largely self-engendered. That was the first great Tory revaluation.
That was then followed between 1982 and 1987 by the over-devaluation—the reverse process—of some-thing like 23 per cent. That cut unemployment. It did not get unemployment back down to the level of 1979 but it cut unemployment and, along the way, it induced a boom which enabled the Government to win two elections. However, it could not be sustained and therefore we moved, in 1987 to 1990, to preparing to enter the ERM. Before that we had a strange period when the Chancellor was trying to shadow the deutschmark without the Prime Minister finding out. He was then told not to do so and then he allowed interest rates to rise. He made it absolutely certain that by 1990 we went into the ERM at too high a parity.
If one looks at all that, what kind of conclusions can one reach? Surely one reaches the conclusion that the Government have used the exchange rate to do everything but assist unemployment. They used the exchange rate first to attempt to cure inflation. They then used the exchange rate to create a boom for electoral purposes. They then used the exchange rate when they felt their monetary policy was falling apart. In the past two years, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, when we were in an impossible exchange rate position the Government were using a high exchange rate to force British industry to become competitive or go bust. In the end the Government went bust.
The moral of that is that one has to use the exchange rate for a much more narrow and precise purpose. It is not a great gun to be used whenever one wants it. One has to use the exchange rate primarily for a limited purpose: to facilitate a healthy balance of trade and to preserve, if one can, the long-term competitiveness of British industry. The one time when we got that right—and noble Lords will not be surprised that I mention this, because it suits me—was in 1949 when the Labour Government devalued by 40 per cent. That lasted for 18 years. That is the kind of courage that a government needs: to make periodic devaluations, hopefully when nobody is looking.
That is the kind of policy I should like the Government to enunciate. I should like the Government at least to tell us their policy on the exchange rate—whether it is constant drift down-wards or whether there is some underlying concept.
I move now to the subject of pay. There are five periods here, too. In 1979–82 we began with the noble Lord, Lord Howe, as he now is, telling us that we did not need a policy for pay at all and that it did not matter how much pay rose because M3 would solve everything by and by. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, Mr. Lawson, as he then was, invented a link between pay and employment. It was a precise link. He said that every 1 per cent. fall in the level of real pay—although no one quite knows why he said real pay—induces a half per cent. rise in the level of employment. When one has such a level of precision in a policy it becomes extremely impractical to operate.

1001
then the noble Lord, Lord Young, changed the policy. He said that it was only inflationary and bad for unemployment if it was the poor who were receiving wage increases. If the rich got the pay increases it did not matter because the increases were self-generating. It was a kind of Laffer curve on pay for the rich; somehow it increased productivity and the resources of the country and was probably a jolly good thing.
Now we have the last phase: that of leaning again on the public sector. A limit of 1£ per cent. has been placed on public sector pay, unless one is lucky enough to receive increments or performance related pay, under which we now know people can get a great deal more. The trouble with that is that it totally ignores what has been happening to pay in this country over the past 14 years. During that time the private sector has received significantly more than the public sector, until the last two years; individual pay as against collective pay has been moving much faster, so it is not the fault of the trade unions; and basic rates have been phased out and all kinds of phoney productivity deals and performance-related fiddles are being introduced, especially for management at the top.
If there is a pay inflation problem in this country it is the direct reverse of what it was in the 70s. It comes at the top. It comes in the non-union sector. It comes from managing directors and chief executives paying themselves so much of an increase that they feel they have to let people further down have increases at least to match the RPI. Therefore, if we were to have an incomes policy it would be the total reverse of what the Government want now. It would not focus on the public sector or the lower paid. It would not save 1 per cent. on pay for cleaners. It would be a policy across the board. Unless the Government can bring themselves to adopt a policy of that kind they had better not talk about a pay policy at all.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount when he said in his opening remarks that this is an important and timely debate. Many of the matters which have been put before the House today demonstrate that timeliness. All the indications are that unless radically different government policies are adopted and urgently pursued, the outlook is bleak not only for employment throughout the United Kingdom but also disastrous for the economy, industry, community well-being and family life.
Figures published by the House of Commons Library on 16th November (in Research Note No. 100) indicate that unemployment in the United Kingdom will continue to rise to some 3 million by 1995–96. What a prospect! The PA Consulting Group, which for some years has produced a reliable and respected quarterly survey of business prospects, states that unemployment in Northern Ireland will rise by 2 per cent. during the next year. That is 2 per cent. above the present Department of Employment adjusted count of 14.8 per cent. or the unemployment unit unadjusted
1002
index figure of 21.5 per cent. The unemployment figures are disputed right, left and centre by people who are competent to judge such matters.
The debate is important not only for what may be said but also for the earnest, considered response of the Minister on behalf of the Government to the need for constructive strategic policies and action to promote increased economic, productive and socially acceptable employment in all regions of the United Kingdom. I emphasise that it must be economically productive and socially acceptable employment. I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I have the greatest respect for academics and theoreticians in any subject; but I suggest with respect that the noble Lord asks the practitioners what they have to say. He should hear what the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation and the construction industry employers' federation have to say about the market economy and theoretical approaches to the economy.
I wish to make a few observations in this crucial debate. It is crucial because if we do not soon see active government policies to deal with the critical unemployment among blue collar and white collar workers—the artisans and the professionals—we are heading for an upsurge in social unrest of the kind not seen in Great Britain since the 1820s. That is not a wild statement on my part. Similar views have been expressed in current press statements and in this House, and in relation to what is happening in Germany where high unemployment is beginning to bite.
I propose three important elements for considera-tion in relation to any proposed employment strategy: pronounced regional structures and developments; factual and open discussion of the relevant data concerning unemployment; and genuine policies to foster and forge the positive strengths of active social partners working together at all industrial and commercial levels.
I recognise that the world is changing with great rapidity. Today the framing of a successful economic strategy for the United Kingdom and for the 11 distinctive regions of the United Kingdom requires new and imaginative approaches. There is increasing internationalism in financial institutions, foreign investment and speculation, production techniques and trading organisations. Those changes demand global vision, national objectives and effective local action.
Regional disparities in economic performance and in general standards of living are well established in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the other officially delineated regions of the United Kingdom.
In order effectively to cope with the various problems of high and chronic unemployment, business failures, repossessed homes and a decline in manufacturing investment, there is an urgent need to set up publicly accountable and representative regional development bodies in the United Kingdom. The aim should be to transfer responsibility for distinctive regional issues from Whitehall to the respective regional bodies.

1003
Noble Lords may ask why we need to decentralise regional functions, what functions the newly established development bodies would have and what organisational form the regional bodies should adopt. That requires to be debated at length and agreed. But it is a fact that we must accept in principle that regional organisation and decentralisation is urgently required as far as tackling unemployment is concerned.
There is no disputing the main advantages of decentralisation. Regional development bodies could be better able to champion their own regional interest with more vigour and understanding than might be expected of Whitehall. These are among the many factors which should give the respective regional representatives and communities a greater sense of involvement and accountability. That is essential for any development that is to be competitive—the local feeling of involvement and accountability. Regionalism should develop a spirit of self-reliance in finding relevant and effective policies and solutions to regional problems.
I should like to add that the basic tenet of what I have to say is enshrined in that much acclaimed word "subsidiarity". Subsidiarity, as I understand it, is not to undertake centrally what can best be done at local level. Another aspect is that all social activities should be to help members and never to absorb or destroy them. That point was referred to by the right reverend Prelate who spoke in this debate.
There is substantial discontent with the way the European Community funds for local and regional development are currently administered throughout the United Kingdom. The most serious criticism concerns the issue of additionality. A related problem is that the EC grants to local authorities to support infrastructure projects cannot always be spent because of expenditure controls imposed on regional areas by the Government at Westminster. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, made a reference to this aspect of regional matters and the need for capital expenditure to be used in that direction.
There can be little doubt that reducing regional disparities in unemployment would greatly help reduce inflationary pressure and the high fiscal expenditure on social welfare payments. Not only is this a morally sound and constructive use of public funds; it is also a more equitable way to provide the kick-start required to drive us out of the morass of recession that we are in.
Many of our major corporate institutions are regionally based. These include the CBI, the chambers of commerce, employers' federations, finance and building society organisations, educational and professional organisations and the trade unions. They know how to get on with the job so far as regional dynamics are concerned.
I close with these remarks. We urgently need a regional policy framework. We require a clear understanding of the employment problems and the way to prevent the sheer waste of valuable human resources. I ask the Minister whether it is time that the Government established a mechanism within which
1004
the social partners could develop a consensus over the key economic and social policies required to promote employment in the regions.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, this debate on unemployment has turned largely on an attack on and a defence of the Government's employment policies. That seems to me wholly right because to an overwhelming extent employment will depend upon the economic status of a country at a given time. When that country is economically buoyant, employment will be high. When it is in depression employment will be low. It is questionable how far a government, however benign, can buck that particular trend.
There have been a number of suggestions as to how the Government might act. Most of them fall into the category mentioned by my noble friend Lord Joseph as requiring the expenditure of money. That applies particularly to infrastructure projects. We are faced with an enormous budget deficit. Expenditure will be extremely difficult and will have to be very closely supervised. Money can be spent only on what is as near as not a guaranteed winner.
One guaranteed winner that has not been mentioned much in this debate, perhaps for good reason, is training. When any sort of upturn in the economy comes, we shall need a fully trained workforce that can compete with our competitors in the Western world. We are constantly told that other countries, particularly Germany and Japan but others as well, have a much better trained workforce, particularly in the areas of technology and craft-smanship. It is clearly to our benefit to spend whatever resources we can spare on training our workforce for the future.
That is not devoid of problems. To take a young person, or even a middle-aged man or woman, put them on a training course and say to them—or conceal from them—that at the end of that course there will be no work is a very difficult situation. If one treats it with total honesty, one is left with the problem of motivating people to start on a course which seems to have no obvious destination. Particularly to the young, a month ahead is a long time and six or nine months ahead is an eternity. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if limited funds are available, that is the best possible use that could be made of them.
One thing we can do is not add to the workforce more than we have to. Until fairly recently we were told that we were dealing with an ageing workforce and that if we were to maintain the economy of the country (and incidentally pay our pensions) we would need to recruit large groups of workers who had not been there before. The two favourite categories were married women and old-age pensioners.
Not for a moment do I wish to deny anyone the opportunity to join the workforce if a job is in sight. But that is rather different from actively encouraging people to come in at a time when there are not enough jobs for those at present available for work.
I should like to spend a few minutes on a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and dealt with at greater length by the noble Lord, Lord

1005
Redesdale; namely, the future. In the past few days we have seen thousands of employees of banks and car firms turned out of work or threatened with unemployment. With the best will in the world, can one foresee that in the near or even medium-term future those people will be able to get back into employment? Their jobs have fallen because they have been superseded by technology of one sort or another.
We all pay lip service, or indeed give genuine feeling, to full employment. That is measured by what we consider to be a normal working span; namely, a job from nine to five through the day and for 40 or more weeks in the year. I should like to suggest that perhaps that is a dangerous way of proceeding. Full employment, as we talk of it, as a theory will not return to this country or indeed to the Western world. If you try to put some sort of figure on it —it can only be the wildest guesswork—it looks as though in this country in times of recession something like 3 million people are unemployed; but in times of boom and economic prosperity that figure would drop to perhaps 1 million. But averaged, it still leaves a figure in the ball-park of 2 million members of our society who will not work at any given time. Your Lordships can of course choose your own figure rather than use 2 million, but I would suggest that it is a high figure —and perhaps much higher than has been contem-plated in this debate by some noble Lords.
If this is true, or if anything like it is true, how do we grapple with the problem? There seem to me to be broadly two ways. One is to acknowledge that the depressed members of our workforce will simply never work. That depressed level may change a bit in name but the numbers will remain about the same. For most of their active life these people simply will not have a job, in which case any training must be directed towards happy occupation time rather than gainful employment.
The other way to tackle the problem is to say that there is a finite work cake in the nation but this is insufficient to maintain all our workers in full employment, as I have described it, and therefore it has to be shared out. That can be done in a variety of ways. One could insist on shared jobs; one could insist on retirement at a very early age, 50 or younger, for instance; one could insist on long and frequent sabbaticals. When I say "insist on", this could be done by persuasion or by policy, but in the last analysis it would be done by government regulation.
It is important to direct our minds towards this and not to take the rather facile view that, if the economy picks up and the Government's policies are right, then full employment will follow as night follows day. As long as we keep on thinking, and indeed planning, along those lines the points that I have mentioned to your Lordships will not receive proper discussion.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for my absence from the Chamber when he made his maiden speech? I had hoped to be here but was called out to deal with some other business. However, I look
1006
forward to hearing his contributions in the future. I was present to hear my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford make his very powerful maiden speech, concentrating on the problems in Rosyth. Of course, being an ex-Post Office man, it is not surprising that his delivery was first class. I am sure that in the future he will keep up the high standard he has set for himself.
I should like also to thank my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for initiating this important debate to reflect on the negative economic policies of this Government. The Government do not seem to have any sense of economic direction, either now or for the future. I must say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that what he said in his opening remarks does not encourage me to think that that statement should be altered. The Government's policy of "Let the market forces prevail" has failed. They must look for a new solution to the economic situation. What has replaced the market forces is a series of hopeful but patchwork policies which will never gel together because they lack cohesion and a sense of economic and social purpose. It is a Mr. Micawber approach to the welfare of this country. This Government must realise, after 13 years in office, that they cannot just stand back waiting for something to turn up and spend their time blaming other people for what is happening to the economy. It is their duty to the country to do something about the direction in which the country is going to move, in the economic sense, which is of course reflected in terms of employment and unemployment. There must be a firm policy involving all sectors of employment.
The policy should involve the employers, as has been said, the CBI and related bodies, the trade unions, economic forecasters, and so on. Getting out of this appalling and continuing recession—the third for this Government and the worst since the 1930s —requires something that this Government do not approve of; that is, a sense of humility that they have failed together with a recognition that the policies that they have been following for the last 13 years have to be cast aside. They must change their approach from confrontation—casting aside the trade unions, which has also been mentioned—to co-operation.
Bandying figures about is all very well, but it does not provide economic solutions. It only reflects what is happening in fact. I am quite certain, although I do not speak on behalf of any trade union, that if the Government were to approach the TUC with constructive suggestions regarding the economic future of this country, they would meet with a good response, not only from the trade unions but also from industry. The figures for unemployment need not be rehearsed again: if the Government do not know about them by now they never will. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will deal with these matters when he winds up for this side of the House.
It would be useful if Ministers got out into the country and captured the feelings of despair and hopelessness which unemployment brings. It has been said by several speakers but I make no apology for repeating it again. It may be a cheap point to make,

1007
but I should like to know how many members of the Government Front Bench have ever experienced unemployment. Each unemployed person, looked at these days, is merely a government statistic, costing £9,000 per annum. But to the individual who is rendered unemployed it is a 100 per cent. tragedy, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said in his very powerful speech. I am not exaggerating when I say that to some people it becomes a living death, a situation where there is no hope. The individual is robbed of his individuality and his purpose in life, along with his sense of dignity and of his worth to the community as a whole. That applies also to his family. It is medically recognised, as my noble friend Lord Bruce said, that such individuals are more prone than those who are in work to illness, including depression. And depression is one of the more serious of illnesses which can in many cases lead to suicide.
The problems are not just economic statistics produced out of a computer; they are serious personal and social problems, the consequences of which all cost the state money. It would be better if the Government applied themselves to producing some form of social policy to try to get people back into work. The Government say that recovery is just round the corner. The problem about that is that you have to be in the road before you can turn the corner. This Government are not on any recognisable economic road; there is therefore no corner to turn.
The newspapers, now almost on a daily basis, record continuing redundancies and failures. As my noble friend Lady Turner said, even the banks are affected. Last week the Royal Bank of Scotland was talking about losing 3,500 from a workforce of about 1,500,000. Barclays are talking of a further 3,000. Even making allowance for the restructuring of the bank following the crazy commercial decisions that were made in the 1980s to bring in bad debts, not all bad debts can be attributed to that. Businesses fail by the day. In Scotland there were 50,000 bankruptcies last year; not so long ago the figure was very small. The banks must look after their own interests. So people go to the wall and their families also go to the wall. Last week, a newspaper recorded 9,000 job losses on one day—20th November—or over a projected period. That is a scandalous figure.
On the surface, Scotland is not so badly affected at the moment because it did not indulge in the financial lunacies of the 1980s. But the danger signs are still there. I should like to spell out a few. The oil industry is now in what we call the maturing stage, which means that the bonanza days are over and the continuing protective employment umbrella will not be there for all time. Figures for tourism are down by 5 per cent. this year, despite an increase in foreign visitors. By "foreign visitors" I mean people from abroad and not from England. What has happened is that the Scottish Tourist Board depends for 50 per cent. of its income on English visitors, and they have disappeared. There is only one reason for that. It is not because they do not like Scotsmen—we are all very nice to the English when they cross the Border—but because the recession means that people cannot afford even to cross the Border.
1008
The future of Dounreay, losing 1,500 jobs, is bleak. In the Highlands and Islands of Scotland a population decline, because of lack of opportunity, is predicted for Caithness and the Western Isles. There is the prospect of young people leaving their homeland. It is important to impress on your Lordships' House that it is their homeland; for wherever it might be, home is home. They are having to leave because the work is not there. The lifeblood of the community is being drained to leave only an elderly population in the villages.
All the work that has been done since the 1960s to keep young people in the Highlands and Islands has been undermined by this Government's deplorable record over the last 13 years. Farming and fish farming, which were to be the hope for the Highlands, are dead or dying. Certainly, they are in decline. I appeal to the Scottish Office—I know that the Minister may not have responsibility for the Scottish Office—to get together with people involved in industry in Scotland and conduct an urgent review of what is happening in Scotland. There is need for a radical approach, including a land use strategy, which we do not have in Scotland, to see what can be done.
The ultimate irony of events in Scotland is that in the south, Scottish National Enterprise, which was a government flagship to supervise the local enterprise companies, is about to reduce its staff by between 80 and 100 people. That is what is happening in Scotland. According to present forecasts 600 jobs a week are being lost. It is a gloomy prospect that I present for Scotland, but on behalf of the Scottish people we must get some action. Not only Scotland but Britain is haemorrhaging economically. At some point a haemorrhage must be stopped, otherwise the patient dies. What the Government are applying is elastoplast when urgent surgery is required.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I agree very much with the spirit of the speech of my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I feel, as he does, angered by the situation. But I want to start by saying that I am not angry at all with our two maiden speakers. Both of them were extremely good. Of course, I knew my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford in another place. He was always pungent, direct and positive, and thank the Lord he is here because we need just his sort of directness, and I know that we shall value it very much. Anyone who comes to this House with the name of Attlee has many friends here. We all have our Clem stories, and I am not going to tell mine, but any relation of Clem has lots of friends in this place.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Turner for introducing this debate on a crucially important subject. As a member of the Privy Council—and there are one or two others here—I shared and perhaps had some sympathy with, the view expressed by Her Majesty the Queen in a speech yesterday that 1992 has been a horrible year. It has been a horrible year for her and the Royal Family, and it has been a horrible year for the nation, too. It must have been one of the worst years that we can recall in the history of governments, certainly since the Second World War. When one

1009
looks around at the consequences not just of the fearful unemployment and the mishandling of the economy but the mishandling of our presidency of the EC, one cannot help but feel angry. One thinks of the opportunities that have been lost. Normally, the country holding the presidency of the Community tries to solve problems. In this case the British Government have caused most of the problems facing the Community. I find that disgraceful. I believe that the damage may never be properly repaired.
I want mainly to speak from a couple of experiences that I have had in the past two days. Yesterday, as president of MIND, I attended its annual conference in Bournemouth, and a very well attended conference it was. Nearly 600 delegates were there representing local branches of MIND from all over the country. Inevitably, an important subject for discussion was the impact of unemployment and also the fear of unemployment in ordinary people throughout the United Kingdom. As I heard them talk, and as we sat in our study groups, I recognised that it really does affect people all over the country in a way that no other economic crisis has done before.
I shall refer to one example in just a moment. There is the effect upon the male worker who still has his job of father of a family but who no longer has a job of work and therefore loses his dignity in his own home. There is the problem of women workers, particularly if they are single parent mothers and have responsibility for their families, who often plunge into a bed and breakfast type situation because they are unable to work. There are the young people who have never had a job at all. They come out of school, university, or techs, and it is not that they do not try. Some of them have tried virtually hundreds of times to get a job, and they are frustrated all the time. When you are that frustrated you become frustrated with society as it is, and feel angry with those who are in authority.
With the higher levels of unemployment and the higher levels of genuine poverty among those pockets of poverty it is not surprising that social behaviour declines. We have more crime, more drug abuse, and the whole effect upon the quality of life of our people is gravely undermined. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, more or less saying, "Well, we must just accept it. If we are lucky we will only get a million unemployed. In bad years we will get 3 million unemployed. The average is going to be 2 million unemployed". I do not believe that we can accept that. If that is the best way in which we can manage our society, if we think it does not really matter that 3 million people who want to work are deprived of the opportunity to do so, then there is something wrong in the way in which this Government are managing the economy of the country. It is time for a change. One of the tragedies of this year was that we did not see a change. All right, we have to live with that tragedy, but just put it to the vote now and there would be a different result. I have no doubt about that.
Also with my experiences in mind I want to say that the point has been made that if you have had a mental illness, if you are recovering from a mental illness and
1010
want to get back into work, it is much more difficult when competition is greater. With the present levels of unemployment it is difficult for people who have been out of work for two or three years, and who now need to get back, to obtain employment. In the same way, the underprivileged—whether mentally ill, mentally handicapped or physically handicapped —are at a disadvantage. The social effect of unemployment is one that any government must seriously consider.
I spent this morning at the new university of Hertfordshire. I was presenting the awards to those who had obtained degrees in various subjects. It was a lovely occasion. However, I soon realised that this part of the world, which is not used to unemployment at all, is now faced with nearly 9 per cent, unemployment. In the almost sunny uplands (or whatever you call them) of Hertfordshire, in that pleasant countryside, middle-class people are now really suffering from unemployment.
The biggest recent blow to Hertfordshire's stricken economy is the announcement by British Aerospace two months ago that 3,000 more jobs will go in April, and the Hatfield plant will close. There is a university which was also planning to do a lot of retraining of people who were moving, they hoped, from one job into another. They are moving from one job, but there is not another job to move into. Training people is useless if there are no jobs. Therefore, the Hertfordshire development organisation, set up only two months ago by the TEC, the county and the district councils are trying to attract new industry to the area.
There are lots of glossy publications and talk of high-tech industry—there always is—but the reality is that no one knows what sort of business, if any, is going to be attracted to the area. There is an atmosphere of resentment and anger that the Government seem to have no policy to deal with the problems.
I had hoped—and I believe that we all hoped—that the Autumn Statement would be the beginning of a new drive for jobs and development in the construction industry, and so on. As we reflect on the Autumn Statement, I believe that all the prospects are that unemployment will increase to 3 million. Some people say that we must expect that and not worry about it. I believe that the real figure is over 4 million. Of course, if enough changes are made in the unemployment calculations the figures can be massaged downwards. The Autumn Statement makes no forecast on the rise in unemployment. According to City forecasters, Goldman Sachs, unemployment will rise to 3.2 million by next year. Growth needs to be above 2.5 per cent, to have any impact on unemployment. With the growth of only 1 per cent, forecast for next year, unemployment will continue to rise.
I know that the Prime Minister is travelling around Europe in an endeavour to put together a package for the Edinburgh summit. But unless the British Government are prepared to put something into that package and are prepared to give something of a lead, which we have not seen at all during the presidency, then the situation, not only in Britain but also in

1011
Europe, will get worse rather than better. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something more positive, in terms of government policy, than he said in his introductory remarks.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for giving us this opportunity to consider the unemployment problem. I note, as the noble Baroness did, that this is the third time that your Lordships have discussed this subject in about eight sitting weeks. The reason for that may be that for many Members of this House, their consciousness of the social problems which unemployment produces derives from the years of industrial unemployment in the 1930s and the memory of the period after 1945 when full employment was the main plank of the policies of all parties.
It is difficult to imagine in those years any politician announcing that unemployment was a price worth paying for anything or, as more recently, forecasting that unemployment would increase without apparently producing any convincing ideas as to what should be done about it. Of course, the unemployment problem today is different from that in the 1930s. It is not one which has its devastating impact mainly on one part of the country or on one particular industry, except in the case of the coal industry, if 31 pits are to close. Unemployment is a problem which affects the service industries as well as manufacturing; executive management as well as workers; and people of all ages between 16 and 65.
I wish to focus my remarks on the problems of the part of England in which I live; namely, Colchester. Until now that has been an extremely prosperous town. Recently when I have asked after someone whom I have not seen for a long time I have been told, "Oh, he is all right; but, you know, he has lost his job". If I ask after a youngster I am told, "Oh, we have him at home. He is unemployed". The figure for unemployment in the Colchester "travel to work" area in June 1989 was 2,809. In October 1992 the figure was 8,595, which is 10.7 per cent, of the workforce.
Significant though they are, those figures do not tell the whole story. I reckon that the lives of between 20,000 and 25,000 people—wives, families and parents—are affected directly or indirectly by unemployment in my part of the world. Beyond that, in closely knit communities like mine, people know what is happening to friends and neighbours and fear that their turn will come next.
I recognise that because of redundancy payments and the present levels of social security, the degree of poverty and real destitution which we saw in the 1930s are not so evident today. But that is relative. There is an increasing divide between the standard of living of those who are in employment and those who cannot get a job. That has extremely serious social consequences which will grow with higher unemployment in the future.
As regards Colchester and North Essex, between the low point of April 1990 and September 1992 unemployment increased by 171 per cent. It is estimated that it will grow by a further 19 per cent, by
1012
December 1993, as compared with 12.5 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom. There are 299 vacancies at the Jobcentre and 22 vacancies at the careers office. I visited the Jobcentre last Monday. I was greatly impressed by what I saw. I was impressed by its efficiency, its understanding of the problem and the extraordinary contrast between the atmosphere of its working areas and the dreary inhumanity of the old labour exchanges. I was impressed also by the stream of people signing on and the variety in age, class and sex of those seeking help and advice. On average there are 313 new claims for benefit each week. Temporary Christmas employment has dried up. Local manufacturing firms are operating at 80 per cent, of capacity. The construction industry has been particularly hard hit and in Colchester there is the additional problem of finding jobs for soldiers who have been made redundant from the garrison.
I have taken Colchester as a kind of laboratory specimen. I know that the same thing is happening throughout Great Britain. My argument is that economic revival depends on giving people the confidence that they will not lose their jobs tomorrow and those who are unemployed must believe that they have a chance of finding a job in the foreseeable future.
It was put rather well in a review of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky's second volume of the life of Maynard Keynes. It stated:
"Acutely aware that economics is more than algebra, that it is driven by the hopes and fears of people, he understood that Britain could not return to Victorian laissez faire, the Gold Standard and all".
Fifty years later in the 1980s all the same mistakes have been made with almost exactly the same results. Until the public sees that unemployment is beginning to recede, the Government will be able to do nothing to halt the decline of the British economy. Some people may become richer but many will become poorer. Nothing will restore the confidence of all classes in the Government except for falling unemployment.
Ministers and financial experts may speak in terms of macro-economics and see a solution in 10 years time because of the effects of the GATT agreement or in other politico-algebraic formulae. No doubt there will be long-term solutions. But as Keynes said, in the long run, we are all dead.
I have no doubt that what is required today is a planned programme of public capital investment, but that must be accompanied by a clear statement that reducing unemployment takes priority over every other objective. Many of your Lordships will remember the galvanising effect of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. As a student, I happened to visit the United States at that time. I sensed the extraordinary revival of hope in that wonderful country.
Public investment means mainly support for the construction industry and for the development of the infrastructure of the whole country; for example, buildings, houses, utilities, railways, roads and the environment. The construction industry has special characteristics. It is labour intensive. Its operations cover a large number of skills. It employs both skilled and unskilled workers. I believe that employers should

1013
be encouraged to take on young workers to learn their trades on site by subsidising their wages. Construction feeds into a large number of other industries. It provides work for small firms through sub-contracting and covers the whole country.
Such investment represents a legacy for the future. It may mean higher taxation, but the Chancellor has promised us that anyway. It means a higher PSBR, but increased unemployment will make that inevitable. It will mean that the Government must shake themselves free of the economic and moral fallacies of the 1980s. They must make the attack on unemployment their overriding priority. We want a new deal for the 1990s. Then, when I next go to the job centre, I may find that there is no one there except a sympathetic and dedicated staff.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have had a good debate this afternoon thanks to my noble friend Lady Turner. We heard the usual lame excuses from the government side: "It is not our fault. It is happening everywhere. We have lots of inward investment. We had growth once before. We have lots of employment", and so forth. The way the calculation of the number of those employed has been altered exaggerates the growth; the way unemployment is calculated underestimates its growth. I wonder what the technical reasons are for that. But despite that we have a high level of unemployment.
Inasmuch as the debate today concerns the case for a strategy to tackle unemployment, let me say immediately that the Government have no strategy at all to tackle unemployment. The Autumn Statement confesses that at the end of the day unemployment will rise in 1993. It is strange that, when facing an election, the Government can quietly let the PSBR slip from £10.5 billion to £14 billion, as it did before 1992, but when the election is far away, once again fiscal orthodoxy becomes the religion. They maintain certain disciplines in regard to whatever figures they fix for total spending.
The consistent political economic policy the Conservatives have had over the past 15 years is not fighting inflation; it is not fighting trade unionists; it is not going for growth; it is to be re-elected. As long as the election is far away they claim all kinds of principles; for instance, "We must bring inflation down". The Government have twice doubled the rate of inflation; they have twice caused a recession; they abandoned fiscal discipline in the most profligate manner possible between 1986 and 1989. They adopted firm exchange rate strategies and abandoned them gaily as though they did not matter. Simultaneously we are told that low inflation is the only guarantee for long-term jobs; and when the Government abandon the exchange rate strategy we are told that we will still have growth; it does not matter because inflation will not happen.
We must abandon the Government's meanderings. Sadly, while they are in power—especially the present personnel in the Treasury—there is little prospect that confidence will be restored. There have been no
1014
dramatic gestures to indicate that they understand the seriousness of the problem. However, we have heard some interesting observations and good theoretical suggestions today. Perhaps I should turn now to those. By good theory we may obtain a good strategy; we shall certainly not obtain a good strategy otherwise.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will not be surprised that I disagree with him. In a sense it is not so much that we do not know the category of frictional unemployment, voluntary unemployment or structural unemployment; it is that we have lived through 25 years when, despite the problems of people not being willing to work, of rapid technological progress and of everything shifting around—that is the nature of capitalism; constant changes are always happening—we not only experienced low unemployment but also low inflation.
Compare the figures for unemployment and inflation for the 1950s and 1960s—the bad old Keynesian days with no fiscal responsibility. Inflation was lower than in the great and responsible monetarist days of the 1980s and employment was high as well. Let us not deride poor old Keynes. Let us not say that somehow he was in favour of voluntary unemployment. He was trying to show that the definition of voluntary unemployment, as he stated it, was insufficient to explain unemployment in a capitalist society because it was not open to individuals to negotiate the real wages. Cuts in real wages do not increase employment. Total aggregate demand increases employment. Despite everything that has been said by monetarists of various hues, I see no reason to abandon that belief.
However, we may have a change. Globalisation of the world economy has put certain limits on Keynesianism in one country and we must ask ourselves how far government action here can go and how far we need co-ordinated action among different countries. That is an important point. It is not that Keynesianism is no longer valid, but perhaps it needs to be practised at a European rather than merely at a UK level.
I believe that even at the British level much more can be done to reduce unemployment; and much more should be done. The dogma of the way the PSBR is calculated should be abandoned and we should introduce the rule that as much borrowing as can be profitably employed should be indulged in as long as the Government can borrow at a rate below the rate of return on public investment. I believe that there are many such investments which could be pursued and therefore we should abandon the false accounting of PSBR which mixes up the category of current and capital revenue.
Having said that, I believe that we must inaugurate a full-throttled expansion, especially in the construction industry and the public infrastructure. Those are actions that must be taken when private investment does not voluntarily come forward. The problem is that we temporarily have excess savings. People are not spending their money. If they are not spending

1015
their money, let us borrow it temporarily and spend it for them until they go out and spend it on their own. That is perfectly all right.
I believe that that policy would be financially prudent. Indeed, as many noble Lords pointed out, since unemployment costs £9,000 per unemployed person, not to mention the multiplying factors of unemployment, in order to reduce the PSBR the right strategy is to increase expenditure and not to cut it.
Beyond that, I believe that there is a great case— and this should have been done long ago, yet even now I find the Government dragging their feet—for the Delors' plan of co-ordinated reflation at the European level. The point of doing it at a European level is not so much in regard to subsidiarity or non-subsidiarity, but that a single country in a large area where there is free capital and labour mobility cannot keep capital within its confines if it is seen to be following policies which will be harmful to profitability. A large area like Europe can do that. Therefore we can pursue Keynesian policies at a European level; and we should do so. Figures such as £50 billion or £60 billion become unimportant when compared to the benefit of reducing our total unemployment in Europe from 17 million down to 8 million. If we halved unemployment we would gain more than £50 billion.
In conclusion, it has been a good discussion. There are limits to Keynesianism in a country. Even so, there is a policy to be pursued at a European level which is perfectly feasible and which should be pursued with the utmost speed.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Desai said that this has been a good debate. His own contribution to it certainly assisted in that. There is a great deal in his speech which needs to be dealt with. It may be that some noble Lords agree and that I am not alone in that belief. Let us hope that there were some open ears even on the Government side.
The name of Sir George Alexander may ring a faint bell in the minds of some of your Lordships. He was an actor-manager at the turn of the century. He was a good actor and manager. The breed is extinct now. He said something which has stayed in my mind over the years since I first heard it. He was primarily a manager at the time when he said:
"The economy of the theatre is founded on the assumption that the actor is normally unemployed".
That is true and it was true then. How else can one run the economy of a theatre other than to have a group of people from which one can pick a name from a book and say, "Yes, I'll have him". The chances are that he is out of work.
That was an aspect of casual labour which existed not only in the theatre. There was domestic service and casual labour in the docks. My fear is that if the Government are allowed to continue as they are, in a year or two's time we shall return to casual labour. That is something to be avoided.
I tried to do something about it in the theatre because casual labour is very difficult to avoid. I negotiated a three-year contract with the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. There has never been a longer
1016
one in the theatre. I do not know whether it is still using it. Unhappily, that type of contract did not grow. The only area in which there is any reasonable degree of security of employment in the theatre now is in the BBC where there is drama repertory. One can possibly stay in that; but one does not have a lifetime job. There is a period of employment which is likely to be renewed.
I am going into this matter not to keep on about actors and their problems, but to say that if we are not careful we will slide into this kind of situation. The pool of labour was so large and people so desperate for work that they queued up for it. One could pick whom one liked for a job that needed to be done. It was not a healthy situation and we do not wish to return to it. However, some things are happening now which in their own way are equally alarming.
As regards redundancy money, what happens so often is that after a while the recipient becomes desperate because he cannot get a job. He puts the money into a little business and in a couple of years it goes bankrupt. That explains the huge rise in bankruptcies which has occurred lately. It affects mostly small people and small organisations. I go up and down Putney High Street quite often. The ownership of the shops changes hands as one after another the businesses go bankrupt.
We are heading into that situation. It is not merely a question of the Government managing the economy properly. We are running into a position which is getting gradually worse. The situation cannot be covered up by optimistic remarks such as seeing recovery around the corner. Recovery is not there until some quite drastic action is taken. My noble friend Lord Desai has indicated some of the things which need to be done, and I shall not repeat them.
I do not believe that recovery can be effectively seen in this country while the Government are so heavily centralised and while our decision-making is taken more and more at the centre. The theory of both sides of Parliament is always that there should be decentralisation. We talk about it. The Conservative Party was the kingpin of that theory. It was going to decentralise everything and all decisions were to be taken locally, but they are not. The situation is quite the opposite. Nowadays decisions are taken more and more centrally.
That structural question is at the heart of our failure to recover economically. We are simply not using the talent, the initiative or the possibility. We have not completely removed power from local government, but centralised it too much. We have limited the powers of local government, but we should enlarge it. We should face the question of the establishment in this country of a regional form of government with authorities which have the power not only to spend money but to raise it. Regional government should not be subject to total control from a central point. There must be some control because central government has duties which it must continue to carry out.
Our problem is that there is too much centralisation. We need to get rid of it. Even if Labour comes into power, it will need to devolve the machinery so

1017
that the initiative of people at government, academic and technical levels can be free. We are held down by gross centralisation in which decision-making involves looking over one's shoulder and considering whether one can do this or that. Sometimes that is given as an excuse because people do not want to carry out certain functions. If people are given the power and authority to do something and they do not do so, they cannot then say that they blame central government. Sometimes too much blame is placed on it. The only way to get rid of that is for central government to say that local government can get on with it within limits laid down.
Perhaps I have ranged a little too far in this short debate. Those are the matters which we should begin to look at. We must consider whether our structure of government is one which can release the natural energy of our people. If we can do that in the ways that I have suggested and which have been dealt with in greater detail by my noble friend Lord Desai, we can tackle the problem. However, if we carry on in our traditional way, I very much doubt whether we can do so.
Before I sit down perhaps I may make the traditional noises about maiden speakers. I was not in the Chamber when the speeches were made. I also sincerely congratulate my noble friend Lady Turner for initiating this debate.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we have had a fascinating review of many macro-economic policies. I would dearly love to follow them up but I am not going to, much as I would like particularly to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. I hope that we shall look again very carefully at the points he made—which I believe no one else had dealt with—for tackling some of the problems at a European rather than a national level.
I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who concentrated on what can be done immediately. I stress the word "immediately". As he said, a great deal of the problem is that of confidence. Nothing is going to happen so long as the current mood of near-despair continues. Therefore, it is very important that the Government take the kind of action which can show results quickly. That is not the only action which they need to be taking. They should concentrate immediately on things which can begin quickly in order to produce results.
As other noble Lords have said, one can start very easily with housing. The plans are there; the money is there with the local authorities and the demand is there. As so many other noble Lords have said, the construction industry is a very good way to begin. That industry is a motor to get the economy going. There is a great deal of unemployed labour in that industry. There is work that needs to be done, and there is a large multiplier effect once the construction industry gets under way.
The money is ready for housing and the other macro-construction policies and infrastructure issues to which we have called attention so often. In a
1018
previous debate I referred to the London-Heathrow link where I understand private money is waiting to be used. It is a scheme which is ready to be put into action and that can be done straightway.
I believe that there is widespread agreement that the construction industry is a first-class starting point if the Government can pick those schemes which can be put into operation quickly so that we get the beginnings of the signs of recovery and people who had not previously expected to get jobs beginning to do so. That would be a very good way of starting.
I am surprised that so little has been said this afternoon about small businesses. I refer both to the extent to which small businesses are collapsing and to the potential for increasing employment and earnings by the establishment and maintenance of small businesses. We have talked about this often; but some things could be done straightaway. What about reducing the uniform business rate? A great many small businesses would be very encouraged if they knew that that level of tax on them would be reduced. Perhaps we could also do something about the debt problem of small businesses. Again, we have talked about this often. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to find a way in which suppliers, government departments and local authorities could be forced to pay their bills to small businesses. That, combined with a cut in the uniform business rate, would be very helpful to many small businesses. It could be done, I should have thought, if not overnight, very quickly. I must stress the importance of speed as we begin to see results if we are to give people encouragement that there is a return to at least the possibility of prosperity.
There also needs to be more help given to the establishment of the kind of small business that has a hope of survival. Many things could be done in that respect. We have learnt a lot about small businesses, about what makes them successful and about what does not. The enterprise allowance scheme did a very great deal. There are many people who could give advice and help. The banks are still willing to give advice and help; but we need a real drive to get those small businesses with a future going again. Surely that is something that the Government could do straightaway.
Furthermore on the point about what could be done straightaway, I refer to the problem of unemployment among school leavers. The number of young people who do not have employment, who get into the habit of being without it because they have never known it, and who do not see any prospect of ever getting it is catastrophic. I have recently pointed out in a debate the possibility of persuading employers to take on two school leavers for each job and using the half time for training. That would be a first-class way of providing those youngsters with training at the age and stage at which they need it. If the Government are not prepared to go that far, they should at least say that youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 must have two days' off each week for training. One cannot expect employers to pay the whole cost; but if the Government were to provide a subsidy to employers for that purpose, it would be money extremely well

1019
spent. I shall not enlarge on the surrounding problems of youth unemployment, but your Lordships are all too well aware of them.
Those are some of the short-term things which the Government could do—and could do quickly. However, I should also like to draw attention to and to stress the longer-term problems because we are moving into a new phase. Although I may be premature in saying this, thank goodness that from recent news it looks as though the GATT round will succeed. It must succeed and the remaining obstacles must not be allowed to block it. It opens up world trade on a global scale. This is an opportunity, but it is also a threat if we are not able to take advantage of the opportunity.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, have talked about the effect of increased technology, but increased technology also means the disappearance of work. So it does maybe if one can find it in this country, but if one is talking about the global economy, it is a nonsense to say that we are running out of demand. In the global economy, the world is full not just of wants, but of needs of the most basic kind. There are huge markets m the global economy for those who can take advantage of it. That is the point: for those who can take advantage of it. We are told—I do not know how accurate the figure is—that if the Uruguay Round is successful, it will open up additional world trade to the tune of 200 billion dollars a year. That is an enormous increased opportunity, but where will we be in the face of these opportunities?
One of our overriding problems is our tremendous backlog of untrained, unskilled people. There will not be work in this country for those people. Except for the unskilled jobs which are fixed in the country, unskilled work is now going overseas to a large extent. We all know companies—and this is right in terms of the development of the global economy—which are increasingly sending the unskilled aspects of their work to other countries. Fewer and fewer unskilled people will be required in this country.
It is because for decades we have failed to train in this country that we have a heavy burden of untrained people. I beg the Government to make a real and major attack on reducing the number of people without skills. It is no good the Minister telling me, "We are leaving all this to the training and enterprise councils", because the TECs are training for the jobs that they can foresee in the short-run in their own particular areas. That is fair enough from the point of view of the TECs, but it does not begin to tackle the problem of what to do with the backlog of untrained people. Only a mammoth government scheme will ensure that we reduce those numbers and that we are therefore ready to take advantage of the opportunities of the global economy. If we do not, we shall not only have unemployment in the short run but, because of our large number of unskilled people, even when the economy picks up in other ways and in other countries, we shall still have people for whom we cannot find any work. That is something that only the Government can tackle. The TECs cannot do it. It is not their job and they do not have the finance to do it.
1020
Incidentally, perhaps the Minister will also give us an assurance that the TECs will get more not less money at the present time. But even so, they will not be able to deal with the backlog of unskilled people.
Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to bring together the people who can see how to do it and who can put the schemes together. We are not talking only about youngsters, but about the backlog of adults in the labour force who have not been trained and who therefore cannot be used. I have gone over my time, but I beg the Government to look at this as a matter of the greatest possible urgency.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we from these Benches make no apology for raising the issue of unemployment in your Lordships' House again. Although it was debated only recently, it will be debated again in the near future and will continue to be debated. We shall continue raising it until we have some spark of recognition on the part of the Government of the seriousness of the problem.
This has been a valuable debate, not least because of the notable contributions of two maiden speakers; my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford, who made a passionate yet rational defence—incidentally, without notes—of the Rosyth dockyard, which he knows so well, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who also spoke effectively about a subject which he knows well.
The debate is also noticeable for its timing. We are within a few days of the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Beveridge report on social insurance. It was very nearly 50 years ago that Beveridge wrote a powerful book, Full Employment in a Free Society. I wonder whether there are many economists or political thinkers who would dare to write a book about full employment in a free society today. It seems to me that too much of our establishment—I mean particularly the Government—has given up on the prospect of a successful economy with anything approaching full employment. The statistical appendix to Beveridge's book was written by Nicholas Kaldor. He assumed—it was thought at the time to be very pessimistic—that there might be an underlying level of unemployment of 5 per cent. That was thought to be a disgraceful yielding to a concept of an unacceptably high level of unemployment. Anyone who thinks that in present conditions we can get back to 5 per cent, unemployment—real 5 per cent, unemployment; I am not talking about the massaged figures which the Government present to us today—would be seen as a wild optimist rather than a pessimist.
We have had a good deal of talk about Keynes. I shall certainly be returning to the issue of Keynesianism before I conclude my remarks but I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, which expressed views—I am not attributing any of those views to him personally—which I found unbearably smug. The way in which the noble Viscount felt it possible to express the Government's view that everything will be all right in the end—dawn on the Cambrian hills, one might

1021
think, going back to Lloyd George—I found unbearable. We did not, I admit, have any of the talk about unemployment being a price worth paying. We did not hear the phrase, "If it's not hurting, it's not working", which we heard from Cabinet Ministers only months ago. But we still have the claim that unemployment will be all right because we are getting the rest of the economy right. Getting the rest of the economy right when we had a decline in growth of 2.5 per cent, in 1991, a decline of 1 per cent, in 1992 and when there is a projected rise in growth in 1993 of 1 per cent! Anyone who has looked recently at the Treasury's record in forecasting will know how little credibility can be given to that figure.
We had a decline in fixed investment of 10 per cent, in 1991 and a decline of 2 per cent, in 1992. The forecast for 1993 is a rise of 0.25 per cent. The Government are certainly hedging their bets. We have a trade gap at a time of recession of £12 billion this year and a government official forecast of £15.5 billion next year. We have a public sector borrowing requirement—that has been pretty heavily massaged as well—of £37 billion. And of course we have unemployment at almost 3 million, according to the Government's figures, and certainly much nearer 4 million in real terms.
The most recent example of the Government's statistical sleight of hand with unemployment figures was the quiet redefinition of full-time work from being 24 hours a week to 16 hours a week so that those who used to be on income supplement now, if they have children, have to be on family credit. The effect is that those who are in so-called full-time work of less than 24 hours a week are not included in the unemployment statistics. But no one can tell me that they are not looking for full-time proper jobs that would pay them properly. To that extent, even after all of the changes that have taken place to disguise the real level of unemployment in recent years, we have a further example of it now.
Looking at the Autumn Statement, I question not just whether the Government are succeeding in attacking unemployment but whether they are even trying or whether they are even pretending to try. When I look at the Autumn Statement I find only one reference to unemployment:
"Low inflation is the key to sustainable growth and a lasting reduction in unemployment".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/92; col.991.]
That statement is most patently untrue. It may be argued plausibly that low inflation is a relevant consideration in sustainable growth and a lasting reduction in unemployment. But to say that it is "the key" flies in the face of all economic experience in recent years. Yet the cost of unemployment both in human and economic terms is immeasurable.
There has been a valuable thread through our discussion about the social effects of unemployment. It was started by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who spoke effectively about human dignity. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke of measures to alleviate the effects of unemployment. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington spoke of the long-term
1022
unemployed and my noble friends Lords Macaulay of Bragar and Lord Ennals spoke about the effect of unemployment in terms of health and sickness.
Beyond all that must be the economic effect of unemployment. What I accuse the Government of is a failure of nerve. I accuse the Government of failing to recognise the possibility that we can have a successful economy in which there is full employment. They seem to think that there is an equilibrium which can be achieved at a level of under-employment at about 8 per cent., 9 per cent., 10 per cent or even 11 per cent. They seem to believe—sometimes it is because it is convenient to believe so—that these matters are best dealt with by versions of inaction, which is how I describe monetary policy. Incidentally, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, had a certain amount of nerve when he described Adam Smith and Hayek as being unfashionable. The point is that Adam Smith, Hayek and Friedman—Adam Smith to a lesser extent because most Adam Smithism is one-eyed—have had a very good run for their money in the past 10 years. And much good has it done us, either in this country or the world as a whole.
The Government seem to think that one can deal with these matters by high-level monetary policies rather than by intervention. They think it is lovely for them because there is no bureaucracy. There is no public cost. And no public action is required. It is no use, under those circumstances, their wringing their hands. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says that no one is happy about the level of unemployment. If he had said that in the 1930s Harold Macmillan would have rounded on him, because Harold Macmillan did more than say that no one is happy about the level of unemployment. He said that something had to be done about it.
There is an alternative. There is the alternative of work. There is, above all, the alternative of public investment. If that requires that there should be a deficit in the public accounts, a deficit in the public accounts is another word for public investment. It is quite extraordinary that, in claiming in the Autumn Statement to be giving a kickstart to the economy, the Government should at the same time be sticking to the figure of £244.5 billion for public expenditure. It is not just a matter of the public sector borrowing requirement. What they are doing, of course, is taking money out of the economy by the wage freeze for public servants. The public sector borrowing requirement could well have been dealt with by increasing taxation for the better off rather than by making those in the poorest circumstances in our society suffer for the Government's ideology.
It can be argued that a revival of public investment —many of my noble friends have given eloquent testimony to how that could be done—cannot be achieved only on a national basis. I agree. We are going to see a test of the Government within the next week or two. That test will be the response which the Government make in their presidency of the European Community to the proposals by Community officials for a kickstart to the European economy through the expenditure of around £50 billion—I do not know what that is in ecus—as a programme for growth.

1023
Unless the Government give their immediate and wholehearted support to that kind of solution on a European basis, then we can have no faith in their determination to do anything about unemployment and the economy.
It is wider than a European issue. It is above all an issue for the Group of Seven. All countries in the Group of Seven except Japan have the same kind of economic and unemployment problems. By the way, that is no excuse for the Government. What that means is that we have a failure of international capitalism. We do not have any confidence that those who adhere to capitalist theory will do anything effective about it. If the Government were really serious they would be taking part with our partners in the European Community and with other members of the G7 in an international New Deal. That is the challenge before the Government.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, before I start my remarks, I am sure that the House would like to know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has gone to Westminster Hospital for some precautionary checks and is being well looked after. The Opposition Chief Whip has every intention of taking him home tonight. We should like to join noble Lords opposite in wishing him a very speedy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, especially the two maiden speakers. As would be expected for a topic of such universal interest, it has given rise to an interesting and lively discussion. Noble Lords have spoken with sympathy and compassion about the difficulties faced by those unfortunate enough to become unemployed and the problems caused to their families. I do not for a moment underestimate the fears and anxieties of those who are unemployed and their families. The noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, accused me of being unbearably smug. That, of course, is his debating style.
Lord Mclntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not accuse the noble Viscount of being unbearably smug; I accused him of expressing a Government view that is unbearably smug.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as the noble Lord was looking so hard at me, I thought that he was accusing me of being unbearably smug. In defence, I have to say that I believe that I have shown considerable compassion for those who are unemployed, and I mean the remarks I have made on many occasions from this Dispatch Box.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, opened the debate by cataloguing a long list of the industries where job losses have taken place or are threatened. One moment she called for a diversification programme for the defence industry, then she went on to say that the Government's greatest folly was their neglect of manufacturing industry. I am sure unintentionally, she did not mention that in the 1980s
1024
manufacturing productivity had grown much faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrial country. In the 1960s and 1970s, the UK was bottom of the productivity growth league. Now the manufacturing share of GNP remains just under 25 per cent, of GDP. What is more, the UK's share of world trade was stabilised in the mid-1980s after decades of decline. However, costs, wages and profits increased by more than those of our competitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said that we have to be in there so long as we can compete. Those are important words, because we have been unable to compete. Our increased efficiency was not reflected fully in an increase of market share. It is easy enough to say how many job losses there have been in manufacturing industry, but it is most important that our productivity should increase and be competitive with that of the rest of the world.
The noble Lord also asked me whether there would be a plan to deal with the coal closures. He is probably aware that the TECs have been asked to draw up contingency action plans for all the areas affected, in partnership with British Coal Enterprise and other local agencies. The first six contingency plans, covering the 10 pits in which consultations are now taking place, are a basis for further detailed work; so I hope that he will be relieved to hear that action is being taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, agrees with me and the Government that inflation is public enemy number one. I believe that those were the words that he used. He also said that he supported Government policy on conquering inflation; but he urged us to make short-term expenditure on infrastructure, transport, roads and housing. I shall come to those matters a little later, because a number of noble Lords mentioned them. However, I am aware that the noble Lord's main interest has always been in training, as was that of my noble friend Lord Elibank who said that with the limited funds available to government, government training strategy was important.
The Government training strategy is to secure a skilled and productive workforce, well able to compete in world markets. That will be achieved through an equal and flexible partnership of the Government, TECs (LECs of course in Scotland), industry training organisations, employers and individuals.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we do not believe that the Government provide the only effective way of training a workforce. We look to employers as being the major investors in training, and therefore in the lead on delivery. Employers spend about £20 billion a year on training. The indications are that they are continuing to invest in the training of their workforce.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, of course I know that, and I agree that a great deal of training has to go on in industry. My point was that there are people beyond the area in which industry will train for its needs who are terribly undertrained. There is a greater government responsibility. A great deal has to be done

1025
by employers and TECs, but not only by them. They cannot cover the whole backlog of training which has resulted from decades of neglect.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I have to remind the noble Baroness that training undertaken by the Government is limited by the amount that the Government can afford to spend on such a measure. In the new training programmes, the TECs have been given the flexibility for which they were looking. The TECs' budgets remain, in cash terms, broadly the same as they were last year. It would be wrong to say that it is training only that is made use of by those who are unemployed. That denies the work that the employment service does through job clubs. Their results have been remarkably successful.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves the subject of training, perhaps he will answer the question that I asked on whether it is true that, in real terms, there has been a 3 per cent, cut in the training budget for 1993-94.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no. What I said was that the TEC budget remains, in cash terms, broadly the same as compared with 1992-93.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must get on. I believe that eight minutes have already passed.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister said "cash terms". That is the point he is making. He is not saying "real terms".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, what I said was clear. I said "cash terms".
Noble Lords: Yes!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elibank made a suggestion which I do not think I shall follow him on. He said that married women and pensioners should not be encouraged to join the workforce. We should all be allowed the privilege of joining it. He made some useful suggestions about job sharing and early retirement. On that basis, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said about casual or part-time working. Many people wish to work less than full time. It would be wrong to deny them that opportunity.
We had two fine maiden speeches. The first was from the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, who expressed his wishes for the future of the Rosyth dockyard. Of course I understand his anxiety which he expressed eloquently. Although he would not expect me to give him an answer on that tonight, I am informed that all options remain open. However, I shall certainly guarantee to pass on his remarks to the Secretary of State for Defence.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also "broke his duck", if that is the right way of putting it, by concentrating on a small but important area of the late payment of invoices. He may be interested to know that for some time the European Community has been looking at the problem of late payments. It is possible that the
1026
Commission will issue a Green Paper on the subject and the Government will obviously give careful consideration to any recommendations or suggestions that it may make.
It is always a pleasure to listen to my noble friend Lord Joseph because he usually has such good ideas. In this instance he came out with some equally interesting ideas which I know he has spoken of on previous occasions. The idea on which he concentrated was the adaptability of entrepreneurs. He also said that it was not only important to have entrepreneurs in business but also in self-employment. I wholeheartedly agree: it is not just employment, it is self-employment too.
A theme of the Government has been to increase enterprise, to enable people to become self-employed or to set up in business, and thus add another source of choice and opportunity. I believe that the Government have attempted to remove the barriers to that. First are the barriers associated with taxation. The tax system is now simpler and fairer and taxes are lower. The Government have attempted to remove the barriers associated with unnecessary regulation, the barriers associated with outmoded attitudes. All those barriers have been removed and banks have been encouraged to consider entrepreneurs on their merits, not on the banks' perception of them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that taxation had been reduced. I think he would wish to clarify that. My understanding is that the overall rate of taxation taken from the British people is no lower now than in 1979.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the corporation tax has been reduced to 30 per cent. for small businesses and income tax has been reduced to 20 per cent. at the lowest level. That is a great reduction on the taxes that the noble Lord's party had in place.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that value added tax has gone up?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, but I was talking about direct taxation rather than indirect taxation, which my noble friend also mentioned and to which I shall speak later.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter drew attention to the important fact of the number of people in work. He quoted a figure suggesting that we were on the same percentage rate as Denmark and both countries are higher than any other country in the European Community. My noble friend said quite rightly that we need to bear down on inflation. One way of doing that is, I believe strongly, that the wages councils should be done away with. The need for wages councils has long since disappeared. The system is anachronistic and shot through with anomalies. It is an ineffective way of tackling poverty. Low pay, surely, is not the same as low income. Most low paid do not live in poor households. Most studies of the employment effect of the introduction of a national minimum wage agree that there would be considerable job losses.
My noble friend Lord Skidelsky also supported the abolition of wages councils. He took up the important

1027
point made by my noble friend Lord Joseph that some people's wage increases will put other people out of work. That is a fact of life at the moment; that is exactly what is happening. That is why labour is being shed in many industries. The high wage economy which we all want has to be earned and cannot be announced. My noble friend stressed that pay bargaining should be done on a local basis. That has been the strategy of the Government over a number of years. He even encouraged us to form local indices so that the problem would be assisted by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, explained for our benefit the two forms of unemployment: the frictional unemployment, which he put in rather better terms than the remarks I made earlier in the debate when I spoke about the sizeable number of people who will always be unemployed, and the readjustment of industries, from industry to industry, as the pattern changes over the decades. There is also the form of voluntary unemployment, with people pricing themselves out of a job or being priced out of a job and, I would even add, pricing other people out of a job.
The noble Lord said that recent inflation had buffeted the economy and universal benefits should be more selective. I should not wish to follow him down that route, nor to follow him on his argument that he made towards the end of his remarks about market clearance of wages. I believe that it would be an unpopular topic to raise at the moment. In my understanding, it would mean that most people should take a fairly substantial pay cut in order to clear the market of unemployment.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I have argued with him on this subject on many occasions, always in a spirit of friendliness, I know. He brought up the important point which was echoed by other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate—the loss of respect that unemployment brings to people, including the loss of self-respect. That was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, concentrated his remarks on the long-term unemployed. My reply is that, of course, the employment service and the TECs, with their programmes, concentrate their work particularly on the long-term unemployed and those who have been out of work for six months or more. As the noble Lord will know, two-thirds of those losing their jobs will find employment within six months. Therefore, it is right that precious national and public resources should be given to those who are being marginalised in the labour force. I used those words in my opening remarks.
Again, when the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, was talking about training, he forgot the good work that is done by the employment service through the operation of the job clubs, which have been very successful.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, to save time perhaps the Minister will write to me about the Council of Europe report on long-term unemployment, which was one of the most important parts of my speech.
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, of course. Those are matters which we consider all the time, but I am happy to agree to the noble Lord's request.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that the levels of taxation should not be higher than they need. He even suggested that the rate of VAT should be reduced. I believe that it is important that tax policy should be as broadly based as it can be. As the Chancellor said in the Autumn Statement,
"Low tax rates and a broad tax base provide the best framework for the medium term".
Again, in order to achieve the reductions we need to be prudent on our public spending. The Government's objective is to reduce public spending as a share of output. Obviously, if we can achieve that we can then discuss tax reductions. I certainly note my noble friend's remarks when he mentioned which tax he would like to see reduced.
It is true that some of the elements in the Autumn Statement did not accord with the principle of this broadly-based tax with no tax breaks. For example, investment allowances have been raised from 25 to 40 per cent. I do not know whether I can go along with the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—she quoted from the EEF report—for 100 per cent, capital allowances. As far as I could ascertain, she wanted that to be prolonged indefinitely. I believe that the part of the supplementary package which was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor is strictly time-limited. The idea is that it should not contort the market-place by having one instrument favoured rather than another.
It is always entertaining to listen to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. However, I have a feeling that I have heard his speech all before. The noble Lord particularly criticised the Government's use of exchange rate policy. He, and also the noble Lord, Lord Jay, quite stoutly with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, said we went into the ERM at too high a parity.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I must be allowed to say that I said that many times before we went in.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am glad there is what one might call a variety of views on the Benches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said from the Opposition Front Bench on many occasions—I would have to agree with him—that the rate was the correct one. However, I do not take that as meaning that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has not said what he said today on previous occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, again criticised the pay policy of the Government in trying to control pay in the public sector. However, I have a feeling that the noble Lord would want some form of institutional pay policy. That was the impression I obtained from him. I believe he was saying pay needs to be controlled but the way the Government are doing that is not the way to go about it. I believe the noble Lord told the House that the way to deal with the balance of payments is to allow regular, and if possible, out-of-sight devaluations of the currency. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said we can take the reins off public expenditure and let the PSBR go hang. I now know

1029
that is the policy the Labour Party would follow. I find it quite an interesting policy but it is one I should not wish to follow.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, identified himself as being an interventionist. He was genuine, I believe, in feeling he needed to convince everyone—he certainly tried to convince the House—that if there is a strategy, everyone has to be persuaded that there is a strategy. He quite rightly picked on the short-term problems that could be cured by short-term investment, particularly in the housing and construction industries. That theme was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, by my noble friend Lord Alport, by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I believe the noble Lord is right. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said and that is exactly what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has just done in his announcement in the Autumn Statement. I have in mind the extra £750 million he has allocated to buy up empty properties for social housing. I also have in mind the £1.8 billion that, over the next few months, local authorities will be able to spend from their capital receipts. That money can easily be put into the housing and construction industries. I am quite certain that it will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about structural employment. He also suggested that we should put money into housing and transport. When he talked of his own experience in the North East he made no mention of self-employment, which I believe is an important area. He made no mention of the opportunities self-employment can provide if there are no outlets for employment in that particular community.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I did not mention that factor because, as a number of documents state, self-employment in the North East is particularly low. I did not wish to raise that point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me about help for the construction industry. I have replied to that point. She also asked what could be done to reduce business rates. Under the uniform business rate businesses at least know now where they are from one year to another because the UBR will not rise more than the rate of inflation. Before the UBR was established, the local rating system was set by local authorities who were not at all accountable to the businesses within their areas. At least a national framework sets a uniform poundage and avoids these distortions. It is a much fairer method for business. However, I am sure the remarks of the noble Baroness are perfectly genuine. The funding of local government needs to be addressed. She seeks to withdraw that form of funding of local businesses, which will obviously have to be made up somewhere else.
The noble Baroness also spoke about late payments and the enterprise initiative. She stressed the problems of young people. Youth training leads to the acquirement of skills and to national vocational qualifications. I believe that is what young people
1030
should be striving towards. However, the noble Baroness proposed an alternative scheme for employing young people and I wish to consider carefully what she has said to see whether anything can be done in that area.
We have had an interesting debate. I am pleased because it has given me an opportunity to respond to many of the important points and questions noble Lords have raised today. I apologise to those noble Lords whose observations I have not been able to respond to, but I shall read Hansard carefully and write to them. It is not governments who create jobs, but the Government are committed to low inflation and sound public finances—policies that in themselves lead to increased employment. The Government's objective is, therefore, sustainable long-term growth. Our success in bringing inflation under control means that we can concentrate our efforts on jobs. British business can now take advantage of the lowest interest rates in the European Community and a highly competitive exchange rate.
The new public spending plans give priority to capital programmes and boost education. The measures the Chancellor announced will help construction, manufacturing, exporters and home owners. British business is now presented with a great opportunity. As well as a competitive pound we have the lowest inflation rate since 1978. Tax rates are also low. There are extra incentives for investment, extra help for exporters and specific help for housing, construction and the motor industry. The Government are committed to low inflation and sound public finances and policies are in place to deliver both.
This is the break that business has been looking for. Now is the chance to increase sales and expand production, to invest in the future and to bring the country out of recession. Industry can now seize the new opportunities in the knowledge that the Government will play their full part. We have new spending plans. They will protect the poorest in society. They offer hope, help and opportunity by switching resources to programmes to support the long-term prosperity of the country. We have a carefully targeted set of measures designed to lift confidence and get the country back to work. Industry and commerce will show that it is they who create employment through improved competitiveness and by providing the goods and services that customers want at prices they can afford.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise at the end of this debate to thank, as is customary, all noble Lords who participated in what was a very interesting debate this afternoon. In particular, I should like to thank the two maiden speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, with his expertise in small businesses, and my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford.
I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I had expected a rather more emphatic response to some of the points which have been raised. Some of the suggestions which have been made by noble Lords in the course of the debate are worthy of

1031
a great deal more consideration than seems to have been given to them. In particular, I emphasise the proposition from our side of the House that there should be support for the European initiative. There has been no real reply to that. There has been no response to our request for the development of a global strategy to deal with unemployment.
In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for his contribution this afternoon. He gave voice to the point on which I should like to end the debate; namely, that reducing unemployment must take precedence over everything. On those grounds I should like to withdraw the Motion for Papers before your Lordships tonight.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) Bill [H.L.]
7.52 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Swinfen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS COX in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Burden of proof]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings in tort
.—(1) Subject to section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (if and insofar as it is revived by any order made under section 2 of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987), this Act applies to proceedings in tort against the Crown for death or personal injury suffered by a member of the armed forces of the Crown if the requirements of one of the paragraphs of subsection (2) below are satisfied.
(2) The requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a) that the Crown has—

(i) withheld or caused any person to withhold any information whether contained in any document or on any computer disc or tape relevant to the proceedings; or

(ii) refused or caused any person to refuse to answer any question so relevant,

on the ground that disclosure of the information or the answering of the question would be injurious to the public interest; or

(b) that the death or personal injury occurred in consequence of the member of the armed forces being subjected to an unusual risk.

(3) In this section, "unusual risk" means a risk of death or personal injury arising from service as a member of the armed forces and which is greater than that to which a person in civilian employment in the United Kingdom would ordinarily be subjected.
(4) In this section it shall be for the Crown to prove that any information or the answer to any question is not relevant to the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: As the House has been sitting for a long time on the previous debate, I intend to keep my remarks on each amendment brief. I hope that will be for the convenience of the Committee. I hope my amendments will deal with the points which were
1032
raised by various noble Lords at Second Reading. Since that stage, I have taken advice from a number of distinguished lawyers well-versed in this area of the law. My amendments have been drafted with their assistance.
Amendment No. 1, if agreed by the Committee, will not only replace Clause 1 with a new Clause 1 but will narrow the ambit of the Bill so that it will come into effect only in cases where the Crown withholds information from an injured serviceman or his representative on grounds that disclosure of that information would be injurious to the public interest. At present if such a situation arises and the Crown privilege is claimed, that may well mean that the plaintiff cannot prove his case and injustice can result.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is designed to cover cases such as an explosion occurring for no apparent reason or where the presence of a device which has caused injury cannot be explained. It seems to me that in such a case a serviceman can legitimately claim to be placed in a better position than a civilian if it can be shown that the injury arose because he was exposed to risks to which his counterpart in civilian life would not be subjected. I beg to move.
Lord Carver: I made clear at Second Reading that I strongly supported the Bill because in my view it was extremely important that we should avoid a repetition of the disgraceful circumstances that arose when two Grenadier Guardsmen were injured in a training area in Canada.
The original Bill made the intention behind the Bill quite clear. The noble Lord's amendments, phrased now in legal terms which I found difficult to understand at first, achieve his aim, which I fully support, in proper legal terms.
It seems to me scandalous that a serviceman who has been injured on duty should not be able to claim compensation against the Ministry of Defence. It is scandalous that he has to prove that the Ministry of Defence was negligent in circumstances in which he was faced with risks which are not similar to those faced by civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, or in circumstances where the Ministry of Defence tries, as it has on many occasions, to hide behind the argument that to disclose the true facts about the incident in respect of which he is making a claim would be against the public interest. It is right that in those circumstances the onus of proving that it was not negligent should rest upon the Ministry of Defence.
When I first read the amendment, I was most anxious that there should be no question that members of the Armed Forces or their representatives should in any way be able to sue the Ministry of Defence for death or injury on active service. I am assured that the amendment does not open the door to that. I therefore ask the Government to support the amendment and to give the Bill an easy passage through both Houses.
Baroness Strange: The amendment goes to the heart of the important point that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made at the very beginning when he assumed office; namely, that the Government

1033
should be open and be seen to be open. So should the Ministry of Defence, whenever it is able. Our law is based on the principle that an accused person is innocent until he is proved guilty. In the case of injury, the burden of proof of relevance should be borne by the Crown. I support the amendment.
Lord Ackner: I did not have the advantage of attending the Second Reading of the Bill because I was otherwise engaged in the work of the Appellate Committee. But I have had time to read the debate of the Second Reading of the Bill and to study the amendments. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was most anxious that one of the major problems, the proof of negligence, which had become extremely difficult in circumstances in which the Ministry of Defence had, for good or controversial reasons, decided that it was not appropriate to provide the information necessary to pursue a successful case, should not hinder a serviceman recovering damages in a situation in which the Ministry of Defence had proved negligent.
There was criticism of the Bill as originally drafted on the basis that it did not deal with the onus of proof by placing it on the Ministry of Defence in those circumstances. It constituted the Ministry of Defence the insurer of the serviceman by introducing strict liability with the result that the establishment of negligence would be irrelevant. The amendment, which I support, has radically changed that approach by merely providing—and though I say "merely" it is an important provision—that the onus in the circumstances which are described in the amendment should rest with the Ministry of Defence. To an extent that improves the position of serving personnel beyond that of the ordinary civilian. The onus is only put upon the defendant where the circumstances of the injury themselves disclose a negligent situation.
For example, in the case of a car that mounts a pavement and pins a pedestrian up against a wall, the driver of the car would be obliged to negative negligence following the Latin maxim that this was a case of res ipsa loquitur. What has happened in this case, and it seems to me very appropriately, is to take two specific situations in which the onus should be put upon the Ministry of Defence; namely that in subsection (2) (a) the withholding of information, or the refusing or causing a person to refuse to answer questions, or where the death or personal injury occurred in consequence of the member of the Armed Forces being subject to an unusual risk. Therefore it is a significantly changed situation, reducing very much the burden placed upon the Ministry of Defence from that of an insurer to that of an ordinary employer, but with the burden placed upon him of negativing negligence in those specified circumstances. Therefore I strongly support the amendment and I hope that the Government will do likewise.
8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): As during the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill,
1034
I remain grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his initiative in bringing these matters once again to the attention of the Chamber. As I remarked during that debate, it is perfectly clear that so long as Members continue to show the interest they do in the welfare of servicemen, servicemen will continue to be extremely well served by their representatives in this Chamber.
It is particularly noteworthy that my noble friend has taken account of the discussion during the Second Reading earlier this year and has prepared amendments to his Bill in the light of comments made by noble Lords. Originally my noble friend's intention, as he explained, was that service personnel claiming against the Crown for serious injuries sustained during the course of their service should no longer need to show negligence on the part of the Crown. The new version of the Bill would retain the question of negligence but is aimed at reversing the burden of proof so that the Crown would have to show that it had not been negligent rather than the claimant having to prove the Crown's negligence. This reverse test would apply in either of the following circumstances. The first that I have in mind would be if the Crown had refused to disclose relevant information to the claimant—this was a point addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, during the course of his remarks. The second would be if the injured serviceman had been subjected to an unusual risk greater than that to which a civilian would ordinarily be subjected.
The Committee will agree that that amounts to a very different Bill from the Bill considered at Second Reading. Nevertheless, I have to say—and perhaps it will not come altogether as a surprise, although it will continue to be a disappointment to those who have spoken so far in the course of this Committee stage—that in spite of the transformation that the Bill has undergone, Her Majesty's Government remain unable to support it. I shall try to explain why that is so.
Subsection (2) (a) of the amendment refers to compensation claims in which the Crown has refused to disclose relevant information to the claimant or to answer relevant questions on the grounds that such answers or disclosures would be against the public interest. In this context subsection (4) provides that it shall be for the Crown to prove that information sought by the claimant and withheld by the Crown is not relevant to the proceedings.
I am perfectly certain that in isolation these provisions seem perfectly reasonable, but I submit that they amount to a misunderstanding of the position as it exists at the moment. They assume that at present the Crown—in this context the Ministry of Defence—decides what is relevant and not relevant and then decides what relevant information should be withheld on the grounds that its disclosure would be injurious to the public interest. With all due diffidence, particularly before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as I understand it, that is not how the legal process works. I understand that relevance is already a matter for the court and not for the Crown. It is a matter for the court to decide before the question of

1035
public interest in non-disclosure is addressed. Then, once the court has decided relevance, the court goes on to decide the question of disclosure.
Again I say with some diffidence, in view of recent events even the issue by a Minister of a public interest immunity certificate does not prevent disclosure if the court decides in favour of disclosure. It is for the court to consider whether the interests of justice in a particular case require the public interest in confidentiality to be overridden.
Noble Lords may have in mind the possibility that in civil litigation by a serviceman seeking compensation the plaintiff might be disadvantaged by such a court decision. Where grave issues of national security were involved, the court would not be expected to dispute the certification to that effect. However, at the same time the court would surely make it clear if it considered the information to be material to the outcome of the case. If so, the implication for the compensation claim by the serviceman—that the Crown should meet it—would also be clear.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I assure the Committee that in those circumstances the Government would act accordingly. However, I should add—this is a most important point—that no such case has happened in any of the thousands of compensation claims by servicemen since Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act was repealed in 1987. In fact I drew attention to that point during the Second Reading debate on 9th June last, when I asserted that the position of the serviceman was exactly the same as that of any other employee in the civil sector as a result of that repeal. It might be of some interest to know that since 1989 there has not been one single public interest certificate signed by Ministers in relation to a claim by service personnel against the Crown.
Subsection (3) of the amendment, referring to "unusual risk" is intended, I suppose, to leave the court to decide whether the service activity involved in the incident was more risky than that to which a person in civilian employment in the United Kingdom would ordinarily be subjected. It is not clear what type of civilian employment a court would be expected to use for comparison. In statistical terms the most dangerous civilian occupations such as the construction industry and diving are more dangerous than employment in the Armed Services overall. That is something of a generalisation. I am the first to admit it, particularly before the gaze of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We all know that servicemen can on occasion be ordered directly to risk their lives in circumstances which would not ordinarily apply to a civilian. Nevertheless, all in all, although I understand and greatly sympathise with what my noble friend is thinking in this subsection, I suspect that the court would have some difficulty in interpreting it. Her Majesty's Government, while sympathising with the motives that lie behind the amendment, cannot really support the substance of what my noble friend suggests.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Viscount sits down, in so far as his objections to subsection (4) are concerned, I am not sure that I follow him. Subsection (4) does not in any way take away from the court the
1036
obligation to make the decision as to whether or not the material is relevant. What it does, consistent with the earlier part of the amendment, as I understand it, is to put the onus on the Ministry of Defence to establish that the information is not relevant. I imagine the reason for that is that the circumstances are particularly within the knowledge of the Ministry of Defence as to how the accident occurred. Therefore, in relation to the issue of relevant or not relevant, the onus, instead of being put upon the claimant, is put upon the Ministry of Defence. That seems wholly consistent with dealing with this type of injury in a special way, and it does not in any way interfere with the issue being ultimately one for the court to decide. It merely shifts the onus from the plaintiff, upon whom the onus would normally be to establish relevance, to the Ministry, which has particular, and no doubt in many ways privileged, knowledge of the circumstances of the accident. I am not sure whether that has been fully appreciated.
Viscount Cranborne: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. Perhaps he can help me from his great knowledge of the law. As I understand it, were the serviceman not to be a serviceman but a civil employee of, let us say, a great quoted company and he was bringing a case before the Crown, would not the onus be on the great quoted company to produce the relevant information, just as it is as the law stands after the repeal of Section 10 now? Would it not be for the court to decide in the same way as I described it would be for the court to decide in the present circumstances before this Bill is considered?
Lord Ackner: I shall try to give a helpful answer. The issue which is concerning the Committee, as I understand it, is the onus of establishing that withheld information is relevant or irrelevant. Under subsection (2) of Clause 1, as now proposed, the Crown, if it withholds or causes any person to withhold any information which is relevant to the proceedings, shoulders the onus of proof that the incident occurred through no negligence on its part. An issue can arise in these circumstances. The Crown may say, "We are withholding material but the material is not relevant and therefore subsection (2) (a) does not bite. It only bites if we withhold not only information but relevant information."
What this amendment seeks to do is to say, "Very well, if you, with your greater knowledge of the circumstances than the claimant, say that you are withholding information which is not relevant, which you are entitled to do because only relevant information need be disclosed, then you, the Crown, must establish to the court's satisfaction that the material, the subject matter of the inquiry, is irrelevant." In the ordinary case, where the plaintiff complains that information is being withheld, he must establish that that information is relevant: otherwise there is no obligation to disclose.
So all that is being done here is to put the onus on the Ministry of Defence or the Crown to establish that if it wishes to raise the issue and say, "I am not obliged to disclose this information because it is not relevant,"

1037
it has then to establish to the court's satisfaction that it is right in saying that the information is irrelevant. As I understand the clause, it goes no further than that.
Viscount Cranborne: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but what the Government are contending and what I am contending at the moment is that all the relevant information since the repeal of Section 10 surely has been listed at the discovery stage of the legal process, and it is for the court to decide its relevance. In present circumstances the Ministry of Defence or, as I understand it, any other employer, is enjoined to submit the documents to the court to decide what is relevant and what is not. It is for the court to decide.
Lord Ackner: This amendment, as I read it, in no way seeks to interfere with the court's jurisdiction—nor could it—to decide whether or not the information is relevant or irrelevant. All it does is to say that if there is an issue as to whether the information is relevant or irrelevant it is on the Ministry of Defence that the obligation should lie to establish its irrelevance rather than upon the plaintiff to establish its relevance. The justification I infer—I am usurping, I am sure, the function of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—is that since the Ministry of Defence will have so much greater knowledge of the circumstances of the accident in regard to which it may well claim some privilege, it should lie on the Ministry of Defence to shoulder the burden of establishing the negative, namely, that the information is irrelevant and therefore need not be produced. It is merely altering the onus, as is done at the outset of Clause 1(2), taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 2, in relation to establishing negligence or no negligence. It is a consequential part of shifting the onus of establishing or negativing negligence. The two go together.
Viscount Cranborne: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord but, with the greatest respect, I do not think he has answered the question I put to him some moments ago. Am I not right in thinking that if this Bill were passed, under both subsections (2) and (4), the Ministry of Defence and the Crown, by implication, would be in a different position from a private company who was an employer and that we would then find that the law regarded the Crown as having a greater onus than perhaps some great oil company or some other employer?
Lord Ackner: That I concede straight away: that is the whole function of the Bill. There is no point in having this Bill unless it puts the serviceman in a different position from the ordinary claimant. That is the very heart of the amendment. It is designed, as I understand it, because the serviceman may meet from time to time the response, "We will not tell you anything about the circumstances because we claim privilege and we must hold up the pursuit of your claim by claiming public interest, privilege and even relevance."
That is why the onus is being reversed. What is
1038
happening, as I understand it, in this amendment—as I believe the noble Viscount concedes readily—is that instead of asking that the Ministry of Defence should be the insurer of the serviceman, which is what was done in the Bill as originally drafted, the whole thing now is focusing on altering the procedure, and altering the procedure in relation to the onus. It is not altering the substantive law, which obliges the establishment of negligence. Unless negligence is established, there is no remedy. All it is doing is altering the onus for establishing the negligence, and this is part and parcel of it.
Viscount Cranborne: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, we have finally come to the difference between us, and that is why I asked the question and for his advice several exchanges ago. He will remember, and know much better than I do, that in years gone by until 1987 the Crown was protected under Section 10. As I have already said many times in the past, when I was in another place many is the time that I added my name to Early Day Motions and the like calling for the repeal of Section 10. It seemed extremely unfair that employees of the Crown should suffer from a disability from which employees in the rest of the world of employment did not suffer.
I understand the noble and learned Lord's point clearly—after all, he has a notoriously clear power of exposition. But all I say is that it is surely equitable that employees of the Crown should enjoy precisely the same privileges as employees in the private sector. If the noble and learned Lord says—which he does—that the Crown is in a more privileged position and therefore its employees are more disadvantaged because the Crown can claim Crown immunity or make special pleading in this regard, I would refer to the remarks that I made a few moments ago: that in all the cases since the repeal of Section 10 the Crown has not claimed that immunity in one single case.
Lord Carver: Surely, the noble and learned Lord has an important point here. The whole object of this Bill is not to treat members of the armed forces exactly like all other servants of the Crown but to treat them as rather special servants of the Crown. There are two circumstances that make them rather special. One is that because of reasons of security or public interest—it may not have happened in the last 10 years, but it happened in the past—the Ministry of Defence has said that it cannot reveal the true circumstances of the accident, or whatever it was. In those circumstances, it is surely right, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that the member of the armed forces should be given the additional help that the Ministry of Defence has to show, first of all, that the information that it is withholding is not relevant to the issue; and, secondly, that it has not been negligent.
The other circumstance in which the armed forces should be treated as different services of the Crown is described in the amendment where they are subjected to an unusual risk. I would agree with the noble Viscount that it might be quite difficult for a court or anybody to decide whether, in the particular circumstances in which the injury took place, it was unusual or not. Surely, the whole object of the Bill is

1039
that where they are unusual, where they are ones to which another servant of the Crown is not likely to be subjected, then again the onus should rest on the Ministry of Defence. I would ask the noble Viscount to say why he thinks in those circumstances members of the armed forces should not be treated as a special case. He has not made that clear at all.
Viscount Cranborne: The important thing is that the Ministry of Defence should release the documents to the court in the way that I have described, and in the way that it has done since the repeal of Section 10. If it is of any comfort to the noble and gallant Lord, he knows as well as I do the beneficial effects on employment within the armed forces that the repeal of Section 10 has had. There are various ways of measuring this and I would not want to put too much weight on the figures; but the trend is clear that since the repeal of Section 10 the number of cases of justifiable negligence by the armed forces under which its employees have suffered has declined dramatically.
Indeed, the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence has paid out in pursuit of negligence claims has increased, and is estimated to reach as much as £6 million this year. I would submit to the noble and gallant Lord that we have a greatly improved situation; that the Ministry of Defence is anxious to be seen to be equitable in this, and that certainly the documents that it discloses under the present dispensations will be the documents that will not be subject to certificates of immunity of the kind that I suspect noble Lords seem to fear.
Lord Ackner: The noble Viscount is overlooking that under the amendment, subsection (2), the requirements that are specified are not that the Crown has sought to withhold and failed to withhold, but has in fact withheld, which means has succeeded in establishing satisfactorily that the information is information which it is injurious to the public interest to disclose. So it has succeeded in withholding that material. The court has said that it is a valid claim.
In that situation, the serviceman is deprived of full information as to the circumstances in which the accident has occurred. Then the onus should be upon the Crown to establish, having successfully withheld relevant information, that the accident was not caused by any negligence on their behalf. It is a special case for which, as I understand it, a special remedy is being sought.
Viscount Cranborne: I do not know how long the Committee would like to continue this exchange. We can either draw stumps now and say that we agree to differ on this and leave it to the decision of the Committee, or continue with this exchange. We have given this a good airing and the Committee will be in a position to decide when it comes to the Question being put. I have nothing more to add to what I have said. The armed forces have made considerable strides in this direction in the past five years. I welcome it, as I am sure noble Lords do here. We are entirely satisfied that we have an equitable situation now and | that the Bill, if amended as proposed, would be otiose.
Lord Elton: In the now evidently remote contingency of my noble friend thinking about this further, would he consider one thing said by the noble and learned Lord and the noble and gallant Lord which I think made their case slightly less strong than it might be put? The person being put in a different position from the rest of the world is not so much the serviceman being put in a different position from other employees, because if the risks are equal presumably the protection should be equal. It is the Government (in this case the Ministry of Defence) which is being put in a different position from the large, quoted company to which he referred. This is for the good reason that it is subject to different opportunities and different temptations.
There is on government departments a consideration of the national interest, and it may always be tempting to take that as a reason for not disclosing information. If my noble friend were to find himself in a position to examine this further, would he consider that to a Back-Bencher who had listened to this with no intention of joining in, it seems quite important that the change of emphasis is not simply on the individual member of the armed forces, it is on a powerful department of state which has a much stronger position than a powerful company.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble friend for that. Of course, I would be the last to suggest that my opinion—particularly in matters of law in which I am not the least bit versed—should in any way count for more in the Committee than the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I shall read with the greatest care the interventions that have been made and consider extraordinarily carefully the pleas that have been made on behalf of servicemen. But I am not persuaded. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to approach the matter with a completely open mind. When two such distinguished Members of the Committee have made the interventions that they have, it would be foolish and churlish of me not to take their views extremely seriously.
Lord Mayhew: It is encouraging to hear the noble Viscount say that he will bring an open mind to this matter, because much of what he said was against the proposed amendment. I am neither noble and learned nor noble and gallant but, as I see it, the amendment is a revolutionary change to the Bill which was introduced by the noble Lord.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was faced with the argument that the Bill put servicemen in a very privileged position compared with civilians. He has faced up to that situation extremely well and is no longer demanding that the Ministry of Defence should not be exposed to charges of negligence. Indeed, he has tried his utmost, with some success—and I am encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said—and to a considerable extent has abandoned the idea of not requiring negligence to be proved. Instead, he has

1041
brought forward the two points where there is a difference between the serviceman and the civilian. Those are two definite points. He has dealt with them in the amendment. It seems to me that he has gone a long way towards answering the objections raised by the noble Viscount on Second Reading. I am rather sympathetic towards the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I know that nominally he is neither gallant nor learned, but he is noble and no doubt he is both learned and gallant in reality. I have nothing further to add to what I said a few moments ago, but I shall read carefully what has been said by Members of the Committee.
Lord Swinfen: The debate on the amendment has taken longer than I had anticipated and I expect it has taken longer than the Committee had anticipated. The point that one must remember is that a serviceman would not be able to bring his case to court where the Ministry of Defence claimed Crown privilege. That is why it is necessary for the serviceman to have the ability to apply to a judge or a master in chambers to have the Ministry of Defence prove that the matter is not relevant. That is because, as a general rule, if it were not the case, where the Ministry of Defence claimed Crown privilege the serviceman would never have the opportunity to bring his case to court.
The question of unusual risk is not always that difficult to prove, but it would be a case for the court to decide. That is a matter with which most judges, in their skill, would have no great difficulty.
At the beginning of the debate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, wanted to be assured that in times of war the Bill, as I propose to amend it, would not apply. I can assure him that the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, as amended by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, would still apply when all the proposed amendments to the Bill are agreed to, if the Committee agrees to them. I commend Amendment No. 1 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Burden of proof
.—In proceedings to which this Act applies, it shall be for the Crown to prove that it is not liable in tort for causing the death or personal injury suffered.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will change the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant; that is, the Crown. However, one must remember that this legislation will be used only when the Crown refuses to provide the plaintiff with information on the grounds that to do so would be injurious to the public interest, thus preventing the plaintiff from presenting evidence which would well prove his case. It would be quite wrong for the Crown to prevent an action being brought by stopping evidence without having to prove the contrary. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My noble friend's proposed new second clause proposes to reverse the burden of proof in the circumstances defined by the first clause. Clearly it is based on an assumption that shifting the onus of proof from the claimant to the Crown would make a difference. This would indeed be so if the standard of proof in civil law were the same as that in criminal law; that is, beyond reasonable doubt. However, the standard in civil law is the balance of probability. In any given case it is extremely unlikely that the probability would be finely balanced at precisely 50/50, as opposed to 49.5 per cent, or whatever, and that the burden of proof would decide the question of liability. In practice it would be no more difficult for the Crown to show that the balance of probability was against negligence than it would be for the Crown to refute the claim that the balance of probability was in favour of it.
In short, the situation which this amended Bill would seek to achieve is, I am glad to say, already in existence. Servicemen's claims for compensation against the Crown are not handicapped by national security or public interest constraints on the disclosure of information to claimants. We know of no claim in which such considerations have prevented a serviceman from proving his claim against the MoD or affected the assessment of the amount of compensation to be paid. The amended Bill, if enacted, would only complicate the legal process and would not actually help the injured serviceman. Although the Government find it impossible to accept the amendment proposed, it is important that my noble friend has given the Committee the opportunity to air further this matter.
Lord Ackner: I am sure it is my fault but I did not understand what the noble Viscount said. It is very important in some cases to know where the burden of proof lies. If the serviceman does not have the material and the burden is on him, he will be non-suited and will lose his case because he does not have the material to discharge the burden of proof.
If the burden is on the Crown to negative negligence, the Crown must produce the material and the serviceman can wait until that material arrives. The contrast between the weight of the civil and criminal burdens is quite irrelevant. The sole question here is: on whom should the obligation exist to establish or negative negligence? From the point of view of the serviceman who is deprived of the relevant information, that is very important. If the noble Viscount thinks it is not important, I presume that he will not resist the amendment. I certainly support it.
Lord Carver: There is another important point apart from the one made by the noble and learned Lord. If the onus is on the member of the Armed Forces to prove the negligence of the Ministry of Defence, he finds himself involved in considerable legal expenses—that was certainly the position in the case I referred to earlier—whereas if the onus is on the Ministry of Defence, then it is the Ministry which must pay most of the legal expenses beforehand. It is, therefore, an extremely important point and is at the heart of what the Bill is intended for.
Lord Swinfen: I thank noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who put the position a great deal better than I. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Application to Scotland
.—In the application of this Act to Scotland, the expression "tort" means any wrongful or negligent act or omission giving rise to liability in reparation and any reference to proceedings in tort shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: This is a new clause. It is to ensure that the Bill will apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. It deals in particular with the point raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Saving for states of war etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Swinfen: Clause 2 is not necessary. It was designed to allow the Crown to prevent servicemen claiming damages for injuries incurred in time of war and in other active service conditions. That situation is covered by Section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1987, which gives the Secretary of State powers to revive Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Clause 2 is therefore not needed.
Clause 2 negatived.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Swinfen: I oppose the fact that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. The removal of the clause deals with points raised by several noble Lords at Second Reading. It is no longer required following the acceptance by the Committee of the first amendment inserting a new Clause 1.
Clause 3 negatived.
Clause 4 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert:
("(1) This Act may be cited as the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1992.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 changes the name of the Bill in subsection (1) to the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill 1992. It is accepted practice for legislation dealing with the same or related matters to have similar titles. It is not only sensible, but it makes it much easier to follow the development of law and to check the current position.
The amendment also removes a delay of 30 days in subsection (2) after the passing of the Bill and before the Act comes into effect. I can see no reason for such a delay. Subsection (3) in the original Bill is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  CITIZEN'S CHARTER: ROAD TRAFFIC
  CITIZEN'S CHARTER: ROAD TRAFFIC
  EUROPEAN UNION: SINGLE CURRENCY
  EUROPEAN UNION: SINGLE CURRENCY
  AGRICULTURE: EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTION
  AGRICULTURE: EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTION
  SEA FERRIES: STABILITY
  SEA FERRIES: STABILITY
  PRIVATE FLOWS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  PRIVATE FLOWS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES